{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_45952/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_45952","id":"gutenberg_45952","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45952","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Old Testament -- Theology","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Judaism -- History -- To 70 A.D."],"text":"THE EVOLUTION OF OLD TESTAMENT RELIGION\n\n\n\n\n    THE EVOLUTION OF OLD\n    TESTAMENT RELIGION\n\n    BY\n    W. E. ORCHARD, B.D.\n\n    LONDON\n    JAMES CLARKE & CO., 13 & 14, FLEET STREET\n    1908\n\n\n\n\n    TO\n    My Wife\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThe substance of this book was originally delivered as a Course of\nLectures to a week-night congregation. The Lecture form has been\nretained, and this accounts for the repetition of the leading ideas,\nwhile the practical interests of Church life account for the insistence\non the religious value and lesson. It is hoped that this, which might\nbe irritating to the professional student, may be helpful to the\nordinary reader who is repelled by the technicality of critical works,\nand often fails to discern the devout spirit by which such works are\ninspired, or to discover what religious interest is served by them.\n\nWhere everything is borrowed from other writers, and no claim to\noriginality is made, detailed acknowledgment would be impossible, but\nthe resolve to attempt some such course in place of the usual form of a\nweek-night service was formed in the Hebrew class-room of Westminster\nCollege, Cambridge, while listening to the Lectures on Old Testament\nTheology and Messianic Prophecy, delivered by the Rev. Professor Dr.\nSkinner (now Principal), in which accurate scholarship was combined\nwith a deep insight into the present religious importance of these\nsubjects. Grateful acknowledgment is also due to the Rev. J.R. Coates,\nB.A., who kindly read through the proofs and made many valuable\nsuggestions.\n\n                    W. E. ORCHARD.\n\n    ENFIELD, _August, 1908_.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n    LECTURE                                         PAGE\n\n          INTRODUCTION                               vii\n\n       I. THE SEMITIC RACES                           19\n\n      II. THE PRIMITIVE RELIGION OF THE HEBREWS       31\n\n     III. MOSAISM                                     55\n\n      IV. THE INFLUENCE OF CANAAN                     83\n\n       V. PROPHETISM--EARLY STAGES                   107\n\n      VI. THE RELIGION OF THE LITERARY PROPHETS      135\n\n     VII. THE EFFECT OF THE EXILE                    169\n\n    VIII. THE WORK OF THE PRIESTS                    195\n\n      IX. THE RELIGION OF THE PSALMISTS              215\n\n       X. THE RELIGION OF THE WISE                   241\n\n      XI. MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS                     265\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nIt is a matter of common knowledge that within the last few decades a\ntremendous change has come over our estimate of the value of the Old\nTestament, and that this change is of the gravest importance for our\nunderstanding of religion. But what the exact nature of the change\nis, and what we are to deduce from it, is a matter of debate, for the\nfacts are only known to professional students and to a few others who\nmay have been led to interest themselves in the subject. With some,\nfor instance, the idea prevails that the Old Testament has been so\ndiscredited by modern research that its religious significance is now\npractically worthless. Others believe that the results arrived at are\nuntrue, and regard them as the outcome of wicked attacks made upon the\nveracity of the Word of God by men whose scholarship is a cloak for\ntheir sinister designs or a mask of their incapacity to comprehend its\nspiritual message. There is perhaps a middle course open to some who\nhave found a message of God to their souls in the Old Testament, and\nwho, on hearing that the authorship of this book has been questioned\nor the historicity of that passage assailed, are unmoved, because\nthey believe that it does not matter who wrote the Pentateuch or the\nPsalms so long as through these documents they hear the voice of the\nliving Word of God. Here then is a subject on which there exists a\ndistressing confusion, and, moreover, a subject in which ignorance\nplays no small part. Save with a few devout souls who have made a long\nand continuous study of the Scriptures, it may be doubted whether there\nis any widespread knowledge of the actual message of the Old Testament,\neven among Christian people. There are certainly many people willing to\ndefend the authority of the Bible who spend very little time in reading\nit. The favourite Psalms and the evangelical passages of Isaiah are\nprobably well known, and beyond this there is but the knowledge gained\nin early days, from which stand out in the memory the personalities\nof Samson and Saul, David and Goliath, and Daniel in the lion's den,\ntogether with the impressive stories of the Flood, the destruction\nof Sodom and Gomorrah, the crossing of the Red Sea, and the fall of\nJericho. A very little is probably carried away from the public reading\nof the Scriptures in places of worship. It cannot be said that this\nacquaintance conveys any real impression of the magnificent message\nthat lies embedded in these thirty-nine books which go to make up the\nOld Testament. Now whatever harm may be charged to the modern methods,\nit can at least be claimed that neglected portions have been carefully\nstudied, the meaning of obscure passages discovered, and much of\nimportance and interest brought to light; but more than this, it has\nbeen discovered that the essential message of the Old Testament lies\nlargely apart from those narratives and personalities that impress the\nsuperficial reader, and rather in the record of a gradual development\nof the conception of God and of His purpose in calling Israel to be the\nrecipient of His self-disclosure. It has been found that the striking\nfigures of the landscape are of less importance than the road that\nwinds among them along which revelation moves to its final goal.\n\nIt may be objected that the new inspiration, which so many who have\nstudied the Scriptures by these methods claim to have felt, throws\nquite a new emphasis on our conception of the Old Testament and\nis revolutionary of all that we have been accustomed to believe\nconcerning it; that the methods are such as could not legitimately\nbe applied to the Word of God, and are the products of a criticism\nwhich is puffed up with a sense of its own superiority; and that the\nresults are discreditable to the Old Testament, since they allege\nthat some of the narratives are unhistorical, some passages and even\nwhole books unauthentic, and traditions on which the gravest issues\nhave been staked shown to have nothing more than a legendary basis.\nThere is much in these objections that is natural, but much that\nis misunderstanding. It is true that the contribution which the Old\nTestament makes to religion is estimated differently from what it was\nfifty years ago, and it must be allowed that this brings a charge of\nhaving misunderstood the Scriptures against generations of scholars\nand saints. But it is admitted that all matters of knowledge are open\nto misunderstanding. It is no argument against the conception that\nthe earth moves round the sun, that the contrary idea was held in\nother ages. We know that the understanding of the Old Testament has\nbeen obscured, often by those who ought to have been the greatest\nauthorities on its meaning. Jesus read into the Scriptures a meaning\nunrecognised by the authorities of His day, and dealt with them in a\nfashion that was regarded as revolutionary. To some of the Scriptures\nHe appealed as to a final authority, but others He regarded as\nimperfect and only suited to the time in which they were written. The\nJews of His day venerated every letter of the sacred writings, and\nregarded the very copies of the Law as sacred to the touch, and yet on\ntheir understanding of the Scriptures they rejected the mission and\nmessage of Jesus. Christian scholarship has undoubtedly followed rather\nafter the Rabbis than after Christ. The message of the Old Testament\nthat the new methods have made clear certainly appears to be more in\nconformity with the Spirit of Christ than with that of His opponents,\nand if this is revolutionary then it is no new thing; religion always\nmoves along such lines.\n\nGreat offence has been caused and insuperable prejudice aroused among\nmany by the name under which these methods have become known. The\nname, \"higher criticism,\" conveys to most people a suggestion of\ncarping fault-finding and an assumption of superiority. This is due to\nan entire misunderstanding of a technical term. Criticism is nothing\nmore than the exercise of the faculty of judgment, and, moreover,\njudgment that ought to be perfectly fair. The sinister suggestion\nthat is conveyed in the word is due to the fact that our criticisms\nare so often biassed by personal prejudices. But this only condemns\nour faults, and not the method. \"Higher\" criticism does not mean any\nassumption of superiority, but is simply a term used to distinguish it\nfrom \"lower\" criticism. The criticism that endeavours to ascertain the\noriginal text by a comparison of the various documents available is\ncalled _lower_, and that which deals with matters higher up the stream\nof descent by which the writings have been conveyed to us, namely,\nmatters of date and authorship, is called _higher_ criticism. It might\nwell be called literary and historical criticism, in distinction from\ntextual criticism. It employs historical methods, and uses the simple\ntests of comparison and contemporaneity. For the understanding of a\nparticular age, it prefers those documents that describe the times in\nwhich they were written, and give indirect evidence, rather than those\nhistories which were written long after the event and which reveal a\npurpose other than the strictly historical. Fortunately, we have in\nthe Old Testament many such contemporary and indirect witnesses in the\nwritings of the Prophets. They are not consciously writing history,\nbut they tell us indirectly what the practices of their day were, and\nespecially what religious ideas were prevalent; for it is these things\nthat they feel called upon to attack. With these reliable standards we\ncan compare the regular histories, which were necessarily written at a\nmuch later age, and very often to serve some religious purpose.\n\nNow it is this method, which is surely a true and proper one, that\nhas changed our estimate of the history and development of religion\nin Israel. Are we to condemn the method without examination because\nit destroys certain traditions about the Bible which we have received\nlargely from Judaism?--the Judaism which could find no place for Jesus!\nBut it will be answered that these methods yield results that are\nincompatible with the inspiration of the Bible, and are unworthy of\nGod's revelation to us. But how are we to decide what is compatible\nwith inspiration? We can only tell, surely, by seeing what these\nresults are and by discovering whether they bring any inspiration to\nus. Can we be certain, without examining the facts, to what lines the\nrevelation of God is to be restricted? Is this not coming to the Bible\nwith a theory which we have manufactured and which will surely distort\nthe facts? It will be said that anything less than absolute accuracy\nmakes void any claim to be a Divine revelation. Let us consider what\nthis means. We know that the historical spirit, which endeavours to\nsee history as it actually happened quite apart from our desires or\nsympathies, is an ideal which has only emerged with the general spread\nof education, and that in ancient times history was written largely\nwith a view to edification, and especially for giving such lessons\nas would lead to right principles being adopted for the future. It\nwas not the accuracy of the material but suitability for its purpose\nthat weighed with the historian. Now, with these conditions existing,\nwas it impossible for God to speak to men through their conceptions\nof history, or had He to wait until the historical spirit prevailed?\nCould He not use the early legends which they believed, and through\nthem bring the truth to men? We know that the greatest of all religious\nteachers did not scruple to embody the highest truths in such parables\nas lowly minds could receive. We may demand that revelation shall be\ninfallible, but this would need in turn an infallible person to receive\nit, and even then an infallible interpreter. An infallible revelation\nwould mean that there could never be any progress in revelation; that\nit would have to be given perfect in one process; that it would have\nto be authenticated to men by authority, since it would be beyond the\nunderstanding of a fallible mind; that it would break in upon every\nother experience, remain isolated, and never be grasped by that strong\nconviction which we call faith; and this would entail a destruction of\nthe mental faculties of man, and an acknowledgment that communication\nbetween God and man is really impossible. Could not God speak to man\nin his infancy, and with the growing understanding would there not be\ngrowing light?\n\nMeanwhile, whatever we feel about these abstract principles, we ought\nto know the facts. In the pages that follow an endeavour is made to\npresent the results at which a consensus of opinion has arrived. There\nwill be no great time spent in argument for or against these facts.\nSuch are to be sought in the scientific works and in the dictionaries,\nwhich alone can deal adequately with these facts, but since many\naltogether refuse to consider the facts because of the inferences\nwhich they think can be drawn from them, this book is an earnest\nplea for earnest men to consider whether it is not open to be shown\nthat from these facts there comes to us a much clearer understanding\nof God's ways with man; a more certain conviction that in the past\nGod has actually spoken through the Scriptures; a clue to a better\nunderstanding of the place Jesus occupies in the history of revelation;\nand what we all need greatly to-day: a preparation of heart that we may\nfollow the leading of that Spirit who ever has and who ever will guide\ninto all truth those who are willing to follow Him. The aim of this\nbook is that the reader may feel that the voice which speaks in his\nown heart and the voice which has guided man through all his strange\nhistory is One, and is of God.\n\n\n\n\nTHE SEMITIC RACES\n\n\n_Read, as Introduction to this Lecture, the Tenth Chapter of Genesis._\n\n  This is one of the most interesting documents in anthropology. It is\n  an attempt at a scientific ethnology, and seems to have been expanded\n  from the closing verses of the preceding chapter. It will be noticed\n  that those verses are in poetical form (R.V.), and are likely to be\n  very ancient.\n\n  Note the principles of classification:--\n\n  (1) Geographical. It is a very incomplete summary of the peoples of\n  the earth. Only those nations are mentioned that fill the horizon of\n  the writer's knowledge. That horizon will be found to correspond very\n  largely with that of the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel.\n\n  (2) Prejudice. The evident kinship of some peoples is denied on the\n  ground of dislike; for the same reason, Moab and Ammon, who are well\n  known, are simply omitted.\n\n  The real test of kinship is language, which is here ignored.\n\n  The names are not to be taken as individuals. Of this the very form\n  is witness: Ludim is plural, Mizraim is dual, Tarshish is the name of\n  a place, and Amorite is gentilic.\n\n  Notes:--\n\n  Verse 2. Madai = Medes. Javan = the Greeks, or more particularly, the\n  Ionians.\n\n  Verse 4. Tarshish is probably Spain. Kittim = the Cretans. Dodanim\n  (read Rodanim 1 Ch. i. 7) = the inhabitants of Rhodes.\n\n  Verse 6. Mizraim: the name for Egypt. Canaan: here and elsewhere\n  said to be descended from Ham. Beyond all doubt the Canaanites were\n  a Semitic people and spoke a language akin to Hebrew. Religious\n  antagonism and the fact of their conquest demanded in the popular\n  imagination a different ancestry.\n\n  Verse 14. \"Whence went forth the Philistines\" is misplaced, and\n  should follow after \"Caphtorim\" (Amos ix. 7).\n\n  Verse 21. Eber: the name of the supposed ancestor of the Hebrews.\n\n  Verse 22. Elam = Persia. Racially the Elamites were quite distinct\n  from the Semites. This inclusion may be a clue to the date of this\n  Table of Nations; friendship with Persia dates from Cyrus (Sixth\n  Century B.C.).\n\n  (See Driver's \"Genesis.\")\n\n\n\n\nLecture I\n\nTHE SEMITIC RACES\n\n\nThe Hebrew nation forms a branch of that group of the human family\nknown as the Semites. Their relation to the other great racial\ndivisions of mankind is far beyond the reach of our enquiry, and we\ncannot even penetrate to a period when the Semites formed an unbroken\nfamily. At the remotest date to which history can take us we find the\nfamily already widely dispersed, with distinct national characteristics\nwell developed, and their common ancestry quite forgotten in their\nviolent hatreds of their unrecognised kinsmen. Indeed it is only the\ntest of language which still preserves for us an indisputable proof\nof their common origin. Their existence can be traced back to a very\nremote date, for fragments of their literature and other evidences\nof civilisation have been discovered that have been dated 5000-4000\nB.C., and even at that period the language shows signs of phonetic\ndegeneration that require a still further period for the process to\nhave reached this stage.\n\nThe primitive home of the Semites cannot have been, however, where\nthese ancient remains have been found, namely, in the Euphrates valley,\nfor the records themselves show that they were only immigrants there\nand had replaced the original inhabitants, who came of Sumerian stock.\nNeither was it in Palestine, as our own Bible will tell us; but it\nis probably to be sought in Arabia, where the purest Semitic stock\nis still to be found. In this desert home the race was bred that was\ndestined to have such a tremendous influence on the history of the\nworld, and it is largely to this desert training that we can trace\ninfluences which have made them what they are. The battle for life in\nthat inhospitable land would mould a physique capable of extraordinary\nendurance, and to this we can perhaps trace the virility of the modern\nJew, who has resisted for centuries the poisonous ghettos of European\ncities and remains far healthier than his indigenous neighbours. This\nhard training fitted them for an exacting life, and in the Phoenicians\nthey became the traders of antiquity, and in the Carthaginians and\nSaracens, warriors not to be despised. Hardness easily becomes\ncruelty, and purely Semitic empires, such as Assyria, developed a\nbarbarous cruelty, the story of which is told on their inscriptions\nand in the denunciations of the Hebrew Prophets. There is something\nin the Semitic character that is disliked by Western nations, and\nthe Jews have been subjects of relentless persecution in medi\u00e6val\ntimes, and are still capable of arousing bitter hostility, as may be\nseen from those violent eruptions of anti-Semitism which occasionally\nburst through the cosmopolitanism of Western Europe. The well-defined\nlimitations of their primitive home--crushed in between the continents\nof Europe, Africa and Asia, the neutral ground of the Eastern and\nWestern worlds--seem almost to be reflected in the limitations of their\nmental development. The Semitic tongue is crude in its simplicity\nand incapable of expressing an abstract idea, and it is natural to\nfind as a result that the philosophical faculty is almost entirely\nmissing. Although they have given to the world an alphabet, a system\nof numeration which has made mathematics possible, and the beginnings\nof measurement and of the science of astronomy, yet their mind is not\nscientific in the modern sense. They possess, as perhaps no other race,\nthe gift of telling stories of wonder and mystery, and for a simple\ntale of love and pathos they are unsurpassed. They have produced the\nfinest lyrical literature of the ancient world, but have contributed\nhardly anything to dramatic or epic poetry, and their achievements in\nart have been cramped by their religious prejudices.\n\nBut in the realm of religion they are supreme, and have become the\nhigh-priests of humanity, for from them have gone forth three great\nreligions, and one of these capable of development into the universal\nreligion of mankind. These faiths have not been slowly evolved from the\nnational consciousness, but have both sprung from and been embodied in\ninspiring personalities; for have they not given to the world Moses and\nthe Prophets, Mahomet, and the Son of Man?\n\nThe Semites are divided by anthropologists into the following groups:\nSouthern Group--North Arabians, Sab\u00e6ans, Abyssinians; Northern\nGroup--Babylonians, Assyrians, Aram\u00e6ans, Canaanites, Hebrews; and\nall these groups seem to have been formed from the original stock\nby migrations from their home in Arabia. The contracted area of the\nArabian peninsula, the inability of the land to support a large\npopulation, coupled with their restless spirit and the constant feuds\nbetween the tribes, made emigration a necessity at a very early period.\nThe exact history and order of these migrations it is now impossible to\ntrace, but it would seem that the first great movement was eastward,\nwhither they were drawn by the culture and wealth of the Sumerian\ncivilisation in the Euphrates valley. It is quite possible that this\nmovement commenced 6000 years before Christ. At a later date they\nseem to have invaded Egypt and left some traces upon the language and\ncustoms of that land.\n\nThe land of Syria would offer a near and easy home for the emigrants,\nand yet the first Semites to arrive in Palestine seem to have come from\nthe Euphrates. The inhabitants they displaced were the Hittites, who\nprobably came from Asia Minor; they were Turanians, and were akin to\nthe present inhabitants of Armenia. It is only lately that excavation\nhas revealed the remains of a Hittite Empire in Palestine. The first\nSemitic tribes to reach Palestine pushed down to the seaboard, where\nthey developed a wonderful maritime civilisation and became the daring\ntraders and explorers who are known in history as the Phoenicians;\nthe other tribes occupied the hill country and became the Canaanites\nof Bible story. Of the next migration westward, the Bible preserves\na popular account in the story of the journey of Abraham from Ur of\nthe Chaldees. Now Abraham and his descendants were called Hebrews,\nand this name is traced to an ancestor who was called Eber or Heber.\nIt is doubtful whether an _individual_ so named ever existed. The\nname \"Hebrew\" means \"one from the other side,\" and would therefore\nhave been a suitable name for those who crossed the Euphrates, coming\nfrom Arabia; but of this movement the Bible knows nothing. Some have\nsupposed that the name was given much later to the tribes who entered\nPalestine across the Jordan. The discovery of the Tel-el-Amarna\ntablets has somewhat complicated our understanding of these events.\nThese tablets were letters written by the vassal-kings of Syria to\ntheir overlord Amenophis III., King of Egypt, and in them the King\nof Jerusalem calls for help against some tribes who are invading the\ncountry and whom he names _Habiri_. Now the date of this correspondence\nis about 1500 B.C., and if these are the Hebrews, we shall have to\nsuppose that not all the tribes of Israel went down into Egypt or that\nthe Exodus took place some two centuries earlier than the date given in\nthe Bible; but the whole question of the identification of the Habiri\nis not yet certain.\n\nIt is, however, with those Hebrew tribes who were afterwards known as\nthe children of Israel that we have to do; and however remote, and\nby whatever stages it is to be traced, their Semitic relationship is\ncertain. Their own tradition of the birthplace of Abraham shows that\nthey are conscious of their common origin with the Babylonians; the\nstories in Genesis acknowledge their kinship with Moab and Ammon, even\nthough national hatred has coloured the account of their birth (Gen.\nxix. 30-38). They formed a brotherly covenant with Edom, and Ishmael is\nrecognised not only to be kin but to be the elder. The Canaanites were\ndisowned wrongly, for they were certainly Semites; but the Philistines\nrightly, for they came into Palestine over-sea from Crete.\n\nWe need always to bear in mind that our Bible is the product of Semitic\nthought, and whatever its universal message, it is expressed in the\nforms of Semitic genius; and yet that the Hebrews stand out from the\nother Semitic nations is indisputable, and the distinguishing mark is\nthe purity of their religion. What is the cause of that difference? How\ncame such a tender root out of such a dry ground?\n\nRenan is responsible for the popular idea that the Semites have a\nnatural tendency towards Monotheism. The idea should present no\ndifficulties for a theory of Revelation, but it is certainly not true.\nIt is not true of the general type of Semitic religion, and it cannot\nbe claimed, in the face of the Prophets' record of their countrymen's\nlapses, that it was true even of the Hebrews. If it were said that\nthere was that in Semitic history and character which, provided\nopportunity were given, would offer a congenial soil for the reception\nof monotheistic ideas, it would be the utmost that could be said.\nNeither is there more truth in the antithesis that contrasts the Aryan\nconception of God as immanent with the Semitic as transcendent; for in\ntheir primitive stages Aryan and Semitic religions are alike.\n\nPrimitive Semitic religion is indeed quite polytheistic; every tribe\nhas its own god and this god is closely identified with a particular\nlocality. Therefore, to be an outcast from the tribe meant to be\nan exile from the protection and service of the god. This idea can\nbe found in the Bible as late as David, who thought that if he were\ndriven forth from his own land he would have to serve other gods (1\nSam. xxvi. 19). The god is conceived to be the father of the tribe,\nwhile the land is the mother, and this in quite a physical and literal\nsense. The same idea is of course frequent in the Greek religions, and\nsome such conception must be the original of the strange tradition\nin Genesis (vi. 1), which describes a union between the sons of God\nand the daughters of men. The connection of the god with the tribe\nis therefore simply a matter of blood descent, and the blood becomes\nin consequence invested with sacred virtues. The blood of the tribe\ncannot be shed by one of the members without incurring the vengeance\nof the god; and the use of the blood of animals in various ceremonies\nmay point to the belief in a common ancestry for men and animals; in\nsome tribes the animal is regarded as a superior being, and is actually\nworshipped. The blood of animals even is thought to be too sacred for\nhuman consumption, and is therefore set apart by libation as suitable\nfood for the god. Seeing that the connection between the god and man\nis only tribal, the shedding of the blood of any other tribe is quite\nallowable; for the tribal god cares only for his own people, and others\ncannot approach him (2 Kings xvii. 27). It is evident that a religion\nbased upon such ideas can never be a factor in the moral development of\na people. It only needs to provide for help against enemies, counsel\nin times of national affliction, and oracles for difficult problems of\njudgment; therefore, in times of national prosperity and security, it\nwill play no part beyond that of custom; and custom often seems the\nstronger in proportion to its lack of meaning.\n\nWe may insist that the Hebrew religion is superior to all this because\nit owes its origin to the special revelation of God; but even that\ndoes not preclude us from enquiring through what natural causes this\nrevelation came, if we believe that natural causes form some part of\nthe working of the Divine mind.\n\nNow these ideas common to Semitic religion persisted among the Hebrews\nand were only shaken by the earnest ministry of the Prophets, and\neventually destroyed by the reflection which followed the national\ndisaster of the Exile. The continued national trouble of Israel\nwas therefore a factor in her advance in the truth, and she stands\nas a witness to the possibility of suffering being an educative\nforce. Moreover, she found that her Promised Land was only a little\nstrip hemmed in between the desert and the sea, where all dreams of\nworld-empire were forbidden. Then it was that this nation turned her\nthoughts to a spiritual kingdom, and looking across the sea that\nshe feared to cross saw a day when the distant isles should be her\npossession, because she had given to them the Law of Jehovah, and the\nknowledge of God.\n\n\n\n\nTHE PRIMITIVE RELIGION OF THE HEBREWS\n\n\nTHE STRATA OF THE PENTATEUCH\n\n  We give here for reference the proposed identification of the\n  documents that critics say can be recognised in the construction of\n  the first five books of the Bible. The theory has been developed so\n  as to include the Books of Joshua, Judges, and some parts of Samuel,\n  all of which are said to bear the same marks of composition from\n  pre-existing documents.\n\n  \"J.\" Jahvistic. Dated 900-700 B.C. This document is especially\n  distinguished for using the name of Jehovah, or \"Yahw\u00e8,\" and is\n  anthropomorphic in its conception of God.\n\n  \"E.\" Elohistic. Dated 750-650 B.C. The name for God in this document\n  is \"Elohim,\" and its conception of God is more spiritual and elevated\n  than in \"J.\"\n\n  \"D.\" Deuteronomist. Dated 650-550 B.C. This document has the style\n  and thought of the Book of Deuteronomy, where it is chiefly, though\n  by no means exclusively found. The central idea of this document is\n  _the one sanctuary_.\n\n  \"P.\" Priestly Code. Dated 550-400 B.C. This document supplies the\n  framework of the Pentateuch, and is distinguished by its interest in\n  questions of ritual, and by its very legal and stereotyped style.\n\n  The dates given above are arrived at from a comparison of the ideas\n  expressed in these documents with their emergence in the historical\n  books of the Old Testament. Only for the last two can it be claimed\n  that there are historical events which are said to confirm them.\n  These are: the finding of the Book of the Law in the reign of Josiah,\n  and the promulgation of the Law by Ezra.\n\n\n\n\nLecture II\n\nTHE PRIMITIVE RELIGION OF THE HEBREWS\n\n\nWe have seen from the last lecture that an examination of the\ngeneral type of Semitic Religion gives us no explanation of the\nmature development of the Religion of the Hebrews; on the contrary,\nthat development would seem to take place in spite of the common\nSemitic characteristics, for it is against these characteristics and\nthe natural tendency to return to them that we find the Prophets\ncontinually at war. If this is so, can we penetrate to the first stage\nat which the new religious movement begins which was to reach such\nglorious heights in Jeremiah, the Psalmists and the Son of Man? It is\ncertainly not to be found in the general character of Semitic religion;\ndoes it commence with the ancestor of the Hebrew race, the Patriarch\nAbraham?\n\nTo this question the editor of Genesis means to return a decided\nanswer: the true religion of Jehovah existed from the earliest times,\nand all lower forms are deteriorations from that pure original\nrevelation. The earliest stories in Genesis are made to bear witness\nto this; Abel offered the true worship of God in that he brought of\nthe best of his flock, thus agreeing with the sacrifice of animals set\nforth in the fully-developed ritual of Leviticus as the only means of\napproach to God; Noah offers of \"clean\" animals; the Patriarchs offer\nanimal sacrifices, and call upon the name of Jehovah; Rebekah goes to\nenquire of Jehovah and obtains an oracle. The author means to convey by\nthis that the earliest religion was the religion which we find outlined\nin Leviticus and Deuteronomy, with the exceptions that a priest is not\nnecessary, and that sacrifice is permitted at other places besides the\none chosen sanctuary. This idea is enshrined in that favourite name for\nGod which we find in the Old Testament, the God of Abraham, Isaac and\nJacob.\n\nWe have now to enquire whether this is a correct view of the history,\nor only the writer's speculations about an age long removed from\nhis own. We are moved to do this because there are certain facts in\nthis history that do not seem to fit in with the author's view. It\nis evident at the outset, that the writer, whoever he be, is dealing\nwith subjects concerning which he can have at best only second-hand\nknowledge. This may have been conveyed to him in documents, or in\npopular tradition. If the object of the compilation of this history was\nnot so much to produce an accurate and exact history as to interpret\nthe past as a religious lesson for his own age, it cannot be instantly\ndismissed as improbable that he may have altered some of his material\nso as to accord more closely with his own religious views. Now scholars\nsay that they can detect the presence of various documents, which have\nbeen loosely combined and coloured with the editor's own ideas of what\nshould have taken place. There is hardly any theory which has excited\nmore ridicule from a certain class of Biblical students. The idea is\ndismissed offhand as utterly unworthy of a sacred writer; and even if\nhe did adopt such a scissors-and-paste method of compiling history, it\nis denied that anyone could detect the various strata now. No defence\nof these claims of the critical school need be attempted here, for we\nare taking their theories as granted, with the idea of seeing what\ntheir acceptance as true would mean to our estimate of the Bible and\nRevelation; but it may be shown that the Evangelist Luke is not ashamed\nto confess that he used something like this method in compiling his\nGospel. From the Table that faces this lecture, it will be seen that\nthe critics give dates for these documents that lie very far apart, and\nif the dates are even approximately true, it is a fair conclusion that\nwith such wide separation of time, and with the consequent difference\nboth in language and idea, there should be sufficient criteria to\ndetect the different strata. The critics who have attempted the\ndisintegration of the original documents of the Pentateuch have been\nchallenged to show their fitness for such a task by extricating the\nrespective contributions in a joint authorship novel such as \"The\nChaplain of the Fleet,\" by Walter Besant and James Rice. Or, again,\nsuch claims are discounted on the ground of the known failures\nof professional literary critics to recognise under pseudonym or\nanonymity, the style of a well-known author, or even to guess correctly\nthe sex of the writer. The analogy fails because the circumstances are\nentirely different. It would be on more equal terms to deny that it\nwould be possible to distinguish, say, the personal opinions of the\nauthor of an English History from the passages quoted from the Doomsday\nBook, Chaucer, or an Act of the Long Parliament, if all quotation marks\nand references were omitted.\n\nFor according to the witness of the very documents themselves this\nconception of the early history must be set aside as not quite correct.\nThe history in Genesis is conscious that some new start began with\nAbraham: he abandoned idolatry. Still more clearly is it seen that with\nMoses another epoch began, for according to one document, the very name\nof Jehovah was unknown before its revelation to Moses (Exod. vi. 2, 3).\nWe are, therefore, faced with the necessity of enquiring how much of\nthe stories of the Patriarchs can be called history in any true sense.\nThe reasons for and against their historical value may be summarised:\n\n_Against_: (1) The stories must have been composed long after the\nevents took place. (2) Tribal movements and personal incidents seem to\nhave been confused. (3) The endeavour to explain the origin of personal\nand geographical names is often merely popular, and etymologically\nincorrect. (Compare with this the common errors of our own day; for\ninstance, the explanation of the name of Liverpool from a supposed bird\ncalled the liver, now known to be entirely mythical.) (4) While the\ncontemporary history of this period is now quite an enlightened field,\nand the life, character, and customs of the inhabitants of Palestine in\nthis age of the Patriarchs comparatively well known, we look in vain\nfor any mention of these persons themselves.\n\n_For_:(1) The narratives of the Patriarchs are admitted by critics to\nhave been taken from at least two documents of separate origin and\nof different dates. This should double the weight of the evidence.\n(2) The simplicity of the narratives in many places looks like a\nrelation of fact. (But over against this must be placed the genius for\nrelating a story of pure fiction which is so peculiar a distinction\nof the Semites. Some of the narratives are quite artificial; as the\nstory of Isaac's lie to shield his wife, which follows a similar story\nrelated of Abraham.) (3) We might appeal to the memory of the Bedawin\nreciters, who can repeat almost incredibly long portions of the Koran.\n\nThe most likely solution of this conflicting evidence would seem to be\nthat in the history of the Patriarchs we have a modicum of historical\nfoundation which has been worked up into popular and idealised legends.\nIf the stories of the three Patriarchs be carefully studied, it will\nbe noticed that while the stories of Jacob are matter of fact, and\ndo outline a conceivable character, the stories of Isaac produce\nonly a nebulous character impression, while Abraham stands forth as\na character which has been idealised. This would be an accountable\npsychological process: in the case of Jacob a good deal of detail is\nremembered, Isaac is almost forgotten, while in the case of Abraham,\nonly the name and a few incidents are known, which serve to form the\nframework of a religious lesson.\n\nIt is, however, in the conception of their religion that idealisation\nhas most plainly occurred, for it is mainly the religion of the Ninth\nCentury, that is, of the age immediately preceding the great literary\nProphets. In the documents themselves there is left to the careful\nreader ample indication in customs and narratives, the meaning of\nwhich has escaped the notice of the editor, that a more primitive\nform of religion prevailed. It would seem, as we have seen, that the\nname of Jehovah was unknown to them, while there are evident tokens\nof polytheistic belief (Gen. xxxi. 19; xxxv. 1-4). The crudity of\nthe worship may be seen in the frequent reference to the erection of\npillars and stones, which, it will be seen later, have more than a\nmerely memorial purpose. The ease with which we find idolatry always\nreappearing in later history points to some hereditary tendency at\nwork among the mass of the people. If, however, we suppose that the\nprimitive religion was entirely heathen we shall be faced with the\nproblem of discovering some necessary point of departure to which\nthe higher revelation could affix itself. We may suppose, therefore,\nthat among the ancestors of the Hebrews there was held a faith that\nwas relatively purer than that common to the Semites, a faith which\ncontained in itself the guarantee of the possibility of advance,\nif only favourable conditions arose; that \"El, the Mighty One\n(_Shaddai_),\" was worshipped, but along with the retention of customs\nand ideas that are to be found in some forms of demon worship, that is,\nwith the recognition of many other great spirits, not all of whom are\nthought of as inimical to man; very much as we find among the North\nAmerican Indians the idea of a Great Spirit, existing side by side with\nheathen practices and beliefs.\n\nSo far our enquiry has not taken us on to very sure ground, and we must\nseek other methods. In the study of Comparative Religion the idea of a\ncertain natural order of the evolution of religion predominates, but\nthe actual origin of religion is still only a matter of speculation,\nas indeed it is bound to remain from the very nature of religion\nitself, since it is a vision of faith, rising in different ages and\nraces through quite different processes. We propose now to take both\nthe speculations and the assured results of the study of Comparative\nReligion, and using these as tests, see if they have left any traces\nin the evolution of the Hebrew religion or if they can guide us to its\npossible origins. The principles of such enquiry and application may be\nstated.\n\n(1) The ascertained customs and ideas of other religions, especially\nthose of the Semites, will form a working hypothesis, and if we then\nfind any reference to these customs or ideas in the Old Testament, it\nwill make towards reasonable proof of a similar origin.\n\n(2) We must be careful, however, to exclude customs that are known\nto have been borrowed from the Canaanites, such as the practice of\nBaal-worship.\n\n(3) At the same time we must beware of assuming, without further\nenquiry, that all the observances ordained by the religion of Jehovah\nwhose origins are connected with some historical event are to be\nthought of as having their beginning then. It is more than likely that\nwhen a long-established custom was recognised to be heathen in its\norigin or tendency, it would be strictly forbidden, as in the case\nof the heathen practice of necromancy; others which had lost their\noriginal meaning would be baptised into a new significance under the\nnew religion. (With this phenomenon may be compared our own festival of\nChristmas Day, taken over from the Roman Saturnalia, and our mourning\ncustoms, which are survivals of heathenism, and can only with great\ndifficulty be made to take on a Christian meaning.) Let us then examine\nthe supposed origins of heathen religion, and first of all, that known\nas Totemism.\n\nTotemism is a custom exceedingly common among savage tribes, in which\nsome animal is chosen as the badge, or the name of the tribe, and a\nblood covenant formed, when the animal becomes the \"totem\" or god of\nthe tribe. Popular instances may be given in the names of many of the\nIndian tribes of North America, or even in the crests and emblems of\nour now disrupted clans in Scotland, which can be traced back to a\nsimilar idea. In other cases the totem may be one of the well-known\nflora of the country or some other natural object. The custom is,\nof course, seen in the well-known worship of animals which has\ncontinued even among nations of advanced civilisation. Are there any\ntraces of the influence of this idea at work in the religion of the\nOld Testament? There are one or two tribal names which are names of\nanimals. Simeon is probably the name of a hybrid between a wolf and a\nhy\u00e6na. Leah means a wild cow, and Rachel is the Hebrew name for an ewe.\nThe distinction between clean and unclean animals might be traced to\nthis influence, but it does not altogether explain the lists in Lev.\nxi. and Deut. xiv.\n\nAnother theory of the origin of religion is that known as Animism. This\nis the belief in the existence of spirits,--a belief prompted by the\nphenomena of dreams,--which usually takes the form of belief in the\nactivity of the spirits of the recently deceased, an activity which\nis sometimes thought to be harmful and therefore feared. Animism, as\na belief in a spiritual activity behind natural phenomena, especially\nthose of the fearful type, survives in some form or other in the\nhighest religions, and was particularly active in the Hebrew idea that\nJehovah controlled natural forces for the deliverance of His people and\nfor His own wonderful manifestations. Animism generally survives among\nuncivilised peoples in the practice of ancestor worship, of which there\nis no trace among the Hebrews.\n\nNevertheless, the belief in Animism has left some customs behind it.\nEspecially is this seen in the mourning customs which are designed to\nrender the relatives unrecognisable to the departed spirit. This was\neffected by sprinkling ashes on the head, going naked or clothed in\nsackcloth. Cutting the flesh for this purpose is expressly forbidden\n(Lev. xix. 28). The ritual uncleanness of one who has come into contact\nwith a dead body is also a relic of Animism, as is also the strange\nidea in Num. xix. 15, which is intended to guard against the spirit\ntaking up its abode in a position from which it would be difficult to\ndislodge it. The funeral feast is held with the idea that the dead can\nstill partake, but in this case friendly feelings rather than fear\noperate. The conclusion is that Animism has played its part in the\nshaping of Israel's religion, but that the cruder forms of it were\ndropped at a very early age.\n\nThe religion of savage tribes is generally found to be polytheistic,\nand this is supposed to be one of the earliest stages in the\ndevelopment of religion. It takes the form of the deification of the\nforces of Nature or of striking natural objects, which are worshipped\nand generally feared, and is therefore a form of Animism. If the\ntheories of the critics as to the composition of the early books of\nthe Bible are correct, we should expect to find that, if any traces\nof Polytheism could be detected, they would be carefully obliterated\nfrom the original documents by the latest editor. There are indications\ndiscernible which show that this has been done, for although the\nworship of other gods is always severely condemned as the greatest of\nsins, yet at the same time we find no clear recognition of the idea of\nthe One God until the time of the Prophets. The gods of the heathen\nare mentioned as if they were real beings who are to be feared. The\nevidence for this may be objected to in detail, but the accumulation of\nfacts does press the reader to the unavoidable conclusion that until\nthe Prophets, the faith of Israel was Monolatry rather than Monotheism,\nthat is, the worship of one God rather than the definite belief that He\nis the Only God.\n\nThe very name for God in the Hebrew language has a plural form\n(Elohim), but this is explained by a grammatical custom by which things\nof exalted idea are spoken of in the plural, called by grammarians,\n_the plural of eminence_. The evidence for Polytheism quoted above\nfrom Gen. xxxi. 19; xxxv. 1-4, might be referred to the introduction\nof alien idolatrous practices; but this can hardly be claimed in\nthe case of the practice mentioned in Lev. xvii. 7, which must be\na reference to the cult of satyrs, or goat-like demons which were\ncommonly supposed to inhabit the desert, to the discouragement of\nwhich the ceremony mentioned in Lev. xvi. 8, 10, 21 ff, would seem\nto be directed. This strange figure called Azazel is not elsewhere\ndescribed in the Old Testament, but we learn from the Book of Enoch\nthat this was the name for the King of the Demons, a kind of _djinn_\nwho inhabited the wilderness and demanded toll of human life. (In\nagreement with what has been said before it will be noticed how this\npractice has been absorbed in the ritual of the Tabernacle, but with\na different meaning.) Even the First Commandment does not explicitly\ndeny the existence of other gods; it merely prohibits their worship\nby the Israelites. It may be that this command led to the full\nmonotheistic belief which we find in men like Isaiah, but that full\nconception cannot be fairly read into the First Commandment. Chemosh,\nthe god of the Amorites, is mentioned in Judges xi. 24, as a real\nbeing who had given the Amorites the possession of their land, even as\nJehovah had given Canaan to the Israelites. In the popular imagination\nthese heathen gods would remain as real beings probably long after\nthe monotheistic belief had been held by the more enlightened,\nbeing thought of as demon powers, in much the same way as the early\nChristians regarded the gods of Greece and Rome.\n\nWhen we turn to the evidence from the customs of worship that owe their\norigin to heathen ideas, the supposition that the early religion of the\nHebrews was hardly distinguishable from that of the Semitic races finds\na full confirmation.\n\nThe most determinative of these ideas is that of the localisation of\nthe god, who appears only at certain specified places with which he\nis inseparably connected. The appearance is generally in some form\nmore or less human, and the site of the manifestation is either marked\nfor posterity by the erection of a suitable memorial, in the shape of\na stone or an altar, or else some natural object is taken to be the\nactual residence of the god. The god is therefore connected rather\nwith the land than with the people, and it is this antagonism of the\npopular idea with that of the Prophets, who stand for the relation\nbetween Jehovah and Israel as not territorial but covenanted, which is\nthe key to the history of Israel. Apart from this prevalent idea, which\nis in itself a sufficient proof, we have the frequent reference to the\nsacredness of certain memorials and objects whose original significance\ncannot be hidden from the careful reader. We shall examine first these\nobjects of reverential regard and then proceed to notice some of the\nmore outstanding customs whose origin is heathen.\n\n(a) _Sacred Stones._ Throughout the Old Testament we meet with numerous\nreferences to stones or circles that form convenient landmarks or\nnatural _rendezvous_ for national ceremonies. Adonijah strengthens\nhis rebellion by a great sacrifice at the stone of Zoheleth--\"the\nserpent's stone.\" The extremely important part which the serpent plays\nin all Semitic religion and mythology, together with the sacrificial\nact at this spot, points to its having been the ancient site of some\nidolatrous cult. Many of these sacred stones may have been the shrines\nof the Canaanites, and to some of these the invading religion attached\nits own meaning. The circle at Gilgal, which is said to commemorate\nthe crossing of the Jordan, may be an example of this, for there\nis some contradiction in the account which refers it to a memorial\nerected by Joshua for this purpose (compare Josh. iv. 2-6, 20 ff, with\niv. 9), and it is more than likely that the circle of graven images\nmentioned in Judges iii. 19 (R.V. margin) is to be identified with\nit. Among this class of sacred objects must be mentioned the obscure\n_Mazzebah_, translated in the margin of the Revised Version, \"Obelisk.\"\nThe use of the Mazzebah is strictly forbidden in Exod. xxxiv. 13, as\none of the idolatrous customs of the former inhabitants of the land,\nbut in the Eighth Century the Mazzebah is reckoned by Hosea as one\nof the essentials of Hebrew worship, as if he knew nothing of this\nproscription in the Law (Hosea iii. iv.). These pillars were evidently\nused to mark the place of worship, and they are said to have been found\nat Shechem, Bethel, Gilgal, Mizpeh, and elsewhere. From their usage in\nprimitive Semitic religion as well as from their prohibition in Exodus\nit can be seen that they had idolatrous significance, and it is thought\nthat they were rudely carved to resemble the likeness of the god. The\ntwo pillars placed before the temple, called Jachin and Boaz, are\nprobably connected with the Mazzebah.\n\n(b) _Sacred Trees._ The continual reference to these in the Old\nTestament shows that they had some special and sacred significance.\nSuch are the terebinths of Mamre (Gen. xiii. 18; should be singular\naccording to the Septuagint), the tamarisk at Beersheba (Gen. xxi. 33),\nthe palm of Deborah (Judges iv. 5), and the terebinth in Ophrah (Judges\nvi. 11). We can understand how to desert peoples trees naturally\nstood for objects of thankful reverence, and in the popular mind were\nregarded as the special seat and haunt of a deity. That they also\nserved for the purpose of obtaining oracles may be seen from 2 Sam.\nv. 24; with which may be compared the practice of oracular decision\nby the rustling of the famous oaks of Delphi. With this species of\ntree-worship we must compare the use of the Asherah mentioned as a\nsacred symbol in Judges vi. 25; this is expressly forbidden in Exod.\nxxxiv. 13, Deut. xvi. 21. It used to be supposed that this was a wooden\nsymbol of a goddess Asherah, but from the description in the passage\nquoted from Deuteronomy, and from Isa. xvii. 8, it would seem to be a\ntree-like post, and is more likely to be a remnant of tree worship,\nas our own Maypole may be. It came to pass that the tree or tree-like\npole could therefore stand beside any altar as the sign of the presence\nof the god, and in the pre-Prophetic religion of Israel this was\ntransferred to a sign of the presence of Jehovah until the Asherah was\nforbidden, in that great attempt to make return to idolatry impossible,\nthe reform under Josiah.\n\n(c) _Sacred Springs._ A similar origin may be supposed for the\nrecognised sacredness of springs. From the names given to some of these\nit is evident that they were regarded as the special seat of Divine\npower, natural enough, as in the case of the trees, to a desert-bred\nrace and to dwellers in a land which never had too plentiful a supply\nof water. The proximity of the spring to an altar or sacred stone\nconfirms this, as in the case of the stone Zoheleth near the spring\nEn-rogel, the \"spring of the fuller.\" The name of \"En-Mishpat\" (Gen.\nxiv. 7), \"the spring of judgment,\" would seem to indicate that springs\nwere used for the purpose of obtaining oracles, but by what signs this\nwas effected is not known. The name of the spring in Gen. xvi. 14,\nwhere the angel appeared to Hagar, is significant in this connection:\n\"the well of the living one who seeth me.\"\n\nIn the customs of worship, and in all customs to which there is\nattached a definite religious significance, we find analogies in\nthe heathen religions which show that they must have had a common\norigin. Chief among these must be classed the custom of sacrifice.\nIt is natural, therefore, to find that sacrifice, which has such an\nundoubtedly natural explanation in heathen religions as either the food\nof the god or a means of propitiation, is nowhere in the Old Testament\nexplicitly defined as to its intent and meaning. The root idea is,\nhowever, clearly seen in such customs as that of the setting forth of\nthe Shewbread, however much the meaning may have become spiritualised\nby a purer idea of the nature of Jehovah, while in Ezek. xliv. 7, 15,\nthis seems to be quite explicitly stated. As the conception of Deity\nwas spiritualised, the idea of material food would doubtless grow too\nrepugnant to be retained in the bare offering of flesh, and so we get\nthe burnt-offering, the smoke of which Jehovah can smell. The blood\nespecially, forms the correct offering, since being the seat of life,\nit belongs altogether to God. On the idea of the sacrifice being used\nas a propitiation to the Deity, it follows naturally that the more\ncostly the victim the more acceptable it will be, and of all sacrifices\nthe most efficacious will be that of a human being. The story of Abram\nand Isaac in Gen. xxii. is made to serve as a condemnation of human\nsacrifices, but the origin of the story may very well have pointed\nthe other way, as indeed the first part of the story does; and that\nthe practice was common may be seen from 2 Kings xvi. 3; xxi. 6; Jer.\nvii. 31; xix. 5 (Delete the last words of Jer. xix. 5, as an evident\ngloss from vii. 31). True, in these passages human sacrifice is said\nto be in express contravention of the will of Jehovah, but no such\ncomment is added to the story of Jephthah (Judges xi. 30 ff.), while\nin Micah vi. 7, the sacrifice of the firstborn is simply classed among\nother sacrifices as part of the common idea. A remnant of this horrible\npractice is probably to be found in the consecration of the firstborn\nto Jehovah, while the legality of human sacrifice is determinative in\nthe common practice of the \"ban,\" by which all captives were devoted\nto Jehovah, and any violation visited by the direst vengeance; as in\nthe case of Saul and Agag. Another use of the sacrifice was that of\nratifying a covenant by cutting a victim in parts, between which the\ncontracting parties passed (Gen. xv. 9-17; Jer. xxxiv. 18).\n\nMuch the same result will be found from enquiry into the origin of\nspecial feasts and customs that are said to have been instigated at\nthe express command of Jehovah; for there is evidence which shows that\nthey were often customs common amongst the heathen, and were only\ninvested with a new significance by the higher religion of the Hebrews.\nAmong these it is likely that we must reckon even the Passover, for\nthe daubing of the lintels is said to be a common heathen practice,\nand it will be noticed in support of the pre-Mosaic origin of the\nceremony that at its first mention in Exod. xii. 21, it is called _the_\nPassover. The meaning of the Hebrew word translated \"Passover\" is\nalso capable of another meaning than that given in the story of its\ninstitution, a meaning which also points to its being the survival of\na Semitic and heathen custom. Similar enquiry into ancient religions\nof the Semitic type shows that originally circumcision had no special\nreligious significance, but was probably a sign of puberty and the\nright to marry. As manners softened it became a family rite and there\nwas no need to postpone it till years of manhood. The practice of\nwearing special garments at religious rites is also found in heathen\nreligions, and still maintains itself in our habit of wearing \"Sunday\nclothes.\"\n\nThe results of these enquiries are sufficiently startling to those who\nhave been accustomed to regard the religion of Israel as starting from\nsome definite act of revelation which ordained these ordinances and\ntheir religious meaning for the first time. But it is common enough\nin history to find that customs persist long after their original\nsignificance has been forgotten, and that they are gradually invested\nwith a meaning more appropriate to the spirit of the age. We are not,\nhowever, shut up to the conclusion, that, because we can trace much of\nthe wonderful religion of Israel to common causes acting upon heathen\nreligion, there is no real work of revelation in this gradual progress\nfrom lower to higher stages. It would be quite useless, from the\npoint of view of this book, to enter on the fruitless discussion as to\nwhether in the evolution of religion we have to deal with a natural\nprocess or with a supernatural revelation. Is any such antithesis\nnecessary? Surely the one can come through the other. If revelation is\nto reach us it must come through the ordinary processes of our minds;\nthe recognition that it is from God cannot be authenticated to us by\nany miracle or outward authority, but simply by the possibility of the\nmind, which God has made, being able to recognise its Maker. It may\nbe more of a difficulty to others that we should have such erroneous\nconceptions of history in a Book that has been regarded as infallible\non these matters. We have to face the fact, from which there is no\nescape, that the historian may not have known the origin of the things\nof which he wrote, or may have intentionally obscured the fact of the\nheathen origin of customs that had become to all pious Israelites\nexpressions of Jehovah's special revelation to Israel. If we are going\nto call this fraud, then it means that we are going to force on that\nearly age a conception of historical accuracy which it certainly did\nnot possess, and which, as a matter of fact, is only a late demand of\nthe human mind. And after all, there was truth in this reference of all\ntheir religion to the revelation of Jehovah. It witnesses to the fact\nthat behind even the crudest religion there is something which defies\nexplanation, and that we have in heathen religions the slow dawning\nconsciousness of God within man's soul. In Israel these things never\nstood still. That central idea of the localisation of Jehovah grew\ntoo small to contain the widening conception of Him as it was evolved\nthrough reflection and national experience, until the Prophets burst\nforth with the proclamation that He was the God of the whole earth, and\nHis relation to Israel not tribal or territorial, but moral, and only\nto be maintained by righteousness and true holiness.\n\n\n\n\nMOSAISM\n\n\n  The reader is recommended to make a careful study of the following\n  passages, which are among the most important adduced by the critics\n  as evidence for the non-Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.\n\n  (1) Mosaic authorship is never claimed for the Pentateuch as a\n  whole. Only in certain places is it noted that Moses wrote down\n  special things (Exod. xvii. 14; xxiv. 4; xxxiv. 27; Num. xxxiii.\n  2; Deut. xxxi. 9, 22, 24). Moses is consistently spoken of in the\n  third person, and it is hardly likely that this is a style purposely\n  adopted, or the statement of Num. xii. 3 would be extraordinary in\n  the circumstances. Obviously the last chapter of Deuteronomy was not\n  written by him, nor is the common opinion that it was added by Joshua\n  at all probable, for there is no difference in style from the rest\n  of the book discernible, and, moreover, Dan is referred to (Deut.\n  xxxiv. 1; cp. also Gen. xiv. 14), which was not so named until after\n  the conquest. (Josh. xix. 47; Judges xviii. 29.) Would Moses need to\n  authenticate his history of contemporaneous events by quoting from\n  what are regarded as ancient books: from the Book of the Wars of\n  Jehovah (Num. xxi. 14), wars which could have only just commenced, or\n  from the poem which refers to the victory over Sihon (Num. xxi. 27\n  ff.), which took place at the very end of the forty years' wandering?\n\n  (2) The standpoint as a whole is that of an age later than Moses.\n  The remark in Gen. xxxvi. 31 can only have had any meaning in the\n  age of David when Edom was in submission to Israel. A late date is\n  also needed for the following passages: Gen. xii. 6; xiii. 7; xxxiv.\n  7 (\"in Israel\"! cp. Judges xx. 10; 2 Sam. xiii. 12); Lev. xviii.\n  27; Deut. ii. 12; iv. 38. In fact, the whole geographical outlook\n  is that of an inhabitant of Western Palestine, as may be seen from\n  the use of the term \"Seaward\" to indicate the west, and of \"Negeb,\"\n  or the desert land, for the south. These terms are used even in the\n  description of the Tabernacle, which, if taken from the site of Mount\n  Sinai, would be altogether wrong and meaningless. Compare Num. xxii.\n  1; xxxiv. 15; Deut. i. 1, 5; iii. 8; iv. 41, 46, 49: \"beyond the\n  Jordan,\" showing clearly that the writer's position is in Palestine,\n  west of the Jordan.\n\n  (3) There is no trace in the history of any observance of the\n  Levitical ritual until after the exile; the day of atonement, the\n  sin-offering, the high-priest, all are unheard of until this date.\n  Nor can it be claimed that it was the ignorance of the common people,\n  or their apostasy, that was responsible for this condition of things.\n  The great leaders of the various reformations are apparently also\n  quite ignorant that none but a priest could sacrifice, and none but a\n  Levite take charge of the ark. Samuel, who was not a Levite, sleeps\n  beside the ark and offers sacrifice. Elijah does nothing to recall\n  the people to the ritual of Leviticus.\n\n  (4) The conclusion is that, while later ages were right in\n  attributing to Moses the founding of their religion and some of\n  their ritual, all the accumulation of law, which had only been the\n  growth of many centuries, has been placed to his credit. What the\n  actual contribution of Moses was it is now impossible to say, but the\n  original of the Ten Words and of the Book of the Covenant (Exod. xx.\n  2-xxiii. 33) may well go back to that age, as may be seen from the\n  relative simplicity of the laws and rules. For example, compare the\n  simple regulations for the altar in Exod. xx. 24 with the elaborate\n  altar described in Exod. xxvii. 1-8.\n\n\n\n\nLecture III\n\nMOSAISM\n\n\nThe national consciousness of Israel goes back to a series of\nremarkable events in which the nation was born, and which are too\ndeeply graven on the mind of the people to be mere legends without\nhistorical foundation. These events are the deliverance from the\nbondage in Egypt and the great covenant made with Jehovah at Sinai. The\nindispensable personal centre, round which these events revolve, is\nthat of the great national leader, Moses. The fact that, outside the\nPentateuch and the closely connected Book of Joshua, little is known\nof the work of Moses until after the exile, has given rise to doubts\nconcerning his historical reality. If we take the writings of the Old\nTestament that are contemporary with the period they describe, there\nstand out in indisputable primacy the writings of the great literary\nProphets. To these modern criticism has rightly turned to discover the\nopinions, customs, and religion, prevailing in the Eighth Century; and\nit is claimed that by these writings we can test the historical value\nof the Pentateuch, and of the other historical books. Now it must be\nadmitted that in the pre-exilic Prophets the mention of Moses is less\nfrequent than we should expect from the position which is claimed for\nhim in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. The\nProphets do appeal with one consent to the original covenant of Jehovah\nwith Israel, to the fulfilment of which they would recall the nation;\nbut only rarely is the name of Moses associated with that covenant.\nThere are only four references to Moses in the Prophets before the\nexile (Hosea xii. 13--Moses not actually named; Micah vi. 4; Jer.\nxv. 1; Isa. lxiii. 12--reckoned post-exilic by critics), and in none\nof these is Moses referred to as a law-giver, but as a prophet and\nnational deliverer. We have to come to Prophets writing after the exile\nto find any reference to the legislative work of Moses (Mal. iv. 4;\nDan. ix. 11-13). The purpose of the prophetic writings is moral rather\nthan historical, and this forbids putting more evidential weight upon\nthis argument from silence than it will bear; but in face of their\ncontinual appeal to the covenant of Sinai, this silence is at least\nsignificant. Evidently Moses was not a name to conjure with in their\nage. (Compare Jer. xxxi. 31, 32, where the mention of the name of Moses\nwould have been most natural.)\n\nWe have, on these and other grounds, to disregard the later idea\nthat Moses was the only law-giver of Israel and the author of the\nPentateuch, although the fact that the later legislation could only\nfind sanction as it was included under his name, points to him as\nin some way the initiator of Israel's great Code of Laws. While in\naddition to this, it must be admitted that a great deal of the story\nof his life is due to the growth of legend, there is no need to regard\nthe figure of Moses as entirely mythical. The events by which a motley\ncrowd of serfs became a nation and covenanted themselves to an almost\nnew religion not only need for their explanation a great interpreter,\nbut also a great leader; and this demand and need Moses fills. We may\ntherefore safely regard Moses as one of the great Founders of Religion.\n\nWe have now to enquire how much of the marvellous story of his life can\nbe safely reckoned as history. The document which gives the earliest,\nand therefore the most trustworthy, story of his life is dated by the\ncritics in the Ninth Century, although it is not denied that it may,\nand probably does, go back for its material to a much earlier period.\nThis document, known to the critics as \"J,\" owes its origin to early\nprophetic influence. In this document, as might be expected from the\nanalogy in similar cases (compare the absence of the birth stories in\nMark), the story of the birth and finding of Moses is omitted; it is\nprobably nothing more than an effort to find a popular explanation\nof his name, as derived from _Mashah_, \"to draw out.\" A much more\nlikely origin of the name is found by modern scholars in the Egyptian\nword for \"son\" (_Mesu_). The important thing to be noticed is that in\nthis early document he appears first of all in Midian, although there\nare indications which show that it is known that he had previously\nbeen in Egypt. Here, alone in the wilderness, or in intercourse with\nthe strange Bedawin who still inhabit that region, there came to him\na revelation of Jehovah and the call to deliver Israel from their\nbondage. He returned to Egypt with a message at once religious and\nnational. He calls upon the Israelites to leave Egypt and to seek\na covenant with Jehovah at His shrine at Sinai. During a plague,\nthe passage of the Red Sea was effected under conditions that were\ninterpreted to be due to the direct intervention of Jehovah; and, the\nreturning tide cutting off the pursuing Egyptians who challenged their\nflight, the Israelites stood delivered from their enemies and their\nfirst trust in Jehovah was vindicated. It is not for us to enquire\ninto the exact causes which proved so favourable to the Israelites and\nso disastrous to the Egyptians; we only need to know that they were\ninterpreted religiously. Then around Mount Sinai, with its impressive\nsolitude and its awful storms, Moses gathered the people, imparted\nthe secret of the new worship, made a solemn covenant by which the\npeople of Israel became for ever the people of Jehovah, and probably\nlaid down some rudiments of legislation fitted for their primitive and\nnomadic condition. This much at least the after history demands as the\nirreducible minimum.\n\nIf this is at all an accurate view of the founding of the religion of\nJehovah, then we are faced with the phenomenon of a nation practically\nadopting a new religion. We do not ignore \"revelation\" when we feel\ncompelled to seek for natural causes which might prepare the way for\nthis event; and this we may attempt by an enquiry into the meaning of\nthe name \"Jehovah.\"\n\nIt should be noted at the outset that \"Jehovah\" is a personal name,\nlike that of Zeus or Poseidon, conveying the idea of some aspect of\ndeity. The meaning of the name is exceedingly obscure. The general\nname for deity common to all Semites, and therefore belonging to the\nundivided primitive stock, is \"El,\" meaning either \"the Mighty One\" or,\nand more in accord with Semitic conceptions of God, \"the Leader.\" The\nmeaning of the name \"Jehovah\" is difficult to discover, because in the\nfirst place the exact pronunciation of the word has been lost, probably\nbeyond recovery.\n\nThe word \"Jehovah\" is a hybrid compound, and as a matter of fact was\nnever used as a name for God until the Reformation. We can be certain\nonly that the consonants of the word were _JHVH_ (or _YHWH_, Hebrew\npronunciation). This extraordinary state of things is accounted for\nby the fact that for centuries the Hebrew Scriptures were \"unpointed\"\nor unvocalised--that is, the consonants only were written and the\nnecessary connecting vowels were taught orally, and only retained in\nthe memory for use when the Scriptures were read aloud. When in the\nNinth Century A.D. it was likely that the pronunciation of the sacred\nlanguage would be entirely forgotten, a device for its preservation\nwas made whereby the vowel pronunciation was indicated by means of\n\"points\" placed chiefly underneath the consonantal text; very much like\nthe dots and dashes used for vowels in Pitman's system of shorthand.\nWhen, however, it came to the \"pointing\" of JHVH, it was found that\nthe pronunciation of this word had been entirely lost. Reverence for\nthe name of God had become so exaggerated that, in reading aloud from\nthe Scriptures, wherever the sacred name occurred another word had\nalways been substituted. This word was one of respect, but of less\nmarked exaltation--_Adonai_, equal to our word \"Lord.\" The only course\nopen to the punctuators was that of inserting under the consonants\nJHVH, the vowels (with suitable euphonic modifications) of the word\n_Adonai_, with the result that we get the conflate \"Jehovah,\" a word\nwhich has become invested with so much solemnity to our ears, but\nwhich was certainly not the right pronunciation, and which has never\nbeen used by the Jews. Scholars have endeavoured, at present without\nany universally accepted result, to recover the lost pronunciation\nby linguistic enquiries, with the desire to discover what the word\noriginally meant, in the hope that it would throw some light on the\norigin of the religion founded by Moses. In Exod. iii. 13 ff. (R. V.\nmargin) we have the traditional explanation of the word, an explanation\nwhich is not altogether satisfactory from a grammatical point of\nview; the great Hebraist Ewald goes so far as to pronounce it highly\nartificial. It has been objected that the man who wrote this account,\nabout 750 B.C., surely understood his own language. Probably; but that\nis not to say that he understood the etymology of it, for etymology is\na new science, and has upset many popular derivations in the case of\nour own language. If the explanation given in Exodus is correct, and\nwe cannot with certainty put anything much better in its place, then\nthe meaning of the word \"Jehovah\" would be \"He that is,\" perhaps an\nequivalent in Hebrew form to the Western idea of \"The Eternal.\" Only\none of the numerous guesses as to the meaning of the original name\nneed be quoted here: that the word comes from a verb, _hawah_, meaning\neither \"to fall,\" or \"to blow.\" Similar ideas would seem to account\nfor either of these meanings. \"He who blows,\" looks like the name for\nthe Tempest God, while \"that which falls\" has been taken to indicate a\nfallen meteorite, which may have been preserved as a symbol of Jehovah.\nWhen we remember the thunderstorms at Sinai, and the common belief that\nthunder was a special theophany of Jehovah, these ideas are not to be\nhastily dismissed as altogether incredible. Nor should we be prevented\nfrom considering such an idea from the prejudice that it would make\nthe origin of the religion of Israel a piece of Nature-worship and\nsuperstition. God has taken man where He has found him, and none can\ndare to define the limits of childish and crude conceptions within\nwhich the Spirit of God can begin His work in man's mind.\n\nThe conclusion derived from the examination of the meaning of the name\n\"Jehovah\" must therefore remain open until some further light is thrown\non the subject. (Scholars usually adopt the pronunciation, _Yahwe_, as\nour nearest approach to the original.)\n\nAn endeavour has been made to discover the origin of the religion of\nIsrael from the persistent connection of Jehovah with the locality of\nMount Sinai. This idea continues long after in the Promised Land (Deut.\nxxxiii. 2; Judges v. 5), and Elijah takes a long journey back to the\nsacred spot, presumably to get into closer touch with Jehovah (1 Kings\nxix.). With the prevailing beliefs of that age in the localisation of\nthe god, this connection must be thought of as of more than accidental\nsignificance. It is fair to assume that the seat of Jehovah at Sinai\nmust have been known before the great covenant, and is indeed required\nby the narrative itself (Exod. iii.; iv. 27), while recent discoveries\nare said to prove that the traditional Sinai must have been a sacred\nplace from the earliest times. Moses, however, is clearly represented\nas coming to know of Jehovah during his stay in Midian. The exact means\nof the revelation is said to have been the sight of a bush on fire, yet\nmiraculously unconsumed. What actually lies behind this story--whether\nit is a creation of the religious imagination which sees \"every common\nbush afire with God\"--it is useless for us to try and discover. A\nnatural explanation has been sought in the fact that Jethro, the\nKenite, was the priest of Midian, and presumably of some shrine of\nJehovah. Certainly Jethro knew the name of Jehovah, but apparently only\nregarded Him as one of the gods, until the marvellous deliverance of\nthe Exodus proved Him to be the greatest of gods (Exod. xviii. 9-11).\nJethro performs an act of sacrifice to Jehovah, in the presence of\nAaron and the elders, that looks remarkably like an act of initiation\nby which Israel are introduced to the worship of Jehovah by the regular\npriest of the shrine (Exod. xviii. 12). The hypothesis is further\nstrengthened by the fact that the Kenites are found later dwelling\nin Palestine (Judges i. 16), and are always remembered long after as\nthe friends of the Israelites (1 Sam. xv. 6; xxvii. 10; xxx. 29). The\ninference from this is that Moses first learned of Jehovah from his\nfather-in-law Jethro, but that he understood more of the character\nof Jehovah than Jethro, and by his superior religious consciousness\nconceived of Him as in some way Supreme who to Jethro had been only one\nof the desert gods.\n\nThis theory would certainly be strengthened if Sinai could be\nidentified, not with the traditional site of _Jebel Musa_ in the\nsouthern part of the Sinaitic peninsula, but with some spot in the land\nof Midian, across the gulf of Akaba. This does indeed seem necessary\nfrom the narrative, for from the most natural interpretation of Exod.\niii. 1, Horeb, the mount of God, was in Midian. It is generally taken\nfor granted that Horeb and Sinai are identical; the respective names\nare used by different documents. It is said that, for some reasons,\nMidian would fit in with the record of the journey through the\nwilderness better than the Sinaitic peninsula. If the parallelism of\nSinai with Seir in Deut. xxxiii. 2 can be taken to show identity, as is\nnatural, we have a further confirmation, for Seir is in Midian.\n\nThe grave difficulty of all this is that it would make the religion\nof Jehovah a distinct importation. Is such a thing as its reception by\nthe Hebrews credible on this account? The idea of a nation changing\nits religion is certainly repugnant to the Semitic mind (Jer. ii. 10,\n11), and some more natural connection seems necessary, both from the\nnarrative and from general considerations. Now the narrative hints that\nthe religion was not entirely new (Exod. vi. 3), but was known to the\nPatriarchs under different forms; while the sanctity of Sinai would\nseem to have been already known to some of the tribes (Exod. iv. 27).\nThere is nothing here definite enough for us to proceed to historical\ncertainty, but it is fair to suppose that the shrine at Sinai was\nknown to the Patriarchs in their wanderings, and that Jehovah would be\nworshipped; as would any other local god whose territory they happened\nto be in. Grant that this was partly known to the Hebrew slaves in\nEgypt; that Moses received the revelation of the power of Jehovah in\nhis exile in Midian, and by a splendid leap of inspiration identified\nthe actual shrine and the Person of Jehovah with the Mighty Spirit\ndimly known to the Patriarchs, and we have an explanation that is\nnatural and is also true; for the Object of man's worship has been One\nthrough all history. When the successful passage of the Red Sea and\nthe defeat of the Egyptians were interpreted by Moses as the direct\nintervention of Jehovah, the transition to the great covenant is made\npossible. All this may be very contrary to the traditional idea of how\nMoses received the revelation of Jehovah, but the facts do point this\nway; and it is not for us to deny that the Spirit of God could work\nthrough these natural events and through the mind of this commanding\npersonality, and so bring about this identification of Jehovah and the\nGreat Spirit of the Patriarchal thought, which was to lead to such\ngreat results for religion.\n\nWe are now free to investigate what the character of the religion\nintroduced by Moses actually was.\n\n(1) _General Character._ A careful examination of its character shows\nthat while it is by no means identical with the religion taught by the\nProphets, and while it retained many heathen ideas and customs, yet it\ncontained within itself the promise and guarantee of development. We\nhave already had occasion to notice that it is not pure Monotheism.\nJehovah is not the only God; He is the only God for Israel. The heathen\ndeities are still regarded as having a real existence. Neither can it\nbe called a purely spiritual religion, for Jehovah is rather said to\nhave a spirit than to be a spirit; He has a form which, though terrible\nin its effect on the beholder, by reason of its glory, can nevertheless\nbe seen; He inhabits a special place, which is His sacred territory,\nand on this Moses stumbles all unwittingly in Midian.\n\nStill more emphatically against the idea of a purely spiritual religion\nis the fact--which the editors have done their best to hide, but\nnot successfully--that images of some kind were allowed, or existed\nunreproved. The Ephod, of which we hear so often, was evidently at\none time an idol. The meaning of the word is of something \"covered,\"\nas may be seen from Isa. xxx. 22, where the feminine form of the word\n(_aphuddah_) is used of the gold plating of images; but according to\na later idea (Exod. xxviii. 6-14), the Ephod formed part of the dress\nof the High Priest, and was a kind of embroidered waistcoat. This\nexplanation, however, does violence to a number of passages where\nthe Ephod is mentioned. Gideon expended seventeen hundred shekels of\ngold on an Ephod which he \"set up\" in Ophrah (Jud. viii. 26 f.); this\ncannot be a waistcoat. Only the explanation that the Ephod was an image\ncan do justice to the reference in Judges xvii. 5, and it suits the\npassage in 1 Sam. xxi. 9, if we think of the sword hanging behind an\nimage. If the ephod was nothing more than a waistcoat by which lots\nwere determined, we have to explain why it is so sharply condemned\nin Judges viii. 27, and why the text of 1 Sam. xiv. 18, which in the\nSeptuagint reads \"ephod,\" in the Hebrew text has been altered to read\n\"ark\"; an alteration which is quite impossible here, as the ark was at\nthis time in Kirjath Jearim, and, moreover, was never used for the\npurpose of obtaining oracles. (The only explanation is that some scribe\nhas made this alteration because he knew that there was something\nidolatrous about the ephod.) Even as late as Hosea (iii. 4) we find\nthe ephod mentioned in a connection where it can only stand for an\nobject of idolatrous worship. It is certainly strange that the same\nname should be in use for an image, and then later for a garment of the\nhigh-priest; but the likely explanation of this is that the image was\nat one time clothed with a dress, as was usual (Jer. x. 9), and that\nin the pockets of this the lots were kept. When the use of the image\nbecame offensive the garment was retained as part of the high-priest's\ndress. The transition is made more natural if we can suppose that the\nPriest of the Oracle, in the early days, was accustomed to put on the\ngarment of the image, under the customary idea that thus the divine\nknowledge of the idol would be communicated to him. In 2 Kings xviii.\n4, we read of _Nehushtan_, the brazen serpent which Moses had made,\nbeing used idolatrously; but perhaps this has been wrongly ascribed to\nMoses. From the intimate connection of bull-worship with the worship\nof Jehovah, it would seem that the bull was regarded as a symbol of\nJehovah; a similar idea may have instituted Aaron's golden calf.\nWhile admitting the force of this evidence, we must still keep open\nthe possibility that the religion instituted by Moses was of a purer\ntype, but was never strong enough to drive out the remnants of heathen\npractice.\n\nMore indisputable evidence of the materialistic conception of the\nPerson of Jehovah is found in the reverence paid to what is known as\n\"the ark of Jehovah,\" the making of which is certainly ascribed to\nMoses. The name \"the ark of the covenant,\" was not the original name\ngiven to the ark, but is taken from the incident recorded in Deut. x.\n1-5. The idea that the ark was built to contain the tables of the Law\ndoes not appear until the time of Deuteronomy, and is quite unknown to\nthe older strata of the Pentateuch. In these older strata all mention\nof the actual making of the ark is omitted, although there is evidence\nthat they did contain an account of its preparation and meaning.\nEnough, however, is told us of the reverential treatment of it, to show\nthat it was a symbol of higher sanctity than a mere receptacle for the\nstones of the law would be likely to be. It is certainly very closely\nidentified with Jehovah Himself, as may be seen from Num. x. 35. (This\nis in poetic form, and is therefore likely to be a very early fragment.\nIt should be noticed that the ark apparently starts of itself.) Its\npresence in the battlefield ensures victory, while its absence brings\nabout defeat (Num. xiv. 42-45; 1 Sam. iv. 3-7; v. 1 ff.). It can hardly\nbe that the ark was taken for Jehovah Himself, but it must have\ncontained something that was closely identified with Jehovah; a box\nis not built except with the idea of holding something. We have seen\nthat it is unlikely that that something was originally the two tables\nof the law; was it something else of stone which made the transference\nto the tables of the law at once necessary and natural? Was it a stone\nimage of Jehovah? It has been conjectured that it may have contained\nmeteoritic stones, which would agree with the proposed derivation of\n\"Jehovah\" from the Storm God of Sinai. There is nothing in the Old\nTestament which gives any support to these conjectures, but in face\nof the fact that the original narrative of the making of the ark has\nbeen omitted, and in view of the ideas of religion which were common\nin that period, we cannot say that they are absolutely excluded from\nconsideration. The ark was certainly bound up with the idea of war, and\nwould seem to have been kept in a soldier's tent. It was transferred to\nthe dark inner temple till 586 B.C., and from that date all trace of it\nis lost. The Priest's Code (\"P\") makes provision for it in the second\ntemple, but we have unimpeachable Jewish testimony that the shrine of\nthe inner temple was absolutely empty (Josephus, _War of the Jews_, v.\nv. \u00a7 5). Jeremiah may have been aware of the original significance of\nthe ark as tending towards idolatry, and hence his words in Jer. iii.\n16.\n\n(2) _Ordinances of Worship._ It remains for us to enquire into the\ncharacter of the religion founded by Moses by an examination of some of\nthe outstanding ordinances that regulated the idea of worship.\n\nHere the traditional ascription of the fully developed ritual of the\nBook of Leviticus to Moses has to be set aside, on the consideration\nthat we have no record of its observance until late in the period of\nthe monarchy, and from then it can be traced as a gradual growth of\ncustom and ideal until its complete observance after the Exile.\n\nThere does not seem to have been any priesthood of the exclusive\nLevitical order founded by Moses. The story of the Levites in Exod.\nxxxii. can only be a late story, for there is no record of their\nmonopoly of the ritual service until the Reform under Josiah:\nJoshua, an Ephraimite, is the \"servant of the tent\"; Samuel, also an\nEphraimite, sleeps beside the ark (1 Sam. iii. 3); David and Solomon\nassume a kind of chief priesthood (2 Sam. vi. 13; 1 Kings viii. 5, 62\nff.), and of course neither of them were Levites. The story in Judges\nxvii. gives what is perhaps the true position of the Levites: anyone\ncould be consecrated as a family priest, but the presence of a Levite\nwas reckoned propitious. Down to a very late age sacrifice seems to\nhave remained largely a tribal or family act, and although a descendant\nof Moses' tribe (Levi) was regarded as possessing special advantage,\nthere was no law by which Levites alone were reckoned capable of\ndischarging priestly functions.\n\nIn the matter of sacrifice, it would seem that Moses simply adopted\nwhat was a very ancient and common practice. In face of the evident\nneglect of the Levitical ritual in matters of sacrifice, both by\nthe common people and by such great reformers as Samuel and Elijah,\ntogether with the fact that in the teaching of the prophets doubts are\ncast on its divine origin (Isa. i. 11; Amos v. 25; Micah vi. 6-8),\nwe cannot infer that the detailed and explicit commands concerning\nsacrifice found in the Book of Leviticus are the work of Moses,\nor belong to an early age. To the Prophets, sacrifice is always\nreminiscent of paganism. The time when the change came in may be\ndetected in the different value given to sacrifice by the post-exilic\nprophets (Mal. i. 13 f.), while the incompatibility of the two views,\nprophetic and priestly, can be seen from the addition which has been\nmade to Ps. li., to bring it into accord with the later view.\n\nNeither is it possible for us to believe that the elaborate shrine\nknown as the Tabernacle owed its existence to Moses. The impossibility\nof transporting the cumbrous fixtures through the wilderness had been\nnoticed before the modern era of critical study. A close examination\nof the details of construction shows that it is nothing more than an\nideal projection from the mind of a priestly writer who believed that\na tent-like counterpart of Ezekiel's temple was essential to Israel's\nworship in the wilderness. It is enough to recall that the tabernacle\nof the priestly writer's imagination is quite unknown to the historical\nbooks. In Exod. xxxiii. 7 ff., which may be seen to be only a fragment\nof an early document, since it starts abruptly by describing \"the\"\ntent, which is known as the Tent of Meeting, we have what has been\ntaken to be the Tabernacle; but it is nothing more than a tent for\nkeeping the ark in.\n\n(3) _Legislation._ How much of the legislation of the Pentateuch is\nto be ascribed to Moses we cannot tell. Too many hands have been at\nwork on it for the original to be discovered. A remarkable discovery\nwas made in the year 1901 of some enormous _steles_, which bear in\ncuneiform characters what is now known as the Code of Hammurabi, the\noldest code of laws in the world, the date of which is reckoned to\nbe 2250 B.C. They presuppose an advanced state of civilisation and\nmorality existing in the Euphrates valley at that period. The agreement\nbetween the Pentateuchal Code and the Code of Hammurabi argues\ndependence of the former on the latter to a very considerable extent,\nand supplies a still further testimony to the extent to which the\nreligion of Israel is indebted to Babylon. The exact bearing of this\ndiscovery upon critical theories, and especially upon the date of the\nPentateuch has perhaps hardly been estimated yet; it does not, however,\nrefute the theory which denies that the Pentateuch as it stands is from\nthe hand of Moses.\n\nWe naturally think of the Decalogue as the work of Moses, but here\nwe are faced by the difficulty that the Decalogue appears to exist\nin three recensions (Exod. xx. 1-17; xxxiv. 14-28; Deut. v. 6-21).\nThe account in Exod. xxxiv., which forms part of the document \"J,\" is\nreckoned to be the oldest of these, and the original of this might well\ngo back to the time of Moses. It has been objected that the Decalogue\nis too ethical to suit the time of Moses, but is this not because we\nare inclined to read into the Ten Commandments far more than is to be\nfound there? It can be shown that they are little more than ten laws\nof \"rights.\" A special difficulty is found in ascribing the second\ncommandment to this age, in view of its frequent uncensured breach;\nbut perhaps there is some difference that escapes us between a molten\nimage, which is prescribed in the first draft (Exod. xxxiv. 17), and\nthe later prohibition of the graven image (Exod. xx. 4).\n\nIn the foregoing examination we have allowed for the most rigorous\ndemands of advanced criticism, demands which may have to be modified\nas criticism becomes more of a science, but there remains the need to\ndiscover what there was, on these critical assumptions, in the Mosaic\nreligion that provided the way for a further advance into the faith\nwhich became the glory of Israel. What is it that makes the difference\nbetween Mosaism and the heathen Semitic religions, a difference which\nwas to make the gradual growth of a pure Monotheism possible?\n\nThe first important element which needs to be reckoned with is that it\nwas a religion of choice rather than a religion of nature. We saw that\nit was difficult to conceive how the religion of Jehovah could have\nbeen adopted by Israel unless there had been some previous contact.\nWhat is so difficult to understand is nevertheless the one element\nthat contained the possibility of progress. The relation of Israel to\nJehovah was neither by physical descent nor through the connection of\nthe god with the land, as with the heathen Semitic religions. Jehovah\nwas at first conceived of as the God of the tribe only, but even\nthis was not by nature, but by His gracious choice. Their land was\ngiven to them by Jehovah, but His natural connection was with a far\ndistant shrine. This fact in itself must have rendered necessary some\nmore spiritual conception of His habitation, and, though hard enough\nfor the common people to realise, when they entered Canaan and found\na full-grown cultus and religion in connection with the god of the\nland already in possession, it was this fact upon which the Prophets\nfastened and which could not be denied: the religion of Jehovah was a\nmatter of choice and not of racial or local connection. That choice\nhad been ratified by solemn covenant, to which the Prophets appealed.\nThe relation between Jehovah and Israel depended therefore on the\nconditions of the covenant being faithfully kept. When we compare the\nreligions of the other Semites, which made the relation of the god\nand his people one which nothing could break, and from which neither\nthe god nor the people could escape, we can see how this difference\nconstituted one of the ethical germs of the religion which was destined\nto grow into fuller power and life.\n\nThere was another important conception, which was intensified by the\nfact that the religion of Jehovah was a religion of choice: that of\nthe jealousy of Jehovah. This was often interpreted, especially in\nthe pre-prophetic period, in a very crude and in even a cruel way.\nThe jealousy of Jehovah was very like the human passion: uncertain,\narbitrary and irrational, manifesting itself according to the popular\nmind in outbreaks of fury for ceremonial mistakes, or for causes even\nless comprehensible (Num. iii. 4; 2 Sam. vi. 7). In all the religions\nit was thought to be a serious thing to depart from the allegiance\nto the rightful god, and sure to lay one open to his jealousy and\nvengeance; but something more is now found in this idea as it develops\nin Hebrew thought: it is that the jealousy of Jehovah is due to the\ngreat difference between Him and the other gods, a difference which\ncame to be recognised as one of character. Something of this must go\nback to Moses himself.\n\nThis difference is also expressed in the idea that He is a God of\nrighteousness. The word \"righteousness\" does not always have in\nthe Hebrew Scriptures the absolute meaning which it has for us. It\nwas rather equal to our word \"rights,\" which we often employ quite\nunethically. Jehovah was one who gave right judgments when questions\nwere submitted and answered by the lot, and One who brought victory\nto the right. It was undoubtedly Israel's right that was chiefly\nconsidered, but there was hidden in it an ethical germ which was to\nbring forth notable fruit when man's sense of right was widened.\n\nThis at least was the mark of the new religion which Moses impressed on\nthe people, impressed with such a force that it could never be quite\nforgotten. It had new thoughts pregnant with meaning for the mind of\nman and for the future of religion, and these became the fulcrum of the\nProphets' appeal. From the bosom of this people was to come forth One\nwho was to reveal the Father as perfectly righteous and impartial, and\nwho demands for His service a righteousness that must far exceed that\nof the straitest observers of external religion.\n\nIt would be easy for us to despise this day of small beginnings, or\nto refuse to see in it any real revelation of God at all. Doubtless\nthis enquiry may necessitate a change in our conceptions of the work\nof Moses, but it is one that we are forced to by a multitude of facts,\nand we must find a theory of inspiration wide enough to fit them. Crude\nas we may make the beginnings of Israel's faith, natural as we may\nfeel are the laws by which it worked towards its growth, we have not\nbeen able to get any nearer to some of those ultimate questions which\nask how religion begins, what the nature of revelation is, and how it\ncomes to man's mind. We need not think that God had to break in on the\nmind of Moses, so that the personality of the man was in abeyance while\nGod worked through him. When God wishes to bring men to a higher truth\nHe does not supernaturally communicate it; He makes human nature to\nproduce personalities whose minds come naturally to the truth. There\ncan be no separation of natural and supernatural here; wherever that\nseparation is to be made, we certainly cannot make it. There can be\nno meaning in revelation, and no possibility of it, unless God has\nmade man's mind to be growingly in touch with Him and to be capable of\nreceiving His revelation by the natural working of thought, so that it\nseems to spring up within his own consciousness.\n\nDeeper into this question we are not called upon to go at present, but\nno one can object that it is less reverent, or that it shows signs of a\ndecay of faith, if men can see God to-day not only in the extraordinary\nand the supernatural, but also in the ordinary and the natural. If the\nrecognition of God depends on spiritual vision, then those who refuse\nto narrow the limits within which God can be seen, and who therefore\nwelcome all truth with gladness and without fear, are not to be called\ngodless and unspiritual.\n\nWe should learn to be thankful for Moses, for he was faithful as far as\nhe knew; if we were as faithful in proportion to the fuller light which\nhas come to us, religion would be a very real and inclusive thing. We\nshould also learn to take heart, if from these beginnings such mighty\nmovements have sprung. The mistakes inevitable to the human mind do not\ndestroy the possibility of revelation, the error cannot everlastingly\nobscure the truth, nor in the long run will evil triumph over good.\nIt was possible in that far off age, it was possible in all ages, it\nis possible now, for a mind still far from the true conception of the\nultimate nature of God to yet grasp something, and by a supreme faith\nin the leading of a Mighty Power to lift a whole nation, and through it\nthe world, one stage further on in goodness and truth.\n\n\n\n\nTHE INFLUENCE OF CANAAN\n\n\n  As an introduction to Lecture IV. the reader is advised to make a\n  careful study of Judges i. 1-ii. 5, a mutilated fragment of a very\n  early and reliable account of the invasion of Canaan. The opening\n  words (verse 1) refer the events which follow to the period after\n  the death of Joshua; but the Book of Joshua has already recorded\n  the complete conquest of Canaan, so that there can be no place for\n  this further invasion on a far less ambitious plan, and apparently\n  with less successful results. It will be noticed, however, that\n  this account easily falls away from the main body of the narrative;\n  Judges ii. 6 follows naturally after Joshua xxiv. 28, and ignores\n  what comes between. We have, therefore, in this account another\n  history of the conquest of Canaan, which contradicts altogether the\n  impression--which we get from reading the Book of Joshua--that the\n  conquest of Canaan was effected by the tribes acting in unison, that\n  it was complete, and that the conquered were exterminated; it records\n  a movement of tribes acting independently, there is no \"conquest\" in\n  the ordinary sense of the term, but a footing is obtained alongside\n  the original inhabitants of the land.\n\n  This account of a gradual immigration of tribes is confirmed by the\n  discovery of inscriptions, which seem to show that there were some\n  tribes of the Hebrews in Palestine before the traditional date of the\n  Conquest, and even before the Exodus.\n\n  Until quite lately the history of Egypt has thrown no light on these\n  events. It has not even been possible to identify with any certainty\n  the Pharaoh under whom the Exodus took place. One identification\n  is now fairly certain. The Pharaoh who enslaved the Israelites was\n  Rameses III., for discoveries have proved that it was he who built\n  Pithom (Exod. i. 11); the Exodus has therefore been referred to\n  the reigns of Merneptah or Seti II., his immediate successors. The\n  objection to this is that in these reigns both the peninsula of\n  Sinai and the land of Palestine were under full Egyptian control,\n  and therefore the Exodus must be put later on, when this control\n  slackened. This would bring the Exodus to the date of 1200-1180 B.C.\n  and the Conquest some fifty years later.\n\n  The latest discoveries tend to throw this result into confusion.\n  Names, which it is proposed to identify with tribes of the\n  Israelites, have been found in inscriptions belonging to earlier\n  reigns. On an inscription of Rameses II. the name of Asher is found\n  as dwelling in North Palestine. In a list of Thotmes III. (still\n  earlier, Sixteenth Century, B.C.) we find the names Jacob and Joseph\n  in the significant combination, Jacob-el and Joseph-el, used to\n  describe the Dan-Ephraim district of Palestine. This makes it more\n  likely that the Tel-el-Amarna tablets (dated Fourteenth Century,\n  B.C.) refer to the Hebrews. In these letters, addressed to Amenophis\n  IV., the King of Jerusalem appeals for help against an invasion of\n  the _Habiri_, who are led by Abd Ashera. The invasion is not by a\n  large force, as may be seen from the fact that it is thought thirty\n  or forty Egyptian soldiers will be sufficient for the purpose of\n  resisting their attacks. More certain than any of these references\n  is the occurrence of the name of Israel on a Stele of Merneptah,\n  in connection with a recital of his triumphs in Syria. The form in\n  which this reference is made leaves no doubt that, by this period,\n  Israel was already settled in Palestine. (\"Israel is laid waste,\n  its corn is annihilated.\") There is no confirmation of a Syrian\n  campaign under Merneptah, and it may be that in accordance with the\n  fashion of the age, he is including among his victories the exploits\n  of his predecessors; this would agree with the earlier date for the\n  occupation of Canaan by Israel which the previous references seem to\n  require.\n\n  The exact bearing of these discoveries has yet to be determined, but\n  they either require us to put the date of the Exodus earlier, which\n  would in itself be difficult, or, what would bring light on many\n  problems, assume that not all the tribes were in bondage in Egypt,\n  and that the invasion of Canaan by various tribes, only long after\n  welded into a nation, was spread over a long period.\n\n\n\n\nLecture IV\n\nTHE INFLUENCE OF CANAAN\n\n\nIf the nation of Israel may be said to have been born in captivity,\nbaptised in the Red Sea, and awakened to national consciousness at\nMount Sinai, then the settlement in Canaan corresponds to the no\nless critical period of adolescence, when, training and tutelage\nbeing over, youth must choose its own path and fight its way in the\nworld. Certain it is that the entrance into Canaan largely determined\nthe future of this people, for it must have profoundly modified the\nnational character, turning as it did nomadic tribes into a settled and\ncivilised people; but above all, and what more concerns us, it proved\nextremely critical for the fate of that as yet untried revelation of\nJehovah, which had still to win its way against the heathenism of\nthe common people, and was now by this new experience called upon to\nmeasure its strength against the attraction of a competing faith.\n\nThe peculiar and pathetic love of the Jews for Canaan is largely due to\nthe remembrance that it was not their own land but the long promised\ngift of Jehovah, standing therefore to all time as the material proof\nof His love for Israel; while their estimate of it was intensely\ndeepened by the wilderness experience which preceded. That estimate\nseems to us somewhat exaggerated, for to-day Palestine has almost given\nup the struggle against the always threatening advance of the desert.\nIt has certainly changed for the worse under neglect and misrule, but\nit can never have been a too indulgent land; only comparison with the\nbare and awful desert can have called forth the description, \"a land\nflowing with milk and honey.\" With the long memory of restless nomadic\nlife and the bitter thought of bondage, any land would seem welcome\nthat offered them freedom and safety; while to those approaching it\nfrom the desert it seemed as fair and fruitful a land as men could\ndesire.\n\nAll lands have contributed largely to the character of the nations they\nhave reared, and the wilderness ancestry and the character of Canaan\nhave played their part in the development of Israel.\n\nThe very geographical position of Canaan helps us to understand the\nHebrews, and even to see how it was that in this land it was possible\nto nurture from such unpromising beginnings the wonderful development\nof religion that was to make this smallest of all lands one of the most\nsacred spots on earth, and this strange and limited people among the\ngreatest contributors to the moral and religious ideas of humanity.\nCrushed in between the sea and the desert, hemmed in by great military\npowers, the little buffer state itself the very crossways of East and\nWest, its roads never long at rest from the tramp of armies; here was\na land in which all dreams of fame and empire were hammered out, and\nnothing left possible save an empire of spiritual power and the fame of\na unique religion. A people strangely proud and passionately exclusive,\nthey could never rest under the dominion of their great neighbours,\nhowever light the burden imposed; and since sustained resistance was\nout of the question by reason of their inferior numbers and lack of\nmilitary power, they resorted to irritating acts of rebellion, or\nintrigued with the enemies of their overlords, and so brought down on\ntheir land frequent vengeance. Such was their untameable nature that\nthe only practical policy open to Babylon, if she wished to insure the\nloyalty, or at least, the neutrality of Palestine, was to deport the\nJews bodily to where they could be under observation.\n\nSo we find the greatest heroes of Jewish history--from Moses, through\nGideon and Samson, to David and Judas Maccab\u00e6us--are those who deliver\nthe nation from oppression; while Israel's prayers are largely cries\nfor succour against enemies, or for Divine vengeance on the oppressor;\nonly too eloquent a witness of the sense of their own impotence. Yet it\nwas precisely this experience that forced their religion to rise above\nthe common type, to conquer its natural tendencies, and to become the\nmost magnificent faith in God that the world has seen. Of this they\nthemselves were not ignorant; for one of their writers points to the\neasy lot of Moab as the cause of their irreligion (Jer. xlviii. 11),\nand one of the Psalmists says that it is the men who have no changes\nwho fear not God (lv. 19). We need not consider the utterly feeble\nobjection that all this makes the religion of Israel the outcome of\nnatural necessity, rather than of Divine revelation; for God made the\nland that made Israel.\n\nThe entry into Canaan was therefore one of the most critical periods in\nthe history of this people and in the development of the religion of\nthe Old Testament. It is, however, extremely difficult to discover from\nthe means at our disposal just how or when that entry was effected. The\nsources for this period are found in the Books of Joshua and Judges,\nbut, from comparison with much in the history that follows, it is clear\nthat they do not present us with absolute history; yet a critical\nexamination of these books enables us to recover the essential facts.\n\nA study of the preface to this lecture will show that the story of\nthe Conquest is obscure in its details and difficult to reconcile\nwith modern discoveries. A careful examination of our sources shows\nthat the description of the entry of the Hebrews into Canaan as a\n\"conquest,\" which was settled by a few decisive battles, is at least\nrather fanciful; and as a matter of fact we have quite another picture\nin the first chapter of Judges, which partakes more of the character\nof an \"alien immigration,\" a method of \"conquest\" in which the Jews\nhave always been remarkably successful. The history in Joshua certainly\nrepresents the Conquest as striking, complete, and followed by a\nruthless extermination of the defenders of their native land. In view\nof the relations that were for long maintained between the Canaanites\nand the Hebrews, the representation in Judges i. must be regarded\nas nearer to the facts than the story of the Conquest according to\nthe Book of Joshua. The children of Israel dwelt side by side with\nthe Canaanites, simply because they were not able to drive them out;\nand as a result the tribes were frequently divided by strong belts\nof Canaanitish territory. Right through the time of the Judges we\nget warfare between the Israelites and the inhabitants of the land;\nsometimes in pitched battles between the Canaanites and the united\ntribes of Israel (Judges iv. v.), but more generally in guerilla\nwarfare or in the sudden surprise of a Canaanitish garrison (Judges\nxviii.). The result of the conflict seems to have been the gradual\nabsorption of the two elements into one nation. The records definitely\nadmit that it was not until the time of David that the Jebusites were\ndriven from Jerusalem (2 Sam. v. 6, 7), and not until Solomon that the\nsuperiority of the Israelites was finally established (1 Kings ix. 20,\n21). It surely is an immense relief to think that the huge slaughters\nrecorded in the Book of Joshua are, to say the least, exaggerations.\n\nThe history in Judges also clearly shows that there was little cohesion\nbetween the tribes. They filtered across the Jordan only by degrees,\nand there is evidence that this process may have extended over a\nconsiderable time. We have records of quarrels between Gideon and\nEphraim (Judges viii. 1), and between Jephthah and Ephraim (Judges xii.\n1). These inter-tribal conflicts might have been serious, were it not\nfor the circumstance that the Israelites were no sooner settled in the\nland than other tribes of desert invaders began to press upon them, and\nthey had to sink family differences in order to combine against the\ncommon enemy.\n\nThe song of Deborah (Judges v.) is one of the most valuable documents\nwe possess for the light which it throws on the conditions of religious\nand national life in this period, for it is probably the only document\nin the Old Testament, earlier than the founding of the monarchy, that\nis contemporary with the events it describes. It shows that the tribes\nhad somewhat improved their position, for they now seem to be in\npossession of the highlands of Ephraim, although the plains are still\nin the hands of the Canaanites. The growing power of the Israelites\nand their threatening predominance moved the Canaanites to a united\neffort to repress Israel. It is to face this danger that the Prophetess\nDeborah calls the tribes; but from the way in which the praise and\nblame is meted out we can see that a strong sense of national unity\nwas still lacking. The important point to be noticed is that the bond\nof unity to which Deborah could appeal was the name of Jehovah. It\nshould be noted also that in the enumeration of the tribes, Judah,\nSimeon, and Levi are altogether omitted. In the case of so important a\ntribe as Judah this is significant, for it agrees with the fact that\nuntil the time of David this tribe does not come into prominence. It\nhas been conjectured that Judah was only a small tribe, and may have\ninvaded Canaan from the south, for it is difficult to conceive how it\ncould have crossed the strong Canaanitish territory which separated it\nfrom the other tribes. At any rate, at this time it was not regarded as\none of the tribes of Israel; it may have been that this tribe embraced\na strong Canaanitish element (Gen. xxxviii.), and this fact may have\ncontributed to the resentment which broke out among the other tribes\nwhen Judah assumed the hegemony in the time of David, and which led in\nthe end to the disruption of the Kingdom.\n\nIn our sources the history of this period has attached to it a\nreligious interpretation: apostasy, and disobedience to the commands\nof Jehovah were the causes of the people being sold into the power\nof their enemies; when they returned to the worship of Jehovah and\npenitently pleaded for His forgiveness then deliverers were raised\nup who vanquished their oppressors. This can be nothing but a late\ninterpretation, for the religion of the Book of Judges is of quite\na fixed order, and many of the stories recorded in it will not lend\nthemselves to any such interpretation. The hand that supplied this\nreading of the history of this period has been identified with the\nauthor of Deuteronomy, or, as some would prefer to say, with the\nschool of thought that produced that work. There is a religious lesson\nin this history, as in all history; but it is hardly to be found in\na series of apostasies and returns. There are really four separate\nendeavours to account for the undoubted fact of the Canaanites being\nspared. (1) Israel was not able to drive them out (Judges i. 19, 27).\n(2) Israel was only commanded to drive them out by degrees, \"lest\nthe beasts of the field increase upon thee\" (Deut. vii. 22). (3) It\nwas a providential arrangement to keep the Israelites practised in\nwar (Judges iii. 1, 2). (4) It was due to direct disobedience to the\ncommand of Jehovah (Judges ii. 20).\n\nThe history does not entitle us to assume that the judges were\nofficials who exercised kingly rights over a united Israel. The word\ntranslated \"Judge\" more often means \"Deliverer,\" and this is certainly\nthe part that they play. Of some of the so-called minor judges we know\nnothing beyond their names, and there is evidence that they have simply\nbeen used to fill out a traditional period of 480 years (1 Kings vi.\n1). Whenever the \"Judges\" assumed kingly or judicial functions trouble\nand rebellion always followed. The figure of Samson displays little\nfitness for ruling a nation or guiding it in religion, but the stones\nof his life are illuminating for the understanding of the morality and\ninterests of that age.\n\nWith this revised conception of the history of the Conquest, and of\nthe events which followed, we are in a better position to estimate the\neffect of the change from nomadic life to a settled existence, and to\nunderstand how critical for the future of the religion of Jehovah this\nchange was.\n\nWe see tribes possessing little national unity, but bound together by\na religion in which lay the germ of a mighty future, entering a land\nwhere the inhabitants had reached a higher stage of civilisation, and\npossessed a religion that drew its power from the fact that it was the\nworship of Baal, the possessor and owner of the land. In face of these\nconditions it was almost inevitable that many of the customs of the\noriginal inhabitants should be gradually adopted, and that the religion\nof Jehovah should borrow something from the religion indigenous to the\nland. This was certainly the result which followed. For a considerable\nperiod we find a religion prevalent among the common people, which is\nsimply a conflation of the two religions. There were certain elements\ncommon to both, and certain advantages in the one, together with\ncorresponding weaknesses in the other, that prepared the way for this\nsyncretism.\n\nWe shall now turn to examine the religion of the Canaanites, which\nwe shall find to partake largely of the common elements of Semitic\nreligion. Their deities were personifications of natural forces,\nand among these there is no one which is supreme, and nothing that\ntends to Monotheism. The gods are friendly and destructive by turn,\nand of unreliable character. It is nothing more than an undeveloped\nPolytheism. The religion, as it is seen in the Old Testament, groups\nitself around three names: Baal, Ashtoreth (often written in plural\nform Ashtaroth), and Molech (otherwise written Moloch, Milcom, and\nknown to the Phoenicians as Melkart).\n\nThe name of Baal has a hateful memory in the pages of the Old Testament\nas the Canaanitish deity to whom Israel constantly apostatised. The\nexact significance of Baal in the Canaanitish religion is a matter of\ndispute. He has been identified with the sun, and by the Greeks with\nZeus; so that it has been inferred that Baal was the President of the\nCanaanitish Pantheon. This view is no longer generally accepted, for\nit certainly fails to fit in with the records of the cult preserved in\nthe Old Testament. The word \"Baal\" is not a proper name, but signifies\n\"the Possessor\"; it is used in Semitic language for \"husband,\" as\nthe possessor of the wife, and is used as the name for deity, as the\npossessor of the land. Every land, and indeed every locality, will\ntherefore have its own Baal; so that in the Old Testament we hear of\nthe \"Baalim\" (the Hebrew plural), and these local Baalim are further\ndistinguished by the addition of the name of their locality or of\nsome event with which they were connected, as Baal-Peor, Baal-Berith,\nBaal-Zebul. The \"Baal\" is especially responsible for sending rain and\nsunshine, and for giving fruitful seasons. He is, therefore, the god\nof agriculture, and the great events of the agricultural year, such\nas harvest and vintage, are observed as his festivals. It is natural\nto find the uncertainty of the weather reflected in the character of\nthe Baalim, with the result that we get a religion alternating between\nintoxicating joy and the deepest gloom. To appease the fickle god or to\nwin his favour sacrifices, even of human lives, are presented, and if\nBaal continues unheeding, scenes of the most unrestrained fanaticism\nprevail. It is this gloomy religion which darkens the times of the\nlater Kings of Judah.\n\nThe Canaanitish Baal should be distinguished from the Baal of Tyre\n(Melkart) whose worship was introduced by Ahab. Here the introduction\nof an alien Baal, with probably different rites and ceremonies, awoke\nthe resentment of the prophetic party under the leadership of Elijah,\nbut the worship of the Canaanite Baal was maintained for long unchecked.\n\nClosely connected with the worship of the Baalim we find the worship\nof the Ashtaroth (Judges ii. 13). The pronunciation of this word is\nobscure; it was probably _Ashtart_, and the singular form, Ashtoreth\n(1 Kings xi. 5), has been formed by inserting the vowels of the word\n_bosheth_ (shame), a common device in the Old Testament for expressing\ncontempt. Ashtart is the female counterpart of Baal, and is spoken of\nin the plural for a similar reason. Monuments of the worship of Ashtart\nare still to be found, and from these it is evident that we have here\nthe worship of the goddess of sexual passion, as common in polytheistic\nsystems, and best known in the Greek worship of Aphrodite. The whole\nconception of Ashtart can be traced to the famous goddess _Ishtar_\nof Babylonian religion, and there is only too certain evidence that\nin Canaan as elsewhere the degrading rite of religious prostitution\nwas used in this worship of female divinity (Hosea iv. 13). The\nidentification of Ashtart with the \"Queen of Heaven\" (Jer. vii. 18;\nxliv. 15-25) is not so certain. As far as the worship of the latter is\ndescribed to us, it looks like an importation of the Babylonian worship\nof Ishtar, who was identified with the planet Venus or sometimes with\nthe moon. The \"cakes to pourtray her\" (Jer. xliv. 19) may have been\ncrescent-shaped cakes.\n\nOf a similar character was the worship that gathered around the name of\nMolech. We have here simply the word for king (_Milk_) with the vowels\nof _bosheth_. Of this name, Moloch, Milcom, and Melkart of Tyre are\nvariations. Molech is not to be distinguished from Baal, as may be seen\nfrom Jer. xix. 5, where the practice of passing children through the\nfire, which was certainly connected with the worship of Molech, is a\npart of the worship of Baal. This burnt-sacrifice of children evidently\nbelonged to the Canaanitish religion (2 Kings xvi. 3).\n\nThis then was the religion of the Canaanites: in times of prosperity\nand fruitful seasons, one of rejoicing and festivity; but in time of\nfamine, drought or national danger, one of the most hopeless gloom and\nof the most fearful fanaticism. In conflict with this religion, the\npurer worship of Jehovah yet presented certain weaknesses; these are\nfound chiefly in points of possible identification, which in the course\nof the history actually took place. This may be difficult for us to\nunderstand until we remember that Baal and Molech, to Semitic ears,\nsimply meant \"Lord\" and \"King\"; and Jehovah was the \"Lord\" and \"King\"\nof Israel. If the character of Jehovah was not clearly apprehended as\nmoral by the common people, we can see how easy it was for confusion to\ntake place.\n\nThe great weakness of the religion of Jehovah was that He was not the\nGod of Canaan. His home was in distant Sinai, and the only symbol of\nHis presence was the ark, a symbol bound up with the idea of war. As\nthe people settled down to a peaceful agricultural life, the need for\nJehovah, the warrior God, would not be keenly felt. There was certainly\na party from the very first who recognised the difference between\nJehovah and Baal and fought against their identification, but so long\nas Baal was believed to be a real being the danger of his secret\nworship at least was never far away. Every land had its own god, and\nalthough the people knew that Jehovah was their God, yet they might\nthink it necessary, and not inconsistent, to pay their respects to the\nlocal Baalim on whom they were dependent for the fruits of the earth\n(Hosea ii. 8). Nothing therefore but a national calamity could revive\nthe old religion in face of the attractions of the new; if peace had\nbeen continuous it is hard to see how the religion founded by Moses\ncould have persevered. Such dangerous peace the Children of Israel\nwere not to enjoy. We soon hear the rousing call to the help of Jehovah\nin the Song of Deborah, and it was the threatened domination by the\nPhilistines that called the monarchy into existence and revived the\nreligion of Jehovah.\n\nMeanwhile, however, a process of syncretism was gradually taking place,\nwhich it was to be the task of the Prophets to unravel; and how far\nit had gone may be seen from the difficulty they found in making the\ncharacter of Jehovah and the moral demand made upon His worshippers\nclear to the people. \"Jehovah,\" it must be remembered, was a name\nlargely personal. Baal was a general name for deity, and could be\napplied to Jehovah quite truthfully. That this actually took place\nmay be seen from a number of passages in the Old Testament. The most\ninstructive instance is to be found in Hosea ii. 16; but the names\ngiven to places point in the same direction: David calls the spot\nwhere Jehovah broke his enemies, Baal-perazim; the same god is called\nindiscriminately, Baal-berith (Judges viii. 33; ix. 4) and El-berith\n(Judges ix. 46). This practice accounts for the names of Saul's son,\nEshbaal, and of Jonathan's son, Meribbaal (1 Chron. viii. 33, 34), both\nof which have been altered in the Book of Samuel to \"bosheth.\" (In\nobedience to the command of Exod. xxiii. 13, _Bosheth_ was substituted\nfor _Baal_ in reading the Scriptures. The written text was altered in\nmany places at a later period; the Chronicler must have found _Baal_ in\nhis text of Samuel; that is about 200 B.C.) The names of Jehovah and\nBaal therefore came to have the same significance, and the distinction\nbegan to be missed; Jehovah was still the God of Israel, but the moral\nelements of His religion were gradually diluted with the naturalistic\nconceptions of the worship of Baal. Jehovah becomes the Baal of the\nland; that is, the relation between Him and Israel is conceived in a\nnatural and even physical way. It is therefore no longer a covenant\nrelation, which depends on the observance of moral obligations, but\none of nature which cannot be broken by either party. Naturally the\nsanctuaries of the Canaanites are taken over by the Israelites, and\nJehovah is worshipped in \"the high places.\" All through the history\nworship at these local sanctuaries is condemned, but only from a later\nstandpoint, for the earliest Book of Laws permitted an altar to be\nerected anywhere where Jehovah had manifested Himself (Exod. xx. 24).\nAround some of these undoubtedly Canaanitish sanctuaries the stories\nof the Patriarchs gathered, but from the practices which prevailed at\nsuch places as Bethel we can see that heathen rites were used, for here\nJeroboam set up the golden calves, which seem to have been used in the\nworship of Jehovah, for neither Elijah nor Amos condemns them. Jehovah\nis now worshipped all over the land, but there is the same tendency to\nregard each separate place as having its local deity, and so Jehovah is\nmultiplied (perhaps, Jer. xi. 13) and needs to be further identified\nby the addition of place names, as in the strange name El-bethel (Gen.\nxxxv. 7), El-elohe-Israel (Gen. xxxiii. 20), in a way that is very\nlike the multiplication of the Baalim. So deeply was the worship of\nJehovah mixed up with Canaanitish ideas that in the reign of Josiah the\nonly possibility of reform lay in forbidding the worship at the local\nsanctuaries altogether and concentrating all worship at the central\nsanctuary of Jerusalem.\n\nNothing but this process of syncretism can explain the condition of\nreligion in the subsequent history, and it is needed to enable us to\nunderstand both the difficulty of the work of the Prophets and the form\ntheir message takes.\n\nNevertheless, there must have been from the earliest times elements\nthat made for a purer faith, and that never acquiesced in this\nconfusion between Jehovah and Baal, which certainly prevailed in\nthe popular mind; otherwise the Reformation of the Eighth Century\nwould be an isolated and inexplicable movement, and without that\nhistorical support the Prophets claimed. There was a party against Baal\naltogether, although they do not emerge until the monarchy. This party\nmay have consisted of the \"priests\" of Jehovah. At mention of these\nwe must not think of the sacrificing priests described in the Book of\nLeviticus. No such persons are known until after the exile; during\nthis period anyone could sacrifice. The story of the priest in Judges\nxvii. gives a good idea of this class; his chief duties seem to have\nconsisted in keeping the oracle and obtaining decisions by the lot.\nThese decisions became the basis on which there was gradually built up\nthe _Torah_ (the Law), which, as the word implies, was a collection\nof decisions obtained by casting lots. For the purpose of obtaining\nthese decisions the priests seem to have used an idol of some kind;\nfor this is the most natural explanation of the Ephod and its use in\nthe early history. There would be different degrees of intellectual\nand moral capacity found in the ranks of the priests, and many of them\nmay have had higher ideals of their duties than the one mentioned in\nJudges. It would be likely that those who were in charge of the Sacred\nArk possessed a superior dignity and maintained a purer tradition.\nGradually the magical accompaniments to their oracular decisions may\nhave given way to more judicial deliverances, although in the time of\nDavid and Abiathar they were apparently still used (1 Sam. xxx. 7). At\nany rate the priests kept alive the idea of Jehovah as the dispenser of\njustice, and helped to build up that system of laws for which Israel is\nso justly famous.\n\nThis \"higher critical\" view of the history is simply one to which\nwe are driven by the records that stand nearest to the times they\ndescribe. It certainly alters considerably the ordinary conceptions of\nthe type of religion that prevailed in those early days, before the\ncoming of the Prophets; but that such was the type is only too clearly\nshown by the writings of the Prophets themselves. Nevertheless this\nview of the period, while it shuts out a somewhat stiff and mechanical\nreligious interpretation of the history which has been forced upon\nit by a later age, is still not without a valuable lesson, which is\nperhaps not taught elsewhere in the Bible, and yet is one that we\nneed to have always before us. It is one, the possibility of which\nalways exists and often threatens a spiritual religion: the danger\nof a gradual encroachment and assimilation of pagan ideas until the\noriginal purity is lost almost beyond recovery. If this has happened\nanywhere it has happened in Christianity. It was the awakening to\nthis paganisation of Christianity that provoked the struggle of the\nReformation, not yet decided. Many of the conceptions that are still\npopularly identified with Christianity are the remnants of paganism.\nIt is not necessary to enumerate the common customs which wear only a\nthin veneer of Christianity; but many of the ideas in connection with\nChristian Doctrine certainly owe more to pagan philosophy than they do\nto the New Testament. The syncretism between Paganism and Christianity\nhas not been destroyed by the Reformation. Many of the popular ideas\nof the Atonement, for instance, rest on a pagan conception of God and\na materialistic idea of Christ's work which are so deeply involved in\nthe common presentation of Christianity that to present the actual New\nTestament teaching would seem to many like a denial of the foundation\ntruths of the Gospel. Still more dangerous is the localisation of\nthe god as the peculiar patron of the land, which justifies many\nunholy wars and makes such a thing as a national repentance almost\nimpossible. There is a god of the British Empire who is remarkably\nlike the Jehovah-Baal of the old syncretised religion that ruled in\nthe period which we have been studying, and whose worship begets\nequal indifference to the claims of true religion, and equally cruel\ntreatment for the prophet who strives to call men to a purer faith.\n\nIt is a relief to turn to a more comforting lesson. It is that which\nassures us that man's thought of God is not entirely his own, that it\ncannot be destroyed and is never wholly forgotten, but ever makes its\nway to higher truth and greater power. The way in which the higher\nreligion comes is through the pure minds of those who wish only to live\nup to the fulness of the truth, and however mistaken they be, wish\nonly to know and to do the will of God. A similar task lies equally\nbefore every honest man and every true Christian. The lesson is plain:\nbeware of a stagnant religion that dreads progress, and keep the mind\nopen as a child's to God's further revelation of Himself, which has yet\nmany things to tell us.\n\n\n\n\nPROPHETISM--EARLY STAGES\n\n\n  The reader is recommended to investigate for himself the origins of\n  Prophetism by a careful examination of the following passages:--\n\n  I. There were originally Guilds or Schools of Prophets; from which\n  it would appear that Prophetism was a kind of profession (1 Sam.\n  x. 5; xix. 20; 2 Kings ii. 3, 5). There is nothing in the records\n  that we possess that marks these bands of prophets as possessed of\n  great spiritual power; they were devoted to the cause of Israel\n  and Jehovah, and the way in which this was manifested was taken to\n  imply that they were filled with the spirit of Jehovah; it inclines\n  somewhat to the Dervish order of enthusiastic devotion (1 Sam. x.\n  5; xix. 20-24). It is significant that wherever these schools are\n  found there is known to have existed a \"high place,\" _i.e._, an old\n  Canaanitish sanctuary, now used for the worship of Jehovah-Baal.\n  A similar order of prophets was connected with the worship of the\n  Tyrian Baal (1 Kings xviii.).\n\n  II. Samuel (1 Sam. xix. 20) Elisha (2 Kings ii. 15; iv. 38; vi. 1-7)\n  and in much less degree, Elijah (1 Kings xviii. 4; xix. 10) had some\n  connection with these schools.\n\n  III. The later Prophets did not claim descent from these guilds of\n  \"prophecy,\" and even repudiated any connection with them (Amos vii.\n  14). This conflict between the \"called\" prophet and the professionals\n  is revealed in the fierce denunciations of Isaiah (xxix. 10) and\n  Jeremiah (v. 31; xiv. 13, 14; xxvi. 7, 8).\n\n  IV. The identification of these prophets with priests and seers\n  probably gives a clue to their origin (1 Sam. ix. 9; Isa. xxix. 10;\n  Jer. xxvi. 7, 8; Amos vii. 12).\n\n  V. Certain individuals who are called prophets or seers had official\n  court connection (2 Sam. xxiv. 11; 1 Chron. xxv. 5; Amos vii. 10).\n\n  Between these \"prophets\" and the great writers who bear the same\n  designation, we cannot fail to recognise an immense difference;\n  Samuel and Elijah are connecting links between the two classes.\n  Elijah is rather a hero than a prophet in the later sense, for\n  he gives us no new doctrine, and Samuel is a seer who has risen\n  to political power, rather than a religious ruler. Critics have\n  discovered evidence of a double narrative in our documents.\n\n  (Earlier) 1 Sam. ix. 1-x. 16; xi. xiii. 2-xiv. 52.\n\n  (Later) 1 Sam. i. ii. iii. iv. vii. 3-17; viii. x. 17-25; xii. xv.\n\n  If these be examined and contrasted, it will be found that Samuel\n  is more allied in the earlier narratives with the \"priest-seer\"\n  than with the Prophet of the type of Amos. A confirmation of this\n  double narrative is found in the different accounts of the origin\n  of the monarchy which they give. Samuel, according to the earlier\n  sources, is just the type we need for the intermediate stage in the\n  development of the Prophet.\n\n  For the different historical conceptions of the work and character\n  of David the narratives in Samuel should be compared with the\n  representation given in Chronicles, and with that inferred by the\n  ascription of various Psalms to his authorship.\n\n\n\n\nLecture V\n\nPROPHETISM--EARLY STAGES\n\n\nWe have seen that in the time of the Judges the religion of Jehovah\nbecame so mixed with elements taken over from the Canaanites that the\noriginal revelation gained through Moses was in danger of being lost.\nWe have now to trace the steps by which this syncretism was broken\nup, and the advance made to the purely monotheistic conception and\nthe lofty morality of the great literary Prophets. However this came\nabout it is certain that it was not due to any gradual movement among\nthe mass of the people, for the type of religion which we have been\nconsidering remains largely unaltered in its hold upon the popular\nmind. Through the teaching of the earlier prophets certain reforms\nwere attempted, but none of them seem to have touched the heart of\nthe nation. Hezekiah and Josiah attempted to reform religion by\ncentralising the national worship, but, from whatever cause, it left\nthe people still in opposition to the prophetic type of religion, a\nconflict that was only ended by the calamity of the exile. It is,\ntherefore, to the prophetic band themselves that we must turn. Can we\ntrace within this more limited circle a movement that shall in any way\nprepare us for the appearance of men of the type of Amos?\n\nTo answer this question we must turn to the Books of Samuel and Kings.\nThese present us with a history of the period which, like most history,\nhas been written, or over-written, from a later standpoint and made to\nconform with later ideals. On the whole, however, and by contrasting\nit with the still later conceptions of the Books of Chronicles, we\ncan form an accurate impression of the state of religion at this\ntime; and incidentally we have a valuable account of a movement that\nevidently gave birth to those great conceptions of religion which were\nto be voiced with such power and force by the great Prophets. The\nwriters who, apart from the value of their religious teaching, have\nby their distinctive style made the Old Testament a contribution to\nthe literature of the world, are known to us as \"Prophets.\" This name\nthey share, however, with others who have left us no first-hand record\nof their religious opinions, and who, as described to us in the early\nsources, bear only the slightest resemblance to Prophets as we conceive\nthem. Our task will be, therefore, to investigate the origins of this\nmovement which embraces such diverse elements, and this we may commence\nby examining the meaning of the word \"Prophet\" (_Nabi_).\n\nLike many other words in the Old Testament that lock up important\nsecrets, the origin of the word Prophet is obscure and its meaning\ndisputed. The conception which is most natural to our word \"Prophet\"\nis of one who sees into the future; this is not even the main\ncharacteristic of the writing Prophets, nor does it embrace all the\nphenomena connected with the movement, especially in its early stages.\nAll that can be said of the word from an etymological standpoint\nis that it has no origin which can be traced in historical Hebrew,\nand the inference is that it is either a very ancient word, or one\nborrowed from some other language. The word can, however, hardly be\nancient, for it is not common to Semitic tongues, as is the word\n\"priest,\" for instance, while we have a definite statement that within\nhistoric times it superseded the older word \"seer\" (1 Sam. ix. 9).\nThe name was also used for certain devotees of the Tyrian Baal, whose\nworship was imported by Ahab; but it can hardly be that the name would\nbe adopted directly from a phenomenon that was so repugnant to the\nIsraelites, although the common name hints that there was a common\nancestry somewhere. It seems fair to assume from the facts mentioned\nthat the word is, at least, not older than the entry into Canaan, and\nwhile it cannot be definitely proved that it was borrowed from the\nCanaanites, there is some confirmation of this in the fact that the\nearliest occurrence of the name is in connection with the \"sons of the\nprophets,\" who are always found in places where it is known that there\nwere Canaanitish sanctuaries.\n\nThe word _Nabi_ has been variously connected with the root, _nab'a_,\n\"to bubble,\" and so one inspired; with the Arabic word, \"to speak,\"\nand so a speaker or herald. The word seems to exist in Assyrian in\nthe form _nabu_, \"to announce,\" but this is probably from the name of\nthe Babylonian deity, Nebo, the God of Eloquence, so that the word\nmight mean one possessed by Nebo. Some have even looked to this as the\nultimate derivation of the word. The investigation of the word really\ngives nothing satisfactory, and we must therefore turn to examine the\ncharacter of the persons to whom it was applied.\n\nIn various passages in the Old Testament, Seer and Prophet are so\nused as to lead us to infer that they embraced identical ideas (Isa.\nxxix. 10; Amos vii. 12), and in one passage, which has only the\nauthority of a late annotation of the text, we learn that they were\nidentical in their application (1 Sam. ix. 9). The other name with\nwhich Prophet is frequently bracketed is that of Priest; they are\nplaced together in the denunciations of Jeremiah (ii. 8; v. 31). Our\nprevious studies showed us that these classes were all somewhat akin\nin their origins; the duties of the priest were discharged in keeping\nthe oracles, while the Seer is evidently akin to the Soothsayer, a\ntype that has appeared in all religions. We have a concrete example\nof these classes being combined in Samuel. In the early story of\nSamuel's first meeting with Saul, we find Saul turning to consult the\nfamous Seer in order to discover where his father's lost asses are to\nbe found; and even the question of the Seer's usual fee is mentioned\n(1 Sam. ix. 8). This picture, which makes Samuel a notable Seer, is\nearlier and more authentic than that which makes him nearly a ruler\nover Israel. Although he is nowhere called a priest, yet he himself\nsacrifices, and his presence at a sacrifice is reckoned an advantage\n(1 Sam. xiii. 8-13); while we have the story of his sleeping by the\nark in his youth. The Seer is, therefore, an exalted type of priest\nwho has obtained renown by the success of his prognostications, and\nso we read of Seers attached to the courts of the Kings (2 Sam. xxiv.\n11; 1 Chron. xxv. 5); but the later sources have recognised that\nthere is something heathenish about the word, and have covered it up\nwith the name Prophet. From the early descriptions of the bands of\nprophets in the books of Samuel, it would seem that they are more\nallied to the priestly order than to the Seers, for it is certain that\ndown to the middle of the Ninth Century the name Prophet stands for\nsomething different from its use as applied to Moses and the literary\nProphets. The name is applied to bands of men who \"prophesy,\" but\nthis prophesying is entirely unlike the methods associated by us with\nthe prophetic spirit. It is evidently something which is done, not\nindividually, but in companies, and apparently in solemn procession\nto the accompaniment of noisy music. It must have been a species of\nviolent incantation, leading to acts of fierce fanaticism, in which the\nclothing might be stripped off, and often ending in complete mental\nprostration (1 Sam. x. 5, 6; xix. 23, 24). The connection of music\nwith religious exercises is almost universal, and it always had a\nconspicuous place in the worship of Jehovah (2 Sam. vi. 5; Isa. xxx.\n29), while music has often been used to induce the prophetic vision (2\nKings iii. 15). These prophets seem to have lived together in schools,\nsemi-monastic orders, or guilds, and to have been found where there\nwere high places, or Canaanitish sanctuaries; and from their behaviour\nwe are forced to admit that we have here a common manifestation in\nthe history of religion, where companies of men devote themselves\nto fanatical outbursts that are taken to indicate possession by the\nSpirit of God. To the accompaniment of music and frenzied dancing\nthey work themselves into a state that approaches madness--always\namong uncivilised peoples taken to be a sign of the hand of God (Hosea\nix. 7). We cannot fail to be reminded of the greater excesses of\nthe prophets of Baal, the extraordinary performances of the dervish\nbands, and the fanatical excesses that have always disfigured monastic\ninstitutions.\n\nIt cannot be dismissed, therefore, as incredible that this phenomenon\nwas derived from the Canaanites, and developed a zeal for Jehovah\nthat was manifested after a fashion common to the devotees of other\nreligions.\n\nDown to a very late date in the history of the Kingdom, the literary\nProphets found themselves in conflict with bands of prophets, who to\ntheir judgment prophesied falsely; and from the way in which these\nare often associated with the priests, it seems probable that they\nrepresent the deteriorated--or perhaps simply the stagnant--remnant of\nthis earlier movement. It is, however, necessary to assume that even\nin the earlier movement there were purer elements than those which\nwe have noticed, and that it embraced individuals who were led into\na real fellowship with the mind of God, of which Samuel and Elisha\nare conspicuous examples. Religious movements of the \"revival\" type,\nwhich have undoubtedly inspired and produced great ethical changes and\nresulted finally in sane religion, have often been accompanied in their\nearlier stages by these frenzied outbreaks. It would be in response\nto some of those strange mental movements which modern psychology is\nendeavouring to understand, but also whenever danger threatened the\nnation or the national religion, that these enthusiasts would take the\nfield. As the movement shed its purely hysterical elements, it may have\nbeen occupied in the compilation of the records of Israel's history,\nfor many of these hardly reflect the higher prophetic standpoint, or in\nwriting down such stories of their great heroes as we find connected\nwith Elijah and Elisha. A connection with the literary productions\nof the great Prophets may be thus indirectly traced, as it also most\ncertainly can in the prophetic _style_, which in its fierce rhythm\nof denunciation or its sobbing sweeps of passionate appeal recalls\nsomething of the incantation of the prophetic bands. Samuel, Elijah and\nElisha, by their connection with this early phenomenon of prophetism\nand by the approximation of their work to the ideals of the later\nProphets, are the true links between the earlier and later stages of\nthe prophetic movement. It is both credible and natural that, when\nthe movement had spent itself in some wonderful advance into ethical\npower and religious insight, the less noble elements should have still\nremained and continued to claim divine inspiration, and yet have been\nfound in open conflict with its own nobler productions.\n\nIt would seem that the obscure sect known as Nazarites were connected\nin some way with the early prophetic movement, for they are mentioned\nside by side with the prophets (Amos ii. 11, 12); and it is probable\nthat Samuel was both a Nazarite and a prophet (1 Sam. i. 11), while\nSamson, in whom the Spirit of Jehovah seemed to produce these strange\noutbursts of savage frenzy, was certainly a Nazarite (Judges xiii. 4,\n5, 7, 14). It would appear that the Nazarites were men who devoted\nthemselves to the service of Jehovah under certain vows of abstinence\nfrom wine and ceremonial defilement. The vows might be taken for life\nor for a limited period, but while under the vow the hair was left\nunshorn. There is evidence that this is an old Semitic custom, and that\nwhen the vow was accomplished the hair was made an offering to the god\n(Num. vi. 18); to this day the pilgrims to Mecca are forbidden to cut\ntheir hair until the journey is completed. The law of the Nazarites\n(Num. vi.) is only a late attempt to legislate for a custom that had\nexisted independently of the institutions of the religion of Jehovah,\nand so to secure a place within the official religion for a custom\nthat would have been difficult to suppress by prohibition. Similar\nin many respects to the Nazarites, but even more obscure, were the\nRechabites, who abstained from wine (Jer. xxxv. 2-10), but who seem\nalso to have protested against the adoption of any of the arts and\ncustoms of settled life, especially as these customs were typified\nin the cultivation of the vine. They chose these methods in order to\nresist the influence of Canaan, which was threatening so dangerously\nthe integrity of the nation and the national religion. They probably\nhoped by these conservative manners to destroy the syncretism between\nBaal and Jehovah; for the only other mention of the sect in the Old\nTestament is in connection with the extirpation of the house of Ahab (2\nKings x. 15-17).\n\nIt may appear repulsive to those who have made up their minds as to the\nmethods by which the Spirit of God can work to trace back the supreme\ngenius, the impassioned ethical ideals, and the practical statesmanship\nof the great Prophets of Israel to movements bordering on insanity; yet\nit is from enthusiasm that most of the great saving movements of the\nworld have come. Certainly the great religious revival which was soon\nto come in Israel owed almost as much of its success to these bands of\nenthusiasts as to the personality of Elijah.\n\nIt falls now to our task to trace the movement from bands to\nindividuals, from Prophetism to Prophecy, from a phenomenon to a\nteaching. We have records of men who seem to have moved beyond the\nmantic stage and who prepare the way for the great Prophets. We can\nconveniently call these \"transition prophets.\" We shall find that\nthey bear some resemblance to the old style of Seer, or to the guild\nprophets, or to both. Of some of these we have only the merest mention,\nso that they may be called the _minor_ transition prophets.\n\nTwo stand together by their connection with David and from the fact\nthat they both seem to have been Court officials (2 Sam. vii. 2; xxiv.\n11; 1 Kings i. 10). There is no word here of the mantic fury of the\nearly prophets; although in Gad, who makes known the best way to escape\nthe anger of an offended Deity, we have a survival of the ancient seer;\nbut in Nathan we have a truly noble example of one who, although he\nmay have been dependent on David for his daily bread, yet faced him\nwith the unsparing denunciation of his sin. Here is a man who regards\nright in Israel more than the smile of princes, and who has a higher\nconception of his office than that of a convenient manipulator of\noracles for the flattering of a King. Nathan is a true ancestor of Amos\nand Jeremiah.\n\nAhijah the Shilonite is famous because he foretold the disruption of\nthe Kingdom (1 Kings xi. 29-31), and we may see in this the beginnings\nof that political judgment which was to become notable in the later\nProphets; although a partisan motive might be suspected in this\nparticular case, when Jeroboam, in later years, sent his wife to\nconsult Ahijah, accompanied with the usual fee (1 Kings xiv. 2), the\nmessage he received shows that in Ahijah we have no party politician,\nbut the impartial judgment of the later Prophets.\n\nThere is a pathetic and somewhat mysterious story of an unnamed man\nof God who delivered the word of Jehovah to Jeroboam at the altar at\nBethel, and who, refusing the accustomed hospitality due to a prophet,\nafterwards accepted the invitation of the old prophet of Bethel, and\npaid the penalty with his death. We have here a story, the moral of\nwhich may be obscure enough, but which certainly illustrates the\ngrowing conflict between the two prophetic ideals. Here is a prophet\nwho travels from his own land to rebuke the sin of a King to his\nface, afterwards yielding to the blandishments of one of the official\nprophets. The new Prophetism, tempted from its superior position by the\nold, fell; yet not many years were to elapse before these two orders,\nin the persons of Amos and Amaziah, were again to face one another at\nthis same spot, and this time the new Prophetism was to maintain its\nintegrity (1 Kings viii.; Amos vii. 10-17).\n\nBefore we pass on to the _major_ transition prophets, it will be well\nto consider here the effect which the foundation of the Monarchy had on\nthe development of the religion of Israel.\n\nOf the inauguration of the Monarchy we possess two accounts; one\nextremely unfavourable, written doubtless after Judah's experience\nof some of her notorious Kings, and in the light of a somewhat ideal\nconception of the Theocratic government that was supposed to have\nflourished before the time of Saul (1 Sam. x. 17-24); the other\naccount, in which Samuel himself at the revelation of Jehovah\ninitiates the movement towards the Monarchy (1 Sam. ix. 15-x. 1) by\nanointing Saul, is the one that is placed earlier by the critics. The\nMonarchy was an inevitable stage in the social development of a settled\npeople, and it was the policy of Samuel to make the Monarchy the organ\nof the Theocracy. For all this Saul does not seem to have had any\ninfluence on religion, or to have ever realised the needs of his times,\nand under the sense of failure he became a prey to fear and depressing\ninfluences which eventually wrecked his reason.\n\nRound the name of David have gathered the national ideals of heroism\nand sainthood so often found in combination in early story. They\nhad a true origin in David, if we judge from the standards of piety\nand rulership that were natural to his age. Outlaw, hero, poet,\nsaint--David is the darling of Israel's history. It would be unfair\nto David to picture him as the saintly author of some of the tender\nPsalms that bear his name, although others of a more robust character\nmight well be from his hand. That David was a poet seems to be certain,\nand the songs of lament over Saul and Abner, which have strong claims\nto be genuine, bear witness to his true poetic gift; but they are\ndeficient in any display of deep religious feeling. We may have also\nto reduce somewhat the conception of the extent or the absoluteness of\nhis kingly rule. He was rather one of those freebooters who by their\nheroism and rough manly courage are able to gather round them men of\ntheir own nature and to inspire in their followers a loyal devotion. To\nthis pleasant adventurer the early Kingdom fell, but for long it was\nonly a kingdom of personal followers; nor does he ever seem to have\nbeen enthusiastically acknowledged by the whole nation, or to have\nestablished his claims absolutely beyond dispute. His heroic defence\nagainst the Philistine invasion was sufficient to give him a great\nplace in the affection of the people, yet he never assumed the imperial\nrule in the manner of his successor Solomon. With all this necessary\nallowance for the idealising process of a later age, David was the\nindispensable centre round which the early ideals and legends of the\nMonarchy could collect. His work was of immense importance for the\nfuture; especially his conquest of Jerusalem, now for the first time\nwrested from the Canaanites and destined to become in the future the\ncentre of the national life, to be bound up with his name, and above\nall to be the peculiar dwelling-place of Jehovah. To make Jerusalem\nhis capital was a very diplomatic stroke, for it was neutral territory\nto both Ephraim and Judah, and this fact quietened the mutual jealousy\nof these tribes. It was also a great work of David that by his rough\npiety he definitely connected the Kingship with devotion to the cause\nof Jehovah. This devotion found expression in his care for the sacred\npalladium of the Tribes, although it was policy as well as piety that\nbrought the Ark to Jerusalem; for we are forced to admit that in\nmatters of religion David was not greatly in advance of his times. He\nregarded the jurisdiction of Jehovah as not extending beyond Palestine\n(1 Sam. xxvi. 19), and although he himself may have abandoned idols,\nyet he allowed them in his house (1 Sam. xix. 13), while he retained\nthe old custom of consulting the will of Jehovah by the Ephod (1 Sam.\nxxx. 7) or by the movements of trees (2 Sam. v. 23-25). His conception\nof Jehovah was that of a Being of uncertain temper, who would take\nvengeance for any acts of ceremonial violation (2 Sam. vi. 9) or whose\nanger might be aroused for reasons beyond human discovery (2 Sam. xxiv.\n10-17).\n\nBut it would be equally wrong to blame David because he does not come\nup to the ideals of a later age. So far as it went, we may believe\nthat his piety was real; he was a man after Jehovah's own heart, _for\nthose times_. He certainly did his best to found a Kingdom on personal\naffection and to establish some kind of impartial justice. In the\nmatter of Bathsheba and Uriah David has been judged by impossible\nstandards, and especially by the religious ideas of the 51st Psalm,\nwhich bears in its every line evidence of a morality far too deep for\nthe age of David, and which is quite unsuitable for a confession of\nmurder and adultery. It was no crime in the eyes of an oriental monarch\nto take his neighbour's wife, and it was novel doctrine that David\nheard from the lips of Nathan; it is to be laid to his everlasting\ncredit that he listened to this prophetic judgment, was convicted of\nthe sinfulness of his act, and repented very profoundly.\n\nWhen we pass to Solomon we come to a character altogether different,\nbut one that is very difficult to estimate from the portrait presented\nto us in the Old Testament. The writers allow themselves to be carried\naway by the tradition of his magnificence, and by the external evidence\nof his piety preserved in the splendid Temple which he reared to the\nglory of Jehovah; but they cannot produce much evidence for the depth\nof his personal religion. He attempted to build an empire on the lines\nof the barbaric and superficial glories of his greatest neighbours;\nbut its splendour and certainly its significance have been rather\noverdrawn by the later historians. It was a reign of splendour, but\nfor the religion of Israel it was unimportant, for it was in the main\nirreligious. Save for the presence of Nathan at his coronation, the\nprophetic ministry almost disappears in this reign; what prophets\nremain are opposed to his policy. Solomon was little more than a\nworldly cosmopolitan; his empire was magnificent in comparison with\nthe achievements of his predecessors, but it rested not as David's\non the devotion of the people to a popular hero, but depended for\nits strength on a system of taxation and a false imperialism: forced\nlabour was employed and the loyalty of the tribes was strained. It\nwas an endeavour to change the government from a natural and tribal\nsystem to that of an Eastern despotism; and it ended in failure. The\nbuilding of the Temple was only a part of this policy, and it was a\npolicy resented by the prophetic party, who were all for simplicity\nin matters of worship (2 Sam. vii.; omit verse 13). The Temple did\nnot occupy too outstanding a place in the block of royal buildings,\nand there is no evidence that in this age it was anything more than\nSolomon's private chapel built with the desire to rival the splendid\nroyal shrines of other countries. It was evidently designed largely\non heathen models, and contained heathen symbols which the later\nreligion absorbed with difficulty. The adoption of the Temple as the\nsupreme centre of Israel's worship was not the work of Solomon, but\nthe effect of the teaching of Isaiah of Jerusalem and the consequence\nof the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah. The harem and the strange\nworship were similarly parts of an international policy. Solomon was\ncertainly the first to give to the worship of Jehovah an imposing\nsplendour and regularity, but it was not a splendour that appealed\nto the Prophets. The beautiful prayer of the dedication can hardly\nbe the composition of Solomon, but is more likely to have been the\nproduction of a later age which endeavoured to give to this display a\npiety which the original did not possess. In time the Temple was to\nbecome of enormous importance, but in this period it remained only a\nmagnificent shrine for the Ark. The fact that two of the prophets sided\nwith Jeroboam may point to a revolt against this religious splendour.\nThe bulls of Jeroboam were a counterblast to the Temple, and although\nhis name is ever afterwards connected with the introduction of this\nidolatrous worship, and the succeeding Kings of Israel condemned for\ntheir participation, it is evident that these strictures are somewhat\nintensified by the conception that in the quarrel between Israel and\nJudah, Judah was in the right, and by the refusal to allow for the fact\nthat this method of worship had not been condemned by any contemporary.\nThe calves were most likely ancient symbols of Semitic divinity, and\nwere certainly intended as symbols of Jehovah. Nevertheless, the future\nlay with the Temple and the South, for the revolution was based on\na merely conservative impulse and contained no ideal. In the South,\nJehovah was never worshipped with such an excess of heathen symbolism,\nand thither the voice of Prophecy soon transferred itself to find in\nJudah its greatest sphere.\n\nWe are brought now to one of the most pregnant movements of this time,\nknown as the northern prophetic revolt, and to the work and personalty\nof the major transition prophets, Elijah and Elisha. The introduction\nof the worship of the Tyrian Baal by Ahab was the signal for revolt.\nHere was a violation of the commonest conceptions of religion: the\ntransplantation of the worship of another god, Melkart, the Baal of\nTyre, into the territory of Jehovah, who was regarded as the Baal\nof Canaan. It opened the eyes of the schools of the Prophets to the\ndanger of the use of the name of Baal, and was the cause of its\ncomplete disuse as a name for Jehovah (Hosea ii. 16, 17). In the revolt\nagainst the worship of this heathen Baal there stands out as its chief\ninspiration and leader the magnificent figure of the prophet Elijah. It\nis evident that in the story of his life we have much that is legendary\nand probably some confusion with the work of Elisha, but the religious\nsignificance is sufficiently clear. We have noticed that Elijah is\nremotely connected with the prophetic schools, and they share with\nhim the persecution organised by the devotees of Baal; the old mantic\naccompaniments of prophecy are still found in Elijah; he seems to\ncharm the rain (1 Kings xviii. 42), and he certainly hears it coming.\nWith all his courage and insight he does not fully comprehend the true\nmethods by which the religion of Jehovah is to win its way; conviction\nis to be brought by thunder and fire; if these fail there remains the\nsword. It may be difficult to decide whether Elijah actually conceived\nthe wonderful revelation at Mount Horeb, but it is more than likely\nthat to this man there came in the hour of failure the discovery that\nthere were other ways more to the mind of Jehovah whereby men should\nrealise His presence; a discovery which has been dramatised in the\ntheophany on Horeb. Revelation by the still small voice of inner\nconviction certainly gained greater recognition after the ministry of\nElijah.\n\nIf we seek to understand the meaning of Elijah's stand for Jehovah, we\nshall see that it was first of all a protest against the syncretism\nof the Baal and Jehovah religions. This protest may have been founded\ninitially on conceptions not too exalted, namely, that Jehovah and\nMelkart could not be worshipped in the same land, but there are\nevidences that Elijah had advanced further than that. His daring taunts\nto Baal amount to complete scepticism as to his existence, or at least\nof his power to injure the true follower of Jehovah. If that is so,\nthen we have in Elijah the first monotheist. He clearly perceived that\nin character Baal and Jehovah were utterly different. The cruelty\nconnected with the religion of Jehovah still persists under Elijah,\nbut the incompatibility between the true religion and heathenism is\nrecognised and affirmed. We may sum up Elijah's religion in his own\nphrase: \"I have been very jealous for Jehovah.\"\n\nThere is another aspect of Elijah's work which certainly forms a true\ntransition to the teaching of the later Prophets; he denounces the\nmurder of Naboth almost as much as the worship of Baal. We trace here\nthe rise of the ethical conception of the service of Jehovah and the\nprotest against social wrongs which was to become so great a part of\nthe burden of such men as Amos and Micah.\n\nWith Elijah we can see forming, however dimly, the thought of a Kingdom\nof God, and the peculiar patriotism of the Prophets: he desires an\nIsrael independent of all heathen alliances; it is a conception of\na Kingdom which shall be great in intension rather than wide in\nextension. It was this conflict of the prophetic and the so-called\npatriotic ideals that was to contribute largely to the final overthrow\nof the State. It may have been that the Prophets could never have\nbuilt up a strong State on the lines they indicated, and their very\nprotest may have weakened the arm of statesmen and contributed to the\ndestruction of the Kingdom founded by David and Solomon. We can only\nfeel that we side with the Prophets. If the prophetic voice had been\nsilenced we might have had Israel with a kingdom as mighty as Assyria,\nalthough that is highly doubtful; but it would have been a kingdom as\nuseless for its contribution to religion as that proud, vain, and\ncruel empire.\n\nThe theophany at Horeb, therefore, whatever its embellishment and\nhowever symbolical its dress, is the true history of this period.\nIn the development of the prophetic religion, magic and mystery are\nfailing, display and external glory are passing away, and there enters\nfrom this time the conception of the religion of the inward voice on\nwhich the work of the later Prophets is built. Elisha is but a pale\nreflection of his master, and makes little contribution to religion;\nbut we soon hear of Micaiah (1 Kings xxii. 8), whose message reveals\nthe still widening gap between the professional prophet and the new\norder of men who hear with greater clearness the true voice of Jehovah.\nBut sixty years have to pass, and Northern Palestine awakens to the\nechoes of a new voice, and listens to the new message of the first\nof that prophetic band who have enriched literature while they have\nexalted religion--Amos the herdman of Tekoa.\n\nWhere elsewhere in history has there been a religion that, starting in\ncomparative heathenism, almost lost in conflict with a fully-developed\npaganism, has yet moved steadily upward, breaking away from its\norigins, shedding the false charms of magic and sorcery, and rising\nby gradual ascent into fellowship with the Will of God? It is this\n_movement_ that constitutes the inspiration of the Old Testament and\nthat makes it still a Word of God to us.\n\nMany of these conclusions, which have been put forward and established\nby critical methods, especially in reference to the religious feeling\nof those times, and in the different conception of the piety of\nmen like David and Solomon, may strike the reader as startling and\ndisturbing. That may well be, but that is no excuse for our reading\ninto Bible story more than can be legitimately found there, while it\nwill be sure to obscure some of its highest teaching, which is to\nbe found not in isolated \"texts,\" but in great movements. It is the\nfacts that we have to face, and the facts are obscured not so much\nby the corrections of the history by the later historians, as by our\nforcing into them the still later conceptions of our own times. We\nhave not given detailed proof of many of the positions here taken up;\nthey may be sought in detail by the reader in the works of Biblical\nscholarship. Our object is to discover whether these things being so,\nwe can still find a true revelation in the history of this people,\nand hear in it the Voice of God. Do we not get from this corrected\nview of the history, a sense of the splendid onward movement of this\nreligion, which in itself is so much more inspiring than the monotonous\nconception, which is only the product of later Judaism, that the\nhistory of Israel's religion is nothing but a series of apostasies\nfrom a pure and perfect faith? That late conception is not borne out\nby a careful and critical study of the sources, and it rather owes its\nstrength to-day to a certain dogmatic conception of human nature that\nis needlessly pessimistic, and to an idea of the weakness of the Spirit\nof God in His dealings with man that nearly approaches atheism.\n\nOne or two lessons of the period stand out in strong relief. One is\nthat better things come of enthusiasm, even when it is mistaken, than\nfrom indifference. The reference of all the institutions of Israel\nto the definitely revealed Will of Jehovah may seem to some, after\nthese investigations, a mistake. This can only arise from too narrow a\nconception of the working of God and the means through which His Spirit\nreaches man, for it is this very reference to the Will of God that is\nresponsible for the advance in Israel's faith. To believe in the Will\nof God, and to refer all to it, does gradually increase the knowledge\nof that Will, and so leads to a true revelation.\n\nAnother lesson is, not to despise the accompaniments of the first\nmovements of the Spirit of God in man. It is not within the scope of\nthis work to enquire why it is that when a man is moved by the Spirit\nof God such strange phenomena as we have been studying in the prophetic\nbands, which still accompany many revivals, should be the immediate\nresults. There must be patience with these things as beginnings; but\nequally must there be impatience with them when they elevate themselves\ninto a permanent claim to recognition as the only signs of a true\nreligious life, and when they refuse to recognise as higher the sane\nand ethical movement to which they themselves have given birth. One\nof the chief difficulties in things religious is to recognise the\noffspring of a great movement, to discover the time when the child\nmust be allowed its new-found freedom, to know when symbols may be\ndropped and the reality brought in. Protestantism has given birth to\nwider thoughts about God and deeper appreciations of the extent of His\nworking, which are the logical outcome of Protestantism, and yet which\nare often repudiated by those whose Protestantism is of the aggressive\ntype. A progressive movement of any kind always has these strifes. They\nare as constant in Science as in Religion, only in Science they are\nmore easily overcome by the greater readiness to accept new revelation.\nChristianity is a religion that moves, and, as Christ Himself foretold,\nit causes the son to rise up against his father, the new generation\nto come into conflict with the old. Ours it is never to forget that\nthe Kingdom of God is on the side of the child; except ye receive the\nKingdom of God as a child, in the spirit of enquiry and growth, except\nye never grow old, ye cannot enter therein.\n\n\n\n\nTHE RELIGION OF THE LITERARY PROPHETS\n\n\n  THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROPHETS\n\n\n  _Assyrian Period._\n\n                    B.C.\n  Amos            760-750                                           B.C.\n  Hosea           750-737     Accession of Tiglath Pileser III       745\n  Isaiah          740-700     Invasion of Sennacherib                701\n  Micah           724-        Fall of Samaria                        722\n  Zephaniah _circa_ 627       Western Palestine invaded by Scythians\n  Nahum           610-608?    Fall of Nineveh                        607\n\n\n  _Chald\u00e6an Period._\n\n  Jeremiah        626-586     Deuteronomy discovered                 621\n  Habakkuk        605-600?    First Great Exile                      597\n  Ezekiel         593-573     Second Great Exile                     586\n\n\n  _Persian Period._\n\n  Isa. xiii.-xiv.; xxi. 1-10; xxxiv.,      (Date uncertain, but\n     xxxv.                                   definitely after the\n                                             Exile.)\n  Isa. xl.-lv. (The \"Second\" Isaiah)\n    _c_540.                                Cyrus takes Babylon       538\n  Isa. lvi.-lxvi. (Various prophecies,\n    to be dated after the return.)         Return of the Exiles      537\n  Haggai              _c_520\n  Zech. i.-viii.      _c_520\n  Mal.               460-450               Promulgation of the Law   444\n  Zech. ix.-xiv.         322\n\n  There is nothing to enable us to decide the dates of Jonah, Joel, and\n  Obadiah with greater definiteness than to say that they were written\n  after the Restoration.\n\n\n  Diagram representing the religious significance of the Prophets:--\n\n                                                        FINAL EMBODIMENT\n        GOLDEN AGE OF PROPHECY           SILVER AGE       OF PROPHETIC\n                                                            TEACHING\n                                    _Exile_\n                                      +     +--------+ PSALMS\n                                      |     |        |\n                                      |     |        |\n                                      |     +        |\n                       +--------------+ 2 ISAIAH     |\n                       |              |              |\n                       |              |              |\n              +---+ JEREMIAH          |              |\n              |                       |              |\n              |                       |              |\n              +                       |              |\n       +--+ HOSEA                     |              |\n       |                              |              |\n       |                              |              |\n  AMOS +-------+ MICAH--NAH.--HAB. +--+--------------+ WISDOM LITERATURE\n       |                              |              |\n       |                              |              |\n       +-----------+ ISAIAH   DEUT.   |              |\n                        +             |              |\n                        |             |              |\n                        |             |              |\n                        +-------------+ EZEKIEL -----+ THE LAW\n\n  Judging from the standard of New Testament religion and their\n  contribution to it, the Prophets may be roughly classified in the\n  above order. The higher tendency seems to vanish from the historical\n  works which were composed after the Exile, save in many of the\n  Psalms, where religion reaches its highest expression outside the\n  New Testament. The tendency represented by the middle and horizontal\n  line ends in the somewhat superficial ethics of such works as the\n  Book of Proverbs. The lower tendency _is only to be judged so from\n  comparison_; it served its purpose, and it was an honest endeavour to\n  reduce the Prophetic ideals to a definite system. It is in line with\n  the spirit of many of the Psalms that the religion of the revelation\n  of Christ takes its rise, and we may see in the Sadducees and the\n  Pharisees the degenerate effect of the other lines of development.\n\n\n\n\nLecture VI\n\nTHE RELIGION OF THE LITERARY PROPHETS\n\n\nAmong the writings of the Old Testament, the Prophetical Books, whether\nconsidered as literature or religion, are acknowledged to stand out as\nunsurpassed. If the Psalms claim to rival them it is to be remembered\nthat the Psalms are probably to be traced to the Prophetic teaching.\nThe Prophets themselves begin a new era; they are creative and owe\nbut little to their past. That for so long a period, in unbroken\ncontinuity, there should emerge from a tiny nation a succession of men\nof differing temperament, training, and social position, who should\nwith remarkable unity voice truths of religion not only hitherto\nunrecognised but rarely surpassed or apprehended in subsequent\nhistory, is in itself a unique phenomenon in comparative religion.\nEqually notable is the fact, that in the majority of the Prophets we\nhave not only the gift of religious intuition, but that this is found\nin combination with great oratorical power, true poetic genius, and\npractical statesmanship. They remain for all time an indisputable\nwitness to the Divine revelation in the development of Israel's\nreligion.\n\nPrevious stages which we have been able to recognise in the development\nof Israel's religion do not carry us on to Amos by so inevitable a\nmovement, that his message could be predicted as the next stage to be\nreached. When we come fresh from the investigation of the religion\nheld by the leaders of the people in the times of David and Solomon,\nwe recognise the immense strides made when we open the Book of Amos.\nWe can trace a likeness between Elijah and Amos in their denunciation\nof wrong; but, in the sphere of religion, there is a great gulf\nbetween them which no records of the intervening period quite help\nus to bridge over. We cannot think of Amos taking part in the great\nvindication of Carmel; it is probable that he would have recognised\nit as useless. In Samuel, Elijah and Elisha we undoubtedly have the\nreligious ancestors of the Literary Prophets, but while they stood at\nthe head of popular movements which they led in triumph against the\nintrusion of alien faiths, the Prophets that we are now to study stand\nin decided antagonism to the popular faith, and the conceptions of\nIsrael's religion which they reiterate with such passion and insistency\nwere never acceptable to the people. Their religion has to make its way\nagainst the national religion.\n\nThe importance of the Prophets is the natural starting point for\nthe modern study of the Old Testament, and it is from the earnest\nperusal of their writings that modern Biblical science has been forced\nto take up a rigorous criticism of the entire literature of the Old\nTestament. Under the old methods, the Prophets had only a secondary\nposition in the history of the ancient revelation, since their message\nwas conceived as rather concerned with an age yet to come than with\ntheir own times and needs. The Divine Law had already been given\nto the people, constituting a perfect norm of religion. When the\npeople failed to obey the Law, then the Prophet appeared, enforced\nits principles, and condemned the people's apostasy. If that message\nwas rejected, as it often was, then nothing was left for the Prophet\nbut the proclamation of vengeance, or the prediction of a time when\nthe Law should be ideally fulfilled by the revelation of the Gospel.\nBetween the Law and the Gospel, therefore, stood the Prophets, but\nthey acted only as a bridge from the one to the other. The natural\nmethod of studying their writings was to search for the fulfilment\nof their predictions in history. With these aims it was perhaps\ninevitable that their words should often be interpreted in a quite\nunwarrantable manner; events were read back into their prophecies, or\nthe fulfilment was found in such ordinary coincidences that the dignity\nof prediction was itself lost, the study became puerile and morbid,\nwhile a fancied necessity as to what they must mean prevented any\nscholarly and unbiassed interpretation. Their works have consequently\nbeen largely used as mysterious oracles from which the future history\nof the world could be accurately predicted. To read the Prophets in\norder to obtain a picture of their own age was regarded as a secular\noccupation, while every attempt to recover the original application of\ntheir words was regarded as an endeavour to discountenance the proofs\nof Divine revelation. Many of their words bear remarkable likeness to\nthe gracious invitations of the Gospel, so that they have been used\nequally with the New Testament for Gospel preaching, but it was never\ndreamed that they were real invitations to the people of their own\ntimes, founded on the eternal laws of God's forgiveness afterwards made\nclear in Christ; they were simply words spoken under mental effects\nwhich transferred the speakers to the time of the New Testament.\nWhatever the final results of the application of historical criticism\nmay be, it has already laid religion under a permanent obligation in\nits discovery of the hitherto unrealised importance of the Prophets.\nAt first attention was directed to their exalted ethical and religious\nstandpoint, appearing as it did in an age that neither produced nor\nresponded to it; minute study then showed that they gave first-hand and\nincidental accounts of their own times. Their messages bear witness\nto the contemporary state of the religion of Jehovah and the people's\nmorals, and although it may be that they sometimes judged these from\ntheir own high standard, which caused them to paint them somewhat\ndarker than an absolutely historical judgment would demand, yet on what\nthe prevailing religious opinions of the day really were, they are the\nbest evidence. The startling but unassailable deduction made from the\nProphets' accounts of their own times is, that in matters religious\nthey were proclaiming doctrines that seemed to their contemporaries\nentirely novel. The Prophets do not, however, acquiesce in the charge\nof novelty. They profess to go back to the original and inner meaning\nof Jehovah's choice of the nation. They refer to this choice, as a\n\"covenant,\" and to the religion demanded by it, as the law of the Lord.\nThe first inference is that they refer to that which _we_ know as the\nLaw, the Pentateuch, or Law of Moses. A comparison with the Prophetic\nteaching with the ordinances of, say, the Book of Leviticus, shows that\nthis cannot be the case, for they do not correspond. Many things there\ncommanded as essential are passed over in silence by the Prophets;\nbut the force of the argument is not wholly drawn from that, although\nit has a weight here which the argument from silence cannot usually\ncarry, because both Leviticus and the Prophets' teaching set forth\nthe essentials of religion, and there can be no possibility of doubt\nthat the conceptions of the essentials have an altogether different\noutlook. It is chiefly, though not by any means entirely, from the\nstandpoint of the Prophetical writings that modern criticism is forced\nto revise the conception of the progress and decline of religion that\nJewish tradition has embodied in the arrangement of its Scriptures, and\nespecially in the ascription of the Pentateuch as a whole to the age\nand authorship of Moses. The verdict from this comparison between the\nProphets and the Law is, that the five Books of Moses either did not\nexist in their present form at the time of the Prophets, or, if they\ndid, remained entirely unknown to them.\n\nThe historical value of the Prophets is therefore to be rated very\nhigh, not only because of their transparent sincerity, but also\nbecause the historical data which can be secured from them are given\nindirectly, and are valuable for the same reason as the remarks of a\ncontemporary diarist. They are unaware that they are writing history,\nand are consequently free from the almost unescapable tendency of the\nhistorian to make the facts fit into preconceived theories. Modern\ncriticism, therefore, does rightly in making the Prophets of paramount\nimportance for the understanding of the Old Testament, and when the\nProphets are thus made the test, much in the history that was either\ncompletely hidden or difficult to understand, becomes visible and\nclear, and the progress of Israel's religion is displayed in all its\ngrandeur and movement.\n\nWe can now turn to examine the extent of the sources from which we may\ndraw, in order to estimate the religious opinions and influence of the\nProphets, and to examine the peculiar character of the literature for\nwhich they are responsible.\n\nFirst in importance stand the Books of the Prophets proper. In the\nancient division of the Hebrew Bible into, (1) The Law, (2) The\nProphets, (3) The Hagiographa, or the holy writings, \"The Prophets\"\nincluded, beside our Books of the Prophets, such historical Books as\nJoshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings. Significantly enough, however, Daniel\nis not grouped with the Prophets, but with the Hagiographa, either\nbecause it was not classed as prophecy, or more probably because the\nCanon of \"The Prophets\" had been closed by the time it was written.\n\nTherefore, in addition to the writings ascribed to the Prophets, there\nis a literature which has been influenced by their teaching, and this\nis found largely in those historical Books which have thus been rightly\nincluded in the Prophetical division of the Hebrew Bible. That is to\nsay, however, that Books dealing with history prior to the rise of\nthe Prophets, show traces of an influence that can only have emerged\nlater. It is here that criticism seems to the ordinary reader to enter\nvery debatable ground, although among critical students of the Bible\nthe question is no longer an open one. They claim that the peculiar\nconditions under which Hebrew history was compiled allow us to discern,\nand to separate with ease, this later prophetical editing, whereas in\nother literatures such would be impossible. History was compiled among\nthe Jews largely from pre-existing documents, much as it is everywhere,\nwith the difference that in the Old Testament the records have been\nsimply pieced together with whatever corrections and reductions were\nrendered necessary, while the conceptions of the later times, when\nthis re-editing was accomplished, are often simply superimposed; this\nmethod has been ridiculed as an invention of the critical mind, but it\nis simply an indisputable if tiresome fact which has to be taken into\naccount in any serious study of the literature. The narratives of the\ndocuments that have been named \"J\" and \"E\" bear the marks of having\nbeen combined under the influence of prophetical teaching, since this\nteaching, it is to be noted, is recognisably incompatible with other\nparts of the stories which have been left untouched.\n\nIt has been suggested that criticism seems to assume that religion\nprogressed until it reached a certain height in the Eighth Century, and\nto enable this theory to stand all marks of this supposed later type\nappearing earlier are classed as interpolations. It is usual to trace\nthis theory to \"Evolution gone mad.\" Even on the critical theories\nthis cannot however be legitimately shown to result, since critical\nreconstruction shows that the supreme height gained in the Prophets\nwas never maintained, but suffered a perceptible decline. Whatever the\nguiding idea of criticism may be, it cannot be an endeavour to make\nthe history of Israel's religion confirm some theory of the natural\ndevelopment and evolution of religion. The critical theories leave us\nwith the problem of moral lapses to account for and with the failure\nof vision to explain, and demand still a moral insight to detect the\ncause. But it is clear to many that the moral causes do stand out more\nclearly discoverable by this method.\n\nThe critical theory of the priority of the Prophets is not based\nonly upon the emergence under their teaching of certain theological\nideas for the first time; but also on the difference of style and\nvocabulary which can be recognised after only a slight acquaintance\nwith the language; and on the general outline of the history that the\nBible itself forces upon us. It is a fact which the reader can soon\ndiscover for himself, that the historical Books are compilations from\nthe records of various ages, and these various ages can be as easily\ndiscerned as the conflicting styles of an oft-restored church, or\nthe disturbance of the normal geological strata that demands some\nupheaval for its explanation. It must be remembered that all this is\nmade possible from the fact of the remarkable uniformity of ideas that\ncharacterises the various stages of Hebrew religion.\n\nThe Prophets' teaching can therefore be traced outside their own\nwritings; mainly in fragmentary comments added to the narratives;\nor in a superimposed colouring, which easily falls off, leaving the\noriginal outlines in view; but it is supposed to be found grouped\ninto one great mass in the Book of Deuteronomy. The critics' theory\nof this Book is that it is an endeavour to reduce the teaching of the\nProphets, more especially that of Isaiah, to a code, and to secure\nreform by the centralisation of worship at Jerusalem. This idea of a\ncentral worship, which leaves no record of its actual observance until\nthe time of Josiah, or perhaps an attempt in the reign of Hezekiah, is\nso unmistakable and is so uniformly expressed that the work of this\nauthor (perhaps we should say, this school) can be easily detected,\nand many of the Books, such as Judges and Kings, can be seen to have\nbeen subjected to a \"Deuteronomist\" redaction. In all these phenomena\nwe have teaching that presupposes the Prophets, and that stands in\ncontrast and often in conflict with the general tone of the original.\nIt is remarkable that with such redactions of history any clue to\nthe earlier conceptions should have been left to us, especially that\nthere should have been left in the records anything that would be in\ndisagreement with the editors' ideas, but the Jews, like the other\nnations of antiquity, did not possess modern notions of exactness, and\ntheir notions of history prevented them from understanding things that\nwere removed only a short distance from their own times.\n\nIt is hardly surprising to find that this Prophetical literature was\nin turn liable to redaction, though in a different degree and for a\ndifferent reason, since it has been preserved to us under peculiar\nconditions. This at first may seem terribly confusing to the bewildered\nstudent, and it is here that tired men reject criticism and all its\nworks. To such the reminder cannot be spared that in any branch of\nScience the same conditions have to be overcome, and if he would\nunderstand the Old Testament and reap the magnificent reward that its\nearnest study gives, he must be prepared to face the facts and labour\nat their solution.\n\nFirst of all then, it must be noted that the Books of the Prophets are\nnot so much literature, in the ordinary sense of the word, as reported\nrhetoric, with the qualification that the reporter and the speaker may\nbe usually assumed to be the same. In most cases the speeches were\nwritten out by the Prophet himself soon after they were delivered,\nalthough sometimes this was done by others long after, and expanded\nor altered, as is actually reported to have been the case with the\nprophecies of Jeremiah (Jer. xxxvi.).\n\nIn the second place, the literature reveals the fact that there does\nnot seem to have been in that age any conception of literary property;\nideas are borrowed directly from one Prophet by another, and sometimes\ndirect quotation is made without any acknowledgment or indication of\nthe source. The Prophet's scribe, his school or followers, could amend\nor paraphrase; later generations could evidently insert a qualifying\nphrase, temper a threat with a qualifying condition, or to the doom of\nexile add a promise of restoration. When it is noticed that messages\nlike those of Amos or Hosea end unexpectedly in hopeful words, and\nwhen it is recollected that these Prophets have been used as Service\nBooks in the Synagogue and may have been therefore altered to suit the\npurpose, then we shall understand the problem that faces us and why a\nshadow of suspicion should rest on promises of restoration that are to\nbe found in pre-exilic writings. Let it be remembered however that it\nis no true critical canon to assume that prediction cannot be made; but\nwhat are we to do when such a prediction fits ill with the context,\nbreaks the sense, is foreign to the outlook of the speaker, and is in\nlater style?\n\nFinally, there seem to have been many prophecies circulated\nanonymously, and since a place had to be found for these they were\ninserted in other writers, on no principle that we can discover, or\nmore often were grouped together at the end of some notable Prophet's\nworks. In Zechariah we have to suppose three strata of different\nauthorship and date, or give up the rational study of the Book\naltogether; and in the famous case of the Book of Isaiah we have to\nsuppose that some of the early chapters are the work of a post-exilic\nauthor, while chapters xl.-lxvi. are a heterogeneous collection by a\nnumber of writers, of which chapters xl.-lv. are recognised to be by\none hand, and that, one of the most wonderful personalities which has\ncontributed to the Old Testament; about that grand figure we only know\none thing, that he was not Isaiah of Jerusalem. This has been called\n\"sawing Isaiah asunder\" and making the Bible a piece of patchwork and\nthe critics are blamed; but if they are right, these complaints are\nnot directed at them, but at the Bible itself, a proceeding which to\nsay the least, is not pious. When a writer could say many years later\nthat revelation came of old time in many fragments (Heb. i. 1), others\nbeside critics fall under these hasty condemnations.\n\nIt is refreshing to turn from this less interesting part of our\nsubject, which nevertheless demands serious study from anyone who\nwould be informed where ignorance has done and still is doing so much\nharm, and to examine the features which distinguish the work of the\nliterary Prophets. We have already spoken of the novelty of their\nmessage. Whatever theory is chosen for the study of Old Testament\nhistory, nothing quite prepares us for the message of the Prophet Amos.\nWhat an inspiration we miss because he does not stand in our Bibles\nin his rightful place, at the head of the Prophets! His bravery and\nruggedness remind us of Elijah, but he brings something that Elijah is\nfar from giving us. Elijah was very jealous for the due recognition of\nJehovah as the only God for Israel; Amos is jealous for the recognition\nof the true _character_ of Jehovah. That is to say, we receive from\nAmos definite teaching concerning the character of Jehovah and His\nrelations to the people of Israel, and these doctrines are startling to\nIsraelitish ears.\n\nAlmost the first thing that strikes us as an outstanding characteristic\nof the Prophets is that they are conscious of a call to which they\noften appeal. Five of them definitely refer to the circumstances of\ntheir call (Amos vii. 14; Hosea i. 2; Isaiah vi.; Jer. i. 4-10; Ezek.\ni. 1-ii. 3). The same is true of their predecessors, but in a different\nway; they stand as defenders of the national religion because they\nbelong to the prophetic guilds or possess certain gifts of vision. On\nthe other hand the literary Prophets are against the national religion\nas a perversion of the true, and to this weary and warlike work they\nare called by immediate and special summons of God. This call is not\nself-originated nor can it be evaded (Jer. xx. 9), and in some cases\nthere has been no preparation for the office (Amos vii. 14, 15), and\neven positive unfitness (Jer. i. 6). They are very careful therefore to\ndistinguish themselves from the schools of prophets. Professionalism\nhas disappeared, and in Jeremiah the official idea also vanishes.\n\nThe peculiar mental condition of the Prophets has of late years\nattracted a great deal of attention. The rapture and holy frenzy into\nwhich they are sometimes thrown remind us of the phenomena accompanying\nthe early Prophetism, studied in our last lecture; but this is now\naccidental and is becoming rare. The Prophets often speak of this as\n\"the hand of the Lord\" upon them (Isa. viii. 11); in the visions of\nEzekiel the effect is often described as overpowering (Ezek. iii. 14\nff.). There is a similarity between the accompaniments of these states\nand the trances which have been found in so many religious movements,\nand which are now attracting the attention of the scientific world\nso seriously. Only the results differ remarkably from the effects\nobtained in hypnotic and sub-conscious states, with which the prophetic\ngift has sometimes been compared. The Prophet still exhibits his\nnatural style when under the influence of the Word of the Lord. Yet it\nmay be that there is something to be learned along the lines of modern\nresearch; we know that if certain states of mental passivity can be\ninduced, there lies open a new realm of knowledge, which, although\nit can be accounted for, cannot be summoned under ordinary mental\nconditions; add to this the superior moral constitution which seems to\nbe missing from the mediums of spiritualistic phenomena to-day, and the\nprophetic consciousness becomes more comprehensible. The Prophets often\nspeak of visions, but it is difficult to gather their actual character.\nIt can hardly be objective; it is more like the artistic vision which\ncreates within the mind in perfect detail and objectivity, so that\nwhat is seen has greater reality than any reproduction on canvas or in\nstone. The mind would seem to project its vision by the strength of its\nimaginative powers, so that, owing to the emotion aroused by the nature\nof the truth perceived, the revelation appears to come from an entirely\nexternal source. Sometimes it would seem to be an actual beholding of\nsome natural object, which induces a train of thought, as the case of\nAmos's vision of the plumb-line may well be. We cannot think either\nof any organic hearing of their message, since they sometimes also\ndeclare that they \"see\" it.\n\nTheir predictive power has been exaggerated, chiefly because it was\nthought that this was the only office of the Prophet. Where it occurs\nit is mostly a natural deduction from their insight into the movements\nof their age, their conception of the unchangeable character of\nJehovah, and their belief in His providential government; the emphasis\nis never upon details, and it may be added that the prediction is by\nno means always fulfilled. Their vision of the future usually takes\na certain outline, or order; a national calamity is immediately\nimpending, in which they recognise the punishment of the people's sins\nand the complete triumph and vindication of Jehovah; this will result\nin a purifying of the nation, and in the immediate succession there\nwill come the Messianic or ideal era. Still there are predictions which\ncannot be explained on any theory yet broached, such as the prediction\nby Isaiah of the destruction of Sennacherib's army, or Jeremiah's\nprophecy of the Restoration. If this is ordinary second sight, then it\nis strange that it should have occurred in so many cases at this time\nwhen prophecy was dropping its mysterious accompaniments. Yet it may be\nrecalled that in the history of all nations there has been, in times\nof great national affliction, a tendency to prophecy of this order,\nwhich can sometimes claim a remarkable fulfilment. The distinguishing\nglory of Israel's prophecy is, however, to be sought in its ethical\ncharacter, and it is perhaps to the writings of men like our own\nCarlyle, where we often catch the old prophetic ring, that we are to\nlook for its analogy.\n\nAmong the things that separate Amos from his predecessors is the use\nof a literary channel for the dissemination of his teaching, which was\nof course primarily preaching. This in itself marks a great change.\nWhat was it that led the Prophet to write down the message which he\nhad delivered? It may have been that there was a tendency towards\nliterature at that particular period, but even before this the habit\nof keeping records must have commenced, while there is evidence of\ncollections of poems or sagas, such as the Book of Jasher, or the Book\nof the Wars of the Lord, being in existence from a very early period.\nIt is evident therefore that we need some particular occurrence to\naccount for the adoption of literature as the vehicle of Prophecy. It\nhas been suggested that the cause is to be sought initially in the\nrejection of the message of Amos by those to whom it was delivered:\nhe was aware of the permanent application of the truths that he had\ndelivered, and since his own times would not hearken he resolved to\ncommit them to the verdict of posterity. The example once set, it was\nnatural for the succeeding Prophets to wish to give something more\nthan the fleeting character of the spoken word to teaching that was\nnew and that had been rejected, and therefore to adopt this form (Isa.\nviii. 16 f.). Whatever the cause, we are thankful for the results.\n\nThe channel chosen for the preservation of their messages was not\npurely literary; the form is not that of the essay, or thesis; it has\nnot the studied elegance of poetry, yet it rises above prose, and\nrhythmic verse is found scattered throughout their writings. These\nreports of passionate oratory fall naturally into poetic form as the\nProphet is carried away by his message. Especially do we find a very\nextensive use of symbolism, which has proved a trap into which the\nliteralist has hastened to fall.\n\nThe relation of the Prophets to the State is difficult for us\naccurately to appreciate. Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha headed what were\npractically popular revolutions; in them nationalism overshadows the\nuniversally religious, or the purely moral ideal. To appreciate the\ncontrast that the literary Prophets present to this, a careful study\nshould be made of 2 Kings ix. 7-10; x. 30, and this compared with the\nverdict of Hosea, which rises above the standard of State interest to\na judgment of universal morals (Hosea i. 4). The literary Prophets\nhave no office at court and receive no fee (Micah iii. 2); but they\nhave an official connection with the nation, which they regard as the\nchosen instrument for the establishment of God's reign; they have\nno conception of a secular state for Israel. It became therefore a\ntragedy for Jeremiah to be so completely rejected by the nation, for\nthen he felt his prophetic office really ceased. It was this that\ndrove him into a personal relationship with God that is not reached by\nany other of the Prophets. It is not correct to say that the Prophets\nwere social reformers or practical politicians. Their sole concern is\nwith religion, but it is a religion that goes very deep, and that must\nexpress itself in social and national ethics.\n\nIt is however upon their distinctive message that the chief interest\ncentres, not only for the understanding of their age, but for their\npermanent contribution to religion.\n\nIt is a declaration of pure ethical Monotheism. Jehovah is not simply\nthe tutelary deity of Israel; He is the Only God. The gods of the\nother nations are not real beings; this truth is vividly expressed in\nthe scorn which is poured on idols and their worship. Jehovah is a\nspiritual Being; therefore the crusade against the idols that had been\nused in the worship of Jehovah is an outcome of prophetic teaching.\nThis condemnation of idols in the worship of Jehovah is not actually\nmet with until Hosea (xiii. 2), but that any visible form of Jehovah is\nderogatory to the true conception of His glory is the only possible\ndeduction from prophetic teaching. We still get the na\u00efve terms that\nrefer to Jehovah as if He had bodily parts; but this is nothing more\nthan the necessary imagery which all spiritual conceptions have to\nemploy, and which are not mistaken by any save the most ignorant. This\npurely spiritual Being fills the whole universe (Deut. x. 14; 1 Kings\nviii. 27; Jer. xxiii. 24; esp. Isa. xxxi. 3, which implies more clearly\nthan any other statement in the Old Testament the spirituality of God,\nand thus anticipates the declaration of Jesus to the woman of Samaria).\nBut it is with the _ethical_ character of Jehovah that they are mostly\nconcerned. He is righteous; which means more than the early conception\nthat He simply defends Israel's right. They insist on His complete\nimpartiality, which no choice of Israel for His own can turn aside:\n\"You only have I known of all the families of the earth, _therefore_\nwill I visit upon you all your iniquities.\" They fall back again\nand again on His absolute fidelity and truthfulness. The arbitrary\ncharacter which is ascribed to Jehovah in the Books of Samuel has\ncompletely disappeared; the Prophet can say: \"Come and let us reason\ntogether, saith Jehovah.\"\n\nUniversalism is the necessary corollary to Monotheism, but the strong\nsense of Israel as His chosen instrument hinders the clear statement\nof this truth by the Prophets. A particular regard for Israel still\ncolours their vision; but they are altogether against the popular\nestimate in maintaining that this choice was made solely as a means\nfor reaching the whole world. Universalism is seen forming in the idea\nthat Jehovah is concerned with the punishment of other nations, since\nHe it is who will punish them for their sins; not only for their hatred\nof His chosen, but for their cruelty to other nations: He will punish\nMoab for his inhumanity to Edom (Amos ii. 1). This is a great advance.\nEven when the surrounding nations afflict Israel it is not because the\nLord has no control over them, but it is He that raises up the hostile\npowers as instruments of His chastisement. Even kinder views are to be\nfound in Amos, in whose tiny book we find nearly all the characteristic\nideas of the Prophets; for Jehovah is said to have been concerned in\nthe early migratory movements not only of the Hebrews, but of the\nhated Philistines and Assyrians (Amos ix. 7). The grand universalism\nof Isaiah xix. 19-25 only needs us to recall the part that Egypt and\nAssyria played in the history of Israel, in order to appreciate its\nmagnanimity. Yet in spite of these passages, the outlook as a whole\nis centred on Israel, and works of a definitely universalistic nature\ncould hardly have found a place in the canon. This spirit probably made\nit necessary for the writer of \"Jonah\" to embody his universalistic\ndoctrines in the form of an obscure parable about a Prophet and a\nwhale. It was the same national bigotry that led to the rejection of\nthe Son of man.\n\nIt is in the idea of the conditions of the covenant between Jehovah\nand Israel that the teaching of the Prophets stands in such contrast\nto the conceptions of the people. That relation was conceived of, as\nwe have seen, as tribal; the Prophets declare it to rest on a covenant\nof choice, which is to be maintained by the adherence of the parties\nto the original terms. They love to place in contrast the unwearied\nfaithfulness of Jehovah and the fickleness of the people; while they\nalternate between threats of Jehovah's complete rejection and the\nrecurring thought that despite all He can never change, and against\nall known custom will even welcome back the harlot nation. Jehovah's\nrequirements from Israel, for the proper maintenance of the covenant,\nare simply the full allegiance of the people; but how this is to be\ndisplayed is not so definitely described. There must be a pure worship\nof Jehovah, but this is not to find expression in accurate ritual or\ngreat sacrifices. Indeed it cannot be claimed that the Prophets are\nat all concerned about ritual. The Book of Deuteronomy distinctly\nlays down that the true worship of Jehovah is to be performed at one\nchosen central spot, while Leviticus provides an elaborate method of\napproach, which can only be neglected at the peril of the worshipper.\nOn the other hand, it is certain that the Prophets found the people\nworshipping at the \"high places,\" the old Canaanitish shrines, with\nmany customs which would be a direct infringement of the Code of\nLeviticus, yet they are entirely unconcerned with these faults. The\nprinciple of sacrifice as a means of worship had existed from ancient\ntimes, and is to be found in nearly all religions; yet there is an\noverwhelming verdict from the pre-exilic Prophets that shows that they\nare doubtful of its Divine appointment or of its necessity. (These\npassages should be carefully examined:--Amos v. 25; Hosea vi. 6; Isa.\ni. 11-17; Micah vi. 6-8; 1 Sam. xv. 22; Jer. vi. 20; vii. 21-23;\nand Jeremiah may have been a priest!) There is only one conclusion\npossible; these Prophets had never seen the Book of Leviticus.\n\nThe ritual which the Prophets seek is that of an upright life. They\nbase all their morality on religious ideas. The great incentive to\nmoral conduct is the recognition that the whole nation and land is\nthe property of Jehovah; any social wrong is wrong against Him. So we\nfind that the earliest attempt to formulate this teaching in a code\ncontains many regulations which are purely humanitarian (Deut. xiv. 29;\nxix. 2 ff.; xxi. 10-17; xxii. 1-3; xxiv. 6, 10-15). Ritual is turned\ninto ethics. Against the inequalities and injustices of their day the\nProphets set their faces, with an utter disregard for consequences:\nthey hurled their accusations at the nation with tremendous energy, in\npublic, before kings, as men went up to worship; fiery denunciation\nmingling with a patriot's tears; for the time, all unavailing. Yet they\nhave had their harvest, and to-day they are among the voices that call\nmen to social reform.\n\nIt will be well to endeavour to show, in the briefest possible outline,\nthe historic setting of this mighty message.\n\nIt was shortly after the opening of the Eighth Century that threatening\nindications began to gather on the horizon of Northern Israel. The\nsituation called for a Prophet's message. Amos, the herdman of Tekoa,\ncomes like a whirlwind from Judah, utters his message at Bethel and\nreturns. He is the first and in many respects the greatest of that\nmeteoric band who illumine the dark night of Israel's history; later\nProphets repeat his words and share his ideas. Hosea, from the Northern\nKingdom, follows in his steps, but with a message made the more tender\nfrom the fact that the whole drama of Israel's unfaithfulness to her\nhusband Jehovah had been brought home to him in a personal domestic\ntragedy. The tender heart which led him to forgive his unfaithful wife,\nwondered if Jehovah would not be equally forgiving, and through this\nexperience he almost penetrates to the thought of God as Love. A few\nyears later, a voice is heard in the villages of Judah proclaiming the\nmessage of Amos with the same call to simple reality: Micah pleads for\nsimple life, simple worship, simple justice. With this transference\nof the prophetic voice to the Southern Kingdom there falls an awful\nsilence on the North. In 722 B.C., Samaria fell before the arms of\nAssyria, and Israel ceased to exist. For centuries that land was to\nremain silent and despised, until there should come from Galilee of the\nGentiles He of whom all the Prophets spake. One would expect that the\nawful doom which had overtaken the Northern Kingdom would not have been\nwithout effect on Judah. Its only visible effect was the strengthening\nof her belief in her own inviolability, and the acceptance of the idea\nthat Israel's fall was due to her separation from Judah. If a Prophet\ncould have turned the people's thought in a saner direction, then it\nwould have been accomplished by Isaiah, the most princely and the most\nliterary of all the Prophets. His work was not indeed without effect.\nHe was the means of lifting prophecy into popular favour, and a revival\nfollowed his teaching. The chief cause of this favour was the events\nof the memorable year, 701 B.C. In face of the demands of Assyria,\nIsaiah had all along counselled submission and the avoidance of all\nintrigues with Egypt. But the violation of the treaty by Sennacherib,\nwho demanded the surrender of the city after he had been bought off,\nroused the anger of Isaiah. In answer to the insulting message of the\nRabshakeh, while the army lay round the city, in obedience to the word\nof Jehovah he counsels resistance. Nothing seemed more improbable than\nthat there could be any escape for Jerusalem; nevertheless he declared\nthat the holy city should be inviolable. The great host with their\ninsolent captain lay before the gates, but in the morning\n\n        \"The Gentile, unsmote by the sword,\n        Had melted like snow in the glance of the Lord.\"\n\nWhatever the actual cause of the raising of the siege may have been,\nthere can be no doubt that something did happen to the Assyrian army\nwhich Isaiah was able to attribute to the intervention of Jehovah,\nfor from this time Isaiah became famous. To those who see in the\nfulfilment of prediction the chief end of prophecy this event will\nnaturally seem of profound importance. To another view of the function\nof prophecy this is the least thing that Isaiah did, for while it\nlifted his name into popular favour, that same deliverance proved a\nsnare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. For his declaration of the\ncity's inviolability was remembered long after, and quoted as if it had\nbeen of universal, instead of temporary application, while his moral\nteaching was forgotten. To that trick of national memory the exile was\nlargely due.\n\nFrom this time the sacrosanct character of the city obsessed the\npopular mind, and in consequence the Temple became, for the first time\nsince its erection, of supreme significance in Jewish eyes. Following\nIsaiah, there was a movement, commenced probably by his disciples, that\nstrove to bring the Temple into prominence as the one authorised place\nof worship. Possibly during the reactionary reign of Manasseh, when\ntheir master is said to have been martyred, they worked at this idea,\nand driven into silence by the persecutions of the king they employed\ntheir pens in producing a code of laws, which undoubtedly gathered into\nlegal form many of the customs which had existed for centuries, and\nendeavoured to give them the religious interpretation of the prophetic\nteaching. Its chief injunction was the suppression of the high places\nas no longer authorised for the worship of Jehovah, hoping to centre\nthereby the whole of the nation's worship at the Temple. This code was\nprobably laid up for publication in brighter days, and was discovered\nin the reign of Josiah, in the year 621 B.C. There can be but little\ndoubt, from the reforms instituted, and from the total disregard of\nthem until this time, that this code was our Book of Deuteronomy. Since\nit was published under the name of Moses, many moderns have looked upon\nits compilation as a pious forgery. This is to read into a past age\nthe legal conceptions of Western civilisation. It must be remembered\nthat many of these laws could be legitimately traced back to Moses or\nto his influence, and there was no idea of deception in using his name.\nThe hand of the School which produced this work can also be traced in\nthe compilation and redaction of other historical works, which were\nundertaken with this idea of making the past history teach the value of\nthe reforms they wished the people to adopt. This was not only regarded\nas legitimate, but as a sacred duty imposed upon them. The modern\nhistorical ideal, which instigates research with the sole intention\nof discovering the facts, is only the product of our own age, and is\nstill unsuccessfully striven after. The reformation under Josiah is\ntherefore known as the Deuteronomic reformation. From this time the\nTemple becomes the only spot where God can be publicly worshipped, and\nthe local shrines are forbidden. This may seem an arbitrary action, and\nit is possible that for some time it called forth loud complaints; but\nit was certainly for the benefit of religion. It had been proved to be\nimpossible to dissociate the local shrines from the customs and ideas\nwhich had descended from the original Canaanitish worship carried on\nthere. With a central worship it was found possible to check practices\nthat were not in accordance with the religion of Jehovah. The teaching\nof the Prophets finds then in the Book of Deuteronomy its first-fruits\nof reform.\n\nThe relation of one young man to this new movement is full of peculiar\ninterest and difficulty. It was at this very time that Jeremiah began\nhis ministry, and it is possible that he took some part in the movement\n(Jer. xi. 8). He also lived to see the reaction and to prove that the\nreform was only superficial. There is one passage which seems to point\nto a change of view and even to the suspicion that the new code was\nnot authoritative (Jer. vii. 8). When Jeremiah attacked the sin of the\npeople, and warned them that the presence of Jehovah's Temple would\nnot suffice to protect them if they persisted in their iniquity, his\nmessage was rejected and eventually he was imprisoned and silenced by a\ncoalition of the priests and prophets. Jeremiah ceased therefore to be\nthe Prophet of that nation. In his loneliness and sorrow, his thoughts\nturned in an hitherto unexplored direction. He complains to God in\nwords which sound almost blasphemous, and pours forth expostulations\nthat are the reverse of the submissive spirit usually thought proper\nto religion; but it is through this agony that Jeremiah discovers that\nGod can be something to him, not only as the Prophet of the nation,\nbut for himself. He discovers personal religion. His next discovery is\nequally momentous; for he is led to see that no promulgation of laws\ncan save the nation: ordinances do not change the heart. He sorrowfully\npronounces the doom of the nation, but as he stands by its open grave\nhe sings of its resurrection. When purged by trial the nation shall\nreturn, and the New Covenant shall be set up, in which Jehovah shall\nwrite His laws in their hearts. It is a long far-off look that he\ngives, and the picture is not complete until One sits at a last supper\nand says: This cup is the New Covenant in my blood.\n\n\n\n\nTHE EFFECT OF THE EXILE\n\n\n  Dates for reference:--\n\n  B.C. 597.  Jehoiachin and 10,000 captives deported to Babylon,\n               and Zedekiah made king in his stead. FIRST\n               CAPTIVITY.\n     587-6.  Jerusalem besieged, Zedekiah taken to Babylon, Jerusalem\n               and the Temple destroyed, and the whole\n               population, save the very poorest, deported to Babylon.\n               SECOND CAPTIVITY.\n       538.  Cyrus issues edict for Return.\n             Return under Sheshbazzar (?) (Ezra i.).\n       537.  Return under Zerubbabel (Ezra ii.).\n       458.  Arrival of Ezra.\n       445.  First Mission of Nehemiah.\n       433.  Second Mission of Nehemiah.\n\n  There is a good deal of uncertainty about the above dates, and the\n  condition of the documents in Ezra-Nehemiah offers difficulties which\n  have not, so far, found acceptable solutions. Some have sought to\n  identify Sheshbazzar with Zerubbabel, and to bring down the date of\n  the Return to 522-21.\n\n  It will be seen from the above Table that Jeremiah's prophecy of\n  Seventy Years was not literally fulfilled.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n  The student would receive a clear idea of the growth of Israel's\n  institutions and the way in which they have been incorporated in the\n  successive documents, by tracing the development of the Sabbath in\n  the following passages.\n\n  Some claim that the Records of Babylonia show that the observance\n  of the seventh day as sacred goes back to the origins of primitive\n  Semitic religion.\n\n  (1) In \"J-E\" (which may be prior to Amos in oral form, and perhaps\n  slightly later as documents): Exod. xxiii. 12; xxxiv. 21; xx. 8.\n\n  (2) In historical books: 2 Kings iv. 22, 23; Amos viii. 5; Hosea ii.\n  11; Isa. i. 13.\n\n  (3) In \"D\": Deut. v. 14.\n\n  (4) In Jer. xvii. 19-27. (Jeremiah is the first writer to show traces\n  of the influence of Deuteronomy.)\n\n  (5) In \"H,\" The Code of Holiness (Lev. xvii.-xxvi.): Lev. xix. 3, 30;\n  xxvi. 2.\n\n  (6) In Ezek. xx. 12, 13.\n\n  (7) In \"P\": Gen. ii. 1-3; Exod. xx. 10, 11; xxxi. 12-17; xxxv. 1-3;\n  Lev. xxiii. 3; Num. xv. 32-36; Exod. xvi. 5, 22-30.\n\n  (8) In post-exilic observance: Neh. xiii. 15-22; Isa. lvi. 2, 4, 6;\n  lviii. 13, f.; lxvi. 23.\n\n\n\n\nLecture VII\n\nTHE EFFECT OF THE EXILE\n\n\nIn the year 597 B.C., a catastrophe long foretold befell the Kingdom\nof Judah. Nebuchadrezzar invaded the land, took Jerusalem, and robbing\nthe land of every person of importance or usefulness, transported them\ntogether with King Jehoiachin to Babylon, hoping doubtless to prevent\nany further trouble with Jud\u00e6a. In what a conflict of emotion must the\nexiles have left that city which they had fondly imagined inviolable!\nfor even in Babylon they continued to believe that so long as Jerusalem\nstood, Jehovah would have a citadel, and the holy city would remain a\nsymbolic witness to their unconquered religion. With the captives there\nwent a young man who was destined to leave a deep impression upon the\nfuture of his nation--the priest Ezekiel. Arrived in Babylon, he felt\nhimself called to a prophetic ministry to the exiles, and his first\nmessage was directed to the crushing of their remaining hopes; for\nwith dramatic symbolism he predicted that Jerusalem would be utterly\ndestroyed. The suicidal policy of Zedekiah, whom Nebuchadrezzar had\nleft to carry on the government as his vassal, soon fulfilled this\nprophecy; for sedition and intrigue soon compelled Nebuchadrezzar to\nadopt still stricter measures. He again marched into Jud\u00e6a and besieged\nJerusalem. This time the Jews expected no mercy, and resisted with\nsuch tenacity that the siege lasted for nearly two years. On the ninth\nday of the Fourth month, (our July) 586 B.C., a day still kept with\nsolemn fasting by the Jews, a breach was made in the walls and the\ncity capitulated. A month later the entire destruction of the city and\nTemple was ruthlessly carried out, and the whole population, with the\nexception of a few husbandmen, was deported to swell the company of\nexiles now at Babylon.\n\nThis was the inevitable culmination of the policy of the Kingdom of\nJudah under her latest monarchs. The position of their land laid\nthem open to conflicts with the powers of Assyria and Babylon. The\nwise and peaceful policy of Solomon had been departed from, and\nindeed rendered impossible by the disruption of the Tribes. A period\nof national decadence seems to have followed, in which luxury and\ncorruption undermined all political sanity, and both rulers and people\nbecame blind to the dangers that threatened. Such religion as existed,\nonly expressed itself in bursts of fanaticism, and filled the people\nwith the fatal idea that Jehovah would never suffer the Temple to be\nviolated or the holy city to be taken.\n\nThe disaster of the Exile is charged by the Prophets to the unrepented\nsins of the nation, and while this is a religious interpretation it is\nnot unsupported by a review of the history. The people had set their\nhearts upon a glorious kingdom of material prosperity, presided over\nand protected by a mighty national deity; the Prophets wanted a kingdom\nof righteousness, which would reflect the character of Jehovah and be\na witness to the nations of His reality and power. While they saw in\nthe Exile a calamity which meant the destruction of the nation, and an\nevidence that Jehovah had broken His covenant because of disobedience,\nthey clung to the belief that the end for which Jehovah had chosen\nIsrael might still be attained. That nation might be destroyed, yet\nfrom its ruins there would arise a Kingdom of God; a remnant would\nreturn, weaned from a false religion, to work out a new ideal of\nholiness and service.\n\nThe period which follows is one of great obscurity and the records\nwhich are actually dated from this time are scanty. Literary criticism\nhowever throws great light on this period because it believes that\nit is from the Exile that we are to date many institutions and\nwritings that have been referred to a previous age. This may seem\nat first sight a desperate device, since so little is known of the\nactual conditions; and yet unfettered investigation can arrive at no\nother conclusion, the exilic stamp being often unmistakable and even\nshowing itself in geographical outlook (1 Kings iv. 24). If we take\nthe Bible as it stands, it presents us with the story of an early\nlegislation given by Moses, neglected however by the entire people,\nincluding the Reformers and Prophets, until it suddenly appears after\nthe Exile as the acknowledged code for the regulation of religion and\ncommon life. It would be quite possible to conceive that the shock\nof the Exile drove the Jews to examine the details of the neglected\ncovenant of Jehovah and to restore the authority of the Law of Moses.\nSuch however is impossible, not only from that fact that there is no\nmention of the Law of Moses in the records that can be dated between\nthe Conquest of Canaan and the Exile, but that in this period we can\ndiscern customs and ideas _gradually_ growing up that find their full\nand final embodiment in the Pentateuch as we now possess it. From the\nlawless condition of the Judges and the early monarchy, we advance to\nthe teaching of the Prophets. It is Isaiah who contributes the ideas\nwhich lie at the basis of the Deuteronomic Code, and the time of Josiah\nis the first to show the influence of that code. Ezekiel is the first\nto show any trace of the ideas which we find embodied in Leviticus,\nbut these, as we shall see, have to be explained as anticipations of,\nrather than as an acquaintance with, the finished Levitical Code.\n\nWhen we consider what effect the Exile would have upon the more\nthoughtful of the Jews, we can imagine that conscience would be\nshocked into activity, and a new interest would be taken in their\nstrange history, especially in its prophetic interpretation. It is\ncommon in history to find that repentance rarely goes so deep as to\ngrasp the inner meaning of its discovered sin, but is apt to content\nitself with somewhat superficial methods of showing its sincerity and\nsecuring future compliance with religion. So at least, the records\nof Israel's history assure us, happened in this instance, and one of\nthe resolutions of their penitence took concrete form in the writing\nor editing of their history so that it should be a warning to the\nfuture, and in codifying customs and drawing up regulations which\nshould make apostasy for ever impossible. Many references in the\nancient records or in the oral tradition which savoured of idolatry or\nof a too anthropomorphic conception of God were corrected, as those\nreferences, the tendency of which was not detected, have remained to\nbear witness; and the whole history was fitted somewhat clumsily into\na mechanical scheme, which was rather what they thought ought to have\nhappened than what really did happen. One example of this may be seen\nin the condemnation which is na\u00efvely passed on king after king because\nhe had allowed sacrifice to be made at the high places; the fact being\nthat this was not made illegitimate until the reign of Josiah. In\nthis way external offences were marked and abandoned, while the deeper\nincongruity between the national religion and the teaching of the\nProphets was missed.\n\nIf we seek in this period for the rise of ideas which shall bridge over\nthe change from the popular religion on the one hand, and the religion\nof Jeremiah on the other, to the complete unity of the national\nreligion under Nehemiah and Ezra, we shall find a most important link\nin the Book of Ezekiel.\n\nThe Book of Ezekiel is said to be the least read book in the Bible,\nyet its author plays a most important part in the history of Israel's\nreligion, and to grasp the position which he occupies is to have a\nfocus point from which the whole development may be conveniently\ngrasped. The Prophet probably got a better hearing from his\ncontemporaries than any of his predecessors. He accompanied the body\nof captives who left Jerusalem for Babylon in the year 597, and his\nworks date from soon after that year and go down to about 570. The men\nto whom he was called to speak were therefore his fellow captives, and\nhe had not to look far for a text for his sermons. His hearers were in\nBabylon for their sins, and they knew it. His style of preaching is\ndifficult, and his method of embodying his message in visions marks\na new phenomenon in Israel's religion. He states truth in strange\nand fanciful figures, a method which was to form an example for the\nlater works of Judaism, and if we detect in Ezekiel a return to the\nextravagance of the earlier prophecy, we must make allowance for the\ntragic times in which he lived; especially must we do this where we\ntrace a falling off from his predecessors in moral insight and in the\nritualistic influence which his work undoubtedly left behind him.\n\nEzekiel continues the work of the pre-exilic Prophets in that he\nproclaims their characteristic doctrines, and naturally he shows\ndistinct traces of the influence of Jeremiah. What is new, is that\nhe gives to those doctrines a more fixed and somewhat pedantic form,\nand a greater self-consciousness is discernible; the prophecies are\naccurately arranged, and the language is marked by precision; rhetoric\nis less frequent, and the prophecies look more fit for reading than for\ndelivery. The idea of God is the same as in the earlier Prophets, but\nin Ezekiel it is elevated and rarified; especially is great emphasis\nlaid upon the attribute of holiness, which is however a ceremonial\nrather than a purely ethical conception. The characteristic idea of the\nProphets, that Jehovah chose Israel not for their own sakes, becomes\nthe idea that Jehovah did this for His own sake alone, and this is\nso often repeated that it almost looks like arbitrariness. The cause\nof Judah's punishment is still traced to the sin of the people, but\nthat sin is now definitely determined to be idolatry; and this is\ninsisted on almost to the exclusion of the social and ethical wrongs\nassailed by the earlier Prophets. While, however, Ezekiel enforces\nthe bitter lessons of the Exile, he carefully distinguishes the true\ninterpretation of that disaster from that which rose readily to the\npopular mind. He disposes of the conception that the Captivity was due\nto the inability of Jehovah to defend His own land (xxxvi. 20); it was\na punishment for sin (xxxix. 23), and in His own time He will prove\nthis by restoring them to their land again (xxxix. 25). Neither will\nhe allow them to rest in the flattering thought that they were only\nsuffering for the unvisited sins of a former generation; he insists,\nprobably with greater rigour than experience would sanction, that each\nman bears his own sin, and never suffers for the sins of others. But to\nthose who admit the justice of his charges, and who therefore regard\nthe future as hopeless, he preaches a tender doctrine of forgiveness\nand the possibility of cleansing from sin. From the events of his\ntimes, he seeks to draw lessons which should redeem the mistakes that\nhad been made in the past: the teaching of the Prophets must be kept\nbefore the people in definite rules and religious ceremonies. Old\ncustoms, whose original significance had long been forgotten, were\ninvested with new interpretations worthy of the true religion of\nJehovah, and were made not only customs, but religious commands. In the\nbook which bears his name, and especially in chapters xl.-xlviii., he\noutlines a policy in which the whole of national life is comprehended\nin its religious significance, and thus the calamity of future apostasy\nprevented. The new State is to centre round the idea of worship: the\nTemple with its services and appointments is to be the expression of\nthe national life. Now in this scheme there is little doubt that we\nhave the beginning of the Levitical system, for Ezekiel is related to\nLeviticus as the rough sketch to the finished plan. If Leviticus in its\npresent form existed in Ezekiel's time, then the work of the Prophet\nwas not only entirely unnecessary, but careless and presumptuous. Some\nof the facts which point to the priority of Ezekiel to the Levitical\nCode may be noticed. In the Levitical Code we find that a distinction\nis made between priests and Levites. This is not found in Deuteronomy\n(xvii. 9, 18; xviii. 1) but is first found in Ezekiel (xliv. 10-15),\nwhere it is explained to be due to the degradation of the Levites\nas a punishment for leading the people into idolatry; in Leviticus\nwe reach the final stage, where the distinction is accepted without\nexplanation. In Ezekiel we have no mention of the high-priest or of\nthe Day of Atonement, both of which figure so largely in the Priest's\nCode, although we can find _foreshadowings_ of the Day of Atonement\n(Ezek. xlv. 18-20). Indeed we meet with no mention of the Day of\nAtonement, apart from the Priestly Code, until Zechariah (vii. 5; viii.\n19). The general conclusion may be safely drawn, that during and after\nthe Exile, Ezekiel's ideas were stiffened and developed into the full\nlegislation now preserved for us in Leviticus.\n\nWe may rightly claim Ezekiel to be the founder of Judaism, with\nits transcendent conception of Jehovah and its great attention to\nceremonial detail, and we are bound therefore to recognise in Ezekiel a\nfalling off from the ideals of the pre-exilic Prophets; he is a prophet\nin priest's clothing. Yet it may be questioned whether the idealistic\nteaching of the Prophets could have been preserved through the periods\nof the Exile and the Restoration, without this formal process. An outer\nhusk of formality had to develop in order that the living kernel might\nbe protected during the critical years when Persia, Greece, and Rome\nwere to press their alien ideas upon this people. It has been well for\nthe world that Ezekiel clothed the Prophets' teaching in the resisting\ngarments of Judaism.\n\nThe Exile could not fail to leave upon the Jewish nation an\nimperishable mark, and they emerged from that trial a different\npeople. It was a shock that brought a repentance the Prophets had\noften laboured for in vain, and this repentance was marked by the\ninitiation of many new movements in thought, and by a more stringent\nand solemn observance of their peculiar institutions. Probably in that\nalien land many of the Jews adopted the customs of their conquerors,\nsince it is estimated that not more than a small fraction returned\nto Palestine. This defection would impress upon those who remained\nfaithful the necessity for a strict policy of separation, and from this\ntime certain institutions which had been inherited from ancient Semitic\npractice received a new meaning. Chief among these may be noticed the\nobservance of the Sabbath, and the rite of circumcision. The observance\nof a certain day as sacred to the gods is a custom that is found in\nnearly all early religions, and there are traces of such an observance\nin the Babylonian religion. We do not find however in the historical\nbooks of the Bible that mention of the Sabbath which would be expected,\nif it was observed with the strictness common after the Exile. There\nare traces of an observance, not strictly defined, save that it is\nin association with the new moon feasts, and is combined with social\nrelaxation (2 Kings iv. 22, 23; Hosea ii. 11; Amos viii. 5; Isa. i.\n13). Even before the Exile however a more religious conception had\narisen (Jer. xvii. 19-27), and is even then referred to as an earlier\ncommand. The change after the Exile was towards an ever increasing\nstrictness (Isa. lvi. 2, 4, 6; lviii. 13; lxvi. 23; Neh. xiii. 15-22).\n\nThe rite of circumcision was by no means peculiar to the Jewish\nreligion (Jer. ix. 25, 26), except perhaps in so far as it was\nperformed in infancy: its origin and growth are very obscure. Its\noriginal significance was early lost and its interpretation was\nprobably due to the Prophets themselves, who often referred to a\nspiritual circumcision, and thus made possible the full ceremonial\ninterpretation which became so important a feature in later Judaism.\n\nWe have seen that there is evidence to prove that the religion of\nIsrael had not always been averse to the use of idols as part of the\nlegitimate worship of Jehovah. The Prophets began the protest against\nthis, not so much because of its principles, but because of the immoral\npractices with which idol worship was connected. But after the Exile,\nidolatry was for ever separated from the worship of Jehovah, and in\nthe later Prophets idolatry becomes the target for their most scornful\ninvective. It has been suggested that this new abhorrence accounts for\nthe non-return of the Ark, which in this period disappears from history.\n\nAmong the most important of the new institutions that can be traced\nback to the period of the Exile is the founding of the Synagogue.\nIn the land of Exile, away from the one spot where sacrifice was\npermitted, worship had to be carried on without the aid of sacrificial\nor ceremonial rites, but there was nothing to prevent the people from\ngathering together for prayer or to hear read their newly reverenced\nprophetic books. It is quite possible that this led to a collection of\nthe Prophets' writings being made, and perhaps to some editing to meet\ntheir present needs. This movement was of profound importance for the\nfuture development of religion, for it was in the Synagogue rather than\nin the Temple that Christianity was to find the readiest medium for its\ndissemination and the earliest model for its worship. The Synagogue\nitself prepared the way for the more spiritual developments within\nJudaism, for away from the Temple sacrifices and their always dangerous\nsuggestions men learned that the sacrifice of the broken heart was more\nacceptable to Jehovah; and so the way was prepared for that magnificent\ncollection of prayers and songs which we call the Psalms, which were\nafterwards to be used as an accompaniment to a form of worship that\nthey frequently condemn. The external and legal conceptions were,\nhowever, to be the most visible results gained from the Exile, and they\nwere to mould religion for many a year.\n\nThe materials for an exact history of the return from Exile do not\nexist in our Bibles; the accounts found in Ezra and Nehemiah raise\nquestions which have not yet been satisfactorily answered. The Prophets\nwho had foretold the destruction of the kingdom of Judah had never\nbeen able to rest in the thought that this was the final chapter in\nJehovah's dealings with His people, and their faith forced them to peer\nthrough this impending disaster and dimly discern a purpose yet to\nbe disclosed. This is often pictured in merely general terms, but in\nJeremiah and Ezekiel these hopes issued in the definite prophecy of the\nrestoration of the Jews to their own land within a certain period. When\npolitical changes brought this on the horizon of possibility, the times\nwakened the \"voice of one crying in the wilderness,\" in some respects\nthe most wonderful of all that noble band we have been studying.\nThe name of this herald has not been preserved, but he is known to\ncriticism as the Second Isaiah. This does not of course mean that he\nbore that name, but it is a convenient designation for the writings\nthat occupy the second half of the work included under the name of\nIsaiah. The separation of chapters xl.-lxvi. from those which precede,\nas from different hands, is one of the most universally accepted\nresults of criticism. The preceding chapters end with a historic\nsurvey of events that happened in the lifetime of the great Isaiah of\nJerusalem, and then suddenly the whole outlook and atmosphere change.\nCritics claim that the test of language and style is itself decisive,\nbut while this must remain a question on which only Hebrew experts are\nqualified to pronounce, the difference of theological ideas, and the\nchange of situation cannot be missed by any attentive English reader.\nIndeed that the situation has changed is a fact which has never been\nchallenged. From chapter xl., the audience addressed consists no longer\nof the proud and scornful peoples of the time of Hezekiah, but of\npenitent captives far from their native land some 150 years later; the\naccepted explanation used to be that Isaiah transported himself to this\nlater time by a miracle of prophetic inspiration. But there is really\nonly one adducible reason for attributing this prophecy to Isaiah:\nit is bound up with the book that bears his name as the title. This\nreason is of little value when we admit our ignorance of the method\nby which the Old Testament was finally edited, and when the internal\nevidence entirely contradicts the traditional theory. For it must be\nborne in mind that the explanation that this is due to a prophetic\ntransportation is only a hypothesis framed to fit the conditions, and\nhas no claim to acceptance if there can be found one that does equal\njustice to the facts without appealing to such an unusual method.\nMoreover, the hypothesis of prediction does not fit the facts, for\nwhile some parts of the prophecy have predictive form, others have not.\nFor instance, the picture of Cyrus and his conquests, complete even\nto the name of the hero, is not only presented as if he were on the\nstage of actual history, but his appearance is adduced as a convincing\nevidence of the fulfilment of prophecy. What fulfilment would it be\nif Cyrus was yet a figure of the unknown future? If it is claimed\nthat this presentation is due to what is known to Hebrew grammarians\nas a use of the _prophetic present tense_, in which things future in\nfact, are stated as present, owing to the vividness of the prophetic\nconsciousness, then we must ask why it is that Cyrus is presented as\na figure of contemporary history, while the fall of Babylon is still\nspoken of as future. This distinction would be meaningless if the whole\nof this period was seen from some anterior time.\n\nThe \"settled results\" of criticism were greatly ridiculed when further\ninvestigation pronounced that only chapters xl.-lv. can have come\nfrom this great Prophet, and that the remainder of the book is of a\ncomposite character, extending at least to the time of the Second\nTemple. To have to bring in a third author, or even more, to explain\nthis book is quoted as an example of the foolishness of criticism. Now\nthe critics _may_ be wrong, but their theories are simply endeavours to\nunderstand these prophecies by setting them in their exact historical\nsurroundings. Surely this is a task worthy of any reverent student of\nthe Old Testament, and if it brings, as many believe, wonderful light\non these messages, and thus sets free their eternal significance,\nthen these men should earn gratitude rather than ridicule, when the\ndifficulty of their task calls for a continual rearrangement and a\nfiner adjustment.\n\nThe critical reconstruction of this prophecy therefore places chapters\nxl.-lv. among the scenes it depicts, and in the very history whose\nmovements called it forth. The exact conditions can be discerned. After\nthe death of Nebuchadrezzar the kingdom of the Chald\u00e6ans began to\ndecline, and when Cyrus succeeded to the throne of Persia its fate was\ndetermined. His victorious campaigns, culminating in the fall of Sardis\nin B.C. 547, could not fail to reach the ears of the exiles in Babylon,\nand many a whisper of hope must have been exchanged, and many a\nprophecy handed on. Babylon itself fell before the conqueror in 538 and\nbetween these two dates, and perhaps nearer to the latter, the internal\nwitness of the prophecy demands that it should be placed.\n\nWhen we turn to examine the work of this unknown messenger we cannot\nhelp noticing the difference in style, which even the translation\ncannot obscure. The great Isaiah writes in terse, closely-packed\nsentences, with all the authoritative manner customary with the\nProphets. This writer, on the other hand, is rhetorical, and loves\nto dwell on his favourite ideas. The sharp word of the prophetic\ndeliverance here gives way to a reasoning exposition and a pleading\ntenderness that makes this prophecy a Gospel before the Gospels. The\ndistinctive religious ideas can be easily marked. Absolute Monotheism\nis insisted on with a fulness and repetition which shows that it is in\nsome degree a new truth. There is none beside Jehovah; He is alone,\nunique; and description is exhausted in the endeavour to picture His\nglory and power. He is now constantly referred to as the Creator of the\nworld, the framer of the stars on high, the maker of both darkness and\nlight, both good and evil; so that no room is left for the dualism that\nthe Prophet may have learned to despise in the Babylonian religion. His\nfinest scorn is reserved for the conception that an idol can have any\nclaim to divinity. He depicts the process of their manufacture, their\nutter helplessness; it may be that he had seen them borne in to the\ncapital as the suburbs fell before the invader.\n\nUniversalism struggles for expression in this writer, but it is not\nalways so clear and definite as in the writings of the great Isaiah.\nThis arises however, not so much from the racial prejudices that have\nso clogged the Hebrew mind, as from a reading of Israel's history which\nthe prophet was well entitled to make, namely, that she was to be the\npremier nation in the instruction of the world in righteousness and\nthe knowledge of God, the priest-nation of humanity. This conception\nof the nation's history and destiny is embodied in a personification\nknown as the Servant of Jehovah. Israel has been chosen as the Servant\nso that the light may be brought to the nations. In this mission the\nServant meets with persecution, yet turns not back from those who\npluck off the hair nor hides his face from shame and spitting. The\nslightest retrospect of Israel's history shows that the Servant of\nJehovah was trained for his task only through suffering. Israel had\nsuffered for her sins of presumption and disobedience; but were the\nnations who punished her any more righteous? Moreover, many of those\nwho sat down by the waters of Babylon and wept when they remembered\nZion must have been pious and righteous, and innocent of the causes\nof their nation's calamities. As the prophet broods over the meaning\nof the Exile, as it affected the godly remnant, he begins to see that\nthis suffering, undeserved though it might be in particular cases,\nwould become a supreme lesson in righteousness to the world. This\nassumption is embodied in the astonishing drama of the suffering\nServant; one who suffers from a disfiguring disease, which marks him\nout to all beholders as the afflicted of Jehovah, and who is therefore\ndespised and rejected of men. But the day comes when the idea slowly\ndawns upon men that this servant-nation suffered for the sake of the\nworld, bore the consciousness of sin when other nations lived in\ncarelessness and flourished on cruelty. The Prophet believed that\nthis patient suffering would be an awakening force and would be the\nmeans of bringing the world to the knowledge of God. It is a marvellous\nreading of Israel's history; but it is true, for that little nation\ndespised and rejected by Empires, battered by the armed forces which\nsurrounded her, has made the whole world her debtor. But indirectly\nthis interpretation is a revelation of the meaning of all history, and\nespecially of that strange law of vicarious suffering which binds all\nthe world one and makes every new age in debt to the past. This unknown\nwriter has contributed one of the most fruitful ideas to the philosophy\nof history.\n\nIt is not surprising that most early commentators have tried to read\nin the 53rd chapter a picture, not of a nation, but of some definite\nperson; although the Prophet definitely identifies the Servant of\nthe Lord with Israel (Isa. xli. 8). But when did Israel embody such\na conception? It can only stand for an ideal of what Israel ought to\nhave been; and there have been many things which have entered into\nthe composition of the picture. It has been suggested that one of the\nProphets sat for this picture, just as sometimes an artist painting a\nsymbolical picture will get one of his friends to sit for the model;\nand who could be better for this purpose than Jeremiah, the rejected\nof the nation? The interpretation that finds in this picture a minute\nprediction of the life and passion of Jesus is not sanctioned by a\ncareful study of the passage; but the instinct that has led to this\nis right in the main, for as we travel down the ages looking for the\nfulfilment of this ideal, we only rest with complete satisfaction on\nthe story of the life and death of One who stepping out from this very\nrace, by His uninterrupted communion with God, His hatred of sin and\nHis profound sympathy with mankind, bore away the sin of the world on\nthe red flood of sacrifice, and brought in for ever the true Kingdom of\nGod.\n\nAn increasing number of Old Testament scholars believe that another\nof the Prophets contains an interpretation of the Exile, conceived in\nthe same spirit as that of the Second Isaiah, although veiled under\nsuch a strange allegorical form that centuries of Jewish and Christian\ninterpretation have entirely missed its meaning. The book of the\nProphet Jonah belongs to a later age, and should probably stand last of\nall the Minor Prophets, but the critical interpretation of the prophecy\nfalls naturally to be considered here. The character of the Book\nreveals on close inspection that it was never intended for history;\nas its inclusion among the prophetical writings perhaps recognises.\nIt is not only the improbability of the whale episode that has led to\nthis conclusion, but the whole character of the events narrated: the\nsudden growth and withering of the gourd, the instant repentance of\nthe Ninevites, which included a forced r\u00e9gime of fasting even for the\ncattle! Moreover, the closing words of the book breathe a spirit of\nuniversalism and humanity that is almost the high-water mark of Old\nTestament inspiration, and this encourages the reader to look for some\ndeeper meaning in the rest of the book. The story as interpreted by\ncritical methods is that Jonah is the nation of Israel, chosen to be\na missionary nation to the heathen. On refusing the task which Divine\nselection had marked out for her she is thrown into exile, and has been\nrestored for the purpose of carrying out her original mission. This\nis here symbolised by the whale swallowing Jonah, who on being cast\nup proceeded on his neglected commission, though still with little\nlove for his work. The imagery is crude and may strike the reader as\nexceedingly improbable, until his attention is drawn to the fact that\nthe whale or sea-monster plays a great part in Old Testament imagery\nand is once actually used as a symbol of the Exile. \"Nebuchadrezzar\nthe King of Babylon hath devoured me, ... he hath swallowed me up\nlike a dragon, ... he hath cast me out.... I will do judgment upon\nBel in Babylon, and I will bring out of his mouth that which he hath\nswallowed up\" (Jer. li. 34, 44). With this interpretation as a clue,\nthe book becomes luminous. It is an apology for the Gentiles who are\nshown to be capable of repentance; Israel is blamed for her grudging\nestimate of the heathen, for her refusal to convey to them the light\nwhich she enjoyed, and for her fear lest others should share the favour\nof Jehovah. Perhaps the symbolic character of the book was adopted,\nbecause the author knew that if such truths were boldly stated they\nwould never be received by his age; and so he hoped that the truth\nmight enter in through an interesting story of wonder and adventure.\nIt can hardly be claimed that the author has been successful; for the\nJews resisted the universalism of the Son of Man and the propagandist\nmethods of the Apostle Paul, while Christendom has been far more\nconcerned in proving that a whale can swallow a man, than in carrying\nout the command to evangelise those who know not their right hand from\ntheir left.\n\n\n\n\nTHE WORK OF THE PRIESTS\n\n\n  The following passage (Exod. vii. 14-25) illustrates the attempt to\n  disintegrate the various documents (\"J\" is indicated by roman type,\n  \"E\" by _italics_, and \"P\" by CAPITALS).\n\n  \"And Yahwe said unto Moses, Pharaoh's heart is stubborn, he refuseth\n  to let the people go. _Get thee unto Pharaoh in the morning; lo,\n  he goeth out unto the water; and thou shalt stand by the river's\n  brink to meet him; and the rod which was turned to a serpent shalt\n  thou take into thine hand._ And thou shalt say unto him, Yahwe, the\n  God of the Hebrews, hath sent me unto thee, saying, Let my people\n  go, that they may serve me in the wilderness: and, behold, hitherto\n  thou hast not hearkened. Thus saith Yahwe, in this thou shalt know\n  that I am Yahwe: behold, I will smite ... _with the rod that is in\n  mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be\n  turned to blood_. And the fish that is in the river shall die, and\n  the river shall stink; and the Egyptians shall loathe to drink water\n  from the river. AND YAHWE SAID UNTO MOSES, SAY UNTO AARON, TAKE THY\n  ROD, AND STRETCH OUT THINE HAND OVER THE WATERS OF EGYPT, OVER THEIR\n  RIVERS, OVER THEIR STREAMS, AND OVER THEIR POOLS, AND OVER ALL THEIR\n  PONDS OF WATER, THAT THEY MAY BECOME BLOOD; AND THERE SHALL BE BLOOD\n  THROUGHOUT ALL THE LAND OF EGYPT, BOTH IN VESSELS OF WOOD AND IN\n  VESSELS OF STONE. AND MOSES AND AARON DID SO, AS YAHWE COMMANDED;\n  _and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the\n  river; in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants;\n  and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood_.\n  And the fish that was in the River died; and the river stank, and\n  the Egyptians could not drink water from the river; AND THE BLOOD\n  WAS THROUGHOUT ALL THE LAND OF EGYPT. AND THE MAGICIANS OF EGYPT\n  DID IN LIKE MANNER WITH THEIR ENCHANTMENTS: AND PHARAOH'S HEART WAS\n  HARDENED, AND HE HEARKENED NOT UNTO THEM; AS YAHWE HAD SPOKEN. _And\n  Pharaoh turned and went into his house, neither did he lay even this\n  to heart._ And all the Egyptians digged round about the river for\n  water to drink; for they could not drink of the water of the river.\n  And seven days were fulfilled, after that Yahwe had smitten the\n  river.\"\n\nNotes:--The account in \"J\" evidently had nothing about the water being\nturned into blood. Yahwe himself will smite the river (_Ye' or_; the\nNile) so that the fish will die. \"The river\" probably stood after\n\"smite ...\" in \"J.\"\n\nIn \"E\" Moses is commanded to smite with his rod, and the Nile will be\nturned into blood. In verse 17 _thine_ must have stood in the original\nand was altered to \"mine\" when the documents were pieced together.\n\nIn \"P\" Aaron is to take the rod, and now all the rivers of Egypt, and\neven the water in the houses, is to be turned into blood.\n\nNotice the formal repetition in \"P.\"\n\n\n\n\nLecture VIII\n\nTHE WORK OF THE PRIESTS\n\n\nWe have seen that the Exile produced two important prophetical works.\nThe one is a vision of a restored Jewish state, contemplated under the\nguise of a Church rather than as a Nation; the work of the priestly\nProphet Ezekiel. The other is incorporated in the second half of the\nprophecies ascribed to Isaiah; the author is unknown, but the work is\nan attempt to interpret the calamitous history of the Exile in such\na fashion that the nation might be led to take as its ideal for the\nfuture, the Servant of Jehovah, the bearer of light to the nations\nof the world. The outlook in these two works is entirely different,\nyet both seem to have called forth a school which endeavoured to work\nout their ideals, but the school of Ezekiel obtained a more immediate\nrecognition and exerted the greater influence on the nation. For the\nfirst time in Israel's history a prophet is found who is concerned with\nmatters of ritual, the regulation of a priesthood, and the details of\necclesiasticism. Ezekiel endeavoured to secure the reforms demanded by\nthe Prophets, not only by the effect of his own preaching, but by the\nformation of definite organisations and the establishment of certain\ncustoms. The priestly school which followed Ezekiel and developed his\nconceptions, possessed sufficient prestige to persuade the nation that\ntheir scheme was of Divine authority. Their work was carried on during\nand after the Exile, but with the exception of Ezra, the names of\nthe authors have not been preserved. In the Bible history their work\nsuddenly appears under the name of \"the law of Moses\" in 444 B.C. The\nfirst certain mention of the recognition and observance of this law is\nfound in Nehemiah (viii.), where a memorable scene is described. Ezra\nthe Scribe, \"the writer of the words of the commandments of the Lord\nand of his statutes to Israel\" (Ezra vii. 11), has come from Babylon,\nbringing with him the law of Moses. The people are gathered together\non a certain day, and from morning to noon, the law is read in their\nhearing, with such comments and explanations as seemed necessary. The\nimmediate result of this publication was the discovery that important\nprovisions had been neglected and commands very seriously transgressed,\nand there followed such grief and alarm among those who listened, that\nit was difficult for the authorities to persuade the people to abandon\ntheir mourning and rejoice in the fact that the law had now been made\nknown to them. On the morrow a further reading took place, when they\ndiscovered that on that very day they ought to be keeping a feast of\ntabernacles. The feast was therefore observed for the appointed time\nof eight days, and it is expressly noted that this had not been done\nsince the time of Joshua. Other reforms were immediately set in motion;\nmarriage with those not of pure Jewish blood was not only forbidden\nbut, where such had actually been contracted, an immediate dissolution\nwas enforced; a tax of one third of a shekel was levied for the upkeep\nof the Temple Services, and the law of the Sabbath was rigorously\nenforced. Now this picture was not written by a contemporary, and\ncritics have found such difficulty in discovering the exact historical\nfacts that considerable doubt has been aroused, not only concerning the\nhistoricity of this event, but even concerning the existence of Ezra\nhimself. But it is certain that in the Fifth Century B.C., laws were\nobeyed and institutions were recognised, of which we have no record,\noutside the Pentateuch, in the earlier historical books. The question\nto be answered is: What was that \"law of Moses\" which Ezra brought to\nJerusalem and read to the people? Later Judaism calls the first five\nbooks of the Bible \"the Law of Moses,\" and for centuries both Jewish\nand Christian scholars have identified Ezra's law with these books,\nhave supposed that they existed from the time of Moses downwards, but\nwere entirely neglected by the Jews until this time. Modern research\nis compelled to dissent altogether from this tradition. Our purpose in\nthis book prevents us from discussing the details of this controversy,\nbut in addition to what has been already said in an earlier lecture,\nthe main results of critical study on the origin of the Law may be\noutlined.\n\nFrom the time occupied by Ezra in reading his law it is inferred that\nit could hardly have been our first five books of the Bible; and\nsince to carry out the laws contained in them would involve endless\ndiscussion because of their contradictory character (compare for\nexample the directions for keeping the feast of Tabernacles in Deut.\nxvi. 13, 15, which commands seven days, with Lev. xxiii. 39, which adds\nan eighth day for a solemn assembly; compare also the account in 1\nKings viii. 66, with 2 Chron. vii. 8, 10), it is thought that this law\nof Ezra must have been much smaller than the Pentateuch, and much more\nhomogeneous. The Pentateuch not only contains more than \"laws,\" but\neven the legal sections bear the marks of such widely different aims\nand conditions that we are compelled to assume a gradual collection,\nwith continual redaction and codification, in order to account for\nthe various phenomena. The earliest strata may go back to a great\nantiquity, and the customs themselves must often be primitive Semitic\nsurvivals, but the critical contention is that, as a whole, the \"Law\nof Moses\" owes its present form to an age later than the Exile, and\nsomewhat later than Ezra himself; for Ezra's code has itself been\nrevised (compare Neh. x. 32, where a third of a shekel is appointed,\nwith Exod. xxx. 13, where it has increased to half a shekel), before it\nwas amalgamated with the Pentateuch in its existing form.\n\nThe critical basis for this theory of the gradual formation of the law\nis found first in the fact that the legislation of the Pentateuch is\nnot homogeneous: it is so contradictory that to carry out the law as\nit stands would be found impossible. It is claimed that the presence\nof the various strata can be detected by the numerous repetitions\n(_e.g._, the commandments exist in three recensions: Exod. xx. 1-17;\nxxxiv. 17-28; Deut. v. 6-21); by the use of different names for God, by\nthe difference in language and style, and by the change in theological\nconceptions; and moreover, that these different strata can be roughly\nassigned to various ages, which can be actually confirmed by the record\nof their observance in the historical books (compare the provisions\nmade for the Ark in Exod. xxv.-xl.; Num. iii.-iv., with its actual\ntreatment in 1 Sam.).\n\nThe different strata of the laws, and the ages to which they may be\nroughly assigned, are as follows:--The earliest code of laws is said\nto be that of the \"Book of the Covenant\" (Exod. xxiv. 7), found in\nExod. xx. 20-xxiii. 33. The primitive character of this code can be\ndiscerned, by the comparison of its directions for worship with those\nof later ages. It sanctioned the erection of rude altars at any place\nwhere Jehovah had been revealed, whereas in later codes no place except\nthe one chosen spot can be used for worship, and the altar must be of\nhighly specialised construction (compare Exod. xx. 24-26 and Deut.\nxii. 4-24, with Exod. xxvii. 1-8). Now it is precisely this informal\nworship, which could be performed by any one and at any place, that\nappears to have been the custom until the time of the reformation\nunder Josiah; and in his times, and as the cause of his reform, the\ncritics place the Book of Deuteronomy, v.-xxvi.; for it presupposes\nthe teaching of the prophets and is the programme followed by Josiah.\nThen next follows \"the Law of Holiness\" (Lev. xvii.-xxvi.); which is\neither the outcome of Ezekiel's work or is shortly prior to it; anyhow,\nthe connection is close. Then in 444 B.C. appears the code of Ezra,\nwhich was afterwards developed and set in a brief narrative describing\nthe historical preparation for the law and its actual deliverance by\nMoses; this document of history and laws is known for convenience as\nthe Priestly Code, and is denoted by the letter \"P.\" The editorial\nframework of the completed Hexateuch (the first six books of the\nBible), is of the same stamp as the Priests' Code, and the date of its\nfinal compilation must not be put very much later than Ezra, since\nthe Samaritan Pentateuch probably goes back to the Fourth Century,\nfrom which date it can claim an independent existence. It is this\nwork of the Priests that we are now to examine. \"P\" is to be found at\npresent scattered throughout the Hexateuch, and embraces nearly the\nwhole of Leviticus, Numbers and a good portion of Exodus; is found in\nmany scattered passages in Genesis and in a small portion of Joshua\nand Judges, especially, in the latter case, in the closing chapters;\nthere is only a very little in Deuteronomy. Although not the work of\none hand, these passages can be detected by their unity of motive,\nthe uniform phraseology, the priestly outlook, and their concern with\nlegal and ritualistic regulations. The style is stereotyped, measured,\nand prosaic, and is rendered somewhat monotonous by the repetition of\nstated formulae. The theological ideas are dominated by the thought of\nthe awful holiness of God and the danger that there lies in approaching\nHim in any other than the ordained way.\n\nWhat were the sources from which this code drew its material? It is not\nsuggested that the code was simply _invented_ during the Exile. Many\nof the legal commands concerning uncleanness, leprosy, and marriage\nare really ancient customs, and only owed their _codification_ to\nthis late age; for they reflect a low stage of culture, and their\nrites of purification are primitive. Again sacrifice had been\nperformed as far back as Semitic history can be traced, and customs\nwhich had persisted were now simply tabulated and their form fixed.\nMany of the sacrificial rites prescribed in the code still bear the\nmarks of their early origin, especially in the case of the burnt\nand the peace-offerings, but the law of the sin-offering shows\nartificial elaboration. Undoubtedly when Solomon's Temple was built\na new sacrificial ritual would be developed more in keeping with the\nsplendour of the edifice, and as the Temple increased in prestige, and\nwhen under Isaiah's influence it became the one spot at which sacrifice\ncould be performed, the priestly caste would keep the rite in their\nown hands and perform it with more care; and all this would become the\nbasis for a new ritualistic legislation. The minuteness of the Priestly\nCode often gives the impression of a record of exact history, but a\ncareful examination of such measurements as are given in the case of\nthe Ark or the Tabernacle do not confirm the historical accuracy; for\nthe Tabernacle cannot be made exactly as described, and if it could\nbe, would neither stand up, nor be suitable for the purpose for which\nit was intended, nor be able to be transported through the desert. It\nis simply a tent-like model of the Temple projected into the early\nhistory on the theory that the worship which existed in the writer's\ntime was that which had always existed. The artificial conception of\nthe history which \"P\" follows can of course be seen, if we separate\nthe various strata of the first six books in the Bible, but it can be\nseen without this difficult and controversial method by comparing the\nhistory of Kings with Chronicles: the one written largely before and\nthe other entirely after the legislation of \"P\" had been accepted. The\nlaw of the Day of Atonement is almost entirely late, and originated in\nthe deepened sense of guilt produced during the Exile; neither is there\nany trace of its observance until that time.\n\nA difficult question has arisen concerning the date of this legislation\nsince the discovery of the Code of Hammurabi. Hammurabi was a\nBabylonian king who lived somewhere about 2,250 B.C., and who has been\nidentified by some with the Amraphael of Gen. xiv. His code reveals a\nfairly advanced stage of civilisation and morality existing in Babylon\nat that time, but its chief interest for us is found in the fact that\nmany of the laws concerning common life, marriage, etc., are not only\nlike the laws of the Bible, but in some cases are verbally similar.\nThis phenomenon demands some theory of contact between the two codes,\nbut no theory has yet been found that explains all the facts. The idea\nof direct borrowing on either side can hardly be taken seriously,\nand the correspondence between the two codes hardly requires that;\nso that the question is narrowed to one of influence. This influence\nwould seem to be most natural in the time of the Exile, were it not\nthat the strictly exclusive spirit then developed by the Jews makes it\nunthinkable. There remains either the explanation of a common basis\nfor the two codes, traceable to their Semitic origin, or what has\nreceived the greater support from scholars, the idea that the influence\nof Hammurabi's laws on Israel's legislation is to be traced through\nthe former inhabitants of Canaan. To understand how this is possible,\nwe must remember that it is now known that Babylon had predominating\ninfluence over Western Palestine before the conquest of Canaan by the\nHebrews; that the inhabitants of the land were much more civilised\nthan their conquerors; and that the invaders did not exterminate the\ninhabitants, but quietly effected a settlement among them and adopted\nmany of their customs.\n\nWhile on the subject of the influence of Babylon it will be convenient\nto notice here that this influence is not confined to legal matters,\nbut can be traced in certain legendary elements in the Old Testament.\nThe ideal of the Priests' Code would not tolerate heathen mythology\nthat could be detected as such, to appear in its work, and yet\nthere are definite traces of such mythology to be found in \"P\"s\naccount of the creation in Gen. i. The discovery of the libraries of\nAssurbanipal has brought to light records of a mythological cosmogony\nwhich, while utterly different in conception and spirit from Genesis,\nis sufficiently similar to suggest some degree of connection. This\nBabylonian Epic of creation deals not so much with the remarkably\nscientific idea of a gradual creation of our earth out of chaotic\nmaterials, but with a conflict of gods and monsters which is supposed\nto have taken place before the creation. In the opening verses of the\nBible there is a reference to the partition of the deep, which is here\ncalled by the non-Hebrew name _Tehom_, into two parts: the waters above\nand the waters under the firmament. Now in the Babylonian story the\nactual creation of the earth is preceded by a mighty struggle between\n_Marduk_, the sun-god (the Merodach of the Bible) and a great dragon\nsymbolical of the primeval waters, which bears the name _Tiamat_, the\nBabylonian form of _Tehom_. The influence of this myth is the more\ncertainly to be traced in Genesis, because it appears elsewhere in the\nOld Testament under the form of a legend of a conflict between Jehovah\nand Rahab, a mighty dragon; and this legend is generally in some way\nconnected with creation (Job ix. 13; xxvi. 12; Isa. li. 9; Ps. lxxxix.\n10). There is also a Babylonian story of the flood which keeps even\ncloser to the Bible narrative, and it may be seen from the Babylonian\nversion that this is more probably another form of the dragon myth than\na common memory of a tremendous deluge. A Babylonian seal cylinder in\nthe British Museum bears the picture of a man and woman standing one on\neach side of a sacred tree, from which they are picking fruit, while a\nserpent coils around the tree; but no written explanation of this very\nsuggestive picture has been discovered. These mythical stories have\ncome down from primitive Semitic times, but we cannot fail to notice\nthat while their ancestry is undoubtedly common, there is a tremendous\ndifference between the stage reached under the inspiration of the\nHebrew genius and the crude Polytheism of the Babylonian stories. Their\nconnection in some way is unmistakable, but still more certain is\ntheir different ethical and religious level. The fact of the borrowing\ndoes not deny the inspiration; it rather reveals how powerful that\ninspiration was.\n\nTo turn now to a consideration of the work of the Priests. We must\ndoubtless concede to the workers a very lofty motive: it was nothing\nless than an endeavour to include the whole of the nation's life under\nthe conception that God was dwelling among His people, and that the\nnation must be holy because He is holy.\n\nBut in the working out of this purpose the ideal is neither secured nor\nmaintained. The holiness of God is insisted on with much reiteration,\nbut it is conceived of as a physical rather than a moral attribute.\nIt is really only a conception of the unapproachability of God unless\ncertain purely ritual and physical conditions are observed. For the\nenforcement of this idea the old custom of sacrifice was elaborated\nand strictly defined, but strangely enough, without explicit teaching\nas to its meaning. This is peculiar, and it seems to have remained\nlargely unnoticed, for many Biblical expositors have adopted without\ninquiry the idea that the sacrifices were substitutionary, piacular,\nand typical of the sacrifice of Christ. The piacular meaning suggests\nitself at so many points that it is startling to find that it cannot be\nborne out by careful examination. The sacrifices are in most instances\nonly efficacious for the forgiveness of unintentional sins, or for\nthe atonement of ritualistic mistakes made in ignorance or through\ninadvertence. The ceremony of laying the hands of the offerer on the\nhead of the intended victim, suggests that a symbolical transference of\nguilt is taking place, and yet only in one case is this accompanied by\na confession of sins, and there the victim is not slain, but led away\nfor Azazel. The sin-offering involved the death of the animal, but an\nanimal was not absolutely necessary for the purpose, and flour might\nbe substituted; and even where we have the slain animal, the idea that\nthe animal has taken the place of the sinner seems to be excluded by\nthe fact that its flesh is regarded as \"most holy.\" The offerings are\nsaid to make atonement, but we are not told how this is affected unless\nin the passage that states that \"it is the blood that maketh atonement,\nby reason of the life.\" The word translated \"atonement\" means simply \"a\ncovering,\" and of course may mean that the blood, which is symbolical\nof the offered life, either covers the eyes of God from beholding the\nsin, or covers the sinner. We are left then, either with the deduction\nthat the exact significance of the sacrifices was not mentioned because\neveryone knew what it was, or that it has not been told because it\nwas too mysterious, or that there was no definite meaning attached to\nthem. Originally sacrifice did not bear a piacular significance, but it\nwould be unsafe to argue from this that no substitutionary value was\nattached to the Levitical sacrifices by these priestly lawyers; indeed\nthe only safe conclusion seems to be that the priests adopted these\nsacrifices, which were time-honoured, as the proper ritual for the\napproach to God, without any definite inquiry as to their meaning. But\ntaking the Levitical system as a whole there seems to underlie it the\ntheory of symbolical, although not piacular substitution. God owns man\nentirely, and that by right: his time, possessions, flocks, and lands;\nand demands from him the completest recognition of this ownership. Now\nin practice, this absolute demand can only be recognised by substitute\nand proxy; and so we have the recognition of God's claims by the\nobservance of one holy day in seven, by the ransom of the first-born,\nby the sabbatical and jubilee years, by the tithes, and especially by\nthe sacrifices. His dwelling in the land is symbolised by the respect\npaid to one symbolical holy place; and the continual service He demands\nis represented by the daily service carried on by the Levitical caste.\nBut even if this be the intention of the system, it is nowhere so\ndefined, and therefore it is not surprising to find that people soon\nforgot the symbolical meaning, and treated the symbol as a thing\nsufficient in itself; with the result, that the service of God came to\nbe restricted to a performance of rites that had lost all significance.\nOne explanation would soon silence any criticism of this scheme\nthat might arise, namely, that God had so ordained that men should\nworship Him. But deeper still there lay a radical misconception of\nthe very nature of God and of the service He seeks. God was conceived\nas inimical not so much to man's sin, as to man himself; and this\ndanger was averted by the use of protective rites which needed to be\nperformed with scrupulous care, lest a mistake might bring down on the\nworshipper immediate and awful destruction, quite irrespective of his\nmoral condition. Doubtless the nation might be impressed by these means\nwith the awful aloofness of God, and there must often have accompanied\nthis some notion of the ethical character that was expressed in this\nseparateness; but the means taken for satisfying this character and\ndemand in the nature of God could never have had any other result than\nit did, namely, the conception that attention to details of ritual\ncould be a substitute for the much more difficult service of repentance\nand righteousness. It is possible that we may be under-estimating the\nreal motive of the Priests' work and its actual success in preserving\nreligion under these forms; but the radical evil is clearly exposed\nwhen we come to the time of another calamity, that which befel the\nnation under Antiochus Epiphanes, when no other method of averting the\nanger of God seems to have been thought of, except that of increasing\nthe rigour of this ritual law and fencing it round with still further\nrestrictions, until it became a burden too heavy to be borne.\n\nSuch a r\u00e9gime utterly failed to understand the teaching of Jesus and\ncould only regard His religion as impious and lacking in all that was\nessential, reverential, or good, and it was \"the Law\" which put Jesus\nto death. It is much to be deplored that the Sacrifice of Christ has\nin turn been explained to the conscience touched to penitence and\ntenderness by the story of the Cross, rather by the analogy of the Old\nTestament sacrifices than by its complete superiority to them as based\nupon a different and ethical order; for the rags and tatters of the\nLevitical system still impede the religious life; allowing men to think\nthat God is content with substitutes, can be placated with blood, and\nis more concerned with abstract regulations than with moral change.\nAnd so there still hang about religion the same inconsistencies, the\nsame slaughter of the prophets, the same blindness to the eternal\ndemands of personal and social righteousness. The motive of the work\nof the Priests may have been to enforce the prophetic repentance, but\nto gain this end they compromised with unspiritual ritual, and on that\ncompromise Christ was, and is still crucified.\n\n\n\n\nTHE RELIGION OF THE PSALMISTS\n\n\n  Titles of the Psalms, descriptive of their contents:--\n\n  (1) Song, Heb. _Shirah._ A lyrical poem for singing. Probably the\n  earliest title, which in some instances may have belonged to the\n  original composition.\n\n  (2) _Michtam_, perhaps, \"a golden piece.\" The title indicates their\n  artistic form and choice contents. They were probably all taken from\n  a previous collection.\n\n  (3) _Maschil_, a meditative poem, from a collection made perhaps in\n  the late Persian period.\n\n  (4) Psalm, Heb. _Mizmor_. The name given to a collection used for\n  public worship, probably in the early Greek period.\n\n  (5) _Shiggaion_, (Ps. vii.; also in plural, Hab. iii. 1.) Some take\n  this to mean a wild, passionate composition, but this Psalm hardly\n  bears that character. Perhaps we may expect a textual corruption from\n  _Neginah_: a song accompanied with musical instruments.\n\n  (6) A song of Ascents: used in the processions to the Temple.\n\n  (7) A prayer.\n\n  On the question of the Davidic authorship of the Psalms, the\n  following passages should be examined; they would appear to be in\n  hopeless disagreement with the life of David as depicted in the\n  historical books. Ps. v. 8-10; vi. 7, f.; xii. 1-4; xvii. 9-14;\n  xxii.; xxvii. 10, 12; xxxv. 11-21; xli. 5-9; liv. 2-6; lxii. 3, f.\n  The Psalms which are ascribed to some definite occasion in David's\n  life are not on the whole any more suitable to the situation,\n  although there is generally some single phrase which probably gave\n  rise to this identification.\n\n  The great commentator Ewald, on literary grounds ascribed the\n  following Psalms to David because of their originality and dignified\n  spirit: Ps. iii.; iv.; vii.; viii.; xi.; xv.; xviii.; xix. 1-6; xxiv.\n  1-6; xxiv. 7-10; xxix.; xxxii.; lx. 6-9; lxviii. 13-18; ci.; cxliv.\n  12-14.\n\n  Briggs would not go so far as to indicate Davidic Psalms, but would\n  put as far back as the Early Monarchy, Ps. vii., xiii., xviii.,\n  xxiii., xxiv. b, lx. a, and cx.\n\n\n\n\nLecture IX\n\nTHE RELIGION OF THE PSALMISTS\n\n\nThe principles of Biblical criticism have often been traced to a\nvigorous application of the theory of evolution to the growth of\nreligious ideas. Such an application, if without the support of facts,\nwould discredit all critical results; but as a matter of fact, the\ncritical readjustment of the Old Testament does not give a perfect\nprogression in religious development. Indeed, it leaves us with a\nperplexing story of decline from high attainment. The Law follows\nthe Prophets, and no theory can recognise the Law as an advance upon\nprophetic teaching. The national rejection of the Prophets is the\ncentral tragedy of Hebrew history and prepares us for the national\nrejection of Jesus. Yet between the Prophets and the religion of\nthe Gospels we are able to trace an almost continuous link in the\nreligion of the Psalmists. This connection is somewhat obscured by\nthe early date assigned to the Psalms by uncritical tradition, by\nthe heterogeneous character of the collection, and by its continual\nredaction in the interest of the purpose to which they were adapted.\nIn adopting this collection of religious poems for the purpose of\npublic praise, it is more than likely that additions were made, in\norder that they might more fitly express the need of the time, while\nreverence for the writings, by the time at least, of the final edition\nof the work, operated to preserve the original; as may be seen, for\ninstance, in the addition made to the fifty-first Psalm (ver. 18,\n19), which in its original form condemns the very worship in which\nit was used. Moreover the collection is as much a prayer-book as a\nhymn-book, for many of the Psalms are really prayers, and five of them\nare actually so entitled. The book was certainly used in the Temple\nservices, but on the whole it must have seemed more fitted for the\nnon-sacrificial and non-ceremonial worship of the synagogue, or for the\nprivate devotions of pious men and women. However and wherever used, it\nmust have nourished a deep personal religion and kept alive hopes to\nwhich Christianity afterwards appealed.\n\nNo other single book of the Old Testament has had such an influence on\nChristian piety and worship. From ancient times to the present day the\nPsalms have been chanted, and in Churches of widely differing ritual\nthey have been considered the only fit vehicle for Christian praise.\n\nNothing more clearly demonstrates their proximity to the Christian\nview of things, although the modern spirit in Christendom is finding\nit increasingly difficult to express itself in the language of all the\nPsalms, on account of their imprecatory wishes. Perhaps still more, the\npredominant tone of the book, which is one of crying for deliverance\nfrom overwhelming enemies and oppression, hardly suits the safety of\nour times, or meets the demand for a joyful religious spirit. Many\nof the Psalms become real only in times of severe spiritual trial,\nand where there exists a deep sense of contrition; still better do\nthey express the emotions which arise in times of national calamity\nor religious persecution; and most of all when men are constrained\nto take arms in the cause of religion and righteousness. They have\nnever sounded so fitting as on the lips of the Reformers, Cromwell's\nIronsides, or the Scottish Covenanters. And yet their great breadth\nof appeal, their touching of every possible note in religious\nexperience--penitence and joy, questioning and trust, longing and\nsatisfaction, defeat and victory,--their majestic literary form,\nand their poetic inspiration will preserve them for ever as sublime\nutterances of universal religion. But our work is not to appraise their\neternal value, but to estimate their significance, influence, and\nposition in the development of Old Testament religion; and to do this\nwe must endeavour to trace the origin and compilation of the Psalter.\n\nThe criticism of the Psalter is faced by a peculiarly difficult and\ncomplex problem, arising from the lack of historic connection, the\npossible obliteration by editorial redaction, and the difficulty of\ninterpreting with certainty even those data which the text presents,\nand it has by no means yet reached settled conclusions; only general\nand tentative results can be noted here. That, however, the book is\nthe result of a gradual process, may be seen from the presence of\ndoublets (liii. = xiv.; lxx. = xl. 13-17; cviii. = lvii. 7-11 + lx.\n5-12), and from the subscription at the end of Book II., which displays\nignorance of the fact that further Psalms, ascribed to David follow.\nIt will be more convenient to start from the final position and work\nbackward; and that final position is undoubtedly this, that the Book\nof Psalms as it stands in our Bible is the hymn-book of the restored\nSecond Temple. It is a book prepared for musical accompaniment; this\nmay be seen from the titles still preserved at the head of many of\nthe Psalms. These titles are of three kinds: they describe the nature\nof the poetic composition; they give the names of the authors and\nsometimes the circumstances in which they were composed; and the third\nkind are most probably to be explained as instructions for musical\nsetting. These last-named titles are in most cases very obscure; the\nRevised Version has simply transliterated the Hebrew words. On the\nassumption that these are musical terms, we have three classes of them\nin the Psalms. One class apparently gives directions for the tune to\nwhich the Psalm is to be sung, and this tune is named, like some modern\nhymn tunes, after the words with which the tune had been originally\nor customarily associated; these appear to have been popular songs,\nnot necessarily of an entirely religious character (Ps. lvi., R.V.\ntitle: \"set to Jonath elem rehokim\"; mar. translates: \"The silent dove\nof them that are afar off\"; Ps. lvii., lviii.: \"set to Al tashheth,\"\nwhich means: \"Do not destroy.\" In the Septuagint the setting of Ps.\nlxx. has been altered to: \"Save me, O Lord\"). Other titles seem to\ndirect the voice to be used in singing, as either falsetto or bass (Ps.\nxlvi., \"set to Alamoth\"; probably maiden-like voices, and as women\ntook no part in the service of the choirs, this must refer either to\ntenor, or male falsetto; Ps. vi., xii., \"set to the Sheminith.\" R.V.\nmar., \"the eighth.\" This is probably the octave or bass voice). Two\nreferences are to be found to the instrumental accompaniment to be\nused, as either stringed or wind instruments (Ps. iv., vi., etc.,\n\"on stringed instruments\"; Ps. v., \"with the Nehiloth,\" mar., \"wind\ninstruments\"). The much discussed meaning of _Selah_ is most probably\nto be sought in a musical direction. The word means: \"lift up.\" The\nSeptuagint translates, \"interlude,\" but many other versions (Version\nof Aquila, Syriac Peshitto, Jerome and the Targum) translate, \"for\never.\" This duplicate translation suggests the very possible clue\nthat at the places where _Selah_ appears, the Psalm might be ended,\nif desired, and the \"for ever,\" or the doxology, which was usually\nsung at the end of the Psalm and which is found at the end of each\nbook, could be taken there. As completed, the Psalter is therefore a\nbook with directions for a fully organised and choral worship, and\nwe have to seek for a time when such a worship was in existence. The\ndifficulty is that these musical directions are somewhat rare and\nare not found in the later books, but only in connection with those\nPsalms entitled, \"for the Director.\" As the instruments mentioned are\nonly of the simplest kind and not of the varied character used in the\nornate worship of the Temple (cxlix. 3; cl. 3-5), and as by the time\nthe Greek translation was made (150 B.C.), their significance was\nforgotten, we have to put the final edition long after the founding of\nsynagogue worship, in which the Director's Psalm Book was first used,\nand at some period when there had been a complete change in musical\npractice. This demands a time when Hellenistic culture had moulded even\nthe Temple worship. (The Jews were under Greek influence and rule from\nB.C. 333 to B.C. 63.) The time from which a full choral service was in\nuse in the Temple is to be carried back, according to the Chronicler,\nto the time of Solomon and David, but a comparison with the earlier\nhistory contained in the Books of the Kings does not confirm this.\nThe Chronicler, who from his interest in these matters seems to have\nbeen a member of one of the Levite choirs, really gives us the customs\ncurrent in his times, and infers that they went back unchanged to the\ntime of the building of the first Temple and to the preparatory work\nof David. These considerations, together with the admitted lateness of\nmany of the Psalms, some of them undoubtedly belonging to the times of\nthe Maccab\u00e6an wars, bring us down to that late age and perhaps more\nprecisely to the time of the rededicated Temple (165 B.C.), and demand\nthat the final edition of the Psalter is to be placed somewhere about\n150 B.C.\n\nWe might expect to find traces of the growth of the Psalter in the\ndivision into five books (at xli., lxxii., cvi., cl., see R. V.),\nbut there seems no real division necessary between Books IV. and V.\nand the five-fold division may be due to the desire to imitate the\ndivisions of the Law; the other divisions however contain more hopeful\nsuggestions. The first book, for instance, is almost entirely ascribed\nto David (Ps. i. is an introduction to the whole book, composed for\nthe final edition, and Ps. ii. may have been also placed in front as\npart of the introduction. Ps. xxxiii., which is very late, may have\nbeen added as a kind of doxology to Ps. xxxii. The rest are ascribed\nto David). The second book is largely Davidic and it concludes with\nthe statement: \"the prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended.\"\nIn spite of this notice Psalms are found ascribed to David in the\nbooks that follow, so that the remark must have been found appended\nto a collection that the final editor took over; it cannot be due to\nhis own hand. Further evidence of compilation is to be found in the\nstrange occurrence of the different names for God: Elohim and Jehovah.\nIn the first book the name of Jehovah preponderates. In Book II.\nthe name Elohim is found most frequently. Then in Book III. Psalms\nlxxiii.-lxxxiii. use Elohim only, and lxxxiv.-lxxxix. Jehovah mainly;\nand in practically the whole of Books IV. and V. Jehovah is almost\nsolely used, The reason for this phenomenon must be sought in editorial\nredaction, for in the duplicate Psalms, xiv. and liii., xl. 13-17 and\nlxx., Jehovah is found in the first recension and Elohim in the second.\nThe Elohistic character of lxxiii.-lxxxiii. may be due to the original\ncompiler since they are all ascribed to Asaph and otherwise bear marks\nof common production. The Elohistic redaction may have been made in\na period when the name Jehovah sounded tribal and almost heathenish;\nbut a similar test leads to the conclusion that the first collection\nenjoyed by this time a liturgical familiarity, which did not permit\nof alteration. The reversion to the name of Jehovah in Books IV. and\nV. might be explained by the fact that in later times the name was\nwritten but never pronounced. On the line of these suggestions we\nshould expect to find that Book I. contained the earliest Psalms and\nBooks IV. and V. the latest; this is roughly correct, if we allow for\nthe possibility of minor insertions being made for various purposes in\nthe last edition. In Book V. there is a group of Psalms (civ.-cvi.,\ncxi.-cxiii., cxv.-cxvii., cxxxv., cxlvi.-cl.), which are distinguished\nby either commencing or ending with \"Hallelujah,\" and are known as\nthe \"Hallels.\" From their contents, it may be observed that they are\nsuitable for use at the Great Festivals, and it is known that they\nwere, and are still so used by the Jews. They imply a highly organised\nmusical service (Ps. cl.), they require a time when the festivals were\nregularly observed and when the worship of the Temple could be carried\non without fear. Such conditions are to be found together only after\nthe Exile, and then only during the period of Greek rule; and to this\nlate period the composition of these Psalms is to be referred. An\neven later date is demanded for some Psalms that are said to reflect\nthe rebellion against the Hellenizing movement enforced by Antiochus\nEpiphanes, in which the Maccabees played such a heroic part. This date\nis confirmed by the references to: the \"assembly of the saints\" (Ps.\ncxlix. 1, Heb. _hasidim_, the purist party formed in that time); the\ncruel persecution for religious opinions (Ps. xliv. 17-22; lxxix.\n2; lxxxiii. 3, 4); the defiling of the Temple, the burning of the\nsynagogues, and the silence of the Prophetic voice (Ps. lxxiv. 7-9;\nlxxix. 1). Other Maccab\u00e6an Psalms are said to be: cx., where there is a\nreference to some priest who is not in the legitimate succession, which\nentirely describes the Priest-Kings of the Maccab\u00e6an dynasty (other\nscholars would put this Psalm very early; on the other hand there are\nalleged traces of an acrostic that would spell Simon, the first of the\nMaccab\u00e6an Priest-Kings); cxv. cxviii., which celebrate successful wars\nin which the leaders have been the house of Aaron, to which house the\nMaccabees of course belonged. This is the latest date that is demanded\nfor any of the Psalms, and in the present condition of criticism we\ncan only say that between this and some earlier period the book is to\nbe placed. It must now be our task to discover the earliest date that\nany of the Psalms demand. We have seen that Book I. seems to be the\nearliest collection, and tradition assumes that this was the work of\nDavid and was the Psalm Book used in the First Temple. To discuss this\npoint it is necessary to enquire into the reliability of the titles\nthat ascribe the Psalms to definite authors. These titles give: one\neach to Moses, Ethan, and Heman; two to Solomon; eleven to the Sons\nof Korah; twelve to Asaph; and seventy-three to David (it is doubtful\nwhether Jeduthun is a person; if so he is probably the same as Ethan:\nPs. xxxix., lxii., lxxvii., titles; cp. 1 Chron. vi. 44 with 1 Chron.\nix. 16). Now it should be noticed that none of the authors are later\nthan Solomon (Ethan, 1 Kings iv. 31, 1 Chron. vi. 44; Heman, 1 Kings\niv. 31, 1 Chron. vi. 33, xv. 17, 19, xxv. 5; Asaph, 1 Chron. vi. 39,\nxxv. 1f, Neh. xii. 46; in Ezra ii. 41, Neh. vii. 44, Asaph seems to\nmean a guild of singers rather than an individual). If any of the\nPsalms ascribed to authors might be expected to yield confirmation by\ninternal evidence, it would be Ps. xc.; but there is nothing in its\nlanguage or thought that points to extreme antiquity. There is also\nnothing in the Psalms themselves that confirms the authorship of the\ncontemporaries of Solomon, Ethan and Heman. The title of Ps. cxxvii.,\n\"of Solomon,\" is missing in the Septuagint and is evidently a late\ngloss, and the title of Ps. lxxii. is translated in the Septuagint: \"a\npsalm _for_ Solomon,\" which certainly describes the contents better.\nThe Psalms ascribed to the Sons of Korah (xlii.-xlix., lxxxiv., lxxxv.,\nlxxxvii., lxxxviii.; 2 Chron. xx. 19, 1 Chron. xxvi. 19; but 1 Chron.\nvi. 33-38 shows that Kohathite and Korahite are the same), have common\nfeatures, as have also the Psalms ascribed to Asaph, which imply that\nthey are at least guild collections; but their exalted conception of\nGod, their consciousness of national righteousness, the reference to\nsynagogue worship and the cessation of prophecy (lxxiv. 8f) point to a\ntime subsequent to Ezra.\n\nThe chief interest of the titles is found in the ascription of so\nmany Psalms to David. It was long thought that David was not only the\nauthor of the Psalms ascribed to him, but that he was also editor of\nthe entire Psalter. (When as early as Theodore of Mopsuestia it was\nrecognised that some of the Psalms were Maccab\u00e6an, it was supposed\nthat David wrote them in the spirit of prophecy.) Our enquiry may\nbe narrowed down to those Psalms that are ascribed to David in the\nearliest collection, Book I. Do these reflect the conditions and\ndevelopment of his times? It must be replied that there is nothing in\nthe Davidic Psalms as a whole to distinguish them from other Psalms,\nand what historical connection they betray seems everywhere to belong\nto an age later than David. The Temple is spoken of as already in\nexistence (Ps. v. 7; xi. 4) and the name for Jerusalem, \"my holy\nhill,\" seems to demand a time subsequent to the mission of Isaiah.\nThe general conditions of life reflected are clearly those in which a\ngodly minority is oppressed and wickedness is established in the land;\na condition which finds no parallel in the Books of Samuel. Moreover,\nthe religious ideas are far in advance of those that seem to have been\nprevalent in the time of David or that can be traced to him. The\ngeneral tone of the Psalms is one of a chastened piety that hardly\nexisted in the time of the kingdom, and the religious ideas everywhere\nshow dependence upon the teaching of the Prophets. There is hardly a\nverse of the fifty-first Psalm which cannot be paralleled in Jeremiah,\nbut there is almost nothing in the Psalm that makes it a fitting\nconfession for an adulterer and murderer. These considerations lead us\nto enquire whether the Hebrew preposition translated \"of\" David denotes\nauthorship; its accurate signification is \"belonging to,\" and from\nthe analogy of the other titles we infer this to mean that the editor\nfound these Psalms in a collection ascribed to David. What gave the\nname of David to that collection? Some of the Psalms may be pre-exilic\nand may even go down to the early monarchy; Ps. xx. may belong to the\nOld Kingdom, but it can hardly have come from the lips of David; it is\nPs. xviii. that has perhaps the greatest claim to Davidic authorship.\nThis Psalm is also found in 2 Sam. xxii., but there it seems to be an\ninterpolation, for it breaks apart verses that apparently once stood\ntogether (2 Sam. xxi. 22 and xxiii. 8). Yet we meet with a reference to\nthe Temple even in this Psalm (2 Sam. xxi. 7); at the same time several\nof its passages would come very fittingly from the Warrior King, and\nwould be suitable to his barbarous times. In this Psalm, if anywhere,\nwe may possess some original Davidic fragments. We must conclude\ntherefore, that the Davidic Psalter was so called because its origin\nwas somehow due to David, or because it contained some Song of David\nwhich must have been considerably altered to suit liturgical purposes.\nThe early tradition of David ascribes to him a poetic and musical\ngift (1 Sam. xvi. 18; Amos. vi. 5), and of this the lament over Saul\nand Jonathan (2 Sam. i.) is a sufficient confirmation, but it should\nbe noticed that it is remarkably free from any religious sentiment\nwhatsoever. It must be due to the later tradition of the Chronicler\nthat David has been credited as the saintly author of the whole Book of\nPsalms. The conclusion is that the titles are not, strictly speaking,\na claim to authorship, but are names given, for various reasons, to\npre-existing collections; that the earliest of these collections may\ncontain pre-exilic Psalms, but that everything points to the collection\nbeing made for use in the time of the Second Temple. The references\nto a king do not necessitate any re-consideration of this verdict;\nthey may be personifications of the nation in the light of Messianic\nconceptions.\n\nThis position has been steadily resisted by some in the interests of\ntradition, but without any real religious reason being adduced; for\nthe idea that this decision denies the authority of Christ and His\nApostles is disposed of by the simple fact that in the New Testament,\nDavid is simply a name for the Psalter (Ps. ii. is ascribed to David in\nActs ii. 34; it is anonymous in the Psalter. Heb. iv. 7 has \"in\" David;\nthis does not refer to authorship, for the author of this Epistle never\nquotes the Scriptures save anonymously). To others it will perhaps\ncome as a great relief to feel that the writer of some of the most\nspiritual utterances of personal religion need not be identified with\nthe historical David. There are awful possibilities of failure in\nthe most religious men, but the problem here is more difficult than\nthat: it would compel us to think of David as displaying in public no\nhint of the secrets of his inner religious life, but very much that\ncontradicts them. The traditional idea of the authorship of the Psalms\nhas done grave injustice to the sincere if passionate character of\nthe historical David. The origin of such a tradition is due as much\nto the spiritual blindness as to the careless historic judgment of\nlater Judaism, and its acceptance by generations of Christian students\nspeaks a greater reverence for tradition than for religious insight.\nTo be compelled to date the great majority of the Psalms within the\nperiod 500-150 B.C., is indeed a comforting interpretation of Jewish\nhistory; for it shows that the barren ground of post-exilic times was\nnot without its tender flowers of piety and an appreciation of the\nprophetic religion far beyond that of the Prophets' contemporaries. The\ngloss of legalism, which can be traced in the Psalter, and which was\ninevitable when these private devotions were adapted to the Levitical\nworship of the Temple, has not succeeded in obscuring, but rather\nbrings into greater clearness the spiritual elements in the Psalms.\n\nIt is welcome to turn from this task of literary criticism, which\nfinds in the Psalms its most difficult field, and which perhaps\nyields here less help than in other branches of Bible literature,\nto an endeavour to appreciate the religion of the Psalmists. There\nis difficulty here also; but now it is in the splendour of the\ncomposition, the magnificent breadth of experience they embrace,\nthe classic utterance of the eternal religion of the heart. We have\nrecognised the heterogeneous character of the collection, and it is\nonly to be expected that this should be reflected in the variety of\nreligious ideas. A theology of the Psalter is as impossible as it is\nmistaken. The quality of poetic genius varies, the heights of religious\ninspiration sometimes reached are not consistently maintained, and\nthere are many lower levels. And yet there remains a sufficient\nunity to leave a very definite impression; that unity owes little to\nsimilarity of circumstances, to contemporaneity, or to the influence\nof a theological school; it is rather due to the unreflective\nsimplicity of the human mind in the realised presence of God. In that\nposition all unfettered religion speaks one tongue: the only mother\ntongue of humanity. The inspiration of the Psalmist owes its beauty\nto the absence of self-consciousness. There is nothing here of the\nprophetic claim to speak in the name of God; in the Psalms God does\nnot speak to men, men speak to God, but it is just because of this\nthat the revelation in the Psalms reaches so far beyond the limits\nof Old Testament religion and seems to grasp that religion which was\nto be personified in the consciousness of Jesus. We are compelled to\nrecognise that men's prayers are themselves a revelation of God, and\nthat when men seek to voice their highest aspiration we catch the sound\nof a deep undertone, the supplication of the Spirit that intercedes\nwithin.\n\nAs an expression of eternal religion the Psalms have one serious\ndefect, which really unfits them, without careful selection, for use\nin Christian worship--their awful imprecations upon enemies. There\nare hardly to be found in the whole realm of literature more fearful\ndesires for vengeance than in the Psalms (cix. 6-15. cxxxvii. 9; cxl.\n10). To date the Psalms from the comfortable times of the monarchy,\nunder the martial supremacy of David and Solomon, is to make them\ncruel without meaning; but imagine the sufferings of the Israelites\nin Exile, or in the still worse times when the pious remnant were\npersecuted by their own irreligious and apostate countrymen, which\nwas so often their lot in post-exilic times, and these expressions\ncan be explained, even if they cannot be justified. The desire for\nvengeance does not arise from personal motives, but is doubtless due\nto the complete identification of the Psalmist with the cause of God\nand righteousness, and to his burning indignation against the cruelty,\ninjustice, and craftiness of the impenitent wicked. Thus understood,\nthere is a moral element in this anger, which is not only to be\ncondoned but even admired. This deep moral revulsion has been one of\nthe greatest factors in moulding history along righteous lines. But\nwhen all this has been said, it remains to be acknowledged frankly that\nthis is not the religion of the Sermon on the Mount. The anger at sin\nis right, but the desire for vengeance is no real cure for sin. It is\nfar from the deep wisdom of the Son of Man; but we have to remember,\nwhen we judge the Psalms from that standard, that His wisdom is still\nunaccepted, not only by the world, but by many who profess His name.\n\nIt is in the Psalms that personal religion receives its clearest\nexposition in the Old Testament, and this spirit owes much to the\npersonal experience of Jeremiah. There has been an endeavour to\nfind the speaking subject of the Psalms not in the individual but\nin the nation. There are national Psalms, but many others cannot be\nsuccessfully interpreted save as the expressions of personal devotion.\nNational religion could never reach these heights; it is bound down to\nthe average level, it is always open to unethical movements and ideas.\nThe personal element is not to be confused with the individualistic;\nthe personal is wider than the individual; it realises the things that\nlie at the base of all human life, and when it is most personal it\nspeaks the most universal language. It is in the deep sense of sin and\nthe assurance of forgiveness that the Psalms are the classics for all\nwho know the secrets they utter; and the sense of sin can never be felt\nsave under the searching light of God's very presence. To be deeply\nconscious of sin is the first step towards any high revelation of God,\nand of this the fifty-first Psalm is the most perfect expression;\nthere we see the sense of inward sin, opening up the possibility of\na separation between the self and that higher self, the holy spirit,\nand bringing about the severest mental pain and anguish. Naturally,\nthe Psalms hardly rise to the Christian ground of forgiveness, but the\nthirty-second Psalm vibrates with the joy that the Christian knows and,\nwhen mere figures of speech are discounted, it springs from the same\nreason: the acknowledgment of one's sin and the consciousness of its\nforgiveness in the newly realised communion with God.\n\nIn dealing with the problem of the providential order of the world, the\nPsalms hardly reflect any higher conceptions than those found elsewhere\nin the Old Testament, if they even rise as high as the conception of\nthe Second Isaiah. The idea that goodness is rewarded by long life and\nprosperity, and that wickedness is always marked by outward disaster is\nthe root idea; and the fact that this is not confirmed by observation\nis the cause of the complaint of many a Psalm. This problem receives no\nconscious solution throughout the book. The revelation given through\nthe worship of the sanctuary only shows that the prosperity of the\nwicked is temporary (Ps. xxxvii., lxxiii.); but how often even this\nmust seem to be untrue, for in many cases there are no bands in their\ndeath. Nothing higher is reached than pride in one's integrity and the\nassurance that somehow and somewhere retribution is sure. There is no\nconception of the principle of vicarious suffering, and the values set\nupon righteousness and prosperity never attain to those words of Jesus:\n\"Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness sake.\"\n\nThe pressure of this problem of Providence is supposed to have driven\nthe Psalmists to pierce the veil and to descry beyond the grave a\ncompensation for the inequalities of this life, and passages are\nfrequently adduced to prove this (Ps. xvi. 10, 11; xvii. 15; xlix.,\n15; lxxiii. 23-26). The current belief of Israel embraced an existence\nafter death, but only in the form of unconscious and shadowy life in\nthe under world, _Sheol_, and this is most explicitly expressed in\nmany of the Psalms (vi. 5; xxx. 9; xlix. 14; lxxxviii. 10-12). What\nthen is the significance of the expressions which seem to point to\nsomething more? An accurate translation and a correct exegesis dispose\nof nearly all of these passages as in any sense explicit evidence for\na definite belief in immortality; but there remains a witness of much\ngreater value. It is through communion with God, and because of the\nsignificance with which it invests conscious life that the Psalmists\nare led to feel that their experience can never be interrupted by\ndeath. To those who know the reality of personal communion with God,\nthis has more cogency than any other argument for immortality. The\nexperience of communion throws a new value on personality and gives\na deeper meaning to this life, and in face of this discovery death\nbecomes nothing more than a passing shadow. While therefore the\napplication of Ps. xvi. 10 to the resurrection of Christ is foreign to\nthe methods of modern interpretation, that passage does show the real\nsignificance of the resurrection of Christ; for it is the person of\nChrist in communion with God that has brought life and immortality to\nlight. The Psalmist shared this vital experience whether he was able\nto infer immortality of the soul from it or not.\n\nBut the glory of the Psalms is found in their realisation of the\npresence of God. This expresses itself in the vivid consciousness of a\npresent and helpful Personality rather than in intellectual concepts\nor theological definitions. The transcendence of God receives full\nappreciation, but it is never in terms of spatial distance, but in an\ninward realisation of His moral excellence (Ps. xxxvi. 5-7). To the\ndiscerning soul the presence of God is inescapable and is absolutely\nomnipresent (Ps. cxxxix. 7-10). Right alongside of the recognition of\nthe might of God and His holiness, there is found the sense of His\nfatherly pity, His gentleness, and His understanding of us (Ps. ciii.\n13; xviii. 35).\n\nIt would be altogether mistaken to look in the Psalms for that\nconception of Nature which has become one of the greatest gains of\nmodern culture. To the Psalmist Nature has no meaning apart from God,\nand it is merely the sphere of His activity. But the beginnings of\na poetic delight in things is felt almost on every page (Ps. xxiii.\n2; lv. 6; lxv. 8, 9; xciii. 3; cvii. 24; cx. 3b; cxxiv. 5; cxxx. 6;\ncxxxix. 18b); while the so-called Nature Psalms (viii., xix., xxix.,\nlxv., xciii., civ., cxlviii.) yield a conception of creation and of\nthe relation of God to the world that has not sufficiently shaped\ntheology, and as a consequence has made it possible for us to think of\na conflict between religion and science.\n\nThe consciousness of God as of a present living Personality is the\ngreat contribution of Hebrew religion, and of this the Psalms are\nthe supreme expression. All conception of a merely unconscious,\nall-pervading essence is transcended by the intense experience of\ncommunion; He is \"an ever present help in time of trouble.\"\n\nThe Hebrew Psalmist may be a child beside the Hindu sage or the Greek\nphilosopher, but no one has ever sounded the human heart as he. The\nexperience he has bequeathed to the world is that of a God who is\ninfinite, mighty and all-present, and yet One who can be known in\nthe experiences of temporal life and felt in the limitations of the\nhuman mind; One who shepherds and guides men, and who can take the\nplace of human friend or nearest relative. This is in the direct line\nwith Christ's consciousness of the Father. Without this we may have a\nmysticism that must perforce remain silent, or a philosophy that loses\nitself in the endeavour to reconcile the antinomies of thought, but\nwithout this we cannot have a religion that can satisfy the craving of\nthe human heart for an infinite, holy, and helping Companion.\n\n\n\n\nTHE RELIGION OF THE WISE\n\n\n  In determining from internal evidence whether Job is later or earlier\n  than Proverbs, the following comparisons should be examined:--\n\n  Job v. 17        and Prov. iii. 11.\n   \"  xi. 8         \"   \"    ix. 18.\n   \"  xv. 7         \"   \"    viii. 25.\n   \"  xviii. 5,6}   \"  {\"    xiii. 9.\n   \"  xxi.  17  }   \"  {\"    xxiv. 20.\n   \"  xxii. 28      \"   \"    iv. 18.\n   \"  xxviii. 18    \"   \"    iii. 15; viii. 11.\n   \"  xxviii. 28    \"   \"    i. 7.\n\n  In these examples, it might be noted, it is the friends of Job who\n  quote the Proverbs; except in Job xxi. 17, where Job questions\n  the Proverb already quoted by Bildad, rather than quotes it with\n  approval; and in the case of xxviii. 18, 28, the whole chapter is\n  regarded by critics as suspicious, on the ground that the sentiments\n  here expressed by Job are in contradiction to his general attitude.\n  These passages would seem somewhat to confirm the idea that the Book\n  of Job is intended to be a criticism of the theory of Providence\n  found in Proverbs.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n  On the suggestion that Ecclesiastes owes its disjointed character\n  to some disarrangement of the original sheets of the MS., Bickell\n  proposes to read the book in the following order:--\n\n  (1) i. 1-ii. 11. (2) v. 9-vi. 7. (3) iii. 9-iv. 8. (4) ii. 12-iii.\n  8. (5) viii. 6-ix. 3. (6) ix. 11-x. 1. (7) vi. 8-vii. 22. (8) iv.\n  9-v. 8. (9) x. 16-xi. 6 (10) vii. 23-viii. 5. (11) x. 2-x. 15. (12)\n  ix. 4-10. (13) xi. 7-xii. 8. Bickell would regard the Appendix, xii.\n  9-14, as a later addition.\n\n\n\n\nLecture X\n\nTHE RELIGION OF THE WISE\n\n\nCertain books of the Old Testament have a marked resemblance both\nin their subject-matter and in their religious and ethical outlook.\nThey stand out from the other classes of the literature, for they are\nneither prophetical, like the writings of the Prophets or the histories\nwritten under their influence, nor legalistic, like the great codes\nof the Pentateuch, nor liturgical and devotional, like the Psalms;\nand for convenience they are designated: \"the Wisdom Literature.\"\nThese writings deal chiefly with \"wisdom,\" or the practical ordering\nof life, and we frequently find a reference to \"the words of the\nwise,\" as if there was a school of teachers who were devoted to the\ndiscussion of these problems. The chief contributions of this school\nare, in our Bible, the Book of Proverbs, and in the Apocrypha, Wisdom\nand Ecclesiasticus. Job and Ecclesiastes are occupied with the same\nproblems, but their attitude is critical and their method of treatment\npeculiar.\n\nNo one can fail to feel the almost perplexing difference of this\nliterature from the rest of the Old Testament; unlike the prophetic\nit has less a message to the conscience than a problem for the mind;\nunlike the historical books it is perfectly timeless, and utterly\ndetached from the national hopes; it is not occupied with ceremonies or\nritual, but with religion as a matter of conduct. The nearest approach\nto this is to be found in some of the Psalms, which, passing from\nthe emotions of the devout spirit, become engaged with the problems\nand injustices of life. Its religion is more universal than that of\nthe Prophets or even of the Psalmists, but it is less emotional; the\nreligion of the heart has given way to the wisdom of the mind. We have\nhere the beginnings of a philosophy, a mental activity strangely absent\nfrom the Hebrew race; it is not however a speculative philosophy,\nbut one purely concerned with practical life; and yet there is a\ndirect progression traceable from the chapters in Proverbs (i.-ix.),\nwhich are devoted to the praise of wisdom, through the work known\nas the Wisdom of Solomon, to Philo, the great Jewish philosopher,\nwho endeavoured to interpret Moses by Plato and to reconcile Hebrew\nreligion with Greek speculation. Although in this literature we have\nthe beginnings of a philosophy it is rather that of the street than\nof the academy; a cultivation of a philosophic attitude towards life,\nits problems and duties, rather than any speculation on metaphysical\nreality or the absolute origin of things. The wisdom we hear so much\nof is an intellectual virtue, although it embraces neither speculation\nnor learning, but is limited to mean sagacity, shrewdness, prudence\nin the conduct of life. This is the main theme of the Proverbs, but\nthe problem of the correct ordering of life unearths a deeper and\ndarker one--the problem of the existence of evil, the injustice of\nlife as revealed in the blind indiscrimination of trouble, pain, and\ndeath. With this problem some of the Psalms and the Books of Job and\nEcclesiastes especially deal.\n\nIn seeking to place this literature, we are met with an even worse\ndifficulty than in the case of the Psalms; for the entire absence of\nhistorical allusion, and the spirit of detachment in which religious\nquestions are discussed, leave no trace of date or age. The three\nbooks in our Bible belonging to this literature are ascribed to very\nearly authors; two to Solomon and one traditionally to Job or Moses,\nalthough the Book of Job is really anonymous. Now it is exceedingly\ndifficult to gather from the prophetic or historical books any trace\nof the opinions that are found in the Wisdom Literature. The problem\nof evil certainly began to occupy the minds of men like Jeremiah even\nbefore the Exile; but in the picture which the Prophets give us of the\nJewish state under the late monarchy, we get no glimpse of a people\nwho looked on life and religion as do the writers of these books. In\nthe Wisdom Literature we find references to \"the wise\" as to a special\nclass in the community (Prov. i. 6; xxii. 17; xxiv. 23; Job xv. 18);\nin the historical literature we find the \"wisdom\" of certain men\nextolled (Solomon, 1 Kings iii. 16-28; iv. 29-34; x. 3 ff.; Joseph,\nGen. xli. 39; the four wise men, 1 Kings iv. 31, the wisdom of Egypt,\nthe East, 1 Kings iv. 30, and of Edom, Ob. 8; Jer. xlix. 7), and in\nthe prophetic writings \"the wise\" are mentioned as a class distinct\nfrom the prophet and the priest (Jer. xviii. 18) and often in a\ndepreciatory way (Isa. xxix. 14; Jer. viii. 8; ix. 12). It seems almost\nimpossible to identify the wise men of Proverbs with this class who\nreceive so little praise from the Prophets. The wise men of Proverbs\ndo not speak as if they needed to defend themselves against the claims\nof the prophet (Prov. xxix. 18; the reference to \"vision,\" which can\nonly mean a communication to the prophet, is not found elsewhere in\nProverbs and is doubted by many scholars), nor can we understand the\nneed for the message of the Prophets if this practical religion of \"the\nwise\" was current in their times. This religion may lack passion and be\nwithout national consciousness, but Isaiah and Micah would surely have\nfound something to their heart's desire in its pure ethical character.\nIndeed, the religious thought seems to be dependent on the teaching of\nthe Prophets, but only at a distance, for it is ethically advanced and\nhas become somewhat rarefied and unemotional. The literary character\nseems also to point to a later age; for it is academical, sophistical,\nand polished. The polish of the Proverbs might be due to constant use\namong the common people, but they are not like popular sayings (cp.\n1 Sam, xxiv. 13; 1 Kings xx. 11; Jer. xxxi. 29; Ezek. xviii. 2), and\ntheir evident kinship with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus indicates a late\npost-exilic origin.\n\nWe shall first devote some time to an examination of the Book of\nProverbs. The Hebrew \"proverb\" (_mashal_) means \"a representation,\" and\nmay be used of a fable or a taunt, but is more especially confined to\nany generalisation from experience or observation on life and character\nexpressed in a rhythmic and polished form. The most usual form of the\nproverb is a couplet in which a common fact of Nature is placed beside\na common fact of human life: \"Where there is no wood the fire goes out,\nand where there is no talebearer strife will cease.\"\n\nThe book as a whole would seem to be ascribed to Solomon (i. 1), but\nthis is only the tradition of the final editor; for, as in the case of\nthe Psalter, Proverbs shows every trace of gradual compilation, and the\nnames of other authors are given.\n\nThe main divisions of the book are as follows:--\n\nA. (i. 1-6). The prologue, by the final editor, either ascribing the\nwork to Solomon or else praising his proverbs.\n\nB. (i. 7-ix.). This seems to be the latest addition to the book; it is\nnot a collection of proverbs at all, but is a continuous discourse in\npraise of Wisdom. In viii. 22 Wisdom is personified as a creature of\nGod present at the creation of the world. This hypostatization of an\nattribute of God is one of the latest developments of Hebrew thought,\nand is so unusual to its genius that we are compelled to seek for\nsome possibility of infiltration from foreign sources. The idea is\nstill further developed in Ecclesiasticus (xxiv.), and in the Book of\nWisdom has become quite a Platonic speculation (vii. 22-viii. 1). The\nappearance of this idea in Hebrew thought seems to be most explicable\nin the period of Greek influence, when Plato's doctrine of the Idea\nmight become known in Palestine; somewhere about 250 B.C. seems a\nlikely date. The identification of virtue with knowledge, which we find\nin the book, is also due to Greek thought. It was along this line of\ndevelopment that the conception of \"the Logos\" was welcomed into Jewish\nthought, to have through Philo such a profound influence on some of the\nwriters of the New Testament.\n\nC. (x.-xxii. 16). This collection of proverbs is ascribed to Solomon\nand is generally thought by critics to be the oldest main collection;\nmany would even be willing to assign it to the golden age of the\nmonarchy. The Solomonic authorship is, however, unthinkable; the\nsentiments expressed are unsuitable for a luxurious and polygamous\nmonarch (xv. 16, xxi. 31; xxii. 14; xiii. 1; cp. 1 Kings iv. 26; xi. 1,\n4, 5-13; xii. 10, 11), and the ascription to Solomon is probably due\nto circumstances similar to those which operated in the case of the\nascription of the Psalms to David. There are many objections to any\npre-exilic time as a suitable historic background for this collection;\nthere is no mention of idolatry, whereas we learn from Ezekiel (vi.,\nviii., xxiii.) that idolatry was practised in Jerusalem down to the\ntime of the city's destruction; monogamy seems to be taken quite for\ngranted, whereas it would appear that polygamy was general before\nthe prophetic reforms; and of the great upheaval that these reforms\ninvolved, this collection shows no trace. The national religion has\nhere given place to universalism, a development that seems to demand\nsome experience of contact with other nations and especially some\nacquaintance with foreign culture. The references to the king neither\nrequire Solomonic authorship nor demand an age when the monarchy was\nestablished; for they are only general sentiments concerning the duties\nof the king in the State, and are of such a nature that they show very\nlittle reminiscence of Israel's actual experience of a monarchy.\n\nD. (xxii. 17-xxiv. 22) and E. (xxiv. 23-34) are two collections of the\nsayings of \"the wise,\" whose ascription, together with the reference to\n\"instruction,\" points to an advanced stage of reflection and teaching,\nand perhaps to the existence of philosophic teachers who had schools\nand pupils.\n\nF. (xxv.-xxix.). \"These also are proverbs of Solomon, which the men\nof Hezekiah, King of Judah, copied out.\" This title has an air of\ncircumstantiality about it which looks like a genuine historical note,\nand it has been observed that there is a change of tone, in this\ncollection, in regard to the monarchy, as if some actual experience\nof kingly tyranny had been lately borne; so that if we were to refer\nthis collection to the age mentioned in the title we should have to\nante-date the collection, C. But in view of the state of society\nhere portrayed, which is similar to that of Ecclesiasticus, we have\nno alternative but to regard the title, as in the case of some of\nthe Davidic Psalms, as due to later Jewish scribes, and as without\nauthority.\n\nG., H. and I. are three small collections (xxx.; xxxi. 1-9; xxxi.\n10-31), the first by Agur: a very obscure passage, apparently quoting\na declaration of reverent agnosticism, with a reply to it by some more\nbelieving scribe. The second is ascribed to King Lemuel, and the third\nis in praise of a virtuous woman, by an anonymous writer.\n\nThe religious teaching of the Proverbs would seem to be a refinement\nof the prophetic religion, standing quite apart from the legal and\nritual development. Religion has become entirely a matter of ethics;\nthe creed is wonderfully colourless and simple, and the inducement\nto virtue remains almost entirely on the plane of utilitarianism and\nprudence. There is a good deal that is quite worldly wisdom, but pure\nreligion is by no means wanting (xxi. 3; xiv. 34); the fear of the\nLord is not slavish fear, but is a guiding principle for life and the\nbeginning of wisdom. Men are divided somewhat roughly into the foolish\nand the wise; and although no book in the world has ever depicted\nthe foolishness of men with greater variety and reality, yet there\nseems no hope that folly may be overcome, or that wicked men can be\nturned from their ways; Wisdom knows no forgiveness and can only mock\nwhen men turn to her too late (i. 24-28). Yet the ethical level is\nhigh; woman especially is highly estimated, and the home life is held\nsacred; kindness to animals is inculcated (xii. 10), and there is a\nreal approach to absolute ethics in such sayings as: \"Say not thou, I\nwill recompense evil\"; \"Say not I will do so to him as he hath done to\nme\" (xx. 22; xxiv. 17, 29; xxv. 21, 22). The writers have been called\n\"humanists,\" and this rightly describes their position; it is the\nhighest level rabbinical religion ever reached; it has its parallel in\nsome of the aphoristic teaching of Jesus, but it has no message for\nthe outcast and fallen; it knows no secret whereby the fool may be made\nwise and the heart be changed by a great emotion; it is the religion of\nthe sage, not the religion of the Saviour. The doctrine of retribution\nis still thought to be quite satisfactory in its working (ii. 21 f.; x.\n25; xi. 21). In an earlier and less reflective age this idea would not\nhave been unexpected; but it is remarkable that it should be acquiesced\nin by the wise men; and yet it is an idea of life that seems to persist\nagainst all experience: it is found in the time of Christ and it still\nobtains, especially in the judgment of the cause of poverty. Perhaps\nits persistence is to be traced to an ideal of justice so strong as to\nobscure accurate observation of the facts.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhen we turn to the Book of Job we come to a work not only the greatest\nproduct of the wise men, but the supreme literary production of the\nHebrew nation. The grandeur of its language has somewhat obscured the\nreal meaning of the book; for the opinions that the book was written\nto controvert are stated with such vivid power and poetic grace that\nthey are now often quoted as Biblical truths of equal value with the\nopinions apparently supported by the author. It is our task, not so\nmuch to admire the literary talent of the author, as to estimate his\ncontribution to the religion of Israel.\n\nThe Book of Job has been referred to almost every age from Moses to\npost-exilic times. There is certainly an endeavour to reproduce the\nconditions of the patriarchal age, in the avoidance of the name Jehovah\n(Exod. vi. 3), and in the money standard adopted (Job. xlii. 11); but\nthere is no desire to deceive the reader, for this archaic atmosphere\nis adopted merely as the appropriate setting of the dialogue, and\nis not maintained: the name Jehovah slips from the author's pen, he\ntakes no pains to conceal his knowledge of the Law and his interest\nin the questions of his own times. The question of age is not to be\ncomplicated by the question of authorship; there was a person named\nJob, known to Ezekiel (xiv. 14), but there is nowhere any assumption\nthat Job himself wrote the book; and the mechanical and symbolical\ncharacter of the disasters which befall Job, and the nature of the\ncompensation, show that we have here only dramatic settings for\nthe speeches and not actual history. It is likely that there was a\nwell-known tradition of a man named Job who had suffered overwhelming\ntroubles and eventually had been restored to his former prosperity, and\nthis is made the basis for a discussion of the problem of suffering. It\nhas been suggested that in the Prologue and Epilogue we have fragments\nof that old tradition, since these passages are in prose while the\nbody of the book is in semi-poetic rhythm; but the prose form is best\nexplained as that always adopted by the Hebrews for narrative, for we\nfind ideas in these parts that betray as late a date as anything in the\nbody of the work. Considered on internal evidence, everything seems\nto point to the age which produced the rest of the Wisdom Literature;\nand more precisely, a date shortly before or shortly after Proverbs,\nseems indicated. The material for deciding more particularly is such\nthat different conclusions may be drawn from it. For instance, the\npersonification of wisdom in Proverbs seems to be in advance of the\nidea of wisdom in Job; and if we could think of the development of an\nidea always coinciding with chronological progression, then Job would\nneed to be placed earlier than Proverbs; but this is complicated by\nthe fact that the main body of the book of the Proverbs may have been\nin circulation before the earlier chapters were added. Yet there are\napparent quotations from the Proverbs in the Book of Job (xv. 7 f. =\nProv. viii. 22-25), and the reference to the lamp of the wicked being\nput out (Prov. xiii. 9; xxiv. 20) seems clearly to have Proverbs in\nmind (Job. xxi. 17). Dependence might, of course, be taken to lie the\nother way, but on the whole, it would appear that the problems dealt\nwith in Job have not yet emerged for the writers of the Proverbs, and\nindeed Job seems rather an indictment of the superficial idea, which\nwe find everywhere assumed in the earlier work that prosperity and\ngoodness are inseparable. The most satisfactory order seems therefore\nto be: Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes. The idea that Job is to be\nunderstood as a personification of the nation, such as we were led to\nconceive in the allegory of Jonah and in the Servant of the Lord, can\nhardly be maintained in face of the perfect detachment from the history\nand the national hopes that characterises the book.\n\nThe book deals with a problem already stirring in the minds of the\nProphets and the theme of many of the Psalms, but here stated with an\nawful daring and intensity and as the subject-matter of an entirely new\nform of literary composition. The Book of Job is not a drama, in the\nsense that it was ever intended, or would be suitable, for presentation\non the stage; but it is a poem with dramatic elements and it has a\ndramatic movement.\n\nThe endeavour to understand the message of the book is rendered\ndifficult because different points of view are presented, and this\nhas suggested different authors. The book certainly has well-marked\ndivisions, and they appear to yield distinct and different solutions\nof the problem of suffering. The Prologue shows us what has taken\nplace in heaven, and seems to infer that the trials came upon Job to\nestablish his faith and righteousness; but the speeches between Job\nand his friends, in the second division, if by the same author as the\nPrologue, skilfully avoid this explanation, and the drama pursues its\ncourse with the actors remaining in complete ignorance of the solution\nthat has been disclosed to the audience. The third division is taken\nup with the speeches of Elihu: these break the continuity of the poem,\nJob makes no reply to him, and Elihu is not mentioned in the Epilogue.\nAn examination of these speeches shows that they fall somewhat below\nthe level of brilliance and originality maintained in the rest of the\nbook, and the idea that they proceed from another writer of the same\nschool, who felt that the arguments of the three friends had not been\npresented in the best possible way, is worthy of consideration. The\nspeeches of Jehovah are by the author of the main portion and are\nwonderfully impressive and grand, although the exact contribution that\nthey make to the discussion of the problem is difficult to discern.\nThe Epilogue falls back into prose, and was certainly written by one\nwho had the entire work before him; but it so misses the meaning of\nthe whole argument, and is content with such a superficial solution of\nrestoration, that it has been thought by many to be an addition to the\noriginal work. Whatever may be thought of the idea of plural authorship\nas a solution of these divergences, the divergences themselves must be\nborne in mind in any attempt to estimate the message of the book. But\nare these different points of view incompatible with a single author?\nWith an author of such extraordinary talent in voicing opinions with\nwhich he evidently does not agree, it cannot be said to be impossible;\nand it may be that he only wished to state the problem and to give\nthose answers which were current in his age, leaving it to the reader\nto discover whether these answers were really solutions; the Prologue\nand Epilogue may have nothing to do with the didactive motive, but only\nbe due to dramatic and artistic demands.\n\nThe theology of Job certainly demands a late age and an advanced stage\nof reflection. One interesting point is raised by the employment, in\nthe Prologue, of the figure of Satan. This personality, so fruitful a\nfactor in speculation on the cause of evil, demands a careful study.\nIt should be noted, first, that he is referred to as _the_ Satan, that\nis, \"the Adversary\"; it is a generic, not a proper, name. This creature\nis represented as appearing together with the angels in the presence\nof God, and although his designs are sinister and his suggestions\nunworthy, he is still a minister doing the will of God. This delegation\nof evil advocacy can be traced, from the idea that it is due to God\nHimself (2 Sam. xxiv. 1), to the work of the separate spirit who\noffered to entice Ahab (1 Kings xxii. 21), and then to the greater\ndefiniteness of our author. Beyond this book, again, the adversary is a\ndarker character who has to be rebuked by God (Zech. iii.), and in the\nhistory of the Chronicler _the_ Satan has become \"Satan,\" a proper name\n(1 Chron. xxi. 1; cp. 2 Sam. xxiv. 1); but we have to go outside the\nOld Testament Canon to get a completely dualistic opposition of God and\nSatan (Wisdom ii. 24).\n\nThe conception of God has passed, in this book, entirely beyond the\ntribal Deity Jehovah, and even beyond the ethical Personality known\nto the Prophets, to One who is felt to be unknowable; and yet withal\nJob clings to the idea that he shall one day see the face of the\nRedeemer who now hides Himself. As in the Psalms, the alleged idea of\nimmortality (xix. 25 ff.) is not very definite, and so contradicts the\ngeneral expectation of the book (vii. 9 f. x. 21 f. xiv. 10 ff. 20 ff.\nxvi. 22; xxi. 26; xxx. 23), that it must be taken to refer to Job's\nconviction that some vindication of his cause will be made here in\nthis life. At the same time the idea of a future judgment which shall\nproclaim his innocence and the ill-desert of his sufferings, is so\nstrong, that it sweeps death out of vision, and the hope of the future\nlife hovers in the thought if it does not break into language.\n\nA dispassionate examination of the solutions here offered to the\nproblem of suffering shows that nothing really beyond a negative\nposition is reached in this book. The speeches of Job must be taken to\nconvey the author's opinions, and they are a most emphatic repudiation\nof the doctrine of Providence expressed by the three friends. They\ncan only repeat the accepted notion that suffering is everywhere the\ncause of sin, and with scorn and indignation Job repudiates the charge,\nso far as he is concerned; he maintains his innocence and appeals to\nGod as his witness; but the Witness is silent and there is no daysman\nbetwixt them. Job's protest is not concerned with mere innocence, for\nin one magnificent passage he appeals to his beneficent life spent in\nthe service of the poor and needy (xxxi.). The answers of Job leave\nthe little system of Providence supported by his friends, completely\ndiscredited, and in this particular Jehovah sides with Job. The\ntheophany and speeches of Jehovah do not, however, seem to convey any\nfurther contribution to the problem than perhaps the idea that for man\nit is insoluble, because he does not and cannot see the whole; and so\nnothing is left for man but to bear his griefs in silence and maintain\nhis trust in God.\n\nJob remains, not only the finest contribution of Semitic genius to\nthe realm of literature, but a classic for all those who feel the\nanguish of the world and the unintelligible perplexities of life. If it\nconveys no real solution, it at least disposes of one long accepted as\nadequate, and its complete overthrow removes one of the worst mistakes\nof human observation and refutes one of the cruellest judgments of\nmen. The idea that prosperity always follows goodness has been a most\ndisastrous bequest of Hebrew thought, and has more than anything\nelse obscured from men's eyes the real meaning of life, prevented\nan accurate judgment of character, and done much to turn aside the\nexpression of sympathy and obscure the duty of pity and forgiveness.\n\nThat a solution was not within the limits of Israel's faith cannot be\naffirmed with Isa. liii. before us; but that it had never been rightly\nunderstood and had never taken deep hold of even noble minds is driven\nhome with a telling force, in a further contribution of the Wisdom\nLiterature, the Book of Ecclesiastes.\n\nThe name Ecclesiastes is borrowed from the attempt to translate\nthe Hebrew term _Qoheleth_ into Greek. Of this name a variety of\ninterpretations have been put forward (Qoheleth, from _qahal_ an\nassembly, is the active feminine participle and means, one who\ncalls, or addresses, or is merely member of, an assembly; A.V., \"the\nPreacher\"; R.V. \"the great Orator\"), but the one that perhaps best\ndescribes the term is that of \"the debater.\" The work is put forward in\nthe name of Solomon, and of all the works ascribed to him there is none\nthat would come so suitably from the pen of that monarch, if he ever\nreflected deeply on his career; but this ascription is not kept up with\nany idea of deceiving the reader, but is simply one of the literary\ncustoms of the time and a way of honouring a great name, for there\nare biographical statements impossible to Solomon (\"I _was_ king,\" i.\n12; \"above all that were before me in Jerusalem,\" i. 16), while the\nreflection of society and the stage of thought, but most notably the\nextremely late language, betray what is one of the latest of the Old\nTestament writings.\n\nEcclesiastes is a work that has held an unusual fascination for certain\ntypes of disposition, Renan declaring that it was the only lovely\nthing that ever came from a Hebrew mind. The presence of the book at\nall in the Old Testament is strange, and there were strong opinions\nagainst admitting it into the Canon; it was perhaps only eventually\nsanctioned because its contradictory statements made it possible to\ninterpret the book as a work written to controvert pessimistic ideas,\nwhich are brought forward only to be refuted. For the intention of the\nwork is difficult to gather owing to its disjointed and incomplete\ncharacter, which makes the book as it stands a mass of contradictions.\nSome passages profess utter pessimism and unbelief in God's providence,\nwhile others, like the closing chapter, seek to inculcate religious\nfear and trust. Various theories have been proposed to explain these\nphenomena occurring in one book. It has been suggested that the work\nis a dialogue between a doubting scholar and an orthodox believer.\nWith a view of straightening out the argument it has been conjectured\nthat the sheets of the original have somehow become disarranged, and\nothers have thought of a series of interpolations in an originally\nquite unbelieving work; first by a writer who wishes to defend Wisdom\nfrom the author's charges of unprofitableness, and then by a writer\nwho wishes to defend the providence of God. If interpolation is to be\nthought of at all--and it should only be a refuge of despair--it is\nto be sought in the opening and closing verses of the last chapter\n(xii. 1, 13, 14), which may have been added to correct the influence\nof the work; but even they are not impossible from this strangely\nvacillating author. Certainly no explanations can remove the gloomy\ntone of the book. The writer seems to have come into contact with\nGreek pessimism, and from this standpoint he sees nothing true in the\nHebrew doctrine of retribution, and especially does he reject the too\noptimistic doctrines of the Wisdom school. The problems that are solved\nso simply in Proverbs, stated and left unanswered by Job, are by this\nauthor answered in entirely negative fashion: nothing is profitable in\nthis life, nothing is new; nature and man move in an endless cycle\nwithout hope or meaning. The pursuit of Wisdom is just as foolish as\nthe pursuit of folly: the end of the fool and the end of the wicked is\nthe same; life is not worth living; vanity of vanities, all is vanity.\nIn this book we at last come upon a clear recognition of the doctrine\nof immortality, but only to find it explicitly denied by our author\n(iii. 19-21). The only solution that the writer proposes is a sad\nEpicureanism: make the best of a bad world. And yet in spite of this\nconclusion the author still believes in God (iii. 11, 14; viii. 17);\nbut He is a God who has hidden His purpose from man and whom man can do\nnothing to turn from His ways. This is more like the inscrutable Fate\nof the Greek tragedians than the Jehovah of the Prophets: indeed the\nword Jehovah is never once used throughout the book. If the concluding\nchapter comes from the original author, then it recommends a religious\nattitude towards these mysteries; but there is no revelation of\nanything that gives assurance of the reasonableness of this position or\nof the goodness of God.\n\nWhat are we to learn from this Book? Are we to refuse to read it and\nto reverse the judgment that included it in the Canon? Hardly that.\nIt is well that man's doubts should find a place in the same sacred\ncollection with his surest beliefs, for doubt may be but a stage in a\nprocess from an inadequate to a fuller faith. The book shows that the\ncommon appreciation of Israel's faith could not satisfy the mind that\nhad its attention fixed upon the facts of life; and especially does it\nshow that the hope of immortality, apart from which Israel's faith had\nlargely developed, is not the one thing that is lacking. That hope,\nwith its promise of retribution in a future and better world, will\nalways appear too speculative to some minds to relieve the burdens of\nthe life that now is, and even if believed in, it would offer no real\nclue to the meaning of our trials here, but only tend to take men's\neyes off this life where perchance they might find the solution they\nhave missed. For there is an attitude to life that solves its darkest\nproblems, a disposition which transmutes its pain and failure, finding\nit no enigma, but an opportunity for learning the will of the Father;\nour presence here not a thing to be reluctantly borne, but a task to be\njoyfully accepted as the commission of God. The book of Ecclesiastes\nshows us, therefore, that the revelation through Israel is not yet\ncomplete; for it voices the unsatisfied need and stretches out hands\nof faith for something not yet made known. It is the deep dark of the\nnight; the next hour will see the Morning Star of Bethlehem above the\nhorizon, the fleeing shadows and the breaking of the day.\n\n\n\n\nMESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS\n\n\n  The prevalence of the expectation of a personal Messiah reflected in\n  the Gospels, and the clearness and consistency of the idea, are not\n  to be explained solely from the Old Testament prophecies.\n\n  In the Apocrypha the Messianic expectation has almost died out\n  (Ecclus. xlix. 11; 1 Macc. ii. 57), but after the Maccab\u00e6an revolt\n  it revived, owing doubtless to the disappointment caused by the\n  deterioration of the Hasmon\u00e6an dynasty, of which so much had been\n  expected. The Pharisees, who resented the policy of the Hasmon\u00e6ans,\n  made the idea of a restoration of the Davidic line the peculiar\n  property of their party, and from this time until the appearance of\n  Jesus, Messianic expectation reached a point never before attained.\n  The following summary shows the emergence of the idea in the\n  literature of the period:--\n\n  (1) The Dream-Visions of Enoch. B.C. 166-161. The Messiah appears\n  under the figure of a white bullock, and the saints are changed\n  into His image. The Messiah has only an official function in the\n  world-drama, and a human though glorified personality.\n\n  (2) The Sibylline Oracles. In a passage assigned to B.C. 140, the\n  Messiah is represented as a God-sent King, who is expected to arise\n  from the East, and whose appearance will be a signal for an attack\n  upon the Temple by the Gentiles.\n\n  (3) The Book of Jubilees. B.C. 135-105. The writer is concerned more\n  with the Messianic Kingdom, which he conceives of spiritually, than\n  with the Messiah, who is only alluded to once, and who is expected to\n  arise from Judah.\n\n  (4) The Similitudes of Enoch. B.C. 95-80. This part of the Book\n  of Enoch is much occupied with the person of the Messiah. He is\n  definitely named \"the Messiah,\" and also bears the titles \"the Elect\n  One,\" \"the Righteous One,\" and \"the Son of Man.\" He is a Prophet and\n  a Teacher, \"the light of the Gentiles,\" all judgment is committed\n  unto Him, and He will sit on the throne of His glory. He will raise\n  again to life all the righteous who have died.\n\n  (5) The Psalms of Solomon. B.C. 70-40. The Messiah is to be sinless;\n  He is the Son of David; He will not adopt the ordinary methods of\n  warfare, but will smite the earth with the rod of His mouth.\n\n  The following works all belong to the Christian era, but they may\n  reflect ideas that had an earlier origin:--\n\n  (6) The Assumption of Moses. A.D. 7-30. The hope of an earthly\n  Messiah is abandoned and it is God Himself who is expected to take\n  vengeance on His enemies.\n\n  (7) The Apocalypse of Baruch. _c._ 70 A.D. The Messiah will appear\n  after Israel's enemies have been destroyed. His Kingdom is likened to\n  \"the bright lightning,\" and at the end of His reign He is to return\n  in glory to heaven.\n\n  (8) 2 Esdras. A.D. 81-96. The Messiah, although more than earthly,\n  dies after a reign of 400 years. He is pictured as a lion rebuking\n  an eagle (the Roman power), and \"as it were with the likeness of a\n  man\" arising from the midst of the sea, and flying with the clouds of\n  heaven.\n\n\n\n\nLecture XI\n\nMESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS\n\n\nIn all the stages through which the Old Testament religion passed there\nseems to have existed a consciousness of their imperfection, and this\nproduced a tendency to gaze into the future, in which it was thought\nthe ideal religion would exist, and where could be descried the perfect\nrealisation of God's dwelling among men. It is natural that this\ncharacteristic should find its clearest expression in the Prophets.\nWhen their eyes are upon the present, they condemn; when they look to\nthe immediate future, they utter grave warning and the shadows deepen\nupon their faces; but when they lift their eyes to the distant hills\nof time, the light is on their faces, and they break into songs of\nthe days that are yet to be. It is this vision of the future and the\nendeavour to give it a definite outline that runs like a thread through\nthe Old Testament and forces us to look beyond its borders for the\nultimate issue of its religious development. This subject may best be\nstudied under the general head of Messianic expectations.\n\nThe immediate difficulty in understanding this subject is found in the\ncircumstance that it has received from Bible students an exaggerated\nattention, and has been pursued with methods that the best modern\nscholarship cannot sanction. The eager hunting for Messianic prophecy,\nand the desire to find literal fulfilment, has often stretched the\nmeaning of passages unwarrantably and made a sane exegesis appear tame\nand uninteresting. But more disastrous has been the effect upon the\nunderstanding of the Old Testament as a whole. The literature has been\ntreated as a mysterious typology, in which some indirect picture of\nthe Messiah was to be discovered, or a series of exact predictions of\nHis life and work. This has destroyed the sense of perspective, it has\nignored the message of the Prophets to their own age, and it has been\nresponsible for the idea that the religion of the Psalmists was simply\na pious expectation of the Messiah, instead of a real communion with\nGod.\n\nIt is difficult to gain a right appreciation of this subject after it\nhas suffered such abuse, but a serious effort should be made; for it is\nin the understanding of the Messianic expectation that we shall find a\nkey to the New Testament and more especially to that conflict of soul\nwhich the acceptance of the Messiahship seems to have brought upon\nJesus.\n\nThe method of study followed will be an endeavour to read all alleged\nMessianic predictions, first of all in the light of their actual\nmeaning for the age in which they were uttered; but more particularly\nit will embrace the general ideas of the future of which the conception\nof the Messiah forms only a part. We shall find that the conscious\nprediction of the Messiah is somewhat reduced in bulk, and that the\nMessianic expectation includes something more than a figure of the\nMessiah himself, and is indeed sometimes found without any such feature.\n\nThe Messianic ideal involves the whole conception of the religious\nfuture of Israel. The Hebrew religion receives much inspiration from\nits tradition of the past, but infinitely more from its hopes for the\nfuture: the golden age is not thought to lie far back in history,\nbut in a time yet to come. It seems likely that this idea was widely\ndispersed even among the common people, and it is therefore only\nnatural that it should often have been held in an unspiritual manner\nand expressed after a material fashion. This hope was seized upon by\nthe Prophets, and by them elevated above a merely material expectation;\nthey enriched it by the wealth of their creative genius, and from\ntheir time it receives a definite content. Standing far above their\ncontemporaries in their conception of the meaning of Jehovah's covenant\nwith Israel, the Prophets were forced to realise the failure of their\nmessage to win immediate acceptance, and sometimes they witnessed its\nentire rejection by the people; and therefore it was inevitable that\nthey should look to the future to yield what the present seemed unable\nto produce: a religion pure, simple, and free from all limitations.\nIf we inquire the reason of this hope, we find it in their trust in\nJehovah's covenant and in their conviction of the ultimate triumph\nof truth. Now it was not unnatural, with the peculiar character of\ntheir national history, for their hopes to group themselves around\nsome commanding figure; for all along Israel had been moved by\nsplendid personalities. They were accustomed to the appearance of men\nwhose power and genius marked them out as fitted by Jehovah for some\nmighty task; so that whenever they think of the future and come to a\ndetailed description of their vision they descry one dominant figure,\nthe symbol and representative of the people, but also the symbol and\nrepresentative of the power of Jehovah dwelling among them. This\nfigure receives his peculiar outline largely from the needs of their\nimmediate times, and any person of whom great things are expected may\nbe hailed as the Messiah (Cyrus, Isa. xlv. 1; Haggai ii. 20-23, seems\nto suggest that Zerubbabel is the expected Messiah; and Zech. vi. 12\nuses Messianic language of Joshua the High Priest).\n\nWe should have expected that the figure of the Messiah, as conceived\nby the Prophets, would partake largely of the prophetic office\nidealised and accepted by an obedient people. This however is not\nthe case. There is a promise of a prophet made through Moses, which\nin the New Testament has been interpreted as a Messianic prophecy\n(Deut. xviii. 18; Acts iii. 22, vii. 37), but an examination of the\npassage, which follows a denunciation of the practices of divination,\nnecromancy, and sorcery, out of which primitive Prophetism arose, shows\nthat it is a promise of the establishment of the prophetic office\nrather than of any one person. Elsewhere Moses is made to exclaim:\n\"would that all the Lord's people were prophets\" (Num. xi. 29). Both\nthese passages are due to prophetic teaching, and this is the Prophets'\nconception of their office: they do not rejoice in their splendid\nisolation and their unique relation to God; they are grieved that the\npeople do not share their possession of the Spirit of God and their\nhearing of His word, for to them these things are the essence of all\ntrue religion. So they look forward to a time when their office will\nno longer be necessary (Jer. xxxi. 34), and when the Spirit of the\nLord shall be poured out on all flesh (Joel ii. 28f). It is not in any\ncontradiction to this that the picture of the Servant of the Lord,\ndelineated by the Second Isaiah, is largely drawn from the prophetic\noffice (Isa. xlii. 1-4, xlix. 1-6, l. 4); for the Servant is the Nation\nof Israel fulfilling her prophetic role among the nations of mankind.\nIn the late prophecy of Malachi the figure of Elijah the prophet\nis seen in the future, but only as the herald of the coming of the\nMessianic era (Mal. iv. 5).\n\nThe Priest contributes little more than the Prophet to the picture\n(Zech. iii.; vi. 12; Psa. cx.); for to the prophetic conception of\nthings the Priesthood is hardly a necessary office in a true religion.\nIt is from the office of the King that the Messiah is largely drawn.\nThis conception could only have arisen after the founding of the\nmonarchy and only when the real David had faded far enough into the\npast to be idealised. It was in their experience of the imperfection of\nthe Kings of Israel and Judah that the Prophets saw the need for a true\nkingly head; and in the oppression of military kingdoms, the need for a\nmighty warrior. And yet it is not a king who fills the picture of the\nfuture, so much as a kingdom.\n\nOutside the Prophets and the Psalms we find little expectation of a\npersonal Messiah, but we find almost everywhere the conception of\nan ideal or Messianic age. What has been called the Protevangelium,\nthe promise to the woman that her seed should bruise the serpent's\nhead (Gen. iii. 15), does not point explicitly to any one person,\nbut simply promises that in man's eternal warfare with temptation he\nshall at length gain the victory. The prophecy of Balaam (Num. xxiv.\n17-19) involves nothing more than the future supremacy of Israel.\nJacob's blessing on Judah (Gen. xlix. 10) promises a stable dynasty\nto that tribe, and the reference to Shiloh is so obscure that nothing\ncan be built upon it (_Shiloh_ may mean peace, but in the Septuagint\nthe phrase is translated: \"until that which is his shall come.\"\nAnother ancient reading is: \"till he come whose it is.\" Shiloh might\nrefer to the town of that name, but this would give no help to the\ninterpretation. The text must be corrupt).\n\nIt will be necessary for us to examine the circle of ideas which form\nthe background of the Messianic hope and from which the idea of the\nMessiah emerges. When the Prophets speak of the future they often use a\nstrange phrase: \"the day of the Lord.\" This is found first in Amos (v.\n18), but its occurrence there shows that it was already a term in use\namong the people, for Amos had to dissent from the popular idea of its\ncharacter. The term comes from the Hebrew idiom of the \"day\" of battle,\nand it comes to be used of the great conflict in which Jehovah will\nentirely overthrow the enemies of Israel; it is therefore looked for\nwith expectant hope. Amos points out that the manifestation of Jehovah\nwill be fatal to sin, whether in Israel or in other nations: _dies ir\u00e6,\ndies illa_. Thus modified by Amos this is the conception which, with\nvarying details, becomes the prophetic idea of the Day of the Lord. It\nmay therefore come in some threatened invasion; later, it is conceived\nas a gathering of all the nations against Jerusalem, from which we get\nthe picture of Armageddon, the last great war before the establishment\nof peace; and finally it becomes the world assize, and so the \"day\" of\njudgment of the New Testament. This \"day\" is to separate the history\nof God's dealings with men into two distinct periods, and will be the\ndividing line between the perfect and the imperfect; so that all the\nbright visions of the future are to be \"after those days.\" The Prophets\nbelieve that reconstruction can only come after destruction, that\nhistory will reach its ideal over a precipice; they believe in a reform\nby cataclysm rather than by evolution. Every threatening of political\nchange or national disaster may herald the coming of that day; it is\nalways at hand; to their vision, they are living near the finality of\nthings. There is a great deal in this imagery that fails to appeal to\nmodern ideas of history and progress. It was part of the prophetic\nscheme and as such was a limitation of perfect vision; but shorn of its\nmere form it remains a witness to their consciousness of the activity\nof God in human history and of His judgment in the crises of the world.\nThe form was a limitation essential to their stage of mental evolution\nand to its intelligibility to their age; its spirit is an eternal\nmessage to mankind.\n\nImmediately after the Day of the Lord, the Messianic Age is ushered\nin, and in depicting the conditions of that time the lyrical genius of\nthe Prophets reaches its supreme expression, and these passages still\ninspire the reformer and move men with their ideals of peace. The\npicture of that age is composed by projecting into the future their own\ninstitutions and especially their religious conceptions. They picture\na condition of human society which is best described in the phrase,\n\"the kingdom of God\"; for although such an expression never breaks\nforth from their lips, its contents are obviously in their minds. It\nis to be a community in which the will of God is perfectly realised,\nwhen religion shall no longer consist in statutes and commands, but in\nthe recognition of an inner law. Absolute righteousness, individual\nand civil, will prevail, and the nations shall learn war no more. The\nanimal and natural creation will share in this beneficent order: the\nlion shall lie down with the lamb, and the wilderness shall blossom\nlike the rose; the veil shall be torn from men's vision, all tears\nshall be wiped away, and death shall be swallowed up in victory.\n\nWhen they come to depict the subjects of this kingdom they fail to\nattain to the inner and ethical requirements enunciated by Jesus, for\nnational hopes and ambitions still cloud their outlook. There are two\nstreams of thought--one frankly particularistic, where the future of\nthe heathen is ignored, or where they are simply to be exterminated;\nand the other universalistic, where the conversion of the whole world\nis expected (Isa. xlv. 22; Jer. xii. 14 ff, xvi. 19; cp. Isa. xi. 14-16\nwith xix. 18-25). It is somewhat surprising, in view of the subsequent\ndevelopment of these ideas under Christian thought, that the sphere of\nthis tremendous change is conceived to be this present earth; and even\nwhen the necessity of a new earth and a new heaven is considered, it\nis still earth that is to be the chief theatre of events. Heaven is\nconceived of as the dwelling place of Jehovah, but there is no idea\nthat this great change is to be postponed or relegated to some heavenly\ncondition; heaven is to come down to earth and Jehovah is to dwell\namong His people and be their God.\n\nIt is from the ground of these ideas that there arises the conception\nof the person known as the Messiah, who shall be the Divine instrument\nin bringing about this blessed condition. Messiah is from the Hebrew,\n_Mashiah_, and means \"anointed one.\" The actual phrase, _the_ Messiah,\nwithout further qualification, is not found in the Old Testament (Dan.\nix. 25, A.V. \"The Messiah\" is incorrect; it should read: \"an anointed\none, a prince,\" as R.V. mar.); but after the closing of the Canon the\nphrase was constantly used to denote the Jewish hope of the appearance\nof a singular person, of Davidic descent, who should be superhumanly\nendowed, and who should overturn the enemies of the Jews and place\ntheir nation at the head of the world. The title recalls the mode of\nconsecration used for priests and kings by anointing them with oil\n(Lev. iv. 3, 5, 16; vi. 22; 1 Sam. ii. 35; xii. 3), and \"the anointed\nof Jehovah\" is the common title for the kings of Israel. The origin of\nthis idea of the Messianic King may certainly be traced to Nathan's\npromise to David of a perpetual seed which should occupy his throne\nand be the special delight and care of Jehovah (2 Sam. vii. 2-17). In\nthe presence of a weak or unworthy occupant of the throne this promise\nwould come to mind, and would gather new meaning as the Prophets saw in\nthe troubles of their times the imminence of the Day of the Lord. It is\nto the prophet Isaiah that we owe a striking conception of a monarch\nwho not only fulfils his promise but transcends it in a way that is\nhardly conceivable in a merely human king. The first emergence of this\nhope in the mind of the prophet occurs when he attempts to restrain\nAhaz from joining the fatal confederacy of Syria and Ephraim against\nAssyria. When Ahaz demands some confirmation, the prophet promises the\nsign of a young woman who shall bear a child named Immanuel (Isa. vii.\n14-17). Following Matthew, Christian expositors have taken this to be\na prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus; although it is difficult to\nsee how this could be a sign to Ahaz. The subject is obscure to the\nlast degree. The Hebrew word rendered \"a virgin,\" although capable of\nsuch a special application, means simply a young woman. The translation\n\"virgin\" was first made by the Septuagint, and this may point to the\nfact that at the time this version was made the Messiah was expected\nto be born of a virgin. The prophecy seems to have arisen from the\nconviction that the Assyrian invasion would bring into existence\nsome person who should represent the active presence of God with\nHis people; and beyond this explanation there is nothing but mere\nspeculation. But in a later oracle of Isaiah's (ix. 6f), the conception\nhas grown in definiteness, and this expected person is crowned with\nsuch honorific titles as \"Wonder of a Counsellor, Hero-God, Father\nof Eternity, Prince of Peace.\" To our ears these titles convey the\nsense of absolute Divinity, but it is questionable whether they meant\nthat to Isaiah. Eastern monarchs have always been addressed with\nhigh-sounding titles, and Isaiah's language may have been coloured by\nforeign court customs; but still it would remain that the titles lead\nus to expect an unexampled figure who possesses attributes that mark\nhim out as specially equipped by God. Once more Isaiah returns to this\nfigure (xi. 1-12), and now definitely asserts that he shall spring\nfrom David's line; only now the majesty of his person is conceived\nas due to his seven-fold possession of the Spirit of Jehovah, and\nhis character fits him rather for administrative and prophetic work.\nMicah, a contemporary of Isaiah, has much the same figure (v. 2-5) of\na mighty prince of Davidic lineage and of mysterious birth (Bethlehem\nsimply stands here for David's line, and \"whose outgoings have been\nfrom eternity\" probably means nothing more than that his descent shall\nspring from this ancient ancestor). There is an inexplicable element\nin these predictions, but they have been found elsewhere, outside\nIsrael, in times of great national danger or expectation. In Israel,\nthe idealisation of David, the personal element in her history, and\nthe increased possibilities discovered in human personality when under\nthe complete dominion of the Spirit of Jehovah, have contributed to\nthe creation of this figure. It cannot be said that it was a mental\nvision of the person of Jesus that shaped the prophecy, for it must not\nbe forgotten that it was an immediate fulfilment that they expected;\nand indeed their picture so utterly misled the Jews, that, when Christ\nclaimed to be the Messiah, they treated His claim as blasphemous. While\nwe can see that Christ was indeed a King, it is only by a spiritual\nconception of kingship, and only after the verdict of history has\ncrowned Him as a true ruler of men; not by any actual resemblance to\nthe external magnificence of the Messianic King. When the Messianic\ncall came to Jesus He found in these passages a difficulty, for they\noutlined a programme He could only reject; but it was other and\nindirect allusions of the old Testament, some of which had never been\nconsidered as Messianic, that Jesus took for His pattern. This meant a\nreading of prophecy very different from that of the Jews of His time,\nand it is surely here that the views we have found ourselves forced to\naccept in regard to Old Testament prophecy can claim the support of\nJesus Himself. It is important to grasp this point: the argument from\npredictions definitely fulfilled in Jesus has failed to convince the\nJews, who ought to understand their own Scriptures best, and we must\nrecognise that it is only a spiritual interpretation of prophecy and a\nvaluation of Jesus which owes nothing to flesh and blood that can see\nin Him One of whom all the Prophets bore witness.\n\nIt is to these other conceptions, to which the spiritual intuition of\nJesus led Him in His search for support for His Messianic ideals, that\nwe must now turn.\n\nThe first of these in importance is undoubtedly \"the Servant of the\nLord.\" We saw when examining this idea that it was an ideal of a nation\nrather than of an individual, and yet it was upon this that Jesus\nfixed, and it was this idea that seemed to mould His whole conception\nof His mission. According to Luke, the first discourse of Jesus took\nplace in the Synagogue at Nazareth, where He set forth His programme\nand policy, and stated them to be identical with those the prophet\nhad outlined for the nation centuries before (Luke iv. 16-21; Isa.\nlxi. 1, 2); and the evangelist Matthew sees in the methods of Jesus a\nfulfilment of the prophecy of the Servant (Matt. xii. 18-21; Isa. xlii.\n1-4). It was probably as Jesus saw the clouds gather about His life and\ndisaster began to threaten that He was led to study the career of that\nServant and see that it involved suffering, being despised and rejected\nof men; and so He came to find the key to the mystery of His Cross in\nthat classic of the vicarious life, the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah.\nJesus was probably the first to interpret that passage in a Messianic\nsense.\n\nHis reason for adopting the title of \"the Son of Man\" is exceedingly\ndifficult to trace; it may be said that no completely satisfactory\nexplanation of the origin or meaning of the term has yet been\ndiscovered, and in the present state of research on the subject it\nwould be folly to commit ourselves to any of the theories that have\nbeen propounded. We can only keep in mind the various facts, which\nthe use of this title in the Gospels presents to us. It is clear that\nJesus did not intend the title to be a declaration to the world that\nHe had accepted the Messianic call; for all along it was His deliberate\npurpose to conceal His Messiahship, and for reasons that are obvious,\nwhen we consider the difference between His conception of Messianic\nfunction and that of the Jews of His day. Again, although there is a\nslight difference between Daniel, where we only hear of \"one like unto\na son of man,\" and Jesus who calls Himself \"_the_ son of man,\" yet\nwhen challenged by the high-priest Jesus certainly quotes from Daniel\n(Dan. vii. 13; Mark xiv. 62). Now in Daniel it is not a person who is\nfigured by this title, so much as a humane kingdom which is to replace\nthe kingdoms that were more like beasts in their character. It is only\nin the Book of Enoch that the Son of Man is definitely identified with\nthe Messiah. Did Jesus ever read that Book, or were its ideas at all\ncommonly known? If so we should have to concede that the Son of Man\nmeant the Messiah, both to Jesus and to the people, and yet this is an\napparent contradiction of His general motive in keeping the Messiahship\nsecret.\n\nPerhaps, and the suggestion is made with the knowledge that in the\npresent state of the problem it can be nothing more than a suggestion,\nthere is a line that has not been exhausted, and along which help may\nyet be found. It starts from the fact that Jesus seems to have adopted\nthe _character_ of the Servant of the Lord under the _name_ of the Son\nof Man; and we have seen that both these are ideals of a community or\na nation rather than of a person. Again, that somehow the title \"the\nSon of Man\" had Messianic significance, and in the mind of Jesus was\nconnected with the figure in Daniel, is seen from His confession before\nCaiaphas. The contradiction between these facts and the purpose of\nconcealing His Messiahship can perhaps be solved by noticing that Jesus\nnever explicitly identifies Himself with the Son of Man; and if all\nthe passages where this title is found in the Synoptics are examined,\nthey seem to separate themselves into three distinct groups: (1) where\nthe reference might be not only to Jesus Himself but to Man fulfilling\nhis ideal; (2) where the reference is to the suffering which the Son\nof Man must undergo; (3) and most important, this term is always used\nwhen Jesus speaks of that mysterious return on the clouds which is\nknown as the Second Advent. The conclusion to which it is suggested\nall these facts point is that although Jesus believed Himself to be\nthe personal centre on which the Messianic hope converged, it was not\nto Himself personally, but to the new humanity which His Spirit should\nbeget, that He looked for the complete fulfilment of the Messianic\nhope. Thus at least are linked together the fact that the Prophets are\noccupied rather with the Messianic community than with the Messiah,\nand the fact that Jesus made the centre and aim of His teaching the\nKingdom rather than its personal embodiment in Himself. Jesus certainly\nread these Prophets more according to their real inwardness than any\nof His contemporaries or than many generations of Christian scholars;\nand there is no better preparation for the serious study of the Gospels\nthan a careful examination of the growing revelation of the Old\nTestament religion, and the inner meaning of the Messianic hope.\n\nOf this wonderful growth and moving revelation, it can be said, in a\nway deeper than the old typological and prophetic methods of study\ncould understand, that Christ is the aim and the goal; not only\nJesus of Nazareth with His unique Personality, but that still more\ntranscendent mystery, the Christ within the heart, Christ the head of\nevery man. If we have learned nothing else, surely we have learned\nthis: that behind the hopes of mankind, behind their misty dreams,\ntheir gropings after truth, their struggles for righteousness, are\nthe eternal thoughts of God; and although these may transcend their\npoor reflection in the mind of man, as the heavens the earth, yet this\nremains: that for every hope implanted, there is an answer beyond\nour expectation; for every desire Godward, the revelation of the\nFather-friend; for every ideal of the human heart, the Christ; and\nfor every effort after human progress, the ever nearer coming of the\nKingdom of God.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\n  Abraham, emigration of, 23;\n    historicity of, 36;\n    religion of, 31, 34\n\n  _Adonai_, 60\n\n  Ahijah, 117\n\n  Altars, erected anywhere, 98;\n    construction of, 200\n\n  Amaziah, 118\n\n  Amos, 98, 118, 136, 148, 152, 159, 271\n\n  Animals, as tribal names, 39;\n    clean and unclean, 40;\n    worship of, 26, 39, 68, 124\n\n  Animism, 40, 41\n\n  Apostasy, 90, 129\n\n  Arabia, home of Semites, 20, 22\n\n  Ark, 69, 70, 121, 180\n\n  Armageddon, 272\n\n  Aryan conception of God, 25\n\n  Asaph, 222, 225\n\n  Asherah, 46\n\n  Ashtoreth, or _Ashtart_, 94\n\n  Assembly of the saints, 223\n\n  Assyria, 156, 160, 161\n\n  Atonement, 102, 208;\n    of Christ, 210, 211;\n    Day of, 177, 178\n\n  Azazel, 42, 207, 208\n\n\n  Baal, 38, 92, 96, 98\n\n  Baal of Tyre, 94, 109, 125. See also under Melkart\n\n  Babylon, fall of, 185;\n    Jews in, 169-174, 179, 185, 204\n\n  Babylonian epic of Creation, 205;\n    influence of, 204-206\n\n  Babylonian religion, 186\n\n  Balaam, prophecy of, 271\n\n  Ban, the, 49\n\n  Blood, significance of, 26, 208;\n    food of deity, 48\n\n  Book of the Covenant, 200\n\n  _Bosheth_, 94, 97\n\n  Bull-worship, 68, 98, 124\n\n\n  Calf-worship. See under Bull\n\n  Canaan, influence of, 27, 83-86, 170;\n    conquest of, 82, 86, 87;\n    Jewish love for, 83;\n    limitations of, 84\n\n  Canaanites, customs of, borrowed, 92, 98;\n    origin of, 23, 24;\n    religion of, 38, 92-95;\n    sanctuaries of, 98, 158, 163;\n    why not exterminated, 90;\n    and Hebrews, 87\n\n  Centralization of worship, 144, 157, 163\n\n  Chemosh, 43\n\n  Choice of Israel, Jehovah's, 75;\n    prophetic conception of, 156, 187\n\n  Christ the goal of Old Testament, 282.\n    And see under Jesus\n\n  Christianity, 101, 274\n\n  Chronicler, the, 221\n\n  Circumcision, 50, 180\n\n  Comparative religion, 38\n\n  Conditions of life among Semites, 20;\n    in time of Judges, 87;\n    after exile, 196, 232;\n    in time of Psalms, 226, 231, 232;\n    reflected in Wisdom lit., 247;\n    in Ecclesiastes, 259;\n    in Messianic age, 273\n\n  Covenant at Sinai, 58, 65;\n    prophetic conception of, 76, 157, 267\n\n  Covenant-sacrifice, 49, 63\n\n  Creation, 186, 205;\n    Babylonian legend of, 205\n\n  Customs retained with new significance, 39, 50, 176\n\n  Customs, mourning, 40\n\n  Cyrus, 183, 185, 268\n\n\n  Daniel, Book of, 141\n\n  David, character of, 119, 121, 229;\n    influence of, 120;\n    his kingdom, 88, 120;\n    a poet, 119;\n    his religious ideas, 121;\n    his work, 120;\n    and the Messiah, 270, 275\n\n  Day of Atonement, 177;\n    of the Lord, 271;\n    of judgment, 272\n\n  Deborah, Song of, 88\n\n  Decalogue, the, 74\n\n  Deluge, the, 206\n\n  Deuteronomy, Book of, 145, 157, 162, 200\n\n  Development of Religion, xiv, 27, 37, 79, 86, 99, 128, 129, 131,\n          142, 215, 282\n\n  Director's Psalm Book, 220\n\n  Documents, various, how detected, 33, 194, 199\n\n\n  \"E,\" 30, 142, 194\n\n  Ecclesiastes, name, 258;\n    Book of, 260;\n    ascribed to Solomon, 258;\n    significance of, 262\n\n  El, 37, 59\n\n  Elijah, 98, 99, 106, 114, 125, 126, 136, 148\n\n  Elisha, 113, 114, 125, 128\n\n  _Elohim_, 30, 42, 222\n\n  Ephod, 67, 100\n\n  Ethical conceptions, 127, 152, 155, 158, 244, 249\n\n  Ethnology of Old Testament, 18\n\n  Exile, date of, 134, 168;\n    cause of, 171, 176;\n    critical view of, 171, 172;\n    lessons from, 190;\n    religion after, 230\n\n  Exilic stamp on literature, 172\n\n  Exodus, the, 58;\n    date of, 24, 82\n\n  Ezekiel, 169, 174, 175, 178, 195;\n    Book of, 174, 177;\n    his school, 195;\n    and Leviticus, 172, 177\n\n  Ezra, 181;\n    introduces the Law, 196, 197;\n    what did it include? 198, 200\n\n\n  Feast of Tabernacles, 197, 198\n\n  Forgiveness, 207, 233\n\n  Funeral feasts, 41\n\n\n  Gad, 117\n\n  God, name of. See under _Elohim_, El and Jehovah\n\n  God, conception of, Semitic, 25, 26;\n    Aryan, 25;\n    anthropomorphic, 48, 66, 155;\n    ethical, 96, 155, 211;\n    local, 43, 52, 62, 75, 96;\n    spiritual, 155;\n    tribal, 26, 32, 75;\n    materialistic, 69, 70;\n    as the Storm God, 70;\n    as the Creator, 186\n\n  God, conception of, by David, 26;\n    by Prophets, 154, 155, 175, 186;\n    by Psalmists, 236;\n    in Job, 256;\n    in Ecclesiastes, 261\n\n  God, holiness of, 175, 207;\n    jealousy of, 76;\n    righteousness of, 77, 155, 232\n\n\n  _Habiri_, 24, 82\n\n  Hallel Psalms, 223\n\n  Hammurabi, code of, 73, 203, 204\n\n  Heathen deities, 42, 43, 66, 154\n\n  Hebrew, meaning of name, 23\n\n  Hebrew Bible, divisions of, 141\n\n  Hebrews, relation to other nations, 18, 19, 22, 24, 85, 156\n\n  Heroes of Israel, 85\n\n  Hexateuch, 200\n\n  High places, worship at, condemned, 173.\n    See also Canaanitish sanctuaries\n\n  Higher criticism, xi, xii\n\n  Historical value of Hebrew tradition, 32, 183, 228, 229, 245, 247\n\n  Historical books, Prophets' influence on, 114, 141, 142\n\n  History, ancient conception of, xiii, 32, 51, 145, 163;\n    how compiled, 114, 142, 143;\n    religious interpretation of, 90, 101, 129, 171, 176, 187, 189.\n    See also under Redaction\n\n  Hittites, 23\n\n  Holiness, 175, 207, 236;\n    code of, 200\n\n  Horeb, Theophany at, 126, 128\n\n  Hosea, 159\n\n  Human sacrifice, 48, 49, 95\n\n\n  Ideal Israel, 188\n\n  Idolatry and images, 37, 45, 67, 68, 70, 154, 176, 180, 186, 247\n\n  Immortality in Psalms, 34, 35;\n    in Job, 256;\n    in Ecclesiastes, 261, 262\n\n  Inspiration, xiii, 129, 206, 231;\n    how related to infallibility, xiii, xiv\n\n  Interpolations, 146\n\n  Isaiah, 160, 295;\n    Book of, 147, 156;\n    authorship of, 147, 182-185\n\n  Israel. See under Hebrews\n\n\n  \"J,\" 30, 32, 194\n\n  Jehovah, name, 59;\n    pronunciation, 60, 62;\n    explanation of, 61\n\n  Jehovah and other nations, 156;\n    and Baal, 97, 98;\n    and Israel, 44\n\n  Jehovah, religion of, date, 31, 34, 65;\n    weakness of, 92, 95, 96;\n    prophetic conception of, 154, 155;\n    a religion of choice, 65, 75\n\n  Jehovah. See also under God\n\n  Jeremiah, 154, 164, 188\n\n  Jeroboam, 124\n\n  Jerusalem, connection with David, 120;\n    idea of inviolability, 161, 169, 170;\n    besieged by Sennacherib, 161;\n    deliverance of, 161;\n    besieged by Nebuchadrezzar, 170;\n    destruction of, 169, 170\n\n  Jesus and Messiahship, 266, 276, 278, 280, 281;\n    and new covenant, 77;\n    and Levitical system, 210;\n    and Revelation, xv, 77;\n    and Prophets, 273, 282;\n    and Psalms, 231, 232, 234;\n    and Proverbs, 250;\n    and Isa. liii., 189;\n    and Book of Daniel, 280, 281; and Book of Enoch, 280;\n    and Old Testament, x\n\n  Jethro, 62\n\n  Jews. See under Hebrews\n\n  Job, 251;\n    Book of, 250;\n    date of, 251, 252;\n    author, 251, 254, 255;\n    divisions of, 253\n\n  Jonah, Book of, 156, 189\n\n  Joshua, Book of, 82, 86, 87\n\n  Josiah, reform of, 162, 163, 200\n\n  Judah, tribe of, 89\n\n  Judaism, 178\n\n  Judges, functions of, 91;\n    Book of, 82, 87, 88, 90, 144\n\n\n  Kenites, 64\n\n  King. See under Monarchy and Messiah\n\n  Kingdom of God, 28, 127, 131, 171, 273, 282\n\n  Korah, sons of, 225\n\n\n  Law, origin of, 173;\n    of Moses, 196-198;\n    later than Prophets, 137, 158;\n    no observance of, until after exile, 54, 172, 199.\n    See also under Pentateuch and Moses\n\n  Levi, tribe of, 89\n\n  Levite choirs, 221\n\n  Levites, 71;\n    distinguished from priests, 177\n\n  Levitical system, 208;\n    intention of, 209\n\n  Leviticus, Book of, 157, 158, 172\n\n  Literary ideals, 146, 163, 251, 259\n\n  Localization of God, 43, 96, 103\n\n  Local sanctuaries, 58, 59\n\n  Lower criticism, xi\n\n\n  Maccabees, the, 223, 224;\n    times of, 221;\n    Psalms of, 224, 226\n\n  Manasseh, 162\n\n  _Mazzebah_, the, 45\n\n  Melkart, 94, 95, 125.\n    See also Baal of Tyre\n\n  Memorial stones, 37, 44\n\n  Messiah, name, 274;\n    title, 276;\n    Davidic descent of, 275, 277\n\n  Messiah in the Prophets, 269, 276;\n    in Apocrypha, 264\n\n  Messiah as Prophet, 269;\n    Priest, 270;\n    King, 270, 275\n\n  Messianic age, 151, 270, 273\n\n  Messianic King, 228\n\n  Messianic prophecy, 266, 267, 269-271, 275-277;\n    includes more than a person, 267, 271, 281\n\n  Micah, 160, 277\n\n  Micaiah, 128\n\n  Midian, 64\n\n  Molech, 95, 96\n\n  Monarchy, origin of, 97, 106, 118;\n    in Psalms, 228;\n    in Proverbs, 247, 248\n\n  Monotheism among Semites, 25;\n    Hebrews, 39, 43;\n    not taught by Moses, 66;\n    in the Prophets, 42, 154, 186\n\n  Moses, name, 57;\n    historical reality, 55, 57;\n    his call, 58, 63;\n    mention before exile, 56;\n    not author of Pentateuch, 54, 57.\n    See also under Law, and Pentateuch\n\n  Music and prophecy, 112\n\n  Musical directions in Psalter, 218-220\n\n  Musical services, 223\n\n\n  Nathan, 117, 122, 275\n\n  Nature in Psalter, 236\n\n  Nazarites, 114\n\n  Nebuchadrezzar, 169\n\n  Necromancy, 39\n\n  Nehustan, 68\n\n  New Covenant, the, 165\n\n  New Testament, Psalms quoted in, 229\n\n  New Testament and Old Testament, 266. See also under Christianity,\n          and Jesus\n\n\n  Old Testament, attitude of Jesus to, x;\n    Jewish reverence for, x.\n    See also under Hebrew Bible\n\n  Oracles, 27, 46, 47, 68, 77, 100\n\n  Origin of religion, 51, 62\n\n\n  \"P,\" 194. See under Priestly Code\n\n  Palestine. See under Canaan\n\n  Particularism, 155, 186, 191, 273\n\n  Passover, the, 49\n\n  Patriarchs, historicity of, 35\n\n  Pentateuch, strata of, 30, 194, 199, 200;\n    how discovered, 34, 194, 199;\n    not by Moses, 54, 73;\n    Samaritan, 201.\n    See also under Law, and Moses\n\n  Personal conception of religion, 154, 166, 232, 233, 235, 237\n\n  Personalities, influence of, on history, 268\n\n  Personification, 186, 189, 232, 246, 252, 253\n\n  Pharaoh of the Exodus, 82\n\n  Philistines, 24, 97\n\n  Philo, 242, 246\n\n  Philosophy, 21, 246, 252\n\n  Phoenicians, 20, 23\n\n  Poetry, sign of early date, 18, 69, 88;\n    of David, 119, 228;\n    in Prophets, 153;\n    in Psalms, 236;\n    in Proverbs, 245\n\n  Polytheism among Semites, 25;\n    among Hebrews, 37;\n    the religion of savages, 41;\n    in original documents, 41;\n    evidence of, 42\n\n  Prayer, 216, 231\n\n  Prediction, 137, 151, 182, 183, 266, 278\n\n  Priesthood, 63;\n    in time of Moses, 71, 111, 202;\n    in time of Judges, 54,68, 100;\n    in Ezekiel, 177;\n    after exile, 209;\n    of Messiah, 270.\n    See also under Levites\n\n  Priestly code, the, 200-202;\n    ideals of, 206, 210.\n    See also under Levitical system\n\n  Priestly school, the, 196, 206\n\n  Problem of Providence, 234, 250, 253, 257, 259, 260\n\n  Problem of suffering, 187, 243, 251, 253, 257, 258, 262\n\n  Progress, causes of, 75, 97, 102.\n    See under Development\n\n  Prophesying, 112\n\n  Prophet, name of, 109, 110\n\n  Prophetic bands, 106, 112, 125\n\n  Prophetic consciousness, 149, 150\n\n  Prophetic literature, how compiled, 145, 146, 152\n\n  Prophetic style, 114, 145, 150, 153, 185\n\n  Prophets, origin of, 106;\n    two classes, 108, 111, 149, 153;\n    conflict between, 113, 128;\n    their call, 148;\n    their relation to State, 117, 127, 153;\n    and national religion, 136, 149;\n    and the Covenant, 139, 157;\n    chronology of, 134;\n    their place in history, 137;\n    importance of, for criticism, xii, 137, 138;\n    their picture of their age, 138, 139;\n    they are creative, 135;\n    their relation to the Law, 137, 139, 140, 143, 164, 215;\n    and the Gospel, 136, 137, 138;\n    their scheme of the future, 151, 272\n\n  Protestantism, 131\n\n  Protevangelium, the, 270\n\n  Proverb, the, 245\n\n  Proverbs, Book of, 245;\n    its relation to Job, 240, 252;\n    divisions of, 245;\n    date of, 247\n\n  Psalms, titles of, 214, 218, 219, 224, 225, 228;\n    ascription to David, 214, 218, 221, 222, 225-229;\n    authorship of, 224, 225;\n    some are prayers, 216;\n    use in synagogue, 216;\n    in the temple, 216, 218;\n    Hallels, 223;\n    Maccab\u00e6an, 224, 226;\n    tone of, 217;\n    imprecations in, 217, 231, 232;\n    and the Gospel, 215;\n    and Christianity, 216;\n    their conception of God, 225, 236\n\n  Psalter, the, criticism of, 217, 218;\n    date of, 221, 225-227, 229, 231;\n    Books of, 221;\n    a gradual compilation, 218, 221\n\n\n  Queen of Heaven, 95\n\n\n  Rahab, 205\n\n  Rechabites, 115\n\n  Redaction, 144, 145, 173, 215, 218\n\n  Reform, 107;\n    of Elijah, 126;\n    of Prophets, 139;\n    under Josiah, 144, 162, 163;\n    after exile, 180, 181;\n    under Ezra, 196, 200\n\n  Religion, origin of, 38, 78;\n    primitive, 32, 39, 40, 42, 43;\n    Semitic, 25;\n    of Patriarchs, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 65;\n    in time of Moses, 54;\n    in time of Judges, 67, 71;\n    of Canaanites, 92-95;\n    under monarchy, 108, 112, 158;\n    after exile, 179, 181;\n    Levitical conception of, 209, 210;\n    of Psalmists, 230, 231-235;\n    in Wisdom lit., 242, 244;\n    in Proverbs, 249;\n    in Job, 255;\n    in Ecclesiastes, 261;\n    of the future, 265, 268, 273\n\n  Repentance, 173, 178\n\n  Restoration, the, 181, 182\n\n  Retribution, 250, 262. And see under Problem of Providence\n\n  Revelation, xiii, 51, 63, 66, 78, 79, 231\n\n  Ritual, 157, 209, 211\n\n\n  Sabbath, 168, 179\n\n  Sacred springs, 47\n\n  Sacred stones, 44\n\n  Sacred trees, 46\n\n  Sacrifice, primitive, 47, 48;\n    adopted by Moses, 72;\n    covenant, 49, 63;\n    human, 48, 49;\n    Prophetic estimate of, 72, 158;\n    in \"P,\" 202, 207;\n    meaning of, 207, 208;\n    of Christ, 210, 211.\n    See also under Atonement\n\n  Samaria, fall of, 134, 160\n\n  Samson, 115\n\n  Samuel, 106, 111, 113, 114, 119\n\n  Satan, 255, 266\n\n  Saul, 111, 112, 119\n\n  Scepticism, 248, 260, 261\n\n  Science, 21, 131, 237\n\n  Second Isaiah, 147, 180.\n    See also under Isaiah\n\n  Seer, 100\n\n  Selah, 219, 220\n\n  Semites, home of, 20;\n    desert life, 20;\n    Western antipathy to, 21;\n    their contribution to thought, 21;\n    to science, 21;\n    to religion, 22;\n    groups of, 22;\n    migrations of, 22\n\n  Semitic character of our Bible, 25\n\n  Semitic language, 19\n\n  Semitic religion, 25, 26;\n    tribal, 26;\n    value of, 27;\n    does not account for Hebrew religion, 25, 31\n\n  Sennacherib, 160\n\n  Servant of the Lord, 187, 188, 269, 278, 280;\n    the suffering, 187, 279\n\n  Shekel, temple, 197, 199\n\n  Shewbread, 48\n\n  Shiloh, 271\n\n  Simeon, tribe of, 89\n\n  Simon Maccab\u00e6us, 224\n\n  Sin, 176, 207, 209, 232, 233\n\n  Sin-offering, the, 207\n\n  Sinai, 58, 62, 64, 65\n\n  Social conceptions, 127, 158, 159\n\n  Solomon, 88, 122, 224, 225;\n    Proverbs ascribed to, 245, 246, 248;\n    and Ecclesiastes, 259\n\n  Son of Man, the, title of, 279-281\n\n  Sons of the Prophets, 106, 110-112.\n    See also under Prophetic bands\n\n  Substitution, 208, 209\n\n  Supernatural, the, 79\n\n  Symbolism, 208, 209\n\n  Synagogue, the, 180, 181, 216\n\n  Syncretism, 92, 97, 99, 101, 102, 107\n\n\n  Tabernacle, the, 72, 73, 202\n\n  Tabernacles, Feast of, 197, 198\n\n  _Tehom_, _Tiamat_, 205\n\n  Tel-el-Amarna, tablets, 24, 82\n\n  Temple, the, 122-124, 162, 164, 177, 202;\n    worship of, 220, 230;\n    mentioned in Psalms, 226, 227\n\n  _Torah_, 100\n\n  Totemism, 39\n\n  Tradition, Jewish, 229\n\n  Tribes, names of, 40;\n    unity of, 88, 91\n\n\n  Universalism, 155, 156, 186, 190, 191, 242, 274\n\n\n  Virgin birth, the, 276\n\n\n  Wisdom, 243, 246, 249, 261\n\n  Wisdom literature, 241;\n    compared with rest of Bible, 243-244;\n    date of, 245\n\n  Wise men, the, 244, 248\n\n  Worship, prophetic conception of, 157;\n    of synagogue, 181;\n    of temple, 220, 230.\n    And see under Altars, Religion, God, and Sacrifice\n\n\n  Zechariah, Book of, 134, 147\n\n\nBRADBURY, AGNEW, & CO. LD., PRINTERS, LONDON AND TONBRIDGE.\n\n\n\n\nTranscribers' Notes:\n\n\nCover created by Transcriber and placed in the Public Domain.\n\nPunctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a\npredominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not\nchanged.\n\nSimple typographical errors were corrected; occasional unbalanced\nquotation marks retained.\n\nAmbiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained.\n\nMissing periods at the ends of the Roman numbers of Biblical citations\nhave been added.\n\nIndex not checked for proper alphabetization or correct page references,\nbut on page 285, reference to page 295 under \"Isaiah\" should be to\npage 195.\n\nPage 208: \"how this is affected\" perhaps should be \"effected\".\n\nPage 288: \"BRADBURY, AGNEW, & CO. LD.\" was printed that way, as \"LD.\"","title":"The Evolution of Old Testament Religion","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":66081}