{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_4732/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_4732","id":"gutenberg_4732","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4732","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Old Testament -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: History - Religious","Jews -- History -- To 70 A.D.","Judaism","Judaism -- History -- To 70 A.D."],"text":"P R O L E G O M E N A\n\n\t\t\t\tto the\n\n\t\t\t  HISTORY OF ISRAEL.\n\n\t\tWITH A REPRINT OF THE ARTICLE \"ISRAEL\"\n\t\t FROM THE \"ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA.\"\n\n\t\t\t\t  by\n\n\t\t\t  JULIUS WELLHAUSEN,\n\t PROFESSOR OF ORIENTAL LANGUAGES IN THE UNIVERSITY OF\n\t\t\t       MARBURG.\n\n\n\n\n\n     TRANSLATED FR0M THE GERMAN, UNDER THE AUTHOR'S SUPERVISION,\n\t\t\t\t  by\n\t\t     J.  SUTHERLAND BLACK, M.A.,\n\t\t\t\t and\n\t\t\t ALLAN MENZIES, B.D.\n\n\n\n\t\t\t  with a preface by\n\t\t     PROF.  W.  ROBERTSON SMITH.\n\n\n\nP R E F A C E.\n\nThe work which forms the greater part of the present volume first\nappeared in 1878 under the title \"History of Israel.  By J.\nWellhausen.  In two volumes.  Volume I.\"  The book produced a great\nimpression throughout Europe, and its main thesis, that \"the Mosaic\nhistory is not the starting-point for the history of ancient\nIsrael, but for the history of Judaism,\" was felt to be so\npowerfully maintained that many of the leading Hebrew teachers of\nGermany who had till then stood aloof from the so-called \"Grafian\nhypothesis\"--the doctrine, that is, that the Levitical Law and\nconnected parts of the Pentateuch were not written till after the\nfall of the kingdom of Judah, and that the Pentateuch in its\npresent compass was not publicly accepted as authoritative till\nthe reformation of Ezra--declared themselves convinced by\nWellhausen's arguments.  Before 1878 the Grafian hypothesis was\nneglected or treated as a paradox in most German universities,\nalthough some individual scholars of great name were known to have\nreached by independent inquiry similar views to those for which\nGraf was the recognised sponsor, and although in Holland the\nwritings of Professor Kuenen, who has been aptly termed Graf's\ngoel, had shown in an admirable and conclusive manner that the\nobjections usually taken to Graf's arguments did not touch the\nsubstance of the thesis for which he contended.\n\nSince 1878, partly through the growing influence of Kuenen, but\nmainly through the impression produced by Wellhausen's book, all\nthis has been changed.  Almost every younger scholar of mark is on\nthe side of Vatke and Reuss, Lagarde and Graf, Kuenen and\nWellhausen, and the renewed interest in Old Testament study which\nis making itself felt throughout all the schools of Europe must be\ntraced almost entirely to the stimulus derived from a new view of\nthe history of the Law which sets all Old Testament problems in a\nnew light.\n\nOur author, who since 1878 had been largely engaged in the study\nof other parts of Semitic antiquity, has not yet given to the world\nhis promised second volume.  But the first volume was a complete\nbook in itself; the plan was to reserve the whole narrative of the\nhistory of Israel for vol.ii., so that vol.i. was entirely\noccupied in laying the critical foundations on which alone a real\nhistory of the Hebrew nation could be built.  Accordingly, the\nsecond edition of the History, vol.i., appeared in 1883 (Berlin,\nReimer), under the new title of \"Prolegomena to the History of\nIsrael.\"  In this form it is professedly, as it really was before,\na complete and self-contained work; and this is the form of which\na translation, carefully revised by the author, is now offered to\nthe public.\n\nAll English readers interested in the Old Testament will certainly\nbe grateful to the translators and publishers for a volume which in\nits German garb has already produced so profound an impression on\nthe scholarship of Europe; and even in this country the author's\nname is too well known to make it necessary to introduce him at\nlength to a new public.  But the title of the book has a somewhat\nunfamiliar sound to English ears, and may be apt to suggest a\nseries of dry and learned dissertations meant only for Hebrew\nscholars.  It is worth while therefore to point out in a few words\nthat this would be quite a false impression; that the matters with\nwhich Professor Wellhausen deals are such as no intelligent student\nof the Old Testament can afford to neglect; and that the present\nvolume gives the English reader, for the first time, an\nopportunity to form his own judgment on questions which are within\nthe scope of any one who reads the English Bible carefully and is\nable to think clearly, and without prejudice, about its contents.\nThe history of Israel is part of the history of the faith by\nwhich we live, the New Testament cannot be rightly understood\nwithout understanding the Old, and the main reason why so many\nparts of the Old Testament are practically a sealed book even to\nthoughtful people is simply that they have not the historical key\nto the interpretation of that wonderful literature.\n\nThe Old Testament does not furnish a history of Israel, though it\nsupplies the materials from which such a history can be\nconstructed. For example, the narrative of Kings gives but the\nmerest outline of the events that preceded the fall of Samaria; to\nunderstand the inner history of thc time we must fill up this\noutline with the aid of the prophets Amos and Hosea.  But the more\nthe Old Testament has been studied, the more plain has it become\nthat for many parts of the history something more is needed than\nmerely to read each part of the narrative books in connection with\nthe other books that illustrate the same period.  The Historical\nBooks and the Pentateuch are themselves very composite structures,\nin which old narratives occur imbedded in later compilations, and\ngroups of old laws are overlaid by ordinances of comparatively\nrecent date.  Now, to take one point only, but that the most\nimportant, it must plainly make a vast difference to our whole\nview of the providential course of Israel's history if it appear\nthat instead of the whole Pentateuchal law having been given to\nIsrael before the tribes crossed the Jordan, that law really grew\nup little by little from its Mosaic germ, and did not attain its\npresent form till the Israelites were the captives or the subjects\nof a foreign power.  This is what the new school of Pentateuch\ncriticism undertakes to prove, and it does so in a way that should\ninterest every one.  For in the course of the argument it appears\nthat the plain natural sense of the old history has constantly\nbeen distorted by the false presuppositions with which we have\nbeen accustomed to approach it--that having a false idea of the\nlegal and religious culture of the Hebrews when they first entered\nCanaan, we continually miss the point of the most interesting\nparts of the subsequent story, and above all fail to understand the\ngreat work accomplished by the prophets in destroying Old Israel\nand preparing the way first for Judaism and then for the Gospel.\nThese surely are inquiries which no conscientious student of the\nBible can afford to ignore.\n\nThe process of disentangling the twisted skein of tradition is\nnecessarily a very delicate and complicated one, and involves\ncertain operations for which special scholarship is indispensable.\nHistorical criticism is a comparatively modern science, and in its\napplication to this, as to other histories, it has made many false\nand uncertain steps.  But in this, as in other sciences, when the\ntruth has been reached it can generally be presented in a\ncomparatively simple form, and the main positions can be justified\neven to the general reader by methods much less complicated, and\nmuch more lucid, than those originally followed by the\ninvestigators themselves.  The modern view as to the age of the\nPentateuchal law, which is the key to the right understanding of\nthe History of Israel, has been reached by a mass of\ninvestigations and discussions of which no satisfactory general\naccount has ever been laid before the English reader.  Indeed, even\non the Continent, where the subject has been much more studied than\namong us, Professor Wellhausen's book was the first complete and\nsustained argument which took up the question in all its\nhistorical bearings.\n\nMore recently Professor Kuenen of Leyden, whose discussions of\nthe more complicated questions of Pentateuch analysis are perhaps\nthe finest things that modern criticism can show, has brought out\nthe second edition of the first volume of his Onderzoek, and when\nthis appears in English, as it is soon to do, our Hebrew students\nwill have in their hands an admirable manual of what I may call\nthe anatomy of the Pentateuch, in which they can follow from\nchapter to chapter the process by which the Pentateuch grew to its\npresent form.  But for the mass of Bible-readers such detailed\nanalysis will always be too difficult.  What every one can\nunderstand and ought to try to master, is the broad historical\naspect of the matter.  And this the present volume sets forth in a\nway that must be full of interest to every one who has tasted the\nintense pleasure of following institutions and ideas in their\ngrowth, and who has faith enough to see the hand of God as clearly\nin a long providential development as in a sudden miracle.\n\nThe reader will find that every part of the \"Prolegomena\" is\ninstinct with historical interest, and contributes something to a\nvivid realisation of what Old Israel really was, and why it has\nso great a part in the history of spiritual faith.  In the first\nessay of the Prolegomena a complete picture is given of the\nhistory of the ordinances of worship in Israel, and the\nsacrifices, the feasts, the priesthood, are all set in a fresh\nlight.  The second essay, the history of what the Israelites\nthemselves believed and recorded about their past, will perhaps to\nsome readers seem less inviting, and may perhaps best be read\nafter perusal of the article, reprinted from the \"Encyclopaedia\nBritannica\", which stands at the close of the volume and affords a\ngeneral view of the course of the history of Israel, as our author\nconstructs it on the basis of the researches in his Prolegomena.\nThe essay on Israel and Judaism with which the Prolegomena close,\nmay in like manner be profitably compared with sect. II of the\nappended sketch--a section which is not taken directly from the\n\"Encyclopaedia\", but translated from the German edition of the\narticle \"Israel\", where the subject is expanded by the author.\nHere the reader will learn how close are the bonds that connect\nthe critical study of the Old Testament with the deepest and\nunchanging problems of living faith.\n\n                                    W.  ROBERTSON SMITH.\n\n\nTRANSLATORS'  NOTE.\n\nPages 237 [chapter IV . 3] to 425 [end] of the \"Prolegomena\" and\nsection II of \"Israel\" are translated by Mr. Menzies; for the rest of\nthe volume Mr. Black is responsible.  Both desire to express their\nindebtedness to Professor Robertson Smith for many valuable\nsuggestions made as the sheets were passing through the press.\n\n\n\n                    TABLE OF CONTENTS.\n\n                       PROLEGOMENA.\n\n\nINTRODUCTION--\n\n1.  Is the Law the starting-point for the history of ancient\nIsrael or for that of Judaism ?  The latter possibility\nis not precluded a priori by the history of the Canon. Reasons\nfor considering it. De Wette, George, Vatke, Reuss, Graf\n\n2.  The three strata of the Pentateuch: Deuteronomy, Priestly\nCode, Jehovist\n\n3.  The question is as to the Priestly Code and its historical\nposition.  Method of the investigation\n\n\nA.  HISTORY OF WORSHIP.\n\n\nCHAPTER  I.  THE PLACE OF WORSHIP--\n\nI.I.1.   The historical and prophetical books show no trace in Hebrew\nantiquity of a sanctuary of exclusive legitimacy\n\nI.I.2.   Polemic of the prophets against the sanctuaries.\nFall of Samaria.  Reformation of Josiah\n\nI.I.3.   Influence of the Babylonian exile\n\nI.II.1.  The Jehovist (JE) sanctions a multiplicity of altars\n\nI.II.2.  Deuteronomy (D) demands local unity of worship\n\nI.II.3.  The Priestly Code (RQ) presupposes that unity, and transfers\nit, by means of the Tabernacle, to primitive times\n\nI.III.1. The tabernacle, as a central sanctuary and dwelling\nfor the ark, can nowhere be found in the historical tradition\n\nI.III.2. Noldeke's view untenable\n\n\nCHAPTER II. SACRIFICE--\n\nII.I.1.   The ritual is according to RQ the main subject of the Mosaic\nlegislation, according to JE it is pre-Mosaic usage;\nin RQ the point is How, according to JE and D To Whom,\nit is offered\n\nII.I.2.   The historical books agree with JE; the prophets down to\nEzekiel contradict RQ\n\nII.II.1.  Material innovations in RQ.  Preliminary  remarks on the\nnotion, contents, mode of offering, and propitiatory effects of\nsacrifice.\n\nII.II.2.  Material and ideal refinement of the offerings in RQ\n\nII.II.3.  The sacrificial meal gives way to holocausts\n\nII.II.4.  Development of the trespass-offering.\n\nII.III.1. The centralisation of worship at Jerusalem destroyed\nthe connection of sacrifice with the natural occasions of life,\nso that it lost its original character\n\n\nCHAPTER III. THE SACRED FEASTS--\n\nIII.I.1.   In JE and D there is a rotation of three festivals.   Easter\nand Pentecost mark the beginning and the end of the corn-harvest,\nand the autumn feast the vintage and the bringing home the corn\nfrom the threshing-floor.  With the feast of unleavened bread\n(Massoth) is conjoined, especially in D, the feast of the\nsacrifice of the male firstborn of cattle (Pesah).\n\nIII.I.2.   The feasts based on the offering of firstlings of the field and\nof the herd.  Significance of the land and of agriculture for religion\n\nIII.II.1.  In the historical and prophetical books, the autumn feast\nonly is distinctly attested, and it is the most important in JE\nand D also: of the others there are only faint traces .\n\nIII.II.2.  But the nature of the festivals is the same as in JE and D\n\nIII.III.1. In RQ the feasts have lost their reference to harvest\nand the first fruits; and this essentially changes their\nnature\n\nIII.III.2. The metamorphosis was due to the centralisation of worship,\nand may he traced down through Deuteronomy and Ezekiel to RQ,\n\nIII.III.3. To the three festivals RQ adds the great day of atonement,\nwhich arose out of the fast-days of the exile\n\nIII.IV.1.  The Sabbath, which is connected with the new moon, was\noriginally a lunar festival\nExaggeration of the Sabbath rest in the Priestly Code\n\nIII.IV.2.  Sabbatical year, and year of Jubilee\n\n\nCHAP.  IV.  THE PRIESTS AND THE LEVITES--\n\nIV.I.1.   According to Ezek. xliv., only the Levites of Jerusalem,\nthe sons of Zadok, are to continue priests in the new\nJerusalem; the other Levites are to be degraded to their servants\nand denuded of their priestly rights.  According to RQ\nthe Levites never possessed the priestly right, but only\nthe sons of Aaron\n\nIV.I.2.  These answer to the sons of Zadok\n\nIV.II.1.  In the earliest period of the history of Israel there is no\ndistinction between clergy and laity.  Every one may\nslaughter and sacrifice; there are professional priests only at the\ngreat sanctuaries.  Priestly families at Sihiloh and Dan.\n\nNo setting apart of what is holy\n\nIV.II.2.  Royal temples of the kings; priests at them as royal officials\n\nIV.II.3.  Importance of the North-Israelite priesthood in the time of the\nkings\n\nIV.II.4.  The family of Zadok at Jerusalem\n\nIV.III.1. In the oldest part of JE there are no priests; no Aaron\nby the side of Moses\n\nIV.III.2. In D the Levites are priests.  They occur in that character,\nnot to speak of Judges xviii. seq., only in the literature\nof the exile.  Their descent from Moses or Aaron.  The spiritual\nand the secular tribe of Levi.  Difficulty of bringing them together\n\nIV.III.3. Consolidation of the spiritual tribe in RQ; separation of\npriests and Levites.  Further development of the clergy after the\nexile.  The high priest as head of the theocracy\n\n\nCHAPTER V.  THE ENDOWMENT OF THE CLERGY--\n\nV.I.1.   The sacrificial dues raised in RQ\n\nV.I.2.   The firstlings were turned into contributions to the priests,\nand doubled in amount\n\nV.II.1.  Levitical towns\n\nV.II.2.  The historical situation underlying the priestly pretensions\nin RQ\n\n\nB.  HISTORY OF TRADITION.\n\n\nCHAPTER  VI.  CHRONICLES--\n\nVI.I.1.  David becomes Saul's successor without any exertion, all\nIsrael being already on his side, namely, the priests and Levites\n\nDistortion of the original story of the bringing of the ark\nto Jerusalem.  Omission of unedifying incidents in David's life\n\nVI.I.2.  Preparation for the building of the temple.  Delight of the\nnarrator in numbers and names.  Inconsistency with 1Kings i, ii.\n\nPicture of David in Chronicles\n\nVI.I.3.  Solomon's sacrifice at the tabernacle at Gibeah.  Building\nof the temple.  Retouching of the original narrative\n\nVI.II.1. Estimate of the relation between Judah and Israel; the\nIsraelites do not belong to the temple, nor, consequently,\nto the theocracy\n\nVI.II.2. Levitical idealising of Judah.  View taken of those acts of\nrulers in the temple-worship which the books of Kings condemn or\napprove. Inconsistencies with the narrative of the sources;\nimportation of priests and Levites.\n\nVI.II.3. Divine pragmatism of the sacred history, and its results\n\nVI.II.4. The books of Kings obviously present throughout\n\nVI.III.1. The genealogical registers of I Chron.i-ix  The ten tribes\n\nVI.III.2. Judah and Levi\n\nVI.III.3. Chronicles had no other sources for the period before the exile\nthan the historical books preserved to us in the Canon.\nThe diversity of historical view is due to the influence of the law,\nespecially the Priestly Code.  The Midrash\n\n\nCHAPTER  VII.  JUDGES, SAMUEL, AND KINGS--\n\nVII.I.1.   The formula on which the book of Judges is constructed\nin point of chronology and of religion\n\nVII.I.2.   Its relation to the stem of the tradition.  Judg. xix.-xxi.\n\nVI.II.3.   Occasional additions to the original narratives\n\nVII.I.4.   Difference of religious attitude in the latter\n\nVII.II.1.  Chronological and religious formulas in the books of Samuel\n\nVII.II.2.  The stories of the rise of the monarchy and the elevation\nof Saul entirely recast\n\nVII.II.3.  Saul's relation to Samuel\n\nVII.II.4.  The narrative of David's youth\nThe view taken of Samuel may be regarded as a measure of the growth\nof the tradition Saul and David\n\nVII.III.1. The last religious chronological revision of the books of\nKings.  Similar in kind to that of Judges and Samuel\nIts standpoint Judaean and Deuteronomistic\n\nVII.III.2. Its relation to the materials received from tradition\n\nVII.III.3. Differences of sentiment in the sources\n\nVII.III.4. In Chronicles the history  of ancient Israel is recast\nin accordance with the ideas of the Priestly Code; in the\nolder historical books it is judged according to the standard of\nDeuteronomy\n\n\nCHAPTER  VIII.  THE NARRATIVE OF THE HEXATEUCH--\n\nVIII.I.1.   Genesis i. and Genesis ii. iii.\n\nVIII.I.2.   Genesis iv.-xi.\n\nVIII.I.3.   The primitive world-history in JE and in Q\n\nVIII.II.1.  The history  of the patriarchs in JE\n\nVIII.II.2.  The history  of the patriarchs in Q\n\nVIII.II.3.  Periods, numbers, covenants, sacrifices in the patriarchal\nage in Q\n\nVIII.III.1. The Mosaic history in JE and in Q\n\nVII.III.2. Comparison of the various narratives\n\nVII.III.3. Conclusion .\n\n\nC.  ISRAEL AND JUDAISM.\n\n\nCHAPTER  IX.  CONCLUSION OF THE CRITICISM OF THE LAW--\n\n\nIX.I.1.   The veto of critical analysis\n\nIX.I.2.   The historical presuppositions of Deuteronomy\n\nIX.I.3.   The Deuteronomistic revision does not extend over the Priestly\nCode\n\nIX.II.1.  The final revision of the Hexateuch proceeds from the\nPriestly  Code, as we see from Leviticus xvii. seq.\n\nIX.II.2.  Examination of Leviticus xxvi.\n\nIX.II.3.  R cannnot be separated from RQ\n\nIX.III<.1.> The language of the Priestly  Code\n\n<IX.III.2.  ?>\n\n\nCHAPTER X.  THE ORAL AND THE WRITTEN TORAH--\n\nX.I.1.   No written law in ancient Israel.  The Decalogue\n\nX.I.2.   The Torah of Jehovah in the mouth of priests and prophets\n\nX.I.3.   View of revelation in Jeremiah, Zechariah, and the writer\nof Isa. xl.-lxvi.\n\nX.II.1.  Deuteronomy  was the first law in our sense of the word.\nIt obtains authority  during the exile.  End of prophecy\n\nX.II.2.  The reforming legislation supplemented by  that of the\nrestoration. The usages of worship codified and systematised by\nEzekiel and his successors.  The Priestly  Code--its introduction\nby  Ezra\n\nX.II.3.  The Torah the basis of the Canon.  Extension of the notion\noriginally attached to the Torah to the other books\n\n\nCHAPTER  XI.  THE THEOCRACY AS IDEA AND AS INSTITUTION--\n\nXI.I.1.  Freshness and naturalness of early Israelite history\n\nXI.I.2.  Rise of the state.  Relation of Religion and of the Deity\nto the life of state and nation.\n\nXI.I.3.  The Messianic theocracy of the older prophets is built\nup on the foundations afforded by the actual community\nof their time\n\nXI.I.4.  The idea of the covenant\n\nXI.II.1. Foundation of the theocratic constitution under the foreign\ndomination\n\nXI.II.2. The law and the prophets.\n\n -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*\n\n\nI S R A E L.\n\n1.  The beginnings of the nation\n\n2.  The settlement in Palestine\n\n3.  The foundation of the kingdom, and the first three kings\n\n4.  From Jeroboam I. to Jeroboam II.\n\n5.  God, the world, and the life of men in Old Israel\n\n6.  The fall of Samaria\n\n7.  The deliverance of Judah\n\n8.  The prophetic reformation\n\n9.  Jeremiah and the destruction of Jerusalem\n\n10.  The captivity and the restoration\n\n11.  Judaism and Christianity\n\n12.  The Hellenistic period\n\n13.  The Hasmonaeans\n\n14.  Herod and the Romans\n\n15.  The Rabbins\n\n16.  The Jewish Dispersion\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\nIn the following pages it is proposed to discuss the place in history\nof the \"law of Moses;\" more precisely, the question to be considered\nis whether that law is the starting-point for the history of ancient\nIsrael, or not rather for that of Judaism, ie., of the religious\ncommunion which survived the destruction of the nation by the\nAssyrians and Chaldaeans.\n\nI. It is an opinion very extensively held that the great mass of\nthe books of the Old Testament not only relate to the pre-exilic\nperiod, but date from it.  According to this view, they are\nremnants of the literature of ancient Israel which the Jews rescued\nas a heritage from the past, and on which they continued to\nsubsist in the decay of independent intellectual life.  In\ndogmatic theology Judaism is a mere empty chasm over which one\nsprings from the Old Testament to the New; and even where this\nestimate is modified, the belief still prevails in a general way\nthat the Judaism which received the books of Scripture into the\ncanon had, as a rule, nothing to do with their production.  But the\nexceptions to this principle which are conceded as regards the\nsecond and third divisions of the Hebrew canon cannot be called so\nvery slight.  Of the Hagiograpba, by far the larger portion is\ndemonstrably post-exilic, and no part demonstrably older than\nthe exile.  Daniel comes as far down as the Maccabaean wars, and\nEsther is perhaps even later.  Of the prophetical literature a very\nappreciable fraction is later than the fall of the Hebrew kingdom;\nand the associated historical books (the \"earlier prophets\" of the\nHebrew canon) date, in the form in which we now possess them, from\na period subsequent to the death of Jeconiah, who must have\nsurvived the year 560 B.C. for some time.  Making all allowance\nfor the older sources utilised, and to a large extent transcribed\nword for word, in Judges, Samuel, and Kings, we find that apart\nfrom the Pentateuch the preexilic portion of the Old Testament\namounts in bulk to little more than the half of the entire volume.\nAll the rest belongs to the later period, and it includes not\nmerely the feeble after-growths of a failing vegetation, but also\nproductions of the vigour and originality of Isa. xl.lxvi. and\nPs.Ixxiii.\n\nWe come then to the Law.  Here, as for most parts of the Old\nTestament, we have no express information as to the author and date\nof composition, and to get even approximately at the truth we are\nshut up to the use of such data as can be derived from an analysis\nof the contents, taken in conjunction with what we may happen to\nknow from other sources as to the course of Israel's history.  But\nthe habit has been to assume that the historical period to be\nconsidered in this connection ends with the Babylonian exile as\ncertainly as it begins with the exodus from Egypt.  At first sight\nthis assumption seems to be justified by the history of the\ncanon; it was the Law that first became canonical through the\ninfluence of Ezra and Nehemiah; the Prophets became so\nconsiderably later, and the Hagiographa last of all.  Now it is\nnot unnatural, from the chronological order in which these writings\nwere received into the canon, to proceed to an inference as to\ntheir approximate relative age, and so not only to place the\nProphets before the Hagiographa, but also the five books of Moses\nbefore the Prophets.  If the Prophets are for the most part older\nthan the exile, how much more so the Law!  But however trustworthy\nsuch a mode of comparison may be when applied to the middle as\ncontrasted with the latest portion of the canon, it is not at all\nto be relied on when the first part is contrasted with the other\ntwo.  The very idea of canonicity  was originally associated with\nthe Torah, and was only afterwards extended to the other books,\nwhich slowly and by a gradual process acquired a certain measure\nof the validity given to the Torah by a single public and formal\nact, through which it was introduced at once as the Magna Charta of\nthe Jewish communion (Nehemiah viii.-x.)  In their case the canonical--\nthat is, legal--character was not intrinsic, but was only\nsubsequently acquired; there must therefore have been some\ninterval, and there may have been a very long one, between the\ndate of their origin and that of their receiving public sanction.\nTo the Law, on the other hand, the canonical character is much more\nessential, and serious difficulties beset the assumption that the\nLaw of Moses came into existence at a period long before the exile,\naml did not attain the force of law until many centuries\nafterwards, and in totally different circumstances from those\nunder which it had arisen.  At least the fact that a collection\nclaiming public recognition as an ecclesiastical book should have\nattained such recognition earlier than other writings which make no\nsuch claim is no proof of superior antiquity.\n\nWe cannot, then, peremptorily refuse to regard it as possible\nthat what was the law of Judaism may also have been its product;\nand there are urgent reasons for taking the suggestion into very\ncareful consideration.  It may not be out of place here to refer\nto personal experience.  In my early student days I was attracted\nby the stories of Saul and David, Ahab and Elijah; the discourses\nof Amos and Isaiah laid strong hold on me, and I read myself well\ninto the prophetic and historical books of the Old Testament.\nThanks to such aids as were accessible to me, I even considered\nthat I understood them tolerably, but at the same time was troubled\nwith a bad conscience, as if I were beginning with the roof instead\nof the foundation; for I had no thorough acquaintance with the\nLaw, of which I was accustomed to be told that it was the basis and\npostulate of the whole literature.  At last I took courage and made\nmy way through Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and even through\nKnobel's Commentary to these books.  But it was in vain that I\nlooked for the light which was to be shed from this source on the\nhistorical and prophetical books.  On the contrary, my enjoyment\nof the latter was marred by  the Law; it did not bring them any\nnearer me, but intruded itself uneasily, like a ghost that makes a\nnoise indeed, but is not visible and really effects nothing.  Even\nwhere there were points of contact between it and them, differences\nalso made themselves felt, and I found it impossible to give a\ncandid decision in favour of the priority of the Law.  Dimly I\nbegan to perceive that throughout there was between them all the\ndifference that separates two wholly distinct worlds.  Yet, so far\nfrom attaining clear conceptions, I only fell into deeper\nconfusion, which was worse confounded by the explanations of Ewald\nin the second volume of history of Israel.  At last, in the course\nof a casual visit in Gottingen in the summer of 1867, I learned\nthrough Ritschl that Karl Heinrich Graf placed the law later than\nthe Prophets, and, almost without knowing his reasons for the\nhypothesis, I was prepared to accept it; I readily acknowledged\nto myself thc possibility of understanding Hebrew antiquity\nwithout the book of the Torah.\n\nThe hypothesis usually associated with Graf's name is really not\nhis, but-that of his teacher, Eduard Reuss.  It would be still\nmore correct to call it after Leopold Gcorge and Wiihelm Vatke,\nwho, independent alike of Reuss and of each other, were the first\nto give it literary currency.  All three, again, are disciples of\nMartin Lebrecht de Wette, the epochmaking pioneer of historical\ncriticism in this field./1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. M. W. L. de Wette, Beitraege zur Einleitung in das A. T.\n(Bd. I. Kritischer Versuch ueber die Glaubwuerdigkeit der Buecher\nder Chronik; Bd. II. Kritik der Mosaischen Geschichte, Halle, 1806-07);\nJ. F. L. George, Die alterer Juedischen Feste mit einer Kritik der\nGesetzgebung des Pentateuch (Berlin, 1835; preface dated 12th\nOctober); W. Vatke, Die biblische Theologie wissenschaftlich\ndargestellt (Berlin, 1835; preface dated 18th October;\npublication did not get beyond first part of the first volume);\nK. H. Graf, Die geschichtlicher Buecher des Alten Testaments\n(Leipsic, 1866).  That Graf as well as J. Orth (Nouv. Rev. de\nTheol., iii. 84 sqq., iv. 350 sqq., Paris, 1859-60) owed the\nimpulse to his critical labours to his Strassburg master was not\nunknown; but how great must have been the share of Reuss in the\nhypothesis of Graf has only been revealed in 1879, by the\npublication of certain theses which he had formulated as early as\n1833, but had hesitated to lay in print before the general\ntheological public.  These are as follows:-- \"1. L'element\nhistorique du Pentateuque peut et doit etre examine a part et ne\npas etre confondu avec l'element legal.  2. L'un et l'autre ont pu\nexister sans redaction ecrite.  La mention, chez d'anciens\necrivains, de certaines traditions patriarcales ou mosaiques, ne\nprouve pas l'existence du Pentateuque, et une nation peut avoir un\ndroit coutumier sans code ecrit.  Les traditions nationales des\nIsraelites remontent plus haut que les lois du Pentateuque et la\nredaction des premieres est anterieure a celle des secondes.\n4. L'interet principal de l'historien doit porter sur la date des\nlois, parce que sur ce terrain il a plus de chance d'arriver a des\nresultats certains.  II faut en consequence proceder a\nl'interrogatoire des temoins.  5. L'histoire racontee, dans les\nlivres des Juges et de Samuel, et meme en partie celle comprise\ndans les livres des Rois, est en contradiction avec des lois dites\nmosaiques; donc celles-ci etaient inconnues a l'epoque de la\nredaction de ces livres, a plus forte raison elles n'ont pas existe\ndans les temps qui y vent decrits.  6. Les prophetes du 8e et du\n7e siecle ne savent rien du code mosaique.   7. Jeremie est le\npremier prophete qui connaisse une loi ecrite et ses citations\nrapportent au Deuteronome.  8. Le Deuteronome (iv.45-xxviii.68)\nest le livre que les pretres pretendaient avoir trouve dans le\ntemple du temps du roi Josias.  Ce code est la partie la plus\nancienne de la legislation (redigee) comprise dans le Pentateuque.\n9. L'histoire des Israelites, en tant qu'il s'agit du\ndeveloppement national determine par des lois ecrites, se divisera\nen deux periodes, avant et apres Josias.  10. Ezechiel est\nanterieur a la redaction du code rituel et des lois qui ont\ndefinitivement organise la hierarchie.  11. Le livre du Josue\nn'est pas, tant s'en faut, la partie la plus recente de l'ouvrage\nentier.   12. Le redacteur du Pentateuque se distingue clairement\nde l'ancien prophete Moyse.\" --L'Histoire Sainte et la Loi, Paris,\n1879, pp. 23, 24.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nHe indeed did not himself succeed in reaching a sure position,\nbut he was the first clearly to perceive and point out how\ndisconnected are the alleged starting-point of Israel's history\nand that history itself.  The religious community set up on so\nbroad a basis in the wilderness, with its sacred centre and uniform\norganisation, disappears and leaves no trace as soon as Israel\nsettles in a land of its own, and becomes, in any proper sense, a\nnation.  The period of the Judges presents itself to us as a\nconfused chaos, out of which order and coherence are gradually\nevolved under the pressure of external circumstances, but perfectly\nnaturally and without the faintest reminiscence of a sacred\nunifying constitution that had formerly existed.  Hebrew antiquity\nshows absolutely no tendencies towards a hierocracy; power is\nwielded solely by the heads of families and of tribes, and by\nthe kings, who exercise control over religious worship also, and\nappoint and depose its priests.  The influence possessed by the\nlatter is purely moral; the Torah of God is not a document in\ntheir hands which guarantees their own position, but merely an\ninstruction for others in their mouths; like the word of the\nprophets, it has divine authority but not political sanction, and\nhas validity only in so far as it is voluntarily accepted.  And\nas for the literature which has come down to us from the period of\nthe Kings, it would puzzle the very best intentions to beat up so\nmany as two or three unambiguous allusions to the Law, and these\ncannot be held to prove anything when one considers, by way of\ncontrast, what Homer was to the Greeks.\n\nTo complete the marvel, in post-exile Judaism the Mosaism which\nuntil then had been only latent suddenly emerges into prominence\neverywhere.  We now find the Book regarded as the foundation of all\nhigher life, and the Jews, to borrow the phrase of the Koran, are\n\"the people of the Book;\" we have the sanctuary with its priests\nand Levites occupying the central position, and the people as a\ncongregation encamped around it; the cultus, with its\nburnt-offerings and sin-offerings, its purifications and its\nabstinences, its feasts and Sabbaths, strictly observed as\nprescribed by the Law, is now the principal business of life.\nWhen we take the community of the second temple and compare it\nwith the ancient people of Israel, we are at once able to realise\nhow far removed was thc latter from so-called Mosaism.  The Jews\nthemselves were thoroughly conscious of the distance.  The\nrevision of the books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings, undertaken\ntowards the end of the Babylonian exile, a revision much more\nthorough than is commonly assumed, condemns as heretical the whole\nage of the Kings.  At a later date, as the past became more\ninvested with a certain nimbus of sanctity, men preferred to clothe\nit with the characters of legitimacy rather than sit in judgment\nupon it.  The Book of Chronicles shows in what manner it was\nnecessary to deal with the history of bygone times when it was\nassumed that the Mosaic hierocracy was their fundamental\ninstitution.\n\n2.  The foregoing remarks are designed merely to make it plain that\nthe problem we have set before us is not an imaginary one, but actual\nand urgent.  They are intended to introduce it; but to solve it is by\nno means so easy.  The question what is the historical place of the\nLaw does not even admit of being put in these simple terms.  For the\nLaw, If by that word we understand the entire Pentateuch, is no\nliterary unity, and no simple historical quantity./1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Compare the article \"Pentateuch\" in the Ninth edition\nof the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. xviii.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nSince the days of Peyrerius and Spinoza, criticism has acknowledged\nthe complex character of that remarkable literary production,\nand from Jean Astruc onwards has laboured, not without success,\nat disentangling its original elements.  At present there are\na number of results that can be regarded as settled.  The following\nare some of them.  The five Books of Moses and the Book of Joshua\nconstitute one whole, the conquest of the Promised Land rather than\nthe death of Moses forming the true conclusion of the patriarchal\nhistory, the exodus, and the wandering in the wilderness.\nFrom a literary point of view, accordingly, it is more accurate\nto speak of the Hexateuch than of the Pentateuch.  Out of this whole,\nthe Book of Deuteronomy, as essentially an independent law-book,\nadmits of being separated most easily.  Of what remains,\nthe parts most easily distinguished belong to the so-called\n\"main stock\" (\"Grundschrift\"), formerly also called the Elohistic\ndocument, on account of the use it makes of the divine name Elohim\nup to the time of Moses, and designated by Ewald, with reference\nto the regularly recurring superscriptions in Genesis, as the Book of\nOrigins.  It is distinguished by its liking for number, and\nmeasure, and formula generally, by its stiff pedantic style, by\nits constant use of certain phrases and turns of expression which\ndo not occur elsewhere in the older Hebrew; its characteristics\nare more strongly marked than those of any of the others, and\nmake it accordingly the easiest to recognise with certainty.  Its\nbasis is the Book of Leviticus and thc allied portions of the\nadjoining books,-- Exodus xxv.-xl., with the exception of chaps.\nxxxii.-xxxiv., and Num.i.-x., xv.-xix., xxv.-xxxvi., with trifling\nexceptions.  It thus contains legislation chiefly, and, in point of\nfact, relates substantially to the worship of the tabernacle and\ncognate matters.  It is historical only in form; the history\nserves merely as a framework on which to arrange thc legislative\nmaterial, or as a mask to disguise it.  For the most part, the\nthread of the narrative is extremely thin, and often serves\nmerely to carry out the chronology, which is kept up without a\nhiatus from the Creation to the Exodus; it becomes fuller only on\nthe occasions in which other interests come into play, as, for\nexample, in Genesis, with regard to the three preludes to the\nMosaic covenant which are connected with the names of Adam, Noah,\nand Abraham respectively.  When this fundamental document is also\nseparated out as well as Deuteronomy, there remains the Jehovistic\nhistory-book, which, in contrast with the two others, is\nessentially of a narrative character, and sets forth with full\nsympathy and enjoyment the materials handed down by tradition.\nThe story of the patriarchs, which belongs to this document almost\nentirely, is what best marks its character; that story is not\nhere dealt with merely as a summary introduction to something of\ngreater importance which is to follow, but as a subject of primary\nimportance, deserving the fullest treatment possible.  Legislative\nelements have been taken into it only at one point, where they\nfit into the historical connection, namely, when the giving of the\nLaw at Sinai is spoken of (Exodusxx.-xxiii., xxxiv.)\n\nScholars long rested satisfied with this twofold division of the\nnon-Deuteronomic Hexateuch, until Hupfeld demonstrated in certain\nparts of Genesis, which until then had been assigned partly to the\n\"main stock\" and partly to the Jehovist, the existence of a third\ncontinuous source, the work of the so-called younger Elohist.  The\nchoice of this name was due to the circumstance that in this\ndocument also Elohim is the ordinary name of the Deity, as it is\nin the \"main stock\" up to Exodus vi.; the epithet \"younger,\"\nhowever, is better left out, as it involves an unproved assumption,\nand besides, is no longer required for distinction's sake, now that\nthe \"main stock\" is no longer referred to under so unsuitable a\nname as that of Elohist.  Hupfeld further assumed that all the\nthree sources continued to exist separately until some one at a\nlater date brought them together simultaneously into a single\nwhole.  But this is a view that cannot be maintained: not merely\nis the Elohist in his matter and in his manner of looking at things\nmost closely akin to the Jehovist; his document has come down to\nus as Noldeke was thc first to perceive, only in extracts embodied\nin the Jehovist narrative./1/\n\n-- Footnote\nHermann Hupfeld, Die Quellen der Genesis u. die Art ihrer Zusammersetzung,\nBerlin, 1853; Theodor Noldeke, Die s. g. Grundschrift des Pentateuch,\nin Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments, Kiel, 1869.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThus, notwithstanding Hupfeld's discovery, the old division\ninto two great sections continues to hold good, and there is every\nreason for adhering to this primary distinction as the basis of\nfurther historical research, in spite of the fact, which is coming\nto be more and more clearly perceived, that not only the\nJehovistic document, but the \"main stock\" as well, are complex\nproducts, and that alongside of them occur hybrid or posthumous\nelements which do not admit of being simply referred to either the\none or the other formation. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs, in Jahrb. f.\nDeutsche Theologie, 1876, pp. 392-450, 531-602; 1877, pp. 407-479.\nI do not insist on all the details, but, as regards the way in which\nthe literary process which resulted in the formation of the Pentateuch\nis to be looked at in general, I believe I had indicated the proper\nline of investigation.  Hitherto the only important corrections\nI have received have been those of Kuenen in his Contributions\nto the Criticism of the Pentateuch and Joshua, published in the Leyden\nTheologisch Tijdschrift; but these are altogether welcome,\ninasmuch as they only free my own fundamental view from some\nrelics of the old leaven of a mechanical separation of sources\nwhich had continued to adhere to it.  For what Kuenen points out\nis, that certain elements assigned by me to the Elohist are not\nfragments of a once independent whole, but interpolated and\nparasitic additions.  What effect this demonstration may have on\nthe judgment we form of the Elohist himself is as yet uncertain.\nIn the following pages the Jehovistic history-book is denoted by\nthe symbol JE, its Jehovistic part by J, and the Elohistic by E;\nthe \"main stock\" pure and simple, which is distinguished by its\nsystematising history and is seen unalloyed in Genesis, is called\nthe Book of the Four Covenants and is symbolised by Q;  for the\n\"main stock\" as a whole (as modified by an editorial process) the\ntitle of Priestly Code and the symbol RQ (Q and Revisers) are\nemployed.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nNow the Law, whose historical position we have to determine,\nis the so-called \"main stack,\" which, both by its contents\nand by its origin, is entitled to be called the Priestly\nCode, and will accordingly be so designated.  The Priestly Code\npreponderates over the rest of the legislation in force, as well as\nin bulk; in all matters of primary importance it is the normal\nand final authority.  It was according to the mode furnished by it\nthat the Jews under Ezra ordered their sacred community, and upon it\nare formed our conceptions of the Mosaic theocracy, with the\ntabernacle at its centre, the high priest at its head, the priests\nand Levites as its organs, the legitimate cultus as its regular\nfunction.  It is precisely this Law, so called par exceIlence,\nthat creates the difficulties out of which our problem rises, and\nit is only in connection with it that the great difference of\nopinion exists as to date.  With regard to the Jehovistic document,\nall are happily agreed that, substantially at all events, in\nlanguage, horizon, and other features, it dates from the golden age\nof Hebrew literature, to which the finest parts of Judges, Samuel,\nand Kings, and the oldest extant prophetical writings also\nbelong,--the period of the kings and prophets which preceded the\ndissolution of the two Israelite kingdoms by the Assyrians.\nAbout the origin of Deuteronomy there is still less dispute; in\nall circles where appreciation of scientific results can be looked\nfor at all, it is recognised that it was composed in the same age\nas that in which it was discovered, and that it was made the rule\nof Josiah's reformation, which took place about a generation before\nthe destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldaeans.  It is only in\nthe case of the Priestly Code that opinions differ widely; for it\ntries hard to imitate the costume of the Mosaic period, and, with\nwhatever success, to disguise its own.  This is not nearly so much\nthe case with Deuteronomy, which, in fact, allows the real\nsituation (that of the period during which, Samaria having been\ndestroyed, only the kingdom of Judah continued to subsist) to\nreveal itself very plainly through that which is assumed (xii.8,\nxix.8). And the Jehovist does not even pretend to being a Mosaic\nlaw of any kind; it aims at being a simple book of history; the\ndistance between the present and the past spoken of is not\nconcealed in the very least.  It is here that all the marks are\nfound which attracted the attention of Abenezra and afterwards of\nSpinoza, such as Gen. xii. 6 (\"And the Canaanite was then in the\nland\"), Gen.xxxvi.31 (\"These are the kings who reigned in Edom\nbefore the children of Israel had a king\"), Num. xii.6, 7, Deut.\nxxxiv.10 (\"There arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto\nMoses\").  The Priestly Code, on the other hand, guards itself\nagainst all reference to later times and settled life in Canaan,\nwhich both in the Jehovistic Book of the Covenant (Exodus\nxxi.-xxiii.) and in Deuteronomy are the express basis of the\nlegislation: it keeps itself carefully and strictly within the\nlimits of the situation in the wilderness, for which in all\nseriousness it seeks to give the law.  It has actually been\nsuccessful, with its movable tabernacle, its wandering camp, and\nother archaic details, in so concealing the true date of its\ncomposition that its many serious inconsistencies with what we\nknow, from other sources, of Hebrew antiquity previous to the\nexile, are only taken as proving that it lies far beyond all known\nhistory, and on account of its enormous antiquity can hardly be\nbrought into any connection with it.  It is the Priestly Code,\nthen, that presents us with our problem.\n\n3. The instinct was a sound one which led criticism for the time\nbeing to turn aside from the historical problem which had\noriginally presented itself to De Wette, and afterwards had been\nmore distinctly apprehended by George and Vatke, in order, in the\nfirst instance, to come to some sort of clear understanding as to\nthe composition of the Pentateuch.  But a mistake was committed\nwhen it was supposed that by a separation of the sources (in which\noperation attention was quite properly directed chiefly to\nGenesis) that great historical question had been incidentally\nanswered.  The fact was, that it had been merely put to sleep, and\nGraf has the credit of having, after a considerable interval,\nawakened it again.  In doing so, indeed, he in turn laboured under\nthe disadvantage of not knowing what success had been achieved in\nseparating the sources, and thereby he became involved in a\ndesperate and utterly untenable assumption.  This assumption,\nhowever, had no necessary connection with his own hypothesis, and\nat once fell to the ground when the level to which Hupfeld brought\nthe criticism of the text had been reached.  Graf originally\nfollowed the older view, espoused by Tuch in particular, that in\nGenesis the Priestly Code, with its so obtrusively bare skeleton,\nis the \"main stock,\" and that it is the Jehovist who supplements,\nand is therefore of course the later.  But since, on the other\nhand, he regarded the ritual legislature of the middle books as\nmuch more recent than the work of the Jehovist, he was compelled to\ntear it asunder as best he could from its introduction in Genesis,\nand to separate the two halves of the Priestly Code by half a\nmillennium.  But Hupfeld had long before made it quite clear that\nthe Jehovist is no mere supplementer, but the author of a perfectly\nindependent work, and that the passages, such as Gen. xx.-xxii.,\nusually cited as examples of the way in which the Jehovist worked\nover the \"main stock,\" really proceed from quite another\nsource,--the Elohist.  Thus the stumbling-block of Graf had already\nbeen taken out of the way, and his path had been made clear by an\nunlooked-for ally.  Following Kuenen's suggestion, he did not\nhesitate to take the helping-hand extended to him; he gave up his\nviolent division of the Priestly Code, and then had no difficulty\nin deducing from the results which he had obtained with respect to\nthe main legal portion similar consequences with regard to the\nnarrative part in Genesis. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. K. H. Graf, Die s. g. Grundschrift des Pentateucks, in Merx's\nArchiv (1869), pp. 466-477.  As early as 1866 he had already expressed\nhimself in a letter to Kuenen November 12) as follows:-- \"Vous me\nfaites pressentir une solution de cette enigme...c'est que les\nparties elohistiques de la Genese seraient posterieures aux parties\njehovistiques.\"  Compare Kuenen, Theol. Tijdschrift (1870), p.412.\nGraf had also in this respect followed Reuss, who (ut supra,\np. 24) says of himself: \"Le cote faible de ma critique a ete que,\na l'egard de tout ce qui ne rentrait pas dans les points enumeres\nci-dessus, je restais dans l'orniere tracee par mes devanciers,\nadmettant sans plus ample examen que le Pentateuque etait\nl'ouvrage de l'HISTORIEN elohiste, complete par l'HISTORIEN\njehoviste, et ne me rendant pas compte de la maniere dont l'element\nlegal, dont je m'etais occupe exclusivement, serait venu se\njoindre a l'element historique.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe foundations were now laid; it is Kuenen who has since done most\nfor the further development of the hypothesis./2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. A. Kuenen, Die Godsdienst van Israel, Haarlem, 1869-70 (Eng. transl.\nReligion of Israel, 1874-5), and De priesterlijke Bestanddeelen\nvan Pentateuch en Josua, in Theol. Tijdschr.(1870), pp. 391-426.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe defenders of the prevailing opinion maintained their ground as well\nas they could, but from long possession had got somewhat settled\non their lees.  They raised against the assailants a series of\nobjections, all of which, however, laboured more or less under the\ndisadvantage that they rested upon the foundation which had\nalready been shattered.  Passages were quoted from Amos and Hosea\nas implying an acquaintance with the Priestly Code, but they were\nnot such as could make any impression on those who were already\npersuaded that the latter was the more recent.  Again it was\nasserted, and almost with violence, that the Priestly Code could\nnot be later than Deuteronomy, and that the Deuteronomist actually\nhad it before him.  But the evidences of this proved extremely\nproblematical, while, on the other hand, the dependence of\nDeuteronomy, as a whole, on the Jehovist came out with the utmost\nclearness.  Appeal was made to the latest redaction of the entire\nHexateuch, a redaction which was assumed to be Deuteronomistic;\nbut this yielded the result that the deuteronomistic redaction\ncould nowhere be traced in any of the parts belonging to the\nPriestly Code.  Even the history of the language itself was\nforced to render service against Graf: it had already been too\nmuch the custom to deal with that as if it were soft wax.  To say\nall in a word, the arguments which were brought into play as a\nrule derived all their force from a moral conviction that the\nritual legislation must be old, and could not possibly have been\ncommitted to writing for the first time within the period of\nJudaism; that it was not operative before then, that it did not\neven admit of being carried into effect in the conditions that\nprevailed previous to the exile, could not shake the conviction--\nall the firmer because it did not rest on argument--that at least\nit existed previously.\n\nThe firemen never came near the spot where the conflagration\nraged; for it is only within the region of religious antiquities\nand dominant religious ideas,--the region which Vatke in his\nBiblische Theologie had occupied in its full breadth, and where the\nreal battle first kindled--that the controversy can be brought to a\ndefinite issue.  In making the following attempt in this direction,\nI start from the comparison of the three constituents of the\nPentateuch,--the Priestly Code, Deuteronomy, and the work of the\nJehovist.  The contents of the first two are, of course,\nlegislation, as we have seen; those of the third are narrative;\nbut, as the Decalogue (Exodus xx.), the Law of the two Tables\n(Exodus xxxiv.), and the Book of the Covenant (Exodus xxi.-xxiii.)\nshow, the legislative element is not wholly absent from the\nJehovist, and much less is the historical absent from the Priestly\nCode or Deuteronomy.  Further, each writer's legal standpoint is\nmirrored in his account of the history, and conversely; thus there\nis no lack either of indirect or of direct points of comparison.\nNow it is admitted that the three constituent elements are\nseparated from each other by wide intervals; the question then\narises, In what order?  Deuteronomy stands in a relation of\ncomparative nearness both to the Jehovist and to the Priestly\nCode; the distance between the last two is by far the\ngreatest,--so great that on this ground alone Ewald as early as\nthe year 183I (Stud. u. Krit., p. 604) declared it impossible\nthat the one could have been written to supplement the other.\nCombining this observation with the undisputed priority of the\nJehovist over Deuteronomy, it will follow that the Priestly Code\nstands last in the series.  But such a consideration, although, so\nfar as I know, proceeding upon admitted data, has no value as long\nas it confines itself to such mere generalities.  It is necessary\nto trace the succession of the three elements in detail, and at\nonce to test and to fix each by reference to an independent\nstandard, namely, the inner development of the history of Israel\nso far as that is known to us by trustworthy testimonies, from\nindependent sources.\n\nThe literary and historical investigation on which we thus enter\nis both wide and difficult.  It falls into three parts.  In the\nfirst, which lays the foundations, the data relating to sacred\narchaeology are brought together and arranged in such a way as to\nshow that in the Pentateuch the elements follow upon one another\nand from one another precisely as the steps of the development\ndemonstrably do in the history.  Almost involuntarily this\nargument has taken the shape of a sort of history of the\nordinances of worship.  Rude and colourless that history must be\nconfessed to be,--a fault due to the materials, which hardly allow\nus to do more than mark the contrast between pre-exilic and\npost-exilic, and, in a secondary measure, that between\nDeuteronomic and pre-Deuteronomic.  At the same time there is this\nadvantage arising out of the breadth of the periods treated: they\ncannot fail to distinguish themselves from each other in a tangible\nmanner; it must be possible in the case of historical, and even of\nlegal works, to recognise whether they were written before or\nafter the exile.  The second part, in many respects dependent on\nthe first, traces the influence of the successively prevailing\nideas and tendencies upon the shaping of historical tradition, and\nfollows the various phases in which that was conceived and set\nforth.  It contains, so to speak, a history of tradition. The\nthird part sums up the critical results of the preceding two, with\nsome further determining considerations, and concludes with a more\ngeneral survey.\n\nThe assumptions I make will find an ever-recurring justification\nin the course of the investigation; the two principal are, that\nthe work of the Jehovist, so far as the nucleus of it is concerned,\nbelongs to the course of the Assyrian period, and that Deuteronomy\nbelongs to its close.  Moreover, however strongly I am convinced\nthat the latter is to be dated in accordance with 2Kings xxii., I\ndo not, like Graf, so use this position as to make it the fulcrum\nfor my lever.   Deuteronomy is the starting-point, not in the\nsense that without it it would be impossible to accomplish\nanything, but only because, when its position has been\nhistorically ascertained, we cannot decline to go on, but must\ndemand that the position of the Priestly Code should also be fixed\nby reference to history.  My inquiry proceeds on a broader basis\nthan that of Graf, and comes nearer to that of Vatke, from whom\nindeed I gratefully acknowledge myself to have learnt best and\nmost.\n\n\nA. HISTORY OF THE ORDINANCES OF WORSHIP.\n\n\" Legem non habentes natura faciunt legis opera.\"--Romans ii.\n\n[ \"(When Gentiles) who do not have the law, do instinctively\nwhat the law requires....\"  Romans 2:14 NRSV ]\n\n\nCHAPTER I. THE PLACE OF WORSHIP.\n\nAs we learn from the New Testament, the Jews and the Samaritans in\nthe days of Jesus were not agreed on the question which was the\nproper place of worship, but that there could be only one was\ntaken to be as certain as the unity of God Himself.  The Jews\nmaintained that place to be the temple at Jerusalem, and when it\nwas destroyed they ceased to sacrifice.  But this oneness of the\nsanctuary in Israel was not originally recognised either in fact\nor in law; it was a slow growth of time.  With the help of the Old\nTestament we are still quite able to trace the process.  In doing\nso, it is possible to distinguish several stages of development.\nWe shall accordingly proceed to inquire whether the three\nconstituent parts of the Pentateuch give tokens of any\nrelationship to one or other of these; whether and how they fall\nin with the course of the historical development which we are able\nto follow by the aid of the historical and prophetic books from\nthe period of the Judges onwards.\n\nI.I.1.  For the earliest period of the history of Israel, all\nthat precedes the building of the temple, not a trace can be found\nof any sanctuary of exclusive legitimacy.  In the Books of Judges\nand Samuel hardly a place is mentioned at which we have not at\nleast casual mention of an altar and of sacrifice.  In great\nmeasure this multiplicity of sanctuaries was part of the heritage\ntaken over from the Canaanites by the Hebrews; as they\nappropriated the towns and the culture generally of the previous\ninhabitants, so also did they take possession of their sacred\npiaces.  The system of high places (Bamoth), with all the\napparatus thereto belonging, is certainly Canaanite originally\n(Deut. xii.2, 30; Num. xxxiii.52; Exodus xxxiv.12 seq.), but\nafterwards is of quite general occurrence among the Hebrews.  At\nShechem and Gibeon the transition takes place almost in the full\nlight of history; some other old-Israelite places of worship,\ncertain of which are afterwards represented as Levitical towns,\nbetray their origin by their names at least, e.g., Bethshemesh or\nIr Heres (Sun-town), and Ashtaroth Karnaim (the two-horned\nAstarte).  In the popular recollection, also, the memory of the\nfact that many of the most prominent sacrificial seats were\nalready in existence at the date of the immigration continues to\nsurvive.  Shechem, Bethel, Beersheba, figure in Genesis as\ninstituted by the patriarchs; other equally important holy\nsites, not so.  The reason for the distinction can only lie in a\nconsciousness of the more recent origin of the latter; those of\nthe one class had been found by the people when they came, those\nof the other category they had themselves established.   For of\ncourse, if the Hebrews did not hesitate to appropriate to\nthemselves the old holy places of the country, neither did they\nfeel any difficulty in instituting new ones.  In Gilgal and\nShiloh, in the fixed camps where, in the first instance, they had\nfound a permanent foothold in Palestine proper, there forthwith\narose important centres of worship; so likewise in other places of\npolitical importance, even in such as only temporarily come into\nprominence, as Ophrah, Ramah, and Nob near Gibeah.  And, apart from\nthe greater cities with their more or less regular religious\nservice, it is perfectly permissible to erect an altar extempore,\nand offer sacrifice wherever an occasion presents itself.  When,\nafter the battle of Michmash, the people, tired and hungry, fell\nupon the cattle they had taken, and began to devour the flesh with\nthe blood (that is, without pouring out the blood on the altar),\nSaul caused a great stone to be erected, and ordered that every\nman should slaughter his ox or his sheep there.  This was the\nfirst altar which Saul erected to Jehovah, adds the narrator,\ncertainly not as a reproach, nor even to signalise his conduct as\nanything surprising or exceptional.  The instance is all the more\ninstructive, because it shows how the prohibition to eat flesh\nwithout rendering the blood back to God at a time when the people\ndid not live crowded together within a quite limited area\nnecessarily presupposed liberty to sacrifice anywhere--or to\nslaughter anywhere; for originally the two words are absolutely\nsynonymous.\n\nIt need not be said that the sacrificial seats (even when the\nimprovised ones are left out of account) were not all alike in the\nregard in which they were held, or in the frequency with which\nthey were resorted to.  Besides purely local ones, there were\nothers to which pilgrimages were made from far and near.  Towards\nthe close of the period of the judges, Shiloh appears to have\nacquired an importance that perhaps extended even beyond the limits\nof the tribe of Joseph.  By a later age the temple there was even\nregarded as the prototype of the temple of Solomon, that is, as the\none legitimate place of worship to which Jehovah had made a grant\nof all the burnt-offerings of the children of Israel (Jer. vii.12;\n1Samuel ii. 27-36).  But, in point-of fact, if a prosperous man of\nEphraim or Benjamin made a pilgrimage to the joyful festival at\nShiloh at the turn of the year, the reason for his doing so was not\nthat he could have had no opportunity at his home in Ramah or\nGibeah for eating and drinking before the Lord.  Any strict\ncentralisation is for that period inconceivable, alike in the\nreligious as in every other sphere.  This is seen even in the\ncircumstance that the destruction of the temple of Shiloh, the\npriesthood of which we find officiating at Nob a little later, did\nnot exercise the smallest modifying influence upon the character\nand position of the cultus; Shiloh disappears quietly from the\nscene, and is not mentioned again until we learn from Jeremiah that\nat least from the time when Solomon's temple was founded its temple\nlay in ruins.\n\nFor the period during which the temple of Jerusalem was not yet in\nexistence, even the latest redaction of the historical books (which\nperhaps does not everywhere proceed from the same hand, but all\ndates from the same period--that of the Babylonian exile--and has\nits origin in the same spirit) leaves untouched the multiplicity\nof altars and of holy places.  No king after Solomon is left\nuncensured for having tolerated the high places, but Samuel is\npermitted in his proper person to preside over a sacrificial feast\nat the Bamah of his native town, and Solomon at the beginning of\nhis reign to institute a similar one at the great Bamah of Gibeon,\nwithout being blamed.  The offensive name is again and again\nemployed in the most innocent manner in 1Samuel ix., x., and the\nlater editors allow it to pass unchallenged.  The principle which\nguides this apparently unequal distribution of censure becomes\nclear from 1Kings iii. 2: \"The people sacrificed upon the high\nplaces, for as yet no house to the name of Jehovah had been\nbuilt.\"  Not until the house had been built to the name of\nJehovah--such is the idea--did the law come into force which\nforbade having other places of worship besides./1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Compare 1Kings viii. 16.  According to Deut. xii.10 seq.,\nthe local unity of worship becomes law from the time when\nthe Israelites have found rest (menuha).  Comparing 2Samuel vii.11\nand 1Kings v. 18 (A.V., v.4), we find that \"menuha\" first came in\nwith David and Solomon.  The period of the judges must at that time\nhave been regarded as much shorter than appears in the present chronology.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nFrom the building of the temple of Solomon, which is also treated\nas a leading epoch in chronology, a new period in the history of worship\nis accordingly dated,--and to a certain extent with justice.\nThe monarchy in Israel owed its origin to the need which, under severe\nexternal pressure, had come to be felt for bringing together\ninto the oneness of a people and a kingdom the hitherto\nvery loosely connected tribes and families of the Hebrews;\nit had an avowedly centralising tendency, which very naturally\nlaid hold of the cultus as an appropriate means for the attainment\nof the political end.  Gideon even, the first who came near\na regal position, erected a costly sanctuary in his city, Ophrah.\nDavid caused the ark of Jehovah to be fetched into his fortress\non Mount Sion, and attached value to the circumstance\nof having for its priest the representative of the old family\nwhich had formerly kept it at Shiloh.  Solomon's temple also was\ndesigned to increase the attractiveness of the city of his\nresidence.  It is indubitable that in this way political\ncentralisation gave an impulse to a greater centralisation of\nworship also, and the tendency towards the latter continued to\noperate after the separation of the two kingdoms,--in Israel not\nquite in the same manner as in Judah.  Royal priests, great\nnational temples, festal gatherings of the whole people, sacrifices\non an enormous scale, these were the traits by which the cultus,\npreviously (as it would seem) very simple, now showed the impress\nof a new time.  One other fact is significant: the domestic feasts\nand sacrifices of single families, which in David's time must still\nhave been general, gradually declined and lost their importance as\nsocial circles widened and life became more public.\n\nBut this way of regarding the influence of the monarchy upon the\nhistory of the worship is not that of the author of the Books of\nKings.  He views the temple of Solomon as a work undertaken\nexclusively in the interests of pure worship, and as differing\nentirely in origin from the sacred buildings of the kings of\nIsrael, with which accordingly it is not compared, but contrasted\nas the genuine is contrasted with the spurious.  It is in its\nnature unique, and from the outset had the design of setting aside\nall other holy places,--a religious design independent of and\nunconnected with politics.  The view, however, is unhistorical; it\ncarries back to the original date of the temple, and imports into\nthe purpose of its foundation the significance which it had\nacquired in Judah shortly before the exile.  In reality the\ntemple was not at the outset all that it afterwards became.  Its\ninfluence was due to its own weight, and not to a monopoly\nconferred by Solomon.  We nowhere learn that that king, like a\nforerunner of Josiah, in order to favour his new sanctuary sought\nto abolish all the others; there is not the faintest historical\ntrace of any such sudden and violent interference with the\npreviously existing arrangements of worship.  Never once did\nSolomon's successors, confined though they were to the little\nterritory of Judah, and therefore in a position in which the\nexperiment might perhaps have been practicable, make the attempt\n(which certainly would have been in their interest) to concentrate\nall public worship within their own temple, though in other\ndirections we find them exercising a very arbitrary control over\naffairs of religion.  The high places were not removed; this is\nwhat is regularly told us in the case of them all.  For Israel\nproperly so called, Jerusalem was at no time, properly speaking,\nthe place which Jehovah had chosen; least of all was it so after\nthe division of the kingdom.\n\nThe Ephraimites flocked in troops through the entire length of the\nsouthern kingdom as pilgrims to Beersheba, and, in common with the\nmen of Judah, to Gilgal on the frontier.  Jerusalem they left\nunvisited.  In their own land they served Jehovah at Bethel and\nDan, at Shechem and Samaria, at Penuel and Mizpah, and at many\nother places.  Every town had its Bamah, in the earlier times\ngenerally on an open site at the top of the hill on the slopes of\nwhich the houses were.  Elijah, that great zealot for purity of\nworship, was so far from being offended by the high places and the\nmultiplicity of altars to Jehovah that their destruction brought\nbitterness to his soul as the height of wickedness, and with his\nown hand he rebuilt the altar that had fallen into ruins on Mount\nCarmel.  And that the improvised offering on extraordinary\noccasions had also not fallen into disuse is shown by the case of\nElisha, who, when his call came as he was following the plough,\nhewed his oxen to pieces on the spot and sacrificed.  In this\nrespect matters after the building of Solomon's temple continued to\nbe just as they had been before.  If people and judges or kings\nalike, priests and prophets, men like Samuel and Elijah, sacrificed\nwithout hesitation whenever occasion and opportunity presented\nthemselves, it is manifest that during the whole of that period\nnobody had the faintest suspicion that such conduct was heretical\nand forbidden.  If a theophany made known to Joshua the sanctity\nof Gilgal, gave occasion to Gideon and Manoah to rear altars at\ntheir homes, drew the attention of David to the threshing-floor of\nAraunah, Jehovah Himself was regarded as the proper founder of all\nthese sanctuaries,--and this not merely at the period of the\nJudges, but more indubitably still at that of the narrator of\nthese legends.  He rewarded Solomon's first sacrifice on the great\nBamah at Gibeon with a gracious revelation, and cannot, therefore,\nhave been displeased by it.  After all this, it is absurd to speak\nof any want of legality in what was then the ordinary practice;\nthroughout the whole of the earlier period of the history of\nIsrael, the restriction of worship to a single selected place was\nunknown to any one even as a pious desire.  Men believed themselves\nindeed to be nearer God at Bethel or at Jerusalem than at any\nindifferent place, but of such gates of heaven there were several;\nand after all, the ruling idea was that which finds its\nmost distinct expression in 2Kings v.17,--that Palestine as a whole\nwas Jehovah's house, His ground and territory.  Not outside of\nJerusalem, but outside of Canaan had one to sojourn far from His\npresence, under the dominion and (cujus regio ejus religio) in the\nservice of strange gods.  The sanctity of the land did not depend\non that of the temple; the reverse was the case.  /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Gen. iv.14, 16: when Cain is driven out of the land (Canaan),\nhe is driven from the presence of Jehovah (Jonah i.3, 10).\nGen. xlvi.4: Jacob is not to hesitate about going down into Egypt,\nfor Jehovah will, by a special act of grace, change His dwelling-place\nalong with him.  Exodus xv.17: \"Thou broughtest thy people to the mountain\nof thine inheritance, to the place which thou hadst prepared for\nthyself to dwell in,\" the explanation which follows, \"to the\nsanctuary which thy hand had established,\" is out of place, for\nthe mountain of the inheritance can only be the mountainous land\nof Palestine.  1Samuel xxvi.19: David, driven by Saul into foreign\nparts, is thereby violently sundered from his family share in\nthe inheritance of Jehovah, and compelled to serve other gods.\nHos. viii.1: one like an eagle comes against the house of\nJehovah, i.e., the Assyrian comes against Jehovah's land.  Hos.\nix.15: \"I will drive them out of mine house,\" i.e., the Israelites\nout of their land.  Most distinct is the language of Hos. ix.3-5:\n\"They shall not continue to dwell in Jehovah's land; Ephraim must\nback to Egypt, and must eat that which is unclean in Assyria.  They\nshall not any more offer wine-offerings to Jehovah, or set forth\nofferings [read with Kuenen Y(RKW for Y(RBW ] before Him; their\nbread is as the bread of mourners; whosoever eats of it is\npolluted, for their bread shall be only for the staying of hunger,\nand shall not be brought into the house of Jehovah.  What indeed\nwill ye do in the time of the solemn assembly and in the day of\nthe feast of Jehovah?  \"Compare Jer. xvi.13; Ezek. iv.13; Mal.\nii.11; 2Kings xvii.25 seq.  It is also possible that the \"great\nindignation\" of 2Kings iii.27 is regarded less as Jehovah's than as\nthat of Chemosh, in whose land the army of Israel is at the time.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nI.I.2. A change in this respect first begins to be prepared at that\nimportant epoch of the religious history of Israel which is marked\nby the fall of Samaria and the rise of the prophets connected\ntherewith.  Amos and Hosea presuppose a condition of matters just\nsuch as has been described: everywhere--in the towns, on the\nmountains, under green trees--a multitude of sanctuaries and\naltars, at which Jehovah is served in good faith, not with the\npurpose of provoking Him, but in order to gain His favour.  The\nlanguage held by these men was one hitherto unheard of when they\ndeclared that Gilgal, and Bethel, and Beersheba, Jehovah's\nfavourite seats, were an abomination to Him; that the gifts and\nofferings with which He was honoured there kindled His wrath\ninstead of appeasing it; that Israel was destined to be buried\nunder the ruins of His temples, where protection and refuge were\nsought (Amos ix.).  What did they mean ?  It would be to\nmisunderstand the prophets to suppose that they took offence at\nthe holy places-- which Amos still calls Bamoth (vii.9), and that\ntoo not in scorn, but with the deepest pathos--in and by\nthemselves, on account of their being more than one, or not being\nthe right ones.  Their zeal is directed, not against the places,\nbut against the cultus there carried on, and, in fact not merely\nagainst its false character as containing all manner of abuses, but\nalmost more against itself, against the false value attached to it.\nThe common idea was that just as Moab showed itself to be the\npeople of Chemosh because it brought to Chemosh its offerings and\ngifts, so Israel proved itself Jehovah's people by dedicating its\nworship to Him, and was such all the more surely as its worship\nwas zealous and splendid; in times of danger and need, when His\nhelp was peculiarly required, the zeal of the worshippers was\ndoubled and trebled.  It is against this that the prophets raise\ntheir protest while they demand quite other performances as a\nliving manifestation of the relation of Israel to Jehovah.  This\nwas the reason of their so great hostility to the cultus, and the\nsource of their antipathy to the great sanctuaries, where\nsuperstitious zeal outdid itself; it was this that provoked their\nwrath against the multiplicity of the altars which flourished so\nluxuriantly on the soil of a false confidence.  That the holy\nplaces should be abolished, but the cultus itself remain as before\nthe main concern of religion, only limited to a single locality\nwas by no means their wish; but at the same time, in point of\nfact, it came about as an incidental result of their teaching that\nthe high place in Jerusalem ultimately abolished all the other\nBamoth.  External circumstances, it must be added, contributed most\nessentially towards the result.\n\nAs long as the northern kingdom stood, it was there that the main\ncurrent of lsraelite life manifested itself; a glance into the\nBooks of Kings or into that of Amos is enough to make this clear.\nIn Jerusalem, indeed, the days of David and of Solomon remained\nunforgotten; yearning memories went back to them, and great\npretensions were based upon them, but with these the actual state\nof matters only faintly corresponded.  When Samaria fell, Israel\nshrivelled up to the narrow dimensions of Judah, which alone\nsurvived as the people of Jehovah.  Thereby the field was left\nclear for Jerusalem.  The royal city had always had a weighty\npreponderance over the little kingdom, and within it, again, the\ntown had yielded in importance to the temple.  From the few\nnarratives we have relating to Judah one almost gathers an\nimpression as if it had no other concern besides those of the\ntemple; the kings in particular appear to have regarded the\ncharge of their palace sanctuary as the chief of all their\ncares./1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Nearly all the Judaean narratives in the Books of Kings relate\nto the temple and the measures taken by the ruling princes with\nreference to this their sanctuary.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIn this way the increased importance of Judah after the fall of Samaria\naccrued in the first instance to the benefit of the capital\nand its sanctuary, especially as what Judah gained by the fall\nof her rival was not so much political strength as an increase\nof religious self-consciousness.  If the great house of God\nupon Mount Zion had always overtopped the other shrines in Judah,\nit now stood without any equal in all Israel.  But it was the prophets\nwho led the way in determining the inferences to be drawn from the change\nin the face of things.  Hitherto they had principally had their eyes\nupon the northern kingdom, its threatened collapse, and the\nwickedness of its inhabitants, and thus had poured out their wrath\nmore particularly upon the places of worship there.  Judah they\njudged more favourably, both on personal and on substantial\ngrounds, and they hoped for its preservation, not concealing their\nsympathies for Jerusalem (Amos i.2).  Under the impression produced\nby their discourses accordingly, the fall of Samaria was\ninterpreted as a judgment of God against the sinful kingdom and in\nfavour of the fallen house of David, and the destruction of the\nsanctuaries of Israel was accepted as an unmistakable declaration\non Jehovah's part against His older seats on behalf of His\nfavourite dwelling on Zion.  Finally, the fact that twenty years\nafterwards Jerusalem made her triumphant escape from the danger\nwhich had proved fatal to her haughty rival, that at the critical\nmoment the Assyrians under Sennacherib were suddenly constrained\nto withdraw from her, raised to the highest pitch the veneration\nin which the temple was held.  In this connection special emphasis\nis usually laid-- and with justice--upon the prophetical activity\nof Isaiah, whose confidence in the firm foundation of Zion\ncontinued unmoved, even when the rock began to shake in an alarming\nway.  Only it must not be forgotten that the significance of\nJerusalem to Isaiah did not arise from the temple of Solomon, but\nfrom the fact that it was the city of David and the focus of his\nkingdom, the central point, not of the cultus, but of the\nsovereignty of Jehovah over His people.  The holy mount was to\nhim the entire city as a political unity, with its citizens,\ncouncillors, and judges (xi.9); his faith in the sure foundation\non which Zion rested was nothing more than a faith in the living\npresence of Jehovah in the camp of Israel.  But the contemporaries\nof the prophet interpreted otherwise his words and the events which\nhad occurred.  In their view Jehovah dwelt on Zion because His\nhouse was there; it was the temple that had been shown by history\nto be His true seat, and its inviolability was accordingly the\npledge of the indestructibility of the nation.  This belief was\nquite general in Jeremiah's time, as is seen in the extremely\nvivid picture of the seventh chapter of his book; but even as\nearly as the time of Micah, in the first third of the seventh\ncentury, the temple must have been reckoned a house of God of an\naltogether peculiar order, so as to make it a paradox to put it on\na level with the Bamoth of Judah, and a thing unheard of to believe\nin its destruction.\n\nAt the same time, notwithstanding the high and universal reverence\nin which the temple was held, the other sanctuaries still\ncontinued, in the first instance, to subsist alongside of it.\nKing Hezekiah indeed is said to have even then made an attempt\nto abolish them, but the attempt, having passed away without leaving\nany trace, is of a doubtful nature.  It is certain that the\nprophet Isaiah did not labour for the removal of the Bamoth.  In\none of his latest discourses his anticipation for that time of\nrighteousness and the fear of God which is to dawn after the\nAssyrian crisis is: \"Then shall ye defile the silver covering of\nyour graven images and the golden plating of your molten images--ye\nshall cast them away as a thing polluted; Begone! shall ye say\nunto them\" (xxx.22).  If he thus hopes for a purification from\nsuperstitious accretions of the places where Jehovah is worshipped,\nit is clear that he is not thinking of their total abolition.  Not\nuntil about a century after the destruction of Samaria did men\nventure to draw the practical conclusion from the belief in the\nunique character of the temple at Jerusalem.  That this was not\ndone from a mere desire to be logical, but with a view to further\nreforms, need not be said.  With the tone of repudiation in which\nthe earlier prophets, in the zeal of their opposition, had\noccasionally spoken of practices of worship at large, there was\nnothing to be achieved; the thing to be aimed at was not\nabolition, but reformation, and the end it was believed would be\nhelped by concentration of all ritual in the capital.  Prophets\nand priests appear to have made common cause in the prosecution of\nthe work.  It was the high priest Hilkiah who in the first instance\ncalled attention to the discovered book which was to be made the\nbasis of action; the prophetess Huldah confirmed its divine\ncontents; the priests and prophets were a prominent element in the\nassembly at which the new law was promulgated and sworn to.  Now\nan intimate fellowship between these two leading classes appears to\nbe characteristic of the whole course of the religious movement in\nJudah, and to have been necessarily connected with the lines on\nwhich that movement advanced; /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. While Hosea, the man of northern Israel, frequently assails\nthe clergy of his home, and lays upon them the chief share of the\nblame for the depraved and blinded condition of the people, Isaiah\neven in his fiercest declamation against the superstitious worship\nof the multitude, has not a word to say against the priests, with\nwhose chief, Uriah, on the contrary, he stands in a relation of\ngreat intimacy.  But it is from the Book of Jeremiah, the best\nmirror of the contemporary relations in Judah, that the close\nconnection between priests and prophets can be gathered most\nparticularly.  To a certain extent they shared the possession of\nthe sanctuary between them.  (Compare Lam. ii.20.)\n-- Footnote\n\n\nwe shall be justified therefore in assuming that the display\nof harmony between them on this occasion was not got up merely\nfor the purposes of scenic effect, but that the change\nin the national cultus now proposed was really the common suggestion\nof prophets and priests.  In point of fact, such a change was equally\nin accordance with the interests of the temple and with those\nof the prophetic party of reform.  To the last named the restriction\nof the sacrificial worship must have in itself seemed an advantage;\nto it in later times the complete abolition of sacrifice was mainly due,\nand something of the later effect doubtless lay in the original\nintention.  Then, too, the Jehovah of Hebron was only too easily\nregarded as distinct from the Jehovah of Bethshemesh or of Bethel,\nand so a strictly monarchical conception of God naturally led to\nthe conclusion that the place of His dwelling and of His worship\ncould also only be one.  All writers of the Chaldaean period\nassociate monotheism in the closest way with unity of worship\n(Jer. ii.28, xi.13).  And the choice of the locality could\npresent no difficulty; the central point of the kingdom had of\nnecessity also to become the central point of the worship.  Even\nJerusalem and the house of Jehovah there might need some cleansing,\nbut it was clearly entitled to a preference over the obscure\nlocal altars.  It was the seat of all higher culture, Iying under\nthe prophets' eyes, much more readily accessible to light and\nair, reform and control.  It is also possible, moreover, that the\nCanaanite origin of most of the Bamoth, which is not unknown, for\nexample, to Deuteronomy, may have helped to discredit them, while,\non the other hand, the founding of Jerusalem belonged to the\nproudest memories of Israelite history, and the Ark, which had been\nthe origin of the temple there, had a certain right to be\nconsidered the one genuine Mosaic sanctuary. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Luther in his address to the princes of Germany counsels\nin the twentieth place that the field chapels and churches be destroyed,\nas devices of the devil used by him to strengthen covetousness,\nto set up a false and spurious faith, to weaken parochial churches,\nto increase taverns and fornication, to squander money and labour\nto no purpose, and merely to lead the poor people about by the nose.\n(Niemeyer's Reprint, p. 54 )\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIn the eighteenth year of Josiah, 601 B.C., the first heavy blow fell\nupon the local sacrificial places.  How vigorously the king set to\nwork, how new were the measures taken, and how deeply they cut,\ncan be learned from the narrative of 2Kings xxiii.  Yet what a\nvitality did the green trees upon the high mountains still\ncontinue to show!  Even now they were but polled, not uprooted.\nAfter Josiah's death we again see Bamoth appearing on all hands,\nnot merely in the country, but even in the capital itself.\nJeremiah has to lament that there are as many altars as towns in\nJudah.  All that had been attained by the reforming party was\nthat they could now appeal to a written law that had been solemnly\nsworn to by the whole people, standing ever an immovable witness\nto the rights of God.  But to bring it again into force and to\ncarry it out was no easy matter, and would certainly have been\nimpossible to the unaided efforts of the prophets--a Jeremiah or an\nEzekiel.\n\nI.3  Had the people of Judah remained in peaceful possession of their\nland, the reformation of Josiah would hardly have penetrated to\nthe masses; the threads uniting the present with the past were too\nstrong.  To induce the people to regard as idolatrous and heretical\ncentres of iniquity the Bamoth, with which from ancestral times\nthe holiest memories were associated, and some of which, like\nHebron and Beersheba, had been set up by Abraham and Isaac in\nperson, required a complete breaking-off of the natural tradition\nof life, a total severance of all connection with inherited\nconditions.  This was accomplished by means of the Babylonian\nexile, which violently tore the nation away from its native soil,\nand kept it apart for half a century,--a breach of historical\ncontinuity than which it is almost impossible to conceive a\ngreater.  The new generation had no natural, but only an\nartificial relation to the times of old; the firmly rooted\ngrowths of the old soil, regarded as thorns by the pious, were\nextirpated, and the freshly ploughed fallows ready for a new\nsowing.  It is, of course, far from being the case that the whole\npeople at that time underwent a general conversion in the sense of\nthe prophets.  Perhaps the majority totally gave up the past, but\njust on that account became lost among the heathen, and never\nsubsequently came into notice.  Only the pious ones, who with\ntrembling followed Jehovah's word, were left as a remnant; they\nalone had the strength to maintain the Jewish individuality amid\nthe medley of nationalities into which they had been thrown.\nFrom the exile there returned, not the nation, but a religious\nsect,--those, namely, who had given themselves up body and soul to\nthe reformation ideas.  It is no wonder that to these people, who,\nbesides, on their return, all settled in the immediate\nneighbourhood of Jerusalem, the thought never once occurred of\nrestoring the local cults.  It cost them no struggle to allow the\ndestroyed Bamoth to continue Iying in ruins; the principle had\nbecome part of their very being, that the one God had also but one\nplace of worship, and thenceforward for all time coming this was\nregarded as a thing of course.\n\nI.II\n\nSuch was the actual historical course of the centralisation of\nthe cultus, and such the three stadia which can be distinguished.\nThe question now presents itself, whether it is possible to detect\na correspondence between the phases of the actual course of events\nand those of the legislation relating to this subject.  All three\nportions of the legislation contain ordinances on the subject of\nsacrificial places and offerings.  It may be taken for granted\nthat in some way or other these have their roots in history, and\ndo not merely hang in the air, quite away from or above the solid\nground of actuality.\n\nI.II.1. The main Jehovistic law, the so-called Book of the Covenant,\ncontains (Exodus xx.24-26) the following ordinance: \"An altar of\nearth shalt thou make unto me, and thereon shalt thou sacrifice thy\nburnt offerings and thy peace-offerings, thy sheep and thine\noxen; in place where I cause my name to be honoured will I come\nunto and will bless thee.  Or if thou wilt make me an altar of\nstones, thou shalt not build it of hewn stones, for if thou hast\nlifted up thy tool upon it thou hast polluted it.  And thou shalt\nnot go up to mine altar by steps, that thy nakedness be not\ndiscovered before it.\"  Unquestionably it is not the altar of the\ntabernacle, which was made of wood and plated over with brass, nor\nthat of Solomon's temple, which on its eastern side had a flight of\nsteps, /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The altar of the second temple had no steps, but a sloping ascent\nto it, as also, according to the belief of the Jews, had that of the\ntabernacle.   The reason, moreover, for which in Exodus xx.26 steps\nare forbidden, disappears when the priests are provided with\nbreeches (Exodus xxviii.42).\n-- Footnote\n\n\nand had a passage right round it at half its height, that is here\ndescribed as the only true one.  On the other hand, it is obvious\nthat a multiplicity of altars is not merely regarded as permissible,\nbut assumed as a matter of course.  For no stress at all is laid\nupon having always the same sacrificial seat, whether fixed or to be\nmoved about from place to place; earth and unhewn stones /2/ of the field\n\n-- Footnote\n2. The plural \"stones\" is perhaps worthy of note.  There were also\nsacrificial places consisting of one great stone (1Samuel xiv.33,\nvi.14, 15; 2Samuel xx.8; Judges vi.20, xiii.19, 20; 1Kings i.9); to the same\ncategory also doubtless belongs originally the threshing-floor of\nAraunah, 2Samuel xxiv.21; compare Ezra iii.3, [ (L MKWNTW ].  But\ninasmuch as such single sacred stones easily came into a\nmythological relation to the Deity, offence was taken at them, as\nappears from Judges vi.22-24, where the rock altar, the stone under\nthe oak which was conceived of as the seat of the theophany, upon\nwhich Gideon offers, and out of which the flame issues (vi.19-21),\nis corrected into an altar upon the rock.  The macceboth are\ndistinguished from the altar in Exodus xxiv.4, yet elsewhere\nclearly put on the same plane with it (Gen. xxxiii.20), and\neverywhere more or less identified with the Deity (Gen. xxviii.).\n-- Footnote\n\n\ncan be found everywhere, and such an altar falls to pieces just as\nreadily as it is built.  A choice of two kinds of material is also\ngiven, which surely implies that the lawgiver thought of more than\none altar; and not at the place, but at every place where He causes\nHis name to be honoured will Jehovah come to His worshippers and\nbless them.  Thus the law now under consideration is in harmony\nwith the custom and usage of the first historical period, has its\nroot therein, and gives sanction to it.  Certainly the liberty to\nsacrifice everywhere seems to be somewhat restricted by the added\nclause, \"in every place where I cause my name to be honoured.\"\nBut this means nothing more than that the spots where intercourse\nbetween earth and heaven took place were not willingly regarded\nas arbitrarily chosen, but, on the contrary, were considered as\nhaving been somehow or other selected by the Deity Himself for\nHis service.\n\nIn perfect correspondence with the Jehovistic law is the\nJehovistic narrative of the Pentateuch, as, in particular, the\nstory of the patriarchs in J and E very clearly shows.  At every\nplace where they take up their abode or make a passing stay, the\nfathers of the nation, according to this authority, erect altars,\nset up memorial stones, plant trees, dig wells.  This does not take\nplace at indifferent and casual localities, but at Shechem and\nBethel in Ephraim, at Hebron and Beersheba in Judah, at Mizpah,\nMahanaim, and Penuel in Gilead; nowhere but at famous and\nimmemorially holy places of worship.  It is on this that the\ninterest of such notifications depends; they are no mere\nantiquarian facts, but full of the most living significance for the\npresent of the narrator.  The altar built by Abraham at Shechem is\nthe altar on which sacrifice still continues to be made, and bears\n\"even unto this day\" the name which the patriarch gave it.  On the\nspot where at Hebron he first entertained Jehovah, there down to\nthe present day the table has continued to be spread; even as\nIsaac himself did, so do his sons still swear Amosos viii.14; Hos.\niv.15) by the sacred well of Beersheba, which he digged, and\nsacrifice there upon the altar which he built, under the tamarisk\nwhich he planted.  The stone which Jacob consecrated at Bethel the\ngeneration of the living continues to anoint, paying the tithes\nwhich of old he vowed to the house of God there.  This also is the\nreason why the sacred localities are so well known to the\nnarrator, and are punctually and accurately recorded\nnotwithstanding the four hundred years of the Egyptian sojourn,\nwhich otherwise would have made their identification a matter of\nsome little difficulty.  The altar which Abraham built at Bethel\nstands upon the hill to the east of the town, between Bethel on the\nwest and Ai on the east; others are determined by means of a tree\nor a well, as that of Shechem or Beersheba. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The correct explanation of this is found in Ewald, Gesch. d. V.\nlsraels, i. 436 seq. (3d edit.). A. Bernstein (Ursprung der Sagen\nvon Abrabam, etc., Berlin, 1871) drags in politics in a repulsive way.\n\"He does not indeed actually enter Shechem and Bethel-- these are places\nhostile to Judah--but in a genuine spirit of Jewish demonstration\nhe builds altars in their vicinity and calls on the name of\nJehovah\" (p. 22).  Rather, he builds the altars precisely on the\nplaces where, as can be shown, they afterwards stood, and that was\nnot inside the towns.  In Gen. xviii. also the oak of Mamre is\nemployed to fix not Abraham's residence, but the place of Jehovah's\nappearing.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nBut of course it was not intended to throw dishonour upon the\ncultus of the present when its institution was ascribed to the\nfathers of the nation.  Rather, on the contrary, do these legends\nglorify the origin of the sanctuaries to which they are attached,\nand surround them with the nimbus of a venerable consecration.  All\nthe more as the altars, as a rule, are not built by the patriarchs\naccording to their own private judgment wheresoever they please;\non the contrary, a theophany calls attention to, or at least\nafterwards confirms, the holiness of the place.  Jehovah appears at\nShechem to Abraham, who thereupon builds the altar \"to Jehovah who\nhad appeared unto him;\" he partakes of his hospitality under the\noak of Mamre, which is the origin of the sacrificial service there;\nHe shows him the place where he is to make an offering of his son,\nand here the sanctuary continues to exist.  On the first night of\nIsaac's sleeping on the sacred soil of Beersheba (xxvi.24) he\nreceives a visit from the Numen there residing, and in consequence\nrears his altar.  Surprised by profane glances, Jehovah acts as a\ndestroyer, but Himself spontaneously points out to His favoured\nones the places where it is His pleasure to allow Himself to be\nseen; and where men have seen Him and yet lived, there a sanctuary\nmarks the open way of access to Him.  The substance of the\nrevelation is in these cases comparatively indifferent: \"I am\nGod.\"  What is of importance is the theophany in and for itself,\nits occurrence on that particular place.  It must not be regarded\nas an isolated fact, but rather as the striking commencement of an\nintercourse [ R)H PNY YHWH ] between God and man which is destined\nto be continued at this spot, and also as the first and strongest\nexpression of the sanctity of the soil.  This way of looking at\nthe thing appears most clearly and with incomparable charm in the\nstory of the ladder which Jacob saw at Bethel.  \"He dreamed, and\nbehold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to\nheaven, and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on\nit.  And he was afraid and said, How dreadful is this place!  This\nis none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of\nheaven.\"  The ladder stands at the place not at this moment merely,\nbut continually, and, as it were, by nature.  Bethel--so Jacob\nperceives from this--is a place where heaven and earth meet, where\nthe angels ascend and descend, to carry on the communication\nbetween earth and heaven ordained by God at this gate.\n\nAll this is only to be understood as a glorification of the\nrelations and arrangements of the cultus as we find them (say) in\nthe first centuries of the divided kingdom.  All that seems\noffensive and heathenish to a later age is here consecrated and\ncountenanced by Jehovah Himself and His favoured ones,-- the high\nplaces, the memorial stones (maccceboth), the trees, the wells. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. But it is only the public cultus and that of certain leading\nsanctuaries that is thus glorified; on the other hand, the domestic\nworship of seraphim, to which the women are specially attached,\nis already discountenanced (in E) by Jacob.  Asherim are not\nalluded to, molten images are rejected, particularly by E.\nHere perhaps a correction of the ancient legend has already\ntaken place in JE.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nAn essential agreement prevails between the Jehovistic law\nwhich sanctions the existing seats of worship and the Jehovistic\nnarrative; the latter is as regards its nucleus perhaps somewhat older.\nBoth obviously belong to the pre-prophetic period; a later revision\nof the narrative in the prophetic sense has not altered the essential\ncharacter of its fundamental elements.  It is inconceivable that\nAmos or Hosea, or any like-minded person, could go with such\nsympathising love and believing reverence into narratives which only\nserved to invest with a still brighter nimbus and higher respect\nthe existing religious worship, carried on by the people\non the high places of Isaac as their holiest occupation.\n\nI.II.2. The Jehovistic Book of the Covenant lies indeed at the\nfoundation of Deuteronomy, but in one point they differ\nmaterially, and that precisely the one which concerns us here.\nAs there, so here also, the legislation properly so called begins\n(Deut. xii.) with an ordinance relating to the service of the\naltar; but now we have Moses addressing the Israeites in the\nfollowing terms: \"When ye come into the land of Canaan, ye shall\nutterly destroy all the places of worship which ye find there,\nand ye shall not worship Jehovah your God after the manner in which\nthe heathen serve theirs.  Nay, but only unto the place which the\nLord your God shall choose out of all your tribes for His\nhabitation shall ye seek, and thither shall ye bring your offerings\nand gifts, and there shall ye eat before Him and rejoice.  Here at\nthis day we do every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes, but\nwhen ye have found fixed abodes, and rest from your enemies round\nabout, then shall the place which Jehovah shall choose for His\nhabitation in one of your tribes be the one place to which ye shall\nbring your offerings and gifts.  Take heed that ye offer not in\nevery place that ye see; ye may not eat your holy gifts in\nevery town, but only in the place which Jehovah shall choose.\"\n\nThe Law is never weary of again and again repeating its\ninjunction of local unity of worship.  In doing so, it is in\nconscious opposition to \"the things that we do here this day,\" and\nthroughout has a polemical and reforming attitude towards existing\nusage.  It is rightly therefore assigned by historical criticism\nto the period of the attacks made on the Bamoth by the reforming\nparty at Jerusalem.  As the Book of the Covenant, and the whole\nJehovistic writing in genera], reflects the first pre-prophetic\nperiod in the history of the cultus, so Deuteronomy is the legal\nexpression of the second period of struggle and transition.  The\nhistorical order is all the more certain because the literary\ndependence of Deuteronomy on the Jehovistic laws and narratives\ncan be demonstrated independently, and is an admitted fact.  From\nthis the step is easy to the belief that the work whose discovery\ngave occasion to King Josiah to destroy the local sanctuaries was\nthis very Book of Deuteronomy, which originally must have had an\nindependent existence, and a shorter form than at present.  This\nalone, at least, of all the books of the Pentateuch, gives so\nimperious an expression to the restriction of the sacrificial\nworship to the one chosen place; here only does the demand make\nitself so felt in its aggressive novelty and dominate the whole\ntendency of the law-maker.  The old material which he makes use\nof is invariably shaped with a view to this, and on all hands he\nfollows the rule out to its logical consequences.  To make its\nfulfilment possible, he changes former arrangements, permitting\nwhat had been forbidden, and prohibiting what had been allowed;\nin almost every case this motive lies at the foundation of all his\nother innovations.  This is seen, for example, when he permits\nslaying without sacrificing, and that too anywhere; when, in order\nnot to abolish the right of asylum (Exodus xxi.13, 14; 1Kings ii.\n28) along with the altars, he appoints special cities of refuge for\nthe innocent who are pursued by the avenger of blood; when he\nprovides for the priests of the suppressed sanctuaries,\nrecommending the provincials to take them along with them on their\nsacrificial pilgrimages, and giving them the right to officiate in\nthe temple at Jerusalem just like the hereditarily permanent\nclergy there.  In other respects also the dominance of the same\npoint of view is seen: for example, it is chiefly from regard to\nit that the old ordinances and customs relating to the religious\ndues and the festivals are set forth in the form which they must\nhenceforth assume.  A law so living, which stands at every point\nin immediate contact with reality, which is at war with\ntraditionary custom, and which proceeds with constant reference to\nthe demands of practical life, is no mere velleity, no mere cobweb\nof an idle brain, but has as certainly arisen out of historical\noccasions as it is designed to operate powerfully on the course of\nthe subsequent history.  A judgment pronounced in accordance with\nthe facts can therefore assign to it an historical place only\nwithin that movement of reformation which was brought to a\nvictorious issue by King Josiah.\n\nI.II.3. It is often supposed that the Priestly Code is somewhat\nindifferent to the question of the one sanctuary, neither\npermitting multiplicity of sacrificial centres nor laying stress\nupon the unity, and that on account of this attitude it must be\nassigned to an earlier date than Deuteronomy. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. De Wette, in the fifth place of his Habilitationsschrift ueber\ndas Deuteronomium (Jena, 1805): \"De hoc unico cultus sacri loco...\npriores libri nihil omnino habent.  De sacrificiis tantum unice\nante tabernaculum conventus offerendis lex quaedam extat.\nSed in legibus de diebus festis, de primitiis et decimis,\ntam saepe repetitis, nihil omnino monitum est de loco unico,\nubi celebrari et offerri debeant \" (Opusc. Theol, p. 163-165).\n-- Footnote\n\n\nSuch an idea is, to say the least, in the highest degree superficial.\nThe assumption that worship is restricted to one single centre\nruns everywhere throughout the entire document.  To appeal specially,\nin proof of the restriction, to Leviticus xvii. or Josh xxii., is\nto indicate a complete failure to apprehend the whole tenor\nof Exodus xxv.-Leviticus ix.  Before so much as a single regulation\nhaving reference to the matter of worship can be given (such is\nthe meaning of the large section referred to), the one rightful place\nwherein to engage in it must be specified.  The tabernacle is\nnot narrative merely, but, like all the narratives in that book,\nlaw as well; it expresses the legal unity of the worship as\nan historical fact, which, from the very beginning, ever since\nthe exodus, has held good in Israel.  One God one sanctuary,\nthat is the idea.  With the ordinances of the tabernacle, which form\nthe sum of the divine revelation on Sinai, the theocracy was founded;\nwhere the one is, there is the other.  The description of it, therefore,\nstands at the head of the Priestly Code, just as that of the temple\nstands at the head of the legislation in Ezekiel.  It is the basis\nand indispensable foundation, without which all else would merely\nfloat in the air:  first must the seat of the Divine Presence on\nearth be given before the sacred community can come into life and\nthe cultus into force.  Is it supposes that the tabernacle\ntolerates other sanctuaries besides itself?  Why then the\nencampment of the twelve tribes around it, which has no military,\nbut a purely religious significance, and derives its whole meaning\nfrom its sacred centre?  Whence this concentration of all Israel\ninto one great congregation [ QHL, (DH ], without its like anywhere\nelse in the Old Testament?  On the contrary, there is no other\nplace besides this at which God dwells and suffers Himself to be\nseen; no place but this alone where man can draw near to Him and\nseek His face with offerings and gifts. This view is the axiom\nthat underlies the whole ritual legislation of the middle part of\nthe Pentateuch.  It is indicated with special clearness by the\nLPNY (HL MW(D (before the tabernacle), introduced at every turn\nin the ordinances for sacrifice.\n\nWhat then are we to infer from this as to the historical place of\nthe Priestly Code, if it be judged necessary to assign it such a\nplace at all?  By all the laws of logic it can no more belong to\nthe first period than Deuteronomy does.  But is it older or\nyounger than Deuteronomy?  In that book the unity of the cultus is\nCOMMANDED, in the Priestly Code it is PRESUPPOSED.  Everywhere it\nis tacitly assumed as a fundamental postulate, but nowhere does it\nfind actual expression; /1/ it is nothing new, but quite a thing\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Except in Leviticus xvii.; but the small body of legislation\ncontained in Leviticus xvii-xxvi is the transition from Deuteronomy\nto the Priestly Code.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nof course.  What follows from this for the question before us?\nTo my thinking, this:--that the Priestly Code rests\nupon the result which is only the aim of Deuteronomy.  The latter\nis in the midst of movement and conflict: it clearly speaks out\nits reforming intention, its opposition to the traditional \"what we\ndo here this day;\" the former stands outside of and above the\nstruggle,--the end has been reached and made a secure possession.\nOn the basis of the Priestly Code no reformation would ever have\ntaken place, no Josiah would ever have observed from it that the\nactual condition of affairs was perverse and required to be set\nright; it proceeds as if everything had been for long in the best\nof order.  It is only in Deuteronomy, moreover, that one sees to\nthe root of the matter, and recognises its connection with the\nanxiety for a strict monotheism and for the elimination from the\nworship of the popular heathenish elements, and thus with a deep\nand really worthy aim; in the Priestly Code the reason of the\nappointments, in themselves by no means rational, rests upon their\nown legitimacy, just as everything that is actual ordinarily seems\nnatural and in no need of explanation.  Nowhere does it become\napparent that the abolition of the Bamoth and Asherim and memorial\nstones is the real object contemplated; these institutions are\nnow almost unknown, and what is really only intelligible as a\nnegative and polemical ordinance is regarded as full of meaning in\nitself.\n\nThe idea as idea is older than the idea as history.  In\nDeuteronomy it appears in its native colours, comes forward with\nits aggressive challenge to do battle with the actual.  One step\nindeed is taken towards investing it with an historical character,\nin so far as it is put into the mouth of Moses; but the beginning\nthus made keeps within modest limits.  Moses only lays down the\nlaw; for its execution he makes no provision as regards his own\ntime, nor does he demand it for the immediate future.  Rather it is\nrepresented as not destined to come into force until the people\nshall have concluded the conquest of the country and secured a\nsettled peace.  We have already found reason to surmise that the\nreference to \"menuha\" is intended to defer the date when the Law\nshall come into force to the days of David and Solomon (1Kings\nviii.16).  This is all the more probable inasmuch as there is\nrequired for its fulfilment \"the place which Jehovah shall choose,\"\nby which only the capital of Judah can be meant.  Deuteronomy,\ntherefore, knows nothing of the principle that what ought to be\nmust actually have been from the beginning.  Until the building of\nSolomon's temple the unity of worship according to it had,\nproperly speaking, never had any existence; and, moreover, it is\neasy to read between the lines that even after that date it was\nmore a pious wish than a practical demand.  The Priestly Code, on\nthe other hand, is unable to think of religion without the one\nsanctuary, and cannot for a moment imagine Israel without it,\ncarrying its actual existence back to the very beginning of the\ntheocracy, and, in accordance with this, completely altering the\nancient history.  The temple, the focus to which the worship was\nconcentrated, and which in reality was not built until Solomon's\ntime, is by this document regarded as so indispensable, even for\nthe troubled days of the wanderings before the settlement, that it\nis made portable, and in the form of a tabernacle set up in the\nvery beginning of things.  For the truth is, that the tabernacle\nis the copy, not the prototype, of the temple at Jerusalem.  The\nresemblance of the two is indeed unmistakable, /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. In Wisdom of Solomon ix. 8 the temple is called MIMHMA SKHNHS\nHAGIAS.  Josephus (Antiquities iii. 6,1) says of the tabernacle,\n(H D'OUDEN METAFEROMENOU NAOU DIEFERE.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nbut it is not said in 1Kings vi. that Solomon made use of the old\npattern and ordered his Tyrian workmen to follow it.  The posteriority\nof the Mosaic structure comes into clearer light from the two following\nconsiderations brought forward by Graf (p. 60 seq.).  In the first\nplace, in the description of the tabernacle mention is repeatedly\nmade of its south, north, and west side, without any preceding rubric\nas to a definite and constantly uniform orientation; the latter is\ntacitly taken for granted, being borrowed from that of the temple,\nwhich was a fixed building, and did not change its site.  In the\nsecond place, the brazen altar is, strictly speaking, described as\nan altar of wood merely plated with brass,--for a fireplace of\nvery large size, upon which a strong fire continually burns, a\nperfectly absurd construction, which is only to be accounted for\nby the wish to make the brazen altar which Solomon cast (1Kings\nxvi. 14) transportable, by changing its interior into wood.  The\nmain point, however, is this, that the tabernacle of the Priestly\nCode in its essential meaning is not a mere provisional shelter for\nthe ark on the march, but the sole legitimate sanctuary for the\ncommunity of the twelve tribes prior to the days of Solomon, and\nso in fact a projection of the later temple.  How modest, one might\nalmost say how awkwardly bashful, is the Deuteronomic reference\nto the future place which Jehovah is to choose when compared with\nthis calm matter-of-fact assumption that the necessary centre of\nunity of worship was given from the first!  In the one case we\nhave, so to speak, only the idea as it exists in the mind of the\nlawgiver, but making no claim to be realised till a much later\ndate; in the other, the Mosaic idea has acquired also a Mosaic\nembodiment, with which it entered the world at the very first.\n\nBy the same simple historical method which carries the central\nsanctuary back into the period before Solomon does the Priestly\nauthor abolish the other places of worship.  His forty-eight\nLevitical cities are for the most part demonstrably a\nmetamorphosis of the old Bamoth to meet the exigencies of the time.\nThe altar which the tribes eastward of Jordan build (Josh. xxii.)\nis erected with no intention that it should be used, but merely in\ncommemoration of something.  Even the pre-Mosaic period is rendered\northodox in the same fashion.  The patriarchs, having no\ntabernacle, have no worship at all; according to the Priestly\nCode they build no altars, bring no offerings, and scrupulously\nabstain from everything by which they might in any way encroach\non the privilege of the one true sanctuary.  This manner of shaping\nthe patriarchal history is only the extreme consequence of the\neffort to carry out with uniformity in history the semper\nubique et ab omnibus of the legal unity of worship.\n\nThus in Deuteronomy the institution is only in its birth-throes,\nand has still to struggle for the victory against the praxis of\nthe present, but in the Priestly Code claims immemorial legitimacy\nand strives to bring the past into conformity with itself,\nobviously because it already dominates the present; the carrying\nback of the new into the olden time always takes place at a later\ndate than the ushering into existence of the new itself.\nDeuteronomy has its position in the very midst of the historical\ncrisis, and still stands in a close relation with the older period\nof worship, the conditions of which it can contest, but is unable\nto ignore, and still less to deny.  But, on the other hand, the\nPriestly Code is hindered by no survival to present times of the\nolder usage from projecting an image of antiquity such as it must\nhave been; unhampered by visible relics or living tradition of an\nolder state, it can idealise the past to its heart's content.  Its\nplace, then, is after Deuteronomy, and in the third post-exilian\nperiod of the history of the cultus, in which, on the one hand,\nthe unity of the sanctuary was an established fact, contested by\nno one and impugned by nothing, and in which, on the other hand,\nthe natural connection between the present and the past had been so\nsevered by the exile that there was no obstacle to prevent an\nartificial and ideal repristination of the latter.\n\n\nI.III.\n\nThe reverse of this is what is usually held.  In Deuteronomy, it\nis considered, there occur clear references to the period of the\nkings; but the Priestly Code, with its historical\npresuppositions, does not fit in with any situation belonging to\nthat time, and is therefore older.  When the cultus rests upon the\ntemple of Solomon as its foundation, as in Ezekiel, then every one\nrecognises the later date; but when it is based upon the\ntabernacle, the case is regarded as quite different.  The great\nantiquity of the priestly legislation is proved by relegating it\nto an historical sphere, created by itself out of its own legal\npremisses, but which is nowhere to be found within, and therefore\nmust have preceded actual history.  Thus (so to speak) it holds\nitself up in the air by its own waistband.\n\nI.III.1. It may, however, seem as if hitherto it had only been\nasserted that the tabernacle rests on an historical fiction.\nIn truth it is proved; but yet it may be well to add some things\nwhich have indeed been said long before now, but never as yet\nproperly laid to heart.  The subject of discussion, be it\npremised, is the tabernacle of the Priestly Code; for some kind\nof tent for the ark there may well have been: in fact, tents were\nin Palestine the earliest dwellings of idols (Hos. ix.6), and only\nafterwards gave place to fixed houses; and even the Jehovistic\ntradition (although not J) knows of a sacred tent /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. It is never, however, employed for legislative purposes,\nbut is simply a shelter for the ark; it stands without the camp,\nas the oldest sanctuaries were wont to do outside the cities.\nIt is kept by Joshua as aedituus, who sleeps in it, as did Samuel\nthe aedituus for Eli.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nin connection with the Mosaic camp, and outside it, just as the older\nhigh places generally had open sites without the city.  The question\nbefore us has reference exclusively to the particular tent which,\naccording to Exodus xxv. seq., was erected at the command of God\nas the basis of the theocracy, the pre-Solomonic central sanctuary,\nwhich also in outward details was the prototype of the temple.\nAt the outset its very  possibility is doubtful.  Very strange is the\ncontrast between this splendid structure, on which the costliest\nmaterial is lavished and wrought in the most advanced style of\nOriental art, and the soil on which it rises, in the wilderness\namongst the native Hebrew nomad tribes, who are represented as\nhaving got it ready offhand, and without external help.  The\nincompatibility has long been noticed, and gave rise to doubts as\nearly as the time of Voltaire.  These may, however, be left to\nthemselves; suffice it that Hebrew tradition, even from the time\nof the judges and the first kings, for which the Mosaic tabernacle\nwas strictly speaking intended, knows nothing at all about it.\n\nIt appears a bold thing to say so when one sees how much many a\nmodern author who knows how to make a skilful use of the Book of\nChronicles has to tell about the tabernacle.  For in 2 Chron. i.3\nseq. we are told that Solomon celebrated his accession to the\nthrone with a great sacrificial feast at Gibeon, because the\ntabernacle and the brazen altar of Moses were there.  In like\nmanner in 1Chron. xxi.29 it is said that David offered sacrifice\nindeed on the threshing-floor of Araunah, but that Jehovah's\ndwelling-place and the legitimate altar were at that time at\nGibeon; and further (xvi. 39), that Zadok, the legitimate high\npriest, officiated there.  From these data the Rabbins first, and\nin recent times Keil and Movers especially, have constructed a\nsystematic history of the tabernacle down to the building of the\ntemple.  Under David and Solomon, as long as the ark was on Mount\nZion, the tabernacle was at Gibeon, as is also shown by the fact\nthat (2Samuel xxi.6, 9) offerings were sacrificed to Jehovah there.\nBefore that it was at Nob, where ephod and shewbread (1Samuel xxi.)\nare mentioned, and still earlier, from Joshua's time onward, it was\nat Shiloh.  But these were only its permanent sites, apart from\nwhich it was temporarily set up now here, now there, saving by\nits rapidity of movement--one might almost say ubiquity--the\nunity of the cultus, notwithstanding the variety and great\ndistances of the places at which that cultus was celebrated.  In\nevery case in which a manifestation of Jehovah and an offering to\nHim are spoken of, the tabernacle must be tacitly understood. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Josh. xxiv. 24, 33 (LXX): after the death of Joshua and Eleazar,\nLABONTES (OI )UIOI )ISRAHL THN KIBWTON TOU QEOU PERIFEROSAN\n)EN )EAUTOIS.  After J. Buxtorf and Sal. van Til (Ugol., Thes. viii.),\nthis theory has been, worked out specially by Movers.  See, on the other\nhand, De Wette, Beitraege, p. 108 seq., and Vatke, ut supra, p. 316, note.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe dogmatic character of this way of making history, and the absurd\nconsequences to which it leads, need not in the meantime be insisted on;\nwhat is of greatest importance is that the point from which it starts\nis in the last degree insecure; for the statement of Chronicles that\nSolomon offered the offering of his accession upon the altar of\nthe tabernacle at Gibeon is in contradiction with that of the older\nparallel narrative of 1Kings iii.1-4.  The latter not only is\nsilent about the Mosaic tabernacle, which is alleged to have stood\nat Gibeon, but expressly says that Solomon offered upon a high\nplace (as such), and excuses him for this on the plea that at that\ntime no house to the name of Jehovah had as yet been built.  That\nthe Chronicler draws from this narrative is certain on general\ngrounds, and is shown particularly by this, that he designates\nthe tabernacle at Gibeon by the name of Bamah--a contradictio in\nadjecto which is only to be explained by the desire to give an\nauthentic interpretation of \"the great Bamah at Gibeon\" in 1Kings\niii.  Here, as elsewhere, he brings the history into agreement\nwith the Law: the young and pious Solomon can have offered his\nsacrifice only at the legal place which therefore must be that\nhigh place at Gibeon. Along with 2 Chron. i.3 seq. also fall the\ntwo other statements (1Chron. xvi.39, xxi.29 both of which are\ndependent on that leading passage, as is clear revealed by the\nrecurring phrase \"the Bamah of Gibeon.\" The tabernacle does not\nelsewhere occur in Chronicles; it has not yet brought its\nconsequences with it, and not yet permeated the historical view of\nthe author.  He would certainly have experienced some embarrassment\nat the question whether it had previously stood at Nob, for he\nlays stress upon the connection between the legitimate sanctuary\nand the legitimate Zadok-Eleazar priestly family, which it is\nindeed possible to assume for Shiloh, but not for Nob. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Of the priests at Nob, Abiathar alone escaped the massacre\n(1Samuel. xxii.); Gad therefore was not one of them.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe fact that Chronicles represents the Israelite history in accordance\nwith the Priestly Code has had the effect of causing its view\nof the history to be involuntarily taken as fundamental, but ought much\nrather to have caused it to be left altogether out of account where\nthe object to ascertain what was the real and genuine tradition.\nThe Books of Judges and Samuel make mention indeed of many sanctuaries,\nbut never among them of the tabernacle, the most important of all.\nFor the single passage where the name Ohel Moed occurs (1Samuel\nii.22 is badly attested, and from its contents open to suspicion. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. The passage does not occur in the LXX, and everywhere else in\n1Samueli-iii the sanctuary of Shiloh is called hekal, that is to say,\ncertainly not a tent.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nOf the existence of the ark of Jehovah there certainly are distinct traces\ntowards the end of the period of the judges (compare 1Samuel iv.-vi.)\nBut is the ark a guarantee of the existence of the tabernacle?\nOn the contrary its whole history down to the period of its being deposited\nin the temple of Solomon is a proof that it was regarded as quite\nindependent of any tent specially consecrated for its reception.\nBut this abolishes the notion of the Mosaic tabernacle; for\naccording to the law, the two things belong necessarily to each\nother; the one cannot exist without the other; both are of\nequally great importance.  The tabernacle must everywhere\naccompany the symbol of its presence; the darkness of the holy\nof holies is at the same time the life-element of the ark; only\nunder compulsion of necessity, and even then not except under the\ncovering of the curtains, does it leave its lodging during a\nmarch, only to return to it again as soon as the new halting-place\nis reached.  But according to 1Samuel iv. seq., on the other hand,\nit is only the ark that goes to the campaign; it alone falls into\nthe hands of the Philistines.  Even in chap. v., where the symbol\nof Jehovah is placed in the temple of Dagon at Ashdod, not a word\nis said of the tabernacle or of the altar which is necessarily\nconnected with it; and chap. vi. is equally silent, although\nhere the enemy plainly gives back the whole of his sacred spoil.\nIt is assumed that the housing of the ark was left behind at\nShiloh.  Very likely; but that was not the Mosaic tabernacle, the\ninseparable companion of the ark.  In fact, the narrator speaks of\na permanent house at Shiloh with doors and doorposts; that\npossibly may be an anachronism /1/ (yet why ?) ;\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Compare similar passages in Josh. vi.19, 24, ix.27, where the very\nanachronism shows that the idea of the tabernacle was unknown\nto the narrator.  That, moreover. a permanent house did actually exist\nthen at Shiloh follows from the circumstance that Jeremiah (vii. 12)\nspeaks of its ruins.  For he could not regard any other than a\npre-Solomonic sanctuary as preceding that of Jerusalem; and\nbesides, there is not the faintest trace of a more important temple\nhaving arisen at Shiloh within the period of the kings.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nbut so much at least may be inferred from it that he had not any idea\nof the tabernacle, which, however, would have had to go with the ark\nto the field.  If on this one occasion only an illegal exception\nto the Law was made, why in that case was not the ark, at least after\nits surrender, again restored to the lodging from which, strictly\nspeaking, it ought never to have been separated at all?  Instead of\nthis it is brought to Bethshemesh, where it causes disaster,\nbecause the people show curiosity about it.  Thence it comes to\nKirjathjearim, where it stays for many years in the house of a\nprivate person.  From here David causes it to be brought to\nJerusalem,-- one naturally supposes, if one thinks in the lines of\nthe view given in the Pentateuch and in Chronicles, in order that\nit may be at last restored to the tabernacle, to be simultaneously\nbrought to Jerusalem.  But no thought of this, however obvious it\nmay seem, occurs to the king.  In the first instance, his\nintention is to have the ark beside himself in the citadel; but he\nis terrified out of this, and, at a loss where else to put it, he\nat last places it in the house of one of his principal people,\nObed-Edom of Gath.  Had he known anything about the tabernacle, had\nhe had any suspicion that it was standing empty at Gibeon, in the\nimmediate neighbourhood, he would have been relieved of all\ndifficulty.  But inasmuch as the ark brings blessing to the house\nof Obed-Edom,--the ark, be it remembered, in the house of a soldier\nand a Philistine, yet bringing down, not wrath, but blessing,--/1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The Chronicle has good reason for making him a Levite. But Gath\nwithout any qualifying epithet, and particularly in connection with David,\nis the Philistine Gath, and Obed-Edom belongs to the bodyquard, which\nconsisted chiefly of foreigners and Philistines. His name,\nmoreover, is hardly Israelite.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nthe king is thereby encouraged to persevere after all with his original\nproposal, and establish it upon his citadel.  And this he does in a tent\nhe had caused to be made for it (2Samuel vi.17), which tent of David\nin Zion continued to be its lodging until the temple was built.\nSome mention of the tabernacle, had it existed, would have been\ninevitable when the temple took its place.  That it did not serve\nas the model of the temple has already been said; but it might\nhave been expected at least that in the account of the building of\nthe new sanctuary some word might have escaped about the\nwhereabouts of the old.  And this expectation seems to be realised\nin 1Kings viii.4, which says that when the temple was finished\nthere were brought into it, besides the ark, the Ohel Moed and all\nthe sacred vessels that were therein.  Interpreters hesitate as to\nwhether they ought to understand by the Ohel Moed the tent of the\nark upon Zion, to which alone reference has been made in the\npreceding narrative (1Kings i.39, ii.28-30), or whether it is the\nMosaic tent, which, according to Chronicles, was standing at\nGibeon, but of which the Book of Kings tells nothing, and also\nknows nothing (iii.2-4).  It is probable that the author of viii.4\nmixed up both together; but we have to face the following\nalternative.  Either the statement belongs to the original context\nof the narrative in which it occurs, and in that case the Ohel Moed\ncan only be the tent on Mount Zion, or the Ohel Moed of 1Kings\nviii.4 is the Mosaic tabernacle which was removed from Gibeon into\nSolomon's temple, and in that case the allegation has no\nconnection with its context, and does not hang together with the\npremisses which that furnishes; in other words, it is the\ninterpolation of a later hand.  The former alternative, though\npossible, is improbable, for the name Ohel Moed occurs absolutely\nnowhere in the Books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings (apart from the\ninterpolation in 1Samuel ii.22b), and particularly it is not used\nto denote David's tent upon Mount Zion; and, moreover, that tent\nhad received too little of the consecration of antiquity, and\naccording to 2Samuel vii. was too insignificant and provisional to\nbe thought worthy of preservation in the temple.  But if the Ohel\nMoed is here (what it everywhere else is) the tabernacle, as is\nindicated also by the sacred vessels, then the verse is, as has\nbeen said, an interpolation.  The motive for such a thing is easily\nunderstood; the same difficulty as that with which we set out\nmust have made it natural for any Jew who started from the ideas\nof the Pentateuch to look for the tabernacle here, and, if he did\nnot find it, to introduce it.  Yet even the interpolation does not\nremove the difficulties. Where is the Mosaic altar of\nburnt-offering?  It was quite as important and holy as the\ntabernacle itself; even in Chronicles it is invariably mentioned\nexpressly in connection with it, and did not deserve to be\npermitted to go to ruin at Gibeon, which, from another point of\nview, would also have been extremely dangerous to the unity of\nthe sacrificial worship.  Further, if the sacred vessels were\ntransferred from the tabernacle to the temple, why then was it\nthat Solomon, according to 1Kings vii., cast a completely new\nset? /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The brazen altar cast by Solomon (1Kings viii.64;\n2Kings xvi.14, 15) is not now found in the inventory of the temple\nfurniture in 1Kings vii.; but originally it cannot have been\nabsent, for it is the most important article.  It has therefore\nbeen struck out in order to avoid collision with the brazen altar\nof Moses.  The deletion is the negative counterpart to the\ninterpolation of the tabernacle in 1Kings viii.4.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe old ones were costly enough, in part even costlier than the new, and,\nmoreover, had been consecrated by long use.  It is clear that\nin Solomon's time neither tabernacle, nor holy vessels, nor brazen altar\nof Moses had any existence.\n\nBut if there was no tabernacle in the time of the last judges and\nfirst kings, as little was it in existence during the whole of the\nprevious period.  This is seen from 2Samuel vii., a section with\nwhose historicity we have here nothing to do, but which at all\nevents reflects the view of a pre-exilian author.  It is there told\nthat David, after he had obtained rest from all his enemies,\ncontemplated building a worthy home for the ark, and expressed his\ndetermination to the prophet Nathan in the words, \"I dwell in a\nhouse of cedar, and the ark of God within curtains.\"  According to\nvi.17, he can only mean the tent which he had set up, that is to\nsay, not the Mosaic tabernacle, which, moreover, according to the\ndescription of Exodus xxv. seq., could not appropriately be\ncontrasted with a timber erection, still less be regarded as a\nmean structure or unworthy of the Deity, for in point of\nmagnificence it at least competed with the temple of Solomon.\nNathan at first approves of the king's intention, but afterwards\ndiscountenances it, saying that at present God does not wish to\nhave anything different from that which He has hitherto had.  \"I\nhave dwelt in no house since the day that I brought the children\nof Israel out of Egypt, but have wandered about under tent and\ncovering.\"  Nathan also, of course, has not in his eye the Mosaic\ntabernacle as the present lodging of the ark, but David's tent upon\nZion.  Now he does not say that the ark has formerly been always\nin the tabernacle, and that its present harbourage is therefore in\nthe highest degree unlawful, but, on the contrary, that the present\nstate of matters is the right one,--that until now the ark has\ninvariably been housed under an equally simple and unpretentious\nroof.  As David's tent does not date back to the Exodus, Nathan is\nnecessarily speaking of changing tents and dwellings; the reading\nof the parallel passage in 1Chron. xvii.5, therefore, correctly\ninterprets the sense.  There could be no more fundamental\ncontradiction to the representation contained in the Pentateuch\nthan that embodied in these words:  the ark has not as its\ncorrelate a single definite sacred tent of state, but is quite\nindifferent to the shelter it enjoys--has frequently changed its\nabode, but never had any particularly fine one.  Such has been\nthe state of matters since the time of Moses.\n\nSuch is the position of affairs as regards the tabernacle; if it\nis determined that the age of the Priestly Code is to hang by\nthese threads, I have no objection.  The representation of the\ntabernacle arose out of the temple of Solomon as its root, in\ndependence on the sacred ark, for which there is early  testimony,\nand which in the time of David, and also before it, was sheltered\nby a tent.  From the temple it derives at once its inner character\nand its central importance for the cultus as well as its external\nform.\n\nI.III.2. A peculiar point of view is taken up by Theodor Noldeke.  He\ngrants the premisses that the tabernacle is a fiction, of which the\nobject is to give pre-existence to the temple and to the unity of\nworship, but he denies the conclusion that in that case the\nPriestly Code presuppose; the unity of worship as already\nexisting in its day, and therefore is late, than Deuteronomy.\nIn his Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments (p. 127 seq.)\nhe says:--\n\n\"A strong tendency towards unity of worship MUST have arisen as\nsoon as Solomon's temple was built.  Over against the splendid\nsanctuary with its imageless worship at the centre of the kingdom\nof Judah, the older holy places MUST ever have shrunk farther into\nthe background, and that not merely in the eyes of the people,\nbut quite specially also in those of the better classes and of\nthose whose spiritual advancement was greatest (compare Amos iv.\n4,viii.14).  If even Hezekiah carried out the unification in Judah\nwith tolerable thoroughness, the effort after it MUST surely have\nbeen of very early date; for the determination violently to\nsuppress old sacred usages would not have been easily made, unless\nthis had been long previously demanded by theory.  The priests at\nJerusalem MUST very specially at an early date have arrived at\nthe conception that their temple with the sacred ark and the great\naltar was the one true place of worship, and an author has clothed\nthis very laudable effort on behalf of the purity of religion in\nthe form of a law, which certainly in its strictness was quite\nimpracticable (ILeviticus xvii.4 seq.), and which, therefore, was\nmodified later by the Deuteronomist with a view to practice.\"\n\nWhat MUST have happened is of less consequence to know than what\nactually took place.  Noldeke relies solely upon the statement of\n2Kings xviii.4, 22, that Hezekiah abolished the high places and\naltars of Jehovah, and said to Judah and Jerusalem, \"Before this\naltar shall ye worship in Jerusalem.\"  With reference to that\nstatement doubts have already been raised above.  How startling\nwas the effect produced at a later date by the similar ordinance\nof Josiah!  Is it likely then that the other, although the\nearlier, should have passed off so quietly and have left so little\nmark that the reinforcement of it, after an interval of seventy\nor eighty years, is not in the least brought into connection with\nit, but in every respect figures as a new first step upon a path\nuntil then absolutely untrodden?   Note too how casual is the\nallusion to a matter which is elsewhere the chief and most favoured\ntheme of the Book of Kings!  And there is besides all this the\nserious difficulty, also already referred to above, that the man\nfrom whom Hezekiah must, from the nature of the case, have received\nthe impulse to his reformatory movement, the prophet Isaiah, in\none of his latest discourses expressly insists on a cleansing\nmerely of the local sanctuaries from molten and graven images,\nthat is to say, does not desire their complete removal.  So much at\nleast is certain that, if the alleged fact at present under\ndiscussion amounts to anything at all /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Little importance is to be attached to 2Kings xviii.22.\nThe narrative of the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem is not a contemporary\none, as appears generally from the entirely indefinite character of\nthe statements about the sudden withdrawal of the Assyrians and its causes,\nand particularly from xix.7, 36, 37.  For in this passage the meaning\ncertainly is that Sennacherib was assassinated soon after the unsuccessful\nexpedition of 701, but in point of fact he actually reigned until\n684 or 681 (Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon, pp. 90, 170).  Thus the\nnarrator writes not twenty years merely after the event, but so\nlong after it as to make possible the elision of those twenty\nyears:  probably he is already under the influence of\nDeuteronomy.  2Kings xviii.4 is certainly of greater weight than\n2Kings xviii.22.  But although highly authentic statements have\nbeen preserved to us in the epitome of the Book of Kings, they\nhave all, nevertheless, been subjected not merely to the\nselection, but also to the revision of the Deuteronomic redactor,\nand it may very well be that the author thought himself\njustified in giving his subject a generalised treatment, according\nto which the cleansing (of the temple at Jerusalem in the first\ninstance) from idols, urged by Isaiah and carried out by\nHezekiah, was changed into an abolition of the Bamoth with their\nMacceboth and Asherim.  It is well known how indifferent later\nwriters are to distinctions of time and degree in the heresy of\nunlawful worship; they always go at once to the completed\nproduct.  But in actual experience the reformation was doubtless\naccomplished step by step.  At first we have in Hosea and Isaiah\nthe polemic directed against molten and graven images, then in\nJeremiah that against wood and stone, i.e., against Macceboth and\nAsherim; the movement originated with the prophets, and the chief,\nor rather the only, weight is to be attached to their authentic\ntestimony.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nHezekiah only made a feeble and wholly ineffectual attempt in this\ndirection, and by no means \"carried out the unification in Judah with\ntolerable thoroughness.\"  At the same time, one might concede even\nthis last point, and yet not give any ground for the theory at\nwhich Noldeke wishes to arrive.\n\nFor his assumption is that the effort after unity had its old and\noriginal seat precisely in the priestly circles of Jerusalem.  If\nthe Priestly Code is older than Deuteronomy, then of course the\nprophetic agitation for reform of worship in which Deuteronomy had\nits origin must have been only the repetition of an older\npriestly movement in the same direction.   But of the latter we\nhear not a single word, while we can follow the course of the\nformer fairly well from its beginnings in thought down to its\nissue in a practical result.  It was Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah who\nintroduced the movement against the old popular worship of the high\nplaces; in doing so they are not in the least actuated by a\ndeep-rooted preference for the temple of Jerusalem, but by ethical\nmotives, which manifest themselves in them for the first time in\nhistory, and which we can see springing up in them before our very\neyes: their utterances, though historically occasioned by the\nsanctuaries of northern Israel, are quite general, and are directed\nagainst the cultus as a whole.  Of the influence of a point of view\neven remotely akin to the priestly position that worship in this\nor that special place is of more value than anywhere else, and on\nthat account alone deserves to be preserved, no trace is to be\nfound in them; their polemic is a purely prophetic one, i.e.,\nindividual, \"theopneust\" in the sense that it is independent of all\ntraditional and preconceived human opinions.  But the subsequent\ndevelopment is dependent upon this absolutely original\ncommencement, and has its issue, not in the Priestly Code, but in\nDeuteronomy, a book that, with all reasonable regard for the\npriests (though not more for those of Jerusalem than for the\nothers), still does not belie its prophetic origin, and above all\nthings is absolutely free from all and every hierocratic\ntendency.  And finally, it was Deuteronomy that brought about the\nhistorical result of Josiah's reformation.  Thus the whole\nhistorical movement now under our consideration, so far as it was\neffective and thereby has come to our knowledge, is in its origin\nand essence prophetic, even if latterly it may have been aided by\npriestly influences; and it not merely can, but must be\nunderstood from itself.  Any older or independent contemporary\npriestly movement in the same direction remained at least entirely\nwithout result, and so also has left no witnesses to itself.\nPerhaps it occurs to us that the priests of Jerusalem must after\nall have been the first to catch sight of the goal, the attainment\nof which afterwards brought so great advantage to themselves, but\nit does not appear that they were so clever beforehand as we are\nafter the event.  At least there are no other grounds for the\nhypothesis of a long previously latent tendency towards\ncentralisation on the part of the Jerusalem priesthood beyond the\npresumption that the Priestiy Code must chronologically precede,\nnot Deuteronomy merely, but also the prophets.  For the sake of\nthis presumption there is constructed a purely abstract (and as\nsuch perfectly irrefragable) possibility that furnishes a door of\nescape from the historical probability, which nevertheless it is\nimpossible to evade.\n\nHow absolutely unknown the Priestly Code continued to be even\ndown to the middle of the exile can be seen from the Books of\nKings, which cannot have received their present shape earlier than\nthe death of Nebuchadnezzar.  The redactor, who cites the\nDeuteronomic law and constantly forms his judgment in accordance\nwith it, considered (as we have learned from 1Kings iii.2) that\nthe Bamoth were permissible prior to the building of Solomon's\ntemple; the tabernacle therefore did not exist for him.  Jeremiah,\nwho flourished about a generation earlier, is equally ignorant of\nit, but--on account of the ark, though not necessarily in\nagreement with traditional opinion--regards the house of God at\nShiloh (whose ruins, it would seem, were at that time still\nvisible) as the forerunner of the temple of Jerusalem, and in this\nhe is followed by the anonymous prophecy of 1Samuel ii.27-36, the\ncomparatively recent date of which appears from the language\n(ii.33), and from the circumstance that it anticipates the\nfollowing threatening in iii.  In all these writers, and still more\nin the case of the Deuteronomist himself, who in xii. actually\nmakes the unity of the cultus dependent on the previous choice of\nJerusalem, it is an exceedingly remarkable thing that, if the\nPriestly Code had been then already a long time in existence,\nthey should have been ignorant of a book so important and so\nprofound in its practical bearings.  In ancient Hebrew literature\nsuch an oversight could not be made so easily as, in similar\ncircumstances, with the literature of the present day.  And how\ncomes it to pass that in the Book of Chronicles, dating from the\nthird century, the Priestly Code suddenly ceases to be, to all\noutward seeming, dead, but asserts its influence everywhere over\nthe narrative in only too active and unmistakable a way?  To\nthese difficulties Noldeke is unreasonably indifferent.  He seems\nto be of the opinion that the post-exilian time would not have\nventured to take in hand so thoroughgoing an alteration, or rather\nreconstruction, of tradition as is implied in antedating the temple\nof Solomon by means of the tabernacle. /1/\n\n-- Footnote-- Footnote\n1. Jahrb. fuer prot. Theol., i. p. 352: \"And now let me ask whether\na document of this kind presenting, as it does, a picture of the\nhistory, land distribution, and sacrificial rites of Israel, as a whole,\nwhich in so many particulars departs from the actual truth, can belong\nto a time in which Israel clung to what was traditional with such timid\nanxiety?\"\n-- Footnote\n\n\nBut it is, on the contrary, precisely the mark which distinguished\nthe post-exile writers that they treat in the freest possible manner,\nin accordance with their own ideas, the institutions of the bygone\npast, with which their time was no longer connected by any living\nbond.  For what reason does Chronicles stand in the canon at all,\nif not in order to teach us this?\n\nBut when Noldeke excuses the ignorance with regard to the\ntabernacle on the plea that it is a mere creature of the brain, /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Unters., p. 130: \"It must always be remembered that the author\nin his statements, as in his laws, does not depict actual relations,\nbut in the first instance his own theories and ideals.  Hence the\nglorification of the tabernacle,\" &c. &c.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nHe for the moment forgets that there underlies this creation the very\nreal idea of unity  of worship, for the sake of which it would\nsurely have been very welcome, to the Deuteronomist, for example,\neven as a mere idea.  It is only the embodiment of the tabernacle\nthat is fancy; the idea of it springs from the ground of history,\nand it is by its idea that it is to be apprehended.  And when\nNoldeke finally  urges in this connection as a plea for the\npriority of the Priestly Code that, in spite of the limitation of\nsacrifice to a single locality, it nevertheless maintains the old\nprovision that every act of killing must be a sacrifice, while\nDeuteronomy, going a step farther, departs from this, here also his\nargument breaks down.\n\nFor we read in Leviticus xvii., \"What man soever there be of the house\nof Israel that killeth an ox or sheep or goat in the camp, or out\nof the camp, and bringeth it not to the door of the tabernacle, to\noffer them as an offering unto the Lord before the tabernacle of\nthe Lord, blood shall be imputed unto that man: he hath shed\nblood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people: to the\nend that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices which\nthey offer in the open field, even that they may bring them to\nthe Lord, to the door of the tabernacle, to the priest, and offer\nthem for peace-offerings unto the Lord....And they shall no more\noffer sacrifices unto devils, after whom they have gone a\nwhoring.\"\n\nThe intention of this prescription is simply and solely\nto secure the exclusive legitimation of the one lawful place of\nsacrifice; it is only for this, obviously, that the profane\nslaughtering outside of Jerusalem, which Deuteronomy had\npermitted, is forbidden. Plainly  the common man did not quite\nunderstand the newly drawn and previously quite unknown\ndistinction between the religious and the profane act, and when he\nslaughtered at home (as he was entitled to do), he in doing so\nstill observed, half-unconsciously perhaps, the old sacred\nsacrificial ritual.  From this arose the danger of a multiplicity\nof altars again furtively creeping in, and such a danger is met,\nin an utterly impracticable way indeed, in Leviticus xvii.  And it is\nworth noticing how much this law, which, for the rest, is based\nupon the Book of Deuteronomy, has grown in the narrowness of its\nlegitimistic mode of viewing things.  Deuteronomy thoroughly\nrecognises that offerings, even though offered outside of\nJerusalem, are still offered to Jehovah; for the author of Leviticus\nxvii. this is an impossible Idea, and he regards such offerings\nsimply as made to devils. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. With reference to these rural demons, compare my note in\nVakidi's Maghazi (Berlin, 1882), p. 113.  It is somewhat similar,\nthough not quite the same thing, when the Moslems say that the old\nArabs dedicated their worship to the Jinns; and other instances\nmay be compared in which divinities have been degraded to demons.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nI refuse to believe that any such thing could have been possible\nfor one who lived before the Deuteronomic reformation, or even\nunder the old conditions that were in existence immediately\nbefore the exile.\n\nLeviticus xvii., moreover, belongs confessedly to a peculiar little\ncollection of laws, which has indeed been taken up into the\nPriestly Code, but which in many respects disagrees with it, and\nparticularly in respect of this prohibition of profane\nslaughterings.  With reference to the Priestly Code as a whole,\nNoldeke's assertion is quite off the mark.  The code, on the\ncontrary, already allows slaughter without sacrifice in the\nprecepts of Noah, which are valid not merely for all the world,\nbut also for the Jews.  Farther on this permission is not\nexpressly repeated indeed, but it is regarded as a thing of\ncourse.  This alone can account for the fact that the\nthank-offering is treated so entirely as a subordinate affair and\nthe sacrificial meal almost ignored, while in Leviticus vii.22-27\nrules are even given for procedure in the slaughter of such animals\nas are not sacrificed. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. That Leviticus vii.22-27 is not a repetition of the old and fuller\nregulations about the thank-offering, but an appendix containing\nnew ones relating to slaughtering, is clear from \"the beast of\nwhich men offer an offering unto the Lord\" (ver. 25), and \"in all\nyour dwellings\" (ver. z6), as well as from the praxis of Judaism.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nHere accordingly is another instance of what we have already so often\nobserved: what is brought forward in Deuteronomy as an innovation\nis assumed in the Priestly Code to be an ancient custom dating\nas far back as to Noah.  And therefore the latter code is a growth\nof the soil that has been prepared by means of the former.\n\n\nCHAPTER II.  SACRIFICE.\n\nWith the Hebrews, as with the whole ancient world, sacrifice\nconstituted the main part of worship.  The question is whether\ntheir worship did not also in this most important respect pass\nthrough a history the stages of which are reflected in the\nPentateuch.  From the results already reached this must be\nregarded at the outset as probable, but the sources of information\naccessible to us seem hardly sufficient to enable us actually to\nfollow the process, or even so much as definitely to fix its two\ntermini.\n\n\nII.I.1. The Priestly Code alone occupies itself much with the\nsubject; it gives a minute classification of the various kinds of\nofferings, and a description of the procedure to be followed in the\ncase of each.  In this way it furnishes also the normative scheme\nfor modern accounts of the matter, into which all the other casual\nnotices of the Old Testament on the subject must be made to fit as\nbest they can.  This point accordingly presents us with an\nimportant feature by which the character of the book can be\ndetermined.  In it the sacrificial ritual is a constituent, and\nindeed a very essential element, of the Mosaic legislation: that\nritual is not represented as ancient use handed down to the\nIsraelites by living practice from ancestral times: it was Moses\nwho gave them the theory of it--a very elaborate one too--and\nhe himself received his instruction from God (Exodus xxv. seq.;\nLeviticus i. seq.).  An altogether disproportionate emphasis is\naccordingly laid upon the technique of sacrifice corresponding to\nthe theory, alike upon the when, the where, and the by whom, and\nalso in a very special manner upon the how.  It is from these that\nthe sacrifice obtains its specific value; one could almost suppose\nthat even if it were offered to another God, it would by means of\nthe legitimate rite alone be at once made essentially Jehovistic.\nThe cultus of Israel is essentially distinguished from all others\nby its form, the distinctive and constitutive mark of the holy\ncommunity.  With it the theocracy begins and it with the\ntheocracy; the latter is nothing more than the institution for the\npurpose of carrying on the cultus after the manner ordained by\nGod.  For this reason also the ritual, which appears to concern the\npriests only, finds its place in a law-book intended for the whole\ncommunity; in order to participate in the life of the theocracy,\nall must of course, have clear knowledge of its essential nature,\nand in this the theory of sacrifice holds a first place.\n\nThe Jehovistic portion of the Pentateuch also knows of no other\nkind of divine worship besides the sacrificial, and does not attach\nto it less importance than the Priestly Code.  But we do not find\nmany traces of the view that the sacrificial system of Israel is\ndistinguished from all others by a special form revealed to Moses,\nwhich makes it the [sic] alone legitimate.   Sacrifice is\nsacrifice: when offered to Baal, it is heathenish; when offered\nto Jehovah, it is Israelite.  In the Book of the Covenant and in\nboth Decalogues it is enjoined before everything to serve no other\nGod besides Jehovah, but also at the proper season to offer\nfirstlings and gifts to Him.  Negative determinations, for the most\npart directed against one heathenish peculiarity or another, occur\nbut there are no positive ordinances relating to the ritual.  How\none is to set about offering sacrifice is taken for granted as\nalready known, and nowhere figures as an affair for the\nlegislation, which, on the contrary, occupies itself with quite\nother things.  What the Book of the Covenant and the Decalogue\nleave still perhaps doubtful becomes abundantly clear from the\nJehovistic narrative.  The narrative has much more to say about\nsacrifice than the incorporated law books, and this may be\nregarded as characteristic; in the Priestly Code it is quite the\nother way.  But what is specially important is that, according to\nthe Jehovistic history, the praxis of sacrifice, and that too of\nthe regular and God-pleasing sort, extends far beyond the Mosaic\nlegislation, and, strictly speaking, is as old as the world\nitself.  A sacrificial feast which the Hebrews wish to celebrate in\nthe wilderness is the occasion of the Exodus; Moses already\nbuilds an altar at Rephidim (Exodus xvii.), and, still before the\nratification of the covenant on Sinai, a solemn meal in the\npresence of Jehovah is set on foot on occasion of Jethro's visit\n(Exodus xviii.).  But the custom is much older still; it was\nknown and practiced by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Noah, the\nfather of all mankind, built the first altar after the Flood, and\nlong before him Cain and Abel sacrificed in the same way as was\nusual in Palestine thousands of years afterwards.  Balaam the\nAramaean understands just as well as any Israelite how to offer\nsacrifices to Jehovah that do not fail of their effect.  All this\nbrings out, with as much clearness as could be desired, that\nsacrifice is a very ancient and quite universal mode of honouring\nthe Deity, and that Israelite sacrifice is distinguished not by\nthe manner in which, but by the being to whom, it is offered, in\nbeing offered to the God of Israel.  According to this\nrepresentation of the matter, Moses left the procedure in\nsacrifice, as he left the procedure in prayer, to be regulated by\nthe traditional praxis; if there was any definite origination of\nthe cultus of Israel, the patriarchs must be thought of, but even\nthey were not the discoverers of the ritual; they were merely\nthe founders of those holy places at which the Israelites\ndedicated gifts to Jehovah, a usage which was common to the whole\nworld.  The contrast with the Priestly Code is extremely\nstriking, for it is well known that the latter work makes mention\nof no sacrificial act prior to the time of Moses, neither in\nGenesis nor in Exodus, although from the time of Noah slaughtering\nis permitted.  The offering of a sacrifice of sheep and oxen as the\noccasion of the exodus is omitted, and in place of the sacrifice of\nthe firstlings we have the paschal lamb, which is slaughtered and\neaten without altar, without priest, and not in the presence of\nJehovah. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. With regard to sacrifice, Deuteronomy still occupies the same\nstandpoint as JE.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe belief that the cultus goes back to pre-Mosaic usage is\nunquestionably more natural than the belief that it is the main\nelement of the Sinaitic legislation; the thought would be a\nstrange one that God should suddenly have revealed, or Moses\ndiscovered and introduced, the proper sacrificial ritual.  At the\nsame time this does not necessitate the conclusion that the\nPriestly Code is later than the Jehovist.  Nor does this follow\nfrom the very elaborately-developed technique of the agenda, for\nelaborate ritual may have existed in the great sanctuaries at a\nvery early period,--though that, indeed, would not prove it to be\ngenuinely Mosaic.  On the other hand, it is certainly a\nconsideration deserving of great weight that the representation of\nthe exclusive legitimacy of so definite a sacrificial ritual,\ntreated in the Priestly Code as the only possible one in Israel,\nis one which can have arisen only as a consequence of the\ncentralisation of the cultus at Jerusalem.  Yet by urging this the\ndecision of the question at present before us would only be\nreferred back to the result already arrived at in the preceding\nchapter, and it is much to be desired that it should be solved\nindependently, so as not to throw too much weight upon a single\nsupport.\n\nII.I.2.  In this case also the elements of a decision can only be\nobtained from the historical documents dating from the pre-exilic\ntime,--the Books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings on the one hand, and\nthe writings of the prophets on the other.  As regards those of the\nfirst class, they represent the cultus and sacrifice on all\noccasions as occupying a large place in the life of the nation and\nof the individual.  But, although it would be wrong to say that\nabsolutely no weight is attached to the RITE, it is certainly not\nthe fact that the main stress is laid upon it; the antithesis is\nnot between RITE and NON-RITE, but between sacrifice TO JEHOVAH and\nsacrifice TO STRANGE GODS, the reverse of what we find in the\nPriestly Code.  Alongside of splendid sacrifices, such as those of\nthe kings, presumably offered in accordance with all the rules of\npriestly skill, there occur others also of the simplest and most\nprimitive type, as, for example, those of Saul (1Samuel xiv.35) and\nElisha (1Kings xix.2I); both kinds are proper if only they be\ndedicated to the proper deity.  Apart from the exilian redaction of\nthe Book of Kings, which reckons the cultus outside of Jerusalem as\nheretical, it is nowhere represented that a sacrifice could be\ndedicated to the God of Israel, and yet be illegitimate. Naaman\n(2Kings v. 17), it is to be supposed, followed his native Syrian\nritual, but this does not in the least impair the acceptability of\nhis offering.  For reasons easily explained, it is seldom that an\noccasion arises to describe the ritual, but when such a description\nis given it is only with violence that it can be forced into\naccordance with the formula of the law.  Most striking of all is\nthe procedure of Gideon in Judges vi.19-21, in which it is manifest\nthat the procedure still usual at Ophrah in the time of the\nnarrator is also set forth.  Gideon boils a he-goat and bakes in\nthe ashes cakes of unleavened bread, places upon the bread the\nflesh in a basket and the broth in a pot, and then the meal thus\nprepared is burnt in the altar flame.  It is possible that\ninstances may have also occurred in which the rule of the\nPentateuch is followed, but the important point is that the\ndistinction between legitimate and heretical is altogether wanting.\nWhen the Book of Chronicles is compared the difference is at once\nperceived.\n\nThe impression derived from the historical books is confirmed by\nthe prophets.  It is true that in their polemic against confounding\nworship with religion they reveal the fact that in their day the\ncultus was carried on with the utmost zeal and splendour, and was\nheld in the highest estimation.  But this estimation does not rest\nupon the opinion that the cultus, as regards its matter, goes back\nto Moses or to Jehovah Himself, gives to the theocracy its\ndistinctive character, and even constitutes the supernatural\npriesthood of Israel among the nations, but simply upon the belief\nthat Jehovah must be honoured by His dependents, just as other\ngods are by their subjects, by means of offerings and gifts as\nbeing the natural and (like prayer) universally current\nexpressions of religious homage.  The larger the quantity, and the\nfiner the quality, so much the better; but that the merit arising\nfrom the presentation depends upon strict observance of etiquette\nregarded as Jehovah's law is not suggested.  Thus it is that the\nprophets are able to ask whether then Jehovah has commanded His\npeople to tax their energies with such exertions?  the fact\npresupposed being that no such command exists, and that no one\nknows anything at all about a ritual Torah. Amos, the leader of\nthe chorus, says (iv.4 seq.),\n\n\"Come to Bethel to sin, to Gilgal to sin yet more, and bring your\nsacrifices every morning, your tithes every three days, for so ye\nlike, ye children of Israel.\"\n\nIn passing sentence of rejection upon the value of the cultus he\nis in opposition to the faith of his time; but if the opinion had\nbeen a current one that precisely the cultus was what Jehovah had\ninstituted in Israel, he would not have been able to say, \"For so\nye like.\" \"Ye,\" not Jehovah; it is an idle and arbitrary worship.\nHe expresses himself still more clearly in v.21 seq.\n\n\"I hate, I despise your feasts, and I smell not on your holy days;\nthough ye offer me burnt-offerings and your gifts, I will not accept\nthem; neither do I regard your thank-offerings of fatted calves.\nAway from me with the noise of thy songs, the melody of thy viols\nI will not hear; but let judgment roll on like waters, and\nrighteousness like a mighty stream. Did ye offer unto me\nsacrifices and gifts in the wilderness the forty years, O house\nof Israel?\"\n\nIn asking this last question Amos has not the slightest fear\nof raising any controversy; on the contrary, he is following\nthe generally received belief.  His polemic is directed against\nthe praxis of his contemporaries, but here he rests it upon a\ntheoretical foundation in which they are at one with him,--on\nthis, namely, that the sacrificial worship is not of Mosaic origin.\nLastly, if ii.4 be genuine, it teaches the same lesson.  By the\nLaw of Jehovah which the people of Judah have despised it is\nimpossible that Amos can have understood anything in the remotest\ndegree resembling a ritual legislation.  Are we to take it then\nthat he formed his own special private notion of the Torah?  How in\nthat case would it have been possible for him to make himself\nunderstood by the people, or to exercise influence over them?  Of\nall unlikely suppositions, at all events it is the least likely\nthat the herdsman of Tekoah, under the influence of prophetic\ntradition (which in fact he so earnestly disclaims), should have\ntaken the Torah for something quite different from what it actually\nwas.\n\nHosea, Isaiah, and Micah are in agreement with Amos.  The first\nmentioned complains bitterly (iv.6 seq.) that the priests\ncultivate the system of sacrifices instead of the Torah.  The\nTorah, committed by Jehovah to their order, lays it on them as\ntheir vocation to diffuse the knowledge of God in Israel,--the\nknowledge that He seeks truthfulness and love, justice and\nconsiderateness, and no gifts; but they, on the contrary, in a\nspirit of base self-seeking, foster the tendency of the nation\ntowards cultus, in their superstitions over-estimate of which lies\ntheir sin and their ruin.\n\n\"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; ye yourselves\n(ye priests!) reject knowledge, and I too will reject you\nthat ye shall not be priests unto me; seeing ye have forgotten\nthe law of  your God, so will I also forget you.  The more they are,\nthe more they sin against me; their glory they barter for shame.\nThey eat the sin of my people, and they set their heart on their\niniquity.\"\n\nFrom this we see how idle it is to believe that the prophets\nopposed \"the Law;\" they defend the priestly Torah, which, however,\nhas nothing to do with cultus, but only with justice and morality.\nIn another passage (viii.11 seq.) we read,\n\n\"Ephraim has built for himself many altars, to sin; the altars\nare there for him, to sin.  How many soever my instructions\n(torothai) may be, they are counted those of a stranger.\"\nThis text has had the unmerited misfortune of having been forced\nto do service as a proof that Hosea knew of copious writings\nsimilar in contents to our Pentateuch.  All that can be drawn\nfrom the contrast \"instead of following my instructions they offer\nsacrifice\" (for that is the meaning of the passage) is that the prophet\nhad never once dreamed of the possibility of cultus being made\nthe subject of Jehovah's directions.  In Isaiah's discourses\nthe well-known passage of the first chapter belongs to this connection:\n\"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me?\nsaith the Lord. I am weary with the burnt-offerings of rams\nand the fat of fed beasts, and I delight not in the blood of bullocks\nand of lambs and of he-goats.  When ye come to look upon my face,\nwho hath required this at your hands?--to trample my courts!\"\nThis expression has long been a source of trouble, and certainly\nthe prophet could not possibly have uttered it if the sacrificial\nworship had, according to any tradition whatever, passed for being\nspecifically Mosaic.  Isaiah uses the word Torah to denote not\nthe priestly but the prophetical instruction (i.10, ii.3, v.24,\nviii.16, 20, xxx.9); as both have a common source and Jehovah is\nthe proper instructor (xxx.20), this is easily explicable, and is\nmoreover full of instruction as regards the idea involved;\nthe contents of the Priestly Code fit badly in with the Torah of i.10.\nLastly, Micah's answer to the people's question, how a return of\nthe favour of an angry God is to be secured, is of conspicuous\nsignificance (vi.6 seq.):\n\n\"Shall I come before Him with burnt-offerings with calves of a year old?\nIs the Lord pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of\nrivers of oil?  Shall I give my first-born for my transgression,\nthe fruit of my body as atonement for my soul?--It hath been\ntold thee, O man, what is good, and what Jehovah requireth of thee.\nNay, it is to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly\nbefore thy God.\"\n\nAlthough the blunt statement of the contrast between cultus\nand religion is peculiarly prophetic, Micah can still take\nhis stand upon this, \"It hath been told thee, O man, what Jehovah\nrequires.\"  It is no new matter, but a thing well known,\nthat sacrifices are not what the Torah of the Lord contains.\n\nThat we have not inferred too much from these utterances of the\nolder prophets is clear from the way in which they are taken up\nand carried on by Jeremiah, who lived shortly before the\nBabylonian exile.  Just as in vi.19 seq. he opposes the Torah to\nthe cultus, so in vii.11 seq. he thus expresses himself:\n\"Add your burnt-offerings to your sacrifices, and eat flesh!\nFor I said nought unto your fathers, and commanded them nought,\nin the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning\nburnt-offerings or sacrifices.  But this thing commanded I them:\nhearken to my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my\npeople, and walk ye in the way that I shall always teach you, that\nit may be well with you.\"\n\nThe view indeed, that the prophets (who, from the connection,\nare the ever-living voice to which Israel is to hearken) are\nthe proper soul of the theocracy, the organ by which Jehovah\ninfluences and rules it, has no claim to immemorial antiquity.\nBut no stress lies upon the positive element here;\nenough that at all events Jeremiah is unacquainted with the Mosaic\nlegislation as it is contained in the Priestly Code.  His ignoring\nof it is not intentional, for he is far from hating the cultus\n(xvii.26).  But, as priest and prophet, staying continually in\nthe temple at Jerusalem, he must have known it, if it had existed\nand actually been codified.  The fact is one which it is difficult\nto get over.\n\nThus the historical witnesses, particularly the prophets, decide\nthe matter in favour of the Jehovistic tradition.  According to the\nuniversal opinion of the pre-exilic period, the cultus is indeed of\nvery old and (to the people) very sacred usage, but not a Mosaic\ninstitution; the ritual is not the main thing in it, and is in no\nsense the subject with which the Torah deals. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. That the priests were not mere teachers of law and morals,\nbut also gave ritual instruction (e.g, regarding cleanness\nand uncleanness), is of course not denied by this.  All that is\nasserted is that in pre-exilian antiquity the priests' own praxis\n(at the altar) never constituted the contents of the Torah,\nbut that their Torah always consisted of instructions to the laity.\nThe distinction is easily intelligible to those who choose\nto understand it.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIn other words, no trace can be found of acquaintance\nwith the Priestly Code, but, on the other hand, very clear\nindications of ignorance of its contents.\n\nII.I.3. In this matter the transition from the pre-exilic to the\npost-exilic period is effected, not by Deuteronomy, but by\nEzekiel the priest in prophet's mantle, who was one of the first to\nbe carried into exile.  He stands in striking contrast with his\nelder contemporary Jeremiah.  In the picture of Israel's future\nwhich he drew in B.C. 573 (chaps. xl.-xlviii.), in which\nfantastic hopes are indeed built upon Jehovah, but no impossible\ndemand made of man, the temple and cultus hold a central place.\nWhence this sudden change?  Perhaps because now the Priestly Code\nhas suddenly awakened to life after its long trance, and become\nthe inspiration of Ezekiel?  The explanation is certainly not to\nbe sought in any such occurrence, but simply in the historical\ncircumstances.  So long as the sacrificial worship remained in\nactual use, it was zealously carried on, but people did not\nconcern themselves with it theoretically, and had not the least\noccasion for reducing it to a code.  But once the temple was in\nruins, the cultus at an end, its PERSONNEL out of employment, it is\neasy to understand how the sacred praxis should have become a\nmatter of theory and writing, so that it might not altogether\nperish, and how an exiled priest should have begun to paint the\npicture of it as he carried it in his memory, and to publish it as\na programme for the future restoration of the theocracy.  Nor is\nthere any difficulty if arrangements, which as long as they\nwere actually in force were simply regarded as natural, were seen\nafter their abolition in a transfiguring light, and from the study\ndevoted to them gained artificially a still higher value.  These\nhistorical conditions supplied by the exile sufffice to make clear\nthe transition from Jeremiah to Ezekiel, and the genesis of Ezekiel\nxl.-xlviii.  The co-operation of the Priestly Code is here not\nmerely unnecessary, it would be absolutely disconcerting.\nEzekiel's departure from the ritual of the Pentateuch cannot be\nexplained as intentional alterations of the original; they are\ntoo casual and insignificant.  The prophet, moreover, has the\nrights of authorship as regards the end of his book as well as for\nthe rest of it; he has also his right to his picture of the future\nas the earlier prophets had to theirs.  And finally, let its due\nweight be given to the simple fact that an exiled priest saw\noccasion to draft such a sketch of the temple worship.  What need\nwould there have been for it, if the realised picture,\ncorresponding completely to his views, had actually existed, and,\nbeing already written in a book, wholly obviated any danger lest\nthe cultus should become extinct through the mere fact of its\ntemporary cessation?\n\nHere again a way of escape is open by assuming a lifeless\nexistence of the law down to Ezra's time.  But if this is done it\nis unallowable to date that existence, not from Moses, but from\nsome other intermediate point in the history of Israel.  Moreover,\nthe assumption of a codification either as preceding all praxis,\nor as alongside and independent of it, is precisely in the case of\nsacrificial ritual one of enormous difficulty, for it is obvious\nthat such a codification can only be the final result of an old\nand highly developed use, and not the invention of an idle brain.\nThis consideration also makes retreat into the theory of an\nillegal praxis impossible, and renders the legitimacy of the\nactually subsisting indisputable.\n\n\nII.II.\n\nAt all times, then, the sacrificial worship of Israel existed, and\nhad great importance attached to it, but in the earlier period it\nrested upon custom, inherited from the fathers, in the post-exilian\non the law of Jehovah, given through Moses.  At first it was naive,\nand what was chiefly considered was the quantity and quality of\nthe gifts; afterwards it became legal,--the scrupulous fulfilment\nof the law, that is, of the prescribed ritual, was what was looked\nto before everything.  Was there then, apart from this, strictly\nspeaking, no material difference?  To answer this question our\nresearches must be carried further afield, after some preliminary\nobservations have been made in order to fix our position.\n\nII.II.1. In the Pentateuch the sacrificial ritual is indeed copiously\ndescribed, but nowhere in the Old Testament is its significance\nformally explained; this is treated as on the whole self-evident\nand familiar to every one.  The general notion of a sacrifice is\nin the Priestly Code that of _qorban_, in the rest of the Old\nTestament that of _minha_, /1/ ie., \"gift;\"\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Genesis iv. 3-5, Numbers xvi. 15; 1Samuel ii. 17, 29, xxvi. 19;\nIsaiah i. 13; Malachi i. 10-13, ii. 12, 13, iii. 3, 4.\nIn the Priestly Code _minha_ is exclusively a terminus technicus\nfor the meal-offering.  The general name in the LXX and in the\nNew Testament is DWRON (Matthew v. 23-24, viii. 4, xv. 5,\nxxiii. 18, 19).  Compare Spencer, \"De ratione et origine\nsacrificiorum\" (De Legibus Hebraeorum ritualibus, iii.2), by far\nthe best thing that has ever been written on the subject.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nthe corresponding verbs are _haqrib_ and _haggish_, i.e., \"to bring\nnear.\"  Both nouns and both verbs are used originally for the offering\nof a present to the king (or the nobles) to do him homage, to make him\ngracious, to support a petition (Judges iii. 17 seq.; 1Samuel x. 27;\n1Kings v. 1 [A.V. iv.21]), and from this are employed with reference\nto the highest King (Malachi i.8).\n\nDWRA QEOUS PEIQAI, DWR' )AIDOIOUS BASILHAS\n\nThe gift must not be unseasonably or awkwardly thrust upon the\nrecipient, not when the king's anger is at white heat, and not by\none the sight of whom he hates.\n\nWith respect to the matter of it, the idea of a sacrifice is in\nitself indifferent, if the thing offered only have value of some\nsort, and is the property of the offerer.  Under _qorban_ and _minha_\nis included also that which the Greeks called _anathema_.  The sacred\ndues which at a later date fall to the priest were without doubt\noriginally ordinary offerings, and amongst these are found even\nwool and flax (Deut. xviii. 4; Hos. ii. 7, 11 [A.V. 5, 9] ).\nBut it is quite in harmony with the naivete of antiquity that as\nto man so also to God that which is eatable is by preference\noffered; in this there was the additional advantage, that what God\nhad caused to grow was thus rendered back to Him.  In doing this,\nthe regular form observed is that a meal is prepared in honour of\nthe Deity, of which man partakes as God's guest.  Offering without\nany qualifying expression always means a meat or drink offering.\nOn this account the altar is called a table, on this account also\nsalt goes along with flesh, oil with meal and bread, and wine with\nboth; and thus also are we to explain why the flesh, according to\nrule, is put upon the altar in pieces and (in the earlier period)\nboiled, the corn ground or baked.  Hence also the name \"bread of\nJehovah\" for the offering (Leviticus xxi.22).  It is of course true\nthat \"in his offering the enlightened Hebrew saw no banquet to\nJehovah:\" but we hardly think of taking the enlightened Protestant\nas a standard for the original character of Protestantism.\n\nThe manner in which the portions pertaining to God are conveyed to\nHim varies.  The most primitive is the simple \"setting in order\"\n[ (RK, struere] and \"pouring out\" [#pk, fundere) in the case of the\nshewbread and drink offerings; to this a simple eating and\ndrinking would correspond.  But the most usual is burning, or, as\nthe Hebrews express it, \"making a savour\" (HQ+YR), to which\ncorresponds the more delicate form of enjoyment, that of smelling.\nOriginally, however, it is God Himself who consumes what the flame\nconsumes.  In any case the burning is a means of conveying the\noffering, not, as one might perhaps be disposed to infer from the\n\"sweet savour\" (RYX HNYXX Genesis viii.21), a means of preparing it.\nFor in ancient times the Hebrews did not roast the flesh, but\nboiled it; in what is demonstrably the oldest ritual (Judges\nvi. 19), the sacrifice also is delivered to the altar flame boiled;\nand, moreover, not the flesh only but also the bread and the meal\nare burnt.\n\nAs regards the distinction between bloodless and bloody\nofferings, the latter, it is well known, are preferred in the Old\nTestament, but, strictly speaking, the former also have the same\nvalue and the same efficacy.  The incense-offering is represented\nas a means of propitiation (Leviticus xvi., Numbers xvii. 12\n[A.V. xvi. 47] ), so also are the ten thousands of rivers of oil\nfiguring between the thousands of rams and the human sacrifice in\nMicah vi.  That the cereal offering is never anything but an\naccompaniment of the animal sacrifice is a rule which does not hold,\neither in the case of the shewbread or in that of the high priest's\ndaily minxa (Leviticus vi. 13 [A.V. 20]; Nehemiahx.35).  Only the\ndrink-offering has no independent position, and was not in any way\nthe importance it had among the Greeks.\n\nWhen a sacrifice is killed, the offering consists not of the blood\nbut of the eatable portions of the flesh.  Only these can be\ndesignated as the \"bread of Jehovah,\" and, moreover, only the\neatable domestic animals can be presented.  At the same time,\nhowever, it is true that in the case of the bloody offerings a new\nmotive ultimately came to be associated with the original idea of\nthe gift.  The life of which the blood was regarded as the\nsubstance (2Samuel xxiii.17) had for the ancient Semites something\nmysterious and divine about it; they felt a certain religious\nscruple about destroying it.  With them flesh was an uncommon\nluxury, and they ate it with quite different feelings from those\nwith which they partook of fruits or of milk.  Thus the act of\nkilling was not so indifferent or merely  preparatory a step as\nfor example the cleansing and preparing of corn; on the contrary,\nthe pouring out of blood was ventured upon only in such a way as\nto give it back to the Deity, the source of life.  In this way, not\nby any means every meal indeed, but every slaughtering, came to\nbe a sacrifice.  What was primarily aimed at in it was a mere\nrestoration of His own to the Deity, but there readily resulted a\ncombination with the idea of sacrifice, whereby the latter was\nitself modified in a peculiar manner.  The atoning efficacy of the\ngift began to be ascribed mainly to the blood and to the\nvicarious value of the life taken away.  The outpouring and\nsprinkling of blood was in all sacrifices a rite of conspicuous\nimportance, and even the act of slaughtering in the case of some,\nand these the most valued, a holy act.\n\nII.II.2. The features presented by the various literary sources\nharmonise with the foregoing sketch.  But the Priestly Code\nexhibits some peculiarities by which it is distinguished from the\npre-exilian remains in matters sacrificial.\n\nIn the first place, it is characterised in the case of bloodless\nofferings by a certain refinement of the material.  Thus in the\nmeal-offerings it will have SLT (simila) not QMX (far).  In the\nwhole pre-exilian literature the former is mentioned only three\ntimes altogether, but never in connection with sacrifice, where,\non the contrary, the ordinary meal is used (Judges vi. 19; 1Samuel\ni. 24).  That this is no mere accident appears on the one hand from\nthe fact that in the later literature, from Ezekiel onwards, QMX as\nsacrificial meal entirely disappears, and SLT invariably take its\nplace; on the other hand, from this that the LXX (or the Hebrew\ntext from which that version was taken) is offended by the\nillegality of the material in 1Samuel i. 24, and alters the reading\nso as to bring it to conformity with the Law. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Ezekiel xvi. 13, 19, xlvi. 14; I Chronicles ix. 29, xxiii. 22;\nEcclus. xxxv.2, xxxviii. 11, xxxix. 32; Isaiah i. 13 (LXX); lxvi. 3 (LXX).\nIn the Priestly Code slt occurs more than forty times.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nSo also a striking preference is shown for incense.  With every\nmeal-offering incense is offered upon the altar; in the inner sanctuary\na special mixture of spices is employed, the accurately given recipe\nfor which is not to be followed for private purposes.  The offering\nof incense is the privilege of the higher priesthood; in the\nritual of the great Day of Atonement, the sole one in which Aaron\nmust discharge the duties in person, it occupies a conspicuous\nplace.  It has an altogether dangerous sanctity; Aaron's own sons\ndied for not having made use of the proper fire.  It is the cause\nof death and destruction to the Levites of Korah's company who are\nnot entitled to use it, while immediately afterwards, in the hands\nof the legitimate high priest, it becomes the means of appeasing\nthe anger of Jehovah, and of staying the plague.  Now of this\noffering, thus invested with such a halo of sanctity, the older\nliterature of the Jewish Canon, down to Jeremiah and Zephaniah,\nknows absolutely nothing.  The verb Q++R there used invariably\nand exclusively of the BURNING of fat or meal, and thereby making\nto God a sweet-smelling savour; it is never used to denote the\nOFFERING OF INCENSE, and the substantive Q+RT as a sacrificial\nterm has the quite general signification of that which is burnt on\nthe altar. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. The verb is used in _piel_ by the older writers, in _hiphil_\nby the Priestly Code (Chronicles), and promiscuously in both forms\nduring the transition period by the author of the Books of Kings.\nThis is the case, at least, where the forms can with certainty be\ndistinguished, namely, in the perfect, imperative, and infinitive;\nthe distinction between YQ+R and YQ+YR, MQ+R and MQ+YR rests,\nas is well known, upon no secure tradition. Compare, for example,\n_qatter jaqtirun_, 1Samuel ii. 16; the transcribers and punctuators\nunder the influence of the Pentateuch preferred the hiphil. In the\nPriestly Code (Chronicles) HQ+YR has both meanings alongside of\neach other, but when used without a qualifying phrase it generally\nmeans incensing, and when consuming a sacrifice is intended HMZBXH\nis usually added, \"on the altar,\" that is, the place on which the\nincense-offering strictly so called was NOT offered. The substantive\nQ+RT in the sense of \"an offering of incense\" in which\nit occurs exclusively and very frequently in the Priestly\nCode, is first found in Ezekiel (viii. 11, xvi. 18, xxiii. 41) and\noften afterwards in Chronicles, but in the rest of the Old\nTestament only in Proverbs xxvii. 9, but there in a profane sense.\nElsewhere never, not even in passages so late as 1Samuel ii.28; Psalms\nlxvi. 15, cxli. 2.  In authors of a certainly pre-exilian date the\nword occurs only twice, both times in a perfectly general sense.\nIsaiah i. 13: \"Bring me no more oblations; it is an abominable\nincense to me.\"  Deuteronomy xxxiii. 10: \"The Levites shall put incense\n(i.e.,the fat of thank-offerings) before thee, and whole\nburnt-offerings upon thine altar.\" The name LBNT (frankincense)\nfirst occurs in Jeremiah (vi. 20, xvii. 26, xli. 5); elsewhere only\nin the Priestly Code (nine times), in Isaiah xl.-lxvi. (three\ntimes), in Chronicles and Nehemiah (three times), and in Canticles\n(three times). Compare Zephaniah iii. 10; 1Kings ix. 25.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIn enumerations where the prophets exhaust everything pertaining to\nsacred gifts and liturgic performances, in which, for the sake\nof lengthening the catalogue, they do not shrink from repetitions even,\nthere is not any mention of incense-offerings, neither in Amos\n(iv. 4 seq., v. 21 seq.) nor in Isaiah (i. 11 seq.) nor in Micah\n(vi. 6 seq.).  Shall we suppose that they all of them forget this\nsubject by mere accident, or that they conspired to ignore it?\nIf it had really existed, and been of so great consequence, surely\none of them at least would not have failed to speak of it.\nThe Jehovistic section of the Hexateuch is equally silent, so also\nthe historical books, except Chronicles, and so the rest of the prophets,\ndown to Jeremiah, who (vi.20) selects incense as the example of a rare\nand far-fetched offering: \"To what purpose cometh there to me incense\nfrom Sheba, and the precious cane from a far country?\"\nThenceforward it is mentioned in Ezekiel, in Isaiah (xl.-lxvi.),\nin Nehemiah, and in Chronicles; the references are continuous.  The\nintroduction of incense is a natural result of increased luxury;\none is tempted to conjecture that its use must have first crept\ninto the Jehovah worship as an innovation from a more\nluxuriously-developed foreign cultus.  But the importance which it\nhas attained in the ritual legislation of the Pentateuch is\nmanifest above all from this, that it has led to the invention of a\npeculiar new and highly sacred piece of furniture, namely, the\ngolden altar in the inner tabernacle, which is unknown to history,\nand which is foreign even to the kernel of the Priestly Code\nitself.\n\nWe expect to find the altar of incense in Exodus xxv.-xxix., but\nfind it instead as an appendix at the beginning of Exodus xxx.  Why\nnot until now? why thus separated from the other furnishings of\nthe inner sanctuary? and not only so, but even after the\nordinances relating to the adornment of the priests, and the\ninauguration of the divine service?  The reason why the author of\nchaps. xxv.-xxix. is thus silent about the altar of incense in\nthe passage in which the furniture of the tabernacle, consisting of\nark, table, and candlestick, is described, is, that he does not\nknow of it.  There is no other possibility; for he cannot have\nforgotten it. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. There is a peculiar perversity in meeting the objection by\nalleging other singularities in the ordinance as for example, that\nthe vessels of the tabernacle are appointed (chap. xxv.) before\nthe tabernacle itself (chap. xxvi.).  This last is no\neccentricity; the order in commanding is first the end, and then\nthe means; but in obeying, the order is reversed.  In like manner,\nit is not at all surprising if subsidiary implements, such as\nbenches for slaughtering. or basins for washing, which have no\nimportance for the cultus, properly so called, should be either\npassed over altogether, or merely brought in as an appendix.  The\ncase is not at all parallel with the omission of the most important\nutensil of the sanctuary from the very passage to which it\nnecessarily belongs.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nAnd the phenomenon is repeated; the altar of incense occurs only\nin certain portions of the Priestly Code, and is absent from\nothers where it could not possibly have been omitted, had it been\nknown.  The rite of the most solemn atoning sacrifice takes place\nin Leviticus iv. indeed on the golden altar, but in Exodus xxix.,\nLeviticus viii., ix., without its use.  A still more striking\ncircumstance is, that in passages where the holiest incense-offering\nitself is spoken of, no trace can be discovered of the corresponding\naltar.  This is particularly the case in Leviticus xvi.  To burn incense\nin the sanctuary, Aaron takes a censer, fills it with coals from the\naltar of burnt-offering (ver. 12, 18-20), and lays the incense\nupon them in the adytum.   Similarly in Leviticus x., Numbers xvi.,\nxvii., incense is offered on censers, of which each priest\npossesses one.  The coals are taken from the altar of\nburnt-offering (Numbers xvii. 11; [A.V. xvi. 46]), which is plated\nwith the censers of the Korahite Levites (xvii. 3, 4; [A.V.\nxvi. 38, 39]); whoever takes fire from any other source, incurs\nthe penalty of death (Leviticus x. 1 seq.).  The altar of incense is\neverywhere unknown here; the altar of burnt-offering is the only\naltar, and, moreover, is always called simply 'the altar', as for\nexample, even in Exodus xxvii., where it would have been specially\nnecessary to add the qualifying expression.  Only in certain\nlater portions of the Priestly Code does the name altar of\nburnt-offering occur, viz, in those passages which do recognise the\naltar of incense.  In this connection the command of Exodus xxvii.\nas compared with the execution in Exodus xxxviii. is\ncharacteristic.\n\nThe golden altar in the sanctuary is originally simply the\ngolden table; the variation of the expression has led to a\ndoubling of the thing.  Ezekiel does not distinguish between the\ntable and the altar in the temple, but uses either expression\nindifferently.  For he says (xii.21 seq. ): \"Before the adytum\nstood what looked like an altar of wood, three cubits in height,\ntwo cubits in length and breadth, and it had projecting corners,\nand its frame and its walls were of wood; this is the table which\nis before the Lord.\" In like manner he designates the service of\nthe priests in the inner sanctuary as table-service (xliv.16);\ntable is the name, altar the function. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Malachi, on the other hand, designates the so-called altar\nof burnt-offering as a table.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIn 1Kings vii. 48, it is true that the golden altar and the golden\ntable are mentioned together.  It seems strange, however, that in\nthis case the concluding summary mentions one piece of furniture\nmore-- and that piece one of so great importance--than the preceding\ndetailed description; for in the latter only the preparation of the\ngolden altar is spoken of, and nothing is said of the golden table\n(vi. 20-22).  As matters stand, nothing is less improbable than that\nsome later transcriber should have interpolated the golden table\nin vii. 48, regarding it, in accordance with the Pentateuch, as\ndistinct from the golden altar, and therefore considering its\nabsence as an omission.   From other considerations also, it is\nclear that the text of the whole chapter is in many ways corrupt\nand interpolated.\n\nIt is not to be wondered at if in the post-exilian temple there\nexisted both a golden altar and a golden table.  We learn from\n1Maccabees i. 21 seq., iv. 49, that both were carried off by\nAntiochus Epiphanes, and renewed at the Feast of the Dedication.\nBut it causes no small surprise to find that at the destruction\nof Jerusalem the Romans found and carried off table and candlestick\nonly.  What can have become, in the meantime, of the golden altar\nof incense?  And it is further worth remarking that in the LXX the\npassage Exodus xxxvii.25-29 is absent; that is to say, the altar\nof incense is indeed commanded, but there is no word of its\nexecution.  In these circumstances, finally, the vacillating\nstatement as to its position in Exodus xxx. 6, and the supposed\nmistake of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, are important\nand intelligible.  Compare also 2Maccabees ii.5, where only the table,\nbut not the altar, is hidden by Jeremiah.\n\nSo much for the offering of incense and its altar.  We may in\nlike manner venture to regard it as a kind of refinement, though\nrather a refinement of idea, that the flesh of the sacrifice in the\nPriestly Code is no longer boiled, but consigned to the altar\nflames in its raw condition.  Such was not the ancient custom, as\nis seen, not only  from the case of Gideon already cited (Judges\nvi.), but also from the procedure at Shiloh, described in 1Samuel\nii., where the sons of Eli will not wait until the flesh of the\nsacrifice has been boiled, and the altar pieces burnt, but demand\ntheir share raw for roasting.  The meal which the Deity shares\nwith men is prepared in the same way as for men.  This naive\nconception gave way before advancing culture, and that at a\ncomparatively early date.  It is possible that another cause may\nalso have co-operated towards this result.  The old method of\npreparing flesh in general use among the people, at a later period\nalso, was by boiling.  The word B#L (to seethe in water) occurs\nwith extreme frequency; CLH (to roast), on the other hand, only\nin Exodus xii. 8, and Isaiah xliv. 16, 19.  All sacrificial flesh\n(B#LH) was boiled, and there was no other kind. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Accordingly one must understand (#H also of boiling (Judges vi. 19).\nCompare the boiling-houses of the temple still found in Ezekiel\nxlvi. 20-24.  In I Sam. i. 9 pronounce _beshela_ instead of _beshilo_,\nand delete W)XRY #TH.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nBut among persons of the upper class roasting must also have come\ninto use at an early period.  \"Give flesh to roast for the priest;\nfor he will not take sodden flesh of thee, but raw,\" says the\nservant of the sons of Eli in 1Samuel ii. 15.  The fact that in the\ninterval the custom of boiling had gone generally somewhat out of\nfashion may accordingly have also contributed to bring about the\nabandonment of the old usage of offering the sacrificial portions\nboiled.  In any case this is the explanation of the circumstance\nthat the paschal lamb, which originally was boiled like all other\nofferings, could, according to the express appointment of the\nPriestly Code, be eaten roasted only. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. Compare the polemical ordinance of Exodus xii. 9 with Deuteronomy\nxvi. 7.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe phenomenon that in the Law meal is by preference offered raw,\nwhile in the earlier period, even as an adjunct of the burnt-offering,\nit was presented baked, belongs to the same category.  The latter\nis the case in Judges vi. 19 at least, and the statement of 1Samuel\ni. 24 is also to be understood in the same sense; the sacrificer\nbrings meal along with him in order to bake it into _maccah_ on the spot\n(Ezekiel xlvi. 20).  But he may bring along with him common, that is\nleavened, cakes also (1Samuel x. 3), which seem originally by no\nmeans to have been considered unfit to be offered as in Leviticus\nii. 11.  For under this law of Leviticus ii. even the presentation of\nthe shewbread would be inexplicable, and moreover it is certain\nthat at first the loaves of the feast of weeks were offerings,\nproperly so called, and not merely dues to the priests.\nAccording, to Amos iv. 5, leavened bread was made use of precisely\nat a particularly solemn sacrifice, and a reminiscence of this\nusage has been preserved even in Leviticus vii. 13, although of course\nwithout any practical weight being attached to it. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The loaves are passed over in silence in Leviticus vii. 29 seq.,\nalthough it is in this very place that the matter of presenting\non the part of the offerer is most fully described.  And when it\nis said (vii. 12),\n\"If he offer it for a thanksgiving (Todah), then he shall offer\nwith it unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers\nanointed with oil and fine flour (LXX), mingled with oil ;\"\nvii. 13, \"[With] leavened cakes shall he offer as a gift with the\nthank-offering of the Todah,\"\nthe suspicion very readily occurs that verse 12 is an authentic\ninterpretation prefixed, to obviate beforehand the difficulty\npresented by verse 13, and that similarly the first (l in verse 13\nis also a later correction, which does not harmonise well by any\nmeans with the second.  Verse 13 connects itself better with\nverse 11 than with verse 12.--Exod xxxiv. 25.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nMoreover, massah also means, properly speaking, only the bread\nthat is prepared in haste and in the most primitive manner for\nimmediate use, and originally implies no contrast with leaven, but\nsimply with the more artificial and tedious manners of producing\nordinary bread /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. Compare Genesis xviii. 6 with xix.3.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIn the Priestly Code the materials are finer, but they are as\nmuch as possible left in their raw condition; both are steps\nin advance.\n\nII.II.3. There is another and much more important difference in the\ncase of the animal sacrifice.  Of this the older practice knows\nonly two kinds apart from extraordinary varieties, which may be\nleft out of account.  These two are the burnt-offering (`Olah) and\nthe thank-offering (Shelem, Zebah, Zebah Shelamim). In the case of\nthe first the whole animal is offered on the altar; in the other\nGod receives, besides the blood, only an honorary portion, while\nthe rest of the flesh is eaten by the sacrificial guests.  Now it\nis worth noticing how seldom the burnt-offering occurs alone.  It\nis necessarily so in the case of human sacrifice (Genesis xxii. 2\nseq.; Judges xi. 31; /1/ 2Kings iii. 27; Jeremiah xix.5);\n\n-- Footnote\n3. It is probable that Jephthah expected a human creature and not an\nanimal to meet him from his house.\n-- Footnote\n\n\notherwise it is not usual (Genesis viii. 20; Numbers xxiii. 1 seq.;\nJudges vi. 20, 26, xiii. 16, 23; 1Samuel vii. 9 seq.; 1Kings\niii. 4, xviii. 34,38); /1/ moreover, all the examples\n\n-- Footnote\n1. In the above list of passages no notice is taken of the\n_sacrificium juge_ of 2Kings xvi.15.  The statement in 1Kings iii. 4\nis perhaps to be taken along with iii. 15, but does not become at\nall more credible on that account.  Of course it is understood that\nonly those passages are cited here in which mention is made of\nofferings actually made, and not merely general statements about\none or more kinds of offering.  The latter could very well fix\nattention upon the `Olah alone without thereby throwing any light\nupon the question as to the actual practice.\n-- Footnote\n\n\njust cited are extraordinary or mythical in their character, a\ncircumstance that may not affect the evidence of the existence of\nthe custom in itself, but is important as regards the statistics of\nits frequency.  As a rule, the `Olah occurs only in conjunction\nwith Zebahim, and when this is the case the latter are in the\nmajority and are always in the plural, while on the other hand\nthe first is frequently in the singular. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Exodus x. 25, xviii. 12, xxiv. 5, xxxii. 6; Joshua viii. 31;\nJudges xx. 26, xxi. 4; 1Samuel vi. 14 seq., x. 8, xiii. 9-12;\n2Samuel vi. 17 seq., xxiv. 23-25, 1Kings iii. 15, viii. 63 seq.;\n2Kings v. 17, x. 24, 25. The zeugma in Judges xx. 26, xxi.4 is\ninconsistent with the older _usus loquendi_. The proper name\nfor the holocaust appears to be KLYL (Deuteronomy xxxiii. 10;\n1Samuel vii.9) not (LH.  It is impossible to decide whether\nthe sacrificial due in all sorts of Zebah was the same,\nbut most probably it was not.  Probably the Shelamim are a\nmore solemn kind of sacrifice than the simple Zebah.  The word 'fat'\nis used in Genesis iv. 4; Exodus xxiii. 18 in a very general sense.\nIt is not quite clear what is meant by the blessing of the Zebah\nin 1Samuel ix. 13; perhaps a kind of grace before meat.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThey supplement each other like two corresponding halves; the\n`Olah is, as the name implies, properly speaking, nothing more\nthan the part of a great offering that reaches the altar.  One\nmight therefore designate as `Olah also that part of a single\nanimal which is consecrated to the Deity; this, however, is never\ndone; neither of the blood nor of the fat [Q+R] is the verb H(LH\nused, but only of the pieces of the flesh, of which in the case of\nthe minor offering nothing was burnt.  But the distinction is\nmerely one of degree; there is none in kind; a small Zebah,\nenlarged and augmented, becomes an `Olah and Zebahim; out of a\ncertain number of slaughtered animals which are eaten by the\nsacrificial company, one is devoted to God and wholly given to the\nflames.  For the rest, it must be borne in mind that as a rule it\nis only great sacrificial feasts that the historical books take\noccasion to mention, and that consequently the burnt-offering,\nnotwithstanding what has been said, comes before us with greater\nprominence than can have been the average case in ordinary life.\nCustomarily, It is certain, none but thank-offerings were offered;\nnecessarily so if slaughtering could only be done beside the\naltar.  Where mention is made of a simple offering in the Books of\nSamuel and Kings, that it is a thank-offering is matter of course.\n1Samuel ii. 12 seq. is in this connection also particularly\ninstructive.\n\nFrom what has been said it results that according to the praxis of\nthe older period a meal was almost always connected with a\nsacrifice.  It was the rule that only blood and fat were laid upon\nthe altar, but the people ate the flesh; only in the case of very\ngreat sacrificial feasts was a large animal (one or more) given to\nJehovah.  Where a sacrifice took place, there was also eating and\ndrinking (Exodus xxxii. 6; Judges ix. 27; 2Samuel xv. 11 seq.;\nAmos ii. 7); there was no offering without a meal, and no meal\nwithout an offering (1Kings i. 9); at no important Bamah was\nentertainment wholly wanting, such a LESXH as that in which Samuel\nfeasted Saul, or Jeremiah the Rechabites (1Samuel ix. 22; Jeremiah\nxxxv. 2).  To be merry, to eat and drink before Jehovah, is a usual\nform of speech down to the period of Deuteronomy; even Ezekiel\ncalls the cultus on the high places an eating upon the mountains\n(1Samuel ix. 13,19 seq ), and in Zechariah the pots in the temple\nhave a special sanctity (Zech. xiv. 20).  By means of the meal in\npresence of Jehovah is established a covenant fellowship on the one\nhand between Him and the guests, and on the other hand between the\nguests themselves reciprocally, which is essential for the idea of\nsacrifice and gives their name to the Shelamim (compare Exodus\nxviii. 12, xxiv. 11).  In ordinary slaughterings this notion is not\nstrongly present, but in solemn sacrifices it was in full vigour.\nIt is God who invites, for the house is His; His also is the gift,\nwhich must be brought to Him entire by the offerer before the\naltar, and the greater portion of which He gives up to His guests\nonly affer that.  Thus in a certain sense they eat at God's\ntable, and must accordingly propare or sanctify themselves for\nit. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. In order to appear before Jehovah the guest adorns himself\nwith clothes and ornaments (Exodus iii. 22, xi. 2 seq.;\nHosea ii. 15 [A.V. 13]; Ezekiel xvi. 13; compare Koran, Sur. xx. 61),\nsanctifies himself (Numbers xi. 18) and is sanctified (1Samuel xvi. 5;\nExodus xix. 10, 14).  The sacrificial meal is regarded as Kodesh\n(hallowed) for not only the priests, but all the sanctified persons\neat Kodesh (1Samuel xxi. 5 seq.  On what is meant by sanctification\nlight is thrown by 1Samuel xxi. 5; 2Samuel xi. 2. Compare L) LPNW\nXNP YB) ( Job xiii. 16; Leviticus vii. 20; Matthew xxii. 11-13). Jehovah\ninvites the armies of the nations to His sacrifice, for which\nHe delivers over to them some other nation, and calls the Medes,\nto whom He gives Babylon over, His sanctified ones, that is,\nHis guests (Zephaniah i. 7 seq.; Jeremiah xlvi. 10; Ezekiel xxxix 17;\nIsaiah xiii. 3).\n-- Footnote\n\n\nEven on occasions that, to our way of thinking, seem highly unsuitable,\nthe meal is nevertheless not wanting (Judges xx. 26, xxi. 4;\n1Sam xiii. 9-12).  That perfect propriety was not always observed\nmight be taken for granted, and is proved by Isaiah xxviii. 8\neven with regard to the temple of Jerusalem; \"all tables are full\nof vomit, there is no room.\" Hence also Eli's suspicion regarding\nHannah was a natural one, and by no means so startling as it appears.\n\nHow different from this picture is that suggested by the Priestly\nCode!  Here one no longer remarks that a meal accompanies every\nsacrifice; eating before Jehovah, which even in Deuteronomy is\njust the expression for sacrificing, nowhere occurs, or at all\nevents is no act of divine worship.  Slaying and sacrificing are no\nlonger coincident, the thank-offering of which the breast and right\nshoulder are to be consecrated is something different from the old\nsimple Zebah.  But, precisely for this reason, it has lost its\nformer broad significance.  The _mizbeah_, that is, the place where\nthe _zebahim_ are to be offered, has been transformed into a _mizbah\nha-'olah_.  The burnt-offering has become quite independent and\ncomes everywhere into the foreground, the sacrifices which are\nunconnected with a meal altogether predominate,--so much that, as\nis well known, Theophrastus could declare there were no others\namong the Jews, who in this way were differentiated from all\nother nations. /1/   Where formerly a\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Porphyry, De Abstin. ii.26.  Compare Joseph., Contra Apion,\nii. 13: )OUTOI )EUXONTAI <?> UEIN  (EKATOMBAS TOIS QEOIS KAI XRWNTAI\nTOIS (IEREIOIS PROS )EUWXIAN.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nthank-offering which was eaten before Jehovah, and which might with\ngreater clearness be called a sacrificial meal, was prescribed, the\nPriestly Code, as we shall afterwards see, has made out of it\nsimple dues to the priests, as, for example, in the case of the\nfirst-born and of firstlings.  Only in this point it still bears\ninvoluntary testimony to the old custom by applying the names\n_Todah, Neder, and Nedabah_, of which the last two in particular must\nnecessarily have a quite general meaning (Leviticus xxii. 18; Ezekiel\nxlvi. 12), exclusively to the thank-offering, while _Milluim_ and\npaschal sacrifice are merely subordinate varieties of it.\n\nII.II.4.  What the thank-offering has lost, the sin and trespass\noffering have gained; the voluntary private offering which the\nsacrificer ate in a joyful company at the holy place has given\nway before the compulsory, of which he obtains no share, and from\nwhich the character of the sacred meal has been altogether taken\naway.  The burnt-offering, it is true, still continues to be a\nmeal, if only a one-sided one, of which God alone partakes; but\nin the case of the sin-offering everything is kept far out of sight\nwhich could recall a meal, as, for example, the accompaniments of\nmeal and wine, oil and salt; of the flesh no portion reaches the\naltar, it all goes as a fine to the priest.  Now, of this kind of\nsacrifice, which has an enormous importance in the Priestly Code,\nnot a single trace occurs in the rest of the Old Testament before\nEzekiel, neither in the Jehovist and Deuteronomist, nor in the\nhistorical and prophetical books. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. How great is the difference in Deuteronomy xxi. 1-9; how very\nremote the sacrificial idea!\n-- Footnote\n\n\n`Olah and Zebah comprehend all animal sacrifices, `Olah and Minhah,\nor Zebah and Minhah, all sacrifices whatsoever; nowhere is a special\nkind of sacrifice for atonement met with (1Samuel iii. 14).\nHos. iv. 8 does indeed say:  \"They eat the sin of my people, and they\nare greedy for its guilts,\" but the interpretation which will have it\nthat the priests are here reproached with in the first instance\nthemselves inducing the people to falsification of the sacred dues,\nin order to make these up again with the produce of the sin and\ntrespass offerings, is either too subtle or too dull. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. The sin and guilt are the sacrificial worship generally as\ncarried on by the people (viii. 11; Amos iv. 4); in the entire\nsection the prophet is preparing the way for the here sharply\naccentuated reproach against the priests that they neglect\nthe Torah and encourage the popular propensity to superstitious\nand impure religious service.  Besides, where is there any\nreproach at all, according to the Pentateuch, in the first section\nof iv. 8?  And the second speaks of (WNM, not of )#MM.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIt would be less unreasonable to co-ordinate with the similarly\nnamed sin and trespass offering of the Pentateuch the five golden\nmice, and the five golden emerods with which the Philistines send\nback the ark, and which in 1Samuel vi. 3, 4, 8 are designated _asham_,\nor, still better, the sin and trespass monies which, according to\n2Kings xii. 17 [A.V. 16], fell to the share of the Jerusalem\npriests.   Only the fact is that even in the second passage the\n_asham_ and _hattath_ are no sacrifices, but, more exactly to\nrender the original meaning of the words, mere fines, and in fact money\nfines.  On the other hand, the _hattath_ referred to in Micah vi. 7\nhas nothing to do with a due of the priests, but simply denotes\nthe guilt which eventually another takes upon himself.  Even in\nIsaiah liii. 10, a passage which is certainly late, _asham_ must not\nbe taken in the technical sense of the ritual legislation, but\nsimply (as in Micah) in the sense of guilt, borne by the innocent\nfor the guilty.  For the explanation of this prophetic passage\nGramberg has rightly had recourse to the narrative of 2Samuel\nxi. 1-14.  \"Upon Saul and upon his house lies blood-guiltiness, for\nhaving slain the Gibeonites\" is announced to David as the cause of\na three years' famine.  When asked how it can be taken away, the\nGibeonites answer,\n\n\"It is not a matter of silver and gold to us with respect to Saul\nand his house; let seven men of his family be delivered to us that\nwe may hang them up unto the Lord in Gibeah of Saul upon the\nmountain of the Lord.\"\n\nThis was done; all the seven were hanged.\n\n_A*sham_ and _hattath_ as offerings occur for the first time in\nEzekiel, and appear, not long before his day to have come into the\nplace of the earlier pecuniary fines (2Kings xii. 17 [16]), which\nperhaps already also admitted of being paid in kind; probably in\nthe seventh century, which seems to have been very open to the\nmystery of atonement and bloodshedding, and very fertile in the\nintroduction of new religious usages. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Consider for example the prevalence of child sacrifice precisely\nat this time, the introduction of incense, the new fashions which\nKing Manasseh brought in, and of which certainly much survived\nthat suited the temper of the period, and admitted of being conjoined\nwith the worship of Jehovah, or even seemed to enhance its dignity\nand solemnity.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe sin and trespass offerings of the Pentateuch still bear traces\nof their origin in fines and penalties; they are not gifts to God,\nthey are not even symbolical, they are simply mulcts payable to the\npriests, partly of fixed commutation value (Leviticus v. 15).  Apart\nfrom the mechanical burning of the fat they have in common with\nthe sacrifice only the shedding of blood, originally a secondary\nmatter, which has here become the chief thing.  This circumstance\nis an additional proof of our thesis.  The ritual of the simple\noffering has three acts:\n\n(1.) the presentation of the living animal before Jehovah,\nand the laying on of hands as a token of manumission on the part\nof the offerer;\n\n(2.) the slaughtering and the sprinkling of the blood on the altar;\n\n(3.) the real or seeming gift of the sacrificial portions to the Deity,\nand the meal of the human guests.\n\nIn the case of the burnt-offering the meal in the third act disappears,\nand the slaughtering in the second comes into prominence as significant\nand sacred, inasmuch as (what is always expressly stated) it must\ntake place in the presence of Jehovah, at the north side of the altar.\nIn the case of the sin and trespass offering the third act is dropped\nentirely, and accordingly the whole significance of the rite attaches\nto the slaughtering, which of course also takes place before the altar,\nand to the sprinkling of the blood, which has become peculiarly\ndeveloped here.  It is obvious how the metamorphosis of the gift\nand the meal into a bloody atonement advances and reaches its\nacme in this last sacrificial act.\n\nThis ritual seems to betray its novelty even within the Priestly\nCode itself by a certain vacillation.  In the older corpus of law\n(Leviticus xvii.-xxvi.) which has been taken into that document, all\nsacrifices are still embraced under one or other of the two heads\nZBX and (LH (xvii. 8, xxii. 18, 21); there are no others.  The _asham_\nindeed occurs in xix. 21 seq., but, as is recognised, only in a\nlater addition; on the other hand,it is not demanded /1/ in\nxxii.14,\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the _asham_ here,\nin the case of property unlawfully held, is simply the impost of\na fifth part of the value, and not the sacrifice of a ram, which\nin Leviticus v. is required in addition.  In Numbers v. also,\nprecisely this fifth part is called _asham_.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nWhere it must have been according to Leviticus v. and Numbers v.\nAnd even apart from Leviticus xvii.-xxvi there is on this point\nno sort of agreement between the kernel of the Priestly Code\nand the later additions, or \"novels,\" so to speak. For one thing,\nthere is a difference as to the ritual of the most solemn sin-offering\nbetween Exodus xxix., Leviticus ix. on the one hand, and Leviticus iv.\non the other; and what is still more serious, the trespass-offering\nnever occurs in the primary but only in the secondary passages,\nLeviticus iv.-vii., xiv.; Numbers v.7, 8, vi. 1, xviii. 9.  In the\nlatter, moreover, the distinction between _asham_ and _hattath_ is not\nvery clear, but only the intention to make it, perhaps because in\nthe old praxis there actually was a distinction between KSP XT)WT\nand KSP )#M, and in Ezekiel between X+)T and )#M. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. The three sections, Leviticus iv. 1-35 (hattath), v.1-13\n(hattath-asham), and v. 14-26 (asham), are essentially not\nco-ordinate parts of one whole, but independent pieces proceeding\nfrom the same school.  For v. 1-13 is no continuation of or appendix\nto iv. 27-35, but a quite independent treatment of the same material,\nwith important differences of form.  The place of the systematic\ngenerality of chap. iv. is here taken by the definite individual case,\nand what is analogous to it; the ritual is given with less minuteness,\nand the hierarchical subordination of ranks has no influence on\nthe classification of offences.  In this section also _asham_ and\n_hattath_ occur interchangeably as synonymous.  In the third section\na ram as an _asham_ is prescribed (v. 17-19) for the very case in\nwhich in the first a he-goat or a she-goat is required as _hattath_\n(iv. 22, 27).  The third section has indeed in form greater\nsimilarity to the second, but cannot be regarded as its true\ncompletion, for this simple reason, that the latter does not\ndistiguish between _hattath_ and _asham_.  If Leviticus v. 13-16,\n20-26 be followed simply without regard being had to vers. 17-19,\nthe _asham_ comes in only in the case of voluntary restitution of\nproperty illegally come by or detained, more particularly of\nthe sacred dues.  The goods must be restored to their owner\naugmented by a fifth part of their value; and as an _asham_ there\nmust be added a ram, which falls to the sanctuary. In Num v. 5-10\nthe state of the case is indeed the same, but the language employed\nis different, for in this passage it is the restored property that\nis called _asham_, and the ram is called )YL HKPRYM. Comp. Leviticus\nxxii. 14.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nII.III.\n\nThe turning-point in the history of the sacrificial system was\nthe reformation of Josiah; what we find in the Priestly Code is\nthe matured result of that event.  It is precisely in the\ndistinctions that are characteristic of the sacrificial law as\ncompared with the ancient sacrificial praxis that we have evidence\nof the fact that, if not all exactly occasioned by the\ncentralisation of the worship, they were almost all somehow at\nleast connected with that change.\n\nIn the early days, worship arose out of the midst of ordinary\nlife, and was in most intimate and manifold connection with it.\nA sacrifice was a meal, a fact showing how remote was the idea of\nantithesis between spiritual earnestness and secular joyousness.\nA meal unites a definite circle of guests, and in this way the\nsacrifice brought into connection the members of the family, the\nassociates of the corporation, the soldiers of the army, and,\ngenerally speaking, the constituents of any permanent or\ntemporary society.  It is earthly relationships that receive\ntheir consecration thereby, and in correspondence are the natural\nfestal occasions presented by the vicissitudes of life. Year\nafter year the return of vintage, corn-harvest, and sheep-shearing\nbrought together the members of the household to eat and to drink\nin the presence of Jehovah; and besides these there were less\nregularly recurring events which were celebrated in one circle\nafter another. There was no warlike expedition which was not\ninaugurated in this fashion, no agreement that was not thus\nratified, no important undertaking of any kind was gone about\nwithout a sacrifice! /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Sacrifice is used as a pretext in 1Samuel xvi. 1 seq.;\n1Kings i. 9 seq.  Compare Proverbs vii. 14.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nWhen an honoured guest arrives, there is slaughtered for him a calf,\nnot without an offering of the blood and fat to the Deity.\nThe occasion arising out of daily life is thus inseparable\nfrom the holy action, and is what gives it meaning and character;\nan end corresponding to the situation always underlies it.\nHence also prayer must not be wanting.  The verb H(TYR, to \"burn\"\n(fat and _minha_), means simply to \"pray,\" and conversely BQ# )T\nYHWH, \"to seek Jehovah,\" in point of fact not unfrequently means\nto \"sacrifice.\"  The gift serves to reinforce the question\nor the request, and to express thankfulness; and the prayer\nis its interpretation.  This of course is rather incidentally\nindicated than expressly said (Hos. v. 6; Isaiah i. 15; Jeremiah\nxiv. 12; 1Kings viii. 27 seq.; Proverbs xv. 8); we have a specimen\nof a grace for the offering of the festival gift only in Deuteronomy\nxxvi. 3 seq.; a blessing is pronounced when the slaughtering takes place\n(1Samuel ix. 13).  The prayer of course is simply the expression\nof the feeling of the occasion, with which accordingly it varies\nin manifold ways.  Arising out of the exigencies and directed\nto the objects of daily life, the sacrifices reflect in themselves\na correspondingly rich variety.  Our wedding, baptismal, and funeral\nfeasts on the one hand, and our banquets for all sorts of occasions\non the other, might still be adduced as the most obvious comparison,\nwere it not that here too the divorce between sacred and secular\ndestroys it.  Religious worship was a natural thing in Hebrew antiquity;\nit was the blossom of life, the heights and depths of which it was its\nbusiness to transfigure and glorify.\n\nThe law which abolished all sacrificial seats, with a single\nexception, severed this connection. Deuteronomy indeed does not\ncontemplate such a result.  Here, in marked opposition to what we\nfind in the Priestly Code, to eat and be merry before Jehovah is\nthe standing phrase for sacrificing; the idea is that in\nconcentrating all the worship towards Jerusalem, all that is\neffected is a mere change of place, the essence of the thing\nremaining unaltered.  This, however, was a mistake.  To celebrate\nthe vintage festival among one's native hills, and to celebrate it\nat Jerusalem, were two very different things; it was not a matter\nof indifference whether one could seize on the spot any occasion\nthat casually offered itself for a sacrificial meal, or whether it\nwas necessary that one should first enter upon a journey.  And it\nwas not the same thing to appear by oneself at home before Jehovah\nand to lose oneself in a large congregation at the common seat of\nworship.  Human life has its root in local environment, and so also\nhad the ancient cultus; in being transplanted from its natural\nsoil it was deprived of its natural nourishment.  A separation\nbetween it and the daily life was inevitable, and Deuteronomy\nitself paved the way for this result by permitting profane\nslaughtering.  A man lived in Hebron, but sacrificed in Jerusalem;\nlife and worship fell apart.  The consequences which lie dormant in\nthe Deuteronomic law are fully developed in the Priestly Code.\n\nThis is the reason why the sacrifice combined with a meal,\nformerly by far the chief, now falls completely into the\nbackground.  One could eat flesh at home, but in Jerusalem one's\nbusiness was to do worship.  Accordingly, those sacrifices were\npreferred in which the religious character came to the front with\nthe utmost possible purity and without any admixture of natural\nelements, sacrifices of which God received everything and man\nnothing,--burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, and trespass-offerings.\n\nIf formerly the sacrifice had taken its complexion from the\nquality of the occasion which led to it, it now had essentially\nbut one uniform purpose--to be a medium of worship.  The warm\npulse of life no longer throbbed in it to animate it; it was no\nlonger the blossom and the fruit of every branch of life; it had\nits own meaning all to itself.  It symbolised worship, and that was\nenough.  The soul was fled; the shell remained, upon the shaping\nout of which every energy was now concentrated.  A manifoldness\nof rites took the place of individualising occasions; technique\nwas the main thing, and strict fidelity to rubric.\n\nOnce cultus was spontaneous, now it is a thing of statute.  The\nsatisfaction which it affords is, properly speaking, something\nwhich lies outside of itself and consists in the moral satisfaction\narising out of the conscientiousness with which the ritual\nprecepts, once for all enjoined by God on His people, are\nfulfilled.  The freewill offering is not indeed forbidden, but\nvalue in the strict sense is attached only to those which have\nbeen prescribed, and which accordingly preponderate everywhere.\nAnd even in the case of the freewill offering, everything must\nstrictly and accurately comply with the restrictions of the\nordinance; if any one in the fulness of his heart had offered in\na _zebah shelamim_ more pieces of flesh than the ritual enjoined, it\nwould have been the worse for him.\n\nOf old the sacrifice combined with a meal had established a\nspecial relation between the Deity and a definite society of\nguests; the natural sacrificial society was the family or the\nclan (1Samuel i. 1seq., xvi. 1 seq., xx. 6).  Now the smaller sacred\nfellowships get lost, the varied groups of social life disappear in\nthe neutral shadow of the universal congregation or church [(DH,\nQHL].  The notion of this last is foreign to Hebrew antiquity, but\nruns through the Priestly Code from beginning to end.  Like the\nworship itself, its subject also became abstract, a spiritual\nentity which could be kept together by no other means except\nworship.  As now the participation of the \"congregation of the\nchildren of Israel\" in the sacrifice was of necessity always\nmainly ideal, the consequence was that the sacred action came to\nbe regarded as essentially perfect by  virtue of its own efficacy\nin being performed by the priest, even though no one was present.\nHence later the necessity for a special sacrificial deputation,\nthe _anshe ma'amad_.  The connection of all this with the Judaising\ntendency to remove God to a distance from man, it may be added,\nis clear. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. It is not asserted that the cultus before the Iaw (of which\nthe darker sides are known from Amos and Hosea) was better\nthan the legal, but merely that it was more original; the standard\nof judgment being, not the moral element, but merely the idea,\nthe primary meaning of worship.  Nor is it disputed further that\nthe belief in the dependence of sacrifices and other sacred acts\nupon a laboriously strict compliance with traditional and prescriptive\nrites occurs in the case of certain peoples, even in the remotest\nantiquity.  But with the Israelites, judging by the testimony of the\nhistorical and prophetical books, this was not on the whole the\ncase any more than with the ancient Greeks; there were no\nBrahmans or Magians in either case.  Moreover, it must be carefully\nnoted that not even in the Priestly Code do we yet find the same\nchildish appreciation of the cultus as occurs in such a work as the\nRigveda, and that the strict rules are not prescribed and\nmaintained with any such notion in view as that by their\nobservance alone can the taste of the Deity be pleased; the idea\nof God is here even strikingly remote from the anthropomorphic,\nand the whole cultus is nothing more than an exercise in piety\nwhich has simply been enjoined so once for all without any one\nbeing in any way the better for it.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nTwo details still deserve special prominence here.  In the Priestly\nCode the most important sacrifice is the burnt-offering; that is\nto say, in point of fact, the _tamid_, the _holocaustum juge_,\nconsisting of two yearling lambs which are daily consumed upon\nthe \"altar of burnt-offering,\" one in the morning, another\nin the evening.  The custom of daily offering a fixed sacrifice\nat a definite time existed indeed, in a simpler form, /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. See Kuenen, Godsdietzst van Israel, ii. 271. According to 2Kings\nxvi. 15, an (LH in the morning and a MNXH in the evening were daily\noffered in the temple of Jerusalem, in the time of Ahaz.  Ezekiel also\n(xlvi. 13-15) speaks only of the morning (LH.  Compare also Ezra\nix. 4; Nehemiah x. 33.  In the Priestly Code the evening _minhah_ has\nrisen to the dignity of a second _`olah_; but at the same time\nsurvives in the daily _minhah_ of the high priest, and is now\noffered in the morning also (Leviticus vi. 12-16).  The daily _minhah_\nappears to be older than the daily _`olah_.  For while it was a\nnatural thing to prepare a meal regularly for the Deity, the\nexpense of a daily `olah was too great for an ordinary place of\nworship, and, besides, it was not in accordance with the custom of\nmen to eat flesh every day.  The offering of the daily _minhah_ is\nalready employed in 1Kings xviii. 29, 36, as a mark of time to\ndenote the afternoon, and this use is continued down to the latest\nperiod, while the tamid, ie., the `olah, is never so utilised.  The\noddest custom of all, however, was doubtless not the daily\n_minhah_, but the offering of the shewbread, which served the same\npurpose, but was not laid out fresh every day.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nEven in the pre-exilian period, but alongside of it at that time,\nthe freewill private offerings had a much more important place,\nand bulked much more largely.  In the law the _tamid_ is in point\nof fact the fundamental element of the worship, for even the sacrifices\nof Sabbaths and feast days consist only of its numerical increase\n(compare Numbers xxviii., xxix.).  Still later, when it is said\nin the Book of Daniel that the _tamid_ was done away, this is equivalent\nto saying that the worship was abolished (viii. 11-13, xi. 31, xii. 11).\nBut now the dominant position of the daily, Sabbath day, and festival\n_tamid_ means that the sacrificial worship had assumed a perfectly\nfirm shape, which was independent of every special motive and of\nall spontaneity; and further (what is closely connected with\nthis), that it took place for the sake of the congregation,--the\n\"congregation\" in the technical sense attached to that word in the\nLaw.  Hence the necessity for the general temple-tax, the\nprototype of which is found in the poll-tax of half a shekel for\nthe service of the tabernacle in Exodus xxx. 11 seq.  Prior to the\nexile, the regular sacrifice was paid for by the Kings of Judah,\nand in Ezekiel the monarch still continues to defray the expenses\nnot only of the Sabbath day and festival sacrifices (xiv. 17\nseq.), but also of the _tamid_ (xlvi. 13-15). /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Compare LXX*.  The Massoretic text has corrected the third person\n(referring to the princes) into the second, making it an address\nto the priests,  which, however, is quite impossible in Ezekiel.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIt is also a mark of the date that, according to Exodus xxx.,\nthe expenses of the temple worship are met directly out of the poll-tax\nlevied from the community, which can only be explained by the fact\nthat at that time there had ceased to be any sovereign.  So completely\nwas the sacrifice the affair of the community in Judaism that\nthe voluntary _qorban_ of the individual became metamorphosed\ninto a money payment as a contribution to the cost of the public\nworship (Mark vii., xii. 42 seq; Matthew xxvii. 6).\n\nThe second point is this: Just as the special purposes and\noccasions of sacrifice fall out of sight, there comes into\nincreasing prominence the one uniform and universal occasion--that\nof sin; and one uniform and universal purpose--that of\npropitiation.  In the Priestly Code the peculiar mystery in the\ncase of all animal sacrifices is atonement by blood; this appears\nin its purest development in the case of the sin and trespass\nofferings, which are offered as well for individuals as for the\ncongregation and for its head.  In a certain sense the great day\nof atonement is the culmination of the whole religious and\nsacrificial service, to which, amid all diversities of ritual,\ncontinuously underlying reference to sin is common throughout.  Of\nthis feature the ancient sacrifices present few traces.  It was\nindeed sought at a very early period to influence the doubtful or\nthreatening mood of Deity, and make His countenance gracious by\nmeans of rich gifts, but the gift had, as was natural then, the\ncharacter of a tentative effort only (Micah vi. 6).  There was no\nsuch thought as that a definite guilt must and could be taken away\nby means of a prescribed offering.  When the law discriminates\nbetween such sins as are covered by an offering and such sins as\nrelentlessly are visited with wrath, it makes a distinction very\nremote from the antique; to Hebrew antiquity the wrath of God was\nsomething quite incalculable, its causes were never known, much\nless was it possible to enumerate beforehand those sins which\nkindled it and those which did not. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. When the wrath is regulated by the conditions of the \"covenant,\"\nthe original notion (which scorns the thought of adjustment) is\ncompletely changed.  What gave the thing its mysterious awfulness\nwas precisely this: that in no way was it possible to guard against\nit, and that nothing could avail to counteract it.  Under the pressure\nof Jehovah's wrath not only was sacrifice abandoned, but even\nthe mention of His name was shunned so as to avoid attracting\nHis attention (Hos iii. 4, ix. 4; Amos vi. 10).\n-- Footnote\n\n\nAn underlying reference of sacrifice to sin, speaking generally,\nwas entirely absent.  The ancient offerings were wholly of a joyous\nnature,--a merrymaking before Jehovah with music and song,\ntimbrels, flutes, and stringed instruments (Hos. ix. 1 seq.; Amos\nv. 23, viii. 3; Isa xxx. 3).  No greater contrast could be conceived\nthan the monotonous seriousness of the so-called Mosaic worship.\n\nNOMOS <de> PAREISHLQEN (INA PLEONASH| TO PARAPTWMA\n[\"But law came in, with the result that the trespass multiplied\".\nRomans 5:20 NRSV)]\n\nIn this way the spiritualisation of the worship is seen in the\nPriestly Code as advancing _pari passu_ with its centralisation.\nIt receives, so to speak, an abstract religious character; it\nseparates itself in the first instance from daily life, and then\nabsorbs the latter by becoming, strictly speaking, its proper\nbusiness.  The consequences for the future were momentous.  The\nMosaic \"congregation\" is the mother of the Christian church; the\nJews were the creators of that idea.\n\nWe may compare the cultus in the olden time to the green tree\nwhich grows up out of the soil as it will and can; later it\nbecomes the regularly shapen timber, ever more artificially\nshaped with square and compass.  Obviously there is a close\nconnection between the qualitative antithesis we have just been\nexpounding and the formal one of law and custom from which we set\nout.  Between \"naturaliter ea quae legis sunt facere\" [\"do\ninstinctively what the law requires\" Romans 2:14 NRSV] and\n\"secundum legem agere\" there is indeed a more than external\ndifference.  If at the end of our first section we found\nimprobable precisely in this region the independent co-existence\nof ancient praxis and Mosaic law, the improbability becomes\nstill greater from the fact that the latter is filled with a quite\ndifferent spirit, which can be apprehended only as Spirit of the age\n(Zeitgeist).  It is not from the atmosphere of the old kingdom,\nbut from that of the church of the second temple, that\nthe Priestly Code draws its breath.  It is in accordance with this\nthat the sacrificial ordinances as regards their positive contents\nare no less completely ignored by antiquity than they are\nscrupulously followed by the post-exilian time.\n\n\nCHAPTER III. THE SACRED FEASTS.\n\nThe feasts, strictly speaking, belong to the preceding chapter,\nfor originally they were simply regularly recurring occasions for\nsacrifice.  The results of the investigation there made accordingly\nrepeat themselves here, but with such clearness and precision as\nmake it worth while to give the subject a separate consideration.\nIn the first place and chiefly, the history of the solar festivals,\nthat of those festivals which follow the seasons of the year,\nclaims our attention.\n\nIII.I.1  In the Jehovistic and Deuteronomistic parts of the Pentateuch\nthere predominates a rotation of three great festivals, which alone\nreceive the proper designation of _hag_:\n\"Three times in the year shalt thou keep festival unto me, three times\nin the year shall all thy men appear before the Lord Jehovah,\nthe God of Israel\" (Exodus xxiii. 14, 17, xxxiv. 23; Deuteronomy xvi. 16).\n\"The feast of unleavened bread (maccoth) shalt thou keep; seven days\nshalt thou eat _maccoth_ as I commanded thee, in the time appointed\nof the month Abib, for in it thou camest out from Egypt; and none\nshall appear before me empty; and the feast of harvest (qasir),\nthe first-fruits of thy labours, which thou hast sown in the field;\nand the feast of ingathering (asiph), in the end of the year,\nwhen thou gatherest in thy labours out of the field.\"\nSo runs the command in the Book of the Covenant (Exodus xxiii. 15, 16).\nThe Law of the Two Tables (Exodus xxxiv. 18 seq.) is similar:\n\"The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.  Seven days shalt\nthou eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time\nof the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out of Egypt.\nAll that openeth the womb is mine; every firstling among thy cattle,\nwhether ox or sheep, that is male. The firstling of an ass thou shalt\nredeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break\nhis neck. All the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou redeem. And none\nshall appear before me empty.  Six days shalt thou work; but on the\nseventh day shalt thou rest: even in ploughing time and in harvest\nshalt thou rest.  And the feast of weeks (shabuoth) shalt thou observe,\nthe feasts of the first-fruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of\ningathering (asiph) at the change of the year.\"  Minuter, on the other\nhand, and of a somewhat different character, are the precepts laid\ndown in Deuteronomy xvi.:\n\n\"Take heed to the month Abib, and keep the passover unto Jehovah\nthy God, for in the month Abib did Jehovah thy God bring thee\nforth out of Egypt by night.  Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the\npassover unto Jehovah thy God, of the flock or of the herd, in the\nplace which Jehovah shall choose for the habitation of His name.\nThou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou\neat unleavened bread (maccoth) therewith, the bread of affliction,\nfor thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in anxious haste,\nthat all the days of thy life thou mayest remember the day when\nthou camest forth out of the land of Egypt.  There shall no\nleavened bread be seen with thee in all thy border seven days, and\nof the flesh which thou didst sacrifice on the first day, in the\nevening, nothing shall remain all night until the morning.  Thou\nmayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates which\nthe Lord thy God giveth thee, but at the place which Jehovah thy\nGod shall choose for the habitation of His name, there shalt thou\nsacrifice the passover, in the evening, at the going down of the\nsun, at the time of thy coming forth out of Egypt.  And thou\nshalt boil and eat it in the place which the Lord thy God shall\nchoose, and in the morning shalt thou return to thy home. Six\ndays shalt thou eat _maccoth_, and on the seventh day shall be the\nclosing feast to Jehovah thy God; thou shalt do no work therein\"\n(ver. 1-8).\n\n\"Seven weeks thenceforward shalt thou number unto thee; from such\ntime as thou beginnest to put the sickle to the corn shalt thou\nbegin to number seven weeks, and then thou shalt keep the feast\nof weeks (shabuoth) to Jehovah thy God, with a tribute of freewill\nofferings in thy hand, which thou shalt give, according as the Lord\nthy God hath blessed thee. And thou shalt rejoice before Jehovah\nthy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man-servant,\nand thy maid-senant, and the Levite that is within thy gates,\nand the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow that are\namong you in the place which Jehovah thy God shall choose\nfor the habitation of His name.  And thou shalt remember that\nthou wast a bondman in Egypt, and thou shalt observe and do\nthese statutes\" (ver. 9-12).\n\n\"The feast of tabernacles (sukkoth) thou shalt observe\nseven days after thou hast gathered in thy corn and thy wine;\nand thou shalt rejoice in thy feast,--thou, and thy son, and thy\ndaughter, and thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant, and the\nLevite, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow that\nare within thy gates.  Seven days shalt thou keep a solemn feast\nunto Jehovah thy God in the place which Jehovah shall choose,\nbecause Jehovah thy God cloth bless thee in all thine increase,\nand in all the works of thy hands, therefore thou shalt surely\nrejoice.  Three times in a year shall all thy men appear before\nJehovah thy God in the place which He shall choose: in the feast\nof unleavened bread, of weeks, and of tabernacles (hag ha-maccoth,--\nshabuoth,--sukkoth), and they shall not appear before me empty;\nevery man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing\nof Jehovah thy God, which He hath given thee\" (ver. 13-17).\nAs regards the essential nature of the two last-named\nfeasts, these passages are at one.  The _sukkoth_ of Deuteronomy and\nthe _asiph_ of the Jehovistic legislation do not coincide in time\nmerely, but are in fact one and the same feast, the autumnal\ningathering of the wine and of the oil from the vat and press, and\nof the corn from the threshing-floor.  The name _asiph_ refers\nimmediately to the vintage and olive-gathering, to which the word\n_sukkoth_ seems also to relate, being most easily explained from the\ncustom of the whole household, old and young, going out to the\nvineyard in time of harvest, and there camping out in the open air\nunder the improvised shelter of booths made with branches (Isaiah i.\n8). _Qacir_ and _shabuoth_ in like manner are only different names\nfor the same reality, namely, for the feast of the corn-reaping, or,\nmore strictly, the wheat-reaping, which takes place in the\nbeginning of summer.  Thus both festivals have a purely natural\noccasion.  On the other hand, the spring festival, which always\nopens the series, has a historical motive assigned to it, the\nexodus--most expressly in Deuteronomy--being given as the event on\nwhich it rests. The cycle nevertheless seems to presuppose and to\nrequire the original homogeneity of all its members.  Now the\ntwofold ritual of the _pesah_ and the maccoth points to a twofold\ncharacter of the feast.  The _hag_, properly so named, is called not\n_hag ha-pesah_, /1/ but hag ha-maccoth,\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The original form of the expression of Exodus xxxiv. 25 has been\npreserved in Exodus xxiii. 18 (XGGY not XG HPSX). In Deuteronomy,\nalthough PSX is more prominent, it is called XG HMCWT in xvi. 16.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nand it is only the latter that is co-ordinated with the\nother two _haggim_; the name _pesah_ indeed does not occur at all\nuntil Deuteronomy, although in the law of the two tables the\nsacrifice of the first-born seems to be brought into connection\nwith the feast of unleavened bread.  It follows that only the\n_maccoth_ can be taken into account for purposes of comparison\nwith _qasir_ and _asiph_. As to the proper significance of _maccoth_,\nthe Jehovistic legislation does not find it needful to instruct its\ncontemporaries, but it is incidentally disclosed in Deuteronomy.\nThere the festival of harvest is brought into a definite relation\nin point of time with that of _maccoth_; it is to be celebrated\nseven weeks later.  This is no new ordinance, but one that rests\nupon old custom, for the name, \"feast of weeks,\" occurs in a\npassage so early as Exodus xxxiv. (comp Jeremiah v. 24).  Now\n\"seven weeks after Easter \" (Deuteronomy xvi. 9) is further explained\nwith greater elaborateness as meaning seven weeks after the putting\nof the sickle to the corn.  Thus the festival of _maccoth_ is\nequivalent to that of the putting of the sickle to the corn, and\nthereby light is thrown on its fixed relation to Pentecost.\nPentecost celebrates the close of the reaping, which commences\nwith barley harvest, and ends with that of wheat; Easter its\nbeginning in the \"month of corn ears;\" and between the two\nextends the duration of harvest time, computed at seven weeks. The\nwhole of this _tempus classicum_ is a great festal season rounded\noff by the two festivals.  We gain further light from Leviticus xxiii.\n9-22. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Against this there is of course possible the objection that\nthe passage at present forms part of the Priestly Code. But the\ncollection of laws embraced in Leviticus xvii.-xxvi, it is well\nknown, has merely been redacted and incorporated by the author of\nthe Priestly Code, and originally was an independent corpus\nmarking the transition from Deuteronomy to the Priestly Code,\nsometimes approximating more to the one, and at other times\nto the other, and the use of Leviticus xxiii. 9-22 in this\nconnection is completely justified by the consideration that\nonly in this way do the rites it describes find meaning and vitality.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe Easter point is here, as in Deuteronomy, fixed as being\nthe beginning of harvest, but is still more definitely determined\nas the day after the first Sabbath falling within harvest time,\nand Pentecost follows the same reckoning.  And the special Easter\nritual consists in the offering of a barley sheaf; before this it\nis not lawful to taste of the new crop; and the corresponding\nPentecostal rite is the offering of ordinary wheaten loaves.  The\ncorn harvest begins with barley and ends with wheat; at the\nbeginning the first-fruits are presented in their crude state as a\nsheaf, just as men in like manner partake of the new growth\nin the form of parched ears (Leviticus xxiii. 14; Josh. v. 11);\nat the end they are prepared in the form of common bread.\nThus the _maccoth_ now begin to be intelligible. As has been\nalready said (see p. 69), they are not, strictly speaking,\nduly prepared loaves, but the bread that is hurriedly baked\nto meet a pressing emergency (1Sam. xxviii. 24); thus they\nare quite correctly associated with the haste of the exodus,\nand described as bread of affliction.  At first people do not take\ntime in a leisurely way to leaven, knead, and bake the year's new\nbread, but a hasty cake is prepared in the ashes; this is what is\nmeant by maccoth.  They are contrasted with the Pentecostal\nloaves precisely as are the sheaf and the parched ears, which\nlast, according to Josh. v. 11, may be eaten in their stead, and\nwithout a doubt they were originally not the Easter food of men\nmerely, but also of the Deity, so that the sheaf comes under the\ncategory of the later spiritual refinements of sacrificial\nmaterial.  Easter then is the opening, as Pentecost is the closing\nfestivity, or (what means the same thing) `acereth, /1/ of the seven\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Haneberg, Alterhuemer, 2d edit., p. 656. In Deuteronomy Pentecost\nas _`acereth_ lasts for only one day, while Easter and the feast\nof tabernacles each ]ast a week.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nweeks' \"joy of harvest,\" and the spring festival no longer\npuzzles us by the place it holds in the cycle of the three yearly\nfestivities.  But what is the state of the case as regards the\n_pesah_?  The meaning of the name is not clear; as we have seen, the\nword first occurs in Deuteronomy, and there also the time of the\ncelebration is restricted to the evening and night of the first day\nof _maccoth_, from sunset until the following morning.  In point of\nfact, the _pesah_ points back to the sacrifice of the firstlings\n(Exodus xxxiv. 18 seq., xiii. 12 seq.; Deuteronomy xv. 19 seq., xvi.\n1 seq.), and it is principally upon this that the historical\ncharacter of the whole festivity hinges.  It is because Jehovah\nsmote the first-born of Egypt and spared those of Israel that the\nlatter thenceforward are held sacred to Him.  Such is the\nrepresentation given not merely in the Priestly Code but also in\nExodus xiii. 11 seq.  But in neither of its sources does the\nJehovistic tradition know anything of this.  \"Let my people go,\nthat they may keep a feast unto me in the wilderness with\nsacrifices and cattle and sheep: \"this from the first is the\ndemand made upon Pharaoh, and it is in order to be suitably\nadorned for this purpose, contemplated by them from the first,\nthat the departing Israelites borrow festal robes and ornaments\nfrom the Egyptians.  Because Pharaoh refuses to allow the Hebrews\nto offer to their God the firstlings of cattle that are His due,\nJebovah seizes from him the first-born of men.  Thus the exodus is\nnot the occasion of the festival, but the festival the occasion, if\nonly a pretended one, of the exodus.  If this relationship is\ninverted in Exodus xiii, it is because that passage is not one of\nthe sources of the Jehovistic tradition, but is part of the\nredaction, and in fact (as is plain from other reasons with regard\nto the entire section xiii. 1-16) of a Deuteronomic redaction.\nFrom this it follows that the elaboration of the historical motive\nof the passover is not earlier than Deuteronomy, although perhaps a\ncertain inclination to that way of explaining it appears before\nthen, just as in the case of the _maccoth_ (Exodus xii. 34). What\nhas led to it is evidently the coincidence of the spring festival\nwith the exodus, already accepted by the older tradition, the\nrelation of cause and effect having become inverted in course of\ntime.  The only view sanctioned by the nature of the case is that\nthe Israelite custom of offering the firstlings gave rise to the\nnarrative of the slaying of the first-born of Egypt; unless the\ncustom be pre-supposed the story is inexplicable, and the peculiar\nselection of its victims by the plague is left without a motive.\nThe sacrifice of the first-born, of the male first-born, that is to\nsay--for the females were reared as with us--does not require an\nhistorical explanation, but can be accounted for very simply: it\nis the expression of thankfulness to the Deity for fruitful flocks\nand herds.  If claim is also laid to the human first-born, this is\nmerely a later generalisation which after all resolves itself\nmerely into a substitution of an animal offering and an extension\nof the original sacrifice.  In Exodus xx. 28, 29 and xxxiv. 19\nthis consequence does not yet seem to be deduced or even to be\nsuspected as possible; it first appears in xxxiv. 20 and presents\nitself most distinctly in the latest passage (xiii. 12), for\nthere P+R RXM is contrasted with P+R #GR, and for the first the\nexpression H(BYR, a technical one in the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel\nfor child sacrifice, is used.  The view of some scholars (most\nof them mere casual visitors in the field of Old Testament\nresearch) that the slaying of the first-born male children was\noriginally precisely the main feature of the passover, hardly\ndeserves refutation.  Like the other festivals, this also, apart\nfrom the view taken of it in the Priestly Code, has a thoroughly\njoyous character (Exodus x. 9); Deuteronomy xvi. 7; comp. Isaiah\nxxx. 29).  There are some historical instances indeed of the\nsurrender of an only child or of the dearest one, but always\nas a voluntary and quite exceptional act; the contrary is not\nproved by Hosea xiii. 2. /1/  The offering of\n\n-- Footnote\n1. \"They make them molten images of their silver, idols according\nto their fancy.  To them they speak, men doing sacrifice kiss calves!\"\nThe prophet would hardly blame human sacrifices only thus incidentally,\nmore in ridicule than in high moral indignation; he would bring it\nto prominence the horrible and revolting character of the action\nmuch more than its absurdity.  Thus ZBXY )DM means most probably,\n\"offerers belonging to the human race.\"  At the same time, even if\nthe expression did mean \"sacrificers of men,\" it would prove nothing\nregarding regular sacrifices of children.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nhuman first-born was certainly no regular or commanded exaction in\nancient times; there are no traces of so enormous a blood tax,\nbut, on the contrary, many of a great preference for eldest sons.\nIt was not until shortly before the exile that the burning of\nchildren was introduced on a grand scale along with many other\ninnovations, and supported by a strict interpretation of the\ncommand regarding firstlings (Jeremiah vii. 31, xix. 5; Ezekiel xx.\n26). In harmony with this is the fact that the law of Exodus\nxiii. 3-16 comes from the hand of the latest redactor of the\nJehovistic history.\n\nIII.I.2. \"Abel was a shepherd and Cain was a husbandman. And in\nprocess of time it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit\nof the ground an offering unto the Lord; and Abel also brought\nan offering of the firstlings of his sheep.\"\nIt is out of the simplest, most natural, and most wide-spread\nofferings, those of the first-fruits of the flock, herd, and\nfield, the occasions for which recur regularly with the seasons of\nthe year, that the annual festivals took their rise.  The passover\ncorresponds with the firstlings of Abel the shepherd, the other\nthree with the fruits presented by Cain the husbandman; apart\nfrom this difference, in essence and foundation they are all\nprecisely alike.  Their connection with the _aparchai_ of the\n\n*[first-fruits; firstlings for sacrifice or offering]*\n\nyearly seasons is indeed assumed rather than expressly stated in\nthe Jehovistic and Deuteronomistic legislation. Yet in Exodus\nxxiii. 17-19, xxxiv. 23-26 we read:\n\n\"Three times in the year shall all thy men appear before the Lord\nJehovah; thou shalt not mingle the blood of my sacrifice with leaven,\nneither shall the fat of my sacrifice remain until the morning.\nThe best of the first-fruits of thy land shalt thou bring into the\nhouse of Jehovah thy God; thou shalt not seethe the kid in the milk\nof its mother.\"\n\nIt is forbidden to appear before Jehovah empty, hence the\nconnection between the first general sentence and the details\nwhich follow it.  Of these, the first seems to relate to the passover;\ndoubtless indeed it holds good of all animal sacrifices, but in point\nof fact these are offered in preponderating numbers at the great\nfestival after the herds and flocks have produced their young.\nThe remaining sentences relate to the feasts of harvest and\ningathering, whose connection with the fruits of the field is\notherwise clear.  As for Deuteronomy, there also it is required\non the one hand that the dues from the flock and herd and field\nshall be personally offered at Jerusalem, and made the occasion\nof joyous sacrificial feasts; on the other hand, that three\nappearances in the year shall be made at Jerusalem, at Easter,\nat Pentecost, and at the feast of tabernacles, and not with empty\nhands.  These requirements can only be explained on the assumption\nthat the material of the feasts was that furnished by the dues.\nClearly in Deuteronomy all three coincide; sacrifices, dues, feasts;\nother sacrifices than those occasioned by the dues can hardly be\nthought of for the purpose of holding a joyous festival before\nJehovah; the dues are, properly speaking, simply those sacrifices\nprescribed by popular custom, and therefore fixed and festal,\nof which alone the law has occasion to treat. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Deuteronomy xii. 6 seq., 11 seq., xiv. 23-26, xvi. 7, 11, 14.\nIn the section xiv. 22-xvi. 17, dues and feasts are taken together.\nIn the first half (xiv. 22-xv. 18) there is a progression from those\nacts which are repeated within the course of a year to those which\noccur every three years, and finally to those which occur every seven;\nin the second half (xv. 19-xvi. 17) recurrence is again made to the\nprincipal, that is, the seasonal dues, first to the firstlings\nand the passover feast, and afterwards to the two others, in\nconnection with which the tithes of the fruits are offered.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIt results from the very nature of the case that the people come\ntogether to offer thanks for Jehovah's blessing, but no special\nemphasis is laid upon this.  In the Jehovistic legislation\n(Exodus xxiii., xxxiv.) the terms have not yet come to be fixed,\nso that it is hardly possible to speak of a \"dies festus\"\nin the strict sense; festal seasons rather than festal days\nare what we have.  Easter is celebrated in the month Abib,\nwhen the corn is in the ear (Exodus ix. 31, 32), Pentecost\nwhen the wheat is cut, the autumn festival when the vintage\nhas been completed,--rather vague and shifting determinations.\nDeuteronomy advances a step towards fixing the terms\nand intervals more accurately, a circumstance very intimately\nconnected with the centralisation of the worship in Jerusalem.\nEven here, however, we do not meet with one general festive\noffering on the part of the community, but only with\nisolated private offerings by individuals.\n\nIn correspondence with this the amount of the gifts is left with\nconsiderable vagueness to the good-will of the offerers. Only the\nfirstlings are definitely demanded.  The redemption allowed\nin Deuteronomy by means of money which buys a substitute\nin Jerusalem has no proper meaning for the earlier time;\nyet even then the offerer may in individual instances have availed\nhimself of liberty of exchange, all the more because even then his\ngift, as a sacrificial meal, was essentially a benefit to himself\n(Exodus xxiii. 18; Genesis iv. 4, WMXBL<Y>HN). For the\nfirst-fruits of the field Exodus prescribes no measure at all,\nDeuteromony demands the tithe of corn, wine, and oil, which,\nhowever, is not to be understood with mathematical strictness,\ninasmuch as it is used at sacrificial meals, is not made over to a\nsecond party, and thus does not require to be accounted for. The\ntithe, as appears from Deuteronomy xxvi., is offered in autumn, that\nis, at the feast of tabernacles; this is the proper autumn\nfestival of thanksgiving, not only for the wine harvest, but also\nfor that of the threshing-floor (xvi. 13); it demands seven days,\nwhich must all be spent in Jerusalem, while in the case of maccoth\nonly one need be spent there.  It is self-evident that there is no\nrestriction to the use of vegetable gifts merely, but sacrifices of\nflesh are also assumed--purchased perhaps with the proceeds of the\nsale of the tithe.  In this way the special character of the\nfeasts, and their connection with the first-fruits peculiar to\nthem, could easily disappear, a thing which seems actually to\nhave occurred in Deuteronomy, and perhaps even earlier.  It is not\nto be wondered at that much should seem unclear to us which must\nhave been obvious to contemporaries; in Deuteronomy, moreover,\nalmost everything is left to standing custom, and only the one\nmain point insisted on, that the religious worship, and thus also\nthe festivals, must be celebrated only in Jerusalem.  Leaving out\nof account the passover, which originally had an independent\nstanding, and only afterwards through its connection with maccoth\nwas taken into the regular cycle of the _haggim_, it cannot be\ndoubted, generally speaking and on the whole, that not only in\nthe Jehovistic but also in the Deuteronomic legislation the\nfestivals rest upon agriculture, the basis at once of life and of\nreligion.  The soil, the fruitful soil, is the object of religion;\nit takes the place alike of heaven and of hell.  Jehovah gives the\nland and its produce; He receives the best of what it yields as an\nexpression of thankfulness, the tithes in recognition of His\nseigniorial right.  The relation between Himself and His people\nfirst arose from His having given them the land in fee; it continues\nto be maintained, inasmuch as good weather and fertility come from Him.\nIt is in Deuteronomy that one detects the first very perceptible\ntraces of a historical dress being given to the religion\nand the worship, but this process is still confined within modest\nlimits.  The historical event to which recurrence is always made\nis the bringing up of Israel out of Egypt, and this is significant\nin so far as the bringing up out of Egypt coincides with the leading\ninto Canaan, that is, with the giving of the land, so that the\nhistorical motive again resolves itself into the natural.  In this\nway it can be said that not merely the Easter festival but all\nfestivals are dependent upon the introduction of Israel into Canaan,\nand this is what we actually find very clearly in the prayer\n(Deuteronomy xxvi.) with which at the feast of tabernacles\nthe share of the festal gifts falling to the priest is offered\nto the Deity.  A basket containing fruits is laid upon the altar,\nand the following words are spoken:\n\n\"A wandering Aramaean was my  father, and he went down into Egypt\nand sojourned there, a few men strong, and became there a nation,\ngreat, mighty, and populous.  And the Egyptians evil-entreated them\nand oppressed them, and laid upon them hard bondage.  Then called\nwe upon ]ehovah the God of our fathers, and He heard our voice and\nlooked on our affliction and our labour and our oppression.  And\nJehovah brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and\nwith an outstretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with\nsigns and with wonders, _and brought us unto this place, and gave us\nthis land, a land where milk and honey flow!.  And now, behold, I\nhave brought the best of the fruits of the land, which thou, O\nLord, hast given me._\"\n\nObserve here how the act of salvation whereby Israel was founded\nissues in the gift of a fruitful land.\n\nIII.II. With this account of the Jehovistic-Deuteronomistic legislation\nharmonises the pre-exilic practice so far as that can be traced or\nis borne witness to in the historical and prophetical books.\nAncient festivals in Israel must have had the pastoral life as\ntheir basis; only the passover therefore can be regarded as\nbelonging, to the number of these. /1/ It is\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The ancient Arabs also observed the sacrifice of\nthe firstlings as a solemnity in the sacred month Rajab, which\noriginally fell in spring (comp. Ewald, Ztschr. f.d. Kunde\ndes Morgenlandes, 1840, p. 419; Robertson Smith, Prophets,\np. 383 sq).  A festivity mentioned among the earliest, and that\nfor pastoral Judah, is the sheep-shearing (1Samuel xxv. 2 seq.;\nGenesis xxxviii. 12); but it does not appear to have ever developed\ninto a regular and independent festival. _Aparchai_ of wool and\nflax are mentioned in Hosea (ii. 7, 11 [A.V. 5, 9]) as of wool\nalone in Deuteronomy (xviii. 4).\n-- Footnote\n\n\nwith perfect accuracy accordingly that precisely the passover is\npostulated as having been the occasion of the exodus, as being a\nsacrificial feast that has to be celebrated in the wilderness and\nhas nothing to do with agriculture or harvest.  But it is curious\nto notice how little prominence is afterwards given to this\nfestival, which from the nature of the case is the oldest of all.\nIt cannot have been known at all to the Book of the Covenant, for\nthere (Exodus xxii. 29, 30) the command is to leave the firstling\nseven days with its dam and on the eighth day to give it to\nJehovah.  Probably through the predominance gained by agriculture\nand the feasts founded on it the passover fell into disuse in many\nparts of Israel, and kept its ground only in districts where the\npastoral and wilderness life still retained its importance.  This\nwould also explain why the passover first comes clearly into\nlight when Judah alone survives after the fall of Samaria. In\n2Kings xxiii. 21 seq. we are told that in the eighteenth year of\nKing Josiah the passover was held according to the precept of the\nlaw (Deut xvi.), and that for the first time,--never until then from\nthe days of the Judges had it been so observed.  If in this passage\nthe novelty of the institution is so strongly insisted on, the\nreference is less to the essence of the thing than to the manner of\ncelebration as enjoined in Deuteronomy.  Agriculture was learned by\nthe Hebrews from the Canaanites in whose land they settled, and\nin commingling with whom they, during the period of the Judges,\nmade the transition to a sedentary life.  Before the metamorphosis\nof shepherds into peasants was effected, they could not possibly\nhave had feasts which related to agriculture.  It would have been\nvery strange if they had not taken them also over from the\nCanaanites.  The latter owed the land and its fruits to Baal, and\nfor this they paid him the due tribute; the Israelites stood in\nthe same relation to Jehovah.  Materially and in itself, the act\nwas neither heathenish nor Israelite; its character either way\nwas determined by its destination.  There was, therefore, nothing\nagainst a transference of the feasts from Baal to Jehovah; on the\ncontrary, the transference was a profession of faith that the land\nand its produce, and thus all that lay at the foundations of the\nnational existence, were due not to the heathen deity but to the\nGod of Israel.  The earliest testimony is that which we have to the\nexistence of the vintage festival in autumn,--in the first instance\nas a custom of the Canaanite population of Shechem.  In the old and\ninstructive story of Abimelech the son of Jerubbaal we are told\n(Judges ix. 27) of the citizens of Shechem that \"they went out\ninto the fields, and gathered their vineyards, and trode the grapes,\nand celebrated _hillulim_, and went into the house of their god, and\nate and drank, and cursed Abimelech.\"  But this festival must also\nhave taken root among the Israelites at a tolerably early period.\nAccording to Judges xxi. 19 seq. there was observed yearly at\nShiloh in the vineyards a feast to Jehovah, at which the maidens\nwent out to dance.  Even if the narrative of Judges xix. seq. be\nas a whole untrustworthy as history, this does not apply to the\ncasual trait just mentioned, especially as it is confirmed by\n1Samuel i.  In this last-cited passage a feast at Shiloh is also\nspoken of, as occurring at the end of the year, that is, in autumn\nat the time of the _asiph_, /1/ and as being an attraction to pilgrims\n\n-- Footnote\n1. LTQPT HYMYM (i.e., at the new year) 1Samuel i. 20; Exodus\nxxxiv. 22. In this sense is also to be understood MYMYM YMYMH\nJudges xxi. 19, 1Samuel i. 3.  Comp. Zechariah xiv. 16.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nfrom the neighbourhood.  Obviously the feast does not occur in all\nplaces at once, but at certain definite places (in Ephraim) which\nthen influence the surrounding district.  The thing is connected\nwith the origin of larger sanctuaries towards the end of the period\nof the Judges, or, more properly speaking, with their being taken\nover from the previous inhabitants; thus, for example, on Shechem\nbecoming an Israelite town the _hillulim_ were no more abolished than\nwas the sanctuary itself.  Over and above this the erection of\ngreat royal temples must have exerted an important influence.\nAlike at Jerusalem and at Bethel \"the feast\" was celebrated from\nthe days of Solomon and Jeroboam just as previously at Shechem and\nShiloh, in the former place in September, in the latter perhaps\nsomewhat later. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. 1Kings xii. 32 is, it must be owned, far from trustworthy.\n1Kings viii. 2 is difficult to harmonise with vi. 38, if the\ninterpretation of Bul and Ethanim is correct.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThis was at that period the sole actual _panegyris_. [national festivall\nThe feasts at the beginning of summer may indeed also have been\nobserved at this early period (Isa ix. 2), but in smaller local\ncircles.  This distinction is still discernible in Deuteronomy, for\nalthough in that book the feast of tabernacles is not theoretically\nhigher than the others, in point of fact it alone is observed from\nbeginning to end at the central sanctuary, while Easter, on the\nother hand, is for the most part kept at home, being only during\nthe first day observed at Jerusalem; moreover, the smaller demand\nis much more emphatically insisted on than the larger, so that the\nfirst seems to have been an innovation, the latter to have had the\nsanction of older custom.  Amos and Hosea, presupposing as they do\na splendid cultus and great sanctuaries, doubtless also knew of a\nvariety of festivals, but they have no occasion to mention any\none by name.  More definite notices occur in Isaiah.  The\nthreatening that within a year's time the Assyrians will be in the\nland is thus (xxix. 1) given: \"Add ye year to year, let the\nfeasts come round, yet I will distress Jerusalem,\" and at the\nclose of the same discourse the prophet expresses himself as\nfollows (xxxii. 9 seq.):\n\n\"Rise up, ye women that are at ease; hear my voice, ye careless\ndaughters; give ear unto my speech. Days upon a year shall ye\nbe troubled, ye careless women; for the vintage shall fail,\nthe ingathering shall not come.  Ye shall smite upon the breasts,\nfor the pleasant fields, for the fruitful vine.\"\n\nWhen the two passages are taken together we gather that Isaiah,\nfollowing the universal custom of the prophets in coming forward\nat great popular gatherings, is here speaking at the time of the\nautumn festival, in which the women also took an active part\n(Judges xxi. 19 seq.).  But this autumn festival, the joyous and\nnatural character of which is unmistakably revealed, takes place\nwith him at the change of the year, as may be inferred from a\ncomparison between the YNQPW of xxix. I, and the TQPT of Exodus\nxxxiv. 22, 1Samuel i. 20, and closes a cycle of festivals here\nfor the first time indicated.\n\n2. The preceding survey, it must be admitted, scarcely seems fully\nto establish the alleged agreement between the Jehovistic law\nand the older praxis.  Names are nowhere to be found, and in point\nof fact it is only the autumn festival that is well attested,\nand this, it would appear, as the only festival, as THE feast.\nAnd doubtless it was also the oldest and most important of the\nharvest festivals, as it never ceased to be the concluding\nsolemnity of the year.  What has been prosperously brought to\nclose is what people celebrate most rightly; the conclusion of the\ningathering, both of the threshing and of the vintage, is the most\nappropriate of all occasions for a great joint festival,--for this\nadditional reason, that the term is fixed, not, as in the case of\nthe joy of reaping, by nature alone, but is in man's hands and\ncan be regulated by him.  Yet even under the older monarchy the\nprevious festivals must also have already existed as well (Isaiah\nxxix. 1). The peculiarity of the feast of tabernacles would then\nreduce itself to this, that it was the only general festival at\nJerusalem and Bethel; local celebrations \"at all threshing floors\n\"--i.e., on all high places--are not thereby excluded (Host ix. 1).\nBut the Jehovistic legislation makes no distinction of local and\ncentral, for it ignores the great temples throughout. /1/ Possibly,\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Exodus xx. 24-26 looks almost like a protest against the arrangements\nof the temple of Solomon,--especially ver. 26.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nalso, it to some extent systematises the hitherto somewhat vaguer\ncustom; the transition from the _aparchai_ to a feast was perhaps in\npractice still somewhat incomplete.  In the paucity of positive\ndata one is justified, however, in speaking of a substantial\nagreement, inasmuch as in the two cases the idea of the festivals\nis the same. Very instructive in this respect are two sections of\nHosea (chaps. ii. and ix.), which on this account deserve to be\nfully gone into.  In the first of these Israel is figured as a\nwoman who receives her maintenance from her husband, that is, from\nthe Deity; this is the basis of the covenant relationship. But\nshe falls into error as to the giver of her meat and drink and\nclothing, supposing them to come from the idols, and not from\nJehovah.\n\n\"She hath said, I will go after my lovers, who give me\nmy bread and my water, my wool and my flax, mine oil and my\ndrink.  Doth she then not know that it is I (Jehovah) who have\ngiven her the corn and the wine and the oil, and silver in\nabundance, and gold--out of which she maketh false gods?  Therefore\nwill I take back again my corn in its time, and my wine in its\nseason, and I will take away my wool and my flax that should\ncover her nakedness; and now will I discover her shame before the\neyes of her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of my hand.\nAnd I will bring all her mirth to an end, her festival days, her\nnew moons and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.  And I will\ndestroy her vines and her fig-trees whereof she saith, 'They are\nmy hire, that my lovers have given me,' and I will make them a\nwilderness, and the beasts of the field shall eat them. Thus will\nI visit upon her the days of the false gods, wherein she burnt\nfat offerings to them and decked herself with her rings\nand her jewels, and went after her lovers and forget me,\nsaith the Lord.  Therefore, behold, I will allure her and bring her\ninto the wilderness, and there I will assign her her vineyards:\nthen shall she be docile as in her youth, and as in the day\nwhen she came up out of the land of Egypt.  Thereafter I\nbetroth thee unto me anew for ever, in righteousness and in\njudgment, in loving kindness and in mercies.  In that day, saith\nthe Lord, will I answer the heavens, and they shall answer the\nearth, and the earth shall answer the corn and the wine and the\noil, and these shall answer Jezreel\" (ii. 7-24 [5-22]).\nThe blessing of the land is here the end of religion, and that\nquite generally,--alike of the false heathenish and of the true\nIsraelitish. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Comp. Zech. xiv. 16 seq.  All that are left of the nations\nwhich came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to\nworship Jehovah of hosts and to keep the feast of tabernacles.\nAnd whoso of the families of the earth shall not come up unto\nJerusalem to worship Jehovah of hosts, UPON THEM SHALL BE NO RAIN,.\nBut for the Egyptians--who on account of the Nile are independent\nof rain--another punishment is threatened if they do not come to\nkeep the feast of tabernacles.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIt has for its basis no historical acts of salvation,\nbut nature simply, which, however, is regarded only as God's\ndomain and as man's field of labour, and is in no manner itself\ndeified.  The land is Jehovah's house (viii. 1, ix.  15), wherein\nHe lodges and entertains the nation; in the land and through the\nland it is that Israel first becomes the people of Jehovah, just\nas a marriage is constituted by the wife's reception into the\nhouse of the husband, and her maintenance there.  And as divorce\nconsists in the wife's dismissal from the house, so is Jehovah's\nrelation to His people dissolved by His making the land into a\nwilderness, or as in the last resort by His actually driving them\nforth into the wilderness; He restores it again by \"sowing the\nnation into the land\" anew, causing the heavens to give rain and\nthe earth to bear, and thereby bringing into honour the name of\n\"God sown\" for Israel (ii. 25 [23]).  In accordance with this'\nworship consists simply of the thanksgiving due for the gifts of\nthe soil, the vassalage payable to the superior who has given the\nland and its fruits.  It _ipso facto_ ceases when the corn and wine\ncease; in the wilderness it cannot be thought of, for if God\nbestows nothing then man cannot rejoice, and religious worship is\nsimply rejoicing over blessings bestowed.  It has, therefore,\ninvariably and throughout the character given in the Jehovistic\nlegislation to the feasts, in which also, according to Hosea's\ndescription, it culminates and is brought to a focus.  For the days\nof the false gods, on which people adorned themselves and\nsacrificed, are just the feasts, and in fact the feasts of\nJehovah, whom however the people worshipped by images, which the\nprophet regards as absolutely heathenish.\n\nEqually instructive is the second passage (ix. 1-6).\n\n\"Rejoice not too loudly, O Israel, like the heathen, that thou\nhast gone a whoring from thy God, and lovest the harlot's hire\nupon every threshing-floor.  The floor and the wine-press shall\nnot feed them, and the new wine shall fail them.  They shall not\ndwell in Jehovah's land; Ephraim must return to Egypt, and eat\nwhat is unclean in Assyria.  Then shall they no more pour out\nwine to Jehovah, or set in order sacrifices to Him; like bread of\nmourners is their bread, /1/ all that eat thereof become unclean, for\n\n-- Footnote\n1. For Y(RBW (ix. 4) read Y(RKW, and LXMM for LXM. See Kuenen,\nNational Religions and Universal Religions (1882), p. 312 seq.\n-- Footnote\n\n\ntheir bread shall only be for their hunger, it shall not come\ninto the house of the Lord.  What will ye do in the day of\nfestival and in the day of the feast of the Lord? For lo, after\nthey have gone away from among the ruins, Egypt shall keep hold\nof them, Memphis shall bury them; their pleasant things of\nsilver shall nettles possess, the thornbush shall be in their\ntents.\"\n\nIt need not surprise us that here again the prophet places\nthe worship which in intention is obviously meant for Jehovah on\nthe same footing with the heathen worship which actually has\nlittle to distinguish it externally therefrom, being constrained\nto regard the \"pleasant things of silver\" in the tents in the\nhigh places not as symbols of Jehovah, but as idols, and their\nworship as whoredom.  Enough that once more we have a clear view\nof the character of the popular worship in Israel at that period.\nThreshing-floor and wine-press, corn and wine, are its\nmotives,--vociferous joy, merry shoutings, its expression.  All the\npleasure of life is concentrated in the house of Jehovah at the\njoyous banquets held to celebrate the coming of the gifts of His\nmild beneficence; no more dreadful thought than that a man must\neat his bread like unclean food, like bread of mourners, without\nhaving offered the _aparchai_ at the festival. /2/ It is this\n\n-- Footnote\n2. Times of mourning are, so to speak, times of interdict, during\nwhich intercourse between God and man is suspended.  Further,\nnothing at all was ever eaten except that of which God had in the\nfirst instance received His share;--not only no flesh but also no\nvegetable food, for the \"first-fruits\" of corn and wine\nrepresented the produce of the year and sanctified the whole.  All\nelse was unclean.  Comp. Ezekiel iv. 13.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nthought which gives its sting to the threatened exile; for\nsacrifice and feast are dependent upon the land, which is the\nnursing-mother and the settled home of the nation, the foundation\nof its existence and of its worship.\n\nThe complete harmony of this with the essential character of the\nworship and of the festivals in the Book of the Covenant, in the\nlaw of the Two Tables, and in Deuteronomy, is clear in itself,\nbut becomes still more evident by a comparison with the Priestly\nCode, to which we now proceed.\n\n\nIII.III.\n\nIn the Priestly Code the festal cycle is dealt with in two\nseparate passages (Leviticus xxiii; Numbers xxviii., xxix.),\nof which the first contains a fragment (xxiii. 9-22, and partly\nalso xxiii. 39-44) not quite homogeneous with the kernel of the\ndocument.  In both these accounts also the three great feasts\noccur, but with considerable alteration of their essential\ncharacter.\n\nIII.III.1. The festal celebration, properly so called, is exhausted\nby a prescribed joint offering. There are offered (I.) during\nEaster week and also on the day of Pentecost, besides the _tamid_,\ntwo bullocks, one ram, seven lambs as a burnt-offering, and one\nhe-goat as a sin-offering daily; (2.) at the feast of\ntabernacles, from the first to the seventh day two rams, fourteen\nlambs, and, in descending series, from thirteen to seven bullocks;\non the eighth day one bullock, one ram, seven lambs as a\nburnt offering, besides one he-goat daily as a sin-offering.\nAdditional voluntary offerings on the part of individuals are not\nexcluded, but are treated as of secondary importance.  Elsewhere,\nalike in the older practice (1Samuel i. 4 seq.) and in the law\n(Exodus xxiii. 18) it is precisely the festal offering that is a\nsacrificial meal, that is to say, a private sacrifice.  In\nDeuteronomy it has been possible to find anything surprising in\nthe joyous meals only because people are wont to know their Old\nTestament merely through the perspective of the Priestly  Code;\nat most the only peculiar thing in that book is a certain humane\napplication of the festal offering, the offerer being required to\ninvite to it the poor and landless of his acquaintance.  But this\nis a development which harmonises much more with the old idea of\nan offering as a communion between God and man than does the other\nself-sufficing general churchly sacrifice.  The passover alone\ncontinues in the Priestly Code also to be a sacrificial meal, and\nparticipation therein to be restricted to the family or a limited\nsociety.  But this last remnant of the old custom shows itself here\nas a peculiar exception; the festival in the house instead of\n\"before Jehovah \" has also something ambiguous about it, and turns\nthe sacrifice into an entirely profane act of slaughtering\nalmost--until we come to the rite of expiation, which is\ncharacteristically retained (Exodus xii. 7; comp. Ezekiel xiv. 19).\n\nOf a piece with this is the circumstance that the \"first-fruits\"\nof the season have come to be separated from the festivals still\nmore than had been previously  the case.  While in Deuteronomy\nthey are still offered at the three great sacrificial meals in\nthe presence of Jehovah, in the Priestly Code they have\naltogether ceased to be offerings at all, and thus also of course\nhave ceased to be festal offerings, being merely dues payable to\nthe priests (by whom they are in part collected) and not in any\ncase brought before the altar.  Thus the feasts entirely  lose\ntheir peculiar characteristics, the occasions by which they are\ninspired and distinguished; by the monotonous sameness of the\nunvarying burnt-offering and sin-offering of the community as a\nwhole they are all put on the same even level, deprived of their\nnatural spontaneity, and degraded into mere \"exercises of\nreligion.\"  Only some very slight traces continue to bear witness\nto, we might rather say, to betray, what was the point from which\nthe development started, namely, the rites of the barley sheaf,\nthe loaves of bread, and the booths (Leviticus  xxiii.). But these\nare mere rites, petrified remains of the old custom; the actual\nfirst-fruits belonging to the owners of the soil are collected by\nthe priests, the shadow of them is retained at the festival in the\nform of the sheaf offered by the whole community--a piece of\nsymbolism which has now become quite separated from its connection\nand is no longer understood.  And since the giving of thanks for\nthe fruits of the field has ceased to have any substantial place\nin the feasts, the very shadow of connection between the two also\nbegins to disappear, for the rites of Leviticus xxiii. are taken\nover from an older legislation, and for the most part are passed\nover in silence in Numbers xxviii., xxix. Here, again, the passover\nhas followed a path of its own.  Even at an earlier period,\nsubstitution of other cattle and sheep was permitted.  But now in\nthe Priestly Code the firstlings are strictly demanded indeed,\nbut merely as dues, not as sacrifices; the passover, always a\nyearling lamb or kid, has neither in fact nor in time anything to\ndo with them, but occupies a separate position alongside.  But as\nit is represented to have been instituted in order that the Hebrew\nfirst born may be spared in the destruction of those of the Egyptians,\nthis connection betrays the fact that the yearling lambs are after\nall only a substitute for the firstlings of all animals fit for\nsacrifice, but in comparison with the cattle and sheep of the\nJehovistic tradition and Deuteronomy a secondary substitute, and\none for the uniformity of which there is no motive; and we see\nfurther that if the firstlings are now over and above assigned to\nthe priests this is equivalent to a reduplication, which has been\nmade possible first by a complete obscuration, and afterwards\nby an artificial revival of the original custom.\n\nA further symptom also proper to be mentioned here is the fixing of\nharvest festival terms by the days of the month, which is to be\nfound exclusively in the Priestly Code.  Easter falls upon the\nfifteenth, that is, at full moon, of the first, the feast of\ntabernacles upon the same day of the seventh month; Pentecost,\nwhich, strange to say, is left undetermined in Numbers xxviii.,\nfalls, according to Leviticus xxiii., seven weeks after Easter.\nThis definite dating points not merely to a fixed and uniform\nregulation of the cultus, but also to a change in its contents.\nFor it is not a matter of indifference that according to the\nJehovistic-Deuteronomic legislation Easter is observed in \"the\nmonth of corn ears\" when the sickle is put to the corn, Pentecost\nat the end of the wheat harvest, and the feast of tabernacles\nafter the ingathering; as harvest feasts they  are from their\nvery nature regulated by the condition of the fruits of the soil.\nWhen they cease to be so, when they are made to depend upon the\nphases of the moon, this means that their connection with their\nnatural occasion is being lost sight of.  Doubtless the accurate\ndetermination of dates is correlated with the other circumstance\nthat the festivals are no longer kept in an isolated way  by\npeople at any place they may choose, but by the whole united\nnation at a single spot.  It is therefore probable that the fixing\nof the date w as accomplished at first in the case of the autumn\nfestival, which was the first to divest itself of its local\ncharacter and most readily suffered a transposition of a week or\ntwo.  It was hardest to change in the case of the _maccoth_\nfestival; the putting of the sickle to the corn is very\ninconvenient to shift.  But here the passover seems to have\nexerted an influence.  For the passover is indeed an annual feast,\nbut not by  the nature of things connected with any particular\nseason of the year; rather was it dependent originally on the\nphases of the moon.  Its character as a _pannychis_ [vigil]\n(Exodus xii. 42 [LYL #MWRYM]) points in this direction,\nas also does  the analogy of the Arab feasts.\n\nThe verification of the alleged denaturalisation of the feasts\nin the Priestly Code lies in this, that their historical\ninterpretation, for which the way is already paved by the\nJehovistic tradition, here attains its full development.  For\nafter they have lost their original contents and degenerated into\nmere prescribed religious forms, there is nothing to prevent the\nrefilling of the empty bottles in any way accordant with the\ntastes of the period.  Now, accordingly, the feast of tabernacles\nalso becomes historical (Leviticus xxiii.), instituted to commemorate\nthe booths under which the people had to shelter themselves during\nthe forty years of wandering in the wilderness.  In the case of\nEaster a new step in advance is made beyond the assignation of its\nmotive to the exodus, which is already found in Deuteronomy and\nin Exodus xiii. 3 seq.  For in the Priestly Code this feast,\nwhich precisely on account of its eminently  historical character\nis here regarded as by far the most important of all, is much\nmore than the mere commemoration of a divine act of salvation, it\nis itself a saving deed.  It is not because Jehovah smote the\nfirstborn of Egypt that the passover is afterwards instituted on\nthe contrary, it is instituted beforehand, at the moment of the\nexodus, in order that the firstborn of Israel may be spared.\nThus not merely is a historical motive assigned for the custom;\nits beginning is itself raised to the dignity of a historical\nfact upon which the feast rests,--the shadow elsewhere thrown only\nby another historical event here becomes substantial and casts\nitself.  The state of matters in the case of the unleavened cakes\nis very similar.  Instead of having it as their occasion and object\nto keep in remembrance the hasty midnight departure in which the\ntravellers were compelled to carry with them their dough\nunleavened as it was (Exodus xii. 34), in the Priestly Code they\nalso are spoken of as having being enjoined beforehand (xii. 15\nseq.), and thus the festival is celebrated in commemoration of\nitself; in other words, not merely is a historical motive\nassigned to it, it is itself made a historical fact.  For this\nreason also, the law relating to Easter is removed from all\nconnection with the tabernacle legislation (Exodus xii. 1 seq.),\nand the difficuity  that now in the case of the passover the\nsanctuary which elsewhere in the Priestly Code is indispensable\nmust be left out of sight is got over by divesting it as much as\npossible of its sacrificial character. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The ignoring of the sanctuary has a reason only in the case of\nthe first passover, and perhaps ought to be regarded as holding\ngood for that only.  The distinction between the PSX MCRYM and\nthe PSX HDWRWT is necessary, if only for the reason that the former\nis a historical fact, the latter a commemorative observance.\nWhen it is argued for the originality of the passover ritual\nin the Priestly Code that it alone fits in with the conditions\nof the sojourn in Egypt, the position is not to be disputed.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIn the case of Pentecost alone is there no tendency to historical\nexplanation; that in this instance has been reserved for later\nJudaism, which from the chronology of the Book of Exodus\ndiscerned in the feast a commemoration of the giving of the law at\nSinai.  But one detects the drift of the later time.\n\nIt has been already pointed out, in what has just been said, that\nas regards this development the centralisation of the cultus was\nepochmaking.  Centralisation is synonymous with generalisation\nand fixity, and these are the external features by which\nthe festivals of the Priestly Code are distinguished from those\nwhich preceded them.  In evidence I point to the prescribed\nsacrifice of the community instead of the spontaneous sacrifice\nof the individual, to the  date fixed for the 15th of the month,\nto the complete separation between sacrifices and dues, to the\nreduction of the passover to uniformity; nothing is free or the\nspontaneous growth of nature, nothing is indefinite and still\nin process of becoming; all is statutory, sharply defined,\ndistinct.  But the centralisation of the cultus had also not\na little to do with the inner change which the feasts underwent.\nAt first the gifts of the various seasons of the year are offered\nby the individual houses as each one finds convenient; afterwards\nthey are combined, and festivals come into existence; last of all,\nthe united offerings of individuals fall into the back ground when\ncompared with the single joint-offering on behalf of the entire\ncommunity.  According as stress is laid upon the common character\nof the festival and uniformity in its observance, in precisely the\nsame degree does it become separated from the roots from which it\nsprang, and grow more and more abstract.  That it is then very\nready to assume a historical meaning may partly also be attributed\nto the circumstance that history is not, like harvest, a personal\nexperience of individual households, but rather an experience of\nthe nation as a whole.  One does not fail to observe, of course,\nthat the festivals--which always to a certain degree have a\ncentralising tendency--have IN THEMSELVES a disposition to become\nremoved from the particular motives of their institution, but in\nno part of the legislation has this gone so far as in the Priestly\nCode.  While everywhere else they still continue to stand, as\nwe have seen, in a clear relationship to the land and its increase,\nand are at one and the same time the great days of homage and\ntribute for the superior and grantor of the soil, here this\nconnection falls entirely out of sight.  As in opposition to the\nBook of the Covenant and Deuteronomy, nay, even to the corpus\nitself which forms the basis of Leviticus xvii.-xxvi., one can\ncharacterise the entire Priestly Code as the wilderness\nlegislation, inasmuch as it abstracts from the natural conditions\nand motives of the actual life of the people in the land of Canaan\nand rears the hierocracy on the _tabula rasa_ of the wilderness, the\nnegation of nature, by means of the bald statutes of arbitrary\nabsolutism, so also the festivals, in which the connection of the\ncultus with agriculture appears most strongly, have as much as\npossible been turned into wilderness festivals, but most of all\nthe Easter festival, which at the same time has become the most\nimportant.\n\nIII.III.2. The centralisation of the cultus, the revolutionising\ninfluence of which is seen in the Priestly Code, is begun by Deuteronomy.\nThe former rests upon the latter, and draws its as yet unsuspected\nconsequences.  This general relation is maintained also in\ndetails; in the first place, in the names of the feasts, which are\nthe same in both,--_pesah, shabuoth, sukkoth_. This is not without\nits inner significance, for _asiph_ (ingathering) would have placed\nmuch greater hindrances in the way of the introduction of a\nhistorical interpretation than does sukkoth (booths).  So also\nwith the prominence given to the passover, a festival mentioned\nnowhere previously--a prominence which is much more striking in the\nPriestly Code than in Deuteronomy.  Next, this relation is\nobserved in the duration of the feasts.  While Deuteronomy\ncertainly does not fix their date of commencement with the same\ndefiniteness, it nevertheless in this respect makes a great\nadvance upon the Jehovistic legislation, inasmuch as it lays down\nthe rule of a week for Easter and Tabernacles, and of a day for\nPentecost.  The Priestly  Code is on the whole in agreement with\nthis, and also with the time determination of the relation of\nPentecost to Easter, but its provisions are more fully developed\nin details.  The passover, in the first month, on the evening of\nthe 14th, here also indeed begins the feast, but does not, as in\nDeuteronomy xvi. 4, 8, count as the first day of Easter week;\non the contrary, the latter does not begin until the 15th and\ncloses with the 21st (comp. Leviticus xxiii. 6; Numbers xxviii. 17;\nExodus  xii. 18).  The beginning of the festival week being\nthus distinctly indicated, there arises in this way not merely\nan ordinary but also an extra-ordinary feast day more, the day\nafter the passover, on which already, according to the injunctions\nof Deuteronomy, the pilgrims were required to set out early in the\nmorning on the return journey to their homes. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. It is impossible to explain away this discrepancy by the\ncircumstance that in the Priestly Code the day is reckoned from\nthe evening; for (1.) this fact has no practical bearing, as the\ndating reckons at any rate from the morning, and the evening\npreceding the 15th is always called the 14th of the month (Leviticus\nxiii. 27, 32); (2.) the first day of the feast in Deuteronomy\nis just the day on the evening of which the passover is held, and\nupon it there follow not seven but six days more, whereas in the\nPriestly Code the celebration extends from the 14th to the 21st of\nthe month (Exodus xii. 18).  When the MXRT H#BT: is made to\nrefer, not as in Josh. v. 11 to the 14th, but as in Jewish\ntradition (LXX on Leviticus xxiii. 11) to the day following the\n15th of Nisan, thee 16th of Nisan is added to the 14th and 15th\nas a special feast day.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nAnother advance consists in this, that not only the passover,\nas in Deuteronomy, or the additional first day of the feast besides,\nbut also the seventh (which, according to Deuteronomy xvi. 8,\nis marked only by rest), must be observed as _miqra qodesh_ in\nJerusalem.  In other words, such pilgrims as do not live in the\nimmediate neighbourhood are  compelled to pass the whole week there,\nan exaction which enables us to mark the progress made with\ncentralisation, when the much more moderate demands of Deuteronomy\nare compared.  The feast of tabernacles is in the latter law also\nobserved from beginning to end at Jerusalem, but the Priestly Code\nhas contrived to add to it an eighth day as an _`acereth_ to the\nprincipal feast, which indeed still appears to be wanting in the\nolder portion of Leviticus xxiii.  From all this it is indisputable\nthat the Priestly Code has its nearest relations with Deuteronomy,\nbut goes beyond it in the same direction as that in which Deuteronomy\nitself goes beyond the Jehovistic legislation.  In any case the\nintermediate place in the series belongs to Deuteronomy, and if\nwe begin that  series with the Priestly Code, we must in consistency\nclose it with the Sinaitic Book of the Covenant (Exodus xx. 23 seq.).\n\nAfter King Josiah had published Deuteronomy and had made it the\nBook of the Covenant by a solemn engagement of the people (621\nB.C.), he commanded them to \"keep the passover to Jehovah your God\nas it is written in this Book;\" such a passover had never been\nobserved from the days of the judges, or throughout the entire\nperiod of the kings (2Kings xxiii. 21, 22).  And when Ezra the\nscribe introduced the Pentateuch as we now have it as the\nfundamental law of the church of the second temple (444 B.C.), it\nwas found written in the Torah which Jehovah had commanded by\nMoses, that the children of Israel were to live in booths during\nthe feast in the seventh month, and further, to use branches\nof olive and myrtle and palm for this purpose, and that the people\nwent and made to themselves booths accordingly; such a thing had\nnot been done \"since the days of Joshua the son of Nun even unto\nthat day \" (Nehemiah viii. 14 seq.).  That Josiah's passover rests\nupon Deuteronomy xvi. and not upon Exodus xii. is sufficiently\nproved by the circumstance that the observance of the festival\nstands in connection with the new unity of the cultus, and is\nintended to be an exemplification of it, while the precept of\nExodus xii., if literally followed,  could only have served to\ndestroy it.  We thus find that the two promulgations of the law,\nso great in their importance and so like one another in their\ncharacter, both take place at the time of a festival, the one\nin spring, the other in harvest;  and we also discover that the\nfestal observance of the Priestly Code first began to show life\nand to gain currency about two hundred years later than that\nof Deuteronomy.  This can be proved in yet another way. The author\nof the Book of Kings knows only of a seven days' duration\nof the feast of tabernacles (1Kings viii. 66); Solomon dismisses\nthe people on the eighth day.  On the other hand, in the parallel\npassage in Chronicles (2Chronicles vii. 9) the king holds\nthe _`acereth_ on the eighth, and does not dismiss the people until\nthe following day, the twenty-third of the month; that is to say,\nthe Deuteronomic use, which is followed by the older author and\nby Ezekiel (xiv. 25) who was, roughly  speaking, his\ncontemporary, is corrected by the later writer into conformity\nwith that of the Priestly Code in force since the time of Ezra\n(Nehemiah viii. 18).  In later Judaism the inclination to assert\nmost strongly precisely that which is most open to dispute led\nto the well-known result that the eighth day of the feast was\nregarded as the most splendid of all (John vii. 37).\n\nOn this question also the Book of Ezekiel stands nearest the\nPriestly Code, ordaining as follows (xiv. 21-25):--\n\"In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall\nkeep the passover, ye shall eat maccoth seven days; on that day\nshall the prince offer for himself and for all the people of the\nland a bullock for a sin-offering, and during the seven days\nhe shall offer a burnt-offering to the Lord, seven bullocks\nand seven rams daily for the seven days, and a he-goat daily\nfor a sin offering; and he shall offer as a meal-offering an ephah\nfor every  bullock and every ram and a hin of oil for the ephah.\nIn the seventh month, on the fifteenth day of the month, in the\nfeast shall he do the like for seven days, according to the\nsin-offering, according to the burnt-offering, and according\nto the meal-offering, and according to the oil.\"\nHere indeed in details hardly any point is in agreement with the\nprescriptions of the ritual law of Leviticus xxiii., Numbers xxviii.,\nxxix.  Apart from the fact that the day of Pentecost is omitted\n(it is restored in the Massoretic text by an absurd correction\nin ver. 11), in the first place there is a discrepancy as to the\nDURATION of the feasts; both last seven and not eight days,\nand the passover is taken for the first day of Easter, as in\nDeuteronomy.  Further, the offerings differ, alike by their\nnever-varying number and by their quality; in particular,\nnothing is said of the passover lamb, but a bullock as a\ngeneral sin-offering is mentioned instead. From the _minha_ the\nwine is wanting, but this must be left out of the account, for\nEzekiel banishes wine from the service on principle.  Lastly, it\nis not the CONGREGATION that sacrifices, but the prince for\nhimself and for the PEOPLE.  But in spite of all differences the\ngeneral similarity is apparent; one sees that here for the first\ntime we have something which at all points admits of correlation\nwith the Priestly Code, but is quite disparate with the\nJehovistic legislation, and half so with that of Deuteronomy.\nOn both hands we find the term fixed according to the day\nof the month, the strictly prescribed joint burnt-offering\nand sin-offering, the absence of relation first-fruits\nand agriculture, the obliteration of natural distinctions so as\nto make one general churchly festival.  But Ezekiel surely could\nhardly have had any motive for reproducing Leviticus xxiii. and Numbers\nxxviii. seq., and still less for the introduction of a number of\naimless variations as he did so.  Let it be observed that in no\none detail does he contradict Deuteronomy, while yet he stands so\ninfinitely nearer to the Priestly Code; the relationship is not\nan arbitrary one, but arises from their place in time.  Ezekiel is\nthe forerunner of the priestly legislator in the Pentateuch; his\npence and people, to some extent invested with the colouring of\nthe bygone period of the monarchy, are the antecedents of the\ncongregation of the tabernacle and the second temple.  Against\nthis supposition there is nothing to be alleged, and it is the\nrational one, for this reason, that it was not Ezekiel but the\nPriestly Code that furnished the norm for the praxis of the later\nperiod.\n\nFor, as the festival system of the Priestly Code absolutely\nrefuses to accommodate itself to the manner of the older worship as\nwe are made acquainted with it in Hos. ii., ix. and elsewhere,\nin the same degree  does it furnish in every respect the standard\nfor the praxis of post-exilian Judaism, and, therefore, also for\nour ideas thence derived.  No one in reading the New Testament\ndreams of any other manner of keeping the passover than that\nof Exodus xii., or of any other offering than the paschal lamb\nthere prescribed.  One might perhaps hazard the conjecture that\nif in the wilderness legislation of the Code there is no trace\nof agriculture being regarded as the basis of life, which it still\nis in Deuteronomy and even in the kernel of Leviticus xvii.-xxvi.,\nthis also is a proof that the Code belongs to a very recent rather\nthan to a very early period, when agriculture was no longer rather\nthan not yet.  With the Babylonian captivity the Jews lost their\nfixed seats, and so became a trading people.\n\nIII.III.3.  No notice has as yet been taken of one phenomenon which\ndistinguishes the Priestly Code, namely, that in it the\ntripartite cycle of the feasts is extended and interrupted.  In\nthe chronologically arranged enumeration of Leviticus xxiii.\nand Numbers xxviii., xxix., two other feast days are interpolated\nbetween Pentecost and Tabernacles: new year on the first, and the\ngreat day of atonement on the tenth of the seventh month.  One\nperceives to what an extent the three originally  connected\nharvest feasts have lost their distinctive character, when it is\nobserved that these two heterogeneous days make their appearance in\nthe midst of them;--the _yom kippur_ in the same series with the\nold _haggim_, i.e., dances, which were occasions of pure pleasure\nand joy, not to be named in the same day with fasts and mournings.\nThe following points demand notice in detail.\n\nIn the period of the kings the change of the year occurred in\nautumn.  The autumn festival marked the close of the year and of\nthe festal cycle (Exodus xxiii. 16, xxxiv. 22; 1Samuel i. 21, 21;\nIsaiah xxix. 1, xxxii. 10).  Deuteronomy was discovered in\nthe eighteenth year of Josiah, and in the very same year Easter\nwas observed in accordance with the prescriptions of that\nlaw--which could not have been unless the year had begun in autumn.\nNow the ECCLESIASTICAL festival of new year in the Priestly Code\nis also autumnal. /1/  The _yom teruah_ (Leviticus xxiii 24, 2;;\n\n-- Footnote\n1. In this way Tabernacles comes not before but after new year;\nthis probably is connected with the more definite dating (on the\nfifteenth day of the month), but is quite contrary to the old\ncustom and the meaning of the feast.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nNumbers xxix. 1 seq.) falls on the first new moon of autumn,\nand it follows from a tradition confirmed by Leviticus xxv. 9, 10,\nthat this day was celebrated as new year [R)# H#NH).  But it is\nalways spoken of as the first of the seventh month.  That is to\nsay, the civil new year has been separated from the ecclesiastical\nand been transferred to spring; the ecclesiastical can only be\nregarded as a relic surviving from an earlier period, and betrays\nstrikingly the priority of the division of the year that\nprevailed in the time of the older monarchy.  It appears to have\nfirst begun to give way under the influence of the Babylonians,\nwho observed the spring era. /1/ For the designation of the\n\n-- Footnote\n1. In Exodus xii. 2 this change of era is formally commanded by\nMoses: \"This month (the passover month) shall be the beginning of\nmonths unto you, it shall be to you the first of the months of the\nyear.\" According to George Smith, the Assyrian year commenced at\nthe vernal equinox; the Assyrian use depends on the Babylonian\n(Assyrian Eponym Canon, p. 19).\n-- Footnote\n\n\nmonths by numbers instead of by the old Hebrew names, Abib, Zif,\nBul, Ethanim and the like,--a style which arises together with the\nuse of the spring era,--does not yet occur in Deuteronomy (xvi.1),\nbut apart from the Priestly  Code, and the last redactor of\nthe Pentateuch (Deuteronomy i. 3) is found for the first time in\nwriters of the period of the exile.  It is first found in Jeremiah,\nbut only in those portions of his book which were not committed\nto writing by him, or at least have been edited by a later hand; /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. Kuenen, Hist.-Krit. Onderzoek (1863), ii. pp. 197, 214.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nthen in Ezekiel and the author of the Book of Kings, who\nexplains the names he found in his source by giving the numbers\n(1Kings vi. 37, 38, viii. 2); next in Haggai and Zechariah;\nand lastly in Chronicles, though here already the\nBabylonio-Syrian names of the months, which at first were not used\nin Hebrew, have begun to find their way in (Nehemiah i. 1, ii. 1;\nZech. i. 7).  The Syrian names are always given along with the\nnumbers in the Book of Esther, and are used to the exclusion of\nall others in that of Maccabees.  It would be absurd to attempt to\nexplain this demonstrable change which took place in the calendar\nafter the exile as a mere incidental effect of the Priestly Code,\nhitherto in a state of suspended animation, rather than by\nreference to general causes arising from the circumstances of the\ntime, under whose influence the Priestly Code itself also stood,\nand which then had for their result a complete change in the\ngreater accuracy and more general applicability of the methods\nby which time was reckoned.  A similar phenomenon presents itself\nin connection with the metric system.  The \"shekel of the\nsanctuary,\" often mentioned in the Priestly Code, and there only,\ncannot possibly have borne this name until the most natural objects\nof the old Israelite _regime_ had begun to appear surrounded by a\nlegendary nimbus, because themselves no longer in actual existence.\nOver against it we have the \"king's weight\" mentioned in a gloss\nin 2Samuel xiv. 26, the king being none other than the great king\nof Babylon.  It is an interesting circumstance that the \"shekel\nof the sanctuary \"spoken of in the Priestly Code is still the ordinary\nshekel in Ezekiel; compare Exodus xxx. 13 with Ezekiel xliv. 12.\n\nDuring the exile the observance of the ecclesiastical new year\nseems to have taken place not on the first but on the tenth of the\nseventh month (Leviticus xxv. 9;  Ezekiel xl. 1), and there is\nnothing to be wondered at in this, after once it had come to be\nseparated from the actual beginning of the year. /1/ This fact alone\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The tenth of the month is to be taken in Ezekiel as strictly new\nyear's day;  for the designation  R)# H#NH occurs in no other\nmeaning than this, and moreover it is by no mere accident that the\nprophet has his vision of the new Jerusalem precisely at the new year.\nBut according to Leviticus xxv. 9 it is the seventh month that is meant,\non the tenth day of which the trumpets are blown at the commencement\nof the year of jubilee.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nwould suffice to bring into a clear light the late origin of the\ngreat day of atonement in Leviticus xvi., which at a subsequent\nperiod was observed on this date; for although as a ceremonial of\ngeneral purification that day occurs appropriately enough at the\nchange of the year, the joyful sound of the new year trumpets ill\nbefits its quiet solemnity, the YWM TRW(H in the Priestly Code\nbeing in fact fixed for the first of the seventh month.\nNotwithstanding its conspicuous importance, there is nothing known\nof the great day of atonement either in the Jehovistic and\nDeuteronomic portions of the Pentateuch or in the historical and\nprophetical books.  It first begins to show itself in embryo\nduring the exile.  Ezekiel (xiv. 18-20) appoints two great\nexpiations at the beginning of the two halves of the year; for in\nxiv. 20 the LXX must be accepted, which reads B#B(Y BXD#, \"in\nthe seventh month at new moon.\"  The second of these, in autumn,\nis similar to that of the Priestly Code, only that it falls on\nthe first and new year on the tenth, while in the latter, on the\ncontrary, new year is observed on the first and the atonement on\nthe tenth; the ritual is also much simpler.  Zechariah towards\nthe end of the sixth century looks back upon two regular fast\ndays, in the fifth and the seventh month, as having been in\nobservance for seventy years, that is, from the beginning of the\nexile (vii. 5), and to these he adds (viii. 19) two others in the\nfourth and in the tenth. They refer, according to the very probable\nexplanation of C. B. Michaelis, to the historical days of calamity\nwhich preceded the exile.  On the ninth day of the fourth month\nJerusalem was taken (Jeremiah xxxix. 2); on the seventh of the fifth\nthe city and the temple were burnt (2Kings xxv. 8); in the seventh\nmonth Gedaliah was murdered, and all that remained of the Jewish state\nannihilated (Jeremiah xli.); in the tenth the siege of the city by\nNebuchadnezzar was begun (2Kings xxv. 1).  Zechariah also still\nknows nothing of the great day of atonement in Leviticus xvi., but\nonly mentions among others the fast of the seventh month as\nhaving subsisted for seventy years.  Even in 444 B.C., the year\nof the publication of the Pentateuch by Ezra, the great day of\natonement has not yet come into force. Ezra begins the reading of\nthe law in the beginning of the seventh month, and afterwards the\nfeast of tabernacles is observed on the fifteenth; of an atoning\nsolemnity on the tenth of the month not a word is said in the\ncircumstantial narrative, which, moreover, is one specially\ninterested in the liturgical element, but it is made up for on the\ntwenty-fourth (Nehemiah viii., ix.). This _testimonium e silentio_\nis enough; down to that date the great day of the Priestly Code\n(now introduced for the first time) had not existed. /1/ The term is\n\n-- Footnote\n1. \"If Leviticus xvi. belongs to the original of the Priestly Code,\nand the entire Pentateuch was published by Ezra in the year 444,\nand yet the day was not then celebrated, then it has _ipso facto_\nbeen conceded that it is possible that there can be laws which\nyet are not carried into effect.\"  So writes Dillmann in his\nintroduction to Leviticus xvi. (1880, p. 525); every one will grant\nhim that the law, before it could attain public currency, must\nhave been previously written and promulgated.\n-- Footnote\n\n\npartly fixed, following Ezekiel, by reference to the old new\nyear's day (Leviticus xxv. 9); partly, following Zechariah, by\nreference to the fast of Gedaliah, which indeed was still observed\nlater as a separate solemnity.\n\nEven before the exile general fast days doubtless occurred, but\nthey were specially appointed, and always arose out of\nextraordinary occasions, when some sin was brought home to the\npublic conscience, or when the divine anger threatened, especially\nin connection with calamities affecting the produce of the soil\n(1Kings xxi. 9, 12; Jeremiah xiv. 12, xxxvi. 6, 9; Joel i. 14,\nii. 12, 15).  In the exile they began to be a regular custom (Isaiah\nlviii.), doubtless in the first instance in remembrance of the\n_dies atri_ that had been experienced, but also in a certain measure\nas a surrogate, suited to the circumstances, for the joyous popular\ngatherings of Easter, Pentecost, and Tabernacles which were\npossible only in the Holy Land. /l/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. After the second destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, the system\nof fasts received such an impulse that it was necessary to draw up\na list of the days on which fasting was forbidden.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nAt last they came into a position of co-ordination with the feasts,\nand became a stated and very important element of the ordinary worship.\nIn the Priestly Code, the great fast in the tenth of the seventh\nmonth is the holiest day  of all the year.  Nothing could illustrate\nmore clearly the contrast between the new cultus and the old; fixing\nits regard at all points on sin and its atonement, it reaches its\nculmination in a great atoning solemnity.  It is as if the temper\nof the exile had carried itself into the time of liberation also,\nat least during the opening centuries; as if men had felt\nthemselves not as in an earlier age only momentarily  and in\nspecial circumstances, but unceasingly, under the leaden pressure\nof sin and wrath.  It is hardly necessary to add here expressly\nthat also in regard to the day of atonement as a day sacred\nabove all others the Priestly Code became authoritative for the\npost-exilian period.  \"Ritual and sacrifice have through the\nmisfortunes of the times disappeared, but this has retained all its\nold sacredness;  unless a man has wholly cut himself adrift from\nJudaism he keeps this day, however indifferent he may be to all\nits other usages and feasts.\"\n\n\nIII.IV. [.1?]\n\nA word, lastly, on the lunar feasts, that is, new moon and Sabbath.\nThat the two are connected cannot be gathered from the Pentateuch,\nbut something of the sort is implied in Amos viii. 5, and 2Kings\niv. 22, 23.  In Amos the corn-dealers, impatient of every\ninterruption of their trade, exclaim, \"When will the new moon be\ngone, that we may sell corn; and the Sabbath, that we may set\nforth wheat?\"  In the other passage the husband of the woman of\nShunem, when she begs him for an ass and a servant that she may go\nto the prophet Elisha, asks why it is that she proposes such a\njourney now, for \"it is neither new moon nor Sabbath;\" it is\nnot Sunday, as we might say.  Probably the Sabbath was originally\nregulated by the phases of the moon, and thus occurred on the\nseventh, fourteenth, twenty-first (and twenty-eighth) day of the\nmonth, the new moon being reckoned as the first; at least no other\nexplanation can be discovered. /2/ For that the week should\n\n-- Footnote\n2 George Smith, Assyrian Eponymn Canon, pp. 19, 20. \"Among\nthe Assyrians the first twenty-eight days of every month were\ndivided into four weeks of seven days each, the seventh, fourteenth,\ntwenty-first, and twenty-eight days respectively  being Sabbaths;\nand there was a general prohibition of work on these days.\"\nSee further Hyde, Hist. Rel. Vet. Pers., p. 239. Among the Syrians\n$bbh means the week, just as among the Arabs _sanba_\nand _sanbata_ (Pl. _sanabit_), dim. _suneibita_) mean a period of\ntime (Lagarde, Ps. Hieronymi; p. 158), and in fact, according\nto the lexicographers, a comparatively long one.  But in the sole\ncase cited by the _Tag al 'Arus_, it means rather a short interval.\n\"What is youth?  It is the beginning of a _sanbata_,\" meaning\nsomething like the Sunday of a week.  According to this it would\nappear as if the sabbath had been originally the week itself,\nand only afterwards became the weekly festival day.  The identity\nof the Syriac word (ta sabbata) in the New Testament) with the\nHebrew is guaranteed by the twofold Arabic form.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nbe conditioned by the seven planets seems very barely credible.\nIt was not until after people had got their seven days that they\nbegan to call them after the seven planets; /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The peculiar order in which the names of the planets are used\nto designate the days of the week makes this very clear; see Ideler,\nHandb. d. Chron. i. 178 seq., ii 77 seq.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nthe number seven is the only bond of connection between them.\nDoubtless the week is older than the names of its days.\n\nLunar feasts, we may safely say, are in every case older than\nannual or harvest feasts; and certainly they are so in the case\nof the Hebrews.  In the pre-historic period the new moon must have\nbeen observed with such preference that an ancient name for it,\nwhich is no longer found in Biblical Hebrew, even furnished the\nroot of the general word for a festive occasion, which is used for\nthe vintage feast in a passage so early as Judges ix. 27. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. Sprenger (Leben Moh. iii. 527) and Lagarde have rightly\ncorrelated the Hebrew _hallel_ with the Arabic _ahalla_ (to call out,\n_labbaika_, see, for example Abulf. i. p. 180).  But there is no\nuncertainty as to the derivation of _ahalla_ from _hilal_ (new\nmoon)\n-- Footnote\n\n\nBut it is established by historical testimonies besides that the\nnew moon festival anciently stood, at least, on a level with that\nof the Sabbath.  Compare 1Samuel xx. 5, 6; ~2Kings iv. 23;\nAnnos viii. 5; Isa i. 13; Hos. ii. 13 (A.V. 11). In the\nJehovistic and Deuteronomic legislation, however, it is completely\nignored, and if it comes into somewhat greater prominence in that\nof Ezekiel and the Priestly Code (but without being for a moment\nto be compared with the Sabbath), this perhaps has to do with the\ncircumstance that in the latter the great festivals are regulated\nby the new moon, and that therefore it is important that this\nshould be observed.  It may have been with a deliberate intention\nthat the new moon festival was thrust aside on account of all\nsorts of heathenish superstition which readily associated\nthemselves with it; but, on the other hand, it is possible that\nthe undersigned preponderance gained by the Sabbath may have ultimately\ngiven it independence, and led to the reckoning of time by\nregular intervals of seven days without regard to new moon, with\nwhich now it came into collision, instead of, as formerly, being\nsupported by it.\n\nAs a lunar festival doubtless the Sabbath also went back to a very\nremote antiquity.  But with the Israelites the day acquired an\naltogether peculiar significance whereby it was distinguished\nfrom all other feast days; it became the day of rest _par\nexcellence_.  Originally the rest is only a consequence of the\nfeast, e.g. that of the harvest festival after the period of\nsevere labour; the new moons also were marked in this way (Amos\nviii. 5; 2Kings iv. 23). In the case of the Sabbath also, rest is,\nproperly speaking, only the consequence of the fact that the day\nis the festal and sacrificial day of the week (Isaiah i. 13;\nEzekiel xlvi. 1 seq.), on which the shewbread was laid out;\nbut here, doubtless on account of the regularity with which it\nevery eighth day interrupted the round of everyday  work, this\ngradually became the essential attribute.  In the end even its name\ncame to be interpreted as if derived from the verb \"to rest.\"\nBut as a day of rest it cannot be so very primitive in its origin;\nin this attribute it presupposes agriculture and a tolerably\nhard-pressed working-day life.  With this it agrees that an\nintensification of the rest of the Sabbath among the Israelites\nadmits of being traced in the course of the history. The highest\ndevelopment, amounting even to a change of quality, is seen\nin the Priestly Code.\n\nAccording to 2Kings iv. 22, 23, one has on Sabbath time for\noccupations that are not of an everyday kind; servant and ass\ncan be taken on a journey which is longer than that \"of a\nSabbath day.\"  In Hos. ii. 13 (11) we read, \"I make an end of all\nyour joy, your feasts, your new moons and your Sabbaths,\" that is\nto say, the last-named share with the first the happy joyousness\nwhich is impossible in the exile which Jehovah threatens.  With\nthe Jehovist and the Deuteronomist the Sabbath, which, it is true,\nis already extended in Amos viii. 5 to commerce, is an\ninstitution specially for agriculture; it is the day of\nrefreshment for the people and the cattle, and is accordingly\nemployed for social ends in the same way as the sacrificial meal\nis (Exodus xx. 10, xxiii. 12, xxxiv. 21; Deuteronomy v. 13, 14).\nAlthough the moral turn given to the observance is genuinely\nIsraelitic and not original, yet the rest even here still\ncontinues to be a feast, a satisfaction for the labouring classes;\nfor what is enjoined as a duty--upon the Israelite rulers, that\nis, to whom the legislation is directed--is less that they should\nrest than that they should give rest.  In the Priestly Code, on\nthe contrary, the rest of the Sabbath has nothing at all of the\nnature of the joyous breathing-time from the load of life which a\nfestival affords, but is a thing for itself, which separates the\nSabbath not only from the week days, but also from the festival\ndays, and approaches an ascetic exercise much more nearly than a\nrestful refreshment.  It is taken in a perfectly abstract manner,\nnot as rest from ordinary work, but as rest absolutely.  On the\nholy day it is not lawful to leave the camp to gather sticks or\nmanna (Exod. xvi.; Numbers xv.), not even to kindle a fire or cook\na meal (Exodus xxxv. 3); this rest is in fact a sacrifice of\nabstinence from all occupation, for which preparation must already\nbegin on the preceding day (Exodus xvi.). Of the Sabbath of the\nPriestly Code in fact it could not be said that it was made for\nman (Mark ii. 27); rather is it a statute that presents itself\nwith all the rigour of a law of nature, having its reason with\nitself, and being observed even by the Creator.  The original\nnarrative of the Creation, according to which God finished His\nwork on the seventh day, and therefore sanctified it, is amended so\nas to be made to say that He finished in six days and rested on\nthe seventh. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1 The contradiction is indubitable when in Genesis ii. 2 it\nis said in the first place that on the seventh day God ended\nthe work which He had made; and then that He rested on the\nseventh day from His work.  Obviously the second clause is\nan authentic interpretation added from very intelligible motives.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nTendencies to such an exaggeration of the Sabbath rest as would\nmake it absolute are found from the Chaldaean period.  While\nIsaiah, regarding the Sabbath purely as a sacrificial day, says,\n\"Bring no more vain oblations; it is an abominable incense unto\nme; new moon and Sabbath, the temple assembly---I cannot endure\niniquity and solemn meeting,\" Jeremiah, on the other hand, is the\nfirst of the prophets who stands up for a stricter sanctification\nof the seventh day, treating it, however, merely as a day of\nrest: \"Bear no burden on the Sabbath day, neither bring in by\nthe gates of Jerusalem nor carry forth a burden out of your\nhouses, neither do ye any work\" (xvii. 21, 22).  He adds that this\nprecept had indeed been given to the fathers, but hitherto has not\nbeen kept;  thus, what was traditional appears to have been only\nthe abstinence from field work and perhaps also from professional\npursuits. In this respect the attitude of Jeremiah is that which\nis taken also by his exilian followers, not merely by Ezekiel\n(xx. 16, xxii. 263 but also by the Great Unknown (Isaiah lvi. 2,\nlviii. 13), who does not otherwise manifest any express partiality\nfor cultus.  While according to Hos. ii. 13, and even Lam. ii. 6,\nthe Sabbath, as well as the rest of the acts of divine worship,\nmust cease outside of the Holy Land, it in fact gained in\nimportance to an extraordinary degree during the exile, having\nsevered itself completely, not merely from agriculture, but in\nparticular also from the sacrificial system, and gained entire\nindependence as a holy solemnity of rest. Accordingly, it became\nalong with circumcision the symbol that bound together the Jewish\ndiaspora; thus already in the Priestly Code the two institutions\nare the general distinguishing marks of religion [)WT Genesis xvii.\n10, 11; Exodus xxxi. 13] which also continue to subsist under\ncircumstances where as in the exile the conditions of the Mosaic\nworship are not present (Genesis ii. 3, xvii. 12, 13). The trouble\nwhich in the meantime the organisers of the church of the second\ntemple had in forcing into effect the new and strict regulations\nis clear from Nehemiah xiii. 15 seq.  But they were ultimately\nsuccessful.  The solemnisation of the Sabbath in Judaism continued\nto develop logically on the basis of the priestly legislation, but\nalways approximating with increasing nearness to the idea; of\nabsolute rest, so that for the straitest sect of the Pharisees the\nbusiness of preparing for the sacred day absorbed the whole week,\nand half man's life, so to speak, existed for it alone.  \"From\nSunday onwards think of the Sabbath,\" says Shammai.  Two details\nare worthy of special prominence; the distinction between _yom tob_\nand _shabbath_, comparable to that drawn by the Puritans between\nSundays and feast days, and the discussion as to whether the\nSabbath was broken by divine worship; both bring into\nrecognition that tendency of the Priestly Code in which the later\ncustom separates itself from its original roots.\n\nIII.IV.2. Connected with the Sabbath is the sabbatical year.\nIn the Book of the Covenant it is commanded that a Hebrew who has\nbeen bought as a slave must after six years of service be liberated\non the seventh unless he himself wishes to remain (Exodus xxi. 2-6).\nBy the same authority it is ordained in another passage that the\nland and fruit-gardens are to be wrought and their produce gathered\nfor six years, but on the seventh the produce is to be surrendered\n(#M+), that the poor of the people may eat, and what they leave\nthe beasts of the field may <e>at (xxiii. 10, 11).  Here there is\nno word of a sabbatical year.  The liberation of the Hebrew slave\ntakes place six years after his purchase, that is, the term is a\nrelative one. In like manner, in the other ordinance there is\nnothing to indicate an absolute seventh year; and besides, it is\nnot a Sabbath or fallow time for the _land_ that is contemplated,\nbut a surrender of the _harvest_.\n\nThe first of these commands is repeated in Deuteronomy without\nmaterial alteration, and to a certain extent word for word (xv.\n12-18). The other has at least an analogue in Deuteronomy xv. 1-6:\n\"At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release\n(surrender, s*m+h), and this is the manner of it; no creditor\nthat lendeth aught shall exact it of his neighbour or of his\nbrother, because Jehovah's release has been proclaimed; of a\nforeigner thou mayst exact it again, but that which is of thine\nwith thy brother, thy hand shall release.\"\n\nThat this precept is parallel with Exodus xxiii. 10, 11, is shown\nby the word #m+h~; but this has a different meaning put upon it\nwhich plainly is introduced as new.  Here it is not landed property\nthat is being dealt with, but money, and what has to be\nsurrendered is not the interest of the debt merely (comparable to\nthe fruit of the soil), but the capital itself; the last clause\nadmits of no other construction, however unsuitable the regulation\nmay be.  A step towards the sabbatical year is discernible in it,\nin so far as the seventh year term is not a different one for each\nindividual debt according to the date when it was incurred (in\nwhich case it might have been simply a period of prescription),\nbut is a uniform and common term publicly fixed: it is absolute,\nnot relative.  But it does not embrace the whole seventh year,\nit does not come in at the end of six years as in Exodus, but at\nthe end of seven; the surrender of the harvest demands the whole\nyear, the remission of debts, comparatively speaking, only a moment.\n\nThe sabbatical year is peculiar to the Priestly Code, or, to speak\nmore correctly, to that collection of laws incorporated and edited\nby it, which lies at the basis of Leviticus xvii.-xxvi.  In Leviticus\nxxv. 1-7 we read:\n\n\"When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep\na Sabbath to Jehovah.  Six years shalt thou sow thy field and prune\nthy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof; but in the seventh\nyear shall the land keep a Sabbath of rest unto Jehovah: thy field\nshalt thou not sow, thy vineyard shalt thou not prune; that which\ngroweth of its own accord of thy harvest shalt thou not reap, neither\nshalt thou gather the grapes of thy vine undressed; the land shall\nhave a year of rest, and the Sabbath of the land shall be food for\nyou; for thee, and for thy  servant, and for thy maid, and for thy\nhired servant, and for thy cattle, and for all the beasts that are\nin thy land, shall all the increase thereof be food.\"\n\nThe expressions make it impossible to doubt that Exodus xxiii. 10, 11\nlies at the foundation of this law; but out of this as a basis it\nis something different that has been framed.  The seventh year,\nwhich is there a relative one, has here become fixed,--not varying\nfor the various properties, but common for the whole land, a\nsabbatical year after the manner of the Sabbath day.  This amounts\nto a serious increase in the difficulty of the matter, for it is\nnot one and the same thing to have the abstinence from harvest\nspread over seven years and to have it concentrated into one out of\nevery seven.  In like manner a heightening of the demand is also seen\nin the circumstance that not merely harvesting but also sowing\nand dressing are forbidden.  In the original commandment this was\nnot the case; all that was provided for was that in the seventh\nyear the harvest should not fall to the lot of the proprietor of the\nsoil, but should be _publici juris_,--a relic perhaps of communistic\nagriculture.  Through a mere misunderstanding of the verbal suffix\nin Exodus xxiii. 11, as has been conjectured by Hupfeld, a surrender\nof the _fruit_ of the land has been construed into a surrender of the\nland itself--a general fallow year (Leviticus xxv. 4). The\nmisunderstanding, however, is not accidental, but highly characteristic.\nIn Exodus  xxiii. the arrangement is made for man; it is a limitation,\nfor the common good, of private rights of property in land,--in fact,\nfor the benefit of the landless, who in the seventh year are to have\nthe usufruct of the soil; in Leviticus xxv. the arrangement is for\nthe sake of the land,--that it may rest, if not on the seventh day,\nat least on the seventh year, and for the sake of the Sabbath--\nthat it may  extend its supremacy over nature also.  Of course this\npresupposes the extreme degree of Sabbath observance by absolute\nrest, and becomes comprehensible only when viewed as an outgrowth\nfrom that.  For the rest, a universal fallow season is possible\nonly under circumstances in which a people are to a considerable\nextent independent of the products of their own agriculture; prior\nto the exile even the idea of such a thing could hardly have\noccurred.\n\nIn the Priestly Code the year of jubilee is further added to\nsupplement in turn the sabbatical year (Leviticus xxv. 8 seq.).\nAs the latter is framed to correspond with the seventh day,\nso the former corresponds with the fiftieth, i.e., with Pentecost,\nas is easily perceived from the parallelism of Leviticus xxv. 8\nwith Leviticus xxiii. 15. Asthe fiftieth day after the seven\nSabbath days is celebrated as a closing festival of the forty-nine\ndays' period, so is the fiftieth year after the seven sabbatic years\nas rounding off the larger interval; the seven Sabbaths falling on\nharvest time, which are usually reckoned specially  (Luke vi. 1 ),\nhave, in the circumstance of their interrupting harvest work, a\nparticular resemblance to the sabbatic years which interrupt agriculture\naltogether.  Jubilee is thus an artificial institution superimposed\nupon the years of fallow regarded as harvest Sabbaths after the\nanalogy of Pentecost.  Both its functions appear originally to\nhave belonged also to the Sabbath year and to be deduced from the\ntwo corresponding regulations in Deuteronomy relating to the\nseventh year, so that thus Exod xxiii. would be the basis of Leviticus\nxxv. 1-7 and Deuteronomy xv. that of xxv. 8 seq.  The emancipation\nof the Hebrew slave originally  had to take place on the seventh\nyear after the purchase, afterwards (it would seem) on the seventh\nvear absolutely; for practical reasons it was transferred from\nthat to the fiftieth.  Analogous also, doubtless, is the growth of\nthe other element in the jubilee--the return of mortgaged property\nto its hereditary  owner--out of the remission of debts enjoined in\nDeuteronomy xv. for the end of the seventh year; for the two hang\nvery closely together, as Leviticus xxv. 23 seq. shows.\n\nAs for the evidence for these various arrangements, those of the\nBook of the Covenant are presupposed alike by Deuteronomy and by\nthe Priestly  Code.  It seems to have been due to the prompting of\nDeuteronomy that towards the end of the reign of Zedekiah the\nemancipation of the Hebrew slaves was seriously gone about; the\nexpressions in Jeremiah xxxiv. 14 point to Deuteronomy xv. 12,\nand not to Exodus xxi. 2.  The injunction not having had practical\neffect  previously, it was in this instance carried through by\nall parties at the same date: this was of course inevitable when\nit was introduced as an extraordinary innovation; perhaps it is\nin connexion with this that a fixed seventh year grew out of a\nrelative one.  The sabbatical year, according to the legislator's\nown declaration, was never observed throughout the whole\npre-exilic period; for, according to Leviticus xxvi. 34, 35, the\ndesolation of the land during the exile is to be a compensation\nmade for the previously neglected fallow years:\n\n\"Then shall the land pay its Sabbaths as long as it lieth desolate;\nwhen ye are in your enemies'  land then shall the land rest\nand pay its Sabbaths; all the days that it lieth desolate shall\nit rest, which it rested not in your Sabbaths when ye dwelt upon\nit.\"\n\nThe verse is quoted in 2Chronicles xxxvi. 21 as the language\nof Jeremiah,-- a correct and unprejudiced indication of its exilic\norigin.  But as the author of Leviticus xxvi. was also the writer of\nLeviticus xxv. 1-7, that is to say, the framer of the law of the\nsabbatic year, the recent date of the latter regulation also\nfollows at once.  The year of jubilee, certainly  derived from the\nSabbath year, is of still later origin.  Jeremiah (xxxiv. 14) has\nnot the faintest idea that the emancipation of the slaves must\naccording to \"law\" take place in the fiftieth year.  The name\ndrwr, borne by the jubilee in Leviticus xxv. 10, is applied by him\nto the seventh year; and this is decisive also for Ezekiel xlvi. 17:\nthe gift of land bestowed by the prince on one of his servants\nremains in his possession only until the seventh year.\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.    THE PRIESTS AND THE LEVITES.\n\n\nIV.I.\n\nIV.I.1  The problem now to be dealt with is exhibited with peculiar\ndistinctness in one pregnant case with which it will be well to set\nout.  The Mosaic law, that is to say, the Priestly Code,\ndistinguishes, as is well known, between the twelve secular tribes\nand Levi, and further within the spiritual tribe itself, between\nthe sons of Aaron and the Levites, simply so called.  The one\ndistinction is made visible in the ordering of the camp in Numbers\nii., where Levi forms around the sanctuary a cordon of protection\nagainst the immediate contact of the remaining tribes; on the\nwhole, however, it is rather treated as a matter of course, and\nnot brought into special prominence (Numbers xviii. 22).  The other\nis accentuated with incomparably greater emphasis. Aaron and his\nsons alone are priests, qualified for sacrificing and burning\nincense; the Levites are hieroduli (3 Esdras i. 3), bestowed\nupon the Aaronidae for the discharge of the inferior services\n(Numbers iii. 9).  They are indeed their tribe fellows, but it is\nnot because he belongs to Levi that Aaron is chosen, and his\npriesthood cannot be said to be the acme and flower of the general\nvocation of his tribe.  On the contrary, rather was he a priest\nlong before the Levites were set apart; for a considerable time\nafter the cultus has been established and set on foot these do not\nmake any  appearance,--not at all in the whole of the third book,\nwhich thus far does little honour to its name _Leviticus_.  Strictly\nspeaking, the Levites do not even belong to the clergy: they are\nnot called by Jehovah, but consecrated by the children of Israel\nto the sanctuary,--consecrated in the place of the first-born, not\nhowever as priests (neither in Numbers iii., iv., viii., nor\nanywhere else in the Old Testament, is there a single trace of the\npriesthood of the first-born), but as a gift due to the priests, as\nsuch being even required to undergo the usual \"waving\" before the altar,\nto symbolise their being cast into the altar flame (Numbers viii.).\nThe relationship between Aaron and Levi, and the circumstance that\nprecisely this tribe is set apart for the sanctuary in compensation\nfor the first-born, appears almost accidental, but at all events\ncannot be explained by the theory that Aaron rose on the shoulders\nof Levi; on the contrary, it rather means that Levi has mounted up\nby means of Aaron, whose priesthood everywhere is treated as having\nthe priority.  Equality between the two is not to be spoken of;\ntheir office and their blood relationship separates them more than\nit binds them together.\n\nNow, the prophet Ezekiel, in the plan of the new Jerusalem which he\nsketched in the year 573, takes up among other things the reform of\nthe relations of the _personnel_ of the temple, and in this\nconnection expresses himself as follows (xliv. 6-16):--\n\"Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Let it suffice you of all your\nabominations, O house of Israel! in that ye have brought in strangers,\nuncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my\nsanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread,\nthe fat and the blood, and have broken my covenant by all your\nabominations.  And ye have not kept the charge of my holy\nthings, inasmuch as ye have set these /1/ to be keepers of my\n\n-- Footnote\nIn ver. 7 for WYPRW read WTPRW, in ver. 8 for WT#YMWN read\nWT#YMWM, and for LKM read LKN, in each case following the LXX.\n-- Footnote\n\n\ncharge in my sanctuary.  Therefore, thus saith the Lord Jehovah,\nNo stranger uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh\nshall enter into my sanctuary; none, of all that are among the\nchildren of Israel.  But the Levites who went away far from me\nwhen Israel went astray from me after their idols, they shall\neven bear their iniquity, and they shall be ministers in my\nsanctuary, officers at the gates of the house and ministers of the\nhouse; they shall slay for the people the burnt-offering and\nthe thank-offering, and they shall stand before them to minister\nunto them.  Because they ministered unto them before their idols,\nand caused the house of Israel to fall into iniquity, therefore\nhave I lifted up my hand against them, saith the Lord Jehovah,\nand they shall bear their iniquity.  They shall not come near\nunto me to do the office of a priest unto me, nor to come near to\nany of my holy things, but they shall bear their shame and\ntheir abominations which they have committed. And I will make\nthem keepers of the charge of the house, for all its service, and\nfor all that shall be done therein.  But the priests, the Levites,\nsons of Zadok, that kept the charge of my sanctuary when\nthe children of Israel went astray from me, they shall come near\nto me to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me to\noffer unto me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord Jehovah;\nthey shall enter into my sanctuary, and come near to my table\nto minister unto me, and they shall keep my charge.\"\n\nFrom this passage two things are to be learned.  First, that the\nsystematic separation of that which was holy from profane contact\ndid not exist from the very beginning; that in the temple of\nSolomon even heathen (Zech. xiv. 21), probably captives, were\nemployed to do hierodulic services which, according to the law,\nought to have been rendered by Levites, and which afterwards\nactually  were so rendered.  Ezekiel, it is indeed true, holds\nthis custom to be a frightful abuse, and one might therefore\nmaintain it to have been a breach of the temple ordinances\nsuffered by the Jerusalem priests against their better knowledge,\nand in this way escape accusing them of ignorance of their own\nlaw.  But the second fact, made manifest by the above-quoted\npassage, quite excludes the existence of the Priestly Code so far\nas Ezekiel and his time are concerned.  The place of the heathen\ntemple-slaves is in future to be taken by the Levites.  Hitherto\nthe latter had held the priesthood, and that too not by arbitrary\nusurpation, but in virtue of their oun good right.  For it is no\nmere relegation back to within the limits of their lawful position\nwhen they are made to be no longer priests but temple\nministrants, it is no restoration of the _status quo ante_, the\nconditions of which they had illegally broken; it is expressly\na degradation, a withdrawal of their right, which appears as a\npunishment and which must be justified as being deserved; \"they\nshall bear their iniquity.\"  They have forfeited their priesthood,\nby abusing it to preside over the cultus of the high places, which\nthe prophet regards as idolatry and hates in his inmost soul.\nNaturally those Levites are exempted from the penalty who have\ndischarged their functions at the legal place,--the Levites the\nsons of Zadok,--namely, at Jerusalem, who now remain sole priests\nand receive a position of pre-eminence above those who hitherto\nhave been their equals in office, and who are still associated with\nthem by  Ezekiel, under the same common name, but now are reduced\nto being their assistants and hieroduli.\n\nIt is an extraordinary sort of justice when the priests of the\nabolished Bamoth are punished simply for having been so, and\nconversely the priests of the temple at Jerusalem rewarded for this;\nthe fault of the former and the merit of the latter consist simply\nin their existence. In other words, Ezekiel merely drapes the logic\nof facts with a mantle of morality.  From the abolition of the\npopular sanctuaries in the provinces in favour of the royal one at\nJerusalem, there necessarily followed the setting aside of the\nprovincial priesthoods in favour of the sons of Zadok at the\ntemple of Solomon.  The original author of the centralisation, the\nDeuteronomic lawgiver, seeks indeed to prevent this consequence by\ngiving to the extraneous Levites an equal right of sacrificing in\nJerusalem with their brethren hereditarily settled there, but it\nwas not possible to separate the fate of the priests from that of\ntheir altars in this manner.  The sons of Zadok were well enough\npleased that all sacrifices should be concentrated within their\ntemple, but they did not see their way to sharing their\ninheritance with the priesthood of the high places, and the idea\nwas not carried out (2Kings xxiii. 9).  Ezekiel, a thorough\nJerusalemite, finds a moral way of putting this departure from\nthe law, a way of putting it which does not explain the fact, but\nis merely a periphrastic statement of it.  With Deuteronomy as a\nbasis it is quite easy to understand Ezekiel's ordinance, but it\nis absolutely  impossible if one starts from the Priestly Code.\nWhat he regards as the original right of the Levites, the\nperformance of priestly services, is treated in the latter\ndocument as an unfounded and highly wicked pretension which once\nin the olden times brought destruction upon Korah and his company;\nwhat he considers to be a subsequent withdrawal of their right, as\na degradation in consequence of a fault, the other holds to have\nbeen their hereditary and natural destination.  The distinction\nbetween priest and Levite which Ezekiel introduces and justifies\nas an innovation, according to the Priestly Code has always\nexisted; what in the former appears as a beginning, in the latter\nhas been in force ever since Moses,--an original datum, not a thing\nthat has become or been made./1/  That the prophet should know\n\n-- Footnote\n1. \"If by reason of their birth it was impossible for the Levites\nto become priests, then it would be more than strange to deprive\nthem of the priesthood on account of their faults,--much as if one\nwere to threaten the commons with the punishment of disqualification\nto sit or vote in a house of lords\" (Kuenen, Theol. Tijdschr., iii. 465).\n-- Footnote\n\n\nnothing about a priestly law with whose tendencies he is in\nthorough sympathy admits of only one explanation,--that it did\nnot then exist.  His own ordinances are only to be understood as\npreparatory steps towards its own exactment.\n\nIV.I.2. Noldeke, however, interprets the parallelism between the\nsons of Aaron and the sons of Zadok in favour of the priority of\nthe Priestly Code, which, after all, he points out, is not quite\nso exclusive as Ezekiel. /1/ But, in the first place, this is a\n\n-- Footnote\n1 Jahrb. f. prot. Theol., 1875, p. 351: \"Its doctrine that\nthe Aaronidae alone are true priests has its parallel in\nEzekiel, who _still more exclusively_ recognises only\nthe sons of Zadok as priests.\"\n-- Footnote\n\n\npoint of subordinate importance, the main thing being that Ezekiel\nhas to make the distinction between priests and Levites, which is\nregarded in the Priestly Code as very ancient.  In presence of\nthe fact that the former introduces as a new thing the separation\nwhich the latter presupposes, the precise degree of the\ndistinction drawn by the two is of no consequence whatever.  In\nthe next place, to bring the sons of Aaron into comparison with the\nsons of Zadok, as a proof of their higher antiquity, is just as\nreasonable as to bring the tabernacle into comparison with the\ntemple of Jerusalem for a similar purpose.  The former are priests\nof the tabernacle, the latter of the temple; but as in point of\nfact the only distinction to be drawn between the Mosaic and the\nactual central sanctuary is that between shadow and substance, so\nneither can any other be made between the Mosaic and the actual\ncentral priesthood.  In the Priestly Code the ancient name is\nintroduced instead of the historical one, simply in order to\nmaintain the semblance of the Mosaic time; if the circumstance\nis to be taken as betokening the earlier origin of the work, then\na similar inference must be drawn also from the fact that in it\nthe origin and character of the Levites is quite obscure, while\nin Ezekiel it is palpably evident that they are the priests thrown\nout of employment by the abolition of the Bamoth, whom necessity\nhas compelled to take a position of subordination under their\nhaughty fellow-priests at Jerusalem.  In truth it is, quite on the\ncontrary, a proof of the post-exilian date of the Priestly Code\nthat it makes sons of Aaron of the priests of the central\nsanctuary, who, even in the traditional understanding (2Chronicles\nxiii. 10), are in one way or other simply the priests of\nJerusalem.  By this means it carries their origin back to the\nfoundation of the theocracy, and gives them out as from the first\nhaving been alone legitimate.  But such an idea no one could have\nventured to broach before the exile.  At that time it was too well\nknown that the priesthood of the Jerusalem sept could not be\ntraced further back than David's time, but dated from Zadok, who in\nSolomon's reign ousted the hereditary house of Eli from the position\nit had long previously held, first at Shiloh and Nob, and\nafterwards at Jerusalem, at what had become the most prominent\nsanctuary of Israel.\n\nIn a passage of Deuteronomic complexion, which cannot have been\nwritten long before the exile, we read in a prediction made to Eli\nregarding the overthrow of his house by Zadok:\n\n\"I said indeed, saith Jehovah the God of Israel, that thy house\nand the house of thy father shall walk before me for ever; but now\nI say, Be it far from me, for them that honour me I will honour,\nbut they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.  Behold, the days\ncome that I will cut off thine arm and the arm of thy father's house,\n...and I will raise up for myself a faithful priest who shall do\naccording to what is in my heart and in my mind; and I will build\nhim a sure house, and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever\"\n(1Samuel ii. 27-36).\n\nHere it is the house of Eli, and of Eli's father, that is the priestly\nfamily duly chosen in Egypt; _contrary_ to hereditary title, and\ncontrary to a promise of perpetual continuance, is it deposed at\nthe higher claims of justice.  The faithful priest who is to fill\nthe vacant place is Zadok.  This is expressly said in 1Kings 2:27;\nand no other than he ever had a \"sure house\" and walked uninterruptedly\nas its head and ruler before the kings of Judah.  This Zadok,\naccordingly, belongs neither to Eli's house nor to that of Eli's father;\nhis priesthood does not go back as far as the time of the founding\nof the theocracy, and is not in any proper sense \"legitimate;\"\nrather has he obtained it by the infringement of what might be called\na constitutional privilege, to which there were no other heirs\nbesides Eli and his family.  Obviously he does not figure as an\nintermediate link in the line of Aaron, but as the beginner of an\nentirely new genealogy; the Jerusalem priests, whose ancestor he is,\nare interlopers dating from the beginning of the monarchical period,\nin whom the old Mosaic _sacerdotium_ is not continued, but is broken\noff.  If then they are called in the Priestly Code \"sons of Aaron,\"\nor at least figure there among the sons of Aaron, with whom they can\nonly in point of fact be contrasted, the circumstance is an unmistakable\nindication that at this point the threads of tradition from the\npre-exilic period have been snapped completely, which was not yet\nthe case in Ezekiel's time. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. To satisfy the Pentateuch it is shown in the Book of Chronicles,\nby means of artificial genalogies, how the sons of Zadok derived\ntheir origin in an unbroken line from Aaron and Eleazar.\nCompare my Pharisaer u. Sadducaer, p. 48 seq.  This point was\nfirst observed by Vatke (p. 344 seq.), then by Kuenen (Theol.\nTijdschr., iii. p. 463-509) and lastly by me (Text der BB. Sam.,\np. 48-51).\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe relation between the priestly legislation and the Book of\nEzekiel, which has now been shown, gives direction and aim\nto the following sketch, in which it is sought to exhibit the\nindividual phenomenon in its general connection.\n\n\nIV.II.\n\nIV.II.1. The setting apart from the rest of the people of an\nentire tribe as holy, and the strongly accentuated distinction of\nranks within that tribe, presuppose a highly systematised separation\nbetween sacred and profane, and an elaborate machinery connected\nwith cultus.  In fact, according to the representation given in\nthe Priestly Code, the Israelites from the beginning were organised\nas a hierocracy, the clergy being the skeleton, the high priest the\nhead, and the tabernacle the heart.  But the suddenness with which\nthis full-grown hierocracy descended on the wilderness from the skies\nis only matched by the suddenness with which it afterwards disappeared\nin Canaan, leaving no trace behind it.  In the time of the Judges,\npriests and Levites, and the congregation of the children of Israel\nassembled around them, have utterly vanished; there is hardly a\n_people_ Israel,--only individual tribes which do not combine even\nunder the most pressing necessities, far less support at a common\nexpense a clerical _personnel_ numbering thousands of men, besides\ntheir wives and families.  Instead of the Ecclesiastical History\nof the Hexateuch, the Book of Judges forthwith enters upon a secular\nhistory completely devoid of all churchly character.  The high priest,\nwho according to the Priestly Code is the central authority by the\ngrace of God, is here quite left out in the cold, for the really\nacting heads of the people are the Judges, people of an entirely\ndifferent stamp, whose authority, resting on no official position,\nbut on strength of personality and on the force of circumstances,\nseldom extends beyond the limits of their tribe.  And it is plain\nthat in this we behold not the sorry remains of an ecclesiastico-political\nsystem once flourishing under Moses and Joshua, now completely\nfallen into ruins, but the first natural beginnings of a civil\nauthority which after a course of further development finally led\nto the monarchy.\n\nIn the kernel of the Book of Judges (chaps. iii.-xvi.) there\nnowhere occurs a single individual whose profession is to take\ncharge of the cultus.  Sacrifice is in two instances offered, by\nGideon and Manoah; but in neither case is a priest held to be\nnecessary.  In a gloss upon 1Samuel vi. 13 seq. the divergence of\nlater custom reveals itself.  When the ark of Jehovah was brought\nback from exile in Philistia upon the new cart, it halted in the\nfield of Bethshemesh beside the great stone, and the inhabitants\nof Bethshemesh, who were at the time busy with the wheat harvest,\nbroke up the cart and made on the stone a burnt-offering of the kine\nby which it had been drawn.  After they have finished, the Levites\ncome up (ver. 15) (in the pluperfect tense) and proceed as if nothing\nhad happened, lift the ark from the now no longer existent cart,\nand set it upon the stone on which the sacrifice is already burning;-\nof course only in order to fulfil the law, the demands of which\nhave been completely ignored in the original narrative.  Until\nthe cultus has become in some measure centralised the priests have\nno _locus standi_; for when each man sacrifices for himself and his\nhousehold, upon an altar which he improvises as best he can for\nthe passing need, where is the occasion for people whose\nprofessional and essential function is that of sacrificing for\nothers?  The circumstance of their being thus inconspicuous in the\nearliest period of the history of Israel is connected with the\nfact that as yet there are few great sanctuaries.  But as soon as\nthese begin to occur, the priests immediately appear.  Thus we find\nEli and his sons at the old house of God belonging to the tribe of\nEphraim at Shiloh.  Eli holds a very exalted position, his sons are\ndepicted as high and mighty men, who deal with the worshippers not\ndirectly but through a servant, and show arrogant disregard of their\nduties to Jehovah.  The office is hereditary, and the priesthood\nalready very numerous.  At least in the time of Saul, after they had\nmigrated from Shiloh to Nob, on account of the destruction by the\nPhilistines of the temple at the former place, they numbered more\nthan eighty-five men, who, however, are not necessarily proper\nblood-relations of Eli, although reckoning themselves as belonging\nto his clan (1Samuel xxii. 11). /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. In 1Samuel i. seq., indeed, we read only of Eli and his two\nsons and one servant, and even David and Solomon appear to have\nhad only a priest or two at the chief temple.  Are we to suppose\nthat Doeg, single-handed, could have made away with eighty-five\nmen ?\n-- Footnote\n\n\nOne sanctuary more is referred to towards the close of the period\nof the Judges,--that at Dan beside the source of the Jordan.  A rich\nEphraimite, Micah, had set up to Jehovah a silver-covered image,\nand lodged it in an appropriate house. At first he appointed one\nof his sons to be its priest, afterwards Jonathan ben Gershom\nben Moses, a homeless Levite of Bethlehem-Judah, whom he counted\nhimself happy in being able to retain for a yearly salary of ten\npieces of silver, besides clothing and maintenance.  When, however,\nthe Danites, hard pressed by the Philistines, removed from their\nancient settlements in order to establish a new home for themselves\non the slopes of Hermon in the north, they in passing carried off\nboth Micah's image and his priest; what led them to do so was the\nreport of their spies who had formerly lodged with Micah and there\nobtained an oracle.  It was in this way that Jonathan came to Dan\nand became the founder of the family which retained the priesthood\nat this afterwards so important sanctuary down to the period of the\ndeportation of the Danites at the Assyrian captivity  (Judges xvii.,\nxviii.).  His position seems very different from that of Eli.\nThe only point of resemblance is that both are hereditary priests,\nLevites so called, and trace their descent from the family of Moses,--\nof which more anon.  But while Eli is a man of distinction, perhaps\nthe owner of the sanctuary, at all events in a position of\nthorough independence and the head of a great house, Jonathan is a\nsolitary wandering Levite who enters the service of the proprietor\nof a sanctuary for pay and maintenance, and is indeed nourished\nas a son by his patron, but by no means treated with special\nrespect by the Danites.\n\nThe latter case, it may well be conjectured, more nearly\nrepresents the normal state of matters than the former.  An\nindependent and influential priesthood could develop itself only\nat the larger and more public centres of worship, but that of\nShiloh seems to have been the only one of this class.  The\nremaining houses of God, of which we hear some word from the\ntransition period which preceded the monarchy, are not of\nimportance, and are in private hands, thus corresponding to that\nof Micah on Mount Ephraim.  That of Ophra belongs to Gideon, and\nthat of Kirjathjearim to Abinadab.  In fact, it appears that\nMicah, in appointing one to minister at his sanctuary for hire,\nwould seem to have followed a more general practice. For the\nexpression ML( YDW, which still survived as a _terminus technicus_\nfor the ordination of priests long after they had attained a\nperfectly independent position, can originally in this\nconnection hardly have meant anything else than a filling of the\nhand with money or its equivalent; thus the priestly office\nwould appear in the older time to have been a paid one, perhaps\nthe only one that was paid.  Whom he shall appoint is at the\ndiscretion of the proprietor: if no one else is available, he\ngives it to one of his sons (Judges xvii. 5; 1Samuel vii. 1),--\nof a \"character indelibilis\" there is of course in such a case\nno idea, as one can learn from the earliest example, in which\nMicah's son retires again from the service after a brief interval.\nDavid, when he removed the ark, intrusted it in the first instance\nto the house of Obededom, a captain of his, a Philistine of Gath,\nwhom he made its keeper.  A priest of regular calling, a Levite,\nis, according to Judges xvii. 13, a very unusual person to find\nat an ordinary sanctuary.  Even at Shiloh, where, however, the\nconditions are extraordinary, the privilege of the sons of Eli is\nnot an exclusive one; Samuel, who is not a member of the family,\nis nevertheless adopted as a priest.  The service for which a\nstated minister was needed was not that of offering sacrifice;\nthis was not so regular an occurrence as not to admit of being\nattended to by one's self.  For a simple altar no priest was\nrequired, but only for a house which contained a sacred image; /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. BYT (LHYM, \"house of God,\" is never anything but the house of an\nimage.  Outside of the Priestly Code, _ephod_ is the image, _ephod\nbad_ the priestly garment.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nthis demanded watching and attendance (1 Sam. vii. 1)--in fact,\nan ephod like that of Gideon or that of Micah (Judges viii. 26,\n27, XVii. 4) was an article well worth stealing, and the houses of\nGod ordinarily lay in an open place (Exodus xxxiii. 7).  The\nexpressions #MR and #RT to denote the sacred service were\nretained in use from this period to later times; and, while every\none knows how to sacrifice, the art of dealing with the ephod and\nwinning its oracle from it continues from time immemorial to be\nthe exclusive secret of the priest.  In exceptional cases, the\nattendant is occasionally not the priest himself, but\nhis disciple.  Thus Moses has Joshua with him as his _aedituus_ /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2 M#RT M#H, more precisely m'' (T YY PNY M#H HKHN, 1Samuel. ii. 11.\n-- Footnote\n\n\n(Exodus xxxiii. 11), who does not quit the tent of Jehovah; so\nalso Eli has Samuel, who sleeps at night in the inner portion of\nthe temple beside the ark of the covenant; even if perhaps the\nnarrative of Samuel's early years is not quite in accordance with\nthe actual circumstances as they existed at Shiloh, it is still\nin any case a perfectly good witness to a custom of the\nexistence of which we are apprised from other sources.  Compare now\nwith this simple state of affairs the fact that in the Priestly\nCode the sons of Aaron have something like the half of a total of\n22,000 Levites to assist them as watchers and ministers of\nthe sanctuary.\n\nAny one may slaughter and offer sacrifice (1Samuel xiv. 34\nseq.); and, even in cases where priests are present, there is not\na single trace of a systematic setting apart of what is holy, or\nof shrinking from touching it.   When David \"entered into the house\nof God and did eat the shew-bread, which it is not lawful to eat\nsave for the priests, and gave also to them that were with him\"\n(Mark ii. 26), this is not represented in 1Sam. xxi. as\nillegitimate when those who eat are sanctified, that is, have\nabstained on the previous day from women.  Hunted fugitives lay\nhold of the horns of the altar without being held guilty of\nprofanation.  A woman, such as Hannah, comes before Jehovah, that\nis, before the altar, to pray; the words WTTYCB LPNY YY\n(1Samuel i. 9) supplied by the LXX, are necessary for the connection,\nand have been omitted from the Massoretic text as offensive. In\ndoing so she is observed by the priest, who sits quietly, as is\nhis wont, on his seat at the temple door.  The history of the ark\nparticularly, as Vatke justly remarks (pp. 317, 332), affords more\nthan one proof of the fact that the notion of the unapproachableness\nof the holy was quite unknown; I shall content myself with the most\nstriking of these.  Samuel the Ephraimite sleeps by virtue of his\noffice every night beside the ark of Jehovah, a place whither,\naccording to Leviticus xvi., the high priest may come only once in the year,\nand even he only after the strictest preparation and with the\nmost elaborate atoning rites.  The contrast in the TONE OF FEELING\nis so great that no one as yet has even ventured to realise it\nclearly to himself.\n\nIV.II.2. With the commencement of the monarchical period the priests\nforthwith begin to come into greater prominence along with the\nkings;  the advance in centralisation and in publicity of life\nmakes itself noticeable also in the department of worship.  At the\nbeginning of Saul's reign we find the distinguished Ephraimitic\npriesthood, the house of Eli, no longer at Shiloh, but at Nob, in\nthe vicinity of the king, and to a certain degree in league with\nhim; for their head, Ahijah the priest, is in immediate\nattendance on him when arms are first raised against the\nPhiiistines, shares the danger with him, and consults the ephod on\nhis behalf.  Subsequently the _entente cordiale_ was disturbed,\nAhijah and his brethren fell a sacrifice to the king's jealousy,\nand thus the solitary instance of an independent and considerable\npriesthood to be met with in the old history of Israel came for\never to an end.  Abiathar, who alone escaped the massacre of Nob\n(1Samuel xxii.), fled with the ephod to David, for which he was\nrewarded afterwards with high honours, but all that he became he\nbecame as servant of David.  Under David the regius priesthood\nbegan to grow towards the importance which it from that time\nforward had.  This king exercised unfettered control over the\nsanctuary of the ark which stood in his citadel, as also over\nthe appointment of the priests, who were merely his officials.\nAlongside of Abiathar he placed Zadok (and subsequently Ira also),\nas well as some of his own sons.  For when it is stated in\n2Sam. viii. 18 that the sons of David were priests, the words\nmust not out of regard to the Pentateuch be twisted so as to mean\nsomething different from what they say.  We also (1Kings iv. 5)\nfind the son of the prophet Nathan figuring as a priest, and on\nthe other hand the son of Zadok holding a high secular office\n(ver. 2); even at this date the line of demarcation afterwards\ndrawn between holy and non-holy persons has no existence. What\nunder David was still wanting to the institution of the royal\nworship and the regius priests--a fixed centre--was added by\nthe erection of the temple under his successor.  At the beginning\nof Solomon's reign there was still no ISRAELITE place of sacrifice\nsuch as sufficed for the greater contingencies; he was compelled\nto celebrate his accession at the great Bamah at Gibeon, a town\nin the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, which, although it had been\nsubjugated for a considerable time, was still entirely Canaanite.\nHe now took care to make it possible that his colossal festivals\nshould be celebrated at his own sanctuary.  And next he made Zadok\nits priest after having previously deposed and relegated to his\npatrimonial property at Anathoth, a village adjoining Jerusalem,\nthe aged Abiathar, a man of pure and honourable priestly descent,\non account of the support he had given to the legitimate heir\nto the crown, thereby bringing to pass the fate with which the\nonce so proud and powerful family of Eli had in 1Samuel ii. been\nthreatened.  Doubtless other priests also by degrees attached\nthemselves to the family of Zadok, and ultimately came even to call\nthemselves his sons, just as the Rechabites regarded Jonathan\nben Rechab, or the \"children of the prophets\" one or other of\nthe great prophets, as their father.\n\nRegarding their sanctuaries as their own private property,\nprecisely as Micah does in the classical instance recorded in\nJudges xvii., xviii., and proceeding quite untrammelled in the\nappointment and removal of the officials employed, neither do\nthese early kings hesitate in the least to exercise personally\nthe rights which had emanated from themselves, and been delegated\nto others.  Of Saul, who indeed was in the habit of delegating\nbut seldom, and of doing with his own hand all that required to\nbe done, it is several times mentioned that he sacrificed in person;\nand it is clear that this is not brought as a charge against him in\n1Samuel xiv. and xv. David sacrificed on the occasion of his having\nsuccessfully brought the ark to Jerusalem; that it was he himself\nwho officiated appears from the fact that he wore the priestly\nephod--_the ephod bad_--and at the close of the offering pronounced the\nbenediction (2Samuel vi. 14, 18).  In the same way was the\nconsecration of the temple conducted by Solomon; it was he who\nwent before the altar, and after praying there upon his knees with\noutstretched arms, rose and blessed the people (1Kings viii.\n22, 54, 53),--doubtless also it was he who with his own hands\noffered the first sacrifice.  The priests' technical skill is\nnecessary only for inquiring of the oracle before the ephod\n(1Samuel xiv. 18).\n\nIV.II.3. These beginnings are continued in the history of the\npriesthood after the division of the kingdom. Jeroboam I., the\nfounder of the kingdom of Israel, is treated by the historian as\nthe founder also of Israel's worship in so far as the latter\ndiffered from the Judaean ideal: \"he made the two calves of gold,\nand set them up at Bethel and at Dan; he made the Bamoth-houses\nand made priests from the mass of the people, who were not of the\nsons of Levi, and ordained a feast in the eighth month and\nascended to the altar to burn incense\" (1Kings xii. 28 seq.,\nxiii. 33).  Here indeed after the well-known manner of pious\npragmatism retrospective validity is given to the Deuteronomic\nlaw which did not come into force until three centuries\nafterwards, and judgment is thus passed in accordance with a\nhistorically inadmissable standard; moreover, the facts on which\nthe judgment is based are on the one hand too much generalised,\nand on the other hand laid too exclusively to the charge of\nJeroboam.  The first king bears the weight of all the sins in\nworship of all his successors and of the whole body of the\npeople.  But the recognition of the sovereign priesthood of the\nruler, of the formative influence which he exercised over the\nworship, is just.  The most important temples were royal ones,\nand the priests who attended at them were the king's priests\n(Amos vii. 10 seq.). When therefore Jehu overthrew the house\nof Ahab, he did not extirpate all its members merely, and its\nofficials and courtiers, but also its priests as well; they\ntoo were servants of the crown and in positions of trust\n(2Kings x. 11I; comp. 1Kings iv.  5). The statement that they\nwere chosen at the pleasure of the king is therefore to be taken\nas implying that, as in David's and Solomon's time, so also later\nthey could and might be chosen at pleasure; on the other hand, in\npoint of fact the sacred office, in Dan at least, continued from\nthe period of the Judges down to the Assyrian deportation\nhereditary in the family of Jonathan.  One must, moreover, avoid\nimagining that all the \"houses of the high places\" and all the\npriestly posts /1/ belonged to the king; it was impossible that the\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The parallelism between \"Bamoth-houses\" and a priestly\nappointment in 1Kings xii. 31 seems not to be casual merely.\nWhilst a Bamah may be a simple altar, a \"Bamoth-house\"\npresupposes a divine image, and renders an _aedituus_ necessary.\n-- Footnote\n\n\ngovernment should be so all-pervading in such matters.  At this\nperiod most of the sanctuaries were public, but not therefore as\nyet on that account royal, and so also doubtless there were\nnumerous priests who were not servants of the king.  The\npreponderance of official cultus and of an official personnel to\ncarry it on was counteracted in the northern kingdom by the\nfrequent dynastic changes and the unattached particularism of the\nseparate tribes; the conditions may be presumed to have\ndeveloped themselves with great variety and freedom, hereditary\nand unhereditary priests, priests with independent benefices and\nothers in complete poverty, subsisting side by side; the variety\nand the equality of rights enjoyed by all is the distinguishing\nmark of the time.\n\nSpeaking generally, however, the priesthood has distinctly\nconsolidated itself as compared with its former condition, and\ngained not a little alike in number and in influence; it has become\nan important power in public life, without which the nation cannot\nbe imagined.  It would perhaps be somewhat bold to assert this\non the strength merely of the brief and inadequate indications\nin the Book of Kings, which is chiefly interested in the extraordinary\ninterventions of the prophets in the course of Israel's history,\nbut other and more authentic testimonies justify us in doing so.\nFirst of these is the Blessing of Moses, an independent document\nof northern Israel which speaks for itself.   Here we read:\n\n  \"Thy Thummim and thy Urim belong to the man of thy friendship,\n  whom thou didst prove at Massah,\n  for whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;\n  who saith of father and mother,\n  I have never seen them,\n  and acknowledgeth not his brethren\n  nor knoweth his own children--\n  for they observe thy word\n  and keep thy covenant,\n  they teach Jacob thy judgments\n  and Israel thy law;\n  they bring savour of fat before thee\n  and whole burnt sacrifice upon thine altar;\n  bless, O Lord, his strength,\n  and accept the work of his hands;\n  smite through the loins of them that rise up against him,\n  and of them that hate him that they rise not again\"\n  (Deuteronomy xxxiii. 8-11).\n\nIn this passage the priests appear as a strictly close corporation,\nso close that they are mentioned only exceptionally in the plural\nnumber, and for the most part are spoken of collectively in the\nsingular, as an organic unity which embraces not merely the\ncontemporary members, but also their ancestors, and which begins\nits life with Moses, the friend of Jehovah who as its beginning\nis identified with the continuation just as the man is identified\nwith the child out of which he has grown.  The history of Moses\nis at the same time the history of the priests, the Urim and Thummim\nbelong--one is not quite sure to which, but it comes to the same\nthing; every priest to whom the care of an ephod has been intrusted\ninterrogates before it the sacred oracle.  The first relative clause\nrelating to Moses passes over without change of subject into one\nthat refers to the priests, so that the singular immediately falls\ninto plural and the plural back to the singular.  Yet this so\nstrongly marked solidarity of the priesthood as a profession rests\nby no means upon the natural basis of family or clan unity; it is\nnot blood, but on the contrary the abnegation of blood that constitutes\nthe priest, as is brought out with great emphasis.  He must act for\nJehovah's sake as if he had neither father nor mother, neither\nbrethren nor children.  Blind prepossession in people's conceptions\nof Judaism has hitherto prevented the understanding of these words,\nbut they are thoroughly unambiguous.  What they say is, that in\nconsecrating himself to the service of Jehovah a man abandons his\nnatural relationships, and severs himself from family ties;\nthus, with the brotherhood of the priests in northern Israel the\ncase is precisely similar as with that of the religious guilds of\nthe sons of the prophets--the Rechabites, and doubtless too the\nNazarites (Amos ii. 11 seq.)--also native there.  Whosoever chose\n(or, whomsoever he chose) was made priest by Jeroboam--such is the\nexpression of the Deuteronomic redactor of the Book of Kings\n(1Kings xiii. 33).  A historical example of what has been said is\nafforded by the young Samuel, as he figures in the narrative of\nhis early years contained in 1Samuel i.-iii.--a narrative which\ncertainly reflects the condition of things in Ephraim at the period\nof the monarchy.  The child of a well-to-do middle class family\nat Ramah, in the district of Zuph Ephraim, he is even before his\nbirth vowed to Jehovah by his mother, and as soon as possible\nafterwards is handed over to the sanctuary at Shiloh,--not to\nbecome a Nazarite or one of the Nethinim in the sense of the\nPentateuch, but to be a priest,--for in his ministry he wears\nthe linen ephod, the _ephod bad_, and even\nthe pallium (1Samuel ii. 18) /1/ And it is made very plain that\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Comp. Koran, iii. 31: \"I vow to thee that which is in my\nwomb as a devotee of the mosque, to serve it.\"\n*[pallium. \"1.Antiq. A large rectangular cloak or mantle worn by men'\nchiefly among the Greeks; esp. by philosophers and by early Christian\nascetics...Himation...2.Eccl. A vestment of wool worn by patriarchs\nand metropolitans... SOED. Heb. m(yl q+n ii.19?]*\n-- Footnote\n\n\nthe mother's act, in thus giving up her son, who is properly\nhers, or (as she expresses it) lending him to Jehovah for ever\n(1Samuel i. 28: #MW)L=MW#)L), is regarded as a renunciation\nof family rights.  The circumstance that it is by the parents\nand not by Samuel himself that the consecration is made makes\nno material difference; the one thing is on the same plane with\nthe other, and doubtless occurred as well as the other, although\nseldomer.  But, on the other hand, it can hardly have been the\nrule that any one should abandon not parents and brethren merely,\nbut also wife and children as well in order to enter the priesthood;\nin Deuteronomy xxxiii. 9 this is adduced only as an extreme instance\nof the spirit of self-sacrifice.  In any case it is not to be\ninferred that celibacy was demanded, but only that the priestly\noffice was often barely  sufficient to support the man, not to\nspeak of a family.\n\nSo fixed and influential, so independent and exclusive had the\npriesthood become at the date of the composition of the Blessing\nof Moses, that it takes a place of its own alongside of the tribes\nof the nation, is itself a tribe, constituted, however, not by\nblood, but by community of spiritual interests.  Its importance\nis brought into clearness even by the opposition which it\nencounters, and which occasions so vigorous a denunciation of its\nenemies that one might well believe the person who committed it to\nwriting to have been himself a priest.  The cause of the hostility\nis not stated, but it seems to be directed simply against the\nvery existence of a professional and firmly organised clergy,\nand to proceed from laymen who hold fast by the rights of the old\npriestless days.\n\nNext to the Blessing of Moses the discourses of Hosea contain our\nmost important materials for an estimate of the priesthood of\nNorthern Israel.  How important that institution was for public\nlife is clear from his expressions also.  The priests are the\nspiritual leaders of the people; the reproach that they do not fulfil\ntheir high vocation proves in the first place that they have it.\nDegenerate they are, to be sure; in Hosea's representation they\nare seen in the same light as that in which the sons of Eli appear\nas described in 1Samuel ii. 22 seq., from which description one\nconjectures the author to have derived his colours from a state of\nmatters nearer his own day than the period of the judges.  The\npriests of Shechem are even taxed by the prophet with open highway\nrobbery (vi. 9), and in one charge after another he accuses them\nof taking advantage of their office for base gain, of neglecting\nits most sacred duties, and in this way having the principal\nblame for the ruin of the people.\n\n\"Hear the word of Jehovah, ye children of Israel,\nfor the Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land,\nbecause there is no truth, nor mercy,\nnor knowledge of God in the land.\n\n(2.) There is swearing, and Iying, and killing,\nand stealing, and committing adultery;\nthey use violence and add murder to murder.\n\n(3.) Therefore the land mourneth,\nand every creature that dwelleth therein languisheth,\neven to the wild beasts of the field\nand the fowls of heaven;\nand even the fishes of the sea are taken away.\n\n(4.) Yet let no man strive\nand no man reprove;\nfor the people do just as their priests.\n\n(5.) Therefore shall ye (priests) stumble on that day,\nand also the prophets with you on that night;\nand I will destroy your kin.\n\n(6.) My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge,\nbecause ye yourselves reject knowledge;\nI will therefore reject you that ye shall be no longer priests unto me;\nye have forgotten the doctrine of your God,\nso will I forget your children.\n\n(7.) The more they are,\nthe more they sin against me;\ntheir glory they  turn into shame.\n\n(8.) They eat up the sin of my people,\nand they set their heart on their iniquity.\n\n(9.) And it shall be as with the people so with the priest;\nI will punish them for their ways\nand requite them for their doings.\n\n(10.) They shall eat and not have enough,\nthey shall commit whoredom and shall not increase,\nbecause they have ceased to take heed to the Lord\"\n(Hosea iv. 1-10). /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. In the introductory words the people are invited to hear what it\nis that Jehovah complains of them for; sin prevails to such an\nextent that the complete ruin of the country is inevitable (vers.\n1-3).  With the word \"yet\" at the beginning of the following verse\nthe prophet changes the course of his thought; from the people he\npasses to the priests; the root of the general corruption is the\nwant of divine knowledge (the knowledge, namely, that \"I will have\nmercy and not sacrifice; \"compare Jeremiah xxii. 16), and for this\nthe priests are to blame, whose task it was to diffuse \"knowledge,\"\nbut who, instead of this for their own selfish interests fostered\nthe tendency of the people to seek Jehovah's grace by sacrifice\nrather than by righteousness.  For if it be conceded that it is\nthe priests who are addressed from ver. 6 onwards, then it is not\neasy to see why a change in the address should take place between\nver. 5 and ver. 6, especially as the co-ordination of priests\nwith prophets seems more reasonable in ver. 5 than that of prophets\nand people.  As ver. 4 in this way occupies an intermediate position\nbetween the complaint made against the people in vers. 1-3, and\nthat against the priests in vers. 5-10, the transition from the one\nto the other, indicated by the \"yet,\" must occur in it. Hosea\nabruptly breaks off from reproaching the people, \"Yet let no man\nstrive and no man reprove\"--why not, the words that follow must\nexplain.  In verse 4b some circumstance must be mentioned which\nexcuses the people, and at the same time draws down indignation\nupon the priests who are the subjects of the following.  These\nconsiderations necessarily determine the thought which we are\nto expect, namely, this--\"for the people do just as their priests.\"\nThis meaning is obtained by the conjectural reading W(MY KKMRYW\ninstead of W(MKKMRYB.  Comp. ver. 9. The remaining YKH must be\ndeleted.  The ordinary view of ver. 4 is hardly worth refuting.\nThe )L YWKH, it is said, is spoken from the people's point of view.\nThe people repel the prophet's reproach and rebuke, because\n(such is the interpretation of ver. 4b) they themselves have no\nscruples in striving EVEN with the priest.  \"Even,\" for want of\nsubjection to the priests is held to be specially wicked.\nBut the prophet Hosea would hardly have considered it a capital\noffence if the people had withheld from the priests the respect\nof which, according to his own language, they were so utterly\nunworthy.  Moreover, every exegesis which finds in ver. 4 a\nreproach brought against the people, leaves in obscurity the point\nat which the transition is made from reproach of the people\nto reproach of the priests.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIn the northern kingdom, according to this, the spiritual\nascendancy of the priests over the people seems hardly to have\nbeen less than that of the prophets, and if in the history we\nhear less about it, /1/ the explanation is to be sought in the\n\n-- Footnote\n1. According to 2Kings xvii. 27, 28, the foreign colonies\nintroduced by the Assyrians into Samaria after it had been\ndepopulated, were at first devoured by lions because they were\nignorant of the right way of honouring the deity of the land.\nEsarhaddon therefore sent one of the exiled Samaritan priests, who\nfixed his abode at Bethel, the ancient chief sanctuary, and\ninstructed (MWRH) the settlers in the religion of the god of the\ncountry.  This presupposes a definite priesthood, which\nmaintained itself even in exile for a considerable time.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nfact that they laboured quietly and regularly in limited\ncircles, taking no part in politics, and fully submissive to the\nestablished order, and that for this reason they attracted less\nnotice and were less talked about than the prophets who, like\nElijah and Elisha, stirred up Israel by their extraordinary and\noppositional action.\n\nIV.II.4. In Judah the nucleus of the development was the same as in\nIsrael.  The idea that in Judah the genuine Mosaic priesthood had\nby the grace of God been maintained, while in Israel, on the other\nhand, a schismatic priesthood had intruded itself by the favour\nof the king and man's device, is that of the later Judaeans who\nhad the last word, and were therefore of course in the right.  The\nB'ne Zadok of Jerusalem as contrasted with the B'ne Eli whom they\nsuperseded were originally illegitimate (if one may venture to\napply a conception which at that time was quite unknown), and did\nnot inherit their right from the fathers, but had it from David\nand Solomon.  They always remained in this dependent condition,\nthey at all times walked, as 1Samuel ii. 35 has it, \"before\nJehovah's anointed,\" as his servants and officers.  To the kings\nthe temple was a part of their palace which, as is shown by\n1Kings vii. and 2Kings xi., stood upon the same hill and was\ncontiguous with it; they placed their threshold alongside of\nthat of Jehovah, and made their door-posts adjoin to His, so that\nonly the wall intervened between Jehovah and them (Ezekiel xliii.\n8).  They shaped the official cultus entirely as they chose,\nand regarded the management of it, at least so far as one gathers\nfrom the epitome of the \"Book of the Kings,\" as the main business\nof their government.  They introduced new usages and abolished old\nones; and as they did so the priests always bent to their will\nand were merely their executive organs. /1/ That they were at\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Compare for example 2Kings xii. 5 seq. (Joash and Jehoiada),\nxvi. 10 seq.  Ahaz and Urijah), and, finally, chap. xxii.\n(Josiah and Hilkiah).\n-- Footnote\n\n\nliberty to offer sacrifice also is a thing of course;  they did\nit, however, only on exceptional occasions, such as, perhaps, at\nthe dedication of a new altar (2Kings xvi. 12, 13).  Even with\nJeremiah, who as a rule does not consider sacrifice and drawing\nnear to Jehovah (Numbers xvi 5) as every  man's business, the king\nas such is held to be also the supreme priest; for at the\nbeginning of the exile and the foreign domination his hope for the\nfuture is: \"Their potentate shall be of themselves, and their\ngovernor shall proceed from the midst of them, and I will cause\nhim to draw near, and he shall approach unto me; for who else\nshould have the courage to approach unto me? saith the Lord\"\n(xxx. 21).  Ezekiel is the first to protest against dealing with\nthe temple as a royal dependency; for him the prerogative of the\nprince is reduced to this, that it is his duty to support the\npublic cultus at his own expense.\n\nThe distinction between the Judaean and the Israelite priesthood\ndid not exist at first, but arose out of the course of events.\nThe sheltered and quiet life of the little state in the south\npresents a marked contrast with the external and internal conflicts,\nthe easily raised turmoil, of the northern kingdom. In the latter,\nthe continual agitation brought extraordinary  personalities up\nto the surface; in the former, institutions based upon the permanent\norder of things and supported by permanent powers were consolidated./1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The Rechabites, who arose in the northern kingdom, continued to\nsubsist in Judah, and Jeremiah prophesied to them that there\nshould never fail them a priestly head of the family of their\nfounder (xxxv. 19).\n-- Footnote\n\n\nNaturally the monarchy itself benefited most by this stability.\nThe king's cultus, which in the kingdom of Samaria was in no\nposition to supersede the popular and independent worship,\neasily obtained a perceptible preponderance in the smaller Judah;\nthe king's priesthood, which in the former was incidentally involved\nin disaster by the overthrow of the dynasty, in the latter gained\nin strength side by side with the house of David--even Aaron\nand Amminadab were according to the Priestly Code related to the\nroyal family, as Jehoiada and Ahaziah were in actual fact.\nThus at an early period was the way paved for the Act of Uniformity\nby which Josiah made the king's cultus the official and the only one.\nOne effect which accompanied the measures he took was naturally the\nexclusive legitimation of the king's priesthood at Jerusalem.  But\nthe principle of heredity had already pervaded the other priestly\nfamilies so thoroughly that to enter any secular calling was\nnowhere expected of them.  The Deuteronomic legislator had\nconferred upon them the right of carrying on their office at\nJerusalem, and of executing it there on behalf of any one who\nrequested their services; but this regulation, from the opposition\nof the B'ne Zadok, was found on the whole impracticable (2Kings\nxxiii. 9), although doubtless some extraneous elements may at\nthat time have succeeded in making their way into the temple\nnobility.  The bulk of the priests of the high places who had been\nsuperseded had to content themselves (since they could not now\nget rid of their spiritual character) with being degraded among\ntheir brethren at Jerusalem, and with admission to a subordinate\nshare in the service of the sanctuary (comp. 1Samuel ii. 36).\nIt was thus, at the close of the pre-exilic history, that the\ndistinction between priests and Levites arose to which Ezekiel\nis at pains to give the sanction of law.\n\n\nIV.III.\n\nIV.III.1. On the whole it is easy here to bring the successive strata\nof the Pentateuch into co-ordination with the recognisable steps\nof the historical development.  In the Jehovistic legislation\nthere is no word of priests (Exodus xx.-xxiii., xxxiv.), and even\nsuch precepts as \"Thou shalt not go up by steps unto mine altar,\nthat thy nakedness be not discovered thereon \" (Exodus xx. 26)\nare directed to the general \"thou,\" that is, to the people.  With\nthis corresponds the fact that in the solemn ratification of the\ncovenant of Sinai (Exodus xxiv. 3-8), it is young men of the\nchildren of Israel who officiate as sacrificers.  Elsewhere in the\nJehovist Aaron (Exodus iv. 14, xxxii. 1 seq.) and Moses (xxxiii.\n7-lI; Deuteronomy xxxiii. 8) figure as the founders of the clerical\norder.  Twice (in Exodus xix. 22 and xxxii 29) mention is made of\nother priests besides; but Exodus xxxii. 29 rests upon\nDeuteronomy, and even Exodus xix. 22 can hardly have been an\noriginal constituent of one of the Jehovistic sources.\n\nIV.III.2. In Deuteronomy the priests, as compared with the judges and\nthe prophets, take a very prominent position (xvi. 18-xviii. 22)\nand constitute a clerical order, hereditary in numerous families,\nwhose privilege is uncontested and therefore also does not require\nprotection.  Here now for the first time begins the regular use of\nthe name of Levites for the priests,--a name of which the\nconsideration has been postponed until now.\n\nIn the pre-exilic literature apart from the Pentateuch it occurs\nvery seldom.  First in the prophets, once in the Book of Jeremiah\n(xxxiii. 17-22), in a passage which in any case is later than\nthe capture of Jerusalem by the Chaldaeans, and certainly was\nnot written by Jeremiah. /1/ The use of the name is an\n\n-- Footnote\n1. In the LXX, chap. xxxiii. 14-26 is wanting.  The parallelism\nbetween vers. 17-22 and 23-26 is striking.  It looks as if David\nand Levi arose out of a misunderstanding of the families mentioned\nin ver. 24, namely, Judah and Ephraim.  In any case wdwd in ver.\n26 is an interpolation.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nestablished thing in Ezekiel (573 B.C.), and henceforward occurs\nwithout interruption in the writings of the later prophets, a sign\nthat its earlier absence is not to be explained as accidental, not\neven in Jeremiah, who speaks so frequently of the priests. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Ezekiel xl. 46, xliii. 19, xliv. 10, 15, xlv. 5, xlviii.\n11-13, 22, 31; Isaiah lxvi. 21;  Zechariah xii. 13; Malachi\nii. 4, 8, iii. 3.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIn the historical books the Levites (leaving out of account\n1Samuel vi. 15, 2Samuel xv. 24, and 1Kings viii. 4, xii. 31) /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Upon 1Samuel vi. 15 all that is necessary has been said at IV.II.1;\non 1Kings viii. 4 see. I.III.1. That 1Kings xii. 31\nproceeds from the Deuteronomic redactor, the date of whose writing\nis not earlier than the second half of the exile, needs no proof.\nThe hopeless corruptness of 2Samuel xv. 24 I have shown in Text. d.\nBB. Sam. (Goettingen, 1871).\n-- Footnote\n\n\noccur only in the two appendices to the Book of Judges (chaps.\nxvii., xviii., and xix., xx.), of which, however, the second is\nunhistorical and late, and only the first is certainly\npre-exilic.  But in this case it is not the Levites who are spoken\nof, as elsewhere, but A LEVITE, who passes for a great rarity,\nand who is forcibly  carried off by the tribe of Dan, which has\nnone.\n\nNow this Jonathan, the ancestor of the priests of Dan,\nnotwithstanding that he belongs to the tribe of Judah, is\nrepresented as a descendant of Gershom the son of Moses (Judges\nxviii. 30). The other ancient priestly family that goes back\nto the period of the Judges, the Ephraimitic, of Shiloh, appears\nalso to be brought into connection with Moses; at least in 1Samuel\nii. 27 (a passage, however, which is certainly post-Deuteronomic),\nwhere Jehovah is spoken of as having made himself known to the\nancestors of Eli in Egypt, and as thereby  having laid the foundation\nfor the bestowal of the priesthood, it is clearly  Moses who is\nthought of as the recipient of the revelation.  Historical\nprobability admits of the family being traced back to Phinehas,\nwho during the early period of the judges was priest of the ark,\nand from whom the inheritance on Mount Ephraim and also the second\nson of Eli were named; it is not to be supposed that he is the\nmere shadow of his younger namesake, as the latter predeceased his\nfather and was of quite secondary importance beside him.  But\nPhinehas is both in the Priestly Code and in Josh. xxiv. 33 (E)\nthe son of Eleazar, and Eleazar is, according to normal tradition,\nindeed a son of Aaron, but according to the sound of his name\n(Eliezer) a son of Moses along with Gershom.  Between Aaron and\nMoses in the Jehovistic portion of the Pentateuch no great\ndistinction is made; if Aaron, in contradistinction from his\nbrother, is characterised as THE LEVITE (Exodus iv. 14), Moses on\nthe other hand bears the priestly staff, is over the sanctuary,\nand has Joshua to assist him as Eli had Samuel (Exodus xxxiii.\n7-11).  Plainly the older claims are his; in the main Jehovistic\nsource, in J, Aaron originally does not occur at all, /2/ neither\n\n-- Footnote\n1. That Aaron was not originally present in J, but owed his\nintroduction to tile redactor who combined J nnd E together into\nJE, can be shown best from Exod vii. x.  For Jehovah's COMMAND\nto appear before Pharaoh is in J given to Moses alone (vii. 14, 26\n[viii. 1], viii. 16 [20], ix. 1, 13, x. 1); it is only in the\nsequel that Aaron appears along with him four times, always when\nPharaoh in distress summons Moses and Aaron in order to ask their\nintercession.  But strangely enough Aaron is afterwards completely\nignored again; Moses alone makes answer, speaking solely in his\nown name and not in Aaron's also (viii. 5, 22, 25 [9, 26, 29];\nix. 29), and although he has not come alone ; he goes so and makes\nhis prayer in the singular (viii. 8, 26 [12, 30], ix. 33, x. 18),\nthe change of the number in x. 17 is under these circumstances\nsuspicious enough.  It appears as if the Jehovistic editor had held\nAaron's presence to be appropriate precisely at the intercession.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nis he mentioned in Deuteronomy xxxiii. 8.  In the genealogies of\nthe Priestly Code one main branch of the tribe of Levi is still\ncalled, like the eldest son of Moses, Gershom, and another important\nmember is actually called Mushi, 2:e., the Mosaite.\n\nIt is not impossible that the holy office may have continued in\nthe family  of Moses, and it is very likely that the two oldest\nhouses in which it was hereditary, those at Dan and at Shiloh,\nmay have claimed in all seriousness to have been descended from him.\nAfterwards, as Deuteronomy xxxiii. 8 seq. informs us, all priests\nhonoured Moses as their father, not as being the head of their clan\nbut as being the founder of their order.  The same took place in\nJudah, but there the clerical guild ultimately acquired a hereditary\ncharacter, and the order became a sort of clan.  _Levite_,\npreviously an official name, now became a patronymic at the same\ntime, and all the Levites together formed a blood-kinship, /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The instance of the Rechabites shows how easily the transition\ncould made.\n-- Footnote\n\n\na race which had not received any land of its own indeed, but in\ncompensation had obtained the priesthood for its heritage. This\nhereditary clergy was alleged to have existed from the very beginning\nof the history of Israel, and even then as a numerous body, consisting\nof many others besides Moses and Aaron. Such is the representation\nmade by Deuteronomist and subsequent writers, but in Deuteronomy\nwe read chiefly of the _Levites_ in the provincial towns of Judah\nand of the _priests_, the _Levites_ in Jerusalem, seldom of Levi\nas a whole (x. 8 seq., xviii. 1) /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. On Deut xxvii. compare Kuenen, Theol. Tidjdschr., 1878, p.  297.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThat the hereditary character of the priesthood is here antedated\nand really  first arose in the later period of the Kings, has\nalready been shown in the particular instance of the sons of Zadok\nof Jerusalem, who were at first parvenus and afterwards became\nthe most legitimate of the legitimate.  But it is very remarkable\nhow this artificial construction of a priestly family,--a\nconstruction which has absolutely nothing perplexing in itself--\nwas suggested and favoured by the circumstance that in remote\nantiquity there once actually did exist a veritable tribe\nof Levi which had already  disappeared before the period of the\nrise of the monarchy.  This tribe belonged to the group of the\nfour oldest sons of Leah,--Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah,--who are\nalways enumerated together in this order, and who settled on both\nsides of the Dead Sea, towards the wilderness.  Singularly no one\nof them succeeded in holding its own except Judah; all the others\nbecame absorbed among the inhabitants of the wilderness or in\nother branches of their kindred.  The earliest to find this\ndestiny were the two tribes of Simeon and Levi (in Genesis xlix.\nregarded as one), in consequence of a catastrophe which must have\nbefallen them at some time during the period of the judges.\n\n  \"Simeon and Levi are brethren,\n  their shepherds' staves are weapons of slaughter;\n  O my soul, come not thou into their assembly!\n  mine honour, be thou far from their band!\n  for they slew men in their anger,\n  and in their self-will they houghed oxen;\n  cursed be their anger--so fierce!\n  and their wrath--so cruel!\n  I will divide them in Jacob\n  and scatter them over Israel!\"\n  (Genesis xlix.5-7).\n\nThe offence of Simeon and Levi here rebuked cannot have been\ncommitted against Israelites, for in such a case the thought\ncould not have occurred, which is here emphatically repelled,\nthat Jacob, that is to say, Israel as a whole, could have made\ncommon cause with them.  What is here spoken of must be some crime\nagainst the Canaanites, very probably the identical crime which\nis charged upon the two brothers in Genesis xxxiv., and which there\nalso Jacob (ver. 30) repudiates,--the treacherous attack upon\nShechem and massacre of its inhabitants, in disregard of the\ntreaty  which had been made.  In Judges ix. it is related that\nShechem, until then a flourishing town of the Canaanites, with\nwhom moreover Israelite elements were already beginning to blend,\nwas conquered and destroyed by Abimelech, but it is quite\nimpossible to bring into any connection with this the violent deed\nof Simeon and Levi, which must have taken place earlier, although\nalso within the period of the judges.  The consequences of their\nact, the vengeance of the Canaanites, the two tribes had to bear\nalone; Israel, according to the indication given in Genesis xlix.\n6, xxxiv. 30, did not feel any call to interfere on their behalf\nor make common cause with them.  Thus they fell to pieces and\npassed out of sight,--in the opinion of their own nation a just\nfate. In the historical books they are never again mentioned.\n\nIt is quite impossible to regard this Levi of the Book of Genesis\nas a mere shadow of the caste which towards the end of the monarchy\narose out of the separate priestly families of Judah.  The utterance\ngiven in Genesis xlix. 5-7 puts the brothers on an exact equality,\nand assigns to them an extremely secular and blood-thirsty character.\nThere is not the faintest idea of Levi's sacred calling or of his\ndispersion as being conditioned thereby; the dispersion is a curse\nand no blessing, an annihilation and no establishment of his special\ncharacter.  But it is equally an impossibility to derive the caste\nfrom the tribe; there is no real connection between the two, all\nthe intermediate links are wanting; the tribe succumbed at an\nearly date, and the rise of the caste was very late, and demonstrably\nfrom unconnected beginnings.  But in these circumstances the\ncoincidence of name is also very puzzling: Levi the third son of\nJacob, perhaps a mere patronymic derived form his mother Leah,\nand levi the official priest.  If it were practicable to find\na convincing derivation of levi in its later use from the\nappellative meaning of the root, then one might believe the\ncoincidence to be merley fortuitous, but it is impossible to do\nso.  the solution therefore has been suggested that the violent\ndissolution of the tribe in the period of the judges led the\nindividual Levites, who now were landless, to seek their maintenance\nby the exercise of sacrificial functions; this lay to their hand\nand was successful because Moses them an of God had belonged\nto their number and had transmitted to them by hereditary\nsuccession a certain preferential claim to the sacred office.\nBut at that time priestly posts were not numerous, and such\nan entrance of the levites _en masse_  into the service of Jehovah\nin that early time is in view of the infrequency of the larger\nsanctuaries a very difficult assumption.  It is perhaps correct\nto say that Moses actually was descended from Levi, and that the\nlater significance of the name Levite is to be explained by\nreference to him.  In point of fact, the name does appear to\nhave been given in the first instance only to the descendants of\nMoses, and not to have been transferred until a later period\nto those priests as a body, who were quite unconnected with him\nby blood, but who all desired to stand related to him as their\nhead.  Here it will never be possible to get beyond conjecture.\n\nIV.III.3 While the clerical _tribe of the Levites_ is still\nbrought forward only modestly in Deuteronomy (x. 8 seq.\nxviii. 1; Joshua xiii. 14, 33), it is dealt with in very real\nearnest in the Priestly Code. The _tribe of Levi_ (Numbers i. 47,\n49, iii. 6, xvii. 3, xviii. 2) is given over by the remaining\ntribes to the sanctuary, is catalogued according to the genealogical\nsystem of its families, reckons 22,000 male members, and even\nreceives a sort of tribal territory, the forty-eight Levitical\ncities (Josh. xxi.).  At the beginning of this chapter we have\nalready spoken of a forward step made in the Priestly Code,\nconnected with this enlargement of the clergy, but of much greater\nimportance; hitherto the distinction has been between clergy\nand laity, while here there is introduced the great division\nof the order itself into sons of Aaron and Levites.\nNot in Deuteronomy only, but everywhere in the Old Testament,\napart from Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles, Levite is the priest's\ntitle of honour. /1/ Aaron himself is so styled in the\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Exodus iv. 14; Deuteronomy xxxiii. 8; Judges xvii. seq.;\nExodus xxxii. 26-28; Deuteronomy x. 8 seq., xii. 12, 18 seq.\nxiv. 27, 29, xvi. 11, 14, xvii. 9, 18, xviii. 1-8, xxiv. 8,\nxxvii. 9, 14, xxxi. 9, 25; Joshua iii. 3,xiii. 14, 33,  xiv. 3 seq.,\nxviii. 7; Judges xix. seq., 1Samuel v1. 15; 1Kings xii. 31,\nJeremiah xxxiii 17-22; Ezekiel xliv. 8 seq.; Isaiah lxvi. 2,\nZechariah xii. 13, Malachi Ii. 4, 8, iii. 3.  Only the glosses\n2Samuel xv. 24, and 1Kings viii. 4 (compare, however, 2Chronicles\nv. 5) can rest upon the Priestly Code.\n-- Footnote\n\n\noften-quoted passage, Exodus iv. 14, and that too to denote his\ncalling, not his family, for the latter he has in common with\nMoses, from whom, nevertheless, it is intended to distinguish him\nby the style, \"thy brother the Levite.\"  In Deuteronomy we are\nstruck by the deliberate emphasis laid on the equal right of all\nthe Levites to sacrificial service in Jerusalem--\n\n\"The priests, the Levites, the whole tribe of Levi, shall have\nno portion or inheritance with Israel;  they shall eat the\nofferings of Jehovah and his inheritance....And if a Levite come\nfrom any of thy cities out of all Israel, where he sojourned,\nand come to the place which Jehovah shall choose, then he shall\nminister in the name of Jehovah his God as all his brethren the\nLevites do who stand there before Jehovah\"\n\n(Deuteronomy xviii. 1, 6, 7).  Here the legislator has in view\nhis main enactment, viz.,  the abolition of all places of worship\nexcept the temple of Solomon; those who had hitherto been the\npriests of these could not be allowed to starve.  Therefore\nit is that he impresses it so often and so earnestly on the people\nof the provinces that in their sacrificial pilgrimages to Jerusalem\nthey ought not to forget the Levite of their native place, but\nshould carry him with them.  For an understanding of the subsequent\ndevelopment this is very important, in so far as it shows how the\nposition of the Levites outside of Jerusalem was threatened by\nthe centralisation of the worship. In point of fact, the good\nintention of the Deuteronomist proved impossible of realisation;\nwith the high places fell also the priests of the high places.\nIn so far as they continued to have any part at all in the sacred\nservice, they had to accept a position of subordination under\nthe sons of Zadok (2Kings xxiii. 9). Perhaps Graf was correct\nin referring to this the prophecy of 1Samuel ii. 36 according\nto which the descendants of the fallen house of Eli are to come\nto the firmly established regius priest, to beg for an alms,\nor to say, \"Put me, I pray thee, into one of the priests' offices,\nthat I may eat a piece of bread:\" that historically the deposed\nLevites had no very intimate connection with those ancient\ncompanions in misfortune is no serious objection to such an\ninterpretation in the case of a post-Deuteronomic writer.\nIn this way arose as an illegal consequence of Josiah's\nreformation, the distinction between priests and Levites.\nWith Ezekiel this distinction is still an innovation requiring\njustification and sanction; with the Priestly Code it is a\n\"statute for ever,\" although even yet not absolutely undisputed,\nas appears from the Priestly version of the story of Korah's\ncompany.  /1/ For all Judaism subsequent to Ezra, and so for\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Distorted references to the historical truth are round also in\nNumbers xvii. 25 and  xviii. 23, passages which are unintelligible\napart from Ezekiel xliv. Compare Kuenen, Theol. Tijdschr., 1878,\np. 138 seq.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nChristian tradition, the Priestly Code in this matter also has\nbeen authoritative.  Instead of the Deuteronomic formula \"the\npriests the Levites,\" we henceforward have \"the priests and\nthe Levites,\" particularly in Chronicles, /2/ and in the\n\n-- Footnote\n2.  Except in 2 Chrom v. 5, xxx. 27.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nancient versions the old _usus_ loquendi is frequently corrected. /3/\n\n-- Footnote\n3. E.g., Josh. iii. 3 and Isaiah lxvi. 21 in the LXX, Deuteronomy\nxviii. 1 and Judges xvii. 13 in \"Jerome; and many passages in\nthe Syriac. On the carrying out of the new organisation of\nthe temple _personnel_ after the exile, see Vatke, p. 568, Graf (in\nMerx's Archiv, i., p. 225 seq.), and Kuenen (Godsdienst, ii. p. 104\nseq ). With Zerubbabel and Joshua, four priestly families,\n4289 persons in all, returned from Babylon in 538 (Ezra iv. 36-39);\nwith Ezra in 458 came two families in addition, but the number\nof persons is not stated (viii. 2). Of Levites there came on the\nfirst occasion 74 (ii. 40); on the second, of the 1500 men who\nmet at the rendezvous appointed by Ezra to make the journey\nthrough the wilderness, not one was a Levite, and it was only\non the urgent representations of the scribe that some thirty\nwere at last induced to join the company (viii. 15-20).  How can\nwe explain this preponderance of priests over Levites, which\nis still surprising even if the individual figures are not\nto be taken as exact?  Certainly it cannot be accounted for\nif the state of matters for a thousand years had been that\nrepresented in the Priestly Code and in Chronicles. On the\nother hand, all perplexity vanishes if the Levites were the\ndegraded priests of the high places of Judah.  These were\ncertainly not on the whole more numerous than the Jerusalem\ncollege, and the prospect of thenceforward not being permitted\nto sacrifice in their native land, but of having slaughtering\nand washing for sole duties, cannot have been in any way very\nattractive to them; one can hardly blame them if they were\ndisinclined voluntarily to lower themselves to the position\nof mere laborers under the sons of Zadok.  Besides, it may be\ntaken for granted that many (and more particularly Levitical)\nelements not originally belonging to it had managed to make way\ninto the ranks of the Solomonic priesthood; that all were not\nsuccessful (Ezra ii. 61) shows that many made the attempt, and\nconsidering the ease with which genealogies hoary with age were\nthen manufactured and accepted, every such attempt cannot have\nfailed.\n\nHow then came it to pass that afterwards, as one must conclude\nfrom the statements in Chronicles, the Levites stood to the priests\nin a proportion so much more nearly, if even then not quite fully\ncorresponding to the law?  Simply by the \"Levitising\" of alien\nfamilies.  At first in the community of the second temple the\nLevites continued to be distinguished from the singers, porters,\nand Nethinim (Ezra ii. 41-58), guilds which from the outset were\nmuch more numerous and which rapidly grew (Nehemiah xi. 17, 19, 36,\nxii. 28 seq.; 1Chronicles ix. 16, 22, 25).  But the distinction\nhad in fact no longer any actual basis, once the Levites had been\ndegraded to the rank of temple-servitors and become Nethinim to the\npriests (Numbers iii. 9).  Hence, where the Chronicler, who is at\nthe same time the author of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, is not\nreproducing old sources but is writing freely, he regards the\nsingers also and the porters as Levites.  By artificial genealogies\nof rather a rough and ready kind the three families of singers,\nHeman, Asaph, and Ethan are traced up (1Chronicles v1.. 1 seq.)\nto the old Levitical families of Kohath, Gershon, and Merari\n(see Graf, as above, p. 231; and Ewald, iii. p. 380 seq.).\nHow far the  distinction between the Nethinim and the Levites\nwas afterwards maintained (Josh. ix. 21 seq., I Esdras i. 3;\nEzra viii. 20) is not clear.  It would not be amiss if Ezekiel's\nintention of banishing foreigners from the temple found its\nfulfilment only through these heathen hieroduli, the Mehunim,\nthe Nephisim, the sons of Shalmai, and the others whose\nforeign-sounding names are given in Ezra ii. 43 seq.,\nobtaining admission into the tribe of Levi by artificial\ngenealogies.  A peculiar side light is thrown upon the course\nof development by the fact that the singers who in Ezra's time\nwere not yet even Levites, afterwards felt shame in being so, and\ndesired at least externally to be placed on all equality with\npriests.  They  begged of King Agrippa II. to obtain for them the\npermission of the synedrium to wear the white priestly dress.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe copestone of the sacred structure reared by the legislation of\nthe middle books of the Pentateuch is the high priest.  As the\nAaronites are above the Levites so is Aaron himself above his\nsons; in his person culminates thc development of the unity of\nworship inaugurated by Deuteronomy and the agency of Josiah.\nNo figure of such incomparable importance occurs anywhere else in\nthe Old Testament; a high priest of pre-eminent sanctity is still\nunknown to Ezekiel even.  Even before the exile, it is true, the\ntemple worship at Jerusalem had become so magnificent and its\npersonnel so numerous as to render necessary an orderly division\nof offices and a gradation of ranks.  In Jeremiah's time\nthe priests constituted a guild divided into classes or families\nwith elders at their head; the principal priest had a potent\nvoice in the appointment of his inferior colleagues (1Samuel ii.\n36);  alongside of him stood the second priest, the keepers of the\nthreshold, the captain of the watch as holders of prominent\ncharges. /1/ But in the Law the position of Aaron is not merely\n\n-- Footnote\nI The Kohen ha-rosh first occurs in 2Samuel xv. 27, but here HR)#\n(so read, instead of HRW)H) comes from the interpolator of ver. 24.\nSo again 2Kings xii. 11, HKHN HGDWL, but 2Kings xii. is from the\nsame hand as 2Kings xvi. 10 seq.  Elsewhere we have simply \"the priest,\"\ncompare besides 2Kings xix. 2; Jeremiah xix. 1; 2Kings xxiii. 4; xxv. 18;\nJeremiah xx. 1; xxix. 25, 26; In 1Samuel ii. 36 SPXNY \"incorporate\nme\" shows that KHNH must mean \"priestly guild\" or \"order.\"  In\nconnection with the name LWY it is noteworthy that SPX is parallel\nwith LWH in Isaiah xiv. 1.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nsuperior but unique, like that of the Pope in relation to the\nepiscopate; his sons act under his oversight (Numbers iii. 4); he\nalone is the one fully qualified priest, the embodiment of all\nthat is holy in Israel He alone bears the Urim and Thummim and\nthe Ephod; the Priestly Code indeed no longer knows what those\narticles are for, and it confounds the ephod of gold with the\nephod of linen, the plated image with the priestly robe; but the\ndim recollections of these serve to enhance the magical charm of\nAaron's majestic adornment.  He alone may enter into the holy of\nholies and there offer incense; the way at other times\ninaccessible (Nehemiah vi. 10, 11) is open to him on the great day\nof atonement.  Only in him, at a single point and in a single\nmoment, has Israel immediate contact with Jehovah.  The apex of\nthe pyramid touches heaven.\n\nThe high priest stands forth as absolutely sovereign in his own\ndomain.  Down to the exile, as we have seen, the sanctuary was the\nproperty of the king, and the priest was his servant; even in\nEzekiel who on the whole is labouring towards emancipation, the\nprince has nevertheless a very great importance in the temple\nstill; to him the dues of the people are paid, and the\nsacrificial expenses are in return defrayed by him.  In the\nPriestly Code, on the other hand, the dues are paid direct into\nthe sanctuary, the worship is perfectly autonomous, and has its\nown head, holding not from man but from the grace of God.  Nor is\nit merely the autonomy of religion that is represented by the high\npriest; he exhibits also its supremacy over Israel.  He does not\ncarry sceptre and sword; nowhere, as Vatke (p. 539) well\nremarks, is any attempt made to claim for him secular power.  But\njust in virtue of his spiritual dignity, as the head of the priesthood,\nhe is head of the theocracy, and so much so that there is no room\nfor any other alongside of him; a theocratic king beside him cannot\nbe thought of (Numbers xxvii. 21).  He alone is the responsible\nrepresentative of the collective nation, the names of the twelve\ntribes are written on his breast and shoulders; his transgression\ninvolves the whole people in guilt, and is atoned for as that of\nthe whole people, while the princes, when their sin-offerings are\ncompared with his, appear as mere private persons (Leviticus iv. 3,\n13, 22, ix. 7, xvi. 6).  His death makes an epoch; it is when the\nhigh priest--not the king--dies that the fugitive slayer obtains\nhis amnesty (Numbers xxxv. 28).  At his investiture he receives\nthe chrism like a king, and is called accordingly the anointed\npriest; he is adorned with the diadem and tiara (Ezekiel xxi. 31,\nA.V. 26) like a king, and like a king too he wears the purple,\nthat most unpriestly of all raiment, of which he therefore must\ndivest himself when he goes into the holy of holies (Lev. xvi. 4).\nWhat now can be the meaning of this fact,--that he who is at the\nhead of the worship, in this quality alone, and without any political\nattributes besides, or any share in the government, is at the same\ntime at the head of the nation? What but that civil power has been\nwithdrawn from the nation and is in the hands of foreigners; that\nIsrael has now merely a spiritual and ecclesiastical existence?\nIn the eyes of the Priestly Code Israel in point of fact is not\na people, but a church; worldly affairs are far removed from it\nand are never touched by its laws; its life is spent in religious\nservices.  Here we are face to face with the church of the second\ntemple, the Jewish hierocracy, in a form possible only under\nforeign domination.  It is customary indeed to designate in the Law\nby the ideal, or in other words blind, name of theocracy that\nwhich in historical reality is usually called hierarchy; but\nto imagine that with the two names one has gained a real\ndistinction is merely to deceive oneself.  But, this self-deception\naccomplished, it is easy further to carry back the hierocratic\nchurchly  constitution to the time of Moses, because it excludes\nthe kingship, and then either to assert that it was kept secret\nthroughout the entire period of the judges and the monarchy,\nor to use the fiction as a lever by which to dislocate the whole\nof the traditional history.\n\nTo any one who knows anything about history it is not necessary\nto prove that the so-called Mosaic theocracy, which nowhere suits\nthe circumstances of the earlier periods, and of which the prophets,\neven in their most ideal delineations of the Israelite state as it\nought to be, have not the faintest shadow of an idea, is, so to\nspeak, a perfect fit for post-exilian Judaism, and had its\nactuality only there.  Foreign rulers had then relieved the Jews\nof all concern about secular affairs; they had it in their\npower, and were indeed compelled to give themselves wholly up to\nsacred things, in which they were left completely unhampered.\nThus the temple became the sole centre of life, and the prince of\nthe temple the head of the spiritual commonwealth, to which also\nthe control of political affairs, so far as these were still left\nto the nation, naturally fell there being no other head! /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Very interesting and instructive is Ewald's proof of the way in\nwhich Zech. vi. 9-15 has been tampered with, so as to eliminate\nZerubbabel and leave the high priest alone.  Just so in dealing\nwith Caliphs and Sultans, the Patriarchs were and are the natural\nheads of the Greek and Oriental Christians even in secular matters.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe Chronicler gave a corresponding number of high priests to the\ntwice twelve generations of forty years each which were usually\nassumed to have elapsed between the exodus and the building of\nSolomon's temple, and again between that and the close of the\ncaptivity; the official terms of office of these high priests, of\nwhom history knows nothing, have taken the place of the reigns of\njudges and kings, according to which reckoning was previously\nmade (1Chronicles v. 29, seq.).  One sees clearly from Sirach l.,\nand from more than one statement of Josephus (e.g., Ant., xviii.\n4, 3, xx. 1, 11), how in the decorations of Aaron (where, however,\nthe Urim and Thummim were wanting; Nehemiah vii. 65) people\nreverenced a transcendent majesty which had been left to the people\nof God as in some sense a compensation for the earthly dignity\nwhich had been lost.  Under the rule of the Greeks the high priest\nbecame ethnarch and president of the synedrium; only through the\npontificate was it possible for the Hasmonaeans to attain to power,\nbut when they conjoined it with full-blown secular sovereignty,\nthey created a dilemma to the consequences of which they succumbed.\n\n\nCHAPTER V.  THE ENDOWMENT OF THE CLERGY.\n\nThe power and independence of the clergy run parallel with its\nmaterial endowment, which accordingly passes through the same\ncourse of development.  Its successive steps are reflected even in\nthe language that is employed, in the gradual loss of point\nsustained by the phrase \"to fill the hand,\" at all times used to\ndenote ordination. Originally it cannot have had any other\nmeaning than that of filling the hand with money or its\nequivalent; we have seen that at one time the priest was\nappointed by the owner of a sanctuary for a salary, and that,\nwithout being thus dependent upon a particular employer, he could\nnot then live on the income derived from those who might employ\nhim sacrificially.  But when the Levitical hereditary priesthood\narose in the later kingdom of Judah the hands of the priests were\nno longer filled by another who had the right to appoint and to\ndismiss, but they themselves at God's command \"filled their own\nhand,\" or rather they had done so in the days of Moses once for\nall, as is said in Exodus xxxii. 26-29, an insertion\ncorresponding with the position of Deuteronomy.  It is obvious\nthat such a statement, when carefully looked at, is absurd, but\nis to be explained by the desire to protest against outside\ninterference.  Even here the etymological sense is still\nsufficiently felt to create an involuntary jar and leads to a\nchange of the construction; but finally all sense of it is lost,\nand the expression becomes quite colourless: \"to fill the hand \"\nmeans simply \"to consecrate.\"  In Ezekiel not only the priest but\nalso the altar has its \"hand filled\" (xliii. 26); in the\nPriestly Code the abstract _milluim_ [\"consecrations\"] is chiefly\nused, with subject and object left out, as the name of a mere\ninaugural ceremony which lasts for several days (Leviticus viii. 33;\nExodus xxix. 34), essentially consists in the bringing of an\noffering on the part of the person to be consecrated, and has no\nlonger even the remotest connection with actual filling of the\nhand (2Chronicles xiii. 7; comp. xxix. 31). The verb, therefore,\nnow means simply the performance of this ceremony, and the subject\nis quite indifferent (Leviticus xvi. 32, xxi. 10; Numbers iii. 3);\nthe installation does not depend upon the person who performs the\nrite, but upon the rite itself, upon the unction, investiture,\nand other formalities (Exodus xxix. 29).\n\nThis variation in the _usus Ioquendi_ is the echo of real changes\nin the outuard condition of the clergy, which we must now proceed\nto consider more in detail.\n\n\nV.I.\n\nV.I.1. Of the offerings, it was the custom in the earlier time to\ndedicate a portion to the deity but to use the greater part in\nsacred feasts, at which a priest, if present, was of course\nallowed also in one way or another to participate.  But he does\nnot appear to have had a legal claim to any definite dues of\nflesh.\n\n\"Eli's sons were worthless persons, and cared not about\nJehovah, or about the priests' right and duty with the people.\nWhen any man offered a sacrifice the servant of the priest came\n(that is all we have here to represent the 22,000 Levites) while\nthe flesh was in seething, with a three-pronged flesh-hook in his\nhand, and stuck it into the pan, or kettle, or caldron, or pot;\nand all that the flesh-hook brought up the priest took.  So they\ndid in Shiloh unto all the Israelites that came thither.  Even\nbefore the fat was burnt, the servant of the priest came and said\nto the man that sacrificed: \"Give flesh to roast for the priest;\nhe will not take sodden flesh of thee, but raw.  And if the other\nsaid to him: Let the fat first be burnt, and then take according\nto thy soul's desire; then he would answer: Nay, but thou shalt\ngive it now; and if not, I will take it by  force\" (1Samuel ii. 12-16).\n\nThe tribute of raw portions of flesh before the burning\nof the fat is here treated as a shameless demand which is fitted to\nbring Jehovah's offering into contempt (ver. 17), and which has\nthe ruin of the sons of Eli as its merited reward.  More tolerable\nis it, though even that is an abuse, when the priests cause\nboiled flesh to be brought them from the pot, though not seeking\nout the best for themselves, but leaving the selection to chance;\nthey ought to wait and see what is given to them, or be contented\nwith an invitation to the banquet.  On the other hand we have it\nin Deuteronomy as \"the priest's due from the people\" (xviii. 3\n= 1Samuel ii. 12) that he receives the shoulder and the two\ncheeks and the maw of the slaughtered animal; and yet this is a\nmodest claim compared with what the sons of Aaron have in the\nPriestly Code (Leviticus vii. 34),--the right leg and the breast.\nThe course of the development is plain; the Priestly Code became\nlaw for Judaism.  In sacrifice, ITS demands were those which were\nregarded; but in order to fulfil all righteousness the precept of\nDeuteronomy was also maintained, this being applied--against the\nobvious meaning and certainly only as a result of later scrupulosity\nof the scribes--not to sacrifices but to ordinary secular slaughterings,\nfrom which also accordingly the priests received a portion, the\ncheeks (according to Jerome on Malachi ii. 3), including the tongue,\nthe precept being thus harmonistically doubled. /1/ At an earlier\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Philo, De praem. sacerd., sec. 3.  Josephus, Ant., iii. 9. 2;\niv. 4, 4.\n-- Footnote\n\n\ndate the priests at Jerusalem received money from those who\nemployed them (Deuteronomy xviii. 8), but for this had the obligation\nof maintaining the temple; from this one can discern that the\nmoney was properly speaking paid to the sanctuary, and was only\nconditionally delivered to its servitors.  When they failed to\nobserve the condition, King Jehoash took the money also from them\n(2Kings xii. 7 seq.).\n\nThe meal-offerings are in the Priestly Code a subordinate matter,\nand the share that falls to the priests is here trifling compared\nwith what they receive of the other sacrifices.  The meal, of\nwhich only a handful is sprinkled upon the altar, the baked\nbread, and the minha altogether are theirs entirely, so also the\nsin and trespass offerings so frequently demanded, of which God\nreceives only the blood and the fat and the offerer nothing at\nall (Ezekiel xliv. 29); of the burnt-offering at least the skin\nfalls to their lot,  These perquisites, however, none of them in\ntheir definite form demonstrably old, and some of them\ndemonstrably the reverse, may be presumed to have had their\nanalogues in the earlier period, so that they cannot be regarded\nabsolutely as augmentation of the priestly income.  In Josiah's\ntime the mac,c,oth were among the principal means of support of\nthe priests (2Kings xxiii. 9); doubtless they came for the\nmost part from the minha.  Instead of sin and trespass offerings,\nwhich are still unknown to Deuteronomy, there were formerly sin\nand trespass dues in the form of money payments to the\npriests,--payments which cannot, however, have been so regular\n(2Kings xii. 17).  It is as if money payments were in the eye of\nthe law too profane; for atonement there must be shedding of blood.\nThat the skin of the holocaust, which cannot well be consumed on\nthe altar, should fall to the priest is so natural an arrangement,\nthat one will hardly be disposed to regard it as new, although\nEzekiel is silent about a due which was not quite worthless\n(xliv. 28-31).\n\nSo far then as departures from earlier custom can be shown in the\nsacrificial dues enjoined by the Priestly Code, they must not\nindeed be treated as purely local differences, but neither are\nthey to be regarded as on the whole showing a serious raising of\nthe tariff.  But in the Code the sacrificial dues are only a\nsubordinate part of the income of the priests.  In Deuteronomy the\npriests are entirely thrown upon the sacrifices; they live upon\nthem (xviii. 1) and upon invitations to the sacred banquets (xii.\nI2, 18 seq.); if they are not exercising the priestly function\nthey must starve (1Samuel ii. 36).  On the other hand, the\nAaronidae of the Priestly Code do not need to sacrifice at all,\nand yet have means of support, for their chief revenue consists\nof the rich dues which must be paid them from the products of\nthe soil.\n\nV.I.2. The dues falling to the priests according to the law were all\noriginally offerings--the regular offerings which had to be brought\non the festivals; and these all originally were for sacred\nbanquets, of which the priests received nothing more than the\nshare which was generally customary.  This is true in the first\ninstance of the male firstlings of cattle.  As we have seen in the\nchapter on the sacred feasts, these are sacrifices and sacrificial\nmeals, alike in the Jehovistic legislation and in the Jehovistic\nnarrative of the exodus and of Abel, as were all the offerings\nbrought by private individuals in the olden time.  When in Exodus\nxxii. 29 it is said that they must be given to JEHOVAH, this does\nnot mean that they must be given to THE PRIESTS; no such thing\nis anywhere said in thc Book of the Covenant.  Matters still stand\non essentially the same footing in Deuteronomy also: \"THOU\nSHALT SANCTIFY THEM UNTO JEHOVAH; thou shalt not plough with the\nfirstling of the bullock, nor shear the firstling of thy sheep;\nTHOU SHALT EAT IT BEFORE JEHOVAH year by  year in the place which\nHe shall choose; and if there be any blemish therein, thou shalt\nnot OFFER IT TO JEHOVAH THY GOD\" (Deuteronomy xv. 19, 20).  To\nsanctify to Jehovah, to eat before Jehovah, to offer to Jehovah,\nare here three equivalent ideas.  If now, in Numbers xviii. 15\nseq., every first birth is assigned without circumlocution to the\npriest, and a special paschal offering is appointed in addition,\nthis can only be understood as the last phase in the development,\npartly because the idea of dues altogether is secondary to that\nof offerings, and partly because the immense augmentation in the\nincome of the priests points to an increase of the hierocratic\npower.  Ezekiel does not yet reckon the firstlings among the\nrevenues of the clergy (xliv. 28-3I); the praxis of Judaism, on\nthe other hand, since Nehemiah x. 37, is regulated, as usual, in\naccordance with the norm of the Priestly Code.\n\nThe tithe also is originally given to God, and treated just as the\nother offerings are; that is to say, it is not appropriated by\nthe priests, but eaten by those who bring it in sacred banquets.\nIt does not occur in the Jehovistic legislation, but Jacob\ndedicates it (Genesis xxviii. 22) to the God of Bethel, a place\nwhere, although the whole story is a projection out of a later\ntime, it would hardly be in harmony with the conceptions of the\nnarrator to think of the presence of priests.  The prophet Amos,\nwho probably represents much the same stage of the cultus as the\nJehovist does, says: \"Come to Bethel to transgress, to Gilgal to\nsin still more; and bring every morning your sacrifices, every\nthree days your tithes, and offer with bread pieces of flesh to the\nflames, and proclaim free offerings aloud, for so ye like, ye\nchildren of Israel\" (Amos iv.  4 seq.).  He ironically recommends\nthem to persevere in the efforts they have hitherto made in\nhonour of God, and to double them; to offer daily, instead of, as\nwas usual (1Samuel i.), yearly at the chief festival; to pay\ntithes every three days, instead of, as was the custom, every\nthree years.  It is clear that the tithe here holds rank with Zebah,\nToda, and Nedaba; it is a sacrifice of joy, and a splendid\nelement of the public cultus, no mere due to the priests.  Now,\nin this point also Deuteronomy has left the old custom, on the\nwhole, unchanged.   According to xiv. 22 seq. the tithe of the\nproduce of the soil, or its equivalent in money, must be brought\nyear by year to the sanctuary, and there consumed before Jehovah\nthat is, as a sacrificial meal; only every third year it is not\nto be offered in Jerusalem, but is to be given as alms to the\npeople of the locality who have no land, to which category the\nLevites in particular belong.  This last application is an\ninnovation, connected on the one hand with the abolition of the\nsanctuaries, and on the other with the tendency of the\nDeuteronomist to utilise festal mirth for humane ends. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Connection is, however, possible with some older custom, such as\nmust certainly be assumed for Amos iv. 4. Comp. Deuteronomy xxvi.\n12, \"the year of tithing.\"\n-- Footnote\n\n\nBut this is a mere trifle compared with what we find in the Priestly\nCode, where the whole tithe has become a mere due to be collected\nby the Levites (Nehemiah x. 38 [37]) on behalf of the clergy,\nwhose endowment thereby is again very largely increased.  Ezekiel\nis silent on this point also (xliv. 18-31), but as the tithe is\ndemanded in Numbers (xviii. 21 seq.), so was it paid from the days\nof Nehemiah (x. 38 [37] seq.) by the church of the second temple.\nLater there was added over and above, so as to meet the divergent\nrequirement of Deuteronomy, the so-called second tithe, which usually\nwas consumed at Jerusalem, but in every third year was given to the\npoor (so Deuteronomy xxvi. 12, LXX), and in the end the tithe for\nthe poor was paid separately over and above the first and second\n(Tobit i. 7, 8;  Jos., Ant., iv. 8, 22).\n\nIt is absolutely astounding that the tithe which in its proper\nnature should apply only to products of definite measure, such\nas corn and wine and oil (Deuteronomy xiv. 23), comes to be extended\nin the Priestly Code to cattle also, so that besides the male\nfirstlings every tenth head of cattle and of sheep must also be\npaid to the priests.  This demand, however, is not yet met with in\nNumbers xviii., nor even in Nehemiah x. 38, 39, but first occurs as a\nnovel in Lev. xxvii. 32 (1Samuel viii. 17).  Whether it ever\ncame into the actual practice of Judaism seems doubtful; in\n2Chronicles xxxi. 6 the tithe of cattle is indeed mentioned,\nbut on the other hand the firstlings are not; in the pre-rabbinical\nliterature no traces of it are discoverable,--especially not in\nPhilo, who knows only of the ordinary tithes due to the Levites,\nand not of the tithes of cattle due to the priests (De praem.\nsacerd. 6).\n\nWith the tithe of the fruit of the soil the first fruits are at\nbottom identical;  the latter were reduced to definite measure\nlater and through the influence of the former.  This is no doubt\nthe reason why in the Jehovistic legislation tithe and first\nfruits are not both demanded, but only a gift of the first and\nbest of corn, wine, and oil, left to the free discretion of the\nofferer, which is conjoined with the firstling of cattle and sheep\n(Exodus xxii. 28 [29]. xxiii. 19, xxxiv. 26).  In a precisely\nsimilar way the TITHE of the field stands conjoined with the\nfirstlings of cattle in Deuteronomy (xiv. 22, 23, xv. 19 seq.).\nBut also the _reshith_, usually translated first-fruits, occurs in\nDeuteronomy,--as a payment of corn, wine, oil, and wool to the\npriests (xviii. 4); a small portion, a basketful, thereof is\nbrought before the altar and dedicated with a significant liturgy\n(xxvi. 1 seq.).  It appears that it is taken from the tithe, as\nmight be inferred from xxvi. 12 seq. taken as the continuation\nof vers. 1-11; in one passage, xxvi. 2, the more general\n_usus loquendi_ reappears, according to which the _reshith_ means\nthe entire consecrated fruit, which as a whole is consumed by the\nofferers before Jehovah, and of which the priests receive only a\nportion. But in the Priestly Code not only is the entire tithe\ndemanded as a due of the clergy, the _reshith_ also is demanded in\naddition (Numbers xviii. 12), and it is further multiplied,\ninasmuch as it is demanded from the kneading-trough as well as\nfrom the threshing-floor: in every leavening the _halla_ belongs\nto Jehovah (xv. 20).  Nor is this all; to the _reshith_ (xviii. 12)\nare added the _bikkurim_ also (xviii. 13), as something\ndistinct.  The distinction does not occur elsewhere (Exodus xxxiv.\n26); prepared fruits alone are invariably spoken of, the yield\nof the threshing-floor and the wine-press, of which first\nproduce--\"the fulness and the overflow \"--was to be consecrated.\nThe FAT of oil, wine, and corn is the main thing in Numbers xviii.\nalso, and is called _reshith_ (ver 12) or _terumah_ (ver. 27); but\nthe _bikkurim_ (ver. 13) seem to be a separate thing, and, if\nthis be really the case, must mean those raw fruits which have\nripened earliest.  Judaism, here once more moulding itself\nessentially in accordance with the tenor of the Priestly Code,\nactually drew this distinction; from the publication of the Law\nthrough Ezra the community pledged itself to bring up yearly the\n_bikkurim_ to the house of Jehovah, and to deliver the _reshith_ into\nthe temple cells (Nehemiah x. 36 [35]).  The former was a religious\nsolemnity, associated with processions, and the use of the ritual\nin Deuteronomy xxvi.; the latter was rather a simple tax paid from\nnatural products,--a distinction which perhaps is connected with\nthe different expressions _they shall bring_ (Numbers xviii. 13) and\n_they shall give_ (xviii. 12). The LXX keeps )APARXH and\nPRWTOGENNHMATA strictly apart, as also do Philo (De praem. sacerd.\n1, 2) and Josephus (Ant., iv. 4, 8, 22).\n\nV.I.3. The amount which at last is required to be given is enormous.\nWhat originally were alternatives are thrown together, what\noriginally  was left free and undetermined becomes precisely\nmeasured and prescribed.  The priests receive all the sin and trespass\nofferings, the greater share of the vegetable offerings, the hides\nof the burnt offerings, the shoulder and breast of meat offerings.\nOver and above are the firstlings, to which are added the tithes\nand first-fruits in a duplicate form, in short, all _kodashim_,\nwhich originally were demanded merely as ordinary meat offerings\n(Deuteronomy xii. 26 = ver. 6, 7, and so on), and were\nconsumed at holy places and by consecrated guests indeed, but not\nby the priest.  And, notwithstanding all this, the clergy are not\neven asked (as in Ezekiel is the prince, who there receives the\ndues, xlv. 13 seq.) to defray the cost of public worship; for\nthis there is a poll-tax, which is not indeed enjoined in the body\nof the Priestly Code, but which from the time of Nehemiah x. 33\n[32] was paid at the rate of a third of a shekel, till a novel of\nthe law (Exodus xxx. 15) raised it to half a shekel.\n\n\nV.II.\n\nV.II.1. To the endowment of the clergy in the Priestly Code belong\nfinally the forty-eight cities assigned by Joshua in accordance\nwith the appointment of Moses (Numbers xxxv.; Josh. xxi.). The\ntribes gave them up freely; the smaller giving few and the larger\nmore (Numbers xxxv. 8).  The Aaronidae and the three families of\nthe Levites cast lots about them in four divisions; the sons of\nAaron get thirteen cities in Judah, the Levites ten in\nEphraim-Manasseh, thirteen in Galilee, and twelve in the territory\neastward of Jordan.  It is not merely the right to inhabit, but,\nin spite of all apologetic rationalism, the right of absolute\npossession that they receive (Josh. xxi. 12), inclusive of a portion\nof land two thousand ells square (square in the strictly literal\nsense; Numbers xxxv. 5), which serves as public common.\n\nThe physical impracticability of such an arrangement has been\nconclusively shown, after Gramberg, by Graf (Merx, Archiv, i.\np. 83).  The 4 x 12 or the substituted 13+10+13+12 cities,\nof which in spite of Numbers xxxv. 8 for the most part four belong\nto each of the twelve tribes, are already sufficient to suggest a\nsuspicion of artificial construction; but the regulation that a\nrectangular territory of two thousand ells square should be\nmeasured off as pasture for the Levites around each city (which\nat the same time is itself regarded only as a point; Numbers xxxv.\n4) might, to speak with Graf, be very well carried out perhaps in\na South Russian steppe or in newly founded townships in the\nwestern States of America, but not in a mountainous country like\nPalestine, where territory that can be thus geometrically\nportioned off does not exist, and where it is by no means left to\narbitrary legal enactments to determine what pieces of ground are\nadapted for pasturage and what for tillage and gardening; there,\ntoo, the cities were already in existence, the land was already\nunder cultivation, as the Israelites slowly conquered it in the\ncourse of centuries. Besides, from the time of Joshua there is\nnot a historical trace of the existence of the Levitical cities.\nQuite a number of them were in the days of the judges and down\nto the early monarchy still in the hands of the Canaanites,--\nGibeon, Shechem, Gezer, Taanach; some perhaps may even have so\ncontinued permanently.  Those on the other hand which passed\ninto the possession of the Israelites at no time belonged\nto the Levites.  Shechem, Hebron, Ramoth, were the capital cities\nof Ephraim, Judah, and Gilead; and Gibeon, Gezer, Heshbon were in\nlike manner important but by no means ecclesiastical towns. In\nthe Deuteronomic period the Levites were scattered throughout\nJudah in such a manner that each locality had its own Levites or\nLevite; nowhere did they live separated from the rest of the\nworld in compact masses together, for they made their living by\nsacrificing for others, and without a community they could not\nexercise their calling.  Some indeed possessed land and heritage;\nsuch were at an earlier period the Silonic family at\nGibeath-Phineas, Amaziah at Bethel, and Abiathar at Anathoth, and\nat a later period Jeremiah, also at Anathoth.  But Anathoth (for\nexample) was not on that account a priestly city in the sense of\nJoshua xxi.; Jeremiah had his holding there as a citizen and not\nas a priest, and he shared not with the priests but with the\npeople (xxxvii. 12).  As a tribe Levi was distinguished from the\nother tribes precisely by holding no land, and its members\njoined themselves to the settled citizens and peasants, for the\nmost part as dependent inmates (Deuteronomy x. 9, xviii. 1).\n\nEven after the exile, indeed, matters were not different in this\nrespect.  \"Ab excidio templi prioris sublatum est Levitis jus\nsuburbiorum,\" says R. Nachman (B. Sotah, 48b), and he is\nborne out by the silence of Nehemiah x. The execution of the law\nwas probably postponed to the days of the Messiah; it was not in\ntruth within the power of man, and cannot be seriously demanded\nin the Priestiy  Code itself, which contemplates a purely ideal\nIsrael, with ideal boundaries, and leaves the sober reality so\nfar out of sight that on archaeological grounds it never once so\nmuch as mentions Jerusalem, the historical capital of the priests.\n\nThe circumstance that these towns lay _in partibus infiidelium_\nseems to make them unavailable as a means of fixing the antiquity\nof the Priestly Code.  It is possible with Bleek to explain the\ntranscendence of history as Mosaicity;  such a view is not to be\nargued against.  But it is also possible with Noldeke to insist\nthat an invention so bold cannot possibly be imputed to the\nspirit of the exilic and post-exilic time, which in everything\nis only anxiously concerned to cleave to what is old and to\nrestore it; and such a contention deserves and admits of refutation.\nIt is not the case that the Jews had any profound respect for their\nancient history; rather they condemned the whole earlier\ndevelopment, and allowed only the Mosaic time along with its\nDavidic reflex to stand; in other words, not history but the\nideal.  The theocratic ideal was from the exile onwards the centre\nof all thought and effort, and it annihilated the sense for\nobjective truth, all regard and interest for the actual facts as\nthey had been handed down.  It is well known that there never\nhave been more audacious history-makers than the Rabbins.  But\nChronicles affords evidence sufficient that this evil propensity\ngoes back to a very early time, its root the dominating\ninfluence of the Law, being the root of Judaism itself.  Judaism\nis just the right soil for such an artificial growth as the\nforty-eight priestly and Levitical cities.  It would hardly have\noccurred to an author living in the monarchical period, when the\ncontinuity of the older history was still unbroken, to look so\ncompletely away from all the conditions of the then existing\nreality; had he done so, he would have produced upon his\ncontemporaries the impression merely that he had scarcely all his\nwits about him.  But after the exile had annihilated the ancient\nIsrael, and violently and completely broken the old connection\nwith the ancient conditions, there was nothing to hinder from\nplanting and partitioning the _tabula rasa_ in thought at pleasure,\njust as geographers are wont to do with their map as long as the\ncountries are unknown.\n\nBut, of course, no fancy is pure fancy; every imagination has\nunderlying it some elements of reality by which it can be laid\nhold of, even should these only be certain prevailing notions of\na particular period.  It is clear, if a proper territory is\nassigned to the clergy, that the notion of the clerical tribe which\nalready had begun to strike root in Deuteronomy has here grown\nand gathered strength to such a degree that even the last and\ndifferentiating distinction is abolished which separates the\nactual tribes from the Levites, viz. communal independence and\nthe degree of concentration which expresses itself in separate\nsettlements.  For when we read, notwithstanding, in the Priestly\nCode that Aaron and Levi are to have no lot nor inheritance in\nIsrael (Numbers xviii. 20, 23), this is merely a form of speech\ntaken over from Deuteronomy and at the same time an involuntary\nconcession to fact; what would the forty-eight cities have been,\nhad they actually existed, if not a lot, a territorial possession,\nand that too a comparatively large one?  The general basis which\nserves as starting-point for the historical fiction being thus far\nrecognisable, we are able also to gain a closer view of its\nconcrete material.   The priestly and Levitical cities stand in\nclose connection with the so-called cities of refuge.  These are\nalso appointed in Deuteronomy (xix.), although not enumerated by\nname (for Deuteronomy iv. 41-43 cannot be regarded as genuine).\nOriginally the altars were asylums (Exodus xxi. 14; 1Kings ii.\n28), some in a higher degree than others (Exodus xxi. 13).  In\norder not to abolish the asylums also along with the altars, the\nDeuteronomic legislator desired that certain holy places should\ncontinue as places of refuge, primarily three for Judah, to which,\nwhen the territory of the kingdom extended, three others were to\nbe afterwards added.   The Priestly Code adopts the arrangement,\nand specifies three definite cities on this side and three on the\nother side of Jordan (Numbers xxxv.; Joshua xx.), four of which\nare demonstrably famous old seats of worship,--all the three western\nones, and Ramoth, that is, Mizpah, of the eastern ones (Genesis\nxxxi.; Judges xi. 11).   But as all these asylums are at the same\ntime priestly and Levitical cities, it is an obvious conjecture\nthat these also in like manner arose out of old sanctuaries.  We\nneed not suppose that there is more in this than an echo of the\ngeneral recollection that there were once in Israel many holy\nplaces and residences of priesthoods; it is by no means\nnecessary to assert that each of the towns enumerated in Joshua\nxxi. had actually been an ancient sanctuary.  In many cases,\nhowever, this also admits of being shown, /1/ although some of the\n\n-- Footnote\n1. In the cases of Hebron, Gibeon, Shechem, Ramoth, Mahanaim and\nTabor (Host v. 1) by historical data; in those of Bethshemesh,\nAshtaroth, Kadesh,, perhaps also Rimmon, by the names.  Not even\nhere can one venture to credit the Priestly Code with consistent\nfidelity to history.  As for Hosea v. 1, 2, the original\nmeaning seems to be: \"A snare have ye become for Mizpah, and an\noutspread net upon Tabor, and the pit-fall of Shittim (#XT\nH#+YM) have they made deep.\"  Shittim as a camping-place under\nMoses and Joshua must certainly have been a sanctuary, just like\nKadesh, Gilgal, and Shiloh; the prophet names these seats at\nwhich in his opinion the worship was especially seductive and\nsoul-destroying; his reproach is levelled at the priests\nmost famous (or according to the later view, infamous) high\nplaces, such as Bethel, Dan, Gilgal, and Beersheba are omitted,\nprobably of set purpose.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe immediate starting-point, however, for this territorial\ndonation to the Levites is perhaps to be sought in Ezekiel,\nin the picture of the future Israel which he draws at the close\nof his book.  He concerns himself there in a thorough-going\nmanner about the demarcation of the national and tribal\nboundaries, and in doing so sets quite freely to work, taking,\nso to speak, the yard measure in his hand.  Leaving the land\neastward of Jordan wholly to the Saracens, he divides the\nwestern portion into thirteen parallel transverse sections;\nin the middle of the thirteenth (the rest of which is assigned\nto the prince), lying between Judah and Benjamin, the twelve\ntribes give up a square with a base line of 25,000 ells as a\nsacred offering to Jehovah.  This square is divided into three\nparallelograms, 25,000 ells long, running east and west;\nthe southernmost of these, 5000 ells broad, includes the capital\nwith its territory; the middle one, 10,000 ells broad, contains\nthe temple and the priestly territory; the northernmost, also\n10,000 ells broad, has the inheritance and the cities of the Levites. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. For (S#RYM L#KT (xlv. 5), read, with the LXX, #(RYM L#BT\n\"to dwell within the gates.\" Compare a similar transposition of\nletters in xiii. 3, LXX.  The expression \"gates\" for \"cities\"\nhas its origin in Deuteronomy.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThus we have here also a surrender of land to the clergy on the\npart of the tribes; the comparison with Josh. xxi. is not to be\nput aside,--all the less, because nowhere else in the Old Testament\nis anything similar met with.  Now Ezekiel is quite transparent,\nand requires no interpreter but himself.  In order that the temple\nmay be protected in its sanctity in the best possible manner,\nit is placed in the centre of the priestly territory, which in its\nturn is covered by the city on the south, and by the Levites on the\nnorth.  At the same time the _personnel_ connected with the function\nof worship is to dwell as much as possible apart on its own soil\nand territory, which _shall serve them for separate houses to\nsanctify them_, as is expressly remarked for the priests (xiv. 4),\nand in an inferior degree holds good also, of course, for the Levites\nbeside them. Here everything starts from, and has its explanation in,\nthe temple.  Its original is unmistakably the temple of Solomon;\nits site is beside the capital, in the heart of the sacred centre\nof the land between Judah and Benjamin; there the sons of Zadok\nhave their abode, and beside them are the Levites whom Josiah had\nbrought up from all the country to Jerusalem.  Obviously the\nmotives are not here far to seek.  In the Priestly Code, on the\nother hand, which was not in a position to shape the future freely\nout of the present, but was compelled to accept archaeological\nrestrictions, the motives are historically concealed and almost\nparalysed.  The result has remained, namely, the holding of\nseparate territory by the clergy, but the cause or the\npurpose of it can no longer be recognised on account of the\nsanctuary being now an abstract idea.  Jerusalem and the temple,\nwhich, properly speaking, occasioned the whole arrangement, are\nburied in silence with a diligence which is in the highest degree\nsurprising; and on the other hand, in remembrance of the\npriesthoods scattered everywhere among the high places of Israel\nin earlier days, forty-eight fresh Levitical cities are created,\nfrom which, however, their proper focus, a temple to wit, is\nwithheld only in the circumstance that precisely the thirteen\ncities of Judah and Benjamin happen to fall to the lot of the sons\nof Aaron, does the influence of Jerusalem unconsciously betray\nitself.\n\nV.II.2. Apart from this historical fiction, the other claims that\nare made for the endowment of the clergy are, however exorbitant,\nnevertheless practicable and seriously meant.  So far as the\ncircumstances of their origin are concerned, two possibilities\npresent themselves.  Either the priests demanded what they could\nhope to obtain, in which case they were actually supreme over the\nnation, or they set up claims which at the time were neither\njustified nor even possible; in which case they were not indeed\nquite sober, yet at the same time so sane prophetically, that\ncenturies afterwards the revenues they dreamed of became in\nactuality theirs.  Is it to be supposed that it was (say) Moses,\nwho encouraged his people as they were struggling for bare life\nin the wilderness to concern themselves about a superabundantly\nrich endowment of their clergy?  Or is it believed that it was\nin the period of the judges, when the individual tribes and\nfamilies of Israel, after having forced their way among the\nCanaanites, had a hard fight to maintain their position, get\nsomehow settled in their new dwelling-places and surroundings,\nthat the thought first arose of exacting such taxes from a people\nthat was only beginning to grow into a national unity, for an end\nthat was altogether remote from its interest?  What power could\nthen have been able in those days, when every man did what was\nright in his own eyes, to compel the individual to pay?  But\neven when actually, under the pressure of circumstances, a\npolitical organisation had arisen which embraced all the tribes,\nit could hardly have occurred to the priests to utilise the\nsecular arm as a means for giving to themselves a place of\nsovereignty; and still less could they have succeeded WITHOUT\nthe king on whom they were so completely dependent.  In short,\nthe claims they make in the Law would in the pre-exilic period\nhave been regarded as utopian in the strict sense of that word;\nthey allow of explanation only by the circumstances which from\nthe beginning of the Chaldaean rule, and still more that of the\nPersians, lent themselves to the formation of a hierocracy,\nto which, as to the truly national and moreover divine authority,\nthe people gave voluntary obedience, and to which the Persians\nalso conceded rights they could not have granted to the family\nof David.  At the very beginning of the exile, Ezekiel begins\nto augment the revenues of the priests (xliv. 28-30), yet he\nstill confines himself on the whole to the lines of Deuteronomy,\nand makes no mention of tithes and firstlings.  Of the demands\nof the Priestly Code in their full extent we hear historically\nin Nehemiah x. for the first time; there it is stated\nthat they were carried through by men who had the authority of\nArtaxerxes behind them.  This was the most difficult and at the\nsame time the most important part of the work Ezra and Nehemiah\nhad to do in introducing the Pentateuch as the law of the Jewish\nChurch; and that is the reason why it is so specially and\nminutely spoken of.  Here plainly lies the material basis of the\nhierocracy from which the royal throne was ultimately reached.\n\nFor all these dues, apart from sacrificial perquisites, flowed into\na common coffer, and benefited those who had the control of this,\nviz., the priestly aristocracy of Jerusalem, whom it helped to\nrise to a truly princely position.  The ordinary priests,\nand especially the Levites, did not gain by all this wealth.\nThe latter indeed ought, according to law, to have had the tithes,\nand to have handed over the tithes of these again to the sons\nof Aaron, but as the general tendency of the time was to depress\nthe Levites, this legal revenue was also gradually withdrawn\nfrom them and appropriated by the priests.  Afterwards the chief\npriests claimed the tithes for themselves alone, while their\ninferior  brethren had to suffer severe privation and even\nhunger itself (Josephus, Ant., xx. 8, 8; 9, 2).\n\nUpon the difference just stated between the later practice and\nthe Law, one argument more has recently been founded against\nassigning the latter to the Babylonio-Persian period.  \"Another\ntestimony borne by tradition completely  excludes the idea of\nthe Elohistic torah (i.e., the Priestly Code) having been\ncomposed by Ezra.  As is well known, it is the Elohistic torah\nthat carefully  regulates the mutual relations of priests and\nLevites, while Deuteronomy  groups the two together without\nbringing forward the distinction.  It is the former that assigns\nthe tithes to the Levites, while requiring these in their turn to\nhand over the tithe of their tithes as a due to the priests.  Such\nwas also the practice (Nehemiah x. 38 seq.) soon after the exile\n[i.e., a hundred years later; Nehemiah vii. 5].  But subsequently\nthe payment of the tithes to the Levites fell entirely into\ndisuse; these were rendered immediately and exclusively to the\npriests, so that Jose ben Hanina actually confesses: \"We do\nnot pay the tithes according to the command of God\" (Sota, 47b).\nBut everywhere the Talmud refers this practice back to Ezra.  Ezra\nit was who punished the Levites by withdrawal of the tithes, and\nthat because they had not come out from Babylon (Jebam. 386b;\nChullin 11b).  The point to be noted is that Ezra, according to\nthe testimony of tradition, superseded a precept of the Elohistic\ntorah, supporting himself in this perhaps by reference to the\nDeuteronomic torah.\"  So Delitzsch in the Zeitschr. fuer luth.\nTheol., 1877, p. 448 seq.  That Ezra is not the author of the\nPriestly Code may readily be granted--only not on such an\nargument as this.  If the genuine historical tradition expressly\nnames Ezra as the man who introduced the Levites' tithe just as\nprescribed by law (Nehemiah x. 38 seq.), what conscientious man can\nattach any weight to the opposite assertion of the Talmud ?\n\nBut, even assuming that the divergence of practice from the legal\nstatute actually does go back to the time of Ezra, what would\nfollow from that against the post-exilic origin of the Priestly\nCode?  For this is what the question comes to, not to Ezra's\nauthorship, which is made the main point by a mere piece of\ntransparent controversial tactics.  The demands of the Priestly\nCode, which demonstrably were neither laid down, nor in any sense\nacted on before the exile, attained the force of law one hundred\nyears after the return from Babylon (Nehemiah x.); the whole\ntaxation system of Judaism ever afterwards rested upon it;- -\nshall this be held to have no meaning as against the trifling\ncircumstance that the tithe also was indeed paid to the clergy,\nin full accordance with the Priestly Code, and inconsistently with\nancient custom, but paid to the higher, and not to the lower order?\n\nIn point of fact any other difference whatever between Jewish\npractice and the Law might better have been adduced against the\nthesis of Graf,--for example, the absence of Urim and Thummim (Nehemiah\nvii. 65), or of the forty-eight Levitical cities, the church of\nthe returned exiles instead of that of the twelve tribes of\nIsrael, the second temple instead of the tabernacle, Ezra instead\nof Moses, the sons of Zadok instead of the sons of Aaron,\nthe absence of the other marks of Mosaicity.  For the position\nof the Levites is the Achilles heel of the Priestly Code.\nIf the Levites at a later date were still further lowered beneath\nthe priests, and put into a worse position in favour of these,\nthis nevertheless presupposes the distinction between the two;\nlet it first then be shown that the distinction is known to\nthe genuine Old Testament, and that, in particular, it is\nintroduced by Ezekiel not as a new thing, but as of immemorial\nantiquity.  Or is the primary fact that the separation between\npriests and Levites was set up only in the Priestly  Code and\nin Judaism, and that its genesis can be traced with confidence\nfrom the time of Josiah downwards, a fact of less importance\nthan the secondary one that the distinction extended itself\nsomewhat further still in the subsequent development of\nJudaism ?\n\n\nB.  HISTORY OF TRADITION.\n\nPLEON (HMISU PANTOS-- Hesiod <Op. 40>\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.  CHRONICLES\n\nUnder the influence of the spirit of each successive age,\ntraditions originally derived from one source were very\nvariously apprehended and shaped; one way in the ninth and\neighth centuries, another way in the seventh and sixth, and yet\nanother in the fifth and fourth.  Now, the strata of the tradition\nshow the same arrangement as do those of the legislation.  And\nhere it makes no difference whether the tradition be legendary or\nhistorical, whether it relates to pre-historic or to historic\ntimes; the change in the prevailing ideas shows itself equally in\neither case.  To show the truth of this in the case of the\nHexateuch is of course our primary object, but we make our\ncommencement rather with the properly historical books.  For on\nvarious grounds we are here able with greater certainty  to\nassert: Such was the aspect of history at this period and such\nat that; such were the influences that had the ascendancy at\none time, and such those which prevailed at another.\n\nWe begin the inquiry where the matter is clearest--namely, with\nthe Book of Chronicles.  Chronicles, which properly speaking forms\nbut a single book along with Ezra and Nehemiah, is a second\nhistory running parallel with the Books of Samuel and Kings,\nand we are here in the favourable position of starting with the\nobjects of comparison distinctly defined, instead of having as\nusual to begin by a critical separation of sources of various age\ncombined in one document.  And, what is more, we can also date the\nrival histories with tolerable certainty.  The Books of Samuel and\nof Kings were edited in the Babylonian exile; Chronicles, on the\nother hand, was composed fully three hundred years later, after\nthe downfall of the Persian empire, out of the very midst of fully\ndeveloped Judaism.  We shall now proceed to show that the mere\ndifference of date fully accounts for the varying ways in which\nthe two histories represent the same facts and events, and the\ndifference of spirit arises from the influence of the Priestly\nCode which came into existence in the interval.  De Wette's \"Critical\nEssay on the Credibility of the Books of Chronicles\" (Beitraege,\ni.; 1806), is throughout taken as the basis of the discussion:\nthat essay has not been improved on by Graf (Gesch. Bucher d.\nA. T. p. 114 seq.), for here the difficulty, better grappled\nwith by the former, is not to collect the details of evidence,\nbut so to shape the superabundant material as to convey a right\ntotal impression.\n\n\nVI.I.\n\nVI.I.1. After Jehovah had slain Saul (so begins the narrative of\nChronicles), He turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.\nAll Israel gathered themselves unto David to Hebron and anointed\nhim king over Israel, according to the word of Jehovah by Samuel\n(I Chronicles x. 1.-xi.  3).  How simply and smoothly and wholly\nwithout human intervention according to this version did the thing\ncome to pass!  Quite otherwise is it in the narrative of the Book\nof Samuel.  This also indeed has the statement of Chronicles word\nfor word, but it has something over and above which gives a quite\ndifferent aspect to the matter.  Here David, on the lowest step to\nthe throne, is the guerilla leader in the wilderness of Judah who\nfinally is compelled by Saul's persecutions to pass over to\nPhilistine territory, there under the protection of the enemies\nof his nation, carrying on his freebooter life.  After the battle of\nGilboa he avails himself of the dissolution of the kingdom to set\nup a separate principality in the south as a vassal of the\nPhilistines; he is not chosen, but comes with a following six\nhundred strong, and offers himself to the elders of Judah,\nwhom he has already at an earlier period laid under obligations\nto him by various favours and gifts.  In the meantime Saul's cousin\nAbner takes over what of the kingdom there is, not for himself\nbut for the legitimate heir Ishbaal; from Gilead, whither the\ngovernment had been transferred after the great catastrophe,\nhe gradually reconquers the territory west of Jordan, and is\nscheming how to recover also the lost Judah.  Thus it comes\nto protracted struggles between Abner and David, in which fortune\nis most on the side of the latter; yet he does not leave the\ndefensive or gain the sovereignty over Israel.  That falls\ninto his hands rather by treachery.  Abner himself, indignant\nat the ingratitude of his royal nephew, offers the crown to\nhis rival, and enters into negotiations with him about it;\nbut as he immediately afterwards falls a victim to blood revenge,\nnothing comes of the matter until Ishbaal is privily murdered\nin his sleep by two of his captains; then at last the elders\nof Israel come to Hebron, and David becomes king in succession\nto Saul.  What a length of time these affairs demand, how natural\nis their development, how many human elements mingle in their\ncourse,--cunning, and treachery, and battle, and murder!\nChronicles indeed knows them all well enough, as is clear from\nincidental expressions in chaps. xi. and xii., but they are\npassed over in silence.  Immediately after his predecessor's death\nthe son of Jesse is freely chosen by all Israel to be king,\naccording to the word of Jehovah by Samuel.  The sequence of x.\n13, 14, xi. 1 does not admit of being understood in any other\nway, nor is it in point of fact otherwise understood, for it has\nactually been successful, at least to this extent, that the\nkingship of Ishbaal has virtually dropped out of traditional Bible\nhistory; after Saul came David is what is said.  We have before\nus a deliberate and in its motives a very transparent mutilation\nof the original narrative as preserved for us in the Book of\nSamuel.\n\nAs all Israel has made David the successor of Saul, and all Israel\ngone out with him to the conquest of Jerusalem (xi. 4),--in 2Samuel\nv. 6 we hear only of David's following,--so now immediately\nafterwards, the noblest representatives of all the tribes of\nIsrael, who even before he had attained the throne were in\nsympathy and indeed already on his side, are enumerated by name\nand numbers in three lists (xi. 10-xii. 40), which are introduced\nbetween what is said in 2Samuel v. 1-1110 and in 2Samuel v. 11\nseq.  The first (xi. 10-47: \"these are the mighty men who took\npart with him with all Israel to make him king\") is the list of\n2Samuel xxiii., which the Chronicler, as he betrays in chaps. xx.,\nxxi., was acquainted with as it stood in that place, and here\ngives much too early, for it is for the most part warriors of\nDavid's later campaigns who are enumerated. /1/ The second list (xii.\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The division into a group of three and another of thirty heroes,\nobscured in 2Samuel xxiii. by corruption of the text (Text der\nBB. Sam. p. 213-216), has not been understood by the\nChronicler, and thus been made quite unrecognisable.  In this way\nhe has been able to bring in at the end (xi. 42-47) a string of\nadditional names exceeding the number of thirty.  In ver. 42 his\nstyle unmistakably betrays itself, wherever it may be that he\nmet with the elements.\n-- Footnote\n\n\n1-22: \"these are they that came to David to Ziklag, while he yet\nkept himself close because of Saul\") is not taken from the Book of\nSamuel, but one also observes this difference: along with old\nand genuine there are extremely  common names, and hardly one\nthat occurs here only; the notes of ancestry carefully given\nin chap. xi. are almost always wanting; and instead of performing\nbefore our eyes such deeds as the rescue of a field of barley\nfrom the enemy, the purchase of a draught of water with blood,\nthe slaying of a lion in a pit, the heroes receive all sorts\nof _epitheta ornantia_ (xii. 1-3) and titles of honour (xii. 14,\n20), and ordinarily talk a highly  spiritual language (xii. 17, 18).\nAnd as for the historical situation, how impossible that a great\nIsraelite army should have been gathered around David as the\nfeudatory of the Philistines in Ziklag (xii. 2 2), with a crowd\nof captains of hundreds and thousands!  Plainly the banished\nfugitive is according to this representation the splendid king\nand illustrious ancestor of the established dynasty; hence also\nthe naive remark of ver. 29.  No better is it with the third\nlist (xii. 23-40: \"these are the numbers of the bands, ready\narmed for the war, who came to David to Hebron\").  Observe the\nregular enumeration of the twelve tribes, which nowhere occurs\nin the older historical books, and is quite artificial; then\nthe vast numbers, which are not matters of indifference here,\nbut the principal thing and make up the entire contents; finally,\nthe 4600 Levites and 3700 priests, who also take their place in\nthe martial train, and constitute the proper guard of the king;\nto Chronicles the distinction between secular and spiritual soldiers\nis not altogether clear.  There are but a few details of a special\nkind; the remark in xii. 32 is perhaps connected with 2Samuel\nxx. 18; Jehoiada the prince of the house of Aaron, i.e., the high\npriest, alongside of the historically certain series,--Eli, Phinehas,\nAhitub, Ahiah (Ahimelech ), Abiathar,--an utterly impossible\nperson, is a reflection of the Jehoiada of 2Kings xi., xii., and\nthe allegation that Zadok at that time joined David at the head of\ntwenty-two chief priests is a hardly credible substitute for what\nis stated in Samuel, according to which Abiathar, whose older\nclaims were disagreeable to the B'ne Zadok and those who came\nlater, was the priest who from the beginning held with David; the\ntwenty-two chief priests appear to correspond to the heads of the\ntwenty-two post-exilian priestly families (Nehemiah xii. 1-7,\n12-21, x.  3-9; 1Chronicles xxiv. 7-18).  Yet it is hardly necessary\nto go so minutely into the contents of the above lists, for the\npurpose with which they are given is stated without\ncircumlocution at the close (2Chronicles xii. 38, 39): \"All these\nmen of war, in order of battle, came with a perfect heart to Hebron\nto make David king over all Israel, and all the rest of Israel also\nwere of one heart to make David king. And they were there with David\nthree days, eating and drinking, for there was joy in Israel.\"\n\nAfter the explication of the idea \"all Israel\" thus inappropriately\ninterpolated, the narrative proceeds to reproduce the contents of 2\nSamuel v.-vii.  David's first deed, after the conquest of the\nstronghold of Jebus, is in Chronicles to make it the holy city\nby transferring the ark of Jehovah thither (xiii. 1 seq.).  It\nseems as if the building of a palace and the Philistine war\n(2Samuel v. 11-25) were to be omitted; but after the narrative in\n2Samuel vi. 1 seq. has been given down to the place \"and the ark\nof Jehovah abode in the house of Obed-edom three months \" (1Chronicles\nxiii. 14 = 2Samuel vi. 11), the pause of a quarter of a\nyear is utilised for the purpose of overtaking what had been left\nout (xiv. 1-17 = 2Samuel v. 11-25), and then the history of\nthe ark is completed.  This indeed is to separate things mutually\nconnected, but at the same time the secular business which,\naccording to the older narrative, is the nearest and most\npressing, is reduced to the level of a mere episode in the midst of\nthe sacred.  That there is no room for the building of a house and\na Philistine war within the three months which offer themselves so\nconveniently for the interpolation is a subordinate affair.\n\nAs regards the sacred business, the transference of the ark to\nZion, almost everything that is said in 2Samuel vi. is repeated\nword for word in Chronicles also (xiii., xv., xvi., xvii. 1).\nTwo traits only are absent in Chronicles, and in neither case is\nthe omission helpful to the connection David's wife Michal, it is\nsaid in 2Samuel vi. 16, 20-23, when she saw the king dancing and\nleaping in the procession, despised him in her heart; afterwards\nwhen he came home she told him what she thought of his unworthy\nconduct.  The first of these two statements is found in Chronicles\nalso (xv. 29), but the second is (all but the introductory\nnotice, xvi. 43 = 2Samuel vi. 20, here torn from its connection)\nomitted, although it contains the principal fact, for the\nhistorical event was the expression of her contempt, not its\npsychological origin; a woman--such is the idea--must not say a\nthing like that to David.  The other case is quite similar.  On\naccount of the calamity by which those who were bringing up the\nark were overtaken, David does not at first venture to receive it\ninto his citadel, but deposits it in the house of Obed-edom, one\nof his captains; but when Jehovah blesses the house of Obed-edom,\nhe takes courage to bring the ark to his own home (2Samuel vi. 10-12).\nChronicles also tells that Jehovah blessed the house of Obed-edom\n(xiii. 14), but mentions no consequent result; again the cause is\ngiven without the effect.  Another explanation is substituted;\nDavid perceived that the disaster connected with the removal of\nthe ark was due to the fact of its not having been carried by the\nLevites in accordance with the Law; the Levites accordingly were\nmade to bear it and no harm ensued (xv. 2, 13-15). This is in complete\nand manifest contradiction to the older narrative, and as Chronicles\n(chapter xiii.) copies that narrative, it also contradicts itself\n(xiii. 10), and that all the more strikingly as by the addition\nin xiii. 2 it represents the accompanying clergy as tacitly\napproving the carrying of the ark on the ox-cart.  Then due\nparticipation in the sacred procession having been thus once\nsecured them, 1Chronicles xv. positively  revels in priests\nand Levites, of whom not a sing]e word is to be found in 2 Samuel\nvi., and moreover a sort of musical service is instituted by\nDavid himself before the ark, and a festal cantata made up by him\nout of post-exilian psalms is quoted (chapter xvi.).  In this way,\nout of the original narrative, the scattered fragments of which\nnow show themselves very  strangely in the new connection,\nsomething quite different has grown.  \"In the former everything is\nfree, simply the affair of king and people, here all is priestly\nceremonial; there the people with their king shout and dance with\njoy before the ark,, here the levites are the musicians and\nsingers in formal order.  To seek to combine the two versions is\nwholly against the laws of historical interpretation.  If the\nfirst were curt and condensed the unification of the two might\nperhaps be possible, but no story could be more particular or\ngraphic, and could it have been that the Levites alone should be\npassed over in silence if they had played so very important a\npart?  The author of Chronicles was able to introduce them only\nby  distorting and mutilating his original and landing himself in\ncontradiction after all.  He cannot allow anything to happen\nwithout Levites; and was the ark of the covenant to be fetched to\nJerusalem without them? was the Law to be even a second time\nbroken under the pious king David?  This seemed to him impossible.\nThat Uzzah perished in the first attempt to fetch the ark, and\nthat on the second occasion--when only a quite short journey is\nspoken of--the ark was carried, ~2Samuel vi. 13, may have been\nthe suggestions by which he was led.  Fertile in combinations,\nhe profited by the hint.\" So, justly, De Wette (Beitraege, i.\n88-91).\n\nThe narrative of 2Samuel vi. having been broken off at the first\nhalf of ver. 19 (1Chronicles xvi. 3), the second half of the verse\nand the beginning of the next are reproduced (xvi. 43) after the\ninterpolation of xvi. 4-42, and then 2Samuel vii. is appended\nword for word (1Chronicles xvii.),--the resolution of David to build\na house for the ark, and what Jehovah said to him about the\nsubject through Nathan.  The point of the prophet's address turns\non the antithesis (2Samuel vii.).  \"Thou wilt build a house FOR\nME? rather will I build a house FOR THEE;\" the house of David\nis of course the Davidic dynasty.  But an interpolation has\nalready crept into the text of Samuel (vii. 13), which\napprehends the antithesis thus: \"THOU wilt build a house for me?\nNay, THY SON shall build a house for me.\" Now Chronicles, for which\nDavid comes into consideration merely as the proper founder of the\nSolomonic temple, takes up the narrative of 2 Samuel vii. precisely\non account of this interpolation, as is clear from xxii. 9, 10--\nincreases the misunderstanding by going back to it in an addition\n(xvii. 14)--and at the outset destroys the original antithesis\nby the innocent alteration, \"Thou shalt not build THE HOUSE for me\"\ninstead of \"Wilt thou build A house for me?  \"The house can here\nmean only that imperatively needed one, long kept in view alike\nby God and men, which must by all means he built, only not by David\nbut by Solomon; it is without any ambiguity the temple, and does not,\nlike a house, contain that possibility of a double meaning on\nwhich the original point depends. It is interesting also to compare\n2Samuel vii. 14 with 1Chronicles xvii. 13: \"I will be to thy seed\na father, and he shall be to me a son.  _If he commit iniquity,\nthen I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes\nof the sons of men; but_ my mercy shall not depart from him.\"\nThe words in italics are wanting in Chronicles; the meaning, that\nJehovah will not withdraw His grace from the dynasty of Judah\naltogether, even though some of its members should deserve\npunishment, is thereby destroyed and volatilised into an abstract\nidealism, which shows that to the writer the Davidic kingly\nfamily is known only as a dissolving view, and not by historical\nexperience as it is to the author of 2Samuel vii.\n\nIn chaps xviii.-xx., Chronicles seems to refresh itself with a\nlittle variety, relating as it does the foreign wars of David\nafter the order of 2Samuel, viii., x., xi. 1, xii. 30, 30, xxi.\n18-22. But in this it still keeps in view its purpose, which is\ndirected towards David as founder of the Jerusalem worship;\nthose wars brought him the wealth that was required for the\nbuilding of the temple.  On the other hand, everything so\nfully and beautifully told in the Book of Samuel about the\nhome occurrences of that period is omitted, for after all\nit does not contribute much to the glorification of the king.\nSo the story of Meribaal and Ziba (chap. ix.), of Bathsheba and\nUriah (xi., xii.), of Tamar and Amnon (xiii., xiv.), of Absalom's\nrebellion (xv.-xx.), and of the delivering-up of the sons of Saul\n(xxi. 1-14).  The rude and mechanical manner in which statements\nabout foreign wars are torn from the connection with domestic\nevents in which they stand in the older narrative is shown in\n1Chronicles xx. 1, 2, as compared with 2Samuel xi. 1, xii. 30.\nIn 2Samuel xi. the mention of the fact that David remained\nin Jerusalem when the army set out against Rabbah, prepares for\nthe story of his adultery with the wife of a captain engaged\nin active service in the field; but 1Chronicles xx. 1 is\nmeaningless, and involves a contradiction with ver. 2. according\nto which David appears after all in the camp at Rabbah, although\nthe connection,--namely, that he followed the army--and all\nthe intermediate occurrences relating to Bathsheba and Uriah, are\nleft out (De Wette, pp. 19, 20, 60).  To what extent the veil is\ndrawn over the scandalous falls of saints may be judged also from\nthe fact that from the list of David's foreign encounters also,\nwhich are otherwise fully given, a single one is omitted which he\nis supposed not to have come through with absolute honour, that\nwith the giant Ishbi-benob (2Samuel xxi. 15-17).  Lastly, the\nalteration made in 1Chronicles xx. 5 is remarkable.  Elhanan the\nson of Jair of Bethlehem, we read in 2Samuel xxi. 19, was he who\nslew Goliath of Gath, the shaft of whose spear was as thick as a\nweaver's beam.  But on the other hand, had not David of Bethlehem\naccording to 1Samuel xvii. vanquished Goliath the giant, the\nshaft of whose spear was as thick as a weaver's beam?  In\nChronicles accordingly Elhanan smites the brother of the\nveritable Goliath.\n\n2. The closing chapters of 2Samuel (xxi.-xxiv.) are, admittedly,\nan appendix of very peculiar structure. The thread of xxi. 1-14\nis continued in xxiv. 1-25, but in the interval between the two\npassages occurs xxi. 15-xxiii. 39, in a very irrational manner,\nperhaps wholly due to chance.  In this interposed passage itself,\nagain, the quite similar lists xxi. 15-22 and xxiii. 8-39 are\nvery closely connected; and the two songs, xxii. 1-51, xxiii.\n1-7, are thus an interpolation within an interpolation.  This\nwant of order is imitated by the author of Chronicles also,\nwho takes 2Samuel xxiii. 8-39 as separated from xxi. 15-22,\nand gives 2Samuel xxiv. last, a position which does not belong\nto it from any material considerations, but merely because it\nhad originally been tagged on as an appendix, and besides had\nbeen separated from its connection with xxi. 1-14 by a\nlarge interpolation.\n\n1Chronicles xxi. (the pestilence as punishment of David's sin\nin numbering the people, and the theophany as occasioning the\nbuilding of an altar on the threshing-floor of Araunah) is on the\nwhole a copy of 2Samuel xxiv., but with omission of the precise\nand interesting geographical details of ver. 5 seq, and with\nintroduction of a variety of improving touches.  Thus (xxi. 1):\n\"And Satan stood up against Israel and moved David;\" instead\nof: \"And the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he\nmoved David.\" Similarly (xxi. 6): \"Levi and Benjamin Joab\ncounted not among them; for the king's word was abominable to him,\"--\nan addition which finds its explanation on the one hand in Numbers\ni. 49, and on the other in the circumstance that the holy city lay\nwithin the territory of Benjamin.  Again (xxi. 16, 27): \"David\nsaw the angel of Jehovah standing between heaven and earth, and\nhis sword drawn in his hand and stretched out towards Jerusalem;\"\ncompare this with Sam xxiv. 16 (1Chronicles xxi. t5): \"The angel\nstretched out his hand to Jerusalem to destroy it, and he was\nby the threshing floor of Araunah;\" according to the older view,\nangels have no wings (Genesis xxviii.). Further (xxi. 25):\n\"David gave to Araunah for his threshing-floor 600 shekels of\ngold ;\" compare with 2Samuel xxiv. 24, 50 shekels of silver;\nto make the king pay right royally costs the Chronicler nothing.\nBut lastly, his most significant addition is the fire from\nheaven which consumes the burnt-offering (xxi. 26); by this means\nthe altar on the threshing-floor of Araunah, in other words,\nthat of the sanctuary of Jerusalem, is intended to be put on\na level with that of the tabernacle, its predecessor, the fire\non which was also kindled from heaven (Leviticus ix. 24).\nWhoever has understood the narratives of altar-buildings by\nthe Patriarchs, by Joshua, Gideon, and Manoah, will grant that\nthe author of Chronicles has quite correctly understood the\nintention of 2Samuel xxiv., in accordance with which he here\nproposes to relate the divine inauguration of the place of worship\nat Jerusalem; but what in that passage, as in similar older\nlegends about the indication of consecrated places by means of a\ntheophany, is only  hinted at for contemporaries who understood\nthe idea conveyed, he requires to retouch strongly in order that\na later generation may notice it; and yet he has half spoiled\nthe point by making the angel not stand by the threshing-floor of\nAraunah on the sacred spot, but hover aloft in the air.\n\n2Samuel xxiv. = 1Chronicles xxi. serves further as a starting point\nfor the free construction of 1Chronicles xxii.-xxix.  The\ncircumstance that in the last chapter of the Book of Samuel David\nbuilds the altar at Jerusalem is expanded into the statement that\nin the last year of his reign he prepared beforehand the building\nof the temple of Solomon in all its parts down to the minutest\ndetail.  Unhampered by historical tradition, the author here\nexpatiates with absolute freedom in his proper element.  All that\nhas hitherto been said about the king on the basis of the older\nsource is by means of additions and omissions fashioned into what\nshall serve as a mere prologue to the proper work of his life,\nwhich is now described thoroughly _con amore_.  He himself\nunfortunately has not been allowed to build the house, having\nshed much blood and carried on great wars (xxii. 8, xxviii. 3),\nbut he yet in the last year of his reign forestalls from his\nsuccessor the whole merit of the business (xxiii. 1, xxviii. 1).\nMy son Solomon, he says, is young and tender, but the house to be\nbuilt for Jehovah must be great and glorious; I will therefore\nprepare it for him (xxii. 5).  Accordingly he gets ready\nbeforehand the workmen and artificers, in particular bringing into\nrequisition the non-Israelitic population; he provides the\nmaterial, stone and wood and brass and iron, and gold and silver\nand jewels without number; he also gives the plan or rather\nreceives it direct from Jehovah, and that in black and white\n(xxviii. 19), while Moses built the tabernacle only according to\nhis recollection of the heavenly pattern which had been shown to\nhim on Sinai.  But before all he appoints the _personnel_ for the\ntemple service,--priests, Levites, porters, singers,-divides their\nthousands into classes, and assigns to them their functions by\nlot.  In doing so he interests himself, naturally, with special\npreference, in the music, being the designer of the instruments\n(xxiii. 5), and himself acting as principal conductor (xxv. 2,\n6).  And as he is still king after all, he at the close takes an\ninventory also of his secular state, after having duly  ordered\nthe spiritual.  All this he does for the future, for his son and\nsuccessor; not in reality, but only in plan, are the door-keepers,\nfor example, assigned to their posts (xxvi. 12 seq.), but none\nthe less with strictest specification and designation of the\nlocalities of the temple,--and that too the second temple!  His\npreparations concluded, David calls a great assembly of prelates\nand notables (xxiii. 1, xxviii. 1), has Solomon anointed as king,\nand Zadok as priest (xxix. 22), and in a long discourse hands over\nto the former along with the kingdom the task of his reign,\nnamely, the execution of what he himself has prepared and\nappointed; on this occasion yet more precious stones and noble\nmetals--among them gold of Ophir and Persian darics--are presented\nby David and the princes for the sacred building.  The whole\nsection 1Chronicles xxii.-xxix. is a startling instance of that\nstatistical phantasy of the Jews which revels in vast sums of\nmoney on paper (xxii. 14), in artificial marshallings of names\nand numbers (xxiii.-xxvii.), in the enumeration of mere subjects\nwithout predicates, which simply stand on parade and neither\nsignify nor do anything.  The monotony is occasionally broken\nonly by unctuous phrases, but without refreshing the reader.\nLet the experiment of reading the chapters through be tried.\n\nAccording to 1Kings i., ii., King David in his closing days was\nsick and feeble in body and mind, and very far from being in a\ncondition thus to make preparations on behalf of his successor\nshortly before his own death, or to prepare his bread for him so\nfar that nothing remained but to put it into the oven.  His\npurpose of building a house to Jehovah is indeed spoken of in\n2 Samuel vii. in connection with vi. 17, but it is definitively\nabandoned in consequence of Jehovah's refusal, on the ground that\nit is not man's part to build a house for God, but God's to build\na house for man.  In strange contrast with this explanation is\nthat of Chronicles that David is a man of war and has shed much\nblood, and therefore dare not set up the temple; that he had waged\nthe wars of Jehovah, that Jehovah had given victory by his hand,\nwould in the older warlike time have seemed no reason against but\nrather an argument establishing his fitness for such a work.  But\nthe worst discrepancy is that between the solemn installation of\nSolomon as king and of Zadok as priest with all the forms of law\nand publicity as related in 1Chronicles xxviii., xxix. (comp.\nxxii., xxiii. 1) and the older narrative of 1Kings i., ii.\nAccording to the latter it was much more an ordinary  palace\nintrigue, by means of which one party at court succeeded in\nobtaining from the old king, enfeebled with age, his sanction for\nSolomon's succession.  Until then Adonijah had been regarded as\nheir-apparent to the throne, by David himself, by all Israel,\nand the great officers of the kingdom, Joab and Abiathar; what\nabove all things turned the scale in favour of Solomon was the\nweight of Benaiah's six hundred praetorians, a formidable force\nin the circumstances of the period.  The author of Chronicles\nnaively supposes he has successfully evaded all difficulties\nby giving out the coronation of Solomon related by himself\nto be the second (xxix. 22),--an advertence to 1Kings i., ii.\nwhich does not remove but only betrays the contradiction.\n\nYet this is as nothing over against the disharmony of the total\nimpression.  See what Chronicles has made out of David!  The\nfounder of the kingdom has become the founder of the temple and\nthe public worship, the king and hero at the head of his\ncompanions in arms has become the singer and master of ceremonies\nat the head of a swarm of priests and Levites; his clearly  cut\nfigure has become a feeble holy picture, seen through a cloud of\nincense.  It is obviously vain to try to combine the\nfundamentally different portraits into one stereoscopic image;\nit is only the tradition of the older source that possesses\nhistorical value.  In Chronicles this is clericalised in the taste\nof the post-exilian time, which had no feeling longer for anything\nbut cultus and torah, which accordingly treated as alien the old\nhistory (which, nevertheless, was bound to be a sacred history),\nif it did not conform with its ideas and metamorphose itself into\nchurch history. Just as the law framed by Ezra as the foundation\nof Judaism was regarded as having been the work of Moses, so what\nupon this basis had been developed after Moses--particularly the\nmusic of the sanctuary  and the ordering of the temple\n_personnel_---was carried back to King David, the sweet singer of\nIsrael, who had now to place his music at the service of the\ncultus, and write psalms along with Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun,\nthe Levitical singing families.\n\nVI.I.3. With regard to Solomon, Chronicles (2Chronicles i.-ix.)\nnowhere departs very far from the lines of the Book of Kings.\nAs the story of 1Kings i., ii., which is not an edifying one, and\nmercilessly assails that of 1Chronicles xxii.-xxix., required to\nbe omitted, the narrative accordingly begins with 1Kings iii., with\nSolomon's accession, sacrifices on the great altar at Gibeon, and\nthe revelation of Jehovah, which was thereupon communicated to him\nin a dream.  This last is transcribed with slight alterations,\nbut at the outset a characteristic divergence is found.  \"Solomon\nloved Jehovah, walking in the statutes of David his father, only\nhe sacrificed and burnt incense on the high places (because\nthere was no house built unto the name of Jehovah until those\ndays).  And the king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there; for that\nwas the great high place; a thousand burnt-offerings did Solomon\noffer upon that altar, and Jehovah appeared unto him in a dream:\nAsk what I shall give thee.\" So 1Kings iii. 2 seq. Chronicles,\nafter its manner, first surrounds the king with a great assemblage\nof captains of hundreds and thousands, of judges and princes\nand heads of houses, and purely Pentateuchal dignities, and then\nproceeds:\n\n\"And Solomon and all the congregation with him went to\nthe high place in Gibeon, for there was God's tent of meeting,\nwhich Moses, the servant of God, had made in the wilderness.\nBut the ark of God had David brought up from Kirjath-jearim,\nwhere he had prepared for it; for he had pitched a tent for it\nat Jerusalem.  But the brazen altar that Bezaleel, the son of Uri,\nthe son of Hur, had made, stood there, before the tabernacle of\nJehovah, and Solomon and the congregation sought unto it. And\nSolomon offered there, upon the brazen altar, before Jehovah,\nby the tent of meeting, he offered a thousand burnt-offerings,\nand God appeared to him in a dream, saying, Ask what I shall\ngive thee\" (2Chronicles i. 3 seq.).\n\nIn the older narrative there is nothing about the tabernacle,\nit being assumed that no apology would be either necessary or\npossible for Solomon having sacrificed on a high place.  Chronicles,\ndominated in its views of antiquity by the Priestly Code, has\nmissed the presence of the tabernacle and supplied the want in\naccordance with that norm; the young and pious king could not\npossibly  have made his solemn inaugural sacrifice, for which\nhe had expressly left Jerusalem, anywhere else than at the\nlegally prescribed place; and still less could Jehovah otherwise\nhave bestowed on him His blessing.  It betokens the narrowness,\nand at the same time the boldness of the author, that he retains\nthe expression _high place_ used in 1Kings iii. 3, and co-ordinates\nit with _tabernacle_, although the one means precisely the opposite\nof the other. But it is instructive to notice how, on other\noccasions, he is hampered by his Mosaic central sanctuary, which\nhe has introduced _ad hoc_ into the history.  According to 1Chronicles\nxvi.  David is in the best position to institute also a sacrificial\nservice beside the ark of Jehovah, which he has transferred to\nZion; but he dare not, for the Mosaic altar stands at Gibeon, and\nhe must content himself with a musical surrogate (vers. 37-42).\nThe narrative of 1Chronicles xxi., that David was led by the\ntheophany at the threshing-floor of Araunah to build an altar\nthere, and present upon it an offering that was accepted by\nheaven, is at its close maimed and spoiled in a similar way by\nthe remark, with anticipatory reference to 2Chronicles i., that the\nMosaic tabernacle and altar of burnt offering were indeed at that\ntime in the high place at Gibeon, but that the king had not the\nstrength to go before it to inquire of Jehovah, being so smitten\nwith fear of the angel with the drawn sword.  So also must the\nsacrifice which Solomon should have offered on his return from\nGibeon before the ark at Jerusalem be similarly ignored (2Chronicles\ni. 13), because it uould destroy the force of the previous\nexplanation of the high place at Gibeon.  Thus the shadow takes\nthe air from the body.  In other places the tabernacle is\nsignificantly confounded with the temple of Jerusalem (Graf, p. 56),\nbut on the whole it remains a tolerably inert conception, only made\nuse of in the passage before us (2Chronicles i.) in an _ex machina_\nmanner in order to clear Solomon of a heavy reproach.\n\nUpon the last solemn act of worship at the Mosaic sanctuary\nimmediately  follows the building of the temple (i. 18 [ii.1]-vii. 11),\n1Kings iii. 10-v. 14 [AV. 34] being passed over.  A few little\ntouches are however brought in to show the wealth of Solomon\n(i. 14-17); they do not occur in Kings until chap. x. (vers. 26-29),\nand are also repeated in Chronicles (ix. 25 seq.) in this much\nmore appropriate connection (comp. 1Kings iii., LXX).  Strictly\nspeaking indeed, David has taken the preparations for the sacred\nbuilding out of the hands of his successor, but the latter\nappears not to be satisfied with these (ii. 16 [17]) and looks\nafter them once more (i. 18-ii. 17 [ii. 1-18]).  A comparison\nwith Ezra iii. (preparation of the second temple) shows that\nthe story is an elaboration of the author, although suggested\nby 1Kings v. 16 [2] seq., and with preservation of many verbal\nreminiscences.  While Hiram and Solomon according to the older\nrecord are on a footing of equality and make a contract based\non reciprocity of service, the Tyrian king is here the vassal\nof the Israelite, and renders to him what he requires as tribute;\ninstead of as there explaining himself by word of mouth, he here\nwrites a letter in which he not only openly avows his faith in\nJehovah the God of Israel, the maker of heaven and earth, but\nalso betrays an extraordinary acquaintance with the Pentateuchal\nPriestly Code. The brassfounder whom Solomon brings from Tyre\n(1Kings vii. 13, 14) is (ii. 13) described as a very Daedalus\nand prodigy of artistic skill, like Bezaleel (Exodus xxxi. 2 seq.);\nhis being made the son of a woman of Dan and not of a widow of\nNaphtali supplies interpreters with the materials for the\nconstruction of a little family romance,  /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. She was by birth a woman of Dan, married into the tribe of\nNapthali, lost her husband, and as widow out of the tribe of\nNaphtali became the wife of the Tyrian.  So Bertheau _in loc_.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nbut has no more real value than the idea that sandalwood is\nobtained from Lebanon.  The statement of 1Kings v. 27 [13]\n(xi. 28, xii. 4) that Israel was requisitioned in large numbers\nto render forced service to the king has substituted for it by\nthe Chronicler that which occurs in another place (1Kings ix. 2I),\nthat only the Canaanite serfs were employed for this purpose; at\nthe same time, he reckons their number from the figures supplied\nin 1Kings v. 29 [15] seq.  Lastly, the manner in which Solomon\n(ii. 2 [3] ) assures Hiram that he will arrange the divine\nservice in the new house in a thoroughly correct manner according\nto the ordinance of the Priestly Code, is also characteristic;\nsimilar remarks, from which the uninterrupted practice of the\nMosaic cultus according to the rules of the Law is made to appear,\nare afterwards repeated from time to time (viii. 12-16, xiii. 11).\n\nIn chaps. iii., iv. the author repeats the description of the\ntemple in 1Kings vi., vii., with the omission of what relates to\nprofane buildings.  Perhaps in one passage (1Kings vii. 23) he\nfound the now very corrupt text in a better state;  otherwise he\nhas excerpted from it in a wretchedly careless style or word for\nword transcribed it, adding merely a few extravagances or\nappointments of later date (e.g., the specification of the gold\nin iii. 4 seq. 8, 9, of the ten golden tables and hundred golden\nbasins in iv. 8, of the brass-covered doors of the outer gateway\nin iv. 9, of the court of the priests in iv. 9, of the curtain\nbetween the holy place and the holy of holies in iii. 14;\ncompare Vatke, pp. 332, 333, 340, 341).  To deny that the\noriginal (to which reference must in many places be made in order\nthat the meaning may be understood) exists in 1Kings vi., vii.,\nrequires an exercise of courage which might be much better\nemployed, all the more because in 2Chronicles iv. 11-v. 1, the\nsummary list follows the description of details precisely as in\n1Kings vii. 40 - 51.\n\nWhile the concrete and material details of 1Kings vi., vii. are\nreproduced only in an imperfect and cursory manner, the act of\nconsecration on the other hand, and the discourse delivered by\nSolomon on the occasion, is accurately and fully given (v. 2-vii.\n10) in accordance with 1Kings viii.; such additions and\nomissions as occur are all deliberate.  In 1Kings viii. the\npriests and Levites on an occasion which so closely concerned\ntheir interests do not play any adequate part, and in particular\ngive none of the music which nevertheless is quite indispensable\nat any such solemnity.   Accordingly, the Chronicler at the word\n\"priests\" inserts between the violently separated clauses of 1Kings\n\nviii. 10, 11, the following:\n\"For all the priests present had sanctified themselves without\ndistinction of classes, and the Levites, the singers, all stood in\nwhite linen with cymbals and psalteries and harps at the east end\nof the altar, and with them an hundred and twenty priests sounding\nwith trumpets.  And it came to pass when the trumpeters and singers\nwere as one to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking\nthe Lord, and when the music began with trumpets, and cymbals, and\ninstruments, and the song of praise,\n\n  Praise ye Jehovah,\n  for He is good;\n  for His mercy endureth for ever,\n  then the house was filled with a cloud\" (v. 11-13).\n\nProceeding, the narrative of 1Kings viii. 22 that Solomon came\nin front of the altar and there prayed is indeed in the first\ninstance copied (vi. 12), but forthwith authoritatively interpreted\nin the sense that the king did not really and actually stand before\nthe altar (which was lawful for the priests alone), but upon an\nimprovised pulpit in the inner court upon a propped-up caldron of\nbrass (vi. 13), an excellent idea, which has met with the due\ncommendation of expositors.  The close of Solomon's prayer (1Kings\nviii. 49-53) is abridged (vi. 39, 40)--perhaps in order to get rid\nof viii. 50--and there is substituted for it an original epilogue\n(vi. 41, 42) recalling post-exilian psalms.  Then comes a larger\nomission, that of 1Kings viii. 54-61, explained by the difficulty\ninvolved in the king's here kneeling, not upon the caldron,\nbut before the altar, then standing up and blessing like a priest;\nin place of this it is told (vii. 1-3) how the altar was consecrated\nby fire from heaven, which indeed had already descended upon it\n(1Chronicles xxi.26), but as it appears had unaccountably gone out.\nIn vii. 4 the author again returns to his original at 1Kings\nviii. 62 seq., but tricks it out, wherever it appears to him too\nbare, with trumpeting priests and singing Levites (vii. 6),\nand finally dismisses the people, not on the eighth day of\nthe feast of tabernacles (1Kings viii. 66), but on the ninth\n(vii. to), in accordance with the enactment in Numbers xxix. 35.\n\nThe rest of Solomon's history (vii. 11-ix. 28) is taken over from\n1Kings ix., x.  In doing so what is said in 1Kings ix. 10-IO,\nto the effect that Solomon handed over to Hiram twenty Galilaean\ncities, is changed into the opposite--that Hiram ceded the cities\nto Solomon, who settled them with Israelites (viii. 1, 2); and\nsimilarly the already observed statement of 1Kings ix. 24\nabout the removal of Solomon's Egyptian wife out of the city of\nDavid into his new palace /1/ is altered and put in quite a\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Even in the text of Kings this statement has been obscured;\nComp. 1Kings iii. 1.  In ix. 24 we must at least say _betho\nasher bana lo_, but this perhaps is not enough.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nfalse light:\n\n\"Solomon brought up the daughter of Pharaoh out of the\ncity of David unto the house that he had built for her; for he\nsaid, No woman shall dwell in the house of David, for the place\nis holy whereunto the ark of Jehovah hath come\" (viii. 11).\n\nThere is no further need to speak of viii. 12-16 (1Kings ix. 25);\nmore indifferent in their character are the addition in vii.\n12-15, a mere compilation of reminiscences, the embellishment in\nviii. 3-6, derived from 1Kings ix. 17-19, and the variations in\nviii. 17 seq., ix. 2I, misunderstood from 1Kings ix. 26 seq.,\nx. 22.  The concluding chapter on Solomon's reign (1Kings xi.),\nin which the king does not appear in his most glorious aspect, is\npassed over in silence, for the same motives as those which\ndictated the omission of the two chapters at the beginning.\n\nThe history of the son is treated after the same plan and by the\nsame means as that of the father, only the subject accommodates\nitself more readily to the purpose of the change.  The old\npicture is retouched in such wise that all dark and repulsive\nfeatures are removed, and their place taken by new and brilliant\nbits of colour not in the style of the original but in the taste of\nthe author's period,--priests and Levites and fire from heaven, and\nthe fulfilment of all righteousness of the law, and much music,\nand all sorts of harmless legendary anachronisms and\nexaggerations besides.  The material of tradition seems broken up\nin an extraneous medium, the spirit of post-exilian Judaism.\n\n\nVI.II.\n\nVI.II.1. After Solomon's death the history of Israel in Chronicles\nis traced only through Jehovah's kingdom in the hand of the sons\nof David, and all that relates to the ten tribes is put aside.\nFor according to the notions of the Judaistic period Israel is the\ncongregation of true worship, and this last is connected with the\ntemple at Jerusalem, in which of course the Samaritans have no\npart.  Abijah of Judah makes this point of view clear to Jeroboam\nI. and his army in a speech delivered from Mount Zemaraim before\nthe battle.\n\n\"Think ye to withstand the kingdom of Jehovah in the\nhand of the sons of David, because ye are a great multitude, and\nwith you are the golden calves which Jeroboam made you for gods ?\nHave ye not cast out the priests of Jehovah, the sons of Aaron and\nthe Levites, and made for yourselves priests after the manner of\nthe Gentiles? so that whosoever cometh to fill his hands with a\nyoung bullock and seven rams, even he may  become a priest for the\nfalse gods? But as for us, we have not forsaken Jehovah our God,\nand our priests minister to Jehovah, the sons of Aaron and the\nLevites in the service; and they burn unto Jehovah every morning\nand every evening burnt sacrifices and sweet incense; the shewbread\nalso is upon the pure table; for we have maintained the service of\nJehovah our God, but ye have forsaken Him.  And behold, God Himself\nis with us at our head, and His priests, and the loud-sounding\ntrumpets to cry an alarm against you.  O children of Israel,\nfight ye not against Jehovah the God of your fathers, for ye shall\nnot prosper\" (2Chronicles xiii. 8-12; comp. xi. 13-17).\n\nThe kingdom which bore the name of Israel was actually in point of\nfact in the olden time the proper Israel, and Judah was merely a\nkind of appendage to it.  When Amaziah of Judah after the\nconquest of the Edomites challenged to battle King Jehoash of\nSamaria, whose territory had at that time suffered to the utmost\nunder the continual wars with the Syrians, the latter bid say to\nhim:\n\n\"The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was\nin Lebanon, saying,  Give thy daughter to my son to wife;--then\npassed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon and trode down the\nthistle.  Thou hast indeed smitten Edom, and thy heart hath\nlifted thee up.  Enjoy thy glory, but tarry at home.\"\n\n(2Kings xiv. 9, 10).   And as the other would not listen, he\npunished him as if he had been a naughty boy and then let him go.\nReligiously the relative importance of the two corresponded\npretty nearly to what it was politically and historically.\nIsrael was the cradle of prophecy; Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha\nexercised their activity there; what contemporary figure from\nJudah is there to place alongside of these?  Assuredly the author\nof the Book of Kings would not have forgotten them had any such\nthere been, for he is a Judaean with all his heart, yet is compelled\npurely by the nature of the case to interest himself chiefly about\nthe northern kingdom.  And yet again at the very close it was the\nimpending fall of Samaria that called into life a new phase of\nprophecy; he who inaugurated it, the Judaean Amos of Tekoah, was\nsent not to Judah but to Israel, the history of which had the\nfirst and fullest sympathy of his inmost soul as that of the people\nof Jehovah.  Isaiah was the first who placed Jerusalem in the centre\nof his field of vision and turned away from Israel; for at the time\nof his first public appearance war was raging between the sister\nnations, and when his activity was at its acme all was over with\nthe northern kingdom and all hope had to cling to the remnant,--\nthe fallen tabernacle of David.  As regards the cultus, certainly,\nmatters may have been somewhat less satisfactory in Israel than\nin Judah, at least in the last century before the Assyrian captivity,\nbut at the outset there was no essential difference.  On all hands\nJehovah was worshipped as the peculiar divinity of the nation at\nnumerous fanes, in the service at the high places there were wanting\nneither in the one nor in the other sacred trees, posts, and\nstones, images of silver and gold (Isaiah ii. 8 seq., xvii. 8,\nxxxi. 22; Micah v. 12).  It is a question whether in the time\nbefore Hezekiah the cultus of the kingdom at Jerusalem had so much\nto distinguish it above that at Bethel or at Dan; against\nJeroboam's golden calves must be set the brazen serpent of Moses,\nand the ark of Jehovah itself--which in ancient times was an idol\n(1Samuel iv.-vi.) and did not become idealised into an ark of the\ncovenant, ie., of the law, until probably it had actually\ndisappeared.  As for the prophetic reaction against the popular\ncultus, the instance of Hosea shows that it came into activity as\nearly and as powerfully in Israel as in Judah.  Even after\nJosiah's reformation Jeremiah complains that the sister who\nhitherto had been spared is in no respect better than the other\nwho a hundred years before had fallen a victim to the Assyrians\n(iii. 6-1O); and though in principle the author of the Book of\nKings, taking his stand upon Deuteronomy, prefers Judah and\nJerusalem, yet he does not out of deference to this judgment alter\nthe facts which show that old Israel was not further than old\nJudah from compliance with the Deuteronomic precepts.  Chronicles,\non the other hand, not only takes the Law--the Penta<teu>chal Law\nas a whole, but more particularly the Priestly Code therein\npreponderating--as its rule of judgment on the past; but also\nidealises the facts in accordance with that norm, and figures to\nitself the old Hebrew people as in exact conformity with the\npattern of the later Jewish community,--as a monarchically graded\nhierocracy with a strictly centralised cultus of rigidly\nprescribed form at the holy place of Jerusalem.  When,\naccordingly, the ten tribes fail to exhibit all the marks of the\nkingdom of God, this is taken to mean their falling away from the\ntrue Israel; they have made goats and calves their gods, driven\naway the priests and Levites, and in a word broken quite away\nfrom the institutions which shaped themselves in Judah during the\nperiod subsequent to Josiah and received their finishing-touches\nfrom Ezra. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The Chronicler indeed is unable, even in the case of these\nschismatics, to divest himself of his legal notions, as appears\nalmost comically in the circumstance that the priests of Jeroboam\nset about their heretical practices quite in accordance with the\nprescriptions of the Priestly Code, and procure their\nconsecration by means of a great sacrifice (2 Chron xiii. 9).\n-- Footnote\n\n\nLike other heathen, therefore, they are taken account of by the\nsacred history only in so far as they stood in relations of\nfriendship or hostility  with the people of Jehovah properly so\ncalled, the Israel in the land of Judah (2Chronicles xxiii. 2),\nand in all references to them the most sedulous and undisguised\npartisanship on behalf of Judah is manifested, even by the\ninhabitants of the northern kingdom itself. /2/ If one seriously\n\n-- Footnote\n2. Compare xi. 16, xv. 9, xix. 2, xx. 35 seq.. xxv 7, xxviii.\n9 seq., xxx. 6.\n-- Footnote\n\n\ntakes the Pentateuch as Mosaic law, this exclusion of the ten\ntribes is, in point of fact, an inevitable consequence, for the\nmere fact of their belonging to the people of Jehovah destroys the\nfundamental pre-supposition of that document, the unity and\nlegitimacy of the worship as basis of the theocracy, the priests\nand Levites as its most important organs, \"the sinews and muscles\nof the body  politic, which keep the organism together as a living\nand moving whole.\"\n\nVI.II.2. The reverse side is, of course, the idealisation of Judah\nfrom the point of view of the legitimate worship,--a process which\nthe reader can imagine from the specimens already given with\nreference to David and Solomon.  The priests and Levites who\nmigrated from Israel are represented as having strengthened the\nsouthern kingdom (xi. 17), and here constitute the truly\ndominant element in the history.  It is for their sake that kings\nexist as protectors and guardians of the cultus, with the internal\narrangements of which, however, they dare not intermeddle (xxvi.\n16 seq.); to deliver discourses and ordain spiritual solemnities\n(which figure as the culminating points in the narrative) are\namong the leading duties of their reign. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. xiii. 7 seq., xv. 10 seq., xx. 6 seq., xxix. 5 seq., xxx. 1 seq.,\nxxxv. 1 seq.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThose among them who are good apprehend their task and are\ninseparable from the holy servants of Jehovah,--so, in particular,\nJehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah.  Of the first mentioned we are\ntold that in the third year of his reign he appointed a royal\ncommission of notables, priests, and Levites, to go about with the\nBook of the Law, and teach in the cities of Judah (xvii. 7-9); in\nthe larger places, in the strongholds, he further instituted\ncolleges of justice, and over them a supreme tribunal at\nJerusalem, also consisting of priests, Levites, and notables,\nunder the presidency of the high priest for spiritual, and of the\nPrince of the house of Judah for secular affairs (xix. 5-11).\nThere is nothing about this in the Book of Kings, although what is\nof less importance is noticed (1Kings xxii. 47); the Chronicler\nmakes the statement in his own language, which is unmistakable,\nespecially in the pious speeches.  Probably it is the\norganisation of justice as existing in his own day that he here\ncarries back to Jehoshaphat, so that here most likely we have the\noldest testimony to the synedrium of Jerusalem as a court of\nhighest instance over the provincial synedria, as also to its\ncomposition and presidency.  The impossibility of such a judiciary\nsystem in antiquity is clear from its presupposing the Book of\nthe Law as its basis, from its co-ordination of priests and\nLevites, and also from its actual inconsistency with incidental\nnotices, particularly in Isaiah and the older prophets (down to\nJeremiah xxvi.), in which it everywhere is taken for granted as a\nthing of course that the rulers are also at the same time the\nnatural judges.  Moreover, Chronicles already tells us about\nDavid something similar to what it says about Jehoshaphat\n(1Chronicles xxiii. 4, xxvi. 29-32); the reason why the latter\nis selected by preference for this work lies simply in his name\n\"Jehovah is Judge,\" as he himself is made to indicate in various\nways (xix. 5-11; compare Joel iv. 12).  But the king of Judah\nis strengthened by the priests and Levites, not only in these\ndomestic affairs, but also for war.  As the trumpets of the priests\ngive to Abijah courage and the victory against Jeroboam of\nIsrael, so do the Levites also to Jehoshaphat against Moab and\nAmmon.  Having fasted, and received, while praying, the\ncomfortable assurance of the singer Jahaziel (\"See God\"), he\nadvances next morning, with his army, against the enemy, having\nin the van the Levites, who march in sacred attire in front of\nthe armed men and sing:\n\n\"Praise ye the Lord, for His mercy endureth for ever.\"\n\nHe then finds that the fighting has already been done by the enemy\nthemselves, who, at the sound of that song of praise, have fallen\nupon and annihilated one another.  Three days are spent in\ndividing the spoil, and then he returns as he came, the Levitical\nmusic leading the van, with psalteries, and harps, and trumpets to\nthe house of Jehovah (2Chronicles xx. 1-28).  Hezekiah is\nglorified in a similar manner.  Of the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem\nand the memorable relief, comparatively little is made (xxxii. 1\nseq.; comp. De Wette, i. 75); according to Chronicles, his\nmaster-work is that, as soon as he has mounted the throne, in the\nfirst month of the year, and of his reign (Exodus xl. 2; Leviticus\nix. 1). he institutes by means of the priests and Levites, whom\nhe addresses quite paternally as his children (xxix. 11), a\ngreat feast of consecration of the temple, alleged to have been\nclosed and wasted by Ahaz; thereupon in the second month to\ncelebrate the passover in the most sumptuous manner; and finally,\nfrom the third to the seventh month to concern himself about the\naccurate rendering of their dues to the clergy.  All is described\nin the accustomed style, in the course of three long chapters,\nwhich tell us nothing indeed about the time of Hezekiah, but are\nfull of information for the period in which the writer lived,\nparticularly with reference to the method then followed in\noffering the sacred dues (xxix. 1-xxxi. 21).  In the case of\nJosiah also the account of his epoch-making reformation of the\nworship is, on the whole, reproduced in Chronicles only in a\nmutilated manner, but the short notice of 2Kings xxiii. 21-23\nis amplified into a very minute description of a splendid\npassover feast, in which, as always, the priests and above all\nthe Levites figure as the leading personalities.  In this last\nconnection one little trait worth noticing remains, namely, that\nthe great assembly in which the king causes the Book of the Law\nto be sworn to, is, in every other respect, made up in 2Chronicles\nxxxiv. 29 seq. exactly as it is in 2Kings xxiii. 1, , except\nthat instead of \"the priests and _prophets_\" we find \"the priests\nand _Levites_.\"  The significance of this is best seen from the\nTargum, where \"the priests and prophets\" are translated into \"the\npriests and scribes.\"\n\nBy this projection of the legitimate cultus prescribed in the Law\nand realised in Judaism, the Chronicler is brought however into a\npeculiar conflict with the statements of his authority, which show\nthat the said cultus was not a mature thing which preceded all\nhistory, but came gradually into being in the course of history;\nhe makes his escape as well as he can, but yet not without a\nstrange vacillation between the timeless manner of looking at\nthings which is natural to him, and the historical tradition\nwhich he uses and appropriates.  The verses in 1Kings (xiv. 22, 23):\nJudah (not Rehoboam merely) did that which was evil in the sight\nof Jehovah and provoked Him to jealousy by their sins which\nthey sinned, above all that their fathers had done; and they\nset up for themselves high places, macceboth and asherim, &c.,\nwhich in the passage where they occur are, like the parallel\nstatement regarding Israel (xii. 25 seq.), of primary importance,\nand cancel by  one bold stroke the alleged difference of worship\nbetween the Levitical and non-Levitical kingdom, are omitted as\nquite too impossible, although the whole remaining context is\npreserved (2Chronicles xii. 1-16).  In the same way the\nunfavourable judgment upon Rehoboam's successor Abijah (1Kings xv.\n3-5) is dropped, because the first kings of Judah, inasmuch as\nthey maintain the true religion against those of Israel who have\nfallen away from it, must of necessity have been good.  But\nthough the Chronicler is silent about what is bad, for the sake of\nJudah's honour, he cannot venture to pass over the improvement\nwhich, according to 1Kings xv. 12 seq., was introduced in Asa's\nday, although one does not in the least know what need there was\nfor it, everything already having been in the best possible\nstate.  Nay, he even exaggerates this improvement, and makes of\nAsa another Josiah (2Chronicles xv. 1-15), represents him also\n(xiv. 3) as abolishing the high places, and yet after all (xv. 1\n7) repeats the statement of 1Kings xv. 14 that the high places\nwere not removed.  So also of Jehoshaphat, we are told in the\nfirst place that he walked in the first ways of his father Asa\nand abolished the high places in Judah (2Chronicles xvii. 3, 6,\nxix. 3), a false generalisation from 1Kings (xxii. 43, 47);\nand then afterwards we learn (xx. 32, 33) that the high places\nstill remained, word for word according to 1Kings xxii. 43, 44.\nTo thc author it seems on the one hand an impossibility that\nthe worship of the high places, which in spite of xxxiii.17 is\nto him fundamentally idolatry, should not have been repressed\neven by pious, i.e., law-observing kings, and yet on the other\nhand he mechanically transcribes his copy.\n\nIn the case of the notoriously wicked rulers his resort is to make\nthem simply heathen and persecutors of the covenant religion,\nfor to him they are inconceivable within the limits of Jehovism,\nwhich always in his view has had the Law for its norm, and is one\nand the same with the exclusive Mosaism cf Judaism.  So first, in\nthe case of Joram: he makes high places on the hills of Judah and\nseduces the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication, and\nJudah to apostatise (xxi. 11), and moreover slays all his brethren\nwith the sword (ver. 4)--the one follows from the other.  His widow\nAthaliah breaks up the house of Jehovah by the hand of her sons\n(who had been murdered, but for this purpose are revived), and\nmakes images of Baal out of the dedicated things (xxiv. 7); none\nthe less on that account does the public worship of Jehovah go on\nuninterrupted under Jehoiada the priest.  Most unsparing is the\ntreatment that Ahaz receives.  According to 2Kings xvi. 10 seq.,\nbe saw at Damascus an altar which took his fancy, and he caused a\nsimilar one to be set up at Jerusalem after its pattern, while\nSolomon's brazen altar was probably sent to the melting-pot; it\nwas Urijah the priest who carried out the orders of the king.  One\nobserves no sign of autonomy, or of the inviolable divine right of\nthe sanctuary; the king commands and the priest obeys.  To the\nChronicler the story so told is quite incomprehensible; what\ndoes he make of it?  Ahaz introduced the idolatrous worship of\nDamascus, abolished the worship of Jehovah, and shut up the\ntemple (2Chronicles xxviii. 23 seq.).  He regards not the person\nof a man, the inflexible unity of the Mosaic cultus is everything\nto the Chronicler, and its historical identity would be destroyed\nif an orthodox priest, a friend of the prophet Isaiah, had lent a\nhelping hand to set up a foreign altar.  To make idolaters pure\nand simple of Manasseh and Amon any heightening of what is said\nin 2Kings xxi. was hardly necessary; and besides, there were\nhere special reasons against drawing the picture in too dark\ncolours.  It is wonderful also to see how the people, which is\nalways animated with alacrity and zeal for the Law, and rewards\nits pious rulers for their fidelity to the covenant (xv. 15,\nxvii. 5, xxiv. 10, xxxi. 10), marks its censure of these wicked\nkings by withholding from them, or impairing, the honour of royal\nburial (xxi. 19, 20, xxviii. 27, xxxiii. 10),--in spite of 2Kings\nix. 28, xvi. 20, xxi. 1 8.\n\nThe periodically recurring invasions of heathenism help, at the\nsame time, to an understanding of the consequent reforms, which\notherwise surpass the comprehension of the Jewish scribe.\nAccording to the Books of Kings, Joash, Hezekiah, and Josiah hit\nupon praiseworthy innovations in the temple cultus, set aside\ndeeply rooted and immemorial customs, and reformed the public\nworship of Jehovah.  These advances WITHIN Jehovism, which, of\ncourse, are quite incompatible with its Mosaic fixity, are made\nby the Chronicler to be simple restorations of the pure religion\nfollowing upon its temporary violent suspension.  It is in Hezekiah's\ncase that this is done in the most thoroughgoing manner.  After\nhis predecessor has shut the doors of the house of Jehovah, put out\nthe lights, and brought the service to an end, he sets all in\noperation again by means of the resuscitated priests and Levites;\nthe first and most important act of his reign is the consecration\nof the temple (2Chronicles xxix.), with which is connected\n(xxx., xxx).) the restoration of the passover and the restitution\nof the temporalia to the clergy, who, as it seems, have hitherto\nbeen deprived of them.  That 2Kings xviii. 1-7, although very\ndifferent, has supplied the basis for all these extravagances,\nis seen by comparing 2Chronicles xxix. 1, 2, xxxi. 1, 20, 21,\nxxxii. 22 only, that the king destroyed the brazen serpent\nNehushtan (2Kings xviii. 4) is passed over in silence, as if\nit were incredible that such an image should have been worshipped\ndown to that date in the belief that it had come down from the\ntime of Moses; the not less offensive statement, on the other\nhand, that he took away _the Asherah_ (by which only that of\nthe temple altar can be understood;  comp. Deuteronomy xvi. 21)\nis got over by charging the singular into the plural; he took\naway _the Asherahs_ (xxx). 1 ), which occurred here and there\nthroughout Judah, of course at heathen altars.\n\nIn the cases of Joash and Josiah the free flight of the\nChronicler's law-crazed fancy is hampered by the copy to which\nhe is tied, and which gives not the results merely, but the\ndetails of the proceedings themselves (2Chronicles  xxii., xxiii.;\n2Kings xi., xii.).  It is precisely such histories as these,\nalmost the only circumstantially told ones relating to Judah\nin the Book of Kings, which though in their nature most akin\nto our author's preference for cultus, bring him into the greatest\nembarrassment, by introducing details which to his notions are\nwholly against the Law, and yet must not be represented otherwise\nthan in the most favourable light.\n\nIt cannot be doubted that the sections about Joash in 2Kings\n(xi. 1-xii. 17 [16]), having their scene end subject laid in the\ntemple, are at bottom identical with 2Chronicles xxii. 10-xxiv.\n14.  In the case of 2Kings xi., to begin with, the beginning and\nthe close, vers. 1-3, vers. 13-20, recur verbatim in 2Chronicles\nxxii. 10-12, xxiii. 12-21, if trifling alterations be left\nout of account.  But in the central portion also there occur\npassages which are taken over into 2Chronicles without any\nchange. Only here they are inappropriate, while in the original\nconnection they are intelligible.  For the meaning and colour of\nthe whole is entirely altered in Chronicles, as the following\ncomparison in the main passage will show; to understand it one\nmust bear in mind that the regent Athaliah has put to death all\nthe members of the house of David who had escaped the massacre of\nJehu, with the exception of the child Joash, who, with the\nknowledge of Jehoiada, the priest, has found hiding and protection\nin the temple.\n\n2 KINGS xi\n  \n  4. In the seventh year Jehoiada\n  sent and took the captains of\n  the Carians and runners,\n\n2CHRONICLES xxiii.\n\n  1. _In the seventh year Jehoiada_     \n  sent and took the captains of         \n  strengthened himself and _took the    \n  captains_, Azariah the son of Jeroham,\n  and Ishmael the son of Jehohanan,     \n  and Azariah the son of Obed,          \n  and Maaseiah the son of Adaiah,       \n  and Elishaphat the son of Zichri,     \n  into covenant with him.               \n                                      \n  2. And they went about in Judah       \n  and gathered the Levites out of       \n  all the cities in Judah, and the      \n  chiefs of the fathers of Israel,      \n  land they came to Jerusalem.           \n\n2 KINGS xi\n  \n  and brought them to him into\n  the house of Jehovah, and made a\n  covenant with them, and took\n  an oath of them in the house of\n  Jehovah, and showed them the\n  king's son;\n\n2CHRONICLES xxiii.\n\n  3. And the whole congregation     \n  made _a covenant in the house of  \n  God_ with the king.  And he said  \n  unto them, _Behold, the king's    \n  son_ shall reign, as Jehovah said \n  concerning the sons of David.     \n\n2 KINGS xi\n\n  5. And commanded them, saying,\n  This is the thing that ye shall\n  do; the third part of you which\n  enter on the Sabbath and keep the\n  watch of the king's house,\n\n2CHRONICLES xxiii.\n\n  4. _This is the thing that ye shall \n  do: the third part of you, which    \n  enter on the Sabbath_, of the       \n  priests and of the Levites,         \n  shall keep the doors.               \n\n2 KINGS xi\n\n  [6. And the third part in the\n  gate of Jesod, and the third\n  part in the gate behind the\n  runners, and ye shall keep\n  the watch in the house...]:\n\n2CHRONICLES xxiii.\n\n  5. And the third part of you shall    \n  be _in the house of the king_, and    \n  the third part in the gate Jesod; and \n  all the people shall be in the courts \n  of the house of Jehovah.              \n\n2 KINGS xi\n\n  7. And the two other third\n  parts of you, those who go\n  forth on the Sabbath and\n  keep the watch in the house\n  of Jehovah about the king.\n\n2CHRONICLES xxiii.\n\n  6. And no one shall come into the     \n  house of Jehovah save the priests     \n  and they of the Levites that minister;\n  but all the people shall keep the     \n  ordinance of Jehovah.\n\n2 KINGS xi\n\n  8. Ye shall encompass the king\n  round about, every man with\n  his weapons in his hand,\n  and whosoever cometh within\n  the ranks, shall be put to\n  death, and ye shall be with\n  the king whithersoever he goeth.\n\n2CHRONICLES xxiii.\n\n  7. And the Levites shall _compass      \n  the king round about, every man        \n  with his weapons in his hands, and     \n  whosoever cometh_ into the house,      \n  _shall be put to death; and they shall \n  be with the king whithersoever he      \n  goeth._                                \n\n2 KINGS xi\n\n  9. And the captains did according\n  to all that Jehoiada the priest\n  had commanded, and took each his\n  men, those that were to come in\n  on the Sabbath with those that\n  were to go out on the Sabbath,\n  and came to Jehoiada the priest.\n  \n2CHRONICLES xxiii.\n\n  8. And the Levites and all Judah      \n  _did according to all that Jehoiada   \n  the priest had commanded, and took    \n  each his men, those that were to come \n  in on the Sabbath with those that     \n  were to go out on the Sabbath_, for   \n  Jehoiada the priest dismissed not     \n  the divisions.                        \n\n2 KINGS xi\n\n  10. And to the captains the\n  priest gave King David's\n  spears and shields that were\n  in the house of Jehovah.\n\n2CHRONICLES xxiii.\n\n  9. And Jehoiada the priest delivered  \n  to the captains of hundreds the spears\n  and the bucklers and the shields that \n  King David had, which were in the     \n  house of God.                         \n\n2 KINGS xi\n\n  11. And the runners stood, every\n  man with his weapons in his hand,\n  from the south side of the house\n  to the north side, along by\n  the altar and the house,\n  round about the king.\n\n2CHRONICLES xxiii.\n\n  10. And he set all the people, _every \n  man having his weapon in his hand,    \n  from the south side of the house to   \n  the north side, along by the altar    \n  and the house, round about the king_. \n\n2 KINGS xi\n\n  12. And he brought forth the\n  king's son and put upon him\n  the crown and the bracelet,\n  and they made him king and\n  anointed him, and they clapped\n  their hands and said:\n  Long live the king.\n\n2CHRONICLES xxiii.\n\n  11. _And they brought out the king's  \n  son and put upon him the crown and    \n  the bracelet and they made him king_, \n  and Jehoiada and his sons _anointed   \n  him and said:                         \n  Long live the king_.                  \n\n\nCan the enthronement of Joash, as on a former occasion that of\nSolomon, possibly have been accomplished by the agency of the\nbodyguard of the kings of Judah?  Is it possible that the high\npriest should have made a covenant with the captains within the\nhouse of Jehovah, and himself have held out the inducement to\nthose half-pagan mercenaries to penetrate into the temple\nprecincts?  That were indeed an outrage upon the Law not lightly\nto be imputed to so holy a man!  Why then did not Jehoiada make\nuse of his own guard, the myriads of Levites who were at his\ncommand?  Such a course was the only right one, and therefore\nthat which was followed.  \"No one shall come into the house of\nJehovah save the priests and they of the Levites that minister:\"\nin accordance with this fundamental principle stated by himself\n(xxiii. 6; comp ver. 7 INTO THE HOUSE instead of WITHIN THE RANKS),\nour pious historian substitutes his priests and Levites for the\nCarians and runners.  Hereby also Jehoiada comes into the place\nthat belongs to him as sovereign of the sanctuary and of the\ncongregation.  He therefore needs no longer to set on foot in\nsecret a conspiracy  with the chiefs of the body-guard, but\nthrough his own spiritual officers calls together the Levites and\nheads of houses from all the cities of Judah into the temple,\nand causes the whole assemblage there to enter into a covenant\nwith the young king.  The glaring inconsistencies inevitably\nproduced by the new colouring thus given to individual parts of\nthe old picture must simply be taken as part of the bargain.\nIf Jehoiada has unrestricted sway over such a force and sets\nabout his revolution with the utmost publicity, then it is he\nand not Athaliah who has the substance of power; why then all\nthis trouble about the deposition of the tyrant?  Out of mere\ndelight in Levitical pomp and high solemnities?  What moreover\nis to be done with the captains who are retained in xxiii. 1, 9,\nand in ver. 14 are even called officers of the host as in 2Kings\nxi 15, after their soldiers have been taken from them or\nmetamorphosed? Had the Levites a military  organisation, and,\ndivided into three companies, did they change places every\nweek in the temple service?  The commentators are inclined to call\nin to their aid such inventive assumptions, with which, however,\nthey may go on for ever without attaining their end, for the error\nmultiplies itself.  As a specially striking instance of the manner\nin which the procedure of Chronicles avenges itself may be mentioned\nchapter xxiii. 8: \"and they took each his men,\" &c.  The words are\ntaken from 2Kings xi. 9, but there refer to the captains, while\nhere the antecedents are the Levites and all the men of Judah--as\nif each one of these last had a company of his own which entered\nupon service, or left it, every Sabbath day.\n\nThe comparison of 2Chronicles xxiv. 4-14 with 2Kings xii. 5-17\n[4-16] is not much less instructive.  According to 2Kings xii.\nJoash enjoined that all the money dues payable to the temple\nshould in future fall to the priests, who in turn were to be under\nobligation to maintain the building in good repair.  But they took\nthe money and neglected the other side of the bargain, and when\nthey and Jehoiada in particular were blamed by the king on that\naccount, they gave up the dues so as not to be liable to the\nburden.  Thereupon the king set up a kind of sacred treasury, a\nchest with a hole in the lid, near the altar, \"on the right hand\nas one goes into the temple,\" into which the priests were to cast\nthe money which came in, with the exception of the sin and\ntrespass moneys, which still belonged to them. And as often as\nthe chest became full, the king's scribes and the chief priest\nremoved the money, weighed it, and handed it over to the\ncontractors for payment of the workmen; that none of it was to be\nemployed for sacred vessels is expressly said (ver. 14).  This\narrangement by King Joash was a lasting one, and still subsisted\nin Josiah's time (2Kings . . xxii. 3 seq.).\n\nThe arbitrary proceeding of Joash did not well suit the ideas of\nan autonomous hierocracy.  According to the Law the current money\ndues fell to the priests; no king had the right to take them away\nand dispose of them at his pleasure.  How was it possible that\nJehoiada should waive his divine right and suffer such a\nsacrilegious invasion of sacred privileges? how was it possible\nthat he should be blamed for his (at first) passive resistance of\nthe illegal invasion; how was it possible at all that the priest\nin his own proper department should be called to account by the\nking?  Chronicles knows better than that.  The wicked Athaliah had\nwasted and plundered the temple; Joash determined to restore it,\nand for this purpose to cause money to be collected throughout\nall Israel by the agency of the Levites.  But as these last were\nin no hurry, he made a chest and set it outside in the doorway of\nthe sanctuary; there the people streamed past, and gentle and simple\nwith joyful heart cast in their gifts until the chest was full.\nThis being announced by the keepers of the door, the king's scribe\nand the delegate of the high priest came to remove the money;\nwith it the king and the high priest paid the workmen, and what\nremained over was made into costly vessels (2Chronicles xxiv. 5-14).\nAccording to this account Joash makes no arrangement whatever\nabout the sacred dues, but sets on foot an extraordinary collection,\nas had once been done by Moses for the building of the tabernacle\n(xxiv. 6, 9); following upon this, everything else also which in\n2Kings xii. is a permanent arrangement, here figures as an isolated\noccurrence; instead of necessary repairs of the temple constantly\nrecurring, only one extraordinary restoration of it is mentioned,\nand for this occasional purpose only is the treasure chest set up,--\nnot, however, beside the altar, but only at the doorway (xxiv. 8;\ncomp. 2Kings xii. 10).  The clergy, the Levites, are charged\nonly with making the collection, not with maintaining the building\nout of the sacred revenues; consequently they are not\nreproached with keeping the money  to themselves, but only with\nnot being heartily enough disposed towards the collection.  It\nappears, however, that they were perfectly justified in this\nbackwardness, for the king has only to set up the \"treasury of\nGod,\" when forthwith it overflows with the voluntary offerings of\nthe people who flock to it, so that out of the proceeds something\nremains over (ver. 14) for certain other purposes--which according\nto 2Kings xii. 14 [13] were expressly excluded. Joash imposes\nno demands at all upon the priests, and Jehoiada in particular\nstands over against him as invested with perfectly equal rights;\nif the king sends his scribe, the high priest also does not appear\npersonally, but causes himself to be represented by a delegate\n(xxiv. 11; comp. 2Kings xii. 11 [10]).  Here also many a new piece\ndoes not come well into the old garment, as De Wette (i. 10O) shows.\nChronicles itself tacitly gives the honour to the older narrative\nby making Joash at last apostatise from Mosaism and refuse the\ngrateful deference which he owed to the high priest; this is the\nconsequence of the unpleasant impression, derived not from its\nown story, but from that of the Book of Kings, with regard to the\nundue interference of the otherwise pious king in the affairs of\nthe sanctuary and of the priests.\n\nChronicles reaps the fruits of its perversion of 2Kings xii. in\nits reproduction of the nearly related and closely connected\nsection 2Kings xxii. 3-IO. It is worth while once more to bring\nthe passages together.\n\n2Kings xxii.\n\n  3. And in the eighteenth year\n  of king Josiah the king sent\n  Shaphan the son of Azaliah,\n  the son of Meshullam, the scribe,\n  to the house of Jehovah, saying,\n\n2Chronicles xxxiv.\n\n  8. And in the eighteenth year  \n  of his reign, to cleanse the   \n  land and the house, he sent    \n  Shaphan the son of Azaliah,    \n  and Maaseiah the governor of   \n  the city, and Joah the son of  \n  Joahaz the recorder, to repair \n  the house of Jehovah his God.\n\n2Kings xxii.\n\n  4. Go up to Hilkiah the high\n  priest, that he may empty the\n  money which hath been brought\n  into the house of Jehovah\n  which the keepers of the\n  threshold have gathered of\n  the people.\n\n2Chronicles xxxiv.\n\n  9. And they came to Hilkiah     \n  the high priest, and they       \n  delivered the money that had    \n  been brought into the house     \n  of God which the Levites that   \n  kept the threshold had gathered \n  from Ephraim and Manasseh and   \n  all the remnant of Israel and   \n  from all Judah and Benjamin,    \n  and had returned therewith      \n  to Jerusalem.                   \n\n2Kings xxii.\n\n  5. And let them deliver it into\n  the hand of the doers of the\n  work that have the oversight\n  of the house of Jehovah, and\n  let them give it to the doers\n  of the work who are in the\n  house of Jehovah to repair\n  the breaches of the house.\n\n2Chronicles xxxiv.\n\n  10. And they gave it into the       \n  hand of the workmen that had the    \n  oversight of the house of Jehovah,  \n  and of the workmen that wrought in  \n  the house of Jehovah to repair      \n  and amend the house.                \n\n2Kings xxii.\n\n  6. Unto carpenters, and builders,\n  and masons, and to buy timber\n  and hewn stones to repair the\n  house.\n  \n  7. But let no reckoning be\n  made with them as to the money\n  that is delivered into their\n  hand, because they deal faithfully.\n\n2Chronicles xxxiv.\n\n  11. They gave it to the artificers   \n  and to the builders to buy           \n  hewn stone and timber for roofs      \n  and beams of the houses which        \n  the kings of Judah had destroyed.    \n                                       \n  12. And the men did the work         \n  faithfully. And the overseers of     \n  them were Jahath and Obadiah,        \n  the Levites, of the sons of          \n  Merari; and Zechariah and            \n  Meshullam, of the Kohathites,        \n  to preside; and all the Levites      \n  that had skill in instruments        \n  of music                             \n                                       \n  13. Were over the bearers of         \n  burdens and overseers of all         \n  that wrought the work in any         \n  manner of service; and others        \n  of the Levites were scribes          \n  and officers and porters.            \n                                       \n  14. And when they brought out        \n  the money that had been brought      \n  into the house of Jehovah,           \n  Hilkiah the priest found the book    \n  of the law of Jehovah by the hand    \n  of Moses.                            \n\n2Kings xxii.\n  \n  8. And Hilkiah the high priest\n  said unto Shaphan the scribe:\n  I have found the book of the\n  law in the house of Jehovah.\n  And Hilkiah gave the book to\n  Shaphan, and he read it.\n\n2Chronicles xxxiv.\n\n  15. And Hilkiah answered and        \n  said to Shaphan the scribe:         \n  I have found the book of the law    \n  in the house of Jehovah.  And       \n  Hilkiah delivered the book          \n  to Shaphan.                         \n\n2Kings xxii.\n\n  9. And Shaphan the scribe came\n  to the king and brought the king\n  word again, and said: Thy\n  servants have emptied out the\n  money that was found in the\n  house and have delivered it\n  into the hand of them that\n  do the work, that have the\n  oversight of the house of\n  Jehovah.\n\n2Chronicles xxxiv.\n\n  16. And Shaphan carried the book \n  to the king, and besides brought \n  word back to the king, saying:   \n  All that was committed to thy    \n  servants they are doing.         \n                                 \n  17. And they have emptied out    \n  the money that was found in the  \n  house of Jehovah, and have       \n  delivered it into the hand       \n  of the overseers and into        \n  the hand of the workmen.         \n\n2Kings xxii.\n\n  10. And Shaphan the scribe\n  told the king, saying: Hilkiah\n  the priest hath delivered\n  to me a book.  And Shaphan\n  read it before the king.\n\n2Chronicles xxxiv.\n\n  18. And Shaphan the scribe      \n  told the king, saying: Hilkiah  \n  the priest hath given me a book.\n  And Shaphan read out of it\n  before the king.                     \n\nThe occasion on which the priest introduces the Book of the Law\nto the notice of Shaphan has presuppositions in the arrangement\nmade by Joash which Chronicles has destroyed, substituting others\nin its place,--that the temple had been destroyed under the\npredecessors of Josiah, but that under the latter money was raised\nby the agency of peripatetic Levites throughout all Israel for the\nrestoration, and in the first instance deposited in the treasure-chest.\nAt the emptying of this chest the priest is then alleged to have\nfound the book (ver. 14, after Deuteronomy xxxi. 26), notwithstanding\nthat on this occasion Shaphan also and the two accountants added\nin ver. 8 were present, and ought therefore to have had a share\nin the discovery which, however, is excluded by ver. 15 (= 2Kings\nxxii. 8).  There are other misunderstandings besides; in particular,\nthe superintendents of the works (_muphkadim_), to whom, according\nto the original narrative, the money is handed over for payment,\nare degraded to the rank of simple workmen, from whom, nevertheless,\nthey are again afterwards distinguished; and while in 2Kings xxii.\n7 they are represented as dealing faithfully _in paying out the money_,\nin 2Chronicles xxxiv. 12 they deal faithfully in their work.\nPerhaps, however, this is no mere misunderstanding, but is\nconnected with the endeavour to keep profane hands as far off as\npossible from that which is holy, and, in particular, to give the\nmanagement of the work to the Levites (vers. 12,13).  To what\nlength the anxiety of later ages went in this matter is seen in\nthe statement of Josephus (Ant., xv. 11, 2), that Herod caused one\nthousand priests to be trained as masons and carpenters for the\nbuilding of his temple.  The two most interesting alterations in\nChronicles are easily overlooked.  In ver. 1 8 the words: \"He\nread the book to the king,\" are changed into \"He read out of the\nbook to the king;\" and after \"Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan\"\n(ver. 15) the words \"and he read it\" are omitted.  In 2Kings the\nbook appears as of very  moderate size, but the author of\nChronicles figures to himself the whole Pentateuch under that\nname.\n\nIn the sequel 2Kings xxii. 11-xxiii.3 is indeed repeated verbatim\nin 2Chronicles  xxxiv. 19-32, but the incomparably more important\nsection connected with it (xxiii. 4-10), giving a detailed\naccount of Josiah's vigorous reformation, is omitted, and its\nplace taken by the meagre remark that the king removed all\nabominations out of Israel (xxxiv. 33); in compensation his\npassover feast is described all the more fully (chap. xxxv.).\nIn recording also the finding and publication of the Law,\nChronicles fails to realise that this document begins now for the\nfirst time to be historically operative, and acquires its great\nimportance quite suddenly.  On the contrary, it had been from the\ndays of Moses the basis on which the community rested, and had\nbeen in force and validity at all normal times; only\ntemporarily could this life-principle of the theocracy be\nrepressed by  wicked kings, forthwith to become vigorous and\nactive again as soon as the pressure was removed.  As soon as Ahaz\nhas closed his eyes, Hezekiah, in the first month of his first\nyear, again restores the Mosaic cultus; and as soon as Josiah\nreaches years of discretion he makes good the sins of his fathers.\nBeing at his accession still too young, the eighth year of his\nreign is, as a tribute to propriety, selected instead of the\neighth year of his life, and the great reformation assigned\nto that period which in point of fact he undertook at a much\nlater date (xxxiv. 3-7 = 2Kings xxiii. 4-20> Thus the movement\nhappily  becomes separated from its historical occasion, and\nin character the innovation appears rather as a simple recovery\nof the spring after the pressure on it has been removed. The mist\ndisappears before the sun of the Law, which appears in its old\nstrength; its light passes through no phases, but shines from\nthe beginning with uniform brightness.  What Josiah did had also\nbeen done before him already by Asa, then by Jehoshaphat, then\nby Hezekiah; the reforms are not steps in a progressive development,\nbut have all the same unchanging contents.  Such is the influence\nupon historical vision of that transcendental Mosaism raised far\nabove all growth and process of becoming, which can be traced even\nin the Book of Kings, but is so much more palpable in the Book\nof Chronicles.\n\nVI.II.3. Apart from the fact that it represents the abiding tradition\nof the legitimate cultus at Jerusalem, the history of Judah in the\nBook of Chronicles has yet another instructive purpose.  In the\nkingdom of Judah it is not a natural and human, but a divine\npragmatism that is operative.  To give expression to this is what\nthe prophets exist for in unbroken succession side by side with\nhigh priests and kings; they connect the deeds of men with the\nevents of the course of the world, and utilise the sacred history\nas a theme for their preaching, as a collection of examples\nillustrative of the promptest operation of the righteousness of\nJehovah.  In doing so they do not preach what is new or free, but\nhave at their command, like Jehovah Himself, only the Law of\nMoses, setting before their hearers prosperity and adversity in\nconformity with the stencil pattern, just as the law is\nfaithfully fulfilled or neglected.  Of course their prophecies\nalways come exactly  true, and in this way is seen an astonishing\nharmony between inward worth and outward circumstance.  Never\ndoes sin miss its punishment, and never where misfortune occurs is\nguilt wanting.\n\nIn the fifth year of Rehoboam Judah and Jerusalem were ravaged by\nPharaoh Shishak (1Kings xiv. 25).  The explanation is that three\nyears they walked in the ways of David and Solomon, because for\nthree years they were strengthened and reinforced by the priests\nand Levites and other pious persons who had immigrated from the\nnorthern kingdom (2Chronicles xi. 17); but thereafter in the fourth\nyear, after the kingdom of Rehoboam had been strengthened and\nconfirmed, he forsook the Law and all Israel with him (xii. 1)--\nand in the fifth year followed the invasion of Shishak.  A prophet\nannounces this, and in consequence the king humbles himself\nalong with his people and escapes with comparatively trifling\npunishment, being thought worthy to reign yet other twelve years.\n\nAsa in his old age was diseased in his feet (1Kings xv. 23).\nAccording to 2Chronicles xvi. 12, he died of this illness, which is\ndescribed as extremely dangerous, in the forty-first year of his\nreign, after having already been otherwise unfortunate in his\nlater years.  And why?  He had invoked foreign aid, instead of\nthe divine, against Baasha of Israel.  Now, as Baasha survived only\nto the twenty-sixth year of Asa, the wickedness must have been\nperpetrated before that date.  But in that case its connection\nwith the punishment which overtook the king only towards the\nclose of his life would not be clear.  Baasha's expedition against\nJerusalem, accordingly, and the Syrian invasion of Israel\noccasioned by Asa on that account are brought down in Chronicles\nto the thirty-sixth year of the latter (xvi. 1).  It has been\nproperly observed that Baasha was at that date long dead, and the\nproposal has accordingly been made to change the number\nthirty-six into sixteen,--without considering that the first half\nof the reign of Asa is expressly characterised as having been\nprosperous, that the thirty-fifth year is already reached in\nchap. xv. 19, and that the correction destroys the connection of\nthe passage with what follows (xvi. 7 seq.).  For it is in\nconnection with that flagitious appeal for aid to the Syrians that\nthe usual prophet makes his appearance (xvi. 7), and makes the\nusual announcement of impending punishment.  It is Hanani, a man\nof Northern Israel (1Kings xvi. 7), but Asa treats him as if he\nwere one of his own subjects, handles him severely, and shuts him\nin prison.  By this he hastens and increases his punishment,\nunder which he falls in the forty-first year of his reign.\n\nJehoshaphat, the pious king, according to 1Kings xxii., took part\nin the expedition of the godless Ahab of Israel against the\nDamascenes.  Chronicles cannot allow this to pass unrebuked,\nand accordingly when the king returns in peace, the same Hanani\nannounces his punishment, albeit a gracious one (2Chronicles xix.\nI-3).  And gracious indeed it is; the Moabites and Ammonites\ninvade the land, but Jehoshaphat without any effort on his part\nwins a glorious victory, and inexhaustible plunder (xx. 1 seq.).\nOne cannot blame him, therefore, for once more entering into an\nalliance with Ahab's successor for a naval expedition to be\nundertaken in common, which is to sail from a port of the Red Sea,\nprobably round Africa, to Tarshish (Spain, 2Chronicles ix. 21).\nBut this time he is punished more seriously as Eliezer the son of\nDodavah had prophesied, the ships are wrecked.  Compare on the\nother hand 1Kings xxii. 48, 49:\n\n\"Jehoshaphat made ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir for gold,\nbut they went not, for the ships were wrecked in the harbour\non the Red Sea.  At that time Ahaziah the son of Ahab had said\nto Jehoshaphat:  Let my servants go with thy servants in the ships;\nbut Jehoshaphat would not.\"\n\nSo the original statement.  But in Chronicles a moral ground must\nbe found for the misfortune, and Jehoshaphat therefore makes with\nthe king of Samaria a sinful alliance, which in point of fact he\nhad declined, not indeed from religious motives.\n\nJoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, conducted himself very ill, it is\nsaid in 2Kings viii. 18; Chronicles enhances his offence, and\nabove all adds the merited reward (xxi. 4, seq.).  Elijah,\nalthough he had quitted this earth long before (2Kings iii. 11\nseq.), must write to the offender a letter, the threats of which\nare duly put into execution by Jehovah.  The Philistines and\nArabians having previously pressed him hard, he falls into an\nincurable sickness of the bowels, which afflicts him for years,\nand finally brings him to his end in a most frightful manner\n(xxi. 12, seq.).  In concurrence with the judgment of God, the\npeople withhold from the dead king the honours of royalty, and he\nis not buried beside his fathers, notwithstanding 2Kings viii. 24.\n\nJoash, according to 2Kings xii., was a pious ruler, but met with\nmisfortune;  he was compelled to buy off Hazael, who had laid\nsiege to Jerusalem, at a heavy price, and finally he died by\nthe assassin's hand.  Chronicles is able to tell how he deserved\nthis fate.  In the sentence: \"He did what was right in the sight\nof the Lord all his days, because Jehoiada the high priest had\ninstructed him \" (2Kings xii. 3 [2]), it alters the last\nexpression into \"all the days of Jehoiada the priest,\" (xxiv. 2).\nAfter the death of his benefactor he fell away, and showed his\nfamily the basest ingratitude; at the end of that very year the\nSyrians invade him; after their departure his misfortunes are\nincreased by a dreadful illness, under which he is murdered\n(xxiv. 17 seq.).\n\nAmaziah was defeated, made prisoner, and severely punished by\nJehoash, king of Samaria, whom he had audaciously challenged\n(2Kings xiv. 8 seq.).  Why?  because he had set up in Jerusalem\nidols which had been carried off from Edom, and served them\n(2Chronicles xxv. 1 4).  He prefers the plundered gods of a\nvanquished people to Jehovah at the very moment when the latter\nhas proved victorious over them!  From the time of this apostasy--\na crime for which no punishment could be too great--his own servants\nare also stated to have conspired against him and put him to death\n(xxv. 27), and yet we are assured in ver. 25 (after 2Kings xiv.\nI;) that Amaziah survived his adversary  by fifteen years.\n\nUzziah, one of the best kings of Judah, became a leper, and was\ncompelled to hand over the regency to his son Jotham (2Kings xv.\n5); for, adds Chronicles, \"when he had become strong, his heart\nwas lifted up, even to ruin, so that he transgressed against\nJehovah his God, and went into the temple of Jehovah, to burn\nincense upon the altar of incense.  And Azariah the priest went in\nafter him, and with him fourscore priests of Jehovah, and\nwithstood him and said: It is not for thee to burn incense, but\nonly for the sons of Aaron who are consecrated thereto.  Then\nUzziah was wroth and laid not the censer aside, and the leprosy\nrose up in his forehead, and the priests thrust him out from\nthence\" (xxvi. 16-20).  The matter is now no longer a mystery.\n\nAhaz was a king of little worth, and yet he got fairly well out\nof the difficulty into which the invasion of the allied Syrians\nand Israelites had brought him by making his kingdom tributary\nto the Assyrian Tiglath-Pileser (2Kings xvi. 1 seq.).  But\nChronicles could not possibly let him off so cheaply.  By it he\nis delivered into the hand of the enemy: the Israelites alone\nslaughter 120,000 men of Judah, including the king's son and his\nmost prominent servants, and carry off to Samaria 200,000 women\nand children, along with a large quantity of other booty.  The\nEdomites and Philistines also fall upon Ahaz, while the Assyrians\nwhom he has summoned to his aid misunderstand him, and come up\nagainst Jerusalem with hostile intent; they do not, indeed, carry\nthe city, but yet become possessors, without trouble, of its\ntreasures, which the king himself hands over to them (xxviii. 1-21).\n\nThe Book of Kings knows no worse ruler than Manasseh was; yet he\nreigned undisturbed for fifty-five years--a longer period than was\nenjoyed by  any other king (2Kings xxi.1-18).  This is a stone\nof stumbling that Chronicles must remove.  It tells that Manasseh\nwas carried in chains by the Assyrians to Babylon, but there prayed\nto Jehovah, who restored him to his kingdom; he then abolished\nidolatry in Judah (xxxiii.  11-20).  Thus on the one hand he does\nnot escape punishment, while on the other hand the length of his\nreign is nevertheless explained.  Recently indeed it has been\nsought to support the credibility of these statements by means of\nan Assyrian inscription, from which it appears that Manasseh did\npay tribute to Esarhaddon.  That is to say, he had been\noverpowered by the Assyrians; that is again to say, that he had\nbeen thrown into chains and carried off by them.  Not so rapid,\nbut perhaps quite as accurate, would be the inference that as a\ntributary prince he must have kept his seat on the throne of Judah,\nand not have exchanged it for the prison of Babylon.  In truth,\nManasseh's temporary  deposition is entirely on the same plane\nwith Nebuchadnezzar's temporary grass-eating.  The unhistorical\ncharacter of the intermezzo (the motives of which are perfectly\ntransparent) follows not only from the silence of the Book of\nKings (a circumstance of no small importance indeed), but also,\nfor example, from Jeremiah xv. 4; for when it is there said that\nall Judah and Jerusalem are to be given up to destruction because\nof Manasseh, it is not presupposed that his guilt has been already\nborne and atoned for by himself.\n\nTo justify the fact of Josiah's defeat and death at Megiddo, there\nis attached to him the blame of not having given heed to the words\nof Necho from the mouth of God warning him against the struggle\n(xxxv. 21, 22).  Contrariwise, the punishment of the godless\nJehoiakim is magnified; he is stated to have been put in irons by\nthe Chaldaeans and carried to Babylon (xxxvi. 6)--an impossibility\nof course before the capture of Jerusalem, which did not take place\nuntil the third month of his successor.  The last prince of\nDavid's house, Zedekiah, having suffered more severely than all\nhis predecessors, must therefore have been stiff-necked and\nrebellious (xxxvi.12, 13),--characteristics to which, according to\nthe authentic evidence of the prophet Jeremiah, he had in reality\nthe least possible claim.\n\nIt is thus apparent how inventions of the most circumstantial kind\nhave arisen out of this plan of writing history, as it is\neuphemistically called.  One is hardly warranted, therefore, in\ntaking the definiteness of statements vouched for by Chronicles\nalone as proof of their accuracy.  The story about Zerah the\nEthiopian (2Chronicles xiv. 9 seq.) is just as apocryphal as that\nof Chushan-Rishathaim (Judges iii 10).  Des Vignoles has indeed\nidentified the first-named with the Osorthon of Manetho, who again\noccurs in the Egyptian monuments as Osorkon, son of Shishak, though\nnot as renewing the war against Palestine; but Osorkon was an Egyptian,\nZerah an Ethiopian, and the resemblance of the names is after all\nnot too obvious.  But, even if Zerah were really a historical\npersonage, of what avail would this be for the unhistorical\nconnection?  With a million of men the king of the Libyans and\nMoors, stepping over Egypt, comes against Judah.  Asa, ruler of a\nland of about sixty German square miles, goes to meet the enemy\nwith 580,000, and defeats him on the plain to the north of Mareshah\nso effectually that not a single soul survives.  Shall it be said\nthat this story, on account of the accurate statement of locality\n(although Mareshah instead of Gath is not after all suggestive of\nan old source), is credible-at all events after deduction of the\nincredibilities?  If the incredibilities are deducted, nothing at\nall is left.  The invasion of Judah by Baasha of Israel, and Asa's\ndeportment towards him (1Kings xv. 17 seq.), are quite enough\nfully to dispose of the great previous victory over the\nEthiopians claimed for Asa.  The case is no better with the victory\nof Jehoshaphat over the Ammonites and Moabites (2Chronicles xx.);\nhere we have probably an echo of 2Kings iii., where we read of\nJehoshaphat's taking part in a campaign against Moab, and where\nalso recurs that characteristic feature of the self-destruction of\nthe enemy, so that for the opposing force nothing remains but the\nwork of collecting the booty (iii. 23; compare 2Chronicles xx.\n23).  The Chronicler has enemies always at his command when\nneeded,--Arabians, Ethiopians (xvii. 11, xxi. 16, xxii. 1, xxvi.\n7), Mehunims (xx. 1, xxvi. 1), Philistines (xvii. 11, xxi. 16,\nxxvi. 6 seq., xxviii. 18), Ammonites (xx. 1, xxvi. 8, xxvii. 5),\nwhose very names in some cases put them out of the question\nfor the older time.  Such statements as that the Ammonites became\nsubject to Kings Uzziah and Jotham, are, in the perfect silence of\nthe credible sources, condemned by their inherent impossibility;\nfor at that period the highway to Ammon was Moab, and this country\nwas by no means then in the possession of Judah, nor is it\nanywhere said that it was.  The Philistines as vindictive enemies\nare rendered necessary by the plan of the history (xxi. 16,\nxxviii. 18), and this of itself throws suspicion upon the previous\nstatements (xvii. 11, xxvi. 6 seq.) that they were laid under\ntribute by Jehoshaphat, and subjugated by Uzziah; it is utterly\nimpossible to believe that the latter should have broken down\nthe walls of Ashdod (Amos i. 7), or have established fortresses\nin Philistia.  According to the Book of Kings, he did indeed conquer\nEdom anew; Edom is according to this authority the one land to\nwhich the descendants of David lay claim and against which they\nwage war, while Moab and Philistia (the most important towns being\nexcepted, however, in the case of the latter) virtually  belong to\nthe territory of Ephraim.\n\nThe triumphs given by the Chronicler to his favourites have none\nof them any  historical effect, but merely serve to add a\nmomentary splendour to their reigns.  Merit is always the obverse\nof success.  Joram, Joash, Ahaz, who are all depicted as\nreprobates, build no fortresses, command no great armies, have no\nwealth of wives and children; it is only in the case of the\npious kings (to the number of whom even Rehoboam and Abijah also\nbelong) that the blessing of God manifests itself by such tokens.\nPower is the index of piety, with which accordingly It rises and\nfall.  Apart from this it is of no consequence if, for example,\nJehoshaphat possesses more than 1,100.000 soldiers (xvii, 14\nseq.), for they are not used for purposes of war; the victory\ncomes from God and from the music of the Levites (chap. xx.).\nIn the statements about fortress-building which regularly recur\nin connection with the names of good rulers, /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1 viii. 3-6, xi. 5-12, xiii. 19, xiv. 5, 6 [6, 7], xvii. 12,\nxix. 5, xxvi. 9, 10, xxvii. 4, xxxii. 5,, xxxiii. 14.\n-- Footnote\n\n\ngeneral statements, such as those of Hosea viii. 14, 2Kings\nxviii. 13, are illustrated by concrete examples, a few elements\nof tradition being also employed (Lachish).  It is not possible,\nbut, indeed, neither is it necessary, to demonstrate in every case\nthe imaginary character of the statements; according to xix. 5\nit would appear as if simply every city of any kind of\nconsequence was regarded as a fortress and in the list given in\nchap. xi. 6 seq., we chiefly meet with names which were also\nfamiliar in the post-exile period.  That Abijah deprived Jeroboam\nof Bethel amongst others, and that Jehoshaphat set governors over\nthe Ephraimite cities which had been taken by Asa his father\n(xiii. 19, xvii. 2), would excite surprise if it stood anywhere\nelse than in Chronicles.  In forming a judgment on its family\nhistory of the descendants of David, the statement contained in\nxiii. 21 is specially  helpful both in manner and substance: \"And\nAbijah waxed mighty, and he married fourteen wives, and begat\ntwenty and two sons, and sixteen daughters.\"  This can only be\ntaken as referring to the reign of Abijah, and that too after the\nalleged victory over Jeroboam; but he reigned altogether for only\nthree years, and is it to be supposed that within this interval\none of his sons should even have attained to man's estate?\nIn reality, however, Abijah had no son at all, but was succeeded\nby  his brother, for the definite and doubtless authentic\nstatement that Maachah, the wife of Rehoboam, was the mother\nboth of Abijah and of Asa, and that the latter removed her from\nher position at court (1Kings xv. 2, 10, 13), must override\nthe allegation of ver. 8, that the successor of Abijah was his\nson.  After Jehoshaphat's death it is said in the first place\nthat Jehoram slew all his brethren (2 Chr. xxi. 4), and\nafterwards that the Arabians slew all Jehoram's children\nwith the exception of one (xxii. 1); how many of the Davidic\nhouse in that case survive for Jehu, who nevertheless slew\nforty-two of them (2Kings x. 14)?  In short, the family\nhistory of the house of David is of equal historical value with\nall the other matters on which the Chronicler is more widely and\nbetter informed than all the older canonical books.  The remark\napplies to names and numbers as well; about such trifles, which\nproduce an appearance of accuracy, the author is never in any\nembarrassment.\n\nVI.II.4. The Book of Kings then everywhere crops up as the real\nfoundation of the portion of Chronicles relating to Judah after\nthe period of Solomon.  Where the narrative of the former is\ndetailed and minute, our author also has fuller and more\ninteresting material at his command; so, for example, in the\nhistory relating to the temple and to the common and mutual\nrelations of Judah and Israel (2 Chr. x., xviii., xxiii., seq.,\nxxv. 17-24, xxxiii. seq.).  Elsewhere he is restricted to the\nepitome that constitutes the framework of the Book of Kings;  by\nit he is guided in his verdicts as to the general character of the\nsuccessive sovereigns as well as in his chronological statements,\nalthough, in accordance with his plan, he as a rule omits the\nsynchronisms (xiii. 1, xxv. 25).  The positive data also, given by\nthe epitome with reference to the legislation in matters of\nworship by the various kings, are for the most part reproduced\nword for word, and float in a fragmentary and readily\ndistinguishable way in the mixture of festivals, sermons,\nchoruses, law, and prophets.  For this is an important\nverification of all the results already obtained; all in\nChronicles that is not derived from Samuel and Kings, has a\nuniform character not only in its substance, but also in its\nawkward and frequently unintelligible language--plainly belonging\nto a time in which Hebrew was approaching extinction--in its\nartificiality of style, deriving its vitality exclusively\nfrom Biblical reminiscences.  This is not the place for the\nproof of these points, but the reader may compare Staehelin's\nEinleitung (1862), p. 139 seq.; Bertheau, p. xiv. seq., and\nGraf, p. 116.\n\n\nVI.III.\n\nVI.III.1. When the narrative of Chronicles runs parallel with the\nolder historical books of the canon, it makes no real additions, but\nthe tradition is merely  differently coloured, under the influence\nof contemporary motives.  In the picture it gives the writer's own\npresent is reflected, not antiquity.  But neither is the case very\ndifferent with the genealogical lists prefixed by way of\nintroduction in 1Chronicles i.-ix.; they also are in the main valid\nonly for the period at which they were drawn up--whether for its\nactual condition or for its conceptions of the past.\n\nThe penchant for pedigrees and genealogical registers, made up from\na mixture of genealogico-historical and ethnologico-statistical\nelements, is a characteristic feature of Judaism; along with the\nthing the word YX# also first came into use during the later\ntimes.  Compendious histories are written in the form of TLDWT and\nYWX#YN.  The thread is thin and inconspicuous, and yet apparently\nstrong and coherent; one does not commit oneself to much, and yet\nhas opportunity to introduce all kinds of interesting matter.\nMaterial comes to one's hand, given a beginning and an end, the\nbridge is soon completed.  Another expression of the same tendency\nis the inclination to give a genealogical expression to all\nconnections and associations of human society whatsoever, to\ncreate artificial families on all hands and bring them into blood\nrelationship, as if the whole of public life resolved itself into\na matter of cousinship,--an inclination indicative of the times of\npolitical stagnation then prevalent.  We hear of the families of\nthe scribes at Jabesh, of the potters and gardeners and\nbyssus-workers, of the sons of the goldsmiths, apothecaries, and\nfullers, these corporations being placed on the same plane with\nactual families.  The division into classes of the persons engaged\nin religious service is merely the most logical development of\nthis artificial system which is applied to all other social\nrelations as well.\n\nProceeding now to a fuller examination of the contents of 1 Chron\ni.-ix. and other texts connected with that, we have here, apart\nfrom the first chapter, which does not demand further attention,\nan ethno-genealogical survey of the twelve tribes of Israel, which\nis based mostly on the data of the Priestly Code (Genesis xlvi.;\num. <?> xxvi.), expanded now more now less.  But while the statements\nof the Priestly Code have to hold good for the Mosaic period only,\nthose of Chronicles have also to apply to the succeeding\nages,--those, for example, of Saul and David, of Tiglath-Pileser and\nHezekiah.  As early as the time of the judges, however, very\nimportant changes had taken place in the conditions.  While Dan\ncontinued to subsist with difficulty, Simeon and Levi had been\ncompletely broken up (Genesis xlix. 7); in the Blessing of Moses\nthe latter name denotes something quite different from a tribe, and\nthe former is not even so much as named, although the enumeration\nis supposed to be complete; in David's time it had already been\nabsorbed by families of mingled Judaic and Edomitic descent in the\ndistrict where it had once had independent footing.  Eastward of\nJordan Leah's first-born had a similar fate, although somewhat\nlater.  After it has been deposed from its primacy in Genesis xlix.\nand twitted in Judges v. with its brave words unaccompanied by\ncorresponding deeds, the faint and desponding wish is expressed in\nDeuteronomy xxxiii. 6 that \"Reuben may live and not die,\" and King\nMesha is unaware that any other than the Gadite had ever dwelt in\nthe land which, properly speaking, was the heritage of Reuben.\nBut in Chronicles these extinct tribes again come to life--and not\nLevi alone, which is a special case, but also Simeon and Reuben,\nwith which alone we are here to deal--and they exist as\nindependent integral twelfths of Israel, precisely  like Ephraim\nand Manasseh, throughout the whole period of the monarchy down to\nthe destruction of the kingdom by the Assyrians. /1/ This is\n\n-- Footnote\n1. For Reuben see (in addition to 1Chronicles v. 1-10) v. 18, xi.\n42, xii. 37.  xxvi. 32, xxvii. 16, for Simeon, 1Chronicles iv.\n24-43, with xii. 25, and 2Chronicles  xv. 9, xxxiv. 6, observing\nthat in the last two passages Simeon is reckoned as belonging to\nthe northern kingdom, so as to complete the number of the ten\ntribes.\n-- Footnote\n\n\ndiametrically opposed to all authentic tradition; for to\nmaintain that nothing else is intended than a continued\nsubsistence of individual Simeonite and Reubenite families within\nother tribes is merely a desperate resort of the harmonists, and\nevery attempt to tone down the fact that those extinct and\nhalf-mythical tribes are in Chronicles placed side by side with\nthe rest without any distinction is equally illegitimate.  The\nhistorical value thus lost by the narrative as a whole cannot be\nrestored by the seeming truthfulness of certain details.  Or is\nmore significance really to be attached to the wars of the Simeonites\nand Reubenites against the Arabians than to the rest of the extemporised\nwars of the kings of Judah against these children of the wilderness?\nIf only at least the names had not been \"sons of Ham, and Mehunim\nand Hagarenes \" (iv. 40 seq. [Heb.], v. 10)!  As for the\npedigrees and genealogical lists, are they to be accepted as\nhistorical merely because their construction is not apparent to\nus, and they evade our criticism?  The language affords no room\nfor the conjecture that we here possess extracts from documents of\nhigh antiquity (iv. 33, 38, 4I, v. 1 seq., 7, 9 seq.), and\nproper names such as Elioenai and the like (iv. 35 seq.) are not\nstriking for their antique originality.\n\nOf the remaining tribes, so far as they belong to Israel and not\nto Judah, the next in the series after Reuben are the\ntrans-Jordanic (v. 11-26).  They are said to have been numbered\nin the days of Jotham of Judah and Jeroboam of Israel, on which\noccasion 44,760 warriors were returned; they took the field\nagainst the Hagarenes, Ituraeans, Nephishites, and Nabataeans,\ngaining the victory and carrying off much booty, \"for they\ncried to God in the battle, and He was entreated of them because\nthey put their trust in Him.\"  But afterwards they fell away\nfrom the God of their fathers, and as a punishment were carried off\nby Pul and Tiglath-Pileser to Armenia by the Chaboras and the\nriver of Gozan.  Apart from the language, which in its edifying\ntone is that of late Judaism, and leaving out of account the\nenumeration \"the sons of Reuben and the Gadites and half of the\ntribe of Manasseh,\" the astonishing and highly doubtful\ncombinations are eloquent: Pul and Tiglath-Pileser, the Chaboras\nand the river of Gozan, are hardly distinguished from each other;\nJotham and Jeroboam, on the other hand, make so impossible a\nsynchronism that the partisans of Chronicles will have it that\nnone is intended,--forgetful, to be sure, of Hosea i. 2, and\nomitting to say what in that case Jotham of Judah has to do here\nat all in this connection.  The Hagarenes and Ituraeans too,\ninstead of (say) the Moabites and Ammonites, furnish food for\nreflection, as also do the geographical statements that Gad had\nhis seat in Bashan and Manasseh in and near Lebanon.  As for the\nproper names of families and their heads, they are certainly\nbeyond our means of judging; the phrases however of the scheme\nthey fill (anshe shemoth rashe l'beth abotham, migrash, jahes)\nare peculiar to the Priestly Code and Chronicles, and alongside of\nelements which are old and attested from other quarters, occur\nothers that look very recent, as for example (v. 24) Eliel,\nAzriel, Jeremiah, Hodaviah, Jahdiel.\n\nIn the introduction the Galilaean tribes have no prominent place,\nbut in the rest of the book they make a favourable appearance\n(see especially 1Chronicles xii.  32-34, 40, and 2Chronicles xxx.\n10, 11, 18); it readily occurs to one, especially in the\nlast-cited passage, to think of the later Judaising process in\nGalilee.  In Issachar there are stated to have been 87,000\nfighting men in David's time (misparam l'toledotham l'beth\nabotham, vii. 1-5); out of Zebulun and Naphtali, again, exactly\n87,000 men came to David at Hebron, to anoint him and be feasted\nthree days,--it is carefully mentioned, however (xii. 40), that\nthey took their provisions up with them.  The proper kernel of\nIsrael, Ephraim and Manasseh, is, in comparison with Simeon,\nReuben, Gad, Issachar, treated with very scant kindness (vii.\n14-29),--a suspicious sign.  The list of the families of Manasseh\nis an artificial _rechauffe_ of elements gleaned anywhere; Maachah\npasses for the wife as well as the sister of Machir, but being a\nGileaditess (Beth-Maachah), ought not to have been mentioned at\nall in this place where the cis-Jordanic Manasseh is being spoken\nof; to fill up blanks every contribution is thankfully\nreceived. /1/ In the case of Ephraim a long and meagre genealogy\n\n-- Footnote\n1 Kuenen, Th. Tijdschr., 1877, pp. 484, 488; Godsdienst v.\nIsr., i. 165.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nonly is given, which, begun in vers. 20, 21, and continued in\nver. 25, constantly repeats the same names (Tahath, Tahan,\n1Samuel i. 1; Eladah, Laadan, Shuthelah, Telah), and finally\nreaches its end and goal in Joshua, whose father Nun alone is\nknown to the older sources!  Into the genealogy a wonderful\naccount of the slaying of the children of Ephraim by the men of\nGath (1Samuel iv.?) has found its way, and (like viii. 6, 7)\naccording to the prevailing view must be of venerable antiquity.\nBut in that case the statement of iv. 9 must also be very\nancient, which yet obviously is connected with the rise of the\nschools of the scribes stated in ii. 55 to have existed in Jabez.\n\nEverywhere it is presupposed that Israel throughout the entire\nperiod of the monarchy was organised on the basis of the twelve\ntribes (ii.-ix.; xii.; xxvii.), but the assumption is certainly\nutterly false, as can be seen for example from 1Kings iv.\nFurther, the _penchant_ of later Judaism for statistics is carried\nback to the earlier time, to which surveys and censuses were\nrepugnant in the extreme.  In spite of 2Samuel xxiv., we are told\nthat under David enumerations both of the spiritual and of the\nsecular tribes were made again and again; so also under his\nsuccessors, as may be inferred partly from express statements\nand partly from the precise statistics given as to the number\nof men capable of bearing arms: in these cases the most astounding\nfigures are set down,--always, however, as resting on original\ndocuments and accurate enumeration.  In the statistical\ninformation of Chronicles, then, so far as it relates to\npre-exilic antiquity, we have to do with artificial compositions.\nIt is possible, and occasionally demonstrable, that in these\nsome elements derived from tradition have been used.  But it\nis certain that quite as many have been simply invented; and\nthe combination of the elements--the point of chief importance--\ndates, as both form and matter show, from the very latest period.\nOne might as well try to hear the grass growing as attempt to\nderive from such a source as this a historical knowledge of\nthe conditions of ancient Israel.\n\nVI.III.2. As regards Judah and Benjamin, and to a certain extent\nLevi also, the case of course is somewhat different from that\nof the ten extinct tribes.  It is conceivable that here a living\nethno-genealogical tradition may have kept the present connected\nwith the past.  Nevertheless, on closer examination, it comes out\nthat most of what the Chronicler here relates has reference to the\npost-exilic time, and that the few fragments which go up to a\nhigher antiquity are wrought into a connection which on the\nwhole is of a very recent date.  Most obtrusively  striking is it\nthat the list of the heads of the people dwelling in Jerusalem\ngiven in ix. 4--17 is simply identical with Nehemiah xi. 3-19.  In\nthis passage, introducing as it does the history of the kings (x.\nseq.), one is by no means prepared to hear statements about the\ncommunity of the second temple; but our author is under the\nimpression that in going there he is letting us know about the old\nJerusalem;  from David to Nehemiah is no leap for him, the times\nare not distinct from one another to his mind.  For chap. viii.\nalso, containing a full enumeration of the Benjamite families,\nwith special reference to those which had their seat in the\ncapital, Bertheau has proved the post-exilic reference; it is\ninteresting that in the later Jerusalem there existed a widespread\nfamily which wished to deduce its origin from Saul and rested its\nclaims to this descent on a long genealogy (viii. 33-40). /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Equivalent to ix. 35-44, which perhaps proves the later\ninterpolation of ix. 1-34.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIt cannot be said that this produces a very favourable impression\nfor the high antiquity of the other list of the Benjamites in vii.\n6-11; to see how little value is to be attached to the pretensions\nof the latter to be derived from original documents of hoary\nantiquity, it is only necessary  to notice the genuinely Jewish\nphraseology of vers. 7, 9, 11, such proper names as Elioenai,\nand the numbers given (22,034 + 20,200 + 17,200, making in all\n59,434 fighting men).\n\nThe registers of greatest historical value are those relating\nto the tribe of Judah (ii. 1-iV. 23). But in this statement\nthe genealogy of the descendants of David must be excepted\n(chapter iii.), the interest of which begins only with Zerubbabel,\nthe rest being merely an exceedingly poor compilation of materials\nstill accessible to us in the older historical books of the canon,\nand in Jeremiah.  According to iii. 5, the first four of David's\nsons, born in Jerusalem, were all children of Bathsheba; the\nremaining seven are increased to nine by a textual error which\noccurs also in the LXX version of 2Samuel v. 16.  Among the sons\nof Josiah (iii. 15 seq.), Johanan, i.e. Jehoahaz, is\ndistinguished from Shallum (Jeremiah  xxii. 11), and because he\nimmediately succeeded his father, is represented as the\nfirst-born, though in truth Jehoiakim was older (2Kings xxiii.\n3I, 36); Zedekiah, Jehoiakim's brother, is given out to be the\nson of Jeconiah, the son of Jehoiakim, because he was the\nsuccessor of Jeconiah, who succeeded Jehoiakim.  Similar things\noccur also in the Book of Daniel, but are usually overlooked, with\na mistaken piety.  Whoever has eyes to see cannot assign any high\nvalue except to the two great Jewish genealogies in chaps. ii.\nand iv.  Yet even here the most heterogeneous elements are tossed\ntogether, and chaff is found mingled with wheat. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. For further details the reader is referred to the author's\ndissertation De gentibus et familiis Judaeis, Gottingen, 1870.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nApart from the introduction, vers.1-8, chap. ii. is a genealogy\nof the children of Hezron, a tribe which in David's time had not\nyet been wholly  amalgamated with Judah, but which even then\nconstituted the real strength of that tribe and afterwards became\ncompletely one with it.  The following scheme discloses itself\namid the accompanying matters: \"The sons of Hezron are Jerahmeel\nand Celubai\" (Caleb) (ver. 9). \"and the sons of Jerahmeel, the\nfirst-born of Hezron, were...\" (ver. 25).  \"These were the\nsons of Jerahmeel.  And the sons of Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel\nwere...\" (ver. 42).  \"These were the sons of Caleb \" (ver. 50 a).\nThat which is thus formally defined and kept by itself apart\n(compare in this connection \"Jerahmeel the first-born of Hezron,\"\n\"Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel\") is materially also distinguished\nfrom all else.  It is the kernel of the whole, and refers to the\npre-exilian time.  Even the unusual _et fuerunt_ (vers. 25, 33,\n50) points to this conclusion, as well as, in the case of Caleb,\nthe positive fact that the towns named in ver. 42-49 are all\nsituated near Hebron and in the Negeb of Judah, where after the\nexile the Idumaeans were settled, and, in the case of Jerahmeel,\nthe negative circumstance that here no towns at all are mentioned\namong the families, Molid, ver. 29, being perhaps a single\nexception, and thus the extreme south is indicated.  But this\nkernel is amplified by a number of post-exilian additions.  In\nthe first place, in connection with Jerahmeel, an appendix\n(vers. 34-41) is given which is not ethnological but purely\ngenealogical, and brings a pedigree of fifteen members manifestly\ndown to near the age of the Chronicler, and which moreover is only\nin apparent connection with what precedes it (comp. ver. 34 with\nver. 31), and invariably uses the hiphil form _holid_, a form\nwhich occurs in vers. 25-33 never, and in vers. 42-50 only\nsporadically in three places open to the suspicion of later\nredaction (comp. especially ver. 47).  Much more important,\nhowever, are the additions under Caleb; of these the one is\nprefixed (vers. 18-24), the other, more appropriately, brought in\nat the close (vers. 50-55, beginning with \"and the sons of Hur,\nthe firstborn of Ephrath,\" Caleb's second wife, ver. 19).  Here\nCaleb no longer presents himself in the extreme south of Judah and\nthe vicinity  of Jerahmeel (1Samuel xxv. 3, xxvii. 10, xxx. 14,\n29), where he had his settlement prior to the exile, but his\nfamilies, which are all of them descended from his son Hur,\ninhabit Bethlehem, Kirjath-jearim, Zorah, Esthaol, and other towns\nin the north, frequently mentioned in Ezra and Nehemiah.  Thus\nthe Calebites in consequence of the exile have forsaken their old\nseats and have taken up new ones on their return; this fact is\nexpressed in ver. 18 to the effect that Caleb's first wife Azubah\nbath Jerioth (Deserta filia Nomadum) had died, and that he had then\nmarried a second, Ephrath, by whom he became the father of Hur:\nEphrath is the name of the district in which Bethlehem and Kirjath-\njearim are situated, and properly speaking is merely another\nform of Ephraim, as is shown by the word Ephrathite.  In addition\nto these appendices to Jerahmeel and Caleb, we have also the\ngenealogy of David (vers. 10-17).  The Book of Samuel knows only\nof his father Jesse; on the other hand, Saul's genealogy is\ncarried further back, and there was no reason for not doing so in\nDavid's case also if the materials had existed.  But here, as in\nRuth, the pedigree is traced backwards through Jesse, Obed, Boaz,\nup to Salma.  Salma is the father of Bethlehem (ii. 54), and hence\nthe father of David.  But Salma is the father of Bethlehem and the\nneighbouring towns or fractions of towns AFTER THE EXILE; he belongs\nto Kaleb Abi Hur. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\nI In the Targum, Caleb's kindred the Kenites are designated as\nSalmaeans; the name also occurs in Canticles (i. 5, the tents of\nKedar, the curtains of Salmah), and also as the name of a\nNabataean tribe in Pliny.  Among the families of the Nethinim\nenumerated in Nehemiah vii. 46-60 the B'ne Salmah also occur,\nalong with several other names which enable us distinctly to\nrecognise (Ezekiel xliv.) the non-Israelite and foreign origin\nof these temple slaves; see, for example, vers. 48, 52, 55, 57.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nBut if anything at all is certain, it is this, that in ancient times\nthe Calebites lived in the south and not in the north of Judah, and\nin particular that David by his nativity belonged not to them but\nrather to the older portion of Judah which gravitated towards\nIsrael properly so called, and stood in most intimate relations\nwith Benjamin.  Of the first three members of the genealogy,\nNahshon and Amminadab occur as princes of Judah in the Priestly\nCode, and are fitly regarded as the ancestors of those who come\nafter them; Ram is the first-born of Hezron's first-born (ver.\n25), and by the meaning of his name also (Ram = the high one),\nis, like Abram, qualified to stand at the head of the princely\nline.\n\nWhile in chap ii. we thus in point of fact fall in with an old\nkernel, and one that necessarily goes back to sound tradition\n(apparently preserved indeed, however, merely for the sake of\nthe later additions), the quite independent and parallel list,\non the other hand, contained in iv. 1-23 is shown by many\nunmistakable indications to be a later composition having its\nreference only to post-exilian conditions, perhaps incorporating\na few older elements, which, however, it is impossible with any\ncertainty to detect. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\nI Pharez, Hezron, Carmi, Hur, Shobal (iv. 1), is a genealogically\ndescending series; Chelubai must therefore of necessity be read\ninstead of Carmi, all the more because Chelub and not Carmi appears\nin the third place in the subsequent expansion; for this, ascending\nfrom below, begins with Shobal (ver. 2), then goes on to Hur\n(vers. 5-10), who stands in the same relation to Ash-hur as Tob\nto Ish-tob, and finally deals with Chelub or Caleb (vers. 11-15).\n-- Footnote\n\n\nLevi of course receives the fullest treatment (1Chronicles v. 27\n[vi. 1]-vi. 66 [81], ix. 10 seq., xv., xvi., xxiii.-xxvii.,\n&c.).  We know that this clerical tribe is an artificial\nproduction, and that its hierarchical subdivision, as worked out in\nthe Priestly Code, was the result of the centralisation of the\ncultus in Jerusalem.  Further, it has been already shown that in\nthe history as recorded in Chronicles the effort is most\nconspicuous to represent the sons of Aaron and the Levites, in all\ncases where they are absent from the older historical books of\nthe canon, as playing the part to which they  are entitled according\nto the Priestly Code.  How immediate is the connection with the\nlast-named document, how in a certain sense that code is even\ncarried further by Chronicles, can be seen for example from this\ncircumstance, that in the former Moses in a novel reduces the\nperiod of beginning public service in the case of a Levite from\nthirty years of age to twenty-five (Numbers iv. 3 seq., viii. 23\nseq.), while in the latter David (1Chronicles xxiii. 3, 24 seq.)\nbrings it down still further to the age of twenty; matters are\nstill to some extent in a state of flux, and the ordering of the\ntemple worship is a continuation of the beginning made with the\ntabernacle service by Moses.  Now, in so far as the statistics of\nthe clergy have a real basis at all, that basis is post-exilian.\nIt has long ago been remarked how many of the individuals\nfiguring under David and his successors (e.g., Asaph, Heman,\nJeduthun) bear names identical with families or guilds of a later\ntime, how the two indeed are constantly becoming confluent, and\ndifficulty is felt in determining whether by the expression\n\"head\" a person or a family ought to be understood.  But,\ninasmuch as the Chronicler nevertheless desires to depict the\nolder time and not his own, he by no means adheres closely to\ncontemporary statistics, but gives free play at the same time to\nhis idealising imagination; whence it comes that in spite of the\nnumerous and apparently precise data afforded, the reader still\nfinds himself unable to form any clear picture of the\norganisation of the clergy,--the ordering of the families and\ntribes, the distribution of the offices,--nay, rather, is\ninvolved in a maze of contradictions. Obededom, Jeduthun, Shelomith,\nKorah, occur in the most different connections, belong now to one,\nnow to another section of the Levites, and discharge at one time\nthis function, at another, that.  Naturally the commentators are\nprompt with their help by distinguishing names that are alike,\nand identifying names that are different.\n\nSome characteristic details may still be mentioned here.  The\nnames of the six Levitical classes according to 1Chronicles xxv. 4,\nGiddalti, V'romamti-Ezer, Joshbekashah, Mallothi, Hothir,\nMahazioth, are simply the fragments of a consecutive sentence\nwhich runs: I have magnified |  and exalted the help | of him who\nsat in need: | I have spoken | abundance of | prophecies.  The\nwatchman or singer Obededom who is alleged to have discharged his\nfunctions in the days of David and Amaziah, is no other than the\ncaptain to whom David intrusted for three months the custody of\nthe ark, a Philistine of Gath.  The composition of the singers'\npedigrees is very transparent, especially in the case of Heman\n(1Chronicles  vi. 7-l2 [22-27] = ver 18-23, [33-37]).  Apart from\nExodus vi. 16-l9, use is chiefly made of what is said about the\nfamily of Samuel (1Samuel i. 1, viii. 2), who must of course have\nbeen of Levitical descent, because his mother consecrated him\nto the service of the sanctuary.  Heman is the son of Joel\nb. Samuel b. Elkanah b. Jeroham b. Eliab b. Tahath b. Zuph,\nonly the line does not terminate with Ephraim as in 1Samuel\ni. 1 (LXX) because it is Levi who is the goal; Zuph. <sic> however,\nis an Ephraitic district, and Tahath (Tohu, Toah, Tahan, Nahath)\nis an Ephraimite family (vii. 20).  Further back the same elements\nare individually  repeated more than once, Elkanah four times\nin all; he occurs once as early as in Exodus vi. 24, where also\nhe is doubtless borrowed from 1Samuel i.  The best of it is that,\ncontrary to the scope of the genealogies recorded in1 Chronicles\nvi., which is to provide a Levitical origin for the guilds of singers,\nthere is found in close contiguity the statement (ii. 6) that Heman\nand Ethan were descendants of Zerah b. Pharez, b. JUDAH.  The\ncommentators are indeed assisted in their efforts to differentiate\nthe homonyms by their ignorance of the fact that even as late as\nNehemiah's time the singers did not yet pass for Levites, but their\nendeavours are wrecked by the circumstance that the names of\nfathers as well as of sons are identical (Psalm lxxxviii. 1,\nlxxxix. 1; Ewald, iii. 380 seq.).  In point of history these\nmusicians of the second temple are descended of course neither\nfrom Levi nor from the sons of Mahol (1Kings v. 11 [iv. 31), but\nthey have at least derived their names from the latter.  On all\nhands we meet with such artificial names in the case of Levites.\nOne is called Issachar; it would not be surprising to meet with a\nNaphtali Cebi, or Judah b. Jacob.  Jeduthun is, properly\nspeaking, the name of a tune or musical mode (Psalm xxxix. 1,\nlxii. 1, [xxvii. 1), whence also of a choir trained in that.\nParticularly interesting are a few pagan names, as for example\nHenadad, Bakbuk, and some others, which, originally borne by the\ntemple servitors (Nehemiah vii. 46 seq.), were doubtless transferred\nalong with these to the Levites.\n\nWith the priests, of whom so many are named at all periods of the\nhistory  of Israel, matters are no better than with the inferior\nLevites, so far as the Books of Samuel and Kings are not drawn\nupon.  In particular, the twenty-four priestly courses or orders\nare an institution, not of King David, but of the post-exilic period.\nWhen Hitzig, annotating Ezekiel viii. 16, remarks that the\nfive-and-twenty men standing between the temple and the altar\nworshipping the sun toward the east are the heads of the twenty-four\npriestly courses with the high priest at their head (because no one\nelse had the right to stand in the inner court between temple and\naltar), he reveals a trait that is characteristic, not only of\nhimself, but also of the entire so-called historico-critical school,\nwho exert their whole subtlety on case after case, but never give\nthemselves time to think matters over in their connection with each\nother; nay, rather simply retain the traditional view as a whole,\nonly allowing themselves by way of gratification a number of\nheresies.  It is almost impossible to believe that Hitzig, when he\nannotated Ezekiel viii., could have read those passages Ezekiel\nxliii. 7 seq., xliv. 6 seq, from which it is most unambiguously\nclear that the later exclusion of the laity from the sanctuary\nwas quite unknown in the pre-exilic period.  The extent of the\nChronicler's knowledge about the pre-exilic priesthood is revealed\nmost clearly in the list of the twenty-two high priests in\n1Chronicles v. 29-41 (vi. 3-15).  From the ninth to the eighteenth\nthe series runs--Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok, Ahimaaz, Azariah,\nJohanan, Azariah, Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok.  As for the first five,\nAzariah was not the son, but the brother of Ahimaaz, and the\nlatter apparently not a priest (1Kings iv. 2); but Ahitub, the\nalleged father of Zadok, was, on the contrary, the grandfather of\nZadok's rival, Abiathar, of the family of Eli (1Samuel xiv. 3,\nxxii. 20); the whole of the old and famous line--Eli, Phinehas,\nAhitub; Ahimelech, Abiathar--which held the priesthood of the ark\nfrom thc time of the judges down into the days of David, is passed\nover in absolute silence, and the line of Zadok, by which it was\nnot superseded until Solomon (1Kings ii. 35), is represented as\nhaving held the leadership of the priesthood since Moses.  As for\nthe last four in the above-cited list, they simply repeat the\nearlier.  In the Book of Kings, Azariah II., Amariah, Ahitub,\nZadok, do not occur, but, on the contrary, other contemporary high\npriests, Jehoiada and Urijah, omitted from the enumeration in\nChronicles.  At the same time this enumeration cannot be asserted\nto be defective; for, according to Jewish chronology, the ancient\nhistory is divided into two periods, each of 480 years, the one\nextending from the exodus to the building of the temple, the other\nfrom that epoch down to the establishment of the second theocracy.\nNow, 480 years are twelve generations of forty years, and in\n1Chronicles v. there are twelve high priests reckoned to the period\nduring which there was no temple (ver. 36b to come after ver. 35a),\nand thence eleven down to the exile; that is to say, twelve generations,\nwhen the exile is included.  The historical value of the genealogy\nin 1Chronicles v. 26-41 is thus inevitably condemned.  But if\nChronicles knew nothing about the priestly princes of the olden\ntime, its statements about ordinary priests are obviously little\nto be relied on.\n\nVI.III.3. To speak of a tradition handed down from pre-exilic times\nas being found in Chronicles, either in 1Chronicles i.-ix. or in\n1Chronicles x.-2Chronicles xxxvi., is thus manifestly out of the\nquestion.  As early as 1806 this had been conclusively shown by\nthe youthful De Wette (then twenty-six years of age).  But since\nthat date many a theological Sisyphus has toiled to roll the\nstone again wholly or half-way up the hill--Movers especially, in\ngenius it might seem the superior of the sober Protestant\ncritic--with peculiar results.  This scholar mixed up the inquiry\ninto the historical value of those statements in Chronicles which\nwe are able to control, with the other question as to the probable\nsources of its variations from the older historical books of the\ncanon.  In vain had De Wette, at the outset, protested against\nsuch a procedure, contending that it was not only  possible, but\nconceded that Chronicles, where at variance or in contradiction,\nwas following older authority, but that the problem still really\nwas, as before, how to explain the complete difference of general\nconception and the multitude of discrepancies in details; that\nthe hypothesis of \"sources,\" as held before Movers by Eichhorn,\nwas of no service in dealing with this question, and that in the\ncritical comparison of the two narratives, and in testing their\nhistorical character, it was after all incumbent to stick to what\nlay before one (Beitr., i. pp. 24, 29, 38).  For so ingenious\nan age such principles were too obvious; Movers produced a great\nimpression, especially as he was not so simple as to treat the\nletters of Hiram and Elijah as authentic documents, but was by way\nof being very critical.  At present even Dillmann also\nunfortunately perceives \"that the Chronicler everywhere has\nworked according to sources, and that in his case deliberate\ninvention or distortion of the history are not for a moment to be\nspoken of\" (Herzog, Realencyk., ii. p. 693, 1st edit.; iii.\n223, 2d edit.).  And from the lofty heights of science the author\nof Part V. of the Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament\nlooks compassionately down upon K. H. Graf, \"who has loitered\nso far behind the march of Old Testament research, as to have\nthought of resuscitating the views of De Wette;\" in fact,\nthat Chronicles may be established on an independent footing and\nplaced on a level with the Books of Samuel and Kings, he utterly\ndenies any indebtedness at all, on its part, to these, and in\ncases where the transcription is word for word, maintains that\nseparate independent sources were made use of,--a needless\nexaggeration of the scientific spirit, for the author of the Book\nof Kings himself wrote the prayer of Solomon and the epitome, at\nleast, without borrowing from another source; the Chronicler\ntherefore can have derived it, directly or indirectly, only from\nhim.\n\nIn reply to all this, one can only repeat what has already been\nsaid by De Wette.  It may be that the Chronicler has produced\nthis picture of old Israel, so different in outline and colour\nfrom the genuine tradition, not of his own suggestion and on his\nown responsibility, but on the ground of documents that lay\nbefore him.  But the historical character of the work is not\nhereby altered in the smallest degree, it is merely shared by\nthe so-called \"sources.\"  2Maccabees and a multitude of other\ncompositions have also made use of \"sources,\" but how does this\nenhance the value of their statements?  That value must in the\nlong run be estimated according to their contents, which, again,\nmust be judged, not by means of the primary sources which have\nbeen lost, but by means of the secondary literary products\nwhich have survived.  The whole question ultimately  resolves\nitself into that of historical credibility; and to what\nconclusions this ]eads we have already seen.  The alterations and\nadditions of Chronicles are all traceable to the same\nfountain-head--the Judaising of the past, in which otherwise the\npeople of that day would have been unable to recognise their\nideal.  It was not because tradition gave the Law and the\nhierocracy and the _Deus ex Machina_ as sole efficient factor in\nthe sacred narrative, but because these elements were felt to be\nmissing, that they were thus introduced.  If we are to explain\nthe _omissions_ by reference to the \"author's plan,\" why may we\nnot apply the same principle to the _additions_?  The passion\ndisplayed by Ewald ( Jahrbb. x. 261) when, in speaking of the\nview that Manasseh's captivity has its basis in Jewish dogmatic,\nhe calls it \"an absurdly infelicitous idea, and a gross injustice\nbesides to the Book of Chronicles,\" recalls B. Schaefer's\nsuggestive remark about the Preacher of Solomon, that God would\nnot use a liar to write a canonical book.  What then does Ewald\nsay to the narratives of Daniel or Jonah?  Why must the new turn\ngiven to history in the case of Manasseh be judged by a different\nstandard than in the equally gross case of Ahaz, and in the numerous\nanalogous instances enumerated in preceding pages (p. 203 seq.).\nWith what show of justice can the Chronicler, after his statements\nhave over and over again been shown to be incredible, be held at\ndiscretion to pass for an unimpeachable narrator?  In those cases\nat least where its connection with his \"plan\" is obvious, one ought\nsurely to exercise some scepticism in regard to his testimony;\nbut it ought at the same time to be considered that such\nconnections may occur much oftener than is discernible by us,\nor at least by the less sharp-sighted of us.  It is indeed possible\nthat occasionally a grain of good corn may occur among the chaff,\nbut to be conscientious one must neglect this possibility of\nexceptions, and give due honour to the probability of the rule.\nFor it is only too easy to deceive oneself in thinking that one\nhas come upon some sound particular in a tainted whole.  To what\nis said in 2Samuel v. 9, \"So David dwelt in the stronghold (Jebus),\nand he called it the city of David, and he built round about from\nthe rampart and inward,\" there is added in 1Chronicles xi. 8, the\nstatement that \"Joab restored the rest of the city (Jerusalem).\"\nThis looks innocent enough, and is generally accepted as a fact.\nBut the word XYH for BNH shows the comparatively modern date of\nthe statement, and on closer consideration one remembers also that\nthe town of Jebus at the time of its conquest by David consisted\nonly of the citadel, and the new town did not come into existence\nat all until later, and therefore could not have been repaired by\nJoab; in what interest the statement was made can be gathered from\nNehemiah vii. 11.  In many cases it is usual to regard such\nadditions as having had their origin in a better text of Samuel\nand Kings which lay before the Chronicler; and this certainly\nis the most likely way in which good additions could have got in.\nBut the textual critics of the _Exegetical Handbook_ are only too\nlike-minded with the Chronicler, and are always eagerly seizing\nwith both hands his paste pearls and the similar gifts of the\nSeptuagint.\n\nIt must be allowed that Chronicles owes its origin, not to the\narbitrary caprice of an individual, but to a general tendency of\nits period. It is the inevitable product of the conviction that\nthe Mosaic law is the starting-point of Israel's history, and\nthat in it these is operative a play of sacred forces such as\nfinds no other analogy; this conviction could not but lead to\na complete transformation of the ancient tradition.\nStarting from a similar assumption, such an author as C. F. Keil\ncould even at the present day write a book of Chronicles, if this\nwere not already in existence.  Now, in this aspect, for the\npurpose of appraising Chronicles as the type of that conception of\nhistory which the scribes cherished, the inquiry into its \"sources\"\nis really important and interesting.  References to other writings,\nfrom which further particulars can be learned, are appended as a rule,\nto the account of each sovereign's reign, the exceptions being in\nthe cases of Joram, Ahaziah, Athaliah, Amon, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim,\nZedekiah.  The titles referred to in this way may be classed under\ntwo groups:\n\n(1.) The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah, or of Judah and Israel\n(in the cases of Asa, Amaziah, Jotham; Ahaz, Josiah, and Jehoiakim),\nwith which the Book of the Kings of Israel (in the cases of Jehoshaphat\nand Manasseh; comp. 1Chronicles ix. 1) is identical, for the kingdom\nof the ten tribes is not reckoned by the Chronicler.\n\n(2.) The Words of Samuel the Seer, Nathan the Prophet, and Gad the Seer\n(for David; 1Chronicles xxix. 29; comp.  xxvii. 24; Ecclus. xlvi. 13,\nxlvii. 1); the Words of Nathan the Prophet, the Prophecy of Ahijah\nof Shiloh and the Vision of Iddo the Seer concerning Jeroboam\nben Nebat (for Solomon; 2Chronicles ix. 29); the Words of Shemaiah\nthe Prophet and Iddo the Seer (for Rehoboam; xii. 15); the words\nof Jehu ben Hanani, which are taken over into the Book of the Kings\nof Israel (Jehoshaphat; xx. 34); a writing of Isaiah the prophet\n(Uzziah; xxvi. 22), more precisely cited as the Vision of Isaiah\nthe Prophet, the son of Amoz, in the Book of the Kings of Judah\nand Israel (Hezekiah; xxxii. 32); the Words of the Seer in the Book\nof the Kings of Israel (Manasseh; xxxiii. 18; comp. also ver. 19).\nFollowing in the footsteps of Movers, Bertheau and others have shown\nthat under these different citations it is always one and the same\nbook that is intended, whether by its collective title, or by the\nconventional sub-titles of its separate sections. /1/ Bertheau calls\n\n-- Footnote\n1. In Ezra and Nehemiah also the Chronicler has not used so many\nsources as are usually supposed.  There is no reason for refusing\nto identify the \"lamentations\" of 2Chronicles xxxv. 25, with our\nLamentations of Jeremiah: at least the reference to the death of\nJosiah (Jos., Ant. x. 5, 1), erroneously  attributed to them,\nought not in candour to be regarded as such.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nattention to the fact that ordinarily it is either the one or the\nother title that is given, and when, as is less usual, there are\ntwo, then for the most part the prophetic writing is designated as\na portion of the Book of the Kings of Israel (xx. 34, xxxii.  32;\nand, quite vaguely, xxxiii. 18).  The peculiar mode of naming the\nindividual section-/1/-at a time when chapters and verses were\n\n-- Footnote\n1 Romans xi. 2: )EN (HLLLA| TI LEGEI )H GRAFH i.e., How stands it\nwritten in the section relating to Elijah?\n-- Footnote\n\n\nunknown--has its origin in the idea that each period of the sacred\nhistory has its leading prophet [)AXRIBHS TWN PROFHTWN DIADOXH;\nJos., c. Ap. i. 8), but also at the same time involves (according\nto xxvi. 22, in spite of ix. 29, xii. 15, xiii. 22; 1Chronicles xxix.\n29) the notion that each prophet has himself written the history\nof his own period.  Obviously, this is the explanation of the title\n_prophetae priores_ borne by the Books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel,\nand Kings in the Jewish canon, and of the view which led to the\nintroduction of 2Kings xviii. 18 seq. into the Book of Isaiah.\nThe claims of history being slight, it was easy to find the needful\n_propheta eponymus_ for each section.  Jehu ben Hanani, a northern\nIsraelite of Baasha's time, has to do duty for Asa, and also for\nJehoshaphat as well.  Iddo the seer, who prophesied against Jeroboam\nben Nebat, is the anonymous prophet of 1Kings xiii. (Jos., Ant.\nviii. 8, 5; Jer. on Zechariah i. 1); by this time it was possible,\nalso, to give the names of the wives of Cain, and of the patriarchs.\n\nAs regards a more definite determination of the date of the \"Book\nof Kings\" which lies at the foundation of Chronicles, a\nco-ordination of the two series of the Kings of Israel and Judah\ncan only have been made after both had been brought to a close;\nin other words, not before the Babylonian exile.  And in the\nBabylonian exile it was that the canonical Book of Kings actually\ncame into existence, and the \"Chronicles\" of Israel and those of\nJudah were for the first time worked together by its author; at\nleast he refers only to the separate works and knows of no\nprevious combination of them.  It would seem, therefore, very\nnatural to identify the work alluded to in Chronicles with our\npresent canonical book, which is similar in title and has\ncorresponding contents.  But this we cannot do, for in the former\nthere were matters of which there are in the latter no trace; for\nexample, according to 1Chronicles ix. 1, it contained family and\nnumerical statistics for the whole of Israel after the manner of\n1Chronicles i.-ix. (chapters for the most part borrowed from it)\nand according to 1Chronicles xxxiii 19, the Prayer of Manasseh.\nFrom these two data, as well as from the character of the items\nof information which may have been conjectured to have been derived\nfrom this source, the conclusion is forced upon us that the Book\nof Kings cited by the Chronicler is a late compilation far removed\nfrom actual tradition, and in relation to the canonical Book of\nKings it can only be explained as an apocryphal amplification after\nthe manner in which the scribes treated the sacred history.  This\nconclusion, derived from the contents themselves, is supported by\nan important positive datum, namely, the citation in 2Chronicles\nxxiv. 27 of the Midrash [A.V. \"Story\"] of the Book of Kings, and\nin xiii. 22 of the Midrash of the prophet Iddo.  Ewald is undoubtedly\nright when he recognises here the true title of the writing elsewhere\nnamed simply the Book of Kings.  Of course the commentators assert\nthat the word Midrash, which occurs in the Bible only in these two\npassages, there means something quite different from what it means\neverywhere else; but the natural sense suits admirably well and\nin Chronicles we find ourselves fully within the period of the\nscribes.  Midrash is the consequence of the conservation of all\nthe relics of antiquity, a wholly  peculiar artificial reawakening\nof dry bones, especially by literary means, as is shown by\nthe preference for lists of names and numbers.  Like ivy it\noverspreads the dead trunk with extraneous life, blending old and\nnew in a strange combination.  It is a high estimate of tradition\nthat leads to its being thus modernised; but in the process it is\ntwisted and perverted, and set off with foreign accretions in the\nmost arbitrary way.  Jonah as well as Daniel and a multitude of\napocryphal writings (2Maccabees ii. 13) are connected with this\ntendency to cast the reflection of the present back into the past;\nthe Prayer of Manasseh, which now survives only in Greek,\nappears, as Ewald has conjectured, actually to have been taken\ndirect from the book quoted in 2Chronicles xxxiii. 19.  Within this\nsphere, wherein all Judaism moves, Chronicles also has had its\nrise.  Thus whether one says Chromcles or Midrash of the Book of\nKings is on the whole a matter of perfect indifference; they are\nchildren of the same mother, and indistinguishable in spirit and\nlanguage, while on the other hand the portions which have been\nretained verbatim from the canonical Book of Kings at once betray\nthemselves in both respects.\n\n\nCHAPTER VII. JUDGES, SAMUEL, AND KINGS.\n\nIn the history of Hebrew literature, so full as it is of\nunfortunate accidents, one lucky circumstance at least requires\nto be specially mentioned.  Chronicles did not succeed in\nsuperseding the historical books upon which it was founded; the\nolder and the newer version have been preserved together.  But in\nJudges, Samuel, and Kings even, we are not presented with\ntradition purely in its original condition; already it is\novergrown with later accretions.  Alongside of an older narrative\na new one has sprung up, formerly independent, and intelligible in\nitself, though in many instances of course adapting itself to the\nformer.  More frequently the new forces have not caused the old\nroot to send forth a new stock, or even so much as a complete\nbranch; they have only nourished parasitic growths; the\nearlier narrative has become clothed with minor and dependent\nadditions.  To vary the metaphor, the whole area of tradition has\nfinally been uniformly covered with an alluvial deposit by which\nthe configuration of the surface has been determined.  It is with\nthis last that we have to deal in the first instance; to\nascertain its character, to find out what the active forces were\nby which it was produced.  Only afterwards are we in a position\nto attempt to discern in the earlier underlying formation the\nchanging spirit of each successive period.\n\n\nVII.I.\n\nVII.I.1. The following prologue supplies us with the point of view\nfrom which the period of the judges is estimated.\n\"After the death of Joshua, the children of Israel did evil in the\nsight of the Lord and forsook the Lord God of their fathers, who\nbrought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods,\nof the gods of the people that were round about them, the Baals\nand Astartes.  And the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel,\nand He delivered them into the hands of spoilers, that spoiled\nthem and sold them into the hand of their enemies round about;\nwhithersoever they went out the hand of the Lord was against\nthem for evil, as the Lord had said, and as the Lord had sworn\nunto them; and they were greatly distressed.  Nevertheless the\nLord raised up unto them judges, and was with the judge, and\ndelivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days\nof the judge, for it repented the Lord because of their\ngroanings, by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them.\nAnd it came to pass when the judge was dead that they returned\nand corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in following\nother gods to serve them; they ceased not from their own doings,\nnor from their stubborn way. And the anger of the Lord was hot\nagainst Israel,\" &c. &c. (Judges ii.).\n\nSuch is the text, afterwards come the examples.\n\"And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord,\nand forget the Lord their God, and served the Baals and Astartes.\nTherefore the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel, and He\nsold them into the hand of Chushan-Rishathaim, king of Mesopotamia,\nand they served him eight years. And when the children of Israel\ncried unto the Lord, the Lord raised up to them a helper, Othniel\nb. Kenaz, and delivered the king of Mesopotamia into his hand,\nand the land had rest forty years.  And Othniel b. Kenaz died.\"\nThe same points of view and also for the most part the same\nexpressions as those which in the case of Othniel fill up the\nentire cadre, recur in the cases of Ehud, Deborah, Gideon,\nJephthah, and Samson, but there form only at the beginning and at\nthe end of the narratives a frame which encloses more copious and\nricher contents, occasionally they expand into more exhaustive\ndisquisitions, as in vi. 7, x. 6.  It is in this way that Judges\nii.-xvi. has been constructed with the workman-like regularity it\ndisplays.  Only the six great judges, however are included within\nthe scheme; the six small ones stand in an external relation to it,\nand have a special scheme to themselves, doubtless having been\nfirst added by way of appendix to complete the number twelve.\n\nThe features which characterise this method of historical work are\nfew and strongly distinctive.  A continuous chronology connects\nthe times of rest and their separating intervals, and thereby the\ncontinuity of the periods is secured.  In order justly to\nestimate this chronology, it is necessary to travel somewhat\nbeyond the limits of Judges.  The key to it is to be found in\n1Kings vi. 1.\n\n\"In the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of\nIsrael were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year\nof the reign of Solomon, he began to build the house of the Lord.\"\n\nAs observed by Bertheau, and afterwards by Noldeke, who has still\nfarther pursued the subject, these 480 years correspond to 12\ngenerations of 40 years each.  Analogously in 1Chronicles v. 29-34\n[vi. 2-8], 12 high priests from Aaron to Ahimaaz are assumed for\nthe same period of time, and the attempt was made to make their\nsuccessions determine those of the generations (Numbers xxxv. 28).\nNow it is certainly by no means at once clear how this total is\nto be brought into accord with the individual entries.  Yet even\nthese make it abundantly plain that 40 is the fundamental number\nof the reckoning.  The wandering in the wilderness, during which\nthe generation born in Egypt dies out, lasts for 40 years; the\nland has 40 years of rest under Othniel, Deborah, and again under\nGideon; it has 80 under Ehud; the domination of the Philistines\nlasts for 40 years, the duration also of David's reign.  On the\nnecessary assumption that the period of the Philistines\n(Judges xiii. 1), which far exceeds the ordinary duration of the\nforeign dominations, coincides with that of Eli (1Samuel iv. 18),\nand at the same time includes the 20 years of Samson (Judges\nxvi. 31), and the 20 of the interregnum before Samuel (1Samuel\nvii. 2), we have already 8 x 40 accounted for, while 4 x 40 still\nremain.  For these we must take into account first the years of\nthe two generations for which no numbers are given, namely,\nthe generation of Joshua and his surviving contemporaries\n(Judges ii. 7), and that of Samuel to Saul, each, it may be\nconjectured, having the normal 40, and the two together\ncertainly reckoning 80 years. For the remaining 80 the most\ndisputable elements are the 71 years of interregna or of\nforeign dominations, and the 70 of the minor judges.  One\nperceives that these two figures cannot both be counted in,--they\nare mutually exclusive equivalents.  For my own part, I prefer to\nretain the interregna; they alone, so far as we can see at\npresent, being appropriate to the peculiar scheme of the Book of\nJudges.  The balance of 9 or IO years still remaining to be\napplied are distributed between Jephthah (6 years), and Solomon\n(down to the building of the temple), who claims 3 or 4 years, or,\nif these are left out of account, 3 years may be given to\nAbimelech.\n\nThe main thing, however, is not the chronology, but the religious\nconnection of the events.  The two are intimately associated, not\nonly  formally, as can be gathered from the scheme, but also by a\nreal inner connection.  For what is aimed at in both alike is a\nconnected view of large periods of time, a continuous survey\nof the connection and succession of race after race, the detailed\nparticulars of the occurrences being disregarded;  the historical\nfactors with which the religious pragmatism here has to do are so\nuniform that the individual periods in reality need only to be\nfilled up with the numbers of the years.  One is reminded of the\n\"Satz,\" `\"Gegensatz,\" and \"Vermittelung\" of the Hegelian philosophy\nwhen one's ear has once been caught by the monotonous beat with\nwhich the history here advances, or rather moves in a circle.\nRebellion, affliction, conversion, peace; rebellion, affliction,\nconversion, peace.  The sole subjects of all that is said are\nJehovah and Israel; their mutual relation alone it is that keeps\nthe course of things in motion, and that too in opposite directions,\nso that in the end matters always return to their original position.\n\n\"They did what was evil in the sight of Jehovah, they went\na-whoring after strange gods,\"-such is the uninterrupted key-note.\nAlthough Jehovistic monolatry is so potently recommended from\nwithout, it yet takes no firm root, never becomes natural to the\npeople, always remains a precept above and beyond their powers.\nFor decennia on end indeed they hold fast to it, but soon their\nidolatrous tendency, which has only been repressed by fear of the\njudge during his lifetime, again finds expression; they must have\na change.  Now this rebellion is indeed quite indispensable for\nthe pragmatism, because otherwise there would be nothing at all\nto tell; it is on the unrest in the clock that the whole movement\ndepends.  But at the same time this is of course no extenuation;\nthe conduct of the people is manifestly totally inexcusable,\nthe main actions, the deeds of the judges, are for this manner\nof historical treatment always only proofs of Israel's sin and\nof the unmerited grace of Jehovah that puts them to shame.\n\nThat all this is no part of the original contents of the tradition,\nbut merely a uniform in which it is clothed, is admitted.  _Numero\nDeus impare gaudet_.  It is usual to call this later revision\nDeuteronomistic.  The law which Jehovah has enjoined upon the\nfathers, and the breach of which He has threatened severely to\npunish (ii. 15, 21), is not indeed more definitely characterised,\nbut it is impossible to doubt that its quintessence is the\ninjunction to worship Jehovah alone and no other God.  Now in this\nconnection it is impossible to think of the Priestly Code, for\nin that document such a command is nowhere expressly enjoined,\nbut, on the contrary, is  assumed as a matter of course.\nDeuteronomy, on the other hand, has in fact no precept on which it\nlays greater emphasis than the \"Hear, O Israel-\"-that Jehovah is\nthe only God, and the worship of strange gods the sin of sins.\nThis precept was apprehended much more clearly by contemporaries\nthan the moral demands in the interest of humanity and kindness\nwhich are also insisted on in Deuteronomy, but are not new, being\nderived from older collections; on this side alone, in so far as\nit follows up the monotheism of the prophets into its practical\nconsequences within the sphere of worship, has Josiah's law-book\nhad historical importance, on this side alone has it continued to\nact upon Ezekiel and those who came after him.  If, then, the norm\nof the theocratic relationship assumed in the redaction of the\nBook of Judges is to be sought in a written Torah, this can\nindubitably only be that of Deuteronomy.  The decisive\nsettlement of the question depends in a comparison with the Book\nof Kings, and must accordingly be postponed until then.\n\nVII.I.2. As for the relation between this superstructure and that\non which it rests, there is a striking difference between the two\nstyles.  The revised form in which the Book of Judges found its\nway into the canon is unquestionably of Judaean origin, but the\nhistories themselves are not such,--nay, in the song of Deborah,\nJudah is not reckoned at all as belonging to Israel.  The one judge\nwho belongs to the tribe of Judah is Othniel, who however is not a\nperson, but only a clan.  What is said of him is quite void of\ncontents, and is made up merely of the schematic devices of the\nredactor, who has set himself to work here, so as to make the\nseries open with a man of Judah; the selection of Othniel was\nreadily suggested by Judges i. 12-15.  Here again we have an\nexception which proves the rule.  More important are the inner\ndifferences which reveal themselves.  To begin with the most\ngeneral,--the historical continuity on which so much stress is\nlaid by the scheme, is in no way shown in the individual\nnarratives of the Book of Judges.  These stand beside one another\nunconnectedly  and without any regard to order or sequence, like\nisolated points of light which emerge here and there out of the\ndarkness of forgetfulness.  They make no presence of actually\nfilling up any considerable space of time; they afford no\npoints of attachment whereon to fasten a chronology.  In truth, it\nis hardly the dim semblance of a continuity that is imparted to\nthe tradition by the empty  framework of the scheme.  The\nconception of a period of the judges between Joshua and Saul,\nduring which judges ruled over Israel and succeeded one another\nalmost as regularly as did the kings at a later period, is quite\nforeign to that tradition.  It is impossible to doubt that\nJudges i., xvii., xviii. have the best right to be reckoned as\nbelonging to the original stock; but these portions are excluded\nfrom reception within the scheme, because they have nothing to\nsay about any judges, and give a picture of the general state\nof affairs which accords but ill with that plan.  /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The redaction, as is well knows, extends only from ii. 6 xvi. 31,\nthus excluding both i. 1-ii. 5, and xvii. 1-xxi. 24.  But\nit is easy to perceive how excellently the first portion fits\ninto its place as a general introduction to the period between\nMoses and the monarchy, and how much more informing and\ninstructive it is in this respect than the section which follows.\nThere exists besides a formal connection between i. 16 and iv. 11.\nAs regards chaps. xvii., xviii., this story relating to the\nmigration of Dan northwards is plainly connected with that\nimmediately preceding where the tribe still finds itself \"in the\ncamp of Dan,\" but is hard pressed and obtains no relief even with\nthe aid of Samson.  In the case of chaps. xix.-xxi., indeed, it\nadmits of doubt whether they were excluded from the redaction, or\nwhether they were not extant as yet; but it is worth noticing\nthat here also chaps. xvii., xviii. are assumed as having gone\nbefore.  The Levite of Bethlehem-Judah testifies to this, and\nespecially the reminiscence contained in xix. 1, which, as we\nshall see, has nothing to rest on in chaps. xix.-xxi.\nCompare further xx. 19 with i. 1 seq.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nAt the bottom of the spurious continuity lies an erroneous\nwidening of the areas in which the judges exerted their influence.\nOut of local contiguity has arisen succession in time, what was\ntrue of the part having been transferred to the whole; it is\nalways the children of Israel in a body who come upon the scene,\nare oppressed by the enemy, and ruled by the judges.  In reality\nit is only  the individual tribes that come into the action; the\njudges are tribal heroes,--Ehud of Benjamin, Barak and Deborah of\nIssachar, Gideon of Joseph, Jephthah of Gilead, Samson of Dan.  It\nwas only for the struggle against Sisera that a number of tribes\nwere united, receiving on that account extraordinary  praise in\nthe song of Deborah.  It is nowhere said \"at the time when the\njudges ruled,\" but \"at the time when there was yet no king over\nIsrael, and every man did what was right in his own eyes; \" the\nregular constitution of the period is the patriarchal anarchy of\nthe system of families and septs.  And in chap. i, division and\nisolation are made to appear not unclearly as the reason why the\nCanaanites were so long of being driven out from the greater\ncities; matters did not change until Israel became strong, that\nis to say, until his forces were welded into one by means of the\nmonarchy.\n\nBut the unity of Israel is the presupposition upon which rests the\ntheocratic relation, the reciprocal attitude between Israel and\nJehovah, whereby according to the scheme the course of the\nhistory is solely conditioned.  In the genuine tradition the\npresupposition disappears, and in connection with this the whole\nhistorical process assumes an essentially different, not to say a\nmore natural aspect.  The people are no longer as a body driven\nhither and thither by the same internal and external impulses,\nand everything that happens is no longer made to depend on the\nattraction and repulsion exercised by Jehovah.  Instead of the\nalternating see-saw of absolute peace and absolute affliction,\nthere prevails throughout the whole period a relative unrest;\nhere peace, there struggle and conflict.  Failure and success\nalternate, but not as the uniform consequences of loyalty or\ndisobedience to the covenant.  When the anonymous prophet who, in\nthe insertion in the last redaction (chap. vi. 7-10), makes his\nappearance as suddenly as his withdrawal is abrupt, improves the\nvisitation of the Midianites as the text for a penitential\ndiscourse, the matter is nevertheless looked at immediately\nthereafter with quite different eyes.  For to the greeting of the\nangel, \"Jehovah is with thee, thou mighty man of velour,\" Gideon\nanswers, \"If Jehovah be with us, why then is all this befallen\nus? and where be all His miracles, of which our fathers told\nus ?  \"He knows nothing about any guilt on the part of Israel.\nSimilarly the heroic figures of the judges refuse to fit in with\nthe story of sin and rebellion: they are the pride of their\ncountrymen, and not humiliating reminders that Jehovah had\nundeservedly again and again made good that which men had\ndestroyed.  Finally, with what artificiality the sins which\nappear to be called for are produced, is incidentally made very\nclear.  After the death of Gideon we read in chap. viii. 33,\n\"the children of Israel went a-whoring after the Baals, and made\nBaal Berith their god.\"  But from the following chapter it appears\nthat Baal or El Berith was only the patron god of Shechem and some\nother cities belonging to the Canaanites; the redactor transforms\nthe local worship of the Canaanites into an idolatrous worship on\nthe part of all Israel.  In other cases his procedure is still\nmore simple,--for example, in x. 6 seq., where the number seven\nin the case of the deities corresponds with the number seven of\nthe nations mentioned in that connection. Ordinarily he is\ncontent with \"Baals \" or \"Astartes \" or \"Asheras,\" where the\nplural number is enough to show how little of what is individual\nor positive underlies the idea, not to mention that Asheras are\nno divinities at all, but only sacred trees or poles.\n\nIn short, what is usually given out as the peculiar theocratic\nelement in the history of Israel is the element which has been\nintroduced by the redaction.  There sin and grace are introduced\nas forces into the order of events in the most mechanical way, the\ncourse of events is systematically withdrawn from all analogy,\nmiracles are nothing extraordinary, but are the regular form in\nwhich things occur, are matters of course, and produce absolutely\nno impression.  This pedantic supra-naturalism, \"sacred history\"\naccording to the approved recipe, is not to be found in the\noriginal accounts.  In these Israel is a people just like other\npeople, nor is even his relationship to Jehovah otherwise conceived\nof than is for example that of Moab to Chemosh (chap. xi. 24).\nOf theophanies and manifestations of the Godhead there is no lack,\nbut the wonders are such as to make one really wonder.  Once and\nagain they interrupt the earthly nexus, but at the same time\nthey form no connected system; they are poetry, not prose and\ndogma.  But on the whole the process of history, although to\nappearance rougher and more perplexed, is nevertheless in reality\nmuch more intelligible, and though seemingly more broken up,\nactually advances more continuously. There is an ascent upward\nto the monarchy, not a descent from the splendid times of Moses\nand Joshua (Judges i. 28-35, xiii. 5, xviii. 1).\n\nOne narrative, it is true, apart from that relating to Othniel,\nwhich is not to be reckoned here, is exactly what sacred history\nought to be in order to fit into the theoretical scheme,--I mean\nJudges xix.-xxi.  To appreciate it rightly it will be well first\nof all to cast a glance upon the preceding narrative relating to\nthe migration of the tribe of Dan to the north.  The Danites, 600\nstrong, fall upon the Canaanite town of Laish not because it lies\nwithin the limits assigned to the people of God, and because its\nconquest is a duty--though they inquire of the oracle, they are\nnevertheless far from relying on the divine right so plainly made\nknown in the Book of Joshua--but because it is inhabited by a\npeaceable and unsuspecting people, which is quite defenceless\nagainst such a band of desperadoes; and they have as little\nscruple in practicing the same treachery to Israelites such as\nMicah.  They take it that might is right, and recognise no\nrestraining consideration; their conduct is natural to the verge\nof absolute shamelessness.  And yet they are pious in their way;\nhow highly they value Jehovah they show by  this, that they steal\nHis image out of the house of God, and the priest who keeps it\ninto the bargain.  As for the religious usages mentioned in the\ntwo chapters, hardly an abomination forbidden by the Law is wanting:\nthe private sanctuary in the possession of the Ephraimite Micah,\nthe grandson of Moses as priest in his service and pay, ephod\nand teraphim as the requisite necessaries in the worship of Jehovah;\nand yet all this is so recounted by the narrator as if it were all\nquite regular and void of offence, although his purpose in doing so\nis not to narrate temporary departures from rule, but the origin of\npermanent institutions at a chief sanctuary of ancient Israel.\nOne is translated into another world on passing from this to the\nnarrative immediately following, about the shameful deed of the\nBenjamites and their exemplary punishment; a greater or more\ninstructive contrast as regards religious history is hardly to be\nfound in all the Old Testament.  In Judges xx.-xxi. it is not as\ninvariably elsewhere the individual tribes which act, not even\nthe people Israel, but the congregation of the covenant, which has\nits basis in the unity of worship.  The occasion of their action\nis a sin committed in their midst which must be done away; it is\nthe sanctity of the theocracy which brings these 400,000 men to\narms and fills them at once with unction and with sanguinary\nzeal.  The clerical instincts have entirely taken possession of\nthis uniform mass, have passed into their flesh and blood, and\nmoulded them into a single automaton, so that all that takes place\nis invariably done by all at once.  No individuals come to the\nfront, not even by name, still less by deeds of velour; the\nmoral tone is anything but heroic.  When the godless reprobates of\nGibeah seek to assail the person of the Levite who is passing the\nnight there, he hands over to them his wife in order to save\nhimself, and all Israel finds nothing objectionable in this\nrevolting act of cowardice, the opinion probably being that by\nhis conduct the holy man had kept the sinners from still graver\nguilt.\n\n\"Of the Mosaic law not a word is said in these chapters,\nbut who could fail to perceive that the spirit which finds its\nexpression in the law pervaded the community which acted thus?\nHad we more narratives of similar contents we should be able to\nsolve many a riddle of the Pentateuch.  Where under the monarchy\ncould we find an Israel so united, vigorous, earnest, so willing\nto enter upon the severest conflict for the sake of the highest\nends?  \"Thus Bertheau, rightly feeling that this story has a\nquite exceptional position, and contradicts all that we learn from\nother quarters of the period of the judges or even the kings.\nOnly we cannot reckon it a proof of the historic value of the story,\nthat it gives the lie to the rest of the tradition in the Books of\nJudges, Samuel, and Kings, and is homogeneous not with these books\nbut with the Law.  On the other hand, the writer betrays himself\nwith a self-contradiction, when, unconsciously remembering the\npreceding chapters, he laments the disorganisation of the time he\nis dealing with (xix. 1, xxi. 25), and yet describes Israel to\nus as existing in a religious centralisation, such as demonstrably\nwas never attained in the earlier life of the nation, but only\ncame about as a consequence of the exile, and is the distinctive\nmark of Judaism.\n\nAs this narrative is not one of those included in the\nDeuteronomistic scheme of the Book of Judges, there may be a\nquestion whether it presupposes the Deuteronomic law only, or the\npriestly law as well.  Its language has most points of contact\nwith Deuteronomy; but one extremely important expression and\nnotion, that of \"the congregation of the children of Israel,\"\npoints rather to the Priestly Code.  The same may be said of\nPhinehas ben Eleazar ben Aaron (xx. 28).  The latter, however,\noccurs but once, and that in a gloss which forms a very awkward\ninterruption between \"and the children of Israel inquired of\nJehovah,\" and the word \"saying\" which belongs to that phrase.\nWe have also to remark that there is no mention of the tabernacle,\nfor which there is no room in addition to Mizpeh (p. 256),\nso that the principal mark of the Priestly Code is wanting.\nIt is only in preparation, it has not yet appeared: we are still\nstanding on the ground of Deuteronomy, but the way is being\nprepared for the transition.\n\nVII.I.3. Going a step further back from the last revision we meet\nwith an earlier effort in the same direction, which, however, is\nless systematically worked out, in certain supplements and emendations,\nwhich have here and there been patched on to the original narratives.\nThese may be due in part to the mere love of amplification or of\ntalking for talking's sake, and in so far we have no further\nbusiness with them here.  But they originated partly in the\ndifficulty felt by a later age in sympathising with the religious\nusages and ideas of older times.  Two instances of this kind occur\nin the history of Gideon.  We read (vi. 25-32), that in the night\nafter his call Gideon destroyed, at the commandment of Jehovah,\nthe altar of Baal in Ophra, his native town, as well as the\nAshera which stood beside it; and that in place of it he built an\naltar to Jehovah, and burned on it a yearling bullock, with the\nwood of the Ashera for fuel.  The next morning the people of Ophra\nwere full of indignation, and demanded that the author of the\noutrage should be given up to them to be put to death; his\nfather, however, withstood them, saying, \"Will ye contend for Baal?\nWill ye save him?  If he be a god, let Baal contend (Heb. Jareb\nBaal) for himself.\"  In consequence of this speech Gideon received\nhis second name of Jerubbaal.  This conflicts with what is said in\nan earlier part of the chapter.  There Gideon has already made an\naltar of the great stone under the oak of Ophra, where he saw\nJehovah sitting, and has offered upon it the first sacrifice, which\nwas devoured by flames breaking out of themselves, the Deity\nHimself ascending in the flames to heaven.  Why the two altars\nand the two stories of their inauguration, both tracing their\norigin to the patron of Ophra?  They do not agree together, and\nthe reason is plain why the second was added.  The altar of a\nsingle stone, the flames bursting out of it, the evergreen tree,\nthe very name of which, Ela, seems to indicate a natural\nconnection with El, /1/--all this was in the eyes of a later\n\n-- Footnote\n1. )LH, )LWN, in Aramaic simply tree, in Hebrew the evergreen,\nand in general the holy tree (Isaiah i. 29 seq.) mostly without\ndistinguishing the species.  Not only  are oaks and terebinths\nincluded, but also palms.  For the )LWN DBWRH at Bethel is\nelsewhere called TMR; Elim derives its names from the 70 palms,\nand the same may be the case with Elath on the Red sea.\n-- Footnote\n\n\ngeneration far from correct, indeed it was Baal-work.  A desire\nthat the piety of Gideon should be above suspicion gave rise to\nthe second story, in which he erects an altar of Jehovah in place\nof the former altar of Baal.  How far this desire attained its end\nwe may best judge from the kindred effort to remove another\nground of offence, which lies in the name Jerubbaal.  In accordance\nwith the occasion out of which the name is said to have arisen it\nis said to mean, \"Let Baal contend.\"  Etymologically this\nderivation is extremely far-fetched, and from every point of\nview impossible: the name of a god is only assumed by those who\nare his worshippers.  In Hebrew antiquity Baal and El are\ninterchangeable and used indifferently; Jehovah Himself is spoken\nof up to the times of the prophet Hosea as the Baal, i.e., the\nlord.  This is distinctly proved by a series of proper names in\nthe families of Saul and David, Ishbaal, Meribaal, Baaljada, to\nwhich we may now add the name Jerubbaal given to the conqueror of\nMidian.  If then even in the time of the kings Baal was by no means\nsimply the antipode of Jehovah, whence the hostile relation of the\ntwo deities, which Jerubbaal displays by the acts he does, although\nhe praises the great Baal by wearing his name?  The view, also,\nthat the Ashera was incompatible with the worship of Jehovah,\ndoes not agree with the belief of the earlier age; according to\nDeuteronomy xvi. 21, these artificial trees must have stood often\nenough beside the altars of Jehovah.  The inserted passage itself\nbetrays in a remarkable manner that its writer felt this sort of\nzeal for the legitimate worship to be above the level of the age\nin question.  We receive the impression that the inhabitants of\nOphra do not know their worship of Baal to be illegitimate, that\nGideon also had taken part in it in good faith, and that there had\nnever been an altar of Jehovah in the place before.\n\nOf a somewhat different form is a correction which is to be found\nat the close of the history of Gideon (viii. 22 seq.).  After\nthe victory over the Midianites the Israelites are said to have\nasked Gideon to be king over them.  This he declined out of regard\nto Jehovah the sole ruler of Israel, but he asked for the gold\nnose-rings which had been taken from the enemy, and made of them\nan image of Jehovah, an ephod, which he set up in Ophra to be\nworshipped.  \"And all Israel went thither a-whoring after it, and\nit became a snare to Gideon and to his house.\"  Now the way in\nwhich such a man acts in such a moment is good authority for the\nstate of the worship of Israel at the time, and not only  so, but\nwe cannot impute it to the original narrator that he chose to\nrepresent his hero as showing his thankfulness to the Deity by\nthe most gratuitous declension from His worship, as in fact crowning\nHis victory with an act of idolatry.  This is seen to be the more\nimpossible when we consider that according to the testimony of\nHosea, Isaiah, and Micah, such images were even in the Assyrian\nperiod a regular part of the belongings of the \"houses of God\"\nnot only in Samaria but in Judah as well.  We have also to\nremember that the contradiction between a human kingship and the\nkingship of Jehovah, such as is spoken of in these verses, rests\nupon theories which arose later, and of which we shall have more\nto say. /1/ Studer will thus be correct in his assertion that the\n\n-- Footnote\n1. \"The words of Gideon are only intelligible on the presupposition\nthat the rule of Jehovah had a visible representative prophet or\npriest.  But this was not the case in the period of the judges,\nas Gideon's own history shows us.\"  Vatke, p. 263.  We see besides\nfrom ix. 1 seq. that Gideon really was the ruler of Ephraim and\nManasseh.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nold tradition could not see anything in Gideon's refusing the gold\nfor himself and dedicating it to God but a fine proof of his\nunselfishness and piety, and that in viii. 22-27 we have a\nsecondary product, in which the original features of the story\nare distorted so as to make them suit later tastes.  The second\nhand has unfortunately supplanted in this instance the work of\nthe first.  The older narrative breaks off (viii. 21) with the\nwords: \"Gideon took away the ornaments that were on the necks of\nthe camels of the kings.\"  What he did with them we do not learn,\nbut naturally we must suppose that it was of them that he made\nthe ephod.  According to the secondary passage, which begins\nimmediately  after viii. 21, he used for this purpose the\nnose-rings which the whole of Israel had taken from all the\nMidianites, amounting in weight to 1700 shekels, besides the\nornaments of the kings and of their camels.  The proportion is\nsimilar to that between the 600 Danites in chap. xviii. and the\n25,700 Benjamites in chap. xx., or between the 40,000 men of\nIsrael in v. 8, and the 400,000 in xx. 2.\n\nVII.I.4. In the last place it is possible to trace even in the\noriginal narratives themselves certain differences of religious\nattitude which indicate to us unobtrusively and yet clearly that\ntendency in the development of the tradition which reached its\nend in the revision and ornamentation of which we have hitherto\nbeen speaking.  This is especially the case with regard to those\nnarratives which are preserved to us in a double form.  These are\nnot frequent in Judges, but they do occur.  A very simple case\nof the kind is seen on comparing chap. iv. with chap. v.\n\nThe Canaanites again lift their heads under their great king\nSisera, and from their towns in the plains harass the hill\nvillages of the new settlers.  Deborah unites the Hebrew tribes\nfor the contest.  From the North and from the South the hosts of\nJehovah descend before our eyes towards Jezreel, the prophetess\nDeborah at their head, the warrior Barak at her side.  The conflict\ntakes place at the brook Kishon, and ends with the defeat of the\nkings of Canaan.  Sisera himself is killed in the flight by Jael,\nthe wife of a nomad Kenite.  Such are the contents of the song in\nchap. v.  In the preceding narrative (chap. iv.) we should\nexpect to find a historical commentary on the song, but we find a\nmere reproduction in which the special features of the story are\nblurred and falsified.  Instead of the kings of Canaan we have the\nking of Canaan, as if Canaan had been a kingdom.  Sisera, the head\nof the Canaanite kings, is transformed into a mere general; the\noppression of the Hebrews is made general and indefinite.  Jael\nmurders Sisera when he is Iying in a deep sleep by driving a\ntent-peg into the ground through his temples.  There is nothing\nof this in the song: there he is drinking when she strikes the\nblow, and is conceived as standing at the time, else he could\nnot bow down at her feet and fall, and lie struck dead where\nhe fell (ver. 27).\n\nIn the song the campaign is prepared with human means.\nNegotiations are carried on among the tribes, and in the course of\nthese differences crop up.  The lukewarmness or the swelling words\nof some tribes are reproved, the energetic public spirit and\nwarlike courage of others praised. In the narrative, on the\ncontrary, the deliverance is the work of Jehovah alone; the men of\nIsrael are mere dummies, who show no merit and deserve no praise.\nTo make up for this, interest is concentrated on the act of Jael,\nwhich instead of being an episode becomes the central point of the\nwhole narrative.  Indeed it is announced as being so, for Deborah\nprophesies to Barak that the glory of the conflict will not be his\nbut a woman's, into whose hand the enemy is to be sold; it is not\nthe hero, not human strength, that accomplishes what is done:\nJehovah shows His strength in man's weakness.  And Barak's part in\nthe work is depreciated in yet another way.  Deborah summons him\nto go not to the battle, but to the holy hill of Tabor, where\nJehovah will bring about what is further to happen; he, however,\nobjects to this, and insists that the prophetess herself shall go\nwith him.  This is regarded as a caprice of unbelief, because the\nprophetess is thought to have exhausted her mission when she\ntransmitted the command of the Deity to His instrument: she has\nappeared for no end but to make it known through her prophecy that\nJehovah alone brings everything to pass.  In the song this is\ndifferent.  There Barak is not summoned against his will; on the\ncontrary, he has a personal motive for taking up arms: \"Arise,\nBarak; take captive thy captors, thou son of Ahinoam.\"  And the\nprophetess has not only to prophesy; she works in a more\npsychological manner; she is part of the battle, and inflames with\nher song the courage of the fighting battalions: \"Awake,\nDeborah, awake, sing the song!\" /1/ Throughout these variations of\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Ver. 12 is a summons to begin the battle, and Deborah cannot\nhere be singing the song of triumph which celebrates its happy\nissue.  For a similar reason the translation given above, \"take\ncaptive thy captors,\" is the more natural and correct.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nthe prose reproduction we feel that the rich colour of the events\nas they occurred is bleached out of them by the one universal first\ncause, Jehovah.  The presence and energy of Jehovah are not wanting\nin the song; they are felt in the enthusiasm which fills the Hebrew\nwarriors, and in the terror and panic which confound the prancing\nvigour of the foe.  But in the prose narrative, the Divine action\nis stripped of all mystery, and mechanic prophecy finds no\ndifficulty in showing distinctly and with sober accuracy what the\npart of the Deity in the history has been.  But the more special\nthe intervention of Deity, the further is it from us; the more\nprecise the statements about it, the less do we feel it to be there.\n\nThere is another instance in the Book of Judges of the occurrence\nof the same historical material in two different forms; it is the\nstory of Gideon of the Manassite house of Abiezer.  Studer saw\nthat there is a break between viii. 3 and viii. 4, and that the\ntwo stories, from the one of which we pass to the other at that\npoint, have to be understood separately; viii. 1-3 is the\nconclusion of the first story.  We have been told how, after the\nsuccess of the first attack on the Midianites, Gideon raised the\nlevy of all Israel for the pursuit, and how then the Ephraimites\nseized the fords of the Jordan before the arrival of the flying\nnomads and got the two leaders of the Midianites into their hands.\nNow we hear in conclusion that the Ephraimites, elated by their\nsuccess began to find fault with Gideon, but that he pacified\ntheir wrath by saying, \"What have I done now in comparison of\nyou?  Is not the gleaning of the grapes of Ephraim better than the\nvintage of Abiezer?  God hath delivered into your hand the princes\nof Midian, and what was I able to do in comparison of you?\"\nA domestic contention like this about the respective shares in\nthe victory could only arise when the victory had been gained,\nwhen the strife with the enemy was fought out; the metaphor of\nharvest and gleaning shows that the victory was complete and\nall the fruits of it gathered in.  Chapter viii. 1-3 concludes\nthe business, and the following narrative is not a continuation\nof what has gone before, but a second version of the story in\nwhich many of the circumstances are quite different.  According\nto vii. 23 seq.  there was a great army on foot, but in viii. 4\nseq. Gideon has only his own three hundred men with him.  In\nviii. 1-3 the vintage and the gleaning are over and the object\nof the fighting is attained; but in viii. 4 seq. Gideon pursues\nthe enemy without any interruption, and when he asks the men of\nSuccoth and Penuel for bread for his wearied and hungry troops,\nthey inquire sarcastically whether he is already certain of\nsuccess, so that it should be necessary for them to espouse his\ncause.  The two chiefs who in the former account are called the\nprinces Oreb and Zeeb, and are already taken, are here called\nthe kings Zebah and Zalmunna, and are not taken yet.  Unfortunately\nthe beginning of viii. 4 seq. is not preserved, and we cannot make\nout whether the pursuit in which we find Gideon here engaged was\npreceded by an action.  Such a supposition is not exactly impossible,\nyet the distance to which the nomads had carried their booty, and\ntheir carelessness in camp, make it more likely that the occurrence\nwas like that in 1Samuel xxx.  This, however, makes no difference as\nto the particulars with regard to which the two narratives conflict\nwith each other.\n\nBut how did the difference arise?  This we shall best learn by\ncomparing the beginnings of the two stories.  We remarked that the\nsecond, as it stands, wanted a beginning, but what is wanting may\nbe to some extent supplied from what follows.  According to viii.\n4 seq., Gideon's aim is to get hold of the two kings of the\nMidianites: these appear all through as the particular enemies\nwhom he is pursuing: as to the rest of the Midianites he is more\nor less indifferent.  And the reason, as we learn from viii. 18\nseq., is that the two kings had slain his brothers at Tabor; it\nis to take vengeance for them that he sets out to pursue the\nslayers, and does not rest till they are in his hand.  It is the\nduty of blood-revenge which causes him to take the war-path with\nhis household, unconcerned by the disproportion in numbers\nbetween his followers and theirs: it is the powerful sentiment of\nfamily which sets him in motion and causes him to become, as it\nwere incidentally, the liberator of Israel from the spoilers.  In\nthe first account (vi. 11-viii. 3) these natural motives have\ncompletely disappeared, and others have taken their place which\nare almost of an opposite character.  Before anything has\nhappened, before the Midianites have made their yearly incursion,\nGideon, who expects nothing of the kind, is summoned by a\ntheophany to battle against them.   When they arrive he is seized\nby the Spirit and sets out against them.  What is human in him\nhas no part in the act he is called to do; flesh and blood set\nthemselves against it.  He is impelled by the direct impulse of\nJehovah, and here, of course, he goes forth in behalf of the\npublic interests of Israel, against the Midianites, not against\ntheir princes personally.  And accordingly everything possible is\ndone to cast the man into the shade behind the Deity.  Gideon,\naccording to the second account a distinguished and royal man,\nis in the first of a poor house and family; in the second story\nhe is remarkable for irrepressible energy, but here he is timid\nand shrinking up to the last moment, and new miracles have\nconstantly to be wrought to encourage and strengthen him.\nThe 32,000 men with whom he takes the field he is ordered by\nJehovah to send away all but l,000 and again all but 300, \"lest\nIsrael vaunt themselves against Me, and say, Mine own hand hath\nsaved me.\"  The weapons with which the nocturnal attack of the 300\nis made are torches, pitchers, and trumpets; the men have not a\nhand left to hold swords (vii. 20); and the hostile army has\naccordingly to do itself the work of its own destruction (vii.\n22).\n\nFew of the deviations of the religious version from the natural one\nare not transparent; one of these few is the removal of the scene\nto this side of the Jordan.  Most of them are at once recognisable\nas due to the process of glorification, illumination, and\nreligious inflation, by which the body of the tradition is\netherealised and the story lifted up into the region of the air.\nFor example, the company of Gideon at the main action, the attack\non the hostile camp, consists of 300 men in chap. vii. as well\nas in chap viii.; but in chap. vii., to draw out the\nsignificance of the small number, they are treated as the last\nresiduum of what was at first quite a considerable army; and this\ngives rise to a long story.  We may also remark that chap. vi.\nbegins with the relation in which the judge stood to the sanctuary\nof his native town, while chap. viii. closes with this.  In the\none case he discovers by a theophany, like the patriarchs in\nGenesis, the sacredness of the altar-stone under the oak; in the\nother he sets up, in far more realistic fashion, the plated image\n(ephod) he has made of the golden ornaments of the Midianite\nkings.  History has to take account principally, if not\nexclusively, of the natural version, which is dry in tone and lets\nthings speak for themselves, not overlaying the simple story with\nthe significance of its consequences.  The relation, however, is\nsomewhat different from that which we found existing between\nJudges iv. and v.  Chapter vi. seq. is not based directly on\nchap. viii., but was probably formed from independent oral\nmaterial  Though the local colour is lively, the historical\nreminiscences are extremely vague, and there has been a much\nfreer growth of legend than in Jud. iv., producing pictures of\ngreater art and more naivete.  But in the field of miracle poetry\nis manifestly  earlier than prose.\n\nIn the case of those narratives which have come down to us in\ndouble form, the difference of standpoint is unmistakable; but it\nmay also be perceived in cases where we have no direct parallels\nto compare.  How noticeably does the story of Abimelech differ,\nsay from that of Jephthah which follows it, in the rich detail of\nits facts, and in the spontaneous interest it shows in the\nsecondary  and subordinate links in the chain of events!  There is\nno gilding with a supernatural nimbus; facts are simply and\nplainly set down such as they are; the moral is left to speak\nfor itself as the story goes on. In the Samson legends again we\nfind two souls united, as it were, in one body.  Traits belonging\nto the rough life and spirit of the people are wrought, especially\nat the beginning and end of the narrative, into a religious\nnational form; yet the two stand in an inner contrast to each other,\nand it is scarcely probable that the exploits of this grotesque\nreligious hero were at first conceived in the Spirit of Jehovah,\nof which, in the story as we have it, they are the product.  More\nprobably the religious way of telling the story was preceded\nby a way considerably more profane; but we cannot now separate\nthe older stage from that which is more recent.  We may also\nremark that the contrast of historical and unhistorical is\nobviously inapplicable to this case, and, moreover, is\nunessential for the end we have in view.  Only it may stand\nas a general principle, that the nearer history is to its\norigin the more profane it is.  In the pre-Deuteronomic narratives,\nthe difference is to be recognised less in the _kind_ of piety than\nin the _degree_ of it.\n\n\nVII.II.\n\nVII.II.1. The comprehensive revision which we noticed in the Book\nof Judges has left its mark on the Books of Samuel too.  As, however,\nin this case the period is short, and extremely rich in incident,\nand really forms a connected whole, the artificial frame- and\nnet-work does not make itself so much felt.  Yet it is by no\nmeans wanting, as the dates of themselves indicate, whose place in\nthe chronological system was shown above.  It is worthy of notice\nhow very loosely  these are fitted into their context. In 1Samuel\niv. 18 seq. we read:\n\n\"And when the messenger made mention of the ark of God, Eli fell\nbackwards off his seat, and his neck brake, and he died, for he\nwas an old man and heavy, and _he judged Israel forty years_;\nand when his daughter-in-law, the wife of Phinehas, who was with\nchild, heard the tidings,\" etc.\n\nThe statement of the date is not altogether inappropriately\ndragged in, indeed, yet it is easy to see that it is dragged in.\nIn 2Samuel ii. 8-13 we read:\n\n\"Abner, the captain of Saul's host, took Ishbaal the son of Saul,\nand brought him over the Jordan to Mahanaim, and made him king\nover Gilead and Geshur, and Jezreel, and Ephraim, and Benjamin,\nand all Israel.  _Ishbaal was forty years old when he began to\nreign over lsrael, and he reigned two years_.  But the house of\nJudah followed David.  And the time that David was king in\nHebron was seven years and six months.  And Abner and the servants\nof Ishbaal went out from Mahanaim to Gibeon, and Joab with the\nservants of David went out to meet him.\"\n\nThe words in italics <_..._> manifestly interrupt the connection;\nand with regard to Ishbaal's dates we have also to remark that from\nwhat we learn of him elsewhere he was, in the first place, still\nin the years of pupilage, and in the next must have reigned as long\nin Mahanaim as Oavid in Hebron.  The number two connected with his\nreign is to be explained as in the case of Saul (1Samuel xiii. 1):\n_Saul was...years old when he began to reign, and he reigned two\nyears over Israel_. In this verse, which is not found in the LXX,\nthe number for the years of his life is wanting; and originally\nthe number for the years of his reign was left out too: the _two_\nis quite absurd, and has grown out of the following word for year,\nwhich in Hebrew has a somewhat similar appearance.\n\nIn company with the chronological formulas, we find also the\nreligious (1Samuel vii. 2-4).\n\n\"While the ark abode in Kirjath-jearim, it was twenty years;\nand all the house of Israel came together after Jehovah.  And\nSamuel spake unto the whole house of Israel, saying: 'If ye do\nreturn to Jehovah with all your hearts, then put away the strange\ngods and the Astartes from among you, and prepare your hearts unto\nJehovah, and serve Him only; and He will deliver you out of the\nhand of the Philistines.'  And the children of Israel did put away\nthe Baals and Astartes, and served Jehovah only.\"\n\nWe are not told, in what precedes this passage, of any act of\ndeclension from Jehovah, and according to chap. iv. the Israelites\nshowed no want of faith in Jehovah in the unfortunate battle with\nthe Philistines.  This taking for granted that the yoke of a\nforeign rule was laid on them as a punishment for their sins is\ncharacteristic.  A further example occurs in the speech of Samuel\n(1Samuel. xii.), which, as the introduction to the time of the\nkings, may be compared with Judges ii., the introduction to the\ntime of the judges.\n\n\"Stand still that I may reason with you before\nJehovah of all the righteous acts of Jehovah with which He did\nright to you and to your fathers!  When Jacob was come into\nEgypt, your fathers cried to Jehovah, and He sent Moses and Aaron\nand brought your fathers out of Egypt and made them dwell in this\nland.  And when they forget Jehovah their God, He sold them into\nthe hand of Sisera, captain of the host of Hazor, and into the\nhand of the Philistines, and the Moabites, and they fought\nagainst them.  And they cried unto Jehovah, and said, We have\nsinned, because we have forsaken Jehovah and have served Baal and\nAstarte, but now deliver us out of the hand of our enemies and we\nwill serve Thee.  And Jehovah sent Jerubbaal, and Barak, and\nJephthah, and Samuel, and delivered you out of the hand of your\nenemies on every side, and ye dwelled safe.  And when ye saw that\nNahash the king of the children of Ammon came against you, ye said\nunto me, Nay, but a king shall reign over us, when Jehovah your God\nis your king.  Now therefore behold the king whom ye have desired;\nbehold, Jehovah has set a king over you.  If ye will hear Jehovah\nand serve Him and obey His voice, and not rebel\nagainst the commandment of Jehovah, good: but if ye rebel against\nthe commandment of Jehovah, then shall the hand of Jehovah be\nagainst you as it was against your fathers.\"\n\nIt is the familiar strain:  rebellion, affliction, conversion,\npeace, Jehovah the keynote, and the first word and the last.\nThe eye does not dwell on the details of the story; the gaps in\nthe tradition are turned to account as well as its contents, which\nare concentrated at so few points.  Details are regarded only as\nthey bear on the whole; the periods are passed in review in a broad\nand general style, and the law enunciated which connects them with\none another.  In doing this Samuel seems to presuppose in his\nhearers a knowledge of the biblical history in a distinct form;\nand he even speaks without hesitation of his own historical\nsignificance.  The hearers are bidden to look back upon a period\nin the living movement of which they  themselves are standing, as\nif it were a dead past.  As they are thus lifted up to the height\nof an objective contemplation of themselves and their fathers,\nin the end the result which was to be expected takes place:\nthey become conscious of their grievous sin.  Confronted with\nthe Deity they have always an uneasy feeling that they deserve\nto be punished.\n\nVII.II.2. The Deuteronomist revision asserts itself, it is true,\nonly in these two places, or rather this one place; but this\nis the principal epoch in the book--the transition to the monarchy\nwhich is associated with the name of Samuel.  And on this account\nthe revision here acts the more trenchantly; it is not only an\naddition to give a new flavour to the older tradition; it changes\nthe nature of the tradition entirely.  For the passages we have\njust quoted from it are merely fragments of a considerable\nconnected historical scheme.  The first piece of this scheme, vii.\n2-17, first claims our attention. After summoning the children of\nIsrael to repentance (vii. 2-4), Samuel convokes an assembly of\nthem at Mizpeh, near Jerusalem, in order to entreat for them that\nthe Philistine affliction may be turned away.  This measure is of\ncourse closely connected with the previously-mentioned abolition\nof idolatry: for, after the guilt has ceased, the punishment also\nmust be removed.  They assemble, draw water to pour it out before\nJehovah, fast, and confess their sins, at Mizpeh.  When the\nPhilistines hear this, they are on the spot the very same day\nand fall upon the assembly at its prayers.  Samuel, however,\nsacrifices a sucking lamb and cries for help to Jehovah, and the\nengagement takes place while he is so occupied.  Jehovah thunders\nterribly against the Philistines and throws them into disorder, so\nthat they are forced to yield, and are pursued to a great\ndistance.  And the Philistines, this is the end of the narrative,\nwere humbled and came no more into the coasts of Israel; and the\nhand of Jehovah was against the Philistines all the days of\nSamuel, and the cities which the Philistines had taken from Israel\nwere recovered; Ekron and Gath and their coasts did Israel take\nfrom the Philistines, and there was peace between Israel and the\nAmorites.\n\nThe mere recapitulation of the contents of this narrative makes us\nfeel at once what a pious make-up it is and how full of inherent\nimpossibilities: to think of all that is compressed into the\nspace of this one day!  But we have also to remark the utter\ncontradiction of the whole of the rest of the tradition.  In the\nhistory which follows we find the domination of the Philistines\nby no means at an end; not only do they invade the Israelite\nterritory several times in Samuel's lifetime, they are in\npossession of the land of lsrael, and one of their governors lives\nat Gibeah in the midst of Benjamin.  The struggle with them is the\ntrue and real origin and task of the monarchy.  The writer had no\nidea that Samuel had discharged this labour and won this victory\nalready, and had even \"restored \" Ekron and Gath.  On the contrary,\nthe yoke of the Philistines lay most heavily on Israel just in\nhis days.  There cannot be a word of truth in the whole narrative.\nIts motives, however, are easily seen.  Samuel is a saint of the\nfirst degree (Jeremiah xv. 1), and in the theocracy, i.e., in the\nreligious community such as ancient Israel is represented to have\nbeen, cut to the pattern of Judaism, such a man must take his\nplace at the head of the whole.  His influence must have prevailed\nto exclude idolatry and unfaithfulness to Jehovah on the part of\nthe people; and the general character of the time must on the\nwhole have answered to the type he set before it.  But here a very\nunpleasant difficulty suggests itself.  If the fact of Samuel being\nat the head is sufficient guarantee that all was as it should be\nwithin the state, how can there have been such great pressure\nexternally, so as to endanger the very existence of the people?\nIf men do their part, how can Jehovah fail to do His?  On the\ncontrary, it must be believed that the righteousness which\nprevailed within had its counterpart in the external vindication\nof His people by Jehovah.  Even under Samuel the Philistines were\nwith God's help driven across the border, and as long as he lived\nthey were not seen within it again.  The piety of a praying\nassembly was suitably acknowledged by Jehovah, who dropped into\nits lap a success such as in after times the sword of warlike\nkings sought long and in vain to achieve.\n\nBut this example of history corrected does not stand alone, and\nbecomes completely intelligible only when taken in connection\nwith the similar pieces which belong to it.  1Samuel vii. is\ncontinued in chap. viii., and chap. viii. again in x. 17-xii.\n25.  Samuel, after setting the land free from foreign tyranny,\nconducts a quiet and successful reign till old age comes upon him.\nHis sons, however, whom he has made his assessors, do not walk in\nhis steps; and the elders of Israel make this the occasion to ask\nhim to give them a king.  But this is a mere pretext for their\nsinful desire to shake off the divine rule and to be like the\nheathen round about them.  Samuel is extremely indignant at their\ningratitude, but is directed by Jehovah to comply with their\nrequest.\n\n\"They  have not rejected thee, but they have rejected\nMe, that I should not reign over them; according to all the works\nthat they have done since the day that I brought them up out of\nEgypt, wherewith they have forsaken Me and served other gods. so\ndo they also unto thee.\"\n\nIt is in vain that Samuel exhibits to them an alarming catalogue\nof the rights of the king: they are not to be moved from their\ndetermination, and he accordingly summons a general convention of\nthe people at Mizpeh (viii. 22, x. 17).  There, after the\nopening lecture, lots are drawn for the king, and Saul is chosen,\nwhereupon Samuel has still to write down the law of the kingdom and\nlay it up before Jehovah.  The people are then dismissed; \"and\nSaul also went home to Gibeah, and with him the warriors whose\nheart God had touched, but the children of Belial despised him,\nand said 'How shall this man save us!'\"\n\nBut Saul is at this point only king _de jure_; he does not become\nking _de facto_ until after he has proved himself, chap. xi.  After\nan interval of a month (x. 27 LXX) the men of Jabesh, besieged by\nthe Ammonites and in great straits, send messengers throughout\nIsrael to implore speedy assistance, since in seven days they\nhave to surrender to their enemies and each of them to lose his\nright eye.  The messengers come to the town of Saul, Gibeah in\nBenjamin, and tell their message before the people; the people\nlift up their voices and weep.  Saul meanwhile comes from the\nfield with a yoke of oxen, and, observing the general weeping,\nasks what has happened. The story is told him, and at once the\nSpirit of God comes upon him and his anger is kindled greatly;\nhe hews in pieces his oxen and sends the pieces throughout Israel\nwith the summons: Whoever does not come forth to the battle, so\nshall it be done to his oxen!  And the fear of Jehovah falls on\nthe people, and they go out as one man and relieve the besieged\ntown.  Hereupon \"the kingdom is renewed\" for Saul at Gilgal, and\nonly now does Samuel abdicate his government, in the long speech\n(chap. xii.) a considerable portion of which was given above.\n\nThat chap. xi. is now an integral part of this version of the\nhistory is clear from xii. 12, and also from xi. 12-14.  But it\nwas not originally designed for this connection.  For we hear\nnothing of the warriors who according to x. 26 were in company\nwith Saul; it is not on his account that the messengers of Jabesh\ncame to Gibeah.  When the supposed king comes home from ploughing,\nnothing is done to indicate that the news concerns him specially:\nno one tells him what has happened, he has to ask the reason of\nthe general weeping.  He summons the levy of Israel not in virtue\nof his office as king, but in the authority of the Spirit, and it\nis owing to the Spirit acting on the people that he is obeyed.\nOnly after he has showed his power and defeated the Ammonites do\nthe people make him king (xi. 15); the \"renewal\" of the kingdom\n(xi. 14), after a month's interval, is a transparent artifice of\nthe author of viii. 10, 1) seq. to incorporate in his own narrative\nthe piece which he had borrowed from some other quarter: the verses\nxi. 12-14 are due to him.\n\nChapter xi. stood originally in connection with the other\nnarrative of the elevation of Saul (ix. 1-X. 16).  Hero Saul\nfirst appears engaged in searching for strayed she-asses.  After\na vain search of several days he arrives in the neighbourhood\nof Ramah, and at the suggestion of his servant applies for\ninformation as to the asses to a seer there, to Samuel.  His\napproach has been announced to the seer by Jehovah the day\nbefore: \"To-morrow I will send to thee a man out of the land of\nBenjamin, and thou shalt anoint him to be ruler over My people\nIsrael; he shall save them from the Philistines.\"  He was\naccordingly expecting him, and had instituted a sacrificial feast\non the bamah for him even before he arrived.  At this moment\nSamuel has gone down to the town between the sacrificial act and\nthe meal which followed it, and just as he is going back to his\nguests he meets in the gate Saul, who is asking for him, and at a\nwhisper from Jehovah he recognises in him his man.  He takes him up\nwith him to the bamah, reassures him about the asses, and then at\nonce tells him to what high things he is called, and gives him\nconvincing proofs that he had reckoned on his presence at the feast\nas the guest of the occasion.  He then gives him lodgings for the\nnight, and accompanies him on his way next morning.  The servant is\nsent on a little way before, Samuel stands still and anoints Saul,\nfor a sign that he is chosen by Jehovah to be the king and deliverer\nof Israel, and in conclusion instructs him that, when the opportunity\nfor action comes, he is to use it, in the consciousness that God\nis with him.  On his way home three signs come to pass which the\nseer had announced to him.  He is thus assured that all that was\nsaid to him was true; his heart is changed by degrees till he\ncannot contain himself; on his arrival at Gibeah his acquaintances\nare struck with his strange demeanour, but he does not disclose\neven to his most intimate friend at home what Samuel had said to\nhim, but waits for the things that shall come to pass.\n\nThis is the point arrived at in x. 16.  It is clear that thus far\nno conclusion has yet been reached: the seed that is sown must\nspring up, the changed spirit must produce its effects.  And this\nrequirement is abundantly satisfied if chap. xi. is regarded as\nimmediately continuing the story from x. 16.  After about a\nmonth, the opportunity presents itself for Saul to act, which\nSamuel had bidden him to look for.  While others are weeping at\nthe disgrace which threatens an Israelite town at the hands of\nthe Ammonites, he is filled with the Spirit and with rage,\nthe arrow is still in his heart from that conversation, and he\nnow does \"what his hand finds to do.\"  The result is a great\nsuccess; the word of the seer finds its fulfilment in the most\nnatural way in the world.\n\nIf chap. xi. belongs originally to the narrative of ix. 1.-x. 16,\nit follows at once that the other sections are dependent and\nlater.  But what is the inner relation of the one version to the\nother?  They coincide in their ideas here and there.  In the one\nstory Saul seeks the asses and finds the crown, in the other he\nhides himself among the stuff and is drawn forth king.  In the one\nhe is called by the seer, in the other he is chosen by lot--the\ndivine causality operative in both cases.  But how the idea is\nexaggerated at the later stage, and how nakedly it is put forward!\nAnd if there is this similarity of view, yet the deviation of the\nsecondary version from the original is much more striking than\nthe resemblance.  For its tendency  we are prepared by chapter\nvii.  Samuel has set his countrymen free from their enemies, and\nruled over them afterwards in righteousness and prosperity; why\nthen should they desire a change in the form of government?  They\nhave just as much and as little reason for desiring this as for\nthe falling away from Jehovah, which also is a periodical\ncraving on their part, whenever they have had some years' rest:\nit is the expression of the deep-seated heathenism of their nature.\nThat is the account of chapter viii. with what belongs to it.\nChapter ix. seq., however, gives quite a different account. Here,\nat the end of the period of the judges, Israel is not at the\nsummit of power and prosperity, but in a state of the deepest\nhumiliation and the means of saving the people from this state is\nseen in the monarchy alone.  And this difference is closely\nconnected with another as to the view taken of the authority of\nSamuel.  In chap. viii. as in chap. vii. he is the vicegerent\nof Jehovah, with unlimited authority.  He feels the institution of\nthe monarchy to be his own deposition, yet the children of Israel\nby no means rebel against him; they come to him to ask him for\na king.  He might have refused the request; he might also have\ngiven them a ruler according to his own good pleasure, but as a\ncorrect theocrat he leaves the decision to Jehovah.  At the end he\nsolemnly lays down the government he has hitherto carried on, and\nhands it over to his successor.  The latter is superior to him in\npoint of title, but not in point of power: indeed in the latter\nrespect he is rather inferior to Samuel, being a mere earthly\nprince (xii. 23 seq.).  But how do matters stand in chap. ix. seq.?\nHere Samuel is quite a stranger to Saul, who knows neither his\nname nor his residence.  Only his servant has heard of Samuel,\nwho enjoys a high reputation as a seer in his own neighbourhood.\nWhat we are to think of when we read of a seer of that period,\nwe are clearly and circumstantially informed: for Samuel is\nconsulted as to the whereabouts of strayed she-asses, and a fee\nof a quarter of a silver shekel is tendered to him for his advice.\nThis seer stands, it is clear, above the average of those who\npracticed the same calling; yet his action on the history is quite\nwithin the limits of what was possible, say to Calchas: it\nexhibits not a trace of the legislative and executive power of\na regent of the theocracy.  He does not bring help; he only\ndescries help and the helper.  The very event which, according\nto chap. viii. seq., involved the removal of Samuel from his\nplace and his withdrawal to the background of the history, is\nhere the sole basis of his reputation: the monarchy of Saul,\nif not his work, is his idea.  He announces to the Benjamite his\nhigh calling, interpreting in this the thoughts of the man's own\nheart (ix. 19).  With this his work is done; he has no commission\nand no power to nominate his successor in the government.\nEverything else he leaves to the course of events and to the\nSpirit of Jehovah which will place Saul on his own feet.\n\nIn the great difference which separates these two narratives we\nrecognise the mental interval between two different ages.  In the\neyes of Israel before the exile the monarchy is the culminating\npoint of the history, and the greatest blessing of Jehovah.  It\nwas preceded by a period of unrest and affliction, when every man\ndid what was right in his own eyes, and the enemies of Israel\naccordingly got everything their own way.  Under it the people\ndwell securely and respected by those round about; guarded by\nthe shelter of civil order, the citizen can sit under his own\nvine and his own fig-tree.  That is the work of the first two\nkings, who saved Israel from his spoilers, and gave him power\nand rest.  No difference is made between them in this respect:\nthe one commenced the work which the other completed (1Samuel\nix. 16, xiv. 48; 2Samuel iii. 18, xix. 9). Before them there was\nno breathing space left in the hard work of fighting, but now\nthere is time to think of other things.  Even Deuteronomy,\nwhich was written not long before the exile, regards the period\nbefore the monarchy as a time of preparation and transition,\nnot to be counted complete in itself: Israel must first acquire\nfixed seats and a settled way of living, and then Jehovah also\nwill choose a seat for Himself and make known His desires with\nregard to the cultus.  David brought things so far that the\npeople had room and struck firm roots into the ground, and\nceased to tremble before their enemies, who had kept them on the\nstrain from the beginning, and all the days of the judges; and\nunder his successor the time came when the temple could be built\nand higher interests receive attention.  That Hebrew antiquity\nknew nothing of any hostility or incompatibility between the\nheavenly and the earthly ruler is plain from the title Anointed\nof Jehovah, and from the hope of the prophets, whose ideal future\nwould be incomplete without a human king.  The ancient Israelites\nwere as fully conscious as any  other people of the gratitude\nthey owed to the men and to the institutions by whose aid they\nhad been lifted out of anarchy and oppression, and formed into an\norderly community, capable of self-defence.  Of this the Books of\nSamuel afford the most eloquent testimony. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\nl In Balaam's view of the happy future of Israel (Numbers xxiii.\nseq.), the monarchy is spoken of as one of Israel's chief\nblessings.  Generally (xxiii. 21):  \"Jehovah his God is with\nhim, and the shout of a king is among them.\"  With reference to\nSaul (xxiv. 7): \"And his king triumphs over Agag. and his\nkingdom shall be exalted.\"  To David (xxiv. 17): \"I see him,\nthough not now; I behold him, though not nigh: there rises (ZRX)\na star out of Jacob and a rod out of Israel, and smites in pieces\nthe temples of Moab and the skull of all the sons of Seth: and Edom\nalso becomes a conquest.\" According to Deuteronomy xxxiii. 4, 5,\nthe monarchy and the Torah are the two great gifts of God's grace\nto Israel.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe position taken up in the version of 1 Samuel vii. viii. x. 17\nseq. xii., presents the greatest possible contrast to this way\nof thinking.  There, the erection of the monarchy only forms a\nworse stage of backsliding from Jehovah.  There can be no progress\nbeyond the Mosaic ideal; the greater the departure from it the\ngreater the declension.  The capital sin of placing a human ruler\non the throne of Jehovah makes even the period of the judges\nappear not quite black.  Dark as the colours are with which that\nperiod is generally painted, it held fast to the original form of\nthe theocracy, and so appears somewhat brighter: at last indeed,\nto heighten the contrast, it is represented as a splendid age.\nUnder the rule of Samuel, everything was as it should be.  Should\nwe ask, _how_ were things then? what was exactly the nature of\nthe theocratic constitution? we receive, it is true, no\nsatisfactory answer to the question.  We might draw conclusions\nwith regard to the body from the head: but what sort of an idea\ncan we form of the position of Samuel?  As he appears in these\nchapters, we entirely fail to dispose of him in any of the\ncategories applicable to the subject; he is not a judge, not\na priest, not a prophet,--if at least we use these words with\ntheir true historical meaning.  He is a second Moses?  Yes, but\nthat does not tell us much.  So much only is clear, that the\ntheocracy is arranged on quite a different footing from the\nkingdoms of this world, and that it amounts to a falling away\ninto heathenism when the Israelites place a king at their head\nlike other nations, and he keeps courtiers and ministers, officers\nand soldiers, horses and chariots.  It is accordingly a spiritual\ncommunity: the spiritual character of the regent places this\nbeyond doubt.  Samuel admonishes the people to give up idolatry;\nhe presides at the great day of repentance at Mizpeh, which forms\nan epoch in the sacred history;  and Jehovah can refuse nothing to\nhis prayers and cries (xii. 1 7).  \"God forbid,\" he says in\ntaking leave of them (xii. 23), \"that I should cease to pray for\nyou and teach you the good way.\"  Such is his position: and the\ncitizens of the theocracy have the corresponding duty of\ncultivating the worship of Jehovah, and not withdrawing themselves\nfrom the guidance of the representative of Deity.  They do not\nneed to trouble themselves about means for warding off the attacks\nof their enemies; if they fast and pray, and give up their sins,\nJehovah hurls back the foe with His thunder and lightning, and so\nlong as they are pious He will not allow their land to be\ninvaded.  All the expenses are then naturally superfluous by\nwhich a people usually safeguards it own existence.  That this\nview is unhistorical is self-evident; and that it contradicts the\ngenuine tradition we have seen.  The ancient Israelites did not\nbuild a church first of all: what they  built first was a house\nto live in, and they rejoiced not a little when they got it\nhappily roofed over (xi. 15).  But we have still to add, in\nconclusion, that the idea here before us can only have arisen in\nan age which had no knowledge of Israel as a people and a state,\nand which had no experience of the real conditions of existence in\nthese forms; in other words.  It is the offspring of exilic or\npost-exilic Judaism.  At that time the nation was transformed into\na religious community, whose members were at liberty to\nconcentrate themselves on what they held to be the great business\nof life, worship and religiousness, because the Chaldeans or the\nPersians had relieved them of all care for worldly concerns.  At\nthat time, accordingly, the theocracy _existed_, and it is from\nthat time that it is transported in an idealised form to early\ntimes.  The material basis on which the theocracy rested in fact,\nnamely, the foreign domination, is put out of sight, and it is\ncounted heathenism in the old Israelites that they cared for the\nexternal conditions of their national existence, that they are a\npeople in the full sense of the word, and seek to maintain\nthemselves as such with the weapons which are found necessary in\nthe work-a-day world.  It naturally never came into the heads of\nthese epigoni to conceive that the political organisation and\ncentralisation which the monarchy called into being provided the\nbasis for the organisation and centralisation of the worship, and\nthat their church was merely a spiritualised survival of the\nnation.  What is added to Moses is taken away from the monarchy.\n\nOne more point has to be noticed.  The chapters vii. viii. x. 17\nseq. xii. betray a close relationship with Judges xix.-xxi.,\nnot only by their general tendency, but by a geographical\ndetail in which the two passages agree.  It is only here that\nMizpeh, near Jerusalem, occurs as the place of meeting of all\nIsrael; we find no further mention of the place in the whole\nperiod of the judges and the kings.   Only after the destruction\nof Jerusalem is it mentioned, and there as the centre of the new\nJewish community instituted by the Chaldeans (Jeremiah xl. seq.) as\nthe substitute of the old capital.  It appears once more, and in a\nsimilar character, in I Maccabees iii. 46 seq. at a time when the\ntemple of Jerusalem was in the hands of the Syrians, and the Jews\ncould not get to it.  The Mizpeh of Judges xx., 1Samuel vii. 10,\nis probably the same as that of Jeremiah xl. seq., and intended to\nbe, like these, in place of Jerusalem, the only legitimate\nsanctuary, which, however, did not exist at that early time.\nThis is a further proof of the post-Deuteronomic and Jewish origin\nof these narratives, but at the same time an indication that, with\nevery inclination to the views of the Priestly Code, the writer\nyet had not that code before him.  For in that work the projection\nof Jerusalem into the period before Solomon is carried out in\nquite a different way: the tabernacle renders Mizpeh superfluous.\nIt has also to be remarked that the rite of pouring out water\n(1Samuel vii.) is foreign to the Priestly Code.\n\nVII.II.3. The relation of Saul to Samuel is a subject which lends\nitself readily to general views, and the development of the\ntradition is visible in it in other particulars besides those we\nhave mentioned.  Taking the view of 1Samuel vii. viii.  xii. as\nthe lower limit, the narrative nearest in character is the story\nabout Samuel contained in an insertion in chap. xiii.  After Saul\nis made king at Gilgal by the levy with which he relieved Jabesh,\nhe selects from it a body of men who camp with him and Jonathan\nat Gibeah and the neighbouring Michmash: and Jonathan, by killing\nthe officer at Gibeah, gives the signal for battle with the old\nenemy of his race.  The Philistines advance, and take up a position\nto the north of Gibeah, with only a deep valley between them and\nthe Israelites.  But Saul, we hear all at once, xiii. 7 (cf. ver. 4)\nwas yet in Gilgal, and waited seven days for Samuel, according\nto the set time the latter had appointed; but Samuel did not come,\nand the warriors began to scatter.  As he was himself offering the\nsacrifice without which no campaign could be commenced, Samuel\narrived, and at once opened upon him.  Saul defended his act\nwith great force: the people were scattering, and Samuel had not\ncome at the appointed time, and as the Philistines had advanced\nclose up to Gibeah, he had found it impossible to delay longer,\nand had offered the sacrifice in order to advance against them.\nTo all this Samuel's only answer was:\n\n\"Thou hast done foolishly; if thou hadst kept the commandment of\nJehovah, He would have established thy kingdom for ever, but\nnow thy kingdom shall not continue;  Jehovah has sought Him a man\nafter His own heart, and appointed him to be ruler over His people,\nbecause thou hast not kept that which Jehovah commanded thee.\"\n\nSo he said, and walked off; but Saul went with the army from Gilgal\nto Gibeah.  At Gibeah, the following verse (xiii. 16) goes on,\nabode Saul and Jonathan, and their men, when the Philistines\nencamped in Michmash.\n\nThe change of place distinctly shows the whole passage about the\nmeeting of the king with the prophet at Gilgal (xiii. 7-15) to be\nan insertion by a later hand.  At the beginning of the narrative\nSaul is at Gibeah (ver. 2, 3), and the Philistines seek him\nthere, and halt before the place because they meet with\nresistance.  All at once, at ver. 7, it is assumed without being\nstated, that Saul had stayed at Gilgal since he was chosen king\ntill now, and had only now advanced from there against the\nPhilistines who were waiting for him before Gibeah.  Verse 16,\nhowever, gives us the impression that Saul had been posted at\nGibeah with his men for some time, when the Philistines took up\ntheir camp over against them.  Only in this way is justice done\nto the contrasted participle of state (_sedentes_) and inchoative\nperfect (_castrametati sunt_).  And in the sequel the triumphant\ncontinuation of the story, especially in chap. xiv., shows no\nindication that the ominous scene in Gilgal weighed on the mind of\nSaul, or of the people, or of the historian.\n\nAccording to xiii. 7-15, Saul is to wait seven days for Samuel at\nGilgal.  Here there is a reference to x. 8, where the seer says\nto the future king, \"Thou shalt go down before me to Gilgal, and\nI will come after thee there to offer sacrifices;  seven days\nshalt thou tarry till I come and show thee what thou shalt do.\"\nThis verse is condemned by other arguments than its connection\nwith xii. 7-15.  Samuel's object at this point, according to x.\nI-7, is to overcome the reluctance of the Benjamite who had gone\nforth to seek his asses, to undertake the high calling announced\nto him, and to inspire him with faith and confidence,--not to give\nhim unintelligible directions as to what he is to do first when he\nhas actually  become king, and how long he has to wait for the\nseer at Gilgal.  The schoolmaster tone of x. 8 is particularly\nout of place after the preceding words of ver. 7, that, when the\nthree signs have come to pass, Saul is to do what his hand finds,\nbecause God is with him.  This is surely giving him perfect\nfreedom of action, and for the reason that God's Spirit is working\nin him, which \"bloweth where it listeth,\" and suffers no\ninterference from any authority. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. It is also clear that the writer of x. 8, xiii. 7-15 cannot\npossibly have found Samuel in Gilgal in chap. xi. before making\nhim go there in chap. xiii.  We have already seen xi. 12-14 to\nbe a later addition;  the name of Samuel must be interpolated\nin xi.7, too.  In fact in xi. 15 the people, i.e., the army,\nacts quite of itself even in our present text. Hence it follows\nalso, that x. 8, xiii. 7-15 are older than vii. viii. x.  17 seq.\nxii.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThis insertion is based on an older account of the breach between\nSamuel and Saul in 1Samuel xv.  Here also the matter of dispute is\na sacrifice, and Gilgal is the scene; and this alone serves to\nexplain how Gilgal is adhered to in xiii. 7-15 in spite of all\nimpossibility, as being the right and necessary place for the\noccurrence.  Jehovah, by the mouth of Samuel, commands the king\nto devote the Amalekites to destruction because of an act of\ntreachery they had committed against Israel in ancient times,\nand to spare no living thing.  Saul accordingly  makes war on the\nAmalekites and defeats them; but he does not carry out the\nproscription entirely, as he spares the best of their cattle and\ntheir king Agag, whom he takes prisoner.  At Gilgal, where the\nvictory is celebrated before Jehovah, he is called to account for\nthis by Samuel, and states that he intended the booty for a\nsacrifice to Jehovah.  His statement, however, makes no\nimpression.  \"Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to\nhearken than the fat of rams: behold, rebellion is as the sin\nof witchcraft, and stubbornness is as idolatry and teraphim.\nBecause thou hast rejected the word of Jehovah, He also hath\nrejected thee.\"\n\nThe king acknowledges his guilt, and tries to pacify  Samuel;\nbut the latter turns from him in anger, and when Saul lays\nhold of him, his mantle tears.\n\n\"Jehovah hath torn the kingdom of Israel from thee this day,\nand given it to one better than thee; and the Truthful One of\nIsrael will not lie nor repent; for He is not a man, that He\nshould repent.\"\n\nYet at Saul's entreaty  that he would at least not refuse\nto honour him before the people, Samuel takes part in the\nsacrifice, and even begins it by hewing Agag in pieces before\nJehovah.  Then they part, never to see each other again; but\nSamuel mourns for Saul, that Jehovah had repented of having made\nhim king over Israel.  There is another narrative intimately\nconnected with this one in subject and treatment, thought and\nexpression, namely, that of the witch of Endor.  When Saul, shortly\nbefore the battle in which he fell, surveyed the hostile army, he\nwas seized with anxiety and terror.  He inquired of Jehovah, but\nreceived no answer, neither by  dreams, nor by the ephod, nor by\nprophets.  In his extremity he was driven into the arms of a\nblack art which he had formerly persecuted and sought to\nextirpate.  By night and in disguise, with two companions, he\nsought out a woman at Endor who practiced the raising of the dead,\nand after reassuring her with regard to the mortal danger\nconnected with the practice of her art, he bade her call up\nSamuel.  She, on seeing the spirit ascending, at once perceives\nthat the man he had come up to converse with is the king himself;\nshe cries out loud, but allows herself to be reassured, and\ndescribes the appearance of the dead person.  Saul does not see\nhim, only hears him speak.\n\n\"Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up?  Jehovah doeth to\nthee as He spake by me: He rends the kingdom out of thy hand,\nand gives it to another, because thou obeyedst not the voice of\nJehovah, nor executedst His fierce wrath upon Amalek; to-morrow\nshalt thou and thy sons be with me, and Jehovah also shall deliver\nthe host of Israel into the hands of the Philistines.\"\n\nAt these words Saul falls all his length on the ground.  He had\neaten nothing all the day before and all night; he is with\ndifficulty induced to take some food: then he rises up with his\nmen to go and meet his fate (1 Samuel xxviii. 3-25).\n\nComparing with this original the copy in xiii. 7-15, we are\nstruck, in the first place, with the placing of the rupture so\nmuch earlier.  Scarcely is Saul made king when he is deposed, on\nthe spot, at Gilgal.  And for what reason?  Samuel has fixed, in\na purely arbitrary fashion, the time he is to wait, and Saul waits,\nand makes arrangements for departure only when the time has run out,\nalthough the need is pressing; and for this he is rejected!  It is\nclear that Samuel has from the first felt towards him as a\nlegitimate prince feels to a usurper; he has arranged so as to\nfind an occasion to show unmistakably where they both stand.\nStrictly speaking he did not find the occasion, Saul having\nobserved the appointed time; but the opinion is present, though\nunexpressed, that the king was not entitled to sacrifice, either\nbefore the expiry of the seven days or at any time: his sacrificing\nis regarded as sacrilege.  And thus the autonomous theocracy stands\nall at once before our eyes, which no one thought of before Ezekiel.\nWe are reminded of the stories of Joash and Uzziah in the Chronicles.\nThe incidents in 1Samuel xv. xxviii. are similar, but the spirit\nof the narrative is different and more antique.  The rejection does\nnot come here with such mad haste, and we do not get the impression\nthat Samuel is glad of the opportunity to wash his hands of the\nking.  On the contrary, he honours him before the people, he\nmourns that Jehovah has rejected him; and Saul, who never again\nsees him alive, turns to him dead in the hour of his extremity,\nand does not regard him as his implacable enemy.  Again, in the\nformer case the king's offence is that he has too low an estimate\nof the sacredness of sacrifice, and fails to regard the altar as\nunapproachable to the laity: while in the latter case he is\nreproached with attaching. to sacrifice far too high a value.  In\nthe former case, in fine, the Deity and the representative of the\nDeity act with absolute caprice, confront men stiffly with\ncommands of incredible smallness, and challenge them to opposition;\nin the latter, the conduct of Samuel is not (supposing it to have\nbeen the custom to devote enemies to destruction) unintelligible,\nnor his demeanour devoid of natural spirit; he appeals not to an\nirresponsible position, but to the manifest truth that obedience\nis better than the fat of rams.\n\nNot that chapters xv. and xxviii. belong to the original growth of\nthe tradition.  In the case of xxviii. 3-25 it is easy to show\nthe insertion: the thread of xxviii. 1, 2, coming from chapter\nxxvii. is continued at xxix. 1.  According to xxviii. 4 the\nPhilistines have advanced as far as Shunem in Jezreel; in xxix. 1\nthey are only at Aphek in Sharon, and they do not go on to\nJezreel till xxix. 11.  To prove an insertion in the case of\nchap. xv. we might point to the fact that there is a direct\nconnection between xiv. 52 and xvi. 14; but this must be proved\nsomewhat circumstantially.  Let it suffice, then, to say that in\nthe preceding narrative of Saul's history, the war with the\nAmalekites appears in quite a different light (ix. 1-X. 16, xi. xiii.\nxiv.; cf. also Numbers xxiv. 7).  The occasion of it, according to\nxiv. 48, lay in the needs of the time, and the object was the\nvery practical one of \"saving Israel out of the hands of them\nthat spoiled them.\"  There is nothing here to suggest that the\ncampaign was undertaken in consequence of a religious command,\nto punish the Amalekites for an offence over which long ages had\npassed, and information about which could only be gathered from\nhistorical books dealing with the age of Moses.  Both the\nnarratives, chap. xv. as well as chap. xxviii, are preludes of\nevents afterwards to happen.  At chap. xvi. David appears upon\nthe scene; he is thenceforth the principal person of the story,\nand thrusts Saul on one side.  Chapter xv. is the prophetic\nintroduction to this change.  The fact had been handed down that\nSaul was chosen by Jehovah to be king.  How was it possible that in\nspite of this his rule had no continuance?  Jehovah, who as a rule\ndoes not change His mind, was mistaken in him; and Samuel, who\ncalled the king, had now to his great sorrow to pronounce the\nsentence of rejection against him.  The occasion on which he does\nthis is evidently historical, namely, the festival of victory\nat Gilgal, at which the captured leader of the Amalekites was\noffered up as the principal victim.  The sacrifice of Agag being\nquite repugnant to later custom, it was sought to account for it\nby saying that Saul spared the king, but Jehovah required his\ndeath, and caused him to be hewn in pieces at the altar by\nSamuel.  The rest could easily be spun out of this; it is\nsuperfluous to discuss how.  Chapter xxviii., again, is related to\nchap. xv. as the second step to the first.  No proof is wanted to\nshow that this is the prophetic shadow cast before the fall of\nSaul in his last fight with the Philistines.  His turning to the\nwitch to call up to him the departed Samuel suggests in the most\npowerful way his condition of God-forsakenness since Samuel\nturned away from him.  And, to conclude-the general colouring of\nthe hostile relation between Saul and Samuel is borrowed from the\nactual relations which must have come to subsist between the\nprophets and the kings, particularly in the kingdom of Samaria (I\nKings xiv. 7).  In their treatment of this relation our\nnarratives manifestly take up the prophetic position; and the\ndoctrinal ideas of which they are made the vehicles clearly\nshow them to be prophetic conceptions.\n\nVII.II.4. David is the first hero of Judah whom we meet with;\nand he at once throws all others into the shade.  His acts are\nnarrated to us in two detailed and connected works which are\nmutually complementary.  The first of these is contained in 1Samuel\nxiv. 52-2 Sam viii 18, and in it we are circumstantially informed\nhow David rose to the throne.  There follows his principal achievement\nas king, the humiliation of the Philistines and the foundation of\nJerusalem, the work concluding with a short notice of other\nremarkable circumstances.  This narrative is preserved to us\ncomplete, only not in the earliest form, but with many\ninterruptions and alterations.  The second work, 2Samuel ix.-2Kings\nii. is mutilated at its commencement, but otherwise almost\ncompletely intact, if 2Samuel xxi.-xxiv. be removed.  It tells\nchiefly of the occurrences at the court of Jerusalem in the later\nyears of the king, and carefully traces the steps by which\nSolomon, whose birth, with its attendant circumstances, is\nnarrated at the outset, reached the throne over the heads of his\nbrothers Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah, who stood before him. Both\nworks are marked by an essentially historical character.  The\ntreatment is much more detailed, while not nearly so poetical as\nin the history of Saul (1Samuel ix. seq.).  There are no\nexaggerations, such as xiv. 46 seq.  The second is the better\nwork of the two, and frequently affords us a glance into the very\nheart of events, showing us the natural occasions and human motives\nwhich gave rise to the different actions.  The point of view is,\nhowever, the narrow one of Jerusalem; for example, the real\nreasons of the revolt of the men of Judah under Absalom are\nscarcely even hinted at.  The leading sentiment of the writer,\nthere can be no doubt, is enthusiasm for David, but his weaknesses\nare not concealed; the relations prevailing at his court, far from\nedifying as they are, are faithfully reported, and the palace\nintrigue which placed Solomon upon the throne is narrated with a\nnaivete which is almost malicious.  The first work (1Samuel xvi.-\n2Samuel viii.) gives a less circumstantial narrative, but follows\nthe thread of events not less conscientiously, and is based on\ninformation little inferior to that of the second.  The author's\npartisanship is more noticeable, as he follows the style of a\nbiographer, and makes David the hero of the history from his very\nfirst appearance, although king Saul is the ruling and motive power\nin it.  But Judaistic leanings were unavoidable, and they have\nnot gone so far as to transform the facts, nor indeed operated\nin a different way or to a greater degree here than local\ninterest in the tribal hero, which is always the earliest motive\nfor narration, has done in other cases. This praise applies to\n1Samuel xvi. seq., however, only so far as its original form goes.\nIt is different with the insertions, here very numerous, which\nhave crept into the older connection, or replaced a genuine piece\nof the old story with a newer edition of it.  In these the\ntendency to idealise the founder of the dynasty of Judah has\nworked creatively, and here we find rich materials for the history\nof the tradition, in the rude style in which alone it is possible\nas yet to construct that history.  The beginning of the first work\nespecially is overgrown with later legendary formations.\n\nDavid, known as a man of courage and prudence, and of a skilful\ntongue, and recommended, moreover, by his skill on the harp, came\nto the king's court and became his armour-bearer (xvi. 14-23).\nHe so approved himself in the war with the Philistines that Saul\nadvanced him step after step, and gave him his daughter in\nmarriage (xviii. 6 seq.).  But the success and fame of the man of\nJudah filled Saul with jealousy, and in one of his fits of frenzy\n(to which x. 10 also shows him to have been subject) he threw his\njavelin at David, who was seeking to drive away the evil spirit\nby his playing (xix. 8-10).  David agreed with Jonathan that it\nwas advisable for him to absent himself, but this only  confirmed\nthe king's suspicions, which prompted him to destroy the priests\nof Nob, because their head had provided David with food and\nconsulted the oracle for him (xxi 2-7, xxii. 6-23).  The fugitive\nhimself Saul failed to lay hands on; he gathered round him his\nown family and other desperate men, and became their leader in\nthe wilderness of Judah (xxii. 1-5, xxiii. 1-13, xxv. 2 seq.).\nTo escape the repeated persecutions of Saul, he at length passed\nover to the country of the Philistines, and received the town of\nZiklag in Judah as a fief from the hands of the prince Achish\n(xxvii. 1 seq.).\n\nSuch is the beginning of the history of David according to the\nsimple thread of the old narrative.  The first accretion we\nnotice is the legend of the encounter of the shepherd boy with\nGoliath (xvii. 1-xviii. 5), which is involved in contradiction\nboth with what goes before and with what follows it.  According to\nxvi. 14-23, David, when he first came in contact with Saul, was no\nraw lad, ignorant of the arts of war, but \"a mighty valiant man,\nskilful in speech, and of a goodly presence;\" and according to\nxviii. 6 the women sang at the victorious return of the army,\n\"Saul has slain his thousands of the Philistines, and David his\ntens of thousands,\" so that the latter was the leader of Israel\nbeside the king, and a proved and well-known man.  Evidently\nsomething of a different nature must originally have stood\nbetween xvi. 23 and xviii. 6.  Now the fate of the story of\nGoliath (xvii. 1-xviii. 5) involves that of the story of the\nanointing of David (xvi. 1-13), which is dependent on it\n(xvi. 12, xvii. 42); and, as we have already decided that chapter\nxv. is a secondary production, xiv. 52 joins on at once to xvi. 14.\nIn xviii. 6 seq., where we are told of the origin of Saul's\njealousy, several of the worst additions and interruptions are\nwanting in the LXX, especially the first throwing of the javelin\n(xviii. 9-11) and the betrothal to Merab (xviii. 17-19).\nThe insertions are most varied and confusing in the account of\nthe outbreak of the hostility of Saul and of David's flight\n(chapters xix.  xx).  Chapter xix. 1-7, a pointless and artificial\npassage, betrays its later origin by its acquaintance with chapter\nxvii.; xviii. 29a (LXX) is continued at xix. 8.  After Saul's\nspear-cast David takes flight for the first time, but at verse 11\nhe is still at home, and makes his escape the second time with the\naid of feminine artifice, going to Samuel at Ramah, but to appear\nin chap. xx. at Gibeah as before.  The king remarks his absence\nfrom table; Jonathan assures him of his father's favour, which,\nhowever, David doubts, though he has no distinct evidence to the\ncontrary.  When quite certain of the deadly hatred of the king,\nDavid takes flight in earnest; in chapter xxi. seq. we find him\nat Nob on his way to Judah, but at xxi. 10 he goes away afresh\nfrom the face of Saul.  It is evident that in reality and in the\noriginal narrative the flight took place only once, and that it\nmust from the first have been directed to the place of refuge,\ni.e., to Judah.  This is enough to dispose of xix. 11-24: the\ntwentieth chapter is impossible in the connection, at least in\nits present form, and in chapter xxi. verses 8-10 and 11-16 must\nbe left out.  In the section which deals with the freebooter life\nof David, chaps. xxiii-xxvii., considerable pieces have been added;\nxxvii. 7-12 of course is one; but also the encounters of David with\nhis pursuers.  There are two versions: the one, xxvi. 1-25, is\nplaced before chapter xxvii. on account of verse  19; the other,\nxxiii. 14-xxiv. 22, is placed before chapter xxv. to avoid too near\na contact.  There is a good deal of verbal coincidence between the\ntwo, and we are entitled to regard the shorter and more pointed\nversion (chapter xxvi.) as the basis.  But the sequence (xxvi. 25,\nxxvii. 1) shows beyond a doubt that chapter xxvi. does not belong\nto the original tradition.  The process of inserting the additions\nnaturally was not completed without all sorts of editorial changes\nin the older materials, e.g., xvi. 14.\n\nThough proceeding from the same root, these offshoots are by no\nmeans of the same nature, nor do they all belong to the same\nstage of the process.  Some of them are popular legends and\nunconscious fictions.  Of this nature is the story of Michal, who\ntakes the part of her husband against her father, lets him down in\nthe evening with a rope through the window, detains the spies for a\ntime by saying that David is sick, and then shows them the\nhousehold god which she has arranged on the bed and covered with\nthe counterpane (xix. 11-17).  The scenes in which Saul and David\nmeet are of a somewhat different colour, yet we notice that the\nconviction that the latter is the king of the future does not\ninterfere with the recognition of the former as the king _de facto_\nand the anointed of Jehovah; Saul too appears not wicked, but\nblinded.  The secondary version (xxiii. 14 seq.) contains (not\nto speak of the distinctly later insertion between verse 15 and\n19), in addition to the touching features of the story, a\ngood-natured jest, telling how the two played hide-and-seek round a\nhill, which took its name from the circumstance.  These stories\npresent certain marks which serve to fix their date in the history\nof the religion: one is, that the image in David's house is\nspoken of quite simply; another, the expression in xxvi. 19,\n\n\"If Jehovah have stirred thee up against me, let Him accept an\noffering, but if it be men, cursed be they before Jehovah,\nbecause they have driven me out this day from the fellowship in\nthe land of Jehovah, and obliged me to serve other gods.\"\n\nIt is perhaps not by mere chance that this speech is wanting in\nthe parallel version, and that there is added in place of it a\nformal act of recognition which Saul pays at the end to his\ndestined successor.  As for the story of Goliath, it is also quite\nartless, but its religious colouring is much more marked.  The\nspeech with which David goes to meet the giant is characteristic on\nthis side (xvii. 4 seq.):\n\n\"Thou comest to me with a sword and with a spear, but I come unto thee\nin the name of Jehovah of hosts, whom thou hast defied.  This day will\nHe deliver thee into mine hand, that all the earth may know that there\nis a God in Israel, and that this assembly (hqhl = Israel) may know that\nJehovah saveth not with sword and spear, for the battle is His.\"\nThis approaches to the religious language of the post-Deuteronomic\ntime.  According to 2Samuel xxi. 19, Goliath of Gath, whose\nspear-shaft was as thick as a weaver's beam, /1/ fought in the\n\n-- Footnote\n1. This expression occurs in I Samuel xvii., and shows this legend\nto be dependent on 2Samuel xxi.  xxiii., a collection of anecdotes\nabout heroes from the Philistine wars of David in the genuine short\npopular style. Cf., on 1Chronicles xii., supra, p. 173.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nwars, not in Saul's time, but in that of his successor, and was\nkilled, not by a shepherd boy but by a warrior of Bethlehem\nnamed Elhanan.\n\nThe theme of David and Jonathan has no doubt a historical basis,\nbut for us it is found only in second-hand versions.  The story\nof the farewell (chapter xx.) must be placed in this category.\nYet it appears to point back to an earlier basis, and the earlier\nstory may very possibly have belonged to the connection of the\noriginal work.  For the shooting of the arrow could only have a\nmeaning if it was impossible for the two friends to have an\ninterview.  But as the story goes, they come together and speak\nout freely what they have in their hearts, and so the dumb\nsignal is not only superfluous, but unintelligible and\nmeaningless.  But if the most characteristic trait of the whole\nstory does not fit into it as it now stands, that is just saying\nthat the story has not come down to us in its true form.\nOriginally Jonathan only discharged the arrow, and called to his\nboy where it lay; and David, hid in the neighbourhood of the\nshooting range, heard in the call to the boy the preconcerted\nsignal.  In calling that the arrow was nearer him or beyond him,\nJonathan was apparently telling the boy, but in reality telling\nhis friend, to come towards him or go farther away from him.  The\nlatter was the case, and if so, the friends could not enter into\nconversation; the tearful farewell then disappears, and the\nsentimental speeches spoken before it in the same style, in which\nJonathan virtually admits that his father is right, and yet\ndecidedly espouses David's cause, disregarding the fact that David\nwill deprive him of his inheritance. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. Only in one direction does he set limits to his self-denial:\nhe makes the future king solemnly  promise to spare his family.\nHere manifests itself an interest belonging to the time of the\nnarrator.  The oriental custom according to which the new ruler\nextirpates the preceding dynasty, was not systematically carried\nout by David, and a special exception was made in favour of a son\nleft by Jonathan.  \"All my father's house,\" says Meribaal (2Samuel\nxix. 28), \"were dead men before my lord the king yet thou didst set\nme at thy table: what right have I therefore yet to complain unto\nthe king (even about injustice)?\"  Now this son of Jonathan was the\nancestor of a Jerusalem family which flourished till after the exile.\nOlder traits in 1Samuel xx. are the importance attached to the new\nmoon, the family sacrifice at Bethlehem, perhaps the stone )BN )CL\nwhich appears to have implied something inconsistent with later\northodoxy, the name being in two passages so singularly corrupted.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nChapter xviii. 6 seq. manifests tendency in a bad sense, even\napart from the additions of the Masoretic text.  Here Saul's\nenmity against David is carried back to the very beginning of\ntheir relations together, and even his friendship is represented\nas dissembled hatred.  All the honours with which the king covers\nhis armour-bearer are interpreted as practices to get rid of him.\nHe makes him his son-in-law in order to expose him to deadly\ndanger in his efforts to procure the hundred foreskins of the\nPhilistines which were the price of the daughter.  The connection\ncannot dispense with xviii. 6 seq, but at the same time it is\nbeyond doubt that the venomous way of interpreting the facts is a\nmark of later revision.  For Saul here practices his perfidies\nwith the cognisance of his servants, who must therefore have been\nwell aware of his disposition towards David; but the old narrator\nproceeds on the opposite assumption, that his hatred appeared all\nat once, and that David had been held by all up to that time to\nbe one of the king's favourite servants: cf. xxi. 2-xxii. 14\nseq., not to speak of chapter xx.  And this alone agrees with the\nnature of Saul as it is everywhere described to us.\n\nIt is a characteristic circumstance that the corruption of the\ntradition is greatest in those narratives in which Samuel enters\ninto the history of David.  There are two insertions of this\nkind.  According to xix. 18-24 David flees to the old man at\nRamah, where the school of the prophets is; Saul sends messengers\nto take him, but these, when they come near Samuel and see him in\ncommand of a troop of ecstatic enthusiasts, are seized by the\nfrenzy like the rest. The second set of messengers whom Saul\nsends, and the third, fare no better; and Saul has at last to\ncome himself.  But he also is drawn into the vortex, tears off his\nclothes and dances before Samuel and David, the only\nself-possessed spectators of the bacchantic company, till he falls\ndown; and he lies naked as he is a whole day and a whole night\nupon the ground--whence the proverb, \"Is Saul also among the\nprophets?\"  But that David when he fled, fled in earnest and went\nin the direction of Judah, instead of amusing himself by going\nfirst towards the north, is perfectly evident, as much so as that\nit is a serious abuse of the spirit of prophecy to make it serve\nends which are foreign to its nature, and turn it into a mere\ninstrument for the personal safety of David, who had no need\nwhatever to wait for Saul at Ramah to play him a trick\nthere.  The narrative, which is unknown to the author of xv. 35,\narose out of the proverb which is quoted in it, but this receives\nelsewhere (x. 12) a much more worthy interpretation.  We can\nscarcely avoid the suspicion that what we have before us here is\na pious caricature; the point can be nothing but Samuel's and\nDavid's enjoyment of the disgrace of the naked king.  For the\ngeneral history of the tradition the most interesting\ncircumstance is that Samuel has here become the head of a school\nof prophets and the leader of their exercises.  In the original\nview of the matter (chaps. ix. x.) he appears alone and\nindependent, and has nothing to do with the companies of the\necstatics, the Nebiim.  He is a _Roeh_ or seer, not a _Nabi_ or\nprophet.  True, it is asserted in the gloss, ix. 9, that the two\nwords mean the same thing, that what is now called _Nabi_ was\nformerly called _Roeh_.  But that is scarcely quite correct.  The\nauthor of ix. x. knows the name _Nabi_ very well too, but he\nnever applies it to Samuel; he only uses it, in the plural, of\nthe troops of Jehovah--intoxicated dervishes. He gives  it quite\na different meaning from _Roeh_, and also quite a different meaning\nfrom that in which Isaiah and Jeremiah use the word _Nabi_. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1 As the words are used in 1Samuel i.Y., Isaiah and Jeremiah would\nrather be called Roeh; and this is the justification of the\ngloss, ix. 9.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nWe cannot doubt that these distinctions rest on a historical basis,\nand only gradually melted away in later times: so that Samuel\nthe seer need not be degraded into one of the flagellants.\n\nDavid's flight to Samuel presupposes some previous relation to\nhim, and xix. 18 seq. seems to point back to xvi. 1-13.  In\nthis piece David's career begins with his being anointed king in\nSaul's place at Jehovah's command, when a mere shepherd boy, who\nwas not even counted in the family he belonged to.  But in the\nsequel no one knows anything about this.  Even in the story of\nGoliath (which in other respects harmonizes better with xvi. 1-13\nthan any other piece) the older brothers, here three, not seven,\nknow nothing of the anointing of the youngest, although they were\npresent and heard their own claims discussed (xvii. 28).  In the\nstories of David's persecution also, chapter xxiv. xxvi., Saul\nalone is the sacred person, the anointed of Jehovah, not David.\nA belief that David is chosen for high things by God is quite a\ndifferent matter from an anointing which has already taken place\nin fact.  And if consequent and antecedent be inseparable,\nwe must remember how, according to xv. 35, Samuel not only\nwithdraws himself from Saul till his death, but also feels grieved\nfor him till his death.  It is a harsh transition from xv. 35:\n\n\"Samuel came no more to see Saul till the day of his death,\nbecause he mourned over him,\" to xvi. 1:\n\n\"and Jehovah spake to him, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul,\nseeing I have rejected him?\"\n\nBut it appears clearly that the appointment of the successor\nwas connected with, and a consequence of, the deposition of the\npredecessor.\n\nThe anointing of David by Samuel is at the same time the set-off\nto the anointing of Saul by Samuel.  This is clearly seen on\ncomparing x. 6, xi. 6, \"and the Spirit of God leapt upon Saul,\"\nwith xvi. 13, 14, \"and the Spirit of Jehovah leapt upon David,\nand it departed from Saul.\"  In the former case the inspiration is\na momentary foaming over, in the latter (the leaping\nnotwithstanding) it is a permanent property; and this difference\nalone leaves no doubt as to where the original is to be looked\nfor, and where the imitation.  Saul alone, according to the old\ntradition, was made king in a divine, i.e. an overpowering and\nideal manner: David was made king in a tedious human way, and\nafter many intermediate stages.  Of Saul alone was it originally\ntold that the sudden outbreak of the spirit with which he,\nunelected as he was, summoned the levy of Israel, placed himself\nat its head, defeated the Ammonites, and became king, was quietly\nprepared by an old seer, who pointed out to him his great\ncalling, and filled him with confidence in himself by secretly\nanointing him in the name of Jehovah.  All that was known of David\nwas how by his own energy he raised himself from a soldier to be\nthe leader of a band, from that to be the vassal prince, under the\nPhilistines, of Ziklag and Judah, and from a vassal prince to be\nthe independent and powerful king of Israel.  He also was anointed,\nnot, however, beforehand by God, but after his elevation, by the\nelders of Judah and Israel.  But this human origin and this\ninferiority in point of divine consecration to a predecessor\nwhose kingdom, as it turned out, Jehovah had not made to stand,\nwas found by a later age to be unworthy of him: he must at least\nhave received his anointing from Samuel as well as Saul.  And this\nwas accordingly  made good by the legend (xvi. 1-13). It is a\nstep further on this downward path that in the Judaistic version\n(x. 17 seq.) all mention is omitted of the anointing of Saul.\n\nWe return to Samuel.  The Books of Samuel take their name from\nhim, and he is a figure of great importance, if not for the history\nitself, yet for the history of the tradition, the progress of\nwhich may be measured by the change of view about his person.\nIn the views taken about him we may distinguish four stages.\nOriginally (ix. 1-x. 16) he is simply a seer, but at the same\ntime a patriotic Israelite, who feels deeply the need of his\ncountry, and uses his authority as seer to suggest to the ear and\nto the mind of one whom he recognises as fit for the purpose, his\ndestination to be Israel's deliverer and leader.  This relation\nbetween seer and warrior must be held fast and regarded as\nhistorical if Samuel is to mean anything at all.  Similar instances\nare those of Deborah and Barak in earlier times, and later, that\nof Elisha and Hazael, and still more, that of Elisha and Jehu.\nSamuel's greatness consists in this, that he rouses to activity\nthe man who comes after him, and is greater than he: after\nkindling the light which now burns in its full brightness, he\nhimself disappears.  But his meteoric appearance and disappearance\nexcited wonder, and this in early times produced a story of his\nyouth, in which, while still a boy, he predicts the ruin of\npre-monarchical Israel (1Samuel i.-iii.).  After he has done this,\ndarkness closes completely around him.  Even in chapter iv. he\nhas completely disappeared, and when we meet him again he is an\nold man. On the other side the circumstance that we hear nothing\nmore of the seer after his meeting with Saul, caused it to be\nbelieved that a rupture very soon took place between the two.\n\nThis belief we meet with at the second stage of the tradition which\nis represented by the prophetical narratives recorded in chaps.\nxvi. and xxviii.  It arose out of the inconsistency involved in\nthe fact that Jehovah did not afterwards confirm in his reign the\nman whom He had chosen to be king, but overthrew his dynasty.\nThus it becomes necessary that Samuel, who anointed Saul, should\nafterwards sorrowfully reject him.  Even here he appears no longer\nas the simple seer, but as a prophet in the style of Elijah and\nElisha who regards the Lord's anointed as his own handiwork, and\nlays on him despotic commands (xv. 1), though according to x. 7\nhe had expressly left him to be guided by his own inspiration.\n\nThe transition from the second to the third stage is easy.  Here\nSamuel, after withdrawing the unction from Saul, at once transfers\nit to David, and sets him up against his rejected predecessor as\nbeing now de jure king by the grace of God.  The respect with\nv.hich he is regarded has meanwhile increased still further;\nwhen he comes to Bethlehem the elders tremble at his approach\n(xvi. 4 seq.); and in xix. 18 seq. he has a magical power over men.\nUp to this stage, however, he has always been regarded as\nintellectually the author of the monarchy.  It is reserved for the\nlast (exilian or post-exilian) stage of the development of the\ntradition to place him in the opposite position of one who resists\nto the uttermost the desire of the people to have a king.  Here\npre-monarchical Israel is advanced to a theocracy, and Samuel is\nthe head of the theocracy, which accounts for the feelings aroused\nin him by their demand.\n\nThe modern judgment has been prejudiced in Saul's favour by\nSamuel's curse, and to David's disadvantage by Samuel's blessing;\nthe picture of the one has not suffered from the blackening so\nmuch as that of the other from the glorification. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The efforts of later writers to glorify David are at their worst\nin their account of his last testament (1Kings ii. 1-12).  Even\nthe language betrays this piece as a post-Deuteronomic insertion\n(v. 2-4); the contents are borrowed from the succeeding narrative.\nBut in the narrative Solomon's conduct towards Adonijah, Abiathar,\nJoab, and Shimei is not dictated by any means by the testament,\nbut by other considerations; and it is the declared object of the\nnarrator to show how Solomon's throne was established by the\nremoval of the elements of danger.  Nor do the acute calculations\nof the weak old king agree very well with the general impression\ngiven of him at this time by 1Kings i. ii.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nSome critics, who are unencumbered either by prejudice or by\nknowledge of the subject, regard Saul as the antagonist and David\nas the creature of the clerical lust of rule, of which they see\nthe embodiment in Samuel.  But this view gives Samuel a powerful\nposition over against the king such as he cannot have possessed\nunless he had broad ground under his feet and an influence well and\nextensively organised.  Did he find support in the Nebiim?  These\nwere only then rising into view out of an irregular enthusiasm\nwhich was not yet confined to any definite circle or school; and\nbesides, the old tradition speaks of a close connection between\nthem and the king, but not between them and the seer.  The belief\nthat the latter was the founder and president of their guild is\nbased on the worthless anachronistic anecdote, 1Samuel xix. 18\nseq.  Or was Samuel in conspiracy with the priests against Saul?\nThis is inferred from 1Samuel xxi.-xxii. where Abimelech of Nob\nprovides David with bread on his wanderings, and expiates this\noffence with his own death and that of the whole race of Eli.  But\nin the first place these priests have no connection with Samuel.\nIn the second place there is nothing to make it probable that they\nhad an understanding with David, or were acquainted with his\nambitious plans if he had then begun to cherish them.  In the third\nplace, it is positively certain that they represented no distinct\npower in the state as against the king, but on the contrary were\nentirely the creatures of his smile or frown; on the occurrence\nof a faint suspicion they were put to death to a man without a dog\nbarking to remonstrate.  The liberal view we are discussing of\nSamuel's  relation to Saul and David is based on the erroneous\nassumption that Samuel had the hierocracy to rest on in his acts\nof opposition to the monarchy.  But the student who carries back the\nhierocracy to these early times has still to learn the very\nelements of what is necessary to a true historical appreciation of\nHebrew antiquity.\n\n\nVI.III.\n\nIt is in the Book of Kings that the last revision works most\nunrestrictedly.  Here also chronological and religious elements\ncombine to the building up of the framework, and we begin with\nexamining the chronological system.\n\nFrom the exodus from Egypt to the beginning of the building of\nthe temple was a period of 430 years; and from the latter to the\ndestruction of Jerusalem, a period, according to the numbers of\nthe kings of Judah, of 430 years, or reckoning the exile, of 480\nyears, as before.  In Chronicles, the succession from Azariah ben\nAhimaaz, who was, according to the correct reading, the first to\nofficiate in the temple of Solomon, to Jozadak, who was carried\naway in the captivity, consists of eleven high priests; thus,\nreckoning the exile, we have again twelve generations of 40 years\neach.  The detailed figures which compose the total are here more\ncomplicated, which is no doubt partly due to the fact that some\nof them are dates which the reviser found given.  Yet in this\ninstance also the number 40 is the basis of calculation, as we see\nin the reigns of the kings of Judah.  From the division of the\nkingdom to the destruction of Samaria in the 6th year of Hezekiah,\nthe numbers are as follows: Rehoboam and Abijam, 20;  Asa, 41;\nJehoshaphat, Joram, Ahaziah, Athaliah, 40; Joash, 40; Amaziah and\nUzziah, 81; Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, 38.  From the destruction of\nSamaria to the last date in Kings (2Kings xxv. 27), Hezekiah,\nManasseh, Amon, have 80;  Josiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin,\n79 1/4.  Let him believe who can that it is a mere chance that the\nfigures 41 + 81 + 38 make up exactly 40 + 80 + 40.\n\nThe series of the kings of Israel is in point of chronology\ndependent on the series of Judah.  According to the numbers of the\nlatter, 393 years elapsed from the division of the kingdom to the\nBabylonian captivity; and if we assume with Ezekiel (iv. 4) that\nSamaria fell 150 years earlier than Judah, 243 years remain for\nthe duration of the northern kingdom.  The figures given amount in\nfact to 242 years.  These 150 Israelite years, from the\ndestruction of Samaria to the destruction of Jerusalem, exceed, it\nis true, by 17 the sum of the parallel years of Judah; and the\nIsraelite years from 1 Jeroboam to 9 Hosea fall short of the years\nin Judah from 1 Rehoboam to 6 Hezekiah by about the same number.\nThis shows that no effort was made at first to synchronise the\nindividual reigns in the two series.  The 242 years of the\nnorthern kingdom are divided, by the epoch of 1 Jehu, into 98 and\n144.  If we take them at 240, the half of 480, the 98 must be\nchanged into 96, which then agree with the contemporary 96 Jewish\nyears.  The deduction must be made at the reign of Baasha.  Then\nwe get the following play of figures: Jeroboam 22, Nadab 2,\nBaasha 22, Elah 2, Omri 12, Ahab 22, Ahaziah 2, Joram 12.  That is\nto say, the eight kings have together 96 years, the first four and\nthe last four 48 each.  Two have the average number 12; the other\n6 consists of three pairs of father and son; and the twice 12\nyears belonging to each pair are divided so that the father gets\n12 + 10, and the son 12 - 10, obviously because the father was\nconsidered much more important than the son. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Numbers of the kings of Judah from Solomon : 37+ 17+ 3 + 41 + 25\n+ 8 + 1 + 6 + 40 + 29 + 52 + 16 + 29 + 55 + 2 + 31 + 11 + 11=430 years.\nJehoahaz and Jechoiachin are not counted; if they are included and a\nyear allowed for them, we must say 36 for Solomon.  Numbers of the\nkings of Israel from 1 Jeroboam: 22 + 2 + 24 +2+ 12 + 22 + 2+ 12 + 28 +\n17 + 16 + 41 + 1 + 10 + 2 + 20 + 9.  The artificial relations of the\nnumbers, as explained above, were communicated to me by Ernst Krey.\nOn the point that the synchronisms do not belong to the original\narrangement, see Jahrb. fur Deutsche Theol., 1875, p. 607 seq.\nThe correct view of Ezekiel iv. was first published by Bernhard Duhm\n(Theol. dir Proph., p. 253).  The number 390, given in the Massoretic\ntext in verse 5 for the duration of the captivity of the northern\nIsraelites, is impossible.  For Ezekiel cannot mean that they have\nbeen 350 years in exile already, and on the other hand he cannot\nreckon the remaining period of their punishment at more than 40 years,\nbecause 40 years is his calculation of the period of exile of\nJudah, and the restitution of Israel and that of Judah are in his\nview to take place at the same time; and indeed that of Egypt as well,\nobviously because brought about by the same cause (xxix. 1 1-16),\nthe fall of the Chaldeans, which may be expected to take place in\n40 years.  The number 390 has got into verse 5 by mistake from verse 9,\nwhere it is used of a quite different subject, not the years of the\nexile, but the days of the last siege of Jerusalem.  The gloss verse\n13 rests on a similar confusion.  The Septuagint correctly gives\nfor the Israelite exile the number of 150 years, or 190, according\nas the last 40 years in which their punishment continued, along\nwith that of Judah, were included or omitted.  It may be remarked\nthat 390 = 240 + 150.  Compare further Robertson Smith, in the\nJournal of Philologie, vol x., p. 209-213.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe great period thus marked off and artificially divided into\nsubperiods, is surveyed and appraised at every important epoch in\nsermon-like discourses.  These are much more frequent in Kings\nthan in Judges and Samuel.  It makes no difference whether the\nwriter speaks in his own person, or by the mouth of another; in\nreviews of the past he speaks himself, 2Kings xvii.; in\nanticipations of the future he makes another speak (1Kings viii.\nix.).  A few examples must be cited to show what we mean.\n\nThe great epoch of the work is the building of the temple.  On this\noccasion Solomon makes a great dedicatory oration, in which he\nentreats Jehovah to hear from heaven the prayer of those who shall\nseek Him in this place.  He concludes as follows:\n\n\"If they sin against Thee (for there is no man that sinneth not)\nand Thou be angry with them and deliver them to be carried away\ncaptive into the land of the enemy, far or near, if they then\nbethink themselves and make supplication to Thee, saying, We have\nsinned and have done perversely and are guilty, and so return unto\nThee with all their heart and all their soul in the land of the\nenemies which led them away captive, and pray unto Thee toward\ntheir land which Thou gavest unto their fathers, the city which\nThou hast chosen, and the house which Thou hast built for Thy name,\nthen hear Thou in heaven their prayer and their supplication, and\nmaintain their cause, and forgive thy  people their\nunfaithfulness, and give them compassion before them that carried\nthem away captive, that they may have compassion upon them.  For\nthey be Thy people and Thine inheritance, which Thou broughtest\nforth out of Egypt from the midst of the furnace of iron, and\ndidst separate them to Thyself from among all the people of the\nearth, as Thou spakest by Moses thy servant.\"\n\nWhat Jehovah answered to this we learn in chapter ix.\n\n\"I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication which thou hast made\nbefore me; I have hallowed this house, to put my name there for ever,\nand mine eyes and my heart shall be there perpetually.  If thou wilt\nwalk before me, as did David thy father, in integrity of heart\nand in uprightness, to do all that I have commanded thee, and wilt\nkeep my statutes and my judgments, I will establish the throne of\nthy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father,\nsaying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel.\nBut if YE or YOUR CHILDREN turn away from me, and will not keep\nmy statutes and my judgments which I have set before you, but\nworship other gods, then will I cut off Israel out of the land\nwhich I have given them, and this house which I have hallowed for\nmy name I will cast out of my sight, and Israel shall be a\nproverb and a byword among all people, and this house a ruin.\nAnd when they ask: Why hath Jehovah done thus to this land and\nto this house? the answer shall be: Because they forsook Jehovah\ntheir God, who brought forth their fathers out of the land of\nEgypt, and have taken hold upon other gods, and have worshipped\nthem and served them.\"\n\nThe division of the kingdom is also a very marked era in the\nhistory.  It is introduced by a prophecy of Abijah to the first\nJeroboam.\n\n\"Behold, I rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will\ngive ten tribes to thee; but he shall have one tribe for my servant\nDavid's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake, the city which I have chosen;\nbecause he has forsaken me, and worshipped Astarte of Sidon, and\nChemosh of Moab, and Milcom of Ammon, and has not walked in my ways\nto do that which is right in my eyes, my statutes, and my judgments,\nlike David his father.  And it shall be, if thou wilt hearken unto\nall that I command thee, and wilt walk in my ways, and do what is\nright in my sight, to keep my statutes and my commandments as David\nmy servant did, that I will be with thee and build thee a sure house\nas I built for David, and will give Israel unto thee.  And I will\nfor this afflict the seed of David, but not for ever.\"\n\nWe pass over a series of prophecies in a similar strain which occur\nregularly  at the changes of dynasty in the northern kingdom, and\ncite only the concluding words which accompany the fall of the\nkingdom of the ten tribes (2Kings xvii.).  This fall came about\n\"because the children of Israel sinned against Jehovah their God,\nwhich brought them up out of the land of Egypt, and feared other\ngods, and walked in the statutes of the heathen whom they had\ndriven out, and in the innovations of the kings of Israel; and\nbecause the children of Israel imputed to Jehovah their God things\nwhich are not so, and built them high places in all their cities,\nfrom the tower of the watchman to the fenced city; and they set up\npillars and Asheras on every high hill and under every green tree,\nand there they sacrificed in all the high places, as did the people\nwhom Jehovah  had driven out before them: and wrought wicked things\nto provoke Jehovah to anger, and served the abominations which\nJehovah had forbidden.  Yet Jehovah testified to them by all the\nprophets and seers, saying, Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep\nmy commandments and my statutes according to all the torah which\nI commanded your fathers, and which I sent unto you by my servants\nthe prophets; but they would not hear, but hardened their necks\nlike their fathers, that they did not believe in Jehovah their\nGod; and they rejected His statutes and His covenant that He\nmade with their fathers, and His testimonies with which He warned\nthem, and they followed vanity and became vain, and went after\nthe heathen that were round about them, concerning whom Jehovah\nhad charged them that they should not do like them.  And they\nleft all the commandments of Jehovah their God, and made them\nmolten images and an Asherah, and worshipped the whole host of\nheaven, and served Baal; and they  caused their children to pass\nthrough the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold\nthemselves to do evil in the sight of Jehovah, to provoke Him to\nanger.  And Jehovah was very wroth with Israel, and removed them\nout of His sight; there was none left but the men of Judah only.\nBut they of Judah also kept not the commandment of their God, but\nwalked in the manner of Israel: and Jehovah rejected the whole\nrace of Israel, and humbled them, and delivered them unto the hand\nof spoilers, until He had cast them out of His sight.\"\nNo special concluding discourse is given for Judah, but that for\nIsrael applies to Judah as well.  This we see both directly from\nthe last words of the passage cited, and from the circumstance\nthat two very characteristic abominations in the foregoing catalogue,\nthe worship of the host of heaven and the sacrifice of children,\nwere introduced, according to the testimony of the prophets, which\nalone can determine the point, not in the eighth but only in the\nseventh century, under Manasseh, and accordingly are not\nchargeable on Israel, but only on Judah.\n\nThe water accumulates, so to speak, at these gathering places of\nthe more important historical epochs: but from these reservoirs\nit finds its way in smaller channels on all sides. /1/ The first\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Such additions as MCWT YHWH, 1Kings xviii. 18 [LXX has\ncorrectly YHWH, without MCWT] (ZBW BRYTK [LXX correctly (ZBW\nwithout BRYTK] and more extensive ones, as 1Kings xviii. 31, 32a;\n2Samuel vii. 2b [)#R NQR) WGW'']  <error! read vi. 2b> ) I do not\nreckon because they proceed from various periods, and are mostly\nyounger than the Deuteronomic revision, and belong rather to textual\nthan to literary criticism.  It is certainly in itself very important\nto detect and remove these re-touchings.  The whole old tradition\nis covered with them.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nquestion asked with regard to each ruler is, what position he took\nup to the pure religion--whether he did what was right or what was\nevil in the sight of Jehovah.  Even in the case of those who only\nreigned a week, this question receives an answer.  In general it\nhas to be stated that they did evil.  All except David and Hezekiah\nand Josiah, were defective, says Jesus Sirach (xlix. 4),--not quite\naccurately perhaps, but yet truly in so far as there is always some\nobjection even to the good kings.  But the sin here reproved is no\nlonger, at least not principally, the worship of strange gods; it\nis the perverted worship of Jehovah.  A more special standard, and\ntherefore a stricter one, is now employed, and we know the reason\nof this:  the temple having once been built in the place which Jehovah\nhas chosen for Himself, the kindly naturalness hitherto belonging to\nHis worship comes to an end (Deuteronomy xii. 8): and in particular\nthe prohibition of the bamoth comes into force (1Kings iii. 2).\nThat these continued to exist is the special sin of the period,\na sin widespread and persistent.  It is aggravated by the fact,\nthat with the bamoth all kinds of unlawful abuses crept into the\nworship of Jehovah, Maccebas and Asheras, evergreen trees, and\nprostitutes of both sexes.  Israel, continually compared with Judah\nin the matter, is further charged with a second great sin, the sin\nof Jeroboam, i.e., the golden calves at Bethel and at Dan.  The\nreligious estimate combines with the chronological facts to form\nthat scheme in which every single reign of the kings of Israel\nand Judah is uniformly framed.  Sometimes the frame is well filled\nin with interesting matter, but in not a few cases historical matter\nis almost entirely absent.  The scheme appears most nakedly in such\nchapters as 1Kings xv. xvi., 2Kings xiii. xiv. xv.\n\nThat this redaction of our book is essentially uniform with that\nof the two historical books which precede it, requires no proof.\nOnly it has here a warmer and more lively tone, and a much\ncloser relation to the facts.  In consequence of this we find it\nmuch easier to determine the point of view from which it proceeds.\nThe mere fact that the narrative extends to the destruction of\nJerusalem, nay, to the death of the captive king Jehoiachin, shows\nthat we must place the date of the work not earlier than the\nBabylonian exile, and, indeed, the second part of the exile.\nThe chronology reckons the exile in the period of 480 years, giving\n50 years to it;  and this would bring us still lower down; but it\nis open to us to assume that this is a later modification, which\nhas not further affected the general character of the work. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Krey surmises that the last date mentioned, the liberation from\nprison of, Jehoiachin in the 37th year after his accession to the\nthrone, was originally intended to form the lower limit of the\nchronology, especially as the periods of 40 years under which, as\nwe have seen, the Jewish figures naturally fall, come exactly to\nthis date.  But if this be the case, we cannot regard the 4th or\n5th year of Solomon as the era started from, for then there is no\nroom for the 36 or 37 remaining years of Solomon's reign.  But such\na starting-point is entirely unnatural; Solomon's 40 years\ncannot be torn up in this way: if we are to make a division at\nall in that period, it must be at the disruption of the monarchy,\nthe natural point of departure for the series of kings of Israel\nand of Judah.  It deserves remark, that the 37 years of Jehoiachin,\nat the close of the older mode of calculation, which perhaps only\ntried to bring out generations of 40 years, but also perhaps a\nperiod of 500 years from David (40+40+20+ 41+40+40+81 + 38+ 80 + 79\n1/4), answer to the 37 years of Solomon at the beginning of the\nmethod now carried through.  That a process of alteration and\nimprovement of the chronology was busily carried on in later\ntimes, we see from the added svnchronisms of the kings of Israel\nand Judah, from the uncertain statements in the Book of Judges,\nsome of them parallel with each other (e.g., the interregna and\nminor judges, and the threefold counting of the time of the\nPhilistines) and even from the variants of the LXX.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe writer looks back on the time of the kings as a period past\nand closed, on which judgment has already been declared.  Even at\nthe consecration of the temple the thought of its destruction is\nnot to be restrained; and throughout the book the ruin of the nation\nand its two kingdoms is present to the writer's mind.  This is the\nlight in which the work is to be read; it shows why the catastrophe\nwas unavoidable.  It was so because of unfaithfulness to Jehovah,\nbecause of the utterly perverted tendency obstinately followed\nby the people in spite of the Torah of Jehovah and His prophets.\nThe narrative becomes, as it were, a great confession--of sins of\nthe exiled nation looking back on its history.  Not only the\nexisting generation, but the whole previous historical development\nis condemned--a fashion which we meet with first in Jeremiah (ii.\n1 seq., iv. 3), who was actually confronted with the question as\nto the cause of the calamity. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The fall of Samaria suggested similar reflections to the earlier\nprophets with reference to the northern kingdom, but their views\nare, as a rule (Amos v., Isaiah ix.), not nearly so radical nor so\nfar-fetched.  Hosea does certainly trace the guilt of the present\nup to the commencement, but he exemplifies the principle (like Micah,\nchapter vi.) chiefly from the early history of Jacob and Moses: as for\nthe really historical period he belongs to it too much himself to survey\nit from so high a point of view.  In this also he is a precursor of\nlater writers, that he regards the human monarchy as one of the\ngreat evils of Israel: he certainly had very great occasion for\nthis in the circumstances of the time he lived in.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nEzekiel carried out this negative criticism of the past to greater\nlengths, with particular reference to the abominations of the older\nworship (chapter xvi., xx., xxiii.); and it is also to be found in\nIsaiah xl.-xlvi. (xlii. 24, xliii. 27), though here it is\nsupplemented by a positive and greatly more suggestive view;\nwe find it also in Deuteronomy xxviii.-xxx., and in Leviticus xxvi.\nThe whole of the past is regarded as one enormous sin, which is to\nbe expiated in the exile (Jeremiah xxxii. 30; Ezekiel xviii. 2,\nxxxiii. 10; Isaiah xl. 1); the duration of the punishment is even\ncalculated from that of the sin (Leviticus xxvi. 34).  The same\nattitude towards old times is continued after the return\n(Zechariah viii. 13 seq., ix. 7 seq.; Nehemiah ix. 7 seq.).\n\nThe treatment is naturally from a Judaean point of view.  Outside\nof Jerusalem the worship of Jehovah is heretical, so that the\npolitical revolt of the Northern Israelites was at the same time\nan ecclesiastical schism.  Yet they are not excluded in\nconsequence from community with the people of God, as in the\nChronicles: the old traditions are not thrown so completely\noverboard as yet:  only after the destruction of Samaria by the\nAssyrians does Judah continue the history alone.  Almost the same\nreverence is paid to David and his house as to the city and the\ntemple.  His house has the promise of eternal continuance, with\nregard to which the writer likes to make use of the words of\nJeremiah xxxiii. 17.  The book closes, doubtless not by chance,\nwith the liberation from prison of the Davidide Jehoiachin; this\nis the earnest of greater things yet in store.  In the words of\nAbijah to Jeroboam, also, when he says that the humiliation of\nthe house of David and the revolt from it of the ten tribes will\nnot last for ever, we see the Messianic hope appear, which, as we\nlearn from Haggai and Zechariah, largely occupied the minds of\nthe Jews at the time of the exile and after it.\n\nIn the case of the books of Judges and Samuel it is not perhaps\npossible to decide with perfect certainty what was the norm\napplied by the last reviser in forming his estimates of the past.\nIn the Books of Kings there can be no doubt on this point.  The\nwriter deals not only in indefinite references to the will of\nJehovah, which Israel ought to obey, but resists; he speaks now\nand again (1Kings ii. 3, 2Kings xiv. 6, xvii. 37) of the written\nTorah in which the judgments and statutes of Jehovah are contained,\na difference which indicates, one must allow, a historical feeling.\nNow the code which is implicitly regarded as the standard is that\nthe discovery of which under Josiah is circumstantially narrated\nin 2Kings xxii. xxiii., viz., Deuteronomy.  We are led to this\nconclusion, it is allowed on all hands, both by the phraseology\nof the reviser and by the spirit of his judgments.  He condemns\nthose sins specially against which Deuteronomy and the reformation\nof King Josiah were directed.  And the one verbal quotation made\nfrom the book of the Torah is from Deuteronomy (2Kings xiv. 6;\nDeuteronomy xxiv. 16).  On the other hand, there are clear signs\nthat the author of the revision was not acquainted with the\nPriestly Code.   Nowhere is any distinction drawn between priests\nand Levites; the sons of Aaron are never mentioned. The idea of\na central sanctuary before Solomon is contradicted by 1Kings iii.\n2.  In one section only, a section which has been greatly exposed\nto corrections and interpolations of all kinds, namely, the\ndescription of the temple and its consecration, 1Kings vi.-viii.,\ndo we meet with signs of the influence of the Priestly Code,\nespecially in the Massoretic text; in the Septuagint this is not\nso much the case.  The most important example of this has already\nbeen investigated, p. 43, 44.\n\nIf, accordingly, we are fully justified in calling the revision\nDeuteronomistic, this means no more than that it came into\nexistence under the influence of Deuteronomy, which pervaded the\nwhole century of the exile.  The difference between\nDeuteronomistic and Deuteronomic is one not of time only but of\nmatter as well: /1/  Deuteronomy itself has not yet come to regard\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Post-deuteronomic, but still from the time of the kings, are\n1Samuel ii. 27 seq.;  2Samuel vii, 1 seq.; 2Kings xviii. 13, 17\nseq., xix. 1 seq.; chaps. xi. xii. xxi. xxiii.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nthe cultus in this way as the chief end of Israel, and is much\ncloser to the realism of the actual life of the people.  A\ndifference in detail which allows of easy demonstration is\nconnected with the mode of dating.  The last reviser distinguishes\nthe months not by their old Hebrew names, Zif, Bul, Ethanim, but\nby numbers, commencing with spring as the beginning of the year.\nIn this he differs not only from his older sources (1Kings vi.\n37, 38, viii. 2), but also from Deuteronomy.\n\nVII.III.2. This revision is, as we expect to find, alien to the\nmaterials it found to work on, so that it does violence to them.\nThey have been altered in particular by a very one-sided selection,\nwhich is determined by certain religious views.  In these views an\ninterest in the prophets mingles with the interest in worship.  It\nis not meant that the selection is due entirely to the last\nreviser, though it is thoroughly according to his taste; others\nhad probably worked before him in this direction.  But for us it\nis neither possible nor important to distinguish the different\nsteps in the process of sifting through which the traditions of\nthe time of the kings had to pass.\n\nThe culminating point of the whole book is the building of the\ntemple;  almost all that is told about Solomon has reference to\nit.  This at once indicates to us the point of view; it is one\nwhich dominates all Judaistic history: the history is that of\nthe temple rather than of the kingdom.  The fortunes of the\nsanctuary and its treasures, the institution and arrangements of\nthe kings with reference to worship--we are kept _au courant_ about\nthese, but about hardly anything else.  The few detailed\nnarratives given (2Kings xi seq. xvi. xxii. seq.) have the\ntemple for their scene, and turn on the temple.  Only in\n<2Kings?> xviii. seq. does the prophetical interest\npredominate.\n\nAs for the kingdom of Israel, the statements about the cultus of\nthat state are very scanty and for the most part rather vague.\nHere the prophetical narratives come to the front, generally such\nas are told from the prophetic point of view, or at least tell of\nthe public appearances and acts of the prophets.  Here and there\nwe are told of occasions on which the Northern kingdom came in\ncontact with Judah; here the Jewish feeling appears which dictated\nthe selection.  What is merely historical, purely secular, is\ncommunicated only in the scantiest measure: often there is\nnothing but the names and succession of the kings.  We learn\nhardly anything about King Omri, the founder of the town of\nSamaria and re-founder of the kingdom, who seems to have reduced\nJudah also to the position of a dependent ally, nor do we learn\nmore about Jeroboam II., the last great ruler of Israel; while\nthe conflict with the Assyrians and the fall of Samaria are\ndespatched in a couple of verses which tell us scarcely anything\nat all.  Sometimes a brilliant breaks in on the surrounding night\n(2Kings ix. x.), but after it we grope in the dark again.  Only\nso much of the old tradition has been preserved as those of a\nlater age held to be of religious value: it has lost its original\ncentre of gravity, and assumed an attitude which it certainly had\nnot at first.  It may have been the case in Judah that the temple\nwas of more importance than the kingdom, but there can be no\ndoubt that the history of Israel was not entirely, not even\nprincipally, the history of prophecy.  The losses we have to\ndeplore must have affected the Israelitish tradition most\nseriously.\n\nThe damage done by the revision by its _positive_ meddling with\nthe materials as found in the sources, is not so irreparable; yet\nit is considerable enough.  The change of colour which was effected\nmay be best seen and characterised in the far-reaching\nobservations which introduce the Israelite series of kings;\n\"Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the\nhouse of David; if this people go up to do sacrifice in the house\nof Jehovah at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn\nagain to their rightful lord, and they will kill me, and become\nsubject again to Rehoboam king of Judah.  Whereupon the king took\ncounsel and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, Cease to\ngo up to Jerusalem; behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought\nthee up out of the land of Egypt.  And he set the one in Bethel\nand the other in Dan.  And this thing became a sin; for the\npeople went as one man, even unto Dan.  And he made temples of\nhigh places, and took priests from the midst of the people which\nwere not of the house of Levi; whomsoever he would he installed\nas priest of the high places \" (1Kings xii. 26-30, xiii. 33).\nThe perversion is scarcely so great as in Chronicles, but the\nanachronism is sufficiently glaring in the mode of view\ndiscernible in these reflections of Jeroboam, who appears to feel\nthat the Ephraimite kingdom was illegitimate in its origin and\ncould only be kept separate from the south by artificial means.\nThe blessing of Jacob and the blessing of Moses show us what the\nsentiment of Northern Israel actually was.  In the former Joseph\nis called the crowned of his brethren, in the second we read\n\"His first-born bullock, full of majesty (the king), has the horns\nof a buffalo, with which he thrusts down the peoples; these are the\nten thousands of Ephraim and the thousands of Manasseh.\"\nWhence came the charm of the name of Ephraim but from its being the\nroyal tribe, and the most distinguished representative of the proud\nname of Israel?  Of Judah we read in the same chapter, \"Hear,\nJehovah, the voice of Judah, and bring him back to his people.\"\nThere can be no doubt what the people is to which Judah belongs:\nwe cannot but agree with Graf, that this tribe is here regarded as\nthe alienated member, and its reunion with the greater kingdom\nspoken of as the desire of Judah itself, and this is not so\nremarkable when we reflect that the part belongs to the whole\nand not the whole to the part.  Only by long experience did Judah\nlearn the blessing of a settled dynasty, and Ephraim the curse of\nperpetual changes on the throne.\n\nJudah's power of attraction for the inhabitants of the Northern\nKingdom is thought to lie in the cultus of the Solomonic temple;\nand Jeroboam is said to have tried to meet this by creating new\nsanctuaries, a new form of the worship of Jehovah, and a new order\nof priesthood.  The features in which the Samaritan worship\ndiffered from the Jewish pattern are represented as intentional\ninnovations of the first king, in whose sin posterity persisted.\nBut in making Bethel and Dan temples of the kingdom--that he set up\nhigh places, is a statement which need not be considered--Jeroboam\ndid nothing more than Solomon had done before him; only he had\nfirmer ground under his feet than Solomon, Bethel and Dan being\nold sanctuaries, which Jerusalem was not.  The golden calves,\nagain, which he set up, differed in their gold but not in their\nobject from the ephods and idols of other kinds which were\neverywhere to be found in the older \"houses of God\"; e.g. from\nthe brazen serpent at Jerusalem.  /l/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. \"Although Jeroboam had lived in Egypt, it would he wrong to say\nthat he brought animal worship with him from that country, as\nwrong as to regard Aaron's golden calf as a copy of Apis.  The\npeculiarity of the animal-worship of Egypt, and of its\nbull-worship in particular, was that sanctity was attributed to\n_living_ animals.\"  Vatke, p. 398.  Egyptian gods cannot help\nagainst Egypt, Exodus  xxxii. 4; 1Kings xii. 28.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nEven Eichhorn remarked with force and point, that though Elijah\nand Elisha protested against the imported worship of Baal of Tyre,\nthey were the actual champions of the Jehovah of Bethel and Dan,\nand did not think of protesting against His pictorial\nrepresentation; even Amos makes no such protest, Hosea is the\nfirst who does so.  As for the non-Levitical priests whom the king\nis said to have installed, all that is necessary has been said on\nthis subject above (p. 138 seq.).\n\nA remarkable criticism on this estimate of the Samaritan worship\nfollows immediately afterwards in the avowal that that of Judah\nwas not different at the time, at any rate not better.  In the\nreport of Rehoboam's reign we read (1Kings xiv. 22 seq.):\n\n\"They of Judah also set up high places and pillars on every high\nhill, and under every green tree, and whoredom at sacred places\nwas practiced in the land.\"\n\nThis state of things continued to exist, with some fluctuations,\ntill near the time of the exile.  If then the standard according\nto which Samaria is judged never attained to reality in Judah\neither, it never existed in ancient Israel at all.  We know the\nstandard is the book of the law of Josiah: but we see how the\nfacts were not merely judged, but also framed, in accordance\nwith it.\n\nOne more instance is worthy of mention in this connection.  King\nSolomon, we are told, had, besides the daughter of Pharaoh, many\nforeign wives, from Moab, Ammon, and other peoples, intermarriage\nwith whom Jehovah had forbidden (Deuteronomy xvii 17).  And when he was\nold, they seduced him to the worship of their gods, and he\nerected on the Mount of Olives at Jerusalem high places for\nChemosh of Moab, and for Milcom of Ammon, and for the gods of his\nother wives.  As a punishment for this Jehovah announced to him\nthat his kingdom should be torn from him after his death and given\nto his servant, and also raised up adversaries to him, in Hadad\nthe Edomite, who freed Edom, and in the Syrian Rezon teen Eliadah,\nwho made Damascus independent.  And by the prophet Abijah of\nShiloh, he caused the Ephraimite Jeroboam, who then had the\nsupervision of the forced labour of the house of Joseph in the\nfortification of the city of David, to be nominated as the future\nking of the ten tribes.  So we read in 1Kings xi.  But Edom, and,\nas it appears, Damascus as well, broke away from the kingdom of\nDavid immediately after his death (xi. 2I seq., 25); and the\nfortification of the citadel, in which Jeroboam was employed when\nincited to revolt by Abijah, though it falls somewhat later, yet\nbelongs to the first half of Solomon's reign, since it is\nconnected with the rest of his buildings (ix. 15, 24).  Now\nSolomon cannot have been punished by anticipation, in his youth,\nfor an offence which he only committed in his old age, and the\nmoral connected with these events is contradicted by chronology\nand cannot possibly be ascribed to the original narrator.  The\nDeuteronomistic revision betrays itself, in fact, in every word\nof xi. 1-13. To the original tradition belongs only the mention\nof the many wives--without the reprobation attached to it,--and\nthe statement about the building of the altars of Chemosh and\nMilcom and perhaps Astarte, on the Mount of Olives, where they\nstood till the time of Josiah (2Kings xxiii. 13).  The connection\nof the two events, in the relation of cause and effect, belongs to\nthe last editor, as well as the general statement that the king\nerected altars of the gods of all the nationalities represented by\nhis wives.\n\nIn the Books of Kings, it is true, the tradition is not\nsystematically  translated into the mode of view of the Law, as\nis the case in Chronicles.  What reminds us most strongly of\nChronicles is the introduction from time to time of a prophet who\nexpresses himself in the spirit of Deuteronomy and in the\nlanguage of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and then disappears. /l/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Cf. Kuenen, Profeten onder Israel (1875), ii. p. 143; English\ntranslation (1877), p 398.  One of these Deuteronomistic prophecies\nis cited above, p. 275.  They are in part anonymous, e.g, 2Kings\nx. 30, xxi. 10 seq, in part connected with old names, e.g 1Kings\nxvi. 1 seq.  In many instances no doubt the reviser found\nflints in his sources and worked them out in his own style; thus,\n1Kings xiv. 7 seq., xxi 21 seq.  2Kings ix. 7 seq.  In these\npassages the Deuteronomistic ideas and the phraseology  of\nJeremiah and Ezekiel are distinctly present [ HNNY MBY) R(h ], but\ndetached expressions of an original type also occur,--which, it is\ntrue, are then constantly  repeated, e.g. (CWN W(ZWB.  Names,\ntoo, like Jehu ben Hanani, are certainly not fictitious: we are\nnot so far advanced as in Chronicles.  Cf. 1Samuel ii. 27 seq.;\n2Samuel vii. 1 seq.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIn this way the Law is introduced into the history in a living\nway; the prophets keep it effective and see it applied, according\nto the principle stated,  2Kings xvii. 13, which is founded on\nJeremiah vii. 25; Deuteronomy xviii. 18:\n\"Jehovah testified to them by all the prophets and seers saying,\nTurn ye from your evil ways and keep my commandments and statutes,\naccording to all the Torah which I commanded your fathers and which\nI sent unto you by my servants the prophets.\"\nThe most unblushing example of this kind, a piece which, for historical\nworthlessness may compare with Judges xix.-xxi. or 1Samuel vii. seq.,\nor even stands a step lower, is 1Kings xiii.  A man of God from Judah\nhere denounces the altar of Bethel, at which King Jeroboam is in the\nact of offering sacrifice, in these terms:\n\n\"O altar, altar, behold a son shall be born to the house of David,\nJosiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the\nhigh places, that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be\nburned upon thee.\"\n\nAnd to guarantee the truth of this prophecy, to be fulfilled three\nhundred years afterwards, he gives the sign that the altar shall\nburst asunder, and the ashes of the sacrifice upon it be poured\nout--which at once takes place.  This legend, however, does not\nreally belong to the Deuteronomist, but is a still later\naddition, as is easily to be seen from the fact that the sentence\nxii. 31 is only completed at xiii. 34.  It deserves remark that\nin the two verses which introduce the thirteenth chapter, xii. 32\nseq., the feast of tabernacles is fixed, in accordance with the\nPriestly Code, as the 15th of the 7th month.\n\nVII.III.3. In this case also we are able to discern considerable\nshades and gradations in the sources the reviser had at command.\nIn the Books of Kings for the first time we meet with a series of\nshort notices which arrest attention, in the surroundings they are\nin, by their brevity and directness of statement and the terseness\nof their form, and have the semblance of contemporary records.  In\nspite of their looseness of arrangement these form the real basis\nof our connected knowledge of the period; and the religious\nchronological framework is regularly  filled in with them (e.g.\n1Kings xiv.-xvi.); their loose connection and neutral tone made\nit specially easy for later editors to interweave with them\nadditions of their own, as has actually been done to no small\nextent. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The passage discussed above, 1Kings xi. 1 seq., gives a good\nexample of this; we at once pick out the terse )z ybnh wgw'' from\nthe barren diffuseness surrounding it.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThese valuable notes commence even with Solomon, though here they\nare largely mixed with anecdotic chaff.  They are afterwards found\nprincipally, almost exclusively, in the series of Judah.  Several\nprecise dates point to something of the nature of annals, /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. 5th of Rehoboam (1Kings xiv. 25); 23rd of Jehoash (2Kings xii,\n6); 14th of Hezekiah (2Kings xviii. 13); 18th of Josiah (2Kings\nxxii. 3); 4th and 5th of Solomon (1Kings vi. 37, 38).  These\ndates occur, it is true, partly in circumstantial Jewish\nnarratives, but these are intimately related to the brief notices\nspoken of above, and appear to be based on them.  It may be\nsurmised that such definite numbers, existing at one time in much\ngreater abundance, afforded the data for an approximate\ncalculation of the figures on which the systematic chronology is\nbuilt up.  These single dates at any rate are not themselves\nparts of the system.  The same is true of the statements of the\nage of the Jewish kings when they ascended the throne.  These\nalso perhaps go back to the \"Annals.\"  The )Z is found 1Kings iii.\n16, viii. 1, 12, ix. 11, xi. 7, xvi. 21, xxii. 50; 2Kings\nviii. 22, xii. 18, xiv. 8, xv. 16, xvi. 5.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nand with these the characteristic then might be thought to be\nconnected, which frequently introduces the short sentences, and\nas it now stands is generally meaningless.  In what circles these\nrecords were made, we can scarcely even surmise.  Could we be\ncertain that the reference to the royal temple of Judah, which is\na prevailing feature of them, is due not to selection at a later\ntime but to the interest of the first hands, we should be led to\nthink of the priesthood at Jerusalem.  The loyalist, perfectly\nofficial tone would agree very well with this theory, for the\nsons of Zadok were, down to Josiah's time, nothing else than the\nobedient servants of the successors of David, and regarded the\nunconditional authority claimed by these kings over their\nsanctuary as a matter of course (2Kings xvi. TO seq., xii. 18).\nThese notices, however, as we have them, are not drawn from the\ndocuments themselves, but from a secondary compilation, perhaps\nfrom the two sets of chronicles cited at the end of each reign of the\nkings of Israel and those of Judah, from which at all events the\nsuccession of the rulers appears to the drawn.  These chronicles\nare not to be identified, it is clear, with the original annals.\nThe _book_ of the annals must be distinguished from the Dibre-hajamim\nthemselves.  Whether the chronicle of Israel_-hardly anything out\nof which is communicated to us--was composed much earlier than the\nchronicle of Judah (which seems to close with Jehoiachim), and\nwhether it and the chronicle of Solomon (1Kings xi. 41) are a\nquite independent work, I am inclined to consider doubtful.\n\nThe excerpts from the annals are interrupted by more extensive\nepisodes which are interwoven with them, and are also embraced in\nthe Deuteronomistic scheme.  Of these the Jewish ones are the\nminority, the greater part are Samaritan, but they all belong to\na very limited period of time.  I select the miraculous history\nof Elijah as an example of these, to show the sentiment and the\nchange of sentiment in this instance also.\n\nThe prophet Elijah, from Tishbeh in Gilead, appears before King\nAhab of Samaria, and says,\n\n\"By the life of Jehovah the God of Israel, whom I serve, there\nshall not be dew nor rain these years but according to my word.\"\n\nThe story begins abruptly; we require to know that Ahab, stirred\nup by Jezebel, has been propagating in Israel the worship of the\nTyrian Baal, and has killed the prophets of Jehovah by hundreds:\nthis is the reason of the punishment which comes on him and his\nland (xviii. 13, 22). Elijah vanishes as suddenly as he appeared.\nWe find him again at the brook Cherith, which flows into the Jordan;\nthen in the land of Baal with a widow at Zarepta; while following\nhis fortunes we are made to feel in a simple and beautiful way\nthe severity of the famine.  Ahab in the meantime had sent out\nmessengers to take him, and had required of every state to which\nthe vain search had extended, an oath that he was not to be found\nthere.  Now, however, necessity obliged him to think of other\nthings; he had to go out himself with his minister Obadiah to\nseek fodder for the still remaining war-horses (Amos vii. 1). In\nthis humiliating situation he all at once met the banished man.\nHe did not believe his eyes.  \"Is it thou, O troubler of Israel?\"\n\n\"I have not troubled Israel, but thou and thy father's house!\"\n\nAfter this greeting Elijah challenged the king to institute a\ncontest between the 450 prophets of Baal, and him, the only\nprophet of Jehovah left remaining.  A trial by sacrifice took\nplace on Mount Carmel before the whole people.  Each party was to\nprepare a bullock and lay it on the altar without setting fire to\nthe wood; and the divinity who should answer by fire was the\ntrue God.  The prophets of Baal came first and sought after their\nown manner to influence their deity.  They  shouted and leapt\nwildly, wounded themselves with swords and lances till they were\ncovered with blood, and kept up their raving ecstasy from morning\ntill mid-day, and from mid-day till evening.  During this time\nElijah looked at them and mocked them, saying, \"Cry louder, for he\nis a god; either he is talking, or he is somehow engaged, or he\nis asleep and must be awaked.\"  At last his turn came; he repaired\nthe altar of Jehovah, which was broken down, spread the pieces of\nthe sacrifice upon it, and, to make the miracle still more\nmiraculous, caused them to be flooded two or three times with\nwater.  Then he prayed to Jehovah, and fire fell from heaven, and\nconsumed the sacrifice.  The people, up to this point divided in\ntheir mind, now took the side of the zealot for Jehovah, laid hold\nof the prophets of Baal, and slaughtered them down below at the\nbrook.  A great storm of rain at once came to refresh the land.\n\nThis triumph of Elijah was only a prelude.  When Jezebel heard\nwhat had happened she swore vengeance against him, and he fled for\nhis life to Beersheba in Judah, the sanctuary of Isaac.  Wearied\nto death he lay  down under a juniper-bush in the wilderness, and\nwith the prayer, It is enough: now, O Jehovah, take away my\nlife, he fell asleep.  Then he was strengthened with miraculous\nfood by a heavenly messenger, and bidden to go to Horeb, the\nmount of God.  He arrived there after a long journey, and withdrew\ninto a cave; a rushing wind sweeps past; the wind and the\nearthquake and the lightning are the forerunners of Jehovah; and\nafter them He comes Himself in the low whispering that follows the\nstorm.  His head covered, Elijah steps out of the cave and hears a\nvoice ask what ails him.  Having poured out his heart, he receives\nthe divine consolation that his cause is by no means lost; that\nthe direst vengeance, the instruments of which he is himself to\nsummon to their task, is to go forth on all the worshippers of\nBaal, and that those 7000 who have not bowed their knee to Baal\nshall gain the day--\"Thou shalt anoint Hazael to be King over\nDamascus, and Jehu ben Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be\niiing over Israel, and Elisha ben Shaphat to be prophet in thy\nroom; and him that escapeth the sword of Hazael shall Jehu slay,\nand him that escapeth the sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay.\"\nThe account of the execution of these commands by Elijah is at\npresent wanting; we shall soon see why it was omitted.  The\nconclusion of chapter xix. only tells us that he called Elisha\nfrom the plough to follow him.  Of the account of the judgment\nwhich overtook the worshippers of Baal, this group of\nnarratives contains only the beginning, in chapter xxi.  Ahab\nwanted to have a vineyard which was situated beside his palace in\nJezreel, his favourite residence: but Naboth, the owner, was\nunwilling to enter on a sale or an exchange.  The king was angry,\nyet thought he could do no more in the matter; but Jezebel of\nTyre had other notions of might and right and said to him,\n\n\"Dost thou now govern the kingdom of Israel? be of good courage;\nI will get thee the vineyard.\"\n\nShe wrote a letter to the authorities of the town, and got Naboth\nput out of the way by means of corrupt judges.  As Ahab was just\ngoing to take possession of the vineyard which had fallen into his\nhands, his enemy came upon him.  The prophet Elijah, always on the\nspot at the right moment, hurled the word at him,\n\n\"Hast thou killed and also taken possession?  Behold, in the place\nwhere dogs licked the blood of Naboth, shall dogs lick thy blood also.\"\n\nHere this story breaks off.  What follows is not the true continuation.\n\nThe thread of the narrative xvii.-xix. xxi. is also broken off\nhere, without reaching its proper conclusion. The victory of\nJehovah over Baal, of the prophet over the king, is wanting; the\nstory of Naboth is, as we said, only the introduction to it.  We\nare sufficiently informed about the facts, but in form the\nnarratives do not answer to the announcement in chapter xix. and\nxxi.; they are drawn from other sources.  According to xix. 1 7\nthe Syrian wars ought to result in vengeance on the worshippers of\nBaal, and specially on the idolatrous royal house; but in the\nnarrative of the wars (1Kings xx. xxii. 2Kings vii. ix. )\nthis point of view does not prevail.  On the contrary, Ahab and\nJoram there maintain themselves in a manly and honourable way\nagainst the superior power of Damascus it is ONLY AFTER the\nextirpation of Baal worship under Jehu that affairs took an\nunfortunate turn, and Hazael, who brought about this change, was\nnot anointed by Elijah but by Elisha (2Kings viii. 7 seq.) /.l/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The same applies to Jehu (2Kings ix. 1 seq.). This is the\nreason of the above remarked omission after 1Kings xix. 21: cf.\nThenius's commentary.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe massacre at Jezreel, too, which is predicted in the threat of\n1Kings xxi. 19, would need to be told otherwise than in 2Kings ix.\nx., to form a proper literary  sequel to the story of Naboth.\nAccording to 1Kings xxi. 19 the blood of Ahab is to be shed at\nJezreel; according to 2Kings ix. 25 his son's blood was shed there,\nto avenge Naboth.  It is true, the explanation is appended in xxi.\n27-29, that, as the king took to heart the threats of Elijah,\nJehovah made a supplementary communication to the prophet that\nthe threat against Ahab's house would only be fulfilled in the\ndays of his son; but who does not see in this an attempt to\nharmonise conflicting narratives?  /2/ A whole series of\n\n-- Footnote\n2 In spite of xxi. 27-29, an attempt is made at xxii. 38 to show\nthat the threat was fulfilled in Ahab himself.  We are told that\nAhab was shot in his chariot and that his servants brought his\nbody from Ramoth-Gilead to bury it there.  Then we read xxii. 38\n\"and they washed the chariot in the pool of Samaria, and the dogs\nlicked up his blood, and the harlots bathed in it, according to\nthe word of Jehovah.\"\nThus it is explained how the dogs were able to lick his blood in\nSamaria, though it had had plenty of time to dry up after the\nbattle!  The fact was unfortunately over-looked that according\nto xxi. 19 the dogs were to lick the blood of Ahab not at Samaria\nbut at Jezreel, the place of Naboth.  The verse xxii. 38 is an\ninterpolation which does credit to Jewish acuteness.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nsubordinate discrepancies might be mentioned, which prove that\n2Kings ix. x. does not look back to the story of the murder of\nNaboth as told in 1Kings xxi.  According to ix. 25, 26, the dispute\nwas not about the vineyard, but about the field of Naboth, which\nlay some distance from the town.  His family was put to death\nalong with him, and on the following day, when Ahab rode out IN\nCOMPANY WITH JEHU and Ben Deker to take possession of the field,\nthe word of the prophet (not framed so specially against him\npersonally) met him: \"Surely I have seen yesterday the blood of\nNaboth and of his sons, and I will requite it in this plat.\"\n\nWith the help of these other accounts, among which there is a\nconsiderable group of uniform character (1Kings xx. xxii. 2Kings\niii. vi. 24-xii. 20. ix. 1-x. 27) favourably  distinguished\nfrom the rest, we are placed in a position to criticise the history\nof Elijah, and to reach a result which is very instructive for\nthe history of the tradition, namely that the influence of the\nmighty prophet on his age has after all been appraised much too\nhighly.  His reputation could not be what it is but for the wide\ndiffusion of Baal worship in Israel: and this is not a little\nexaggerated.  Anything like a suppression of the national religion\nat the time of Elijah is quite out of the question, and there is\nno truth in the statement that the prophets of Jehovah were entirely\nextirpated at the time and Elijah alone left surviving.  The\nprophetic guilds at Bethel, Jericho, and Gilgal continued without\nany interruption.  In the Syrian wars prophets of Jehovah stand by\nthe side of Ahab; before his last campaign there are four hundred\nof them collected in his capital, one of them at least long known\nto the king as a prophet of evil, but left alive before and left\nalive now, though he persisted in his disagreeable practices.  Of\nthe sons whom Jezebel bore him, Ahab called one Ahaziah, i.e.\nJehovah holds, and another Jehoram, i.e. Jehovah is exalted: he\nadhered to Jehovah as the god of Israel, though to please his wife\nhe founded at Samaria a temple and a cultus of the Syrian goddess.\nThis being so, Elijah's contest with Baal cannot have possessed\nthe importance attributed to it from the point of view of a later time.\nIn the group of popular narratives above referred to, there is no\ntrace of a religious commotion that tore Israel asunder: the whole\nstrength of the people is absorbed in the Syrian wars.  The kings\nare the prominent figures, and do well and according to their office\nin battle: Elijah stands in the background.  From several indications,\nthough from no direct statements, we learn of the high esteem which\nAhab enjoyed from friend and foe alike (xx. 3I, xxii. 32-34 seq.).\nJoram also, and even Jezebel, are drawn not without sympathy (2Kings\nvi. 30, ix.  31).  We can scarcely say the same of Jehu, the murderer,\ninstigated by the prophets, of the house of Ahab (2Kings ix. 10).\n\nIt is the fact, certainly, that the prophets' hatred of Baal\nsucceeded at last in overturning the dynasty of Omri.  But in\nwhat manner was this done?  At a time when King Joram was\nprevented by a wound he had received from being with his army in\nthe field, a messenger of Elisha went to the camp, called the\ncaptain apart from a banquet at which he found him, to a secret\ninterview, and anointed him king.  When Jehu returned to his\ncomrades at their wine, they asked him what that mad fellow had\nwanted, and, his evasive answers failing to satisfy them, he told\nthem the truth.  They at once raised him on an improvised throne,\nand caused the trumpets to proclaim him king: they were quite\nready for such an exploit, not that they cared in the least for\n\"that mad fellow.\"  Jehu justified their confidence by his\nastounding mastery in treachery and bloodshed, but he placed his\nreliance entirely on the resources of his own talent for murder.\nHe was not borne along by any general movement against the dynasty;\nthe people, which he despised (x. 9), stood motionless and horrified\nat the sight of the crimes which came so quickly  one after another;\neven a hundred years afterwards the horror at the massacre of Jezreel\nstill lived (Hosea i. 4).  The crown once gained, the reckless\nplayer showed his gratitude to the fanatics, and sent the priests\nand worshippers of Baal after the priests of Jehovah whom he had\nslaughtered along with all belonging to the royal house (x. 11).\nThe manner in which he led them into the snare (x. 18 seq.) shows\nthat no one had thought before this of regarding him as the\nchampion of Jehovah; and even at this time his zeal was manifestly\nonly  ostensible: he was not fighting for an idea (x. 15.\nseq.).  Thus we see that Baal did not bring about the fall of\nthe house of Ahab, but common treason; the zealots employed for\ntheir purposes a most unholy instrument, which employed them in\nturn as a holy instrument for its purposes; they did not\nsucceed in rousing the people to a storm against Baal, far from it.\nThe execution of Naboth seems to have excited greater indignation:\nit was a crime against morals, not against religion.  Even in the\nhistory of Elijah the admission is made that this struggle\nagainst Baal, in spite of his sacrificial victory on Carmel, was\nin the end without result, and that only the judicial murder of\nNaboth brought about a change in the popular sentiment.  But\naccording to 2Kings ix. 25, this murder proved a momentous event,\nnot because it led, as we should expect, to a popular agitation,\nbut from the fortuitous circumstance that Jehu was a witness of the\nnever-to-be-forgotten scene between Ahab and Elijah, and seemed\ntherefore to the prophets to be a fit person to carry out his\nthreatenings.\n\nIt is certainly the case that the grand figure of Elijah could not\nhave been drawn as we have it except from the impression produced\nby a real character. /1/  But it is too much torn away from the\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The distance of the narrator is not so very great in point of\ntime from the events he deals with.  He is a North-Israelite, as\nthe )#R LYHWDH of xix. 3 shows: this may also be gathered from\nxix. 8 compared with Deuteronomy i. 2.  A man of Judah could not\neasily make so considerable a mistake about the distance, though\nwe have to remember that with this narrator the situation of\nHoreb can scarcely  have been that which we have long been\naccustomed to assume.  Another sign of antiquity is the way in\nwhich Elijah is represented as combating Baal in Israel, and in\nthe land of Sidon associating with the worshippers of Baal on the\nmost friendly terms (Luke iv. 25 seq.).\n-- Footnote\n\n\nhistorical position it belongs to, and is thereby magnified to\ncolossal proportions.  It may be said of this class of narratives\ngenerally, that the prophets are brought too much into the foreground\nin them, as if they had been even in their lifetime the principal\nforce of Israelite history, and as if the influence which moved\nthem had ruled and pervaded their age as well.  That was not the case;\nin the eyes of their contemporaries they were completely overshadowed\nby the kings; only to later generations did they become the principal\npersonages.  They were important ideally, and influenced the future\nrather than the present; but this was not enough, a real tangible\nimportance is attributed to them.  In the time of Ahab and Jehu the\nNebiim were a widespread body, and organised in orders of their own,\nbut were not highly respected; the average of them were miserable\nfellows, who ate out of the king's hand and were treated with disdain\nby  members of the leading classes.  Amos of Tekoa, who, it is true,\nbelonged to a younger generation, felt it an insult to be counted\none of them.  Elijah and Elisha rose certainly above the level of\ntheir order; but the first, whose hands remained pure, while he no\ndoubt produced a great impression at the time by his fearless words,\neffected nothing against the king, and quite failed to draw the\npeople over to his side: while Elisha, who did effect something,\nmade use of means which could not bear the light, and which attest\nrather the weakness than the strength of prophecy in Israel.\n\nVII.III.4. Let us conclude by summing up the results to which we\nhave been led by  our eclectic pilgrimage through the historical\nbooks.  What in the common view appears to be the specific character\nof Israelite history, and has chiefly led to its being called sacred\nhistory, rests for the most part on a later re-painting of the\noriginal picture.  The discolouring influences begin early.  I do\nnot reckon among these the entrance of mythical elements, such as\nare not wanting even in the first beginnings to which we can trace\nthe course of the tradition, nor the inevitable local colour,\nwhich is quite a different thing from tendency.  I think only of\nthat uniform stamp impressed on the tradition by men who regarded\nhistory exclusively from the point of view of their own\nprinciples.  Here we observe first a religious influence, which in\nthe Books of Samuel and Kings turns out to be the prophetical\none.  The view appears to me erroneous that it is to the prophets\nthat the Hebrew people owe their history as a whole.  The song,\nJudges v., though perhaps the oldest historical monument in the Old\nTestament, cannot be cited in support of that view, for even if it\nwere actually  composed by Deborah, the seer stands in no connection\nwith the prophets.  Least of all can the colleges of the B'ne Nebiim\nat Gilgal and other places be regarded as nurseries of historic\ntradition: the products which are to be traced to these circles\nbetray a somewhat narrow field of vision (2Kings ii., iv. 1-6, 23).\nThe  prophets did not form the tradition at first, but came after,\nshedding upon it their peculiar light.  Their interest in history\nwas not so great that they felt it necessary to write it down;\nthey only infused their own spirit into it subsequently.\n\nBut the systematic recoining of the tradition was only effected\nwhen a firmer stamp had become available than the free ideas of\nthe prophets, the will of God having been formulated in writing.\nWhen this point was reached, no one could fail to see the\ndiscrepancy between the ideal commencement, which was now sought\nto be restored as it stood in the book, and the succeeding\ndevelopment.  The old books of the people, which spoke in the most\ninnocent way of the most objectionable practices and\ninstitutions, had to be thoroughly  remodelled according to the\nMosaic form, in order to make them valuable, digestible, and\nedifying, for the new generation.  A continuous revision of them\nwas made, not only in the Chronicles, at the beginning of the\nGreek domination, but, as we have seen in this chapter, even in\nthe Babylonian exile.  The style of the latter revision differed\nfrom that of the former.  In Chronicles the past is remodelled on\nthe basis of the law: transgressions take place now and then, but\nas exceptions from the rule.  In the Books of Judges, Samuel, and\nKings, the fact of the radical difference of the old practice from\nthe law is not disputed.  In these works also the past is in some\ncases remodelled on the basis of the ideal, but as a rule it is\nsimply condemned.  That is one difference; another has to be\nadded which is of far greater importance.  In the Chronicles the\npattern according to which the history of ancient Israel is\nrepresented is the Pentateuch, i.e. the Priestly Code. In the\nsource of Chronicles, in the older historical books, the revision\ndoes not proceed upon the basis of the Priestly Code, which indeed\nis completely unknown to them, but on the basis of Deuteronomy.\nThus in the question of the order of sequence of the two great\nbodies of laws, the history  of the tradition leads us to the same\nconclusion as the history of the cultus.\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.  THE NARRATIVE OF THE HEXATEUCH.\n\nIn the historical books the tradition is developed by means of\nsupplement and revision; double narratives occur here and there,\nbut not great parallel pieces of connected matter side by side.\nIn the Hexateuch additions and supplements have certainly taken\nplace on the most extensive scale, but the significant feature\nis here that continuous narratives which can and must be understood\neach by itself are woven together in a double or threefold cord.\nCritics have shown a disposition, if not in principle yet in fact,\nto take the independence of these so-called sources of the Hexateuch\nas if it implied that in point of matter also each is a distinct\nand independent source.  But this is, even _a priori_, very\nimprobable.  Even in the case of the prophets who received their\nword from the Lord the later writer knows and founds upon the earlier\none.  How much more must this be the case with narrators whose\nexpress business is with the tradition?  Criticism has not done\nits work when it has completed the mechanical distribution; it\nmust aim further at bringing the different writings when thus\narranged into relation with each other, must seek to render them\nintelligible as phases of a living process, and thus to make it\npossible to trace a graduated development of the tradition.\n\nThe striking agreement of the different works, not only in\nmatter, but in their arrangement of the narratives, makes the\noffice of criticism as now described not less but more necessary.\nThere is no primitive legend, it is well known, so well knit as the\nbiblical one, and thus it is no wonder that it became the frame\nfor many others and infused into them some of its own colour.\nThis connection is common in its main features to all the sources\nalike.  The Priestly  Code runs, as to its historical thread,\nquite parallel to the Jehovist history.  This alone made it\npossible to interfuse the two writings as we now have them in the\nPentateuch.  That this was not done altogether without violence\nis less to be wondered at than that the violence which was done\nis so small, and particularly that the structure of each writing\nis left almost unimpaired.  This can only be explained from the\nintimate agreement of the two works in point of plan.  When the\nsubject treated is not history but legends about pre-historic\ntimes, the arrangement of the materials does not come with the\nmaterials themselves, but must arise out of the plan of a\nnarrator: even the architecture of the generations, which forms\nthe scaffolding of Genesis, is not inseparably bound up with the\nmatters to be disposed of in it.  From the mouth of the people\nthere comes nothing but the detached narratives, which may or may\nnot happen to have some bearing on each other: to weave them\ntogether in a connected whole is the work of the poetical or\nliterary artist.  Thus the agreement of the sources in the plan\nof the narrative is not a matter of course, but a matter requiring\nexplanation, and only to be explained on the ground of the\nliterary dependence of one source on the other.  The question how\nthis relation of dependence is to be defined is thus a much more\npressing one than is commonly assumed. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The agreement extends not only to the thread of the narrative,\nbut also to particulars, and even to expressions.  I do not speak\nof _mabbul_ (flood), or _tebah_ (ark), but the following examples\nhave struck me:-In Q Genesis vi. 9, Noah is said to be _righteous\nin his generations_, in J E vii. 1 he is _righteous in his generation_--\nan  unusual form of speech, which gave a vast amount of trouble to\nthe Rabbins and to Jerome.  Similarly Q Genesis xvii. 21, _the son\nwhom Sarah shall bear at this set time next year_, and JE xviii. 14:\n_at the same time I will come to thee again next year, and then\nSarah shall have a son_.  In the same way Q Exodus vi. 12 vii. 1.\n(Moses) _I am of uncircumcised lips_. (Jehovah) _See, I make thee\na god to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet_;\ncompared with JE iv. 10, 16. (Moses) _I am slow of speech, and of\na slow tongue_; (Jehovah) _Aaron shall be to thee instead of a mouth,\nand thou shalt be to him instead of God_.  Comp. Genesis xxvii. 46,\nwith xxv: 22.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThis, however, is not the place to attempt a history of the\ndevelopment of the Israelite legend.  We are only to lay the\nfoundation for such a work, by  comparing the narrative of the\nPriestly Code with the Jehovistic one.  In doing so we shall see\nthat Buttmann (Mythologus, i. p. 122 seq.) is right in asserting\nagainst de Wette (Beitraege, ii.), that, the Jehovistic form of the\nlegend is the earlier of the two . /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. The line indicated by Buttmann was first taken up again by\nTh. Noldeke in his Essay on the main-stock of the Pentateuch,\nwhich opened the way to a proper estimate of the narrative part\nof the work.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nVIII.I.\n\nVIII.I.1 The Bible begins with the account of the Priestly Code of the\ncreation of the world.  In the beginning is chaos; darkness,\nwater, brooding spirit, which engenders life, and fertilises the\ndead mass.  The primal stuff contains in itself all beings, as yet\nundistinguished: from it proceeds step by step the ordered\nworld; by a process of unmixing, first of all by separating out\nthe great elements.  The chaotic primal gloom yields to the\ncontrast of light and darkness; the primal water is separated by\nthe vault of heaven into the heavenly water, out of which there\ngrows the world above the firmament which is withdrawn from our\ngaze, and the water of the earth: the latter, a slimy mixture, is\ndivided into land and sea, whereupon the land at once puts on its\ngreen attire.  The elements thus brought into existence, light,\nheaven, water, land, are then enlivened, pretty much in the order\nin which they were created, with individual beings; to the light\ncorrespond the lamps of the stars, fishes to the water, to the\nheaven the birds of heaven, and the other creatures to the land.\nThe last act of creation is markedly emphasised.  \"And God said:\nLet us make man after our likeness; and let them have dominion\nover the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over\nthe cattle, and over all the living creatures of the earth, and\nover every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.  So God\ncreated man after His own image, in the image of God created He\nhim, and He created them male and female.  And God blessed them,\nand said: Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and\nsubdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over\nthe fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon\nthe face of the earth.  And God said, Behold, I have given unto\nyou every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the\nearth, and every tree with seed-fruits: to you it shall be for\nfood: and to every beast of the earth and to every fowl of the\nair, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there\nis life, I have given the green herb for meat.  Thus the heavens\nand the earth were made and all the host of them, and on the\nseventh day God ended His work, and blessed the seventh day, and\nhallowed it.\"   (Genesis i. 1-ii. 4a).\n\nIt is commonly said that the aim of this narrative is a purely\nreligious one.  The Israelite certainly does not deny himself in\nit: the religious spirit with which it is penetrated even comes\nat some points into conflict with the nature of its materials.\nThe notion of chaos is that of uncreated matter;  here we find\nthe remarkable idea that it is created in the beginning by God.\nBrooded over by the Spirit, it is further of a nature for development\nto take place out of it, and the trait that the creation is\nrepresented throughout as a separation of elements which in chaos\nwere mixed together, betrays even now the original design: but\nin the Hebrew narrative the immanent Spirit has yielded to the\ntranscendent God, and the principle of evolution is put aside in\nfavour of the fiat of creation.  Yet for all this the aim of the\nnarrator is not mainly a religious one.  Had he only meant to say\nthat God made the world out of nothing, and made it good, he could\nhave said so in simpler words, and at the same time more distinctly.\nThere is no doubt that he means to describe the actual course of\nthe genesis of the world, and to be true to nature in doing so;\nhe means to give a cosmogonic theory.  Whoever denies this confounds\ntwo different things--the value of history for us, and the aim of the\nwriter.  While our religious views are or seem to be in conformity\nwith his, we have other ideas about the beginning of the world,\nbecause we have other ideas about the world itself, and see in the\nheavens no vault, in the stars no lamps, nor in the earth the\nfoundation of the universe.  But this must not prevent us from\nrecognising what the theoretical aim of the writer of Genesis i.\nreally was.  He seeks to deduce things as they are from each\nother: he asks how they are likely to have issued at first from\nthe primal matter, and the world he has before his eyes in doing\nthis is not a mythical world but the present and ordinary one.\n\nThe pale colour which generally marks the productions of the\nearliest reflection about nature, when they are not mythical\ntheories, is characteristic of Genesis i. also.  We are indeed\naccustomed to regard this first leaf of the Bible as surrounded\nwith all the charm that can be derived from the combination of high\nantiquity and childlike form.  lt would be vain to deny the\nexalted ease and the uniform greatness that give the narrative its\ncharacter.  The beginning especially  is incomparable: \"The\nearth was without form and void, and darkness lay upon the deep,\nand the Spirit of God moved upon the water.  Then God said: Let\nthere be light, and there was light.\"  But chaos being given, all\nthe rest is spun out of it: all that follows is reflection,\nsystematic construction; we can easily  follow the calculation\nfrom point to point.  The considerations are very simple which\nlead the writer to make first what is great appear, and then what\nis small; first the foundation and then that which exists upon it,\nthe water before the fishes, heaven before the birds of heaven,\nland and plants before the animals.  The arrangement of the things\nto be explained stands here for the explanation; there is nothing\nmore than a succession which proceeds from the simple to the\ncomplicated; there is no effort of fancy to describe the process\nmore closely; everywhere cautious consideration which shrinks\nfrom going beyond generalities.  Only the framework of creation,\nin fact, is given; it is not filled up.  Hence also the form of\nthe whole, the effect of which cannot be reproduced in an epitome;\nthe formula gets the better of the contents, and instead of\ndescriptions our ears are filled with logical definitions.  The\ngraduated arrangement in separating particular things out of chaos\nindicates the awakening of a \"natural\" way of looking at nature,\nand of a reasoned reflection about natural objects, just as this\nis manifest in the attempts of Thales and his successors, which\nare also remarkable as beginnings of the theory of nature and of\nan objective interest in the things of the outer world, but further\nthan this do not exactly rouse us to enthusiasm. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. \"There is nothing whatever in the piece that merits the name of\ninvention but the chronological order of the various creations.\"\nButtmann, p. 133.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe first sentence of the Jehovistic account of the beginning of\nthe world's history has been cut off by the reviser.  [It was\nall a dry waste] when Jehovah formed the earth, and nowhere did\nthe green herb spring up, for Jehovah had not yet caused it to\nrain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.\nBut a mist (?) went up out of the earth, and watered the face of\nthe ground.  And Jehovah formed man of the dust of the ground, and\nbreathed into his nostrils the breath of life.  Then he planted a\ngarden far to the eastward in Eden, in the place where the four\nchief rivers of the earth part asunder from their common source;\nthere grow among other fine trees the tree of life and the tree of\nknowledge.  In this garden Jehovah placed the man, to dress it and\nkeep it and to eat of all the trees, forbidding him to eat of the\nfruit of the tree of knowledge only.  But the man is utterly\nalone in his garden: he must have company that is suitable for\nhim.  So Jehovah first forms the beasts, if perchance the man will\nassociate with them and make friends with them.  He brings them to\nhim one after another to see what impression they make on him,\nand what the man will call them. He calls them by their right\nnames, ox, ass, bear, thus expressing his feeling that he finds\nin them nothing relate to himself, and Jehovah has to seek other\ncounsel.  Then he forms the woman out of a rib of the sleeping man,\nand causes him to awake.  Wearied as it were by all the fruitless\nexperiments with the beasts, the man cries out delighted when he\nlooks at the woman: This surely is flesh of my flesh and bone of\nmy bone; she may be called wo-man.\n\nThus the scene is drawn, the persons introduced, and an action\nsecretly  prepared: now the tragedy begins, which ends with the\nexpulsion of man from the garden.  Seduced by the serpent, man\nstretches out his hand after the food which is forbidden him, in\norder to become like God, and eats of the tree of knowledge.  The\nfirst consequence of this is the beginning of dress, the first step\nin civilisation; other and sadder consequences soon follow.  In\nthe evening the man and his wife hear Jehovah walking in the\ngarden; they hide before Him, and by doing so betray\nthemselves.  It is useless to think of denying what has taken\nplace, and as each of them puts the blame on the other, they show\nthemselves one after the other to be guilty.  The sentence of the\njudge concludes the investigation.  The serpent is to creep on its\nbelly, to eat dust, and to perish in the unequal contest with man.\nThe woman is to bear many children with sorrow, and to long for\nthe man, who yet will be her tyrant.  The principal curse is\ndirected against the man.  \"Cursed be the ground for thy sake: in\nsorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.  Thorns\nalso and thistles shall it bring forth to, thee, and thou shalt\neat the herb of the field, till thou return unto the ground, for\nout of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt\nthou return.\"  Sentence being thus spoken, Jehovah prepares the man\nand woman for their future life by making coats of skins to dress\nthem with.  Then turning to His celestial company, \"Behold,\" He\nsays, \"the man is become like one of us to know good and evil;\nand now lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of\nlife, and eat, and live for ever.\"  With these words he drives man\nout of Paradise, and places before it the cherubs, and the flaming\nsword, which turns every way, to keep the way of the tree of\nLife (Genesis i. 4b-iii. 24).\n\nThe gloomiest view of life as it now is, lies at the root of this\nstory.  Man's days are mere hardship and labour and task-work, a\ntask-work with no prospect of relief, for the only reward of it\nis that he returns to the earth from which he was taken.  No\nthought appears of any life AFTER death, and life WITHOUT death\nmight have been, but has been forfeited, now the cherub guards\nthe approach to the tree of life, of which man might have eaten\nwhen in Paradise but did not.  This actual, cheerless lot of man\nupon the earth is the real problem of the story.  It is felt to be\nthe very opposite of our true destiny; at first, things must have\nbeen otherwise.  Man's lot now is a perversion of what it was at\nfirst, it is the punishment of primeval guilt now resting on us all.\nAt first man lived in Paradise; he had a happy existence, and one\nworthy of his nature, and held familiar intercourse with Jehovah;\nit was his forbidden striving after the knowledge of good and evil\nthat drove him out of Paradise and brought all his miseries upon him.\n\nWhat is the knowledge of good and evil?  The commentators say it\nis the faculty of moral distinction,--conscience, in fact.  They\nassume accordingly that man was in Paradise morally indifferent,\nin a state which allowed of no self-conscious action and could not\nbe called either good or evil.  A state like this not being an\nideal one, some of them consider that man gained more than he lost\nby the fall, while others admit that it could not be the divine\nintention to keep him always at this stage of childish\nirresponsibility, and that this cannot be the view of the narrator\neither.\n\nBut it is plain that the narrator is not speaking of a relative\nprohibition of knowledge, but an absolute one: he means that it\nis only for God, and that when man stretches out his hand towards\nit he is transcending his limits and seeking to be as God.  On the\nother side he cannot of course mean to say that conscience is a\ndoubtful blessing, and its possession to be deplored, or that it is\na thing that God in fact refuses to men and reserves to Himself\nalone.  The knowledge spoken of cannot be moral knowledge.  What\ncould the assertion mean that God would have no one but Himself\nknow the difference between good and evil, and would deny to man\nthis knowledge?  One would think that conscience is a thing\nbelonging specifically to man and not to God.\n\nAnd what could be the sense of representing Adam and Eve as so\nintent to know what was sin and what was virtue?  No one is\ncurious about that, and sin never came into existence in the way\nof ethical experiment, by men's desiring to know what it is.  And\nit is manifestly assumed that men knew in paradise that obedience\nto Jehovah was good and disobedience evil.  And finally, it\nconflicts with the common tradition of all peoples to represent the\nfirst man as a sort of beast; he is regarded as undeveloped only in\npoint of outward culture.  The knowledge which is here forbidden is\nrather knowledge as such, general knowledge, or getting the eyes\nopened, as it is afterwards called.  This is what transcends, in\nthe writer's view, the limits of our nature; prying out the secret\nof things, the secret of the world, and overlooking, as it were,\nGod's hand to see how He goes to work in His living activity, so as,\nperhaps, to learn His secret and imitate Him.  For knowledge is to\nthe ancient world also power, and no mere metaphysic.  This knowing\nin the highest sense is the attribute of God alone, who stands in\nthe creative centre of things and penetrates and surveys the whole;\nit is sealed to man, who has to labour and weary himself at little\nthings.   And yet the forbidden good has the most powerful\nattraction for him; he burns to possess it, and instead of\nresigning himself in trust and reverence he seeks to steal the\njewel which is jealously guarded from him, and so to become like\nGod--to his own sorrow.\n\nThis explanation is not new; it is the old and popular one, for\nwhich reason also Goethe adopted it in Faust.  One objection\ncertainly may be taken to it; the words are not merely\n_knowledge_, but _knowledge of good and evil_. But good and evil\nin Hebrew mean primarily nothing more than salutary and hurtful;\nthe application of the words to virtue and sin is a secondary\none, these being regarded as serviceable or hurtful in their\neffects.  Good and evil as spoken of in Genesis ii. iii. point\nto no contrast of some actions with others according to their\nmoral distinctions: the phrase is only a comprehensive one for\nthings generally, according to the contradictory attributes which\nconstitute their interest to man, as they help or injure him:\nfor, as said, he desires to know not what things are\nmetaphysically, but what is the use of them. /1/ Besides the\n\n-- Footnote\nI Sur. 20, 91. Hudh. 22, 10 (Agh. xv. 105, 12). Hamasa, 292,\n8 seq. Tabari i.  847, 18\n-- Footnote\n\n\nlengthier expression we have the shorter one, knowledge, simply\n(iii. 6); and it must also be remarked that the phrase is not:\nknow the good and the evil, but know good and evil.\n\nBut more, we must regard this knowledge not as it affects the\nindividual, but in the light of history; what is meant is what we\ncall civilisation.  As the human race goes forward in\ncivilisation, it goes backward in the fear of God.  The first step\nin civilisation is clothing; and here this is the first result of\nthe fall.  The story is continued in chapter iv.  Adam's sons\nbegin to found cities, Jubal is the first musician, Cain discovers\nthe oldest and the most important of the arts, that of the smith--\nhence the sword and bloody vengeance.  Of the same tendency is the\nconnected story of the city and the tower of Babel, in which is\nrepresented the foundation of the great empires and cities of the\nworld, which concentrate human strength and seek to use it to press\ninto heaven itself.  In all this we have the steps of man's\nemancipation; with his growing civilisation grows also his alienation\nfrom the highest good; and--this is evidently the idea, though it\nis not stated--the restless advance never reaches its goal after all;\nit is a Sisyphus-labour; the tower of Babel, which is incomplete\nto all eternity, is the proper symbol for it.  The strain is that\nstrain of unsatisfied longing which is to be heard among all\npeoples.  On attaining to civilisation they become aware of the\nvalue of those blessings which they have sacrificed for it. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Dillmann thinks this idea insipid: Genesis (1882), p. 44\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIt was necessary to discuss the notion of knowledge at some\nlength, because the misunderstanding of this point on the part of\nphilosophers and theologians has cast over our story an\nappearance of modernness, which has, in its turn, done something\nto influence general opinion as to the age of this story compared\nwith the other.  Having got rid of this impression we turn to\nthose features of Genesis ii. iii. which help to determine\npositively its relation to chapter i.\n\nWhat has been untruly asserted of Genesis i. is true of Genesis ii.\niii.  The Jehovist narrative does shine by the absence of all\nefforts after rationalistic explanation, by its contempt for\nevery kind of cosmological speculation.  The earth is regarded as\nbeing at first not moist and plastic but (as in Job xxxviii. 38)\nhard and dry: it must rain first in order that the desert may be\nturned into a green meadow, as is the case still every year when\nthe showers of spring come.  The ground further requires\ncultivation by man that the seed may  spring forth.  No regard is\npaid to any natural sequence of the acts of creation: man, the\nmost helpless of all beings, appears first, and finds himself\nplaced on a world entirely bare, without tree or bush, without\nthe animals, without woman.  Man is confessedly the exclusive\nobject of interest, the other creatures are accounted for by\ntheir importance to him, as if this only conferred on them a\nright to exist.  The idea explains matter: mechanical possibility\nis never consulted, and we do not think of asking about it.  Want\nof taste could find no lower deeps than when this or that scholar\ngoes from Genesis ii. 21 to count his ribs, or comes to\nthe conclusion that the first man was hermaphrodite.\n\nIn the first account we stand before the first beginnings of sober\nreflection about nature, in the second we are on the ground of\nmarvel and myth.  Where reflection found its materials we do not\nthink of asking; ordinary contemplation of things could furnish\nit.  But the materials for myth could not be derived from\ncontemplation, at least so far as regards the view of nature which\nis chiefly before us here; they came from the many-coloured\ntraditions of the old world of Western Asia.  Here we are in the\nenchanted garden of the ideas of genuine antiquity; the fresh\nearly smell of earth meets us on the breeze.  The Hebrews breathed\nthe air which surrounded them; the stories they told on\nthe Jordan, of the land of Eden and the fall, were told in the same\nway on the Euphrates and the Tigris, on the Oxus and the Arius.\nThe true land of the world, where dwells the Deity, is Eden.  It\nwas not removed from the earth after the fall; it is there still,\nelse whence the need of cherubs to guard the access to it?  The\nrivers that proceed from it are real rivers, all well known to the\nnarrator, they and the countries they flow through and the\nproducts that come from these countries.  Three of them, the Nile,\nthe Euphrates, and the Tigris, are well known to us also; and if\nwe only knew how the narrator conceived their courses to lie, it\nwould be easy to determine the position of their common source and\nthe situation of Paradise.  Other peoples of antiquity define the\nsituation of their holy land in a similar manner; the streams\nhave different names, but the thing is the same.  The wonderful\ntrees also in the garden of Eden have many analogies even in the\nGermanic mythology.  The belief in the cherubs which guard\nParadise is also widely diffused.  _Krub_ is perhaps the same name,\nand certainly  represents the same idea, as _Gryp_ in Greek, and\n_Grei_f in German.  We find everywhere these beings wonderfully\ncompounded out of lion, eagle, and man.  They are everywhere\nguardians of the divine and sacred, and then also of gold and of\ntreasures.  The ingredients of the story seem certainly to have\nparted with some of their original colour under the influence of\nmonotheism.  The Hebrew people no doubt had something more to tell\nabout the tree of life than now appears.  It is said to have been\nin the midst of the garden, and so it seems to have stood at the\npoint whence the four streams issued, at the fountain of life,\nwhich was so important to the faith of the East, and which\nAlexander marched out to discover.  Paradise, moreover, was\ncertainly not planted originally for man, it was the dwelling of\nthe Deity Himself.  Traces of this may still be recognised.\nJehovah does not descend to it from heaven, but goes out walking\nin the garden in the evening as if He were at home.  The garden of\nDeity is, however, on the whole somewhat naturalised.  A similar\nweakening down of the mythic element is apparent in the matter of\nthe serpent; it is not seen at once that the serpent is a demon.\nYet parting with these foreign elements has made the story no\npoorer, and it has gained in noble simplicity.  The mythic\nbackground gives it a tremulous brightness: we feel that we are\nin the golden age when heaven was still on earth; and yet\nunintelligible enchantment is avoided, and the limit of a sober\nchiaroscuro is not transgressed.\n\nThe story of the creation in six days played, we know, a great\npart in the earlier stages of cosmological and geological science.\nIt is not by  chance that natural science has kept off Genesis ii.\niii.  There is scarcely any nature there.  But poetry has at\nall times inclined to the story of Paradise.  Now we do not\nrequire to ask at this time of day, nor to argue the question,\nwhether mythic poetry or sober prose is the earlier stage in the\ncontemplation of the world.\n\nIntimately connected with the advanced views of nature, which we\nfind in Genesis i., is the \"purified\" notion of God found there.\nThe most important point is that a special word is employed, which\nstands for nothing else than the creative agency of God, and so\ndissociates it from all analogy with human making and shaping--\na word of such exclusive significance that it cannot be reproduced\neither in Latin, or in Greek, or in German.  In a youthful people\nsuch a theological abstraction is unheard of; and so with the\nHebrews we find both the word and the notion only coming into use\nafter the Babylonian exile; they appear along with the emphatic\nstatement of the creative omnipotence of Jehovah with reference to\nnature, which makes its appearance, we may say suddenly, in the\nliterature of the exile, plays a great part in the Book of Job,\nand frequently presents itself in Isaiah xl.-lxvi.  In Genesis ii.\niii., not nature but man is the beginning of the world and of\nhistory; whether a creation out of nothing is assumed there at\nall, is a question which only the mutilation of the commencement\n(before ii. 4b) makes it not quite impossible to answer in the\naffirmative.  At any rate it is not the case here that the command\nof the Creator sets things in motion at the first so that they\ndevelop themselves to separate species out of the universal chaos;\nJehovah Himself puts His hand to the work, and this supposes that\nthe world in its main features was already in existence.  He plants\nand waters the garden, He forms man and breathes life into his\nnostrils, He builds the woman out of the man's rib, having made\na previous attempt, which was unsuccessful, to provide him with\ncompany; the beasts are living witnesses of the failure of His\nexperiments.  In other respects, too, He proceeds like a man.\nIn the evening when it grows cool He goes to walk in the garden,\nand when there discovers by chance the transgression which has\ntaken place, and holds an investigation in which He makes not\nthe least use of His omniscience.  And when He says:\n\"Behold, the man is become like one of us to know good and evil:\nand now lest he stretch forth his hand, and take of the tree of\nlife, and eat and live for ever,\"\nthat is not said in irony, any more  than when He expresses\nHimself on the occasion of the building of Babel;\n\"Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language,\nand this is only the beginning of their doings, and now nothing\nwill be too difficult for them that they have imagined to do;\ngo to, let us go down and confound their language.\"\nThat at the same time the majesty of Jehovah is in no way compromised\nis the mystery of poetic genius.  How would the colourless God of\nabstraction fare in such a situation ?\n\nThe treatment, finally, of the microcosm in the two accounts,\nreflects the difference between them.  In chapter i. man is\ndirected at the very outset to the ground on which he moves to\nthis day: \"Replenish the earth, and subdue it,\" he is told; a\nperfectly natural task.  In chaps. ii. iii. he is placed in\nParadise, and his sphere of activity there, nestled, as he may\nbe said still to be, in the lap of the Deity, is very limited.\nThe circumstances of his life as it now is, the man's toil in the\nfields, the woman's toil in bearing children, do not answer to his\noriginal destiny; they are not a blessing, but a curse.  In the\nJehovistic narrative man is as wonderful to himself as the\nexternal world; in the other he is as much a matter of course as\nit is.  In the one he sees astonishing mysteries in the difference\nof the sexes, in marriage, in child-birth (iv. 1); in the other\nthese are physiological facts which raise no questions or\nreflections: \"He made them male and female, and said, Be\nfruitful and multiply.\"  There his attitude towards the beasts\nis one of mixed familiarity and bewilderment; he does not know\nexactly what to make of them; they are allied to him and yet\nnot quite suitable society for him; here they are beings not\nrelated to him, over which he rules.\n\nThe chief point in which the difference between the two accounts\ncomes to a head is this.  In Genesis ii. iii., man is virtually\nforbidden to lift the veil of things, and to know the world,\nrepresented in the tree of knowledge.  In Genesis i. this is the\ntask set him from the beginning; he is to rule over the whole\nearth, and rule and knowledge come to the same thing--they mean\ncivilisation.  There nature is to him a sacred mystery: here it\nis a mere fact, an object; he is no longer bewildered over\nagainst nature, but free and superior.  There it is a robbery for\nman to seek to be equal with God: here God makes him at first in\nHis own image and after His own likeness, and appoints him His\nrepresentative in the realm of nature.  We cannot regard it as\nfortuitous that in this point Genesis i. asserts the opposite of\nGenesis ii. iii.; the words spoken with such emphasis, and\nrepeated i. 27, v. 1, ix. 6, sound exactly  like a protest\nagainst the view underlying Genesis ii. iii., a protest to be\nexplained partly by the growth of moral and religious\ncultivation, but partly also no doubt due to the convulsive\nefforts of later Judaism to deny that most firmly established of\nall the lessons of history, that the sons suffer for the sins of\nthe fathers. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. A coarser counterpart to Genesis ii. iii, is Genesis vi. 1-4.\nHere also there is a kind of fall of man in an attempt to overpass\nthe boundary between the human race and the divine.  In the priestly\nnarrative (Q) the gulf between spirit, which is divine substance,\nand flesh, which is human substance, is bridged over by the doctrine\nof man's creation in the image of God.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nWhat are generally cited as points of superiority in Genesis i.\nover Genesis ii. iii. are  beyond doubt signs of progress in outward\nculture.  The mental individuality of the two writers, the systematiser\nand the genius, cannot be compared, and the difference in this\nrespect tells nothing of their respective dates; but in its general\nviews of God, nature, and man, Genesis i. stands on a higher,\ncertainly on a later, level.  To our way of thinking its views are\nmore intelligible, simpler, more natural, and on this account they\nhave been held to be also older.  But this is on the one hand to\nidentify naturalness with originality, two things which every one\nknows not to be the same, and on the other hand it is applying\na standard to prehistoric tradition which applies to historical\ntradition only: freedom from miracle and myth count in favour\nof the latter, but not of the former.  But the secret root of the\nmanifest preference long shown by historic-critical theology for\nGenesis i. appears to lie in this, that scholars felt themselves\nresponsible for what the Bible says, and therefore liked it to\ncome as little as possible in conflict with general culture. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. I merely assert that Genesis ii. iii. is prior to Genesis i.;\nI do not believe the story of Paradise and of the Fall to be very\nold with the Israelites.  We are led to think so by the fact that\nthe man and the woman stand at the head of the genealogy of the\nhuman race; a place we should rather expect to be assigned to the\nserpent (according to primitive Semitic belief the serpent was by\nno means opposed to God).  This is the case in the Chronicon\nEdessenum and in Abyssinian legend, and a trace of this is perhaps\npreserved in the name of Eve, as Noldeke thinks.  The name\ncertainly receives this interpretation in Philo (de agric. Noe,\n# 21) and in the Midrash Rabba on Genesis iii. 20 (D. M. Z. 1877,\np. 239, 326).  Moreover, the true seat of God to the Hebrews was\nMount Sinai, and the original Hebrew life was the nomadic life of\nthe patriarchs, not gardening or agriculture.  And finally we\ncannot believe barbarians to have indulged in reflections on the\nadvantages and disadvantages of civilisation.  The materials of\nGenesis ii. iii. can hardly have been imported before the time\nof Solomon.  Where they came from we can scarcely guess; it\nwould be most natural to think of the Phoenicians or the\nCanaanites generally, and this theory is favoured by Genesis iv.\nBut in JE Babel is regarded as the last home of the primitive\nhuman race, Eden and Nod having preceded it; and the Hebrews\nprobably derived the legend in the last instance from Babylon.\nBut this does not prove that this or that parallel brought forward\nby Assyriologists is necessarily of value.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nVIII.I.2. After the beginning of the world we have in Genesis i.-xi.,\nboth in the Priestly Code and in the Jehovist, the transition from\nAdam to Noah (chapters iv. v.), then the flood (vi.-ix.), then the\ntransition from Noah to Abraham (chapters x. xi.).\n\nIn the dry names, which are enumerated in Genesis v. and Genesis iv.\nButtmann recognised the remains of an historical connection once\nwoven together out of primitive stories.  These narratives were\nevidently mythological: their original contents are destroyed\nboth in Genesis v. (Q) and in Genesis iv. (JE), but only the list\nof the Jehovist now bears the appearance of a ruin.  In the other\nthe fragments have been used for a careful new building in which\nthey no longer look like fragments.  Here they are made to serve\nas the pillars of a chronology which descends from Adam to Moses,\ncomputing the period from the one to the other as 2666 years.\nThese 2666 years represent 26 2/3 generations of a hundred years\neach: namely, 1-20 Adam to Abraham, 21 Isaac, 22 Jacob, 23 Levi,\n24 Kohath, 25 Amram, 26 Aaron; the last 2/3 of a generation is\nEleazar, who was a man of mature years at the time of the Exodus.\n/2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. So Noldeke in the Jahrbb. fuer protest. Theol., 1875, p. 344.\nGenesis xv. 13-16 expressly states that the generation is reckoned\nas 100 years in this period.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nSuch a chronology is totally  at variance with the simplicity of the\nlegend. /1/  It is also evident, that if even in the case of the\n\n-- Footnote\n1. \"Exact chronological dates are a sure sign of later working up\nof old poetical legends.\" Buttmann, I. p. 181.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nhistorical books the systematic chronology is no older than the\nperiod of the exile, that of the Pentateuch must be of still later\norigin.  For the historical period there were certain fixed points\nfor chronology to lay hold of; it cannot have begun with the\npatriarchs and gone on to the kings, it must have begun with the\nkings and then gone higher up to the patriarchs; it must have\nbegun at the lower end, where alone it had any firm ground to stand\non.  The belief that the men of the early  world lived to a great\nage is no doubt old, but the settled chronology, based on the years\nin which each patriarch begat his son, is an artifice in which we\nmanifestly see the doctrinaire treatment of history which was coming\ninto vogue for later periods, attempting to lay hold of the earliest\nlegends as well.  Only when the living contents of the legend had\ncompletely disappeared could its skeleton be used as a framework\nof chronology.\n\nButtmann has also shown that the elements of the ten-membered\ngenealogy of Q (Genesis v.) and of the seven-membered of JE (Genesis\niv.) are identical.  In Q, Noah comes after Lamech at the end, and\nat the beginning Adam Cain is doubled and becomes Adam Seth Enos\nCainan. Adam and Enos being synonymous, this amounts to Adam Seth\nAdam Cainan: that is to say Adam Seth are prefixed, and the\nseries begins anew with Enos Cainan, just as in JE.  The Priestly\nCode itself offers a remarkable testimony to the superior\noriginality of the Jehovist genealogy, by ascribing to Lamech,\nhere the ninth in order, the age of 777 years.  This can only be\nexplained from JE, where Lamech is seventh in order, and moreover\nspecially connects himself with the number seven by his speech.\nCain is avenged seven times, and Lamech seventy times seven.\nAnother circumstance shows Q to be posterior to E.  The first man\nis called here not Ha Adam as in JE, but always Adam, without the\narticle (v. 1-5), a difference which Kuenen pertinently compares\nwith that between ho Xristos and Xristos.  But in Q itself (Genesis\ni.) the first man is only the generic man; if in spite of this\nhe is called simply Adam (Genesis v.), as if that were his proper\nname, the only way to account for this is to suppose a\nreminiscence of Genesis ii. iii., though here the personification\ndoes not as yet extend to the name.\n\nWe come to the story of the flood, Genesis vi.-ix.  In JE the flood\nis well led up to: in Q we should be inclined to ask in surprise\nhow the earth has come all at once to be so corrupted, after being\nso far in the best of order, did we not know from JE.  In omitting\nthe fall, the fratricide of Cain, the sword-song of Lamech, the\nintercourse of the sons of God with the daughters of men, and\nparting with the distinctive gloomy colouring which is\nunmistakably spread over the whole early history of man in JE,\nthe Priestly Code has entirely lost the preparation for the\nflood, which now appears in the most abrupt and unaccountable way.\nAs to the contents of the story, the priestly version here agrees\nto an unusual extent with the Jehovistic one; differing from it\nchiefly in the artificial, mathematical marking out of the\nframework.  The flood lasts twelve months and ten days, i.e.,\nexactly a solar year.  It begins in the six hundredth year of\nNoah, on the seventeenth of the second month, rises for one\nhundred and fifty days, and begins to fall on the seventeenth of\nthe seventh month.  On the first month the tops of the mountains\nbecome visible; in the six hundred and first year, on the first\nof the first month, the water has abated; on the twenty-seventh of\nthe second month the earth is dry.  God Himself gives instructions\nand measurements for the building of the ark, as for the\ntabernacle: it is to be three stories high, and divided\nthroughout into small compartments; three hundred cubits long,\nfifty cubits broad, thirty cubits high; and Noah is to make it\naccurately according to the cubit.  When the water is at its\nheight, on the seventeenth of the second month, the flood is\nfifteen cubits above the highest mountains--Noah having apparently\nnot forgotten, in spite of his anxiety, to heave the lead and to\nmark the date in his log-book.  This prematurely modern measuring\nand counting cannot be thought by any one to make the narrative\nmore lifelike; it simply destroys the illusion.  All that is\nidyllic and naive is consistently stripped off the legend as far\nas possible.  As the duration of the flood is advanced from forty\ndays (JE) to a whole year, its area also is immeasurably\nincreased.  The Priestly Code states with particular emphasis that\nit was quite universal, and went over the tops of the highest\nmountains; indeed it is compelled to take this view by its\nassumption that the human race was diffused from the first over\nthe whole earth. Such traits as the missions of the birds and the\nbroken-off olive-leaf are passed over: poetic legend is smoothed\ndown into historic prose.  But the value and the charm of the story\ndepend on such little traits as these; they are not mere\nincidents, to poetry they are the most important thing of all.\nThese are the features which are found just in the same way\nin the Babylonian story of the flood; and if the Jehovist has a\nmuch greater affinity with the Babylonian story than the Priestly\nCode, that shows it to have preserved more faithfully the international\ncharacter of those early legends.  This appears most plainly in\nhis accounting for the flood by the confounding of the boundaries\nbetween spirit and flesh, and the intercourse of the sons of God\nand the daughters of men: the Jehovist here gives us a piece, but\nlittle adulterated, of mythical heathenism--a thing quite\ninconceivable in Q.\n\nThe Priestly Code has the rainbow, which the Jehovist, as we now\nhave him, wants.  But we have to remember that in Genesis vi.-ix.\nthe Jehovist account is mutilated, but the priestly one preserved\nentire.  If the rainbow occurred both in JE and in Q, one of the\naccounts of it had to be omitted, and according to the editor's\nusual procedure the omission had to be from JE.  It is accordingly\nvery  possible that it was not at first wanting in JE; it agrees\nbetter, indeed, with the simple rain, which here brings about the\nflood, than with the opening of the sluices of heaven and the\nfountains of the deep, which produce it in Q, and it would stand\nmuch better after viii. 21, 22 than after ix. 1-7. In the\nPriestly Code, moreover, the meaning of the rainbow is half\nobliterated.  On the one hand, the story is clumsily turned into\nhistory, and we receive the impression either that the rainbow\nonly appeared in the heavens at this one time after the flood, or\nthat it had been there ever since; on the other hand, it is made\nthe token of the covenant between Elohim and Noah, and the use of\nlanguage in other passages, with the analogy of Genesis xvii.,\nwould point to the covenant described in ix. 1-7:  the rainbow\nwould then be the counterpart of circumcision. /1/ The covenant,\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The celestial bow is originally the instrument of the\narrow-darting God, and therefore a symbol of His hostility; but\nHe lays it out of His hand to signify that He has laid aside His\nwrath, and it is a token of His reconciliation and favour.  When\nthere has been such a storm that one might dread a repetition of\nthe flood, the rainbow appears in heaven, the sun, and grace,\nbreaking forth again.  In the 0. T. Q#T has not the meaning of\na mere arc, it always means the war-bow.  And what is most\nimportant of all, the Arabs also always take the iris to be the\nwar-bow of God; Kuzah shoots arrows from his bow, and then hangs\nit up in the clouds (D. M. Z. 1849, p. 200 seq.).  With the Jews\nand their kin, the rainbow has retained far into Christian times a\nremarkably near relation to the Deity.  It is singular that the\nEdomites have a God named Kaus, as well as Kuzah.\n-- Footnote\n\n\ni.e., the law of ch. ix. 1-7, a modification of the first ordinance\ngiven to Adam (i.229, 30) for the world after the flood which still\nsubsists, is for the Priestly Code the crown, the end, the substance,\nof the whole narrative.  Its interest in the law always completely\nabsorbs the simple interest of its story.\n\nWe have also to remark that in this source vengeance for the\nspilling of blood is not the affair of the relatives but the\naffair of God; and that it is demanded for man as man, whether\nmaster or slave, and no money compensation allowed.  The words\nsound simple and solemn: \"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man\nshall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made He man.\"\nYet the religious notion of HUMANITY underlying this sentence\nis not ancient with the Hebrews any more than with other nations;\ncf. Genesis iv. 15, 24, and Exodus xxi. 20 seq. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. De Wette, Beitrage, p. 57. The religious notion of the people\nis old.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe ark lands, according to Q, on Mount Ararat.  In JE, as we have\nit, no landing-place is named.  But this is not original, as\nmythic geography belongs to the Jehovist in all other passages\nwhere it occurs.  In Q the primitive history is never localised,\nthe whole earth is given to man for a dwelling from the first.  In\nJE, on the contrary, they live first in the land of Eden far to\nthe East, and presumably high up in the North; expelled from\nEden they come to the land of Nod, where Cain builds the town of\nEnoch, and departing from this district, which is still far to the\nEast, they settle in the land of Shinar, at the mouths of the\nEuphrates and Tigris, where they build the town of Babel.  Shinar\nis the point of departure of that history of the world which is\nno longer merely  mythical, it is the home of the present human\nrace.  In this point the contrast is very noticeable between the\nlocal definiteness of the Jehovist legend, which lends it the\ncharacter of the idyllic, and the vague generalness of the other.\nIn Shinar, according to JE, Genesis xi. 1-9, men are still all\ntogether, and they desire to remain together there.  Not to be\nscattered, they build a great city, which is to hold them all;\nand to make themselves a name, they add to it a high tower which\nis to reach heaven.  Jehovah, perceiving in these attempts the\ndanger of further progress in the same direction, comes down to\nconfound their language, and by such violent means brings about\nthe dispersion of the human race by the unity of which He feels\nhimself threatened.  In Q it is understood that men are scattered\nover the whole earth; they are never represented as all living at\none point, and pains are accordingly taken to describe the flood\nas quite universal.  The division of the people comes about quite\nsimply in the way of genealogy, and the division of the languages\nis not the cause but the result of it.  Accompanying this we find\nonce more a notable difference in point of mental attitude; what\nJE regards as unnatural, and only to be understood as a violent\nperversion of the original order, is in Q the most natural thing\nin the world.\n\nThe period between the flood and Abraham is filled up in Q by\nanother ten-membered genealogy, which, to judge from the analogy\nof Genesis iv., had probably only seven members in JE.  It cannot\nhave been wanting there, and may  have passed straight from Shem\nto Heber, and left out the grandfather Nahor (x.  21, 24, xxiv.\n15, xxix. 5), who is even less to be distinguished from his\ngrandson of the same name than Adam from Enos.  The original\ndwelling-place of the Terahites is, according to Q, not the\nMesopotamian Haran (Carrhae), as in JE (xii. 1, xxiv. 4), but Ur\nCasdim, which can only mean Ur of the Chaldees.  From there\nTerah, the father of Abraham, Nahor, and Haran, is said to have\nemigrated with Abraham and Lot, the son of Haran, who was already\ndead.  If this was so, Nahor must have stayed at Ur Casdim, and\nHaran must have died there.  But neither of these assumptions is\nconsistent with the indications of the narrative.  The different\naspirates notwithstanding, it is scarcely allowable to separate\nthe man Haran from the town Haran and to make him die elsewhere.\nIt is equally impossible to regard Ur in Chaldaea as the\nresidence of Nahor, whether the grandfather or the grandson of the\nsame name matters nothing; for it is obviously not without\nrelation to real facts that the place, which in any  case must be\nin Syria, where the Nahorides Laban and Rebecca dwell, is called\nin J the town of Nahor, and in E Haran.  Even in Q though Nahor\nstays in Ur, Laban and Rebecca do not live in Chaldaea, but in\nPadan Aram, ie., in Mesopotamian Syria.  What helps to show that\nUr Casdim does not belong to the original form of the tradition,\nis that even in Serug the father of Nahor, we are far away from\nBabylon towards the West.  Serug is the name of a district which\nborders Haran on the North; how can the son of Serug all at once\nleap back to Ur Casdim?  What the reasons were for making Babylon\nAbraham's point of departure, we need not now consider; but after\nhaving left Ur Casdim with Terah, it is curious how he only gets\nas far as Haran, and stays there till his father's death.  In Q\nalso it is from Haran that he enters Palestine.  Here, if anywhere,\nwe have in the doubling of the point of departure an attempt to\nharmonise and to gain a connection with JE.\n\n\nVII.I.3. The view is happily gaining ground that, in the mythical\nuniversal history  of mankind in Genesis i.-xi., the Jehovist\nversion is more primitive than the priestly one.  And we are, in\nfact, compelled to adopt this view when we observe that the\nmaterials of the narratives in question have not an Israelite, but\na universal ethnic origin.  The traces of this origin are much\nmore distinctly preserved in the Jehovist, whence it comes that\ncomparative mythology occupies itself chiefly  with his\nnarratives, though without knowing that it is doing so.  The\nprimitive legend has certainly undergone alterations in his hands\ntoo; its mythic character is much obliterated, and all sorts of\nIsraelite elements have crept in.  Even the fratricide of Cain,\nwith the contrast in the background between the peaceful life of\nthe Hebrews in the land of Canaan and the restless wanderings of\nthe Cainites (Kenites) in the neighbouring desert, quite falls out\nof the universal historical and geographical framework.  Still\nmore does the curse of Canaan do so; here the trait is evidently\nold, that Noah was the first to make wine, but this has been made\na merely subordinate feature of a pronouncedly national\nIsraelite narrative.  But in the Jehovist the process of emptying\nthe primitive legend of its true meaning and contents has not gone\nnearly so far as in the Priestly Code, where it actually creates\nsurprise when some mythic element shines through, as in the cases\nof Enoch, and of the rainbow.\n\nThe mythic materials of the primitive world-history are suffused\nin the Jehovist with a peculiar sombre earnestness, a kind of\nantique philosophy of history, almost bordering on pessimism: as\nif mankind were groaning under some dreadful weight, the pressure\nnot so much of sin as of creaturehood (vi. 1-4).  We notice a shy,\ntimid spirit, which belongs more to heathenism.  The rattling of\nthe chains at intervals only aggravates the feeling of confinement\nthat belongs to human nature; the gulf of alienation between man\nand God is not to be bridged over.  Jehovah does not stand high\nenough, does not feel Himself secure enough, to allow the\nearth-dwellers to come very near Him; there is almost a suggestion\nof the notion of the jealousy of the gods.  This mood, though in\nmany ways softened, is yet recognisable enough in Genesis ii. iii.,\nin vi. 1-4, and xi. 1-9.  In the Priestly Code it has entirely\ndisappeared; here man no longer feels himself under a secret curse,\nbut allied to God and free, as lord of nature.  True, the Priestly\nCode also recognises in its own fashion the power of sin--this we\nsaw in the chapter on sacrifice; but sin as the root of ruin,\nexplaining it and capable of being got rid of, is the very opposite\nof blind, not-to-be-averted fate.  The slavery of sin and the\nfreedom of the children of God are in the Gospel correlated.  The\nmythical mode of view is destroyed by the autonomy of morality;\nand closely  connected with this is the rational way of looking at\nnature, of which we find the beginnings in the Priestly Code.  This\nview of nature presupposes that man places himself as a person over\nand outside of nature, which he regards as simply a thing.  We may\nperhaps assert that were it not for this dualism of Judaism, mechanical\nnatural science would not exist.\n\nThe removal of colour from the myths is the same thing as the\nprocess of Hebraising them.  The Priestly Code appears to\nHebraise less than the Jehovist; it refrains on principle from\nconfounding different times and customs.  But in fact it Hebraises\nmuch more: it cuts and shapes the whole of the materials so that\nthey may serve as an introduction to the Mosaic legislation.  It\nis true that the Jehovist also placed these ethnic legends at the\nentrance to his sacred legend, and perhaps selected them with a\nview to their forming an introduction to it; for they are all\nethical and historical in their nature, and bear on the problems\nof the world of man, and not the world of nature. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1 Yet it is possible the selection presented him with no difficulty,\nsince cosmological myths were not popular tales, but priestly\nspeculations, with which he was quite unacquainted.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nBut with the Jehovist justice was yet done to some extent to the\nindividuality of the different narratives: in the Priestly Code\ntheir individuality is not only modified to suit the purpose of\nthe whole, but completely destroyed.  The connection leading up\nto the Torah of Moses is everything, the individual pieces have\nno significance but this.  It follows of course from this mode of\ntreatment that the connection itself loses all living reality; it\nconsists, apart from the successive covenants, in mere genealogy\nand chronology.  De Wette thinks all this beautiful because it is\nsymmetrical and intelligible, and leads well up to a conclusion.\nBut this will not be every one's taste; there is such a thing as\npoetical material without manufacture.\n\nHow loosely the narratives of the primitive history are connected\nwith each other in the Jehovist we see very clearly in the\nsection dealing with the flood.  It disagrees both with what goes\nbefore and with what follows it.  The genealogy Genesis iv. 16-24\nissues not in Noah but in Lamech; instead of Shem, Ham, and\nJaphet, the sons of Noah, we have Jabal, Jubal, Tubal, the sons of\nLamech, as the inaugurators of the second period.  We have also the\ncharacteristic difference, that Shem, Ham, and Japhet give us a\ndivision of mankind according to nations, while Jabal, Jubal, Tubal\ngive a division according to guilds, which are necessarily those\nof the same people, as no people consists entirely of musicians\nor entirely of smiths.  And it is undoubtedly the aim of chapter\niv. 16 seq. to describe the origin of the present civilisation,\nnot of that which is extinct, having been destroyed by the flood.\nTubal-Cain is the father of the smiths of the present, not of\nthose before the flood; Jubal the father of the musicians, Jabal\nof the shepherds of the narrator's own period; hence they stand\nat the end of the genealogy and open the second period.  But as\nGenesis iv. 16-24 does not look forward to the flood, so neither\ndoes Genesis xi. 1-9 (the building of the tower of Babel) look back\nto it.  This piece is obviously not the continuation of chapter x.\nThat chapter brought us to a point at which the earth was occupied\nby different peoples and different tongues; and here (xi. 1) we\nare suddenly carried back to a time when the whole earth was of\none language and one speech.  Can this have been the time when\nNoah's family made up the whole population of the earth? or in\nother words, does xi. 1-9 go back before chap x. and join on to\nvi.-ix.?  Manifestly not: \"the whole earth\" (xi. 1) is not\nmerely Shem and Ham and Japhet; the multitude of men who seek by\nartificial means to concentrate themselves, and are then split up\ninto different peoples, cannot consist of only  one family.  The\npoint of view is quite different from what it would be if chaps.\nvi.-ix. were taken into account; the narrator knows nothing of\nthe flood, which left Noah's family alone surviving out of the\nwhole world.  Nor would it avail to place xi. 1 at a period so\nlong subsequent to the flood that the family might have increased\nagain to a great people; even this would not give the requisite\nconnection with the idea of Noah and his three sons.  If the latter\nunited themselves afterwards in one family, and one coherent\npeople thus grew out of them, which was then split up by a higher\npower into different languages, then Shem, Ham, and Japhet\nentirely lose their significance as the great heads of the\nnations.\n\nThe fact is simply this, that the whole section of the flood\n(Genesis vi.-ix.) is an isolated piece without any connection\nwith the rest of the narrative of the Jehovist.  Another strange\nerratic boulder is the intercourse of the sons of God with the\ndaughters of men (Genesis vi. 1-4). /l/ The connection between\n\n-- Footnote\n1 See p. 307, note.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nthis piece and the story of the flood which follows it, is of the\nloosest; and it is in entire disagreement with the preceding part\nof the Jehovist narrative, as it tells of a second fall of man,\nwith a point of view morally and mentally so different from that\nof the first, that this story can in no wise be regarded as\nsupplementing or continuing that one.  In Genesis vi. 1-4 morality\nhas nothing to do with the guilt that is incurred.  We have further\nexamples which illustrate the fragmentary character of the Jehovist\nprimitive history as we have it, in the story of the fratricide\nof Cain, and the curse of Canaan, which indeed ought not to be\nhere at all, but belong by rights to the history of the\npatriarchs.\n\nWe may close this section by reproducing the words in which\nButtmann (i. 208 seq.) indicates his disagreement with De Wette\nin regard to the treatment of the early legends of the Bible:\nthey are well worth noting.  \"Thoroughly familiar with the\nantiquities of the race in whose sacred writings these monuments\nhave been preserved to us, De Wette recognises and follows the\nnational spirit of that race in their most ancient records.  In\nthis way he discovers amidst these ruins the thread of an old\nconnection, a kind of epos, the theme of which was the\nglorification of the people of Israel, a theme which finds a\nprelude even in the primitive history of the human race.  This\nview is of the first importance for the object he has before him,\nwhich is the true criticism of these books; and for the moment\nother considerations must necessarily yield to it.  My object in\nthis whole investigation is only to find the universal element in\nthe legends of different nations, and especially to discover what\nis common property in the myths of the different branches of the\ngreat family of nations to which the Hebrews and the Greeks and we\nourselves alike belong. Thus each myth reveals itself\nto me as existing for itself, having a basis and completeness of\nits own, and even when I find it in other nations I at once assert\nfor it its character as already known to me.  Thus De Wette and I\ncome to differ in the view we take of individual myths.  To him they\ncommonly appear as spontaneous free inventions of individual men\nfor their own purposes; not in the ignoble sense in which the vulgar\nview speaks of the religious narratives of ancient peoples, but free\ninventions in which there is no intention to deceive.  I, on the\ncontrary, can allow no invention in these oldest portions of\nmythology.  A true myth is never invented; it is handed down.\nIt is not true, but it is honest.  From small elements which fancy\noffered as true, these myths arose and grew, without any contributor\nto their growth feeling that he had of himself added to them.  Those\nonly had any conscious intention in the matter, who touched up the\noldest pure myths, and drew them into the great circle of their\nnational history; and their intention, though conscious, was quite\ninnocent and harmless, as De Wette describes it.  Now De Wette\nsees the chief traces of that unity, or of that national epos\nwhich winds its way through the Mosaic history, in the Elohim\ndocument.  For his critical purpose, therefore, this document is\nthe most important, and it he for the most part follows.  My aim\nforbids me to attend to anything but the inner completeness of the\nstories taken one by one, and this I see most clearly in the\nJehovah fragments; whence I have had to yield the preference to\nthem in the foregoing discussions.  Should each of us attain his\nend, our views will excellently supplement each other.\"\n\nWe may add that just that linked unity of its narrative, which\nhas procured for the Priestly Code the title of the \"mainstock,\"\nshows that it presents us with a more developed form of the myths;\nwhile the Jehovist, just because of the defective connection\n(in form) of his \"fragments,\" which long caused him to be regarded\nas a mere filler-up of the fundamental work, must be judged to stand\nnearer to the fountain.\n\n\nVIII.II.\n\nVIII.II.1. In the history of the patriarchs also, the outlines of\nthe narrative are the same in Q and in JE.  We find in both Abraham's\nimmigration into Canaan with Sarah and Lot, his separation from\nLot, the birth of Ishmael by Hagar, the appearance of God for the\npromise of Isaac, Isaac's birth, the death of Sarah and Abraham,\nIshmael, Isaac's marriage with Rebecca, Jacob and Esau, Jacob's\njourney to Mesopotamia and the foundation of his family there, his\nreturn, Esau, Joseph in Egypt, Jacob in Egypt, Jacob's blessing on\nJoseph and his other sons, his death and burial.  The materials here\nare not mythical but national, and therefore more transparent, and in\na certain sense more historical.  It is true, we attain to no\nhistorical knowledge of the patriarchs, but only of the time when the\nstories about them arose in the Israelite people; this later age is\nhere unconsciously projected, in its inner and its outward features,\ninto hoar antiquity, and is reflected there like a glorified mirage.\nThe skeleton of the patriarchal history consists, it is well known,\nof ethnographic genealogy.  The Leah-tribes are connected with the\nRachel-tribes under the common father Jacob-Israel: then entire\nIsrael is connected with the people of Edom under the old name of\nIsaac (Amos vii 9, 16).  Isaac again is connected under Abraham\nwith Lot, the father of Moab and Ammon.  All these nearly related\nand once closely allied Hebrew tribes are shown to be intimately\nconnected with the inhabitants of the Mesopotamian desert, and\nsharply marked off from the Canaanites, in whose land they\ndwelt.  The narrative speaks of its characters as succeeding each\nother in time or contemporary; in this form it indicates logical\nor statistical subordination and co-ordination.  As a fact the\nelements are generally older than the groups and the smaller\ngroups than the greater.  The migrations which are mentioned of\npeoples and tribes are necessary consequences of the assumed\nrelationship.  It would be quite possible to present the\ncomposition and relative position of any given people at a given\ntime in a similar way in the form of a genealogical early\nhistory.  True genealogy can scarcely represent precisely  the\nexisting relations.  It cannot always be determined as a matter\nof fact whether a tribe is the cousin or the brother or the\ntwin-brother of another tribe, or whether there is any affinity\nat all between the two; the affinity can be understood and\ninterpreted in different ways, the grouping always depends to some\nextent on the point of view of the genealogist, or even on his\nlikings and antipathies.  The reason why the Arameans are made so\nnearly related to the Israelites is probably that the\npatriarchal legend arose in Middle and North Israel; as indeed\nthe pronounced preference shown for Rachel and Joseph clearly\nproves to have been the case.  Did the legend belong originally\nto Judah, it is likely that more prominence would be given to the\nCainite (Kenite) tribes of the peninsula of Sinai, which, as it\nis, are too much thrust into the background; for there can be no\ndoubt that in the earliest history of Israel these tribes were of\nno small importance.  Nor are apparent contradictions wanting in\nthe ethnographic genealogy.  Ishmael, Edom, and the Cainite tribes\nfirst mentioned, come into mutual contact in different ways, which\nmay be quite naturally explained from different views and arrangements\nof their mutual relationships.  And lastly we may add that the\ngenealogical form lends itself to the reception of every sort of\nmaterials.  In the patriarchal legend, however, the ethnographic\nelement is always predominant.   Abraham alone is certainly not\nthe name of a people like Isaac and Lot: he is somewhat difficult\nto interpret.  That is not to say that in such a connection as this\nwe may regard him as a historical person; he might with more\nlikelihood be regarded as a free creation of unconscious art. He is\nperhaps the youngest figure in the company, and it was probably at\na comparatively late period that he was put before his son Isaac. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The stories about Abraham and those about Isaac are so similar,\nthat they cannot possibly be held to be independent of each\nother.  The stories about Isaac, however, are more original, as\nmay be seen in a striking way on comparing Genesis xx. 2-16 with\nxxvi 6-12.  The short nnd profane version, of which Isaac is the\nhero, is more lively and pointed; the long and edifying version\nin which Abraham replaces Isaac, makes the danger not possible but\nactual, thus necessitating the intervention of the Deity and so\nbringing about a glorification of the patriarch, which he little\ndeserved.  All the commentators on Genesis indeed, regard chapter\nxx. as the original of xxvi.; they do not base their judgment,\nhowever, on a comparison of the parallel passages, but merely\nconsider that as the father is older than the son, the story\nabout the father is older than the corresponding story about the\nson; and they regard Isaac generally as a mere echo of Abraham.\nThe obviousness of this principle is too great, and against it we\nhave to consider that the later development of the legend shows a\nmanifest tendency to make Abraham the patriarch par excellence and\ncast the others into the shade.  In the earlier literature, on the\nother hand, Isaac is mentioned even by Amos, Abraham first appears\nin Isaiah xl.-lxvii.  Micah vii 20 belongs to the exile, and the\nwords \"who redeemed Abraham\" in Isaiah  xxix. 22 are not genuine;\nthey have no possible position in the sentence, and the idea of\nthe salvation of Abraham (from the fire of the Chaldaeans) is of\nlate occurrence.  I certainly do not mean to maintain that\nAbraham was not yet known when Amos wrote; but he scarcely stood\nby this time at the same stage as Isaac and Jacob.  As a saint of\nHebron he might he of Calibite ordain, and have something to do\nwith Ram (1Chronicles ii.).  Abram may stand for Abiram, as Abner\nfor Abiner and Ahab for Ahiab.  The name Abu Ruham occurs in the\nHadith as _nomen proprium viri_.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIn the Jehovist this skeleton of ethnographic genealogy is found\ncovered throughout with flesh and blood.  The patriarchs, Abraham,\nIsaac, and Jacob, are not mere names, but living forms, ideal\nprototypes of the true Israelite.  They are all peace-loving\nshepherds, inclined to live quietly beside their tents, anxious\nto steer clear of strife and clamour, in no circumstances prepared\nto meet force with force and oppose injustice with the sword.\nBrave and manly  they are not, but they are good fathers of\nfamilies, a little under the dominion of their wives, who are\nendowed with more temper.  They serve Jehovah in essentially the\nsame way as their descendants in historical times; religion with\nthem does not consist of sacrifice alone, but also of an upright\nconversation and trustful resignation to God's providence.  Jacob\nis sketched with a more realistic touch than the other two; he has\na strong dash of artifice and desire of gain, qualities which do\nnot fail to secure the ends he aims at.  He escapes from every\ndifficulty and danger, not only safely but with profit: Jehovah\nhelps him, but above all he helps himself, without showing, as\nwe should judge, any great scruple in his choice of means.  The\nstories about him do not pretend to be moral, the feeling they\nbetray is in fact that of undissembled joy in all the successful\nartifices and tricks of the patriarchal rogue. Of the subordinate\nfigures Esau is drawn with some liking for him, then Laban, and\nthe weak-kneed saint, Lot.  Ishmael is drawn as the prototype of\nthe Bedouin, as a wild ass of a man, whose hand is against every\nman, and every man's hand against him.\n\nIt is remarkable that the heroes of Israelite legend show so little\ntaste for war, and in this point they seem to be scarcely a true\nreflection of the character of the Israelites as known from their\nhistory.  Yet it is not difficult to understand that a people\nwhich found itself incessantly driven into war, not only dreamed\nof an eternal peace in the future, but also embodied the wishes of\nits heart in these peaceful forms of the golden age in the past.\nWe have also to consider that the peaceful shepherd life of the\npatriarchs is necessary to the idyllic form in which the early\nhistory of the people is cast; only peoples or tribes can make\nwar, not single men. /1/ This also must serve to explain why\n\n-- Footnote\n1. This consideration is certainly less decisive than the\nforegoing one.  Jacob is a peaceful shepherd, not only because\nof the idyllic form of the narrative, but in his own being and\ncharacter.  He forms the strongest contrast to his brother Esau,\nwho in spite of the idyllic form is a man of war.\nSuch exceptions as Genesis xiv. and xlviii.'22 (chapter xxxiv.)\nonly prove the rule.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nthe historical self-consciousness of the nation finds so little\nexpression in the personal character of the patriarchs.  It makes\nvent for itself only in the inserted prophecies of the future;\nin these we trace that national pride which was the fruit of the\nexploits of David, yet always in a glorified form, rising to\nreligious exaltation.\n\nIn the traits of personal character ascribed to the patriarchs they\nrepresent substantially the nature and the aspirations of the\nindividual Israelite.  The historic-political relations of Israel\nare reflected with more life in the relations borne by the patriarchs\nto their brothers; cousins, and other relatives. The background is\nnever long concealed here, the temper of the period of the kings\nis everywhere discernible.  This is the case most clearly perhaps\nin the story about Jacob and Esau.  The twins are at variance, even\nin the womb; even in the matter of his birth the younger refuses\nprecedence to the elder, and tries to hold him back by the heel.\nThis is interpreted to the anxious mother by the oracle at\nBeersheba as follows: \"Two nations are in thy womb, and two\npeoples are separated from thy bowels, and the one people shall\nbe stronger than the other, and the elder shall serve the\nyounger.\"  The boys grow up very different.  Esau is a rough and\nsunburnt hunter, ranges about in the desert, and lives from day to\nday without care: Jacob, a pious, smooth man, stays at home\nbeside the tents, and understands the value of things which his\nunsophisticated brother disregards.  The former is the favourite\nof his father, the autochthonous Isaac, the latter is preferred by\nthe mother, the Aramaean Rebecca; the former stays in his own\nland and takes his wives from the original population of south\nCanaan and the Sinaitic peninsula, the latter emigrates, and\nbrings his wives from Mesopotamia.  Thus the contrast is distinctly\nprefigured, which at a later time appeared, between the rough Edom,\nsprung from the soil and having his roots in it, and smoother,\nmore civilised Israel, which had more affinity with the great\npowers of the world.  By means of deceit and trickery the\nyounger brother succeeds in depriving the elder of the paternal\nblessing and of the right of the first-born; the elder, in\nconsequence of this, determines to kill him, and the situation\nbecomes strained.  Edom was a people and a kingdom before Israel,\nbut was then overshadowed by Israel, and even subjugated at last\nby David: hence the fierce hatred between the brother nations, of\nwhich Amos speaks.  The words of the blessing of Jacob show this\nquite distinctly to be the historical basis of the legend, a\nbasis of which the Jews were perfectly conscious: we hear in the\nblessing of repeated attempts of the Edomites to cast off the yoke\nof Israel, and it is predicted that these efforts will be at last\nsuccessful.  Thus the stories about Jacob and Esau cannot have\ntaken form even in outline, before the time of David; in their\npresent form (Genesis xxvii. 40) their outlook extends to times\nstill later.  The roots of the legend being thus traceable in\nlater history, a circumstance which the Jehovist does not attempt\nto conceal, it is no more than an apparent anachronism when he\ntakes occasion to give a complete list of the Edomite kings\ndown to David, interspersing it with historical notes, as, for\nexample, that Hadad ben Bedad (possibly a contemporary of\nGideon) defeated the Midianites on the plains of Moab.  In the\nstory of Jacob and Laban, again, the contemporary background\nshines through the patriarchal history very distinctly.  The\nHebrew, on his half-migration, half-flight from Mesopotamia to the\nland of Jordan, is hotly pursued by his Aramean father-in-law,\nwho overtakes him at Gilead.  There they treat with each other\nand pile up a heap of stones, which is to be the boundary between\nthem, and which they mutually pledge themselves not to overstep\nwith hostile intentions.  This answers to the actual state of the\nfacts.  The Hebrew migration into Canaan was followed by the\nAramaean, which threatened to overwhelm it.  Gilead was the\nboundary between the two peoples, and the arena, during a long\nperiod, of fierce conflicts which they waged with each other.\nThe blessing of Jacob, in the oracle on Joseph, also mentions the\nSyrian wars: the archers who press Joseph hard, but are not able\nto overcome him, can be no other than the Arameans of Damascus, to\nwhose attacks he was exposed for a whole century.  Joseph here\nappears always as the pillar of the North-Israelite monarchy, the\nwearer of the crown among his brethren, a position for which he\nwas marked out by his early dreams. The story of Joseph,\nhowever, in so far as historical elements can be traced in it at\nall, and not merely the free work of poetry, is based on much\nearlier events, from a time when the union was just being\naccomplished of the two sections which together became the people\nof Israel.  The trait of his brother's jealousy of him points\nperhaps to later events.  /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. It deserves to be considered that at first Joseph is in Egypt\nalone, and that his brothers came after, at his request.  When the\nnotion of united Israel was transferred to the distant past, one\nconsequence was that the fortunes of the part could not be\nseparated from those of the whole.  In the same way, Rachel being\nan Aramaean, Leah must be one too.  Perhaps the combination of\nRachel and Leah in a national unity was only accomplished by\nMoses.  Moses came from the peninsula of Sinai (Leah) to lead the\nIsraelites there from Goshen (Joseph).  The designation of Levite\nhe could not receive in Joseph, only in Leah.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe historical associations which form the groundwork of the\nstories of the other sons of Jacob are also comparatively old.\nThey afford us almost the only information we possess about the\ngreat change which must have taken place in the league of the\ntribes soon after Moses.  This change principally affected the\ngroup of the four old Leah tribes which were closely connected\nwith each other.  Reuben assumes the rights of his father\nprematurely and loses the leadership.  Simeon and Levi make,\napart from the others, a faithless attack on the Canaanites,\nand collective Israel lets them suffer the consequences alone,\nso that they succumb to the vengeance of their enemies and cease\nto be tribes.  Hence the primogeniture is transferred to Judah.\nJudah also suffers great losses, no doubt in the conflict which\naccompanied the settlement in the land of Canaan, and is reduced\nto a fraction of his former importance.  But this breach is made\ngood by  fresh accessions from the mother-stock of the Leah tribes,\nby the union of Pharez and Zarah, i.e. of Caleb, Kenaz, Cain (Ken),\nJerahmeel, with the remnant of ancient Judah.  The Jehovist\nnarratives about Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, are undoubtedly\nbased on occurrences connected with the period of the conquest of\nthe holy land; but this is not the place to trace the historical\ninterpretation of the stories further. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. See \"Israel,\" sec. 2, infra.  Genesis iv. 1-15 is a similar\ntribal history.  The old tribe of Cain, the name of which is\nindicative of settlement and culture, appears to have been broken\nup and scattered to the four winds in very early times (Judges v.\n24) in the same way as Levi, with which it appears to have\ndivided the priesthood.  We have already said that Genesis iv. 1-l5\ncan only have found its way  into the primitive legend by\ninterpolation.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIt may, however, be remarked, and it is important to\ndo so, that even where true historic motives are indisputably\npresent in the patriarchal legend, it is not exactly a\nreproduction of the facts as they occurred.  In reality Edom\nalways kept up his hatred against Israel and suppressed his feeling\nof relationship (Amos i. 11); in Genesis he meets his brother\nreturning from Mesopotamia, and trembling with anxiety at the\nencounter, in a conciliatory temper which is quite affecting.\nThe touch is one to reflect no small honour on the ancient\nIsraelite.  To set against this we have the touch, manifestly\ninspired by hatred, of Genesis xix. 30-38.  No one can fail to\nwonder why the daughters of Lot are nameless, but this shows that\nthey are inserted between Lot and his sons Moab and Ammon purely\nfor the sake of the incest.  Sympathies and antipathies are\neverywhere at work, and the standpoint is throughout that of\nNorthern Israel, as appears most evidently from the circumstance\nthat Rachel is the fair and the beloved wife of Jacob, whom alone\nin fact he wished to marry, and Leah the ugly and despised one who\nwas imposed on him by a trick. /2.  On the whole, the rivalries\n\n-- Footnote\n2 This, however, only warrants us to conclude that these legends\nfirst arose in Ephraim, not that they were written down there in\nthe form in which we have them.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nwhich really existed are rather softened than exaggerated in this\npoetical illustration of them; what tends to unity is more prominent\nand is more carefully treated than what tends to separation.  There\nis no trace of any side glances at persons and events of the day, as,\ne.g., at the unseemly occurrences at the court of David, and as\nlittle of any twisting or otherwise doctoring the materials to\nmake them advance this or that tendency.\n\nBut these stories would be without point were it not for other\nelements which enter into them and attach them to this and that\nparticular locality.  In this aspect we have first of all to\nconsider that the patriarchs are regarded as the founders of the\npopular worship at Shechem, Bethel, Beersheba, and Hebron, as we\nsaw above, <I.II.1. \"In perfect correspondence...\">.  A whole series\nof stories about them are cultus-myths; in these they discover\nby means of a theophany that a certain spot of earth is holy ground;\nthere they erect an altar, and give it the name of the place.\nThey dwell exclusively at places which were afterwards regarded as\nprimeval sanctuaries and inaugurate the sacrifices which are offered\nthere.  The significance of these stories is entirely bound up with\nthe locality; they possess an interest only for those who still\nsacrifice to Jehovah on the same altar as Abraham once did, under\nthe same sacred oak of Moreh or Mamre.  In the same way the\npatriarchs discover or excavate the caves, or springs, or wells,\nand plant the trees, which their posterity still count sacred or\nat least honourable, after the lapse of thousands of years.  In\nsome cases also striking or significant formations of the earth's\nsurface receive a legendary explanation from the patriarchal age.\nWere the Dead Sea not there, Sodom and Gomorrha would not have\nperished; were there not a small flat tongue of land projecting\ninto the marsh from the south-east, Lot would have directed his\nflight straight to the mountains of his sons Moab and Ammon, and\nwould not have made the detour by Zoar, which only serves to\nexplain why this corner was not included in the ruin to the area\nof which it properly belongs.  The pillar of salt into which Lot's\nwife was turned was still pointed out in the days of Josephus;\nperhaps the smoke of the furnace which Abraham saw from the\nJewish shore the morning after the catastrophe has some connection\nwith the town of the same name which was situated there. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1 Joshua HNB#N xv. 62 is no doubt more correctly HKB#N: the\nname, having the article prefixed to it, must be susceptible of a\nclear meaning.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe origin of Mount Gilead is explained from its historical\nsignificance: it is an immense mound which was once heaped up by\nLaban and Jacob in order to serve as a boundary between Aram and\nIsrael.  In many  instances the names of places gave rise to a\nlegend which does not always hit upon the true reason of the name.\nThe spring of Lahai Roi, for example, is an instance of this. The\ndiscovery of this spring saved Hagar and Ishmael from dying of\nthirst.  Hagar called the name of Jehovah who spoke with her, El\nRoi (God of Seeing), for she said, \"Have I seen God, and am I\nkept in life after my  seeing?\"  Wherefore the well is called\nBeer Lahai Roi (he lives who sees me); it is between Kadesh and\nBerdan.  According to Judges xv. 18-20, 2Samuel xxiii. 11, a\nmore correct interpretation of Lahai Roi would be \" jawbone of the\nantelope \"--this being the appearance presented by a series of\nrocky teeth standing close together there. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1 Compare Onugnathos and the camel's jawbone in Vakidi, op. cit.\np. 298, note 2:  Jakut iv. 353, 9 seq. R)Y is an obsolete name\nof an animal. For HLM, Genesis xvi. 15, we should read )LHYM (cf.\n1Samuel iii. 13), and before )XRY we should probably insert\nW)XY.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe original motive of the legend, however, as we have now\nindicated it, appears in the Jehovist always and everywhere\ncovered over with the many-coloured robe of fancy.  The longer a\nstory was spread by oral tradition among the people, the more\nwas its root concealed by the shoots springing from it.  For\nexample, we may assume with regard to the story of Joseph that,\njust because it has almost grown into a romance, its origin\nstretches back to a remote antiquity.  The popular fancy plays as\nit will; yet it does not make such leaps as to make it impossible\nto trace its course.  Miracles, angels, theophanies, dreams, are\nnever absent from the palette.  When Rachel eats the mandrakes\nwhich Reuben had found, and which Leah had given up to her, and\nthey remove her barrenness so that she becomes the mother of\nJoseph, we have a story based on a vulgar superstition.  Purely\nmythical elements are found isolated in the story of Jacob's\nwrestling with the Deity at the ford of the Jabbok.  Etymology\nand proverbs are a favourite motive, and often give rise to lively\nand diversified tales.  Even in pieces which we should be inclined\nto attribute to the art of individuals, old and characteristic\nthemes may be involved.  The story of Jacob and Laban, for\nexample, is entirely composed of such materials.  The courtship at\nthe well is twice repeated with no great variation.  The trait of\nthe father-in-law's wish to get his oldest daughter first off his\nhands and craftily bringing her to the son-in-law after the\nwedding-feast, is scarcely due to the invention of an individual.\nThe shepherd's tricks, by which Jacob colours the sheep as he likes,\nhave quite the flavour of a popular jest.  The observance of\nhospitality or transgressions against it, occupy a prominent place\nin the Genesis of the  Jehovist; Lot's entertainment, and the\nSodomites' insulting maltreatment, of the Deity who comes among\nthem in disguise, is an incident that appears in the legends of\nmany races.  There is little psychological embellishment, little\nactual making-up; for the most part we have the product of a\ncountless number of narrators, unconsciously modifying each\nother's work.  How plastic and living the materials must have\nbeen even in the ninth and eighth century, we see from the\nmanifold variants and repetitions of the same stories, which,\nhowever, scarcely change the essential character of the themes.\n\nOne more trait must be added to the character of the Jehovist.\nEach of his narratives may be understood by itself apart from\nthe rest; the genealogy  serves merely to string them together;\ntheir interest and significance is not derived from the connection\nin which they stand.  Many of them have a local colour which\nbespeaks a local origin; and how many of them are in substance\ninconsistent with each other, and stand side by side only by\ncompulsion!  The whole literary character and loose connection of\nthe Jehovist story of the patriarchs reveals how gradually its\ndifferent elements were brought together, and how little they\nhave coalesced to a unity.  In this point the patriarchal history\nof the Jehovist, stands quite on the same footing with his legend\nof the origins of the human race, the nature of which we have\nalready demonstrated.\n\nVIII.II.2. It is from the Jehovistic form of the legends that we\nderive our picture of the patriarchs, that picture which children\nlearn at school and which they find it easy to retain.  To compare\nthe parallel of the Priestly Code it is necessary to restore it as\na whole, for few are aware of the impression it produces.\n\n\"And Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed out of\nHaran.  And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son,\nand all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls\nthat they had gotten in Haran, and they went forth to go into\nthe land of Canaan, and into the land of Canaan they came (xii.\n4b, 5).  And the land was not able to bear them that they might\ndwell together, for their substance was great so that they could\nnot dwell together.  And they separated themselves the one from\nthe other; Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled\nin the cities of the Kikkar. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Where the Dead Sea was afterwards.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nAnd it came to pass when God destroyed the cities of the\nKikkar, that God remembered Abram, and sent Lot out of the midst\nof the overthrow-, when he overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt...\n(xiii. 6, 11b, 12ab, xix. 29).  And Sarai was barren: she had\nno child.  And Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her\nmaid, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and\ngave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.  And Hagar bare Abram\na son; and Abram called his son's name which Hagar bare, Ishmael.\nAnd Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bare Ishmael to\nAbram\" (xi. 30, xvi. 3, 15, 16)\nThen follows the covenant of God with Abram, whose name he now\nchanges to Abraham, and the institution of circumcision as the\nmark of those who belong to the covenant; then the announcement\nof the birth of Isaac by Sarai, now ninety years old, who is\nhenceforth to be called Sarah, and Isaac's nomination as heir\nof the covenant in place of Ishmael (chapter xvii.).\n\n\"And Sarah bore Abraham a son at the set time of which God had\nspoken to him. And Abraham called the name of his son that was\nborn unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac.  And Abraham\ncircumcised his son Isaac, after eight days, as God had commanded\nhim.  And Abraham was an hundred years old when Isaac his\nson was born unto him (xxi. 2-5).  And the life of Sarah was an\nhundred and twenty seven years; these were the years of the life\nof Sarah.  And Sarah died in Kirjath-Arba, the same is Hebron in\nthe land of Canaan\" (xxiii. 1, 2).\n\nThen comes the treaty of Abraham, reported with all due legal\naccuracy, with Ephron the Hittite, from whom he purchases the\ncave of Machpelah, which is over against Mamre, for a family\nburying-place (xxiii.).\n\n\"And these are the days of the years of Abraham's life which he\nlived, a hundred and seventy five years.  And Abraham gave up the\nghost, and died in a good old age, an old man and full of years;\nand was gathered to his fellow tribesmen.  And his sons Isaac and\nIshmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron\nben Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre; the field which Abraham\npurchased of the sons of Heth; there was Abraham buried and Sarah\nhis wife.  And after Abraham was dead, God blessed his son Isaac\"\n(xxv. 7-11a).\n\nNext come the Toledoth (generations) of Ishmael according to the\nregular practice of first exhausting the collaterals (xxv. 12-17).\n\n\"These are the Toledoth of Isaac the son of Abraham.  Abraham begat\nIsaac...and Isaac was 40 years old when he took Rebecca to wife, the\ndaughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Padan Aram, the sister to Laban\nthe Syrian....And Isaac was 60 years old when Esau and Jacob\nwere born (xxv. 19, 20, 26c).  And Esau was 40 years old when he\ntook to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and\nBashemath, the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and they were a\ngrief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah.  And Rebekah said to\nIsaac, I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth;\nif Jacob also take such wives of the daughters of Heth, of the\ndaughters of the land, what good shall my life do to me?  Then\nIsaac called Jacob and blessed him and charged him, saying, Thou\nshalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan; arise, go to\nPadan-Aram to the house of Bethuel thy mother's father, and take\nthee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother's\nbrother.  And El Shaddai will bless thee, and make thee fruitful\nand multiply thee, and give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee\nand to thy seed with thee, that thou mayest inherit the land\nwherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham.  And\nIsaac sent away Jacob, and he went to Padan-Aram unto Laban ben\nBethuel, the Syrian, the brother of Rebecca, Jacob and Esau's\nmother.  And Esau saw that Isaac blessed Jacob, and sent him to\nPadan-Aram to take him a wife from thence, and that as he blessed\nhim, he gave him a charge, saying, Thou shalt not take a wife of\nthe daughters of Canaan.  Now Jacob hearkened to his father, and\nwent to Padan-Aram.  But Esau saw that the daughters of Canaan\npleased not Isaac his father; then went Esau unto Ishmael, and\ntook unto the wives which he had Mahalath the sister of Nebaioth\nto be his wife (xxvi. 34 seq., xxvii. 46, xxviii. 1-9).  And\nLaban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid for her\nhandmaid.  And he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife. And Laban\ngave to Rachel his daughter Bilhah his handmaid to be her maid\n(xxix.24, 28b, 29).  And the sons of Jacob were twelve.  The sons\nof Leah: Reuben, Jacob's firstborn, Simeon, Judah, Issachar,\nZebulun.  The sons of Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin.  The sons of\nBilhah, Rachel's handmaid: Dan and Naphtali.  The sons of Zilpah,\nLeah's handmaid: Gad and Asher; these are the sons of Jacob,\nwhich were born to him in Padan-Aram (xxxv. 23-26)....[and Jacob\ntook] all his goods which he had gotten, the gear of his property\nwhich he had gotten in Padan-Aram, to go home to Isaac his father\nin the land of Canaan (xxx). 18).  And God appeared unto Jacob\nwhen he was coming home from Padan-Aram, and blessed him; and God\nsaid unto him, Thy name is Jacob; thy name shall not be called any\nmore Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name.  And God said unto him;\nI am El Shaddai; be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company\nof nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;\nand the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee will I give it,\nand to thy seed after thee will I give the land.  And God went up\nfrom him in the place where He talked with him.  And Jacob called\nthe name of the place where God spake with him Bethel (xxxv. 9-13,\n15).  And they departed from Bethel; and when there was but a little\nway to come unto Ephrath, Rachel died, and was buried there in the\nway to Ephrath; the same is Bethlehem (xxxv. 16a, 19, cf. xlviii.\n7, xlix. 3I).  And Jacob came unto Isaac his father unto Mamre,\nunto Kirjath-Arba, which is Hebron, where Abraham and Isaac dwelt\nas strangers.  And the days of Isaac were a hundred and eighty\nyears.  And Isaac gave up the ghost, and died, and was gathered\nunto his people, being old and full of days; and his sons Esau\nand Jacob buried him\" (xxxv. 27-29.)  Then follow the generations\nof Esau in chapter  xxxvi. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Only part of this chapter, however, belongs to the Priestly\nCode.\n-- Footnote\n\n\n\"And Esau took his wives, and his sons, and his daughters, and all\nthe souls of his house, and his cattle, and all his beasts, and all\nhis substance, which he had got in the land of Canaan, and went\ninto the land of Seir from the face of his brother Jacob.  For their\nriches were more than that they might dwell together, and the land\nof their sojourn could not bear them because of their cattle.  And\nEsau dwelt in Mount Seir; Esau is Edom.  And Jacob dwelt in the land\nof the sojourn of his father, in the land of Canaan (xxxvi. 6-8,\nxxxvii. 1).\n\nThese are the Toledoth of Jacob...(xxxxvii. 2).  And they  took their\ncattle, and their goods, which they had gotten in the land  of Canaan,\nand came into Egypt, Jacob and all his seed with him, his sons,\nand his sons' sons, and all his seed, brought he with him\ninto Egypt\" (xlvi. 6, 7).\n\nThen follows the enumeration of the seventy souls of which his seed\nwas then composed.\n\n\"And Jacob and his sons came to Egypt to Joseph; and Pharaoh the king\nof Egypt heard it.  And Pharaoh said to Jacob, How many are the days\nof the years of thy life?  And Jacob said to Pharaoh, The days\nof the years of my sojourning are a hundred and thirty years; few and\nevil have the days of the years of my life been, and have not attained\nunto the days of the years of the life of my fathers, in the days of\ntheir sojourning.  And Joseph placed his father and his brethren,\nand gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best part of\nthe land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded (xlvii.\n5b, 6, LXX, xlvii. 7-11).  And they settled there, and grew and\nmultiplied exceedingly.  And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt\nseventeen years, and the whole age of Jacob was 7 years and 140\nyears (xlvii. 27b, 28)....And Jacob said unto Joseph, El Shaddai\nappeared unto me at Luz, in the land of Canaan, and blessed me,\nand said unto me, Behold, I will make thee fruitful and multiply\nthee, and I will make of thee a multitude of peoples; and will give\nthis land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession.\nAnd now thy two sons which were born unto thee in Egypt, before I\ncame unto thee in Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be\nmine, as Reuben and Simeon.  And the issue which thou begettest\nafter them shall be thine, and shall be called after the name of\ntheir brethren in their inheritance.  And when I came from Padan,\nRachel died to me in the land of Canaan, in the way, when there\nwas but a little way to come into Ephrath, and I buried her\nthere, in the way to Ephrath; the same is Bethlehem (xlviii.\n3-7, and v. 7, cf. xlix. 31)...[and his other sons also] he\nblessed; and he charged them, and said unto them, I am to be\ngathered unto my people, bury me with my fathers in the cave of\nthe field of Machpelah, which is before Mamre, in the land of\nCanaan, which field Abraham bought from Ephron the Hittite, for a\nhereditary  burying-place-there they buried Abraham and Sarah his\nwife, there they  buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife, and there I\nburied Leah--the possession of the field and of the cave that is\ntherein from the children of Heth.  And Jacob made an end of\ncommanding his sons, and he gathered up his feet into the bed,\nand yielded up the ghost, and was gathered unto his fellow-tribesmen\n(xlix. 28b-33).  And his sons carried him into the land of Canaan,\nand buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, which Abraham\nhad bought for a hereditary burying-place from Ephron the Hittite,\nover against Mamre (l. 12, 13).  And these are the names of the\nchildren of Israel which came into Egypt, with Jacob they came,\nevery one with his house; Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar,\nZebulon, Benjamin, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher.  And all the souls\nthat came out of Jacob's loins were seventy souls; and Joseph was\nin Egypt.  And the children of Israel were fruitful and increased\nabundantly, and the land was filled with them, and the Egyptians\nmade the children of Israel their servants with rigour, in all\ntheir work which they wrought by them with rigour, and they\nmade their lives bitter with hard bondage (Exodus i. 1-7, 13,\n14).  And the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage;\nand they cried, and their cry because of the bondage came up\nunto God, and God heard their groaning, and God remembered His\ncovenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob, and God took\nnotice (ii. 23-25).  And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him,\nI am Jehovah.  I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob\nby the name of El Shaddai; but by my name Jehovah was I not\nknown unto them; and I made a covenant with them to give them the\nland of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were\nstrangers.  And I have heard the groaning of the children of\nIsrael, that the Egyptians keep them in bondage, and I have\nremembered my covenant\" (vi. 2 seq.).\n\nThat is the whole of it.  As a rule nothing more is aimed at than\nto give the mere links and articulations of the narrative.  It is\nas if Q were the scarlet thread on which the pearls of JE are\nhung.  In place of the somewhat loose connections of the Jehovist,\nthe narrative of the Priestly Code shows a firmly jointed\nliterary form; one remarkable feature of which is to be seen in\nthe regular titles which stand at the head of the various\nsections.  Each section begins with the words )LH TWLDWT (_hae sunt\ngenerationes_), from which Genesis derives its name. /l/\n\n-- Footnote\n1 *)AUTH (H BIBLOS GENESEWS ii. 4 LXX.  Hence Ewald's name for the\nPriestly Code, which is very  appropriate for Genesis, or perhaps\ngenerally for the book of the four covenants--the Book of Origins.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIn the rest of the historical literature of the Old Testament nothing\nlike this as yet appears.  It is also characteristic that whenever\nthe title occurs, introducing a new, section, the contents of the\npreceding section are first of all briefly recapitulated so as to\nshow the place of the link upon the chain.\n\nThe Priestly Code enters as little as possible on the contents of\nthe various narratives.  The predicates are stripped off, so far\nas they admit of such treatment, and the subjects duly entered\nin a catalogue with connecting text.  In this way the history\nalmost shrinks to the compass of a genealogy with explanations--\nthe genealogy at least forms the principal contents of the history,\nand here appears in such proportions and such systematic fashion\nas nowhere else.  This has been regarded as a proof that Q belongs\nto an older stage of development of Hebrew historiography than JE.\nThere can be no doubt, it is said, /1/ that the oldest Hebrew,\n\n-- Footnote\nI Riehm, \"die s.g. Grundschrift des Pentateuchs\" in Studien und\nKritiken, 1872, p. 296.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nor indeed Oriental, history began with the historical notices\nand traditions inserted in the tribal or family catalogues.\nYet we know positively that in the Books of Judges, Samuel,\nand Kings, there are no genealogical statistics at all, while\nChronicles, and what belongs to Chronicles, is full of them.\nWe know also that songs such as those in Josh. x. 12, 13; Jud. v.;\n2Samuel i. 19 seq., iii. 33 seq.  are the oldest historical\nmonuments, and that a number of them are found in JE and not\na single one in Q.  Herder's theory of the development of history\nout of genealogy will not apply here, /2/ but indeed what we have\n\n-- Footnote\n2 Nor in the case of the Arabs, as has been well shown by Sprenger\nagainst Caussin de Perceval (Essai, preface, p. ix.).\n-- Footnote\n\n\nto do with here is not history proper at all, but folklore.\n\nIt is true that with the Jehovist also the genealogy underlies\nthe narrative as its skeleton.  It is the natural chain to link\nthe different stories together, and even at a time when the\nlatter were still separate and only circulated orally, the\ngenealogy was not unknown to the people.  When stories were told\nof Isaac and Ishmael, and Lot and Esau, every one knew at once\nwho these personages were, and how they were related to Israel\nand to one another.  But this was merely the presupposition of\nthe narratives, known as a matter of course to the hearers;\nthe interesting element in them consisted in those traits\nwhich the Priestly Code omits.  Stories of this kind compel\nattention because they set forth the peculiarities of different\npeoples as historically and really related to each other, not\naccording to an empty embryological relation.  It is the temper\ndisplayed by different races, not the stem of their relationship,\nthat makes the point of the stories; their charm and their very\nlife depend on their being transparent and reflecting the historic\nattitude of the time which gave them birth.  The clearer the traces\nthey display of love and hatred, jealousy of rivals and joy in\ntheir fall, the nearer are we to the forces which originated the\ntradition about early times.  In the Priestly Code all those\nstories are absent in which there is anything morally objectionable,--\nthose for example in which the cowardice of the patriarchs\nendangers the honour of their wives, those of Sarah's cruel\njealousy of Hagar, and of the unlovely  contention of Leah and\nRachel for husband and children, of the incest of Lot's\ndaughters, of the violation of Dinah.  All hatred, and strife,\nand deceit in the patriarchal family disappear: Lot and Abraham,\nIsaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, agree to separate: of the\ntricks of Laban and Jacob to each other, of the treachery  of\nSimeon and Levi to Shechem, of the enmity Joseph's brethren bore\nto him, there is not a word in the Priestly Code.  It is not\nmerely that \"psychological decorations,\" as they have been\ncalled, are left out; the very heart of the business has been\ncut out.  That Moab and Ammon, Ishmael and Edom, were Hebrew\npeoples, all more nearly or more distantly related to the\nIsraelites, that the Aramaeans too were closely connected with\nthe Hebrews by blood and by marriage, that this tribe lives in\none district contiguous to Palestine, that in another--this is what\nthe Priestly Code has to tell.  Dry ethnographical and\ngeographical facts like these are presented in a genealogical\nform; all we learn of the patriarchs is their marriages and\nbirths and how they separated to the various dwelling-places of\ntheir descendants.  And folklore could not possibly be directed\nto such facts as these at a period when these relations were all\nmatters of fact and familiar to every child.  The Priestly Code,\nmoreover, strips the legends of the patriarchs of their local as\nwell as their historical colour; they are kept at a distance from\nall the places of the sacredness of which the Jehovist makes them\nthe founders. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Hupteld gives a curious turn to this, saying that in the\nPriestly Code Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have much more permanent\nsettlements.  But it is this work that insists so often on the\nfact that the patriarchs were pilgrims and had nowhere a fixed\nresidence: it only says that Abraham dwelt in the land of Canaan,\nand names no particular place even as the scene of the theophany\nin chapter xvii.  It is only when the question of burying Sarah\nand Abraham arises that there is a change.  Something must be\ndone, and the field of Machpelah near Hebron is acquired (no doubt\nJE reported this, but the account of it in that source is lost) as\na possession of the patriarchal family, where it now settles more\npermanently.  That Isaac and Jacob continue to dwell at the grave\nof Abraham is a statement of which the significance is negative\nrather than positive, and on the other hand the patriarchal\njourneys up and down in JE are not designed to represent them as\nwandering nomads, but serve to bring them in contact with all the\nsacred places with which they had special associations,\n-- Footnote\n\n\nNo historical geography is needed in order to understand the\nnarrative of the Priestly  Code in Genesis: but that is only to\nsay that it stands quite away from the soil out of which oral\ntradition arises.  It deals in no etymology, no proverbs nor\nsongs, no miracles, theophanies nor dreams, and is destitute of\nall that many-coloured poetic charm which adorns the Jehovistic\nnarratives.  But this proves not its original simplicity but its\nneglect of the springs from which legend arises, and of its most\nessential elements. /1/  What remains is anything but historical\nobjectivity: it is the formula and nothing more.\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Riehm (op. cit. p. 302 seq.) thinks it is made out that the\nreligious tradition of remote antiquity is distinguished by its\n\"modest simplicity\", and by a \"style suited to its exalted\nsubject.\"  Only in the course of time was it adorned with all sorts\nof miraculous and mysterious elements, and that by the \"fancy of\nthe people,\" which, however, does not so easily gain entrance\ninto serious literature(!)  He appeals to the fact that the\nconception of angels, though certainly long developed with the\npeople, occurs in the earlier prophets only in isolated instances,\nand in the later prophets, as Ezekiel, Zechariah, Daniel, more\nfrequently.  It is difficult to sift out what is true and what is\nfalse in this confused argument.  In the Priestly Code there are,\nit is true, no angels, but on the other hand we have Azazel and\nSeirim (2Chronicles xi. 15; Isaiah xiii. 21, xxxiv. 14, comp.\nsupra), for where the gods are not, the ghosts have sway.\nIn one of the two main sources of the Jehovist (J), we find\nchiefly the Mal'ak Jahve (message of Jehovah); that is Jehovah\nHimself in so far as He appears and manifests Himself, whether in\na natural phenomenon or in human form.  Different are the B'ne\nElohim, beings of divine substance: they perhaps are indicated\nin the 1st plural in the mouth of Jehovah (Genesis iii. 22, xi. 7).\nBoth of these are doubtless very old.  In the other principal\nsource (E) a mixture appears to have taken place: the heavenly\nhosts are not only the children and companions of Deity, but also\nits messengers, conductors of the communication between heaven and\nearth (:xviii. 12); here we have the Mal'akim beside God and in\nthe plural.  This view also is not exactly a late one, as we see\nfrom the vision of Micaiah (t Kings xxii. 19).  What does Riehm\nmean by high antiquity?  A period from which no monuments are\npreserved to us?  Why does he limit his attention to the\nprophetic literature?  He concedes that the idea of angels was\nearly present \"in the fancy of the people,\" and he should have\nbeen equal to the further concession that those who wrote down the\nFOLKLORE occupied a somewhat different position to POPULAR BELIEF\nfrom that of the prophetic preachers of repentance.  Not even the\nhistorical books admit of being measured by the same standard in\nthis matter as the pre-historic tradition.  And which is the more\noriginal--that the angels use a ladder as in Genesis, or that they\nhave wings as in Isaiah?  And finally as for the reference to\nEzekiel (?), Zechariah, and Daniel, the difference appears to me to\nbe tolerably  plain between a systematic angelology which\noperates always with numbers and names and the childlike belief in\nangels. The former removes God to a distance, the latter brings Him\nnear.\n-- Footnote\n\nAs with the legend of the beginnings of things, so with the legend\nof the patriarchs: what is essential and original is the individual\nelement in the several stories; the connection is a secondary matter,\nand only introduced on the stories being collected and reduced to\nwriting.  But in the Priestly Code the individuality of the several\nstories is simply destroyed: to such an extent is the connection\ndwelt on.  What meaning is there in the statement that Jacob was all\nat once called Israel, i.e., Fight-God (xxxv. 10), if no mention is\nmade of his wrestling with El, which was the occasion of his change\nof name?  Have we anything like the true history of Joseph in the\nPriestly Code?  Can we regard it as the original history, when\nthe destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is dismissed in a\nsubordinate clause, as is done in xix. 29 ? The remarkable\nadmission has been made, /1/ that it is plain from the summary\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Riehm, op.. cit. p. 292.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nmanner of reporting of the Priestly Code, that the author could\nhave told his story at much greater length, had it been\nconsistent with the plan of his work to do so, and that this\ncertainly points to sources where greater detail was used.  The\nmore detailed source, however, which is thus taken for granted,\nneed by no means, it is said, have been a written one, and least\nof all the Jehovistic narrative before us; on the contrary, we\nare told, the state of the case is best satisfied by  the\nassumption that the author held a more detailed narrative to be\nunnecessary, because the oral tradition, living in the mouth of\nthe people, was quite able to fill in the colours in his outlines\nand to convert his chronistic notices into living pictures.  But\nthis is merely an attempt to elude the necessity for exactly\ncomparing the Priestly Code and the Jehovist.  The question is,\nwhich of the two writings stands nearest to the starting-point?\nIs it the one which attaches most importance to elements which are\nforeign to the nature of oral tradition altogether and only added\nin literary composition?  It would be a curious thing if the\nwriting down of the tradition began with writing down what the\nlegend did not contain.  What is set before us in the Priestly\nCode is the quintessence not of the oral tradition, but of the\ntradition when already written down.  And the written account of\nthe primitive history which it employs is the Jehovistic\nnarrative.  The order in which the popular legends are there placed\nhere becomes the very kernel of the narrative.  There the plan\nwas hidden behind the execution, but here it comes forward not\nindeed essentially changed, but sharp and accentuated, as the\nprincipal feature of the whole.\n\n\nVIII.II.3. The Jehovist still lives in the spirit of the legend,\nbut the Priestly Code is strange to that spirit, and does violence\nto the legend, by treating it from its own point of view, which is\nquite different from the old one.  Moral and religious culture is\nfurther advanced; and hence the removal of real or apparent offences\nagainst morality and of notions which are too childish, or superstitious,\nor even mythical.  If the Godhead appears, it must not be patent\nto the senses, at least it must not be seen in visible form.\nJehovah speaks with Jacob, but not in a dream from the heavenly\nladder; He reveals Himself to Moses, but not in the burning bush;\nthe notion of revelation is retained, but the subsidiary\nincidents which must be added to make a concrete of the abstract,\nare stripped off.  It is a matter of indifference under what forms\nor through what media a man receives revelation, if only the fact\nstands sure; in other words, revelation is no longer a living\nreality of the present, but a dead dogma for the past.  The\nprogress of culture in the Priestly Code is most of all evident\nin the learned historical treatment with which the legend is\noverlaid.  First of all there is the chronology, which we\nencountered even in the legend of the origins of mankind, and\nwhich is naturally continued in the patriarchal legend.  Here\nindeed we see with special plainness how foreign learned\ncalculation is to the poetical materials; in some instances the\nfacts lead to quite a different view from that of the numbers.\nFollowing the numbers of the Priestly Code we may, with the\nRabbis, regard Shem and Eber as the venerable heads of the Jewish\nschool in which the child Jacob learned his letters and the Torah.\nThen Jacob's sojourn in Mesopotamia lasts about eighty years, and\nall this time Isaac is Iying on his death-bed; after being long\ndead for us, he suddenly appears again, but only to die.  And\nhand in hand with the chronology there goes the general\npredilection of the Priestly Code for numbers and names, which\ndisplays itself even in Genesis, though not nearly so marked\nthere as in the later books of the Pentateuch.  Oral folklore can\nvery well contain round numbers, such as the twelve sons and the\nseventy souls of the family of Jacob, the twelve wells and the\nseventy palm trees at Elim, the seventy elders and the twelve\nspies; but a chronological system, whole lists of exact and\nconsiderable numbers, bare catalogues of personal names, none of\nthem having any significance, dates and measurements such as\nthose in the account of the flood in the Priestly Code, require\nwriting even to originate, not to speak of transmitting them.\nThese art-products of pedantry toke the place of the living\npoetic detail of the Jehovist narrative; the element of episode\nhas to give way to the seriousness of dry  history.\n\nIt is also a mark of historical pedantry that the mixing up of\nthe period of the patriarchs with a later period is avoided as\nanachronistic.  In the Jehovist the present everywhere shines\nthrough, he in no way conceals his own age; we are told that\nBabylon is the great world-city, that the Assyrian Empire is in\nexistence, with the cities of Niniveh and Calah and Resen; that\nthe Canaanites had once dwelt in Palestine, but had long been\nabsorbed in the Israelites.  The writer of the Priestly Code is\nvery careful not to do anything like this. /1/ He brushes up the\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Hence also archaisms such as Kirjath-Arba, Luz, Ephrath.\nCompare the antiquarian lore in Deuteronomy i.-iv. and in\nGenesis xiv.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nlegend and makes history of it according to the rules of art; he\nkills it as legend, and deprives it of all real value, such as it\npossesses, not indeed for the history of primitive times, but for\nthat of the age of the kings.\n\nThe history of the first men and of the patriarchs is divided by\nthe Priestly  Code into three periods, each of them opened by a\ncovenant.  The covenant with Adam (Genesis i. 28-ii. 4) is the\nsimplest; it is not called a covenant, but it is the basis of the\nsecond covenant with Noah (ix. 1-17), which modifies it in\nimportant particulars, and brings it nearer to the present age.\nThe covenant with Abraham (Genesis xvii.), which alone is ratified\nwith the succeeding patriarchs, does not apply to the whole of\nmankind, but only to Abraham's seed, and especially to Israel.\nThe first sign of the covenant is the Sabbath (Genesis ii. 3;\ncomp. Exodus xxxi. 12 seq.; Ezekiel xx. 12, 20), the second\nthe rainbow (Genesis ix. 12), the third circumcision (xvii. 10).\nThe first parent of mankind is enjoined to use a purely vegetable\ndiet, the father of mankind after the, flood receives permission\nto slaughter animals; but he is expressly ordered not to eat\nflesh in the blood, and besides, to shed the blood of no man.\nWhat is said to Noah remains good for Abraham; but to the latter\nGod promises that his posterity by Sarah shall possess the land\nof Canaan, and this is further assured by the purchase of the\ncave of Machpelah for a family  burying-place, the purchase being\nexecuted according to all the forms of law, with prolonged\nnegotiations.  Further, God reveals Himself to Abraham as El\nShaddai, and under this name He also manifests Himself to Isaac\n(xxviii. 3) and Jacob (xxxv. 11), repeating to them the promise\nof the possession of the land.  It is pointed out with emphasis\nthat God was not known to the pre-Mosaic time under His Israelite\nname, that He revealed Himself to the patriarchs only as El\nShaddai, and as Jehovah first to Moses (Exod. vi. 2, 3).  With\na similar intention, which is not far to seek, the time of the\npatriarchs is kept free of the other Mosaic forms of worship;\nhence we have here no sacrifices nor altars, no distinction of\nclean and unclean beasts, nor anything of the kind.  Now till\nwithin a short time ago, there was a great inclination (no one\nwill be found at this date to acknowledge that he felt it) to\nadmire the sobriety and faithfulness of the Priestly Code, as\nshown in this observance of the different religious stages.\nBut in fact we can only admire these advantages in it, if we\nbelieve that the religion was at first naturalistic, that then\nall at once it became a good deal more positive, and then quite\npositive in the year 1500 B.C.  How can we regard it as showing\nhistorical faithfulness, that the  patriarchs were allowed to\nslaughter, but not to sacrifice, and that first the Sabbath was\nintroduced, then the rainbow, then circumcision, and at last\nsacrifice, under Moses?  It is natural that Jacob at Bethel should\ngive tithes of all that he possesses, unnatural that the eponymous\nhero should not in worship above all things have left a good example\nto his posterity.  What is it but a theory, that the name Jehovah\nwas first revealed to Moses, and through him to the Israelites,\nand that it was quite unknown before?--a theory which certainly\ncannot be upheld, for Moses could have done nothing more irrational\nthan to introduce a new name for the God of their fathers, to whom\nhe directed his people,--and yet a theory which, from the correlation\nbetween Jehovah the God of Israel and Israel the people of Jehovah,\nreadily suggests itself, and is not altogether peculiar to the\nauthor of the Priestly Code. /1/. He had a pattern which suggested\n\n-- Footnote\n1.  Exodus vi. 2, 3 (Q) = iii. 13, 14 (JE).  The burning bush shows\nthe theophany in the Jehovist to be the earlier.  In the Priestly\nCode it almost loses the character of a theophany entirely.  But\nthis is also quite clear on a comparison of Exodus vii. 1 (Q) and\niv. 16 (JE).  The phrase vii. 1, \" Behold, I make thee a god to\nPharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet,\" is a\ndegradation of the corresponding passage, iv. 16 \"Aaron shall be\nto thee for a mouth, and thou shalt be to him for a god.\"  For if\nAaron is the prophet or the mouth of Moses, then in the original\nand only appropriate way of thinking of the matter, Moses is a\ngod for Aaron, not for Pharaoh.  By the way is there anything in\nthe similarity between Sene and Sinai?\n-- Footnote\n\n\ncertain lines, and these he traces strongly and with a system;\nand he even goes so far as to avoid the name of Jehovah even in\nhis own narrative of the pre-Mosaic period.  Even when speaking\nin his own person, he says Elohim, not Jehovah, down to Exodus vi.\n\nThe three periods and the three corresponding covenants of the\nearly age are preliminaries to the fourth period and the fourth\ncovenant.  The narrator everywhere has an eye to the Mosaic law,\nand the thought of it determined the plan which comes so prominently\ninto view in his representation of the origins of human history.\nThe great features of this plan are the great official transactions\nof Jehovah with the patriarchs.  In these we have not a narrative\nbut only speeches and negotiations; the preliminary laws are given\nin them, which, as they advance step by step, prepare the way\nfor the great Law, namely, the Mosaic.  The law of worship has\ntaken the place of the legend of worship.  In the legend the\nsacred usages and customs arise, as it were, spontaneously, in\nconnection with any occasion, placed in the early sacred time,\nwhich may serve to account for them.  Jehovah does not make it\nstatutory that the sinew of the thigh may not be eaten; but He\nwrestles with Israel, and injures the sinew of his thigh during\nthe wrestling, and for this reason the children of Israel do not\neat thereof.  In the following story it is explained how it came\nabout that the Israelites circumcise young boys (Exodus iv. 25\nseq.).  As Moses was returning from Midian to Goshen, he spent a\nnight on the road, and Jehovah fell upon him with the intention of\nkilling him.  His wife, Zipporah, however, took a flint and cut\noff the foreskin of her son, and touched Moses L:RAGLFYW with it,\nsaying, Thou art a blood-bridegroom to me.  Then Jehovah let him\ngo.  Thus Zipporah circumcises her son instead of her husband,\nmakes the latter symbolically a blood-bridegroom, and thereby\ndelivers him from the wrath of Jehovah to which he is exposed,\nbecause he is not a blood-bridegroom, ie., because he has not\nsubmitted to circumcision before his marriage.  In other words,\nthe circumcision of male infants is here explained as a milder\nsubstitute for the original circumcision of young men before\nmarriage. /1/ Compare with this the style in which in Genesis xvii\n\n-- Footnote\n1. That this is in fact the original custom is clear from the word\nXTN, which signifies both circumcision and bridegroom (or in\nArabic, son-in-law).  This explains the meaning of XTN DMYM in\nExodus iv. 25.  The original usage is still in force with some\nArab tribes.  In Genesis xxxiv. Shechem has to submit to\ncircumcision before marriage.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nthe Priestly Code institutes the circumcision of male children on\nthe eighth day after birth.  This institution completely throws\ninto the shade and spoils the story out of which it arose, namely,\nthe promise of the birth of Isaac as a reward to Abraham of the\nhospitality he showed Jehovah at Hebron.  But there is more than\na difference in form, there is a material contradiction between\nthe Jehovistic legend and the priestly law.  The law purifies the\nlegend, that is to say, denies all its main features and motives.\nAs we saw in the first chapter there is a conscious polemic at work\nin the representation in the Priestly Code that Abraham, Isaac,\nand Jacob erect no altars, and practice no religious rites, and\nthat they have no connection with the sacred places with which\nin JE they are inseparably associated.  The popular religious\nbook preserved to us in the Jehovistic Genesis, not corrected\nto any great extent, though certainly to some extent, tells how\nthe ancestors and representatives of Israel founded the old popular\nworship at the principal sites at which it was kept up.  The law\nof the legitimate cultus of Jerusalem, as it lies before us in the\nPriestly Code, reforms and destroys the old popular worship on\nthe basis of Mosaic, i.e., prophetical ideas.  The tabernacle\ndoes not harmonize with the sanctuaries of Hebron, Beersheba,\nShechem, Kadesh, Mahanaim, Lahai-Roi, Bethel; the patriarchs live\nat Hebron only because they are to be buried there, not to\nentertain the Deity under the oak of Mamre and to build an altar\nthere.  The heretical mac,c,ebas, trees and wells, disappear, and\nwith them the objectionable customs: that God should have\nsummoned Abraham to offer up to Him his only son is an idea the\nPriestly Code could not possibly  entertain.  The whole material\nof the legend is subordinated to legislative designs: the\nmodifying influence of the law on the narrative is everywhere\napparent.\n\nThe attitude of Judaism to the old legend is on the whole negative,\nbut it added some new elements.  While the patriarchs are not\nallowed to sacrifice, only to slaughter, they have, on the other\nhand, the Sabbath /1/ and circumcision.  In this they are like\n\n-- Footnote\nI The Sabbath is not a Mosaic institution according to the Priestly\nCode.  But it is presupposed in Exodus xvi., and according to Genesis\nii. 3, it was in force from the beginning of the world.  With the\nold Israelites the Sabbath was much less important in relation to\nworship than the festivals: in Judaism the opposite was the case.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nthe Jews in Babylon, who were deprived of the national cultus, and\nreplaced it with these two symbols of religious membership and\nunion, which were independent of the temple of Jerusalem.  In the\nexile, after the cessation of the service of the altar, the Sabbath\nand circumcision attained that significance as symbols--in the\ngenuine old meaning of the Greek word--as practical symbols of\nJudaism, which they retain to the present day.  The emphasis is\nnoteworthy with which the Priestly Code always insists on the\nfact that the patriarchs sojourned in a strange land, that they\nwere _Gerim_.  If we also consider that Abraham is said to have\nmigrated into Palestine from Ur, from Chaldaea, it is hardly possible\nto reject the idea that the circumstances of the exile had some\ninfluence in moulding the priestly form of the patriarchal\nlegend.  In spite of all the efforts of the historian, and all the\narchaic appearance of his work, it may in that case still be the\nfact that the surroundings of the narrator found positive\nexpression in his description of the patriarchal times.\n\n\nVIII.III.\n\n<VIII.III.1.> In the Jehovistic history-book Genesis is a most\nimportant part, and occupies at least a half of the whole work:\nin the Priestly Code, Genesis quite disappears in comparison with\nthe later books.  Only with the Mosaic legislation does this work\narrive at its own ground, and it at once stifles the narrative\nunder a mass of legislative matter.  Here also there is a thin\nhistorical thread running parallel to the Jehovist, but we constantly\nlose sight of it from the repeated interruptions made by extensive\nritual laws and statistical statements.\n\n\"These last four books of Moses have been made quite unreadable by\na most melancholy, most incomprehensible, revision.  The course of\nthe history is everywhere interrupted by the insertion of\ninnumerable laws, with regard to the greater part of which it is\nimpossible to see any reason for their being inserted where they\nare.\"  The dislocation of the narrative by these monstrous growths\nof legislative matter is not, as Goethe thinks, to be imputed to\nthe editor; it is the work of the unedited Priestly Code itself,\nand is certainly intolerable; nor can it be original; the\nliterary form of the work at once shows this.  It is still\npossible to trace how the legal matter forces its way into the\nnarrative, and once there spreads itself and takes up more and\nmore room.  In the Jehovist, one form of the tradition may still\nbe discerned, according to which the Israelites on crossing the\nRed Sea at once proceeded towards Kadesh, without making the detour\nto Sinai.   We only get to Sinai in Exodus xix., but in Exodus\nxvii. we are already at Massah and Meribah, ie., on the ground\nof Kadesh.  That is the scene of the story of Moses striking water\nout of the rock with his staff: there the fight with the Amalekites\ntook place--they lived there and not at Sinai--there also the visit\nof Jethro, which requires a locality at some distance from his home\n(at Sinai), a place where the people had not merely a temporary\nencampment, but their permanent seat of justice. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Kadesh is also called Meribah, the seat of justice, or Meribath\nKadesh, the seat of justice at the holy spring.  Meribah is in\nits meaning the same as Midian.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nHence the narratives which are told before the arrival at Sinai are\nrepeated after the departure from it, because the locality is the\nsame before and after, namely, the wilderness of Kadesh, the true\nscene of the Mosaic history.  The institution of judges and elders\nconcludes the narrative before the great Sinai section, and begins\nthe narrative after it (Ex. xviii., Numbers xi ).  The story of\nthe manna and the quails occurs not only in Exodus xvi., but also\nin Numbers xi; and the rocky spring called forth by Moses at\nMassah and Meribah is both in Exodus xvii. and Numbers xx.  In\nother words, the Israelites arrived at Kadesh, the original object\nof their wanderings, not after the digression to Sinai but\nimmediately after the Exodus, and they spent there the forty\nyears of their residence in the wilderness. Kadesh is also the\noriginal scene of the legislation.  \"There He made them statute and\njudgment, and there He proved them,\" we read in a poetical\nfragment, before the Sinai section (Exodus xv. 25), which is now\nplaced in the narrative of the healing of the waters at Marah, but\nstands there quite isolated and without bearing on its context.\nThe curious conjunction of judgment and trial points unmistakably\nto Massah and Meribah (ie., judgment and trial-place), that is, to\nKadesh, as the place spoken of.  But the legislation at the seat of\njudgment at Kadesh is not represented as a single act in which\nMoses promulgates to the Israelites once for all a complete and\ncomprehensive body of laws; it goes on for forty years, and\nconsists in the dispensation of justice at the sanctuary, which he\nbegins and the priests and judges carry on after him according to\nthe pattern he set.  This is the idea in the extremely\ninstructive narrative in Exodus xviii., of which Kadesh is the\nscene.  And in this way the Torah has its place in the historical\nnarrative, not in virtue of its matter as the contents of a code,\nbut from its form as constituting the professional activity of\nMoses.  It is in the history not as a result, as the sum of the\nlaws and usages binding on Israel, but as a process; it is shown\nhow it originated, how the foundation was laid for the living\ninstitution of that Torah which still exists and is in force in\nIsrael.\n\nThe true and original significance of Sinai is quite independent\nof the legislation.  It was the seat of the Deity, the sacred\nmountain, doubtless not only for the Israelites, but generally\nfor all the Hebrew and Cainite (Kenite) tribes of the surrounding\nregion.  The priesthood of Moses and his successors was derived\nfrom the priesthood there: there Jehovah appeared to him in the\nburning bush when he was keeping the sheep of the priest of Midian,\nfrom there He sent him to Egypt.  There, to the Israelites, Jehovah\nstill dwelt long after they had settled in Palestine; in the song\nof Deborah He is summoned to come from Sinai to succour His\noppressed people and to place Himself at the head of His\nwarriors.  According to the view of the poet of Deuteronomy xxxiii.\nthe Israelites did not go to Jehovah to Sinai, but the converse;\nHe came to them from Sinai to Kadesh: \"Jehovah came from Sinai\nand shone from Seir unto them; He lightened from Mount Paran and\ncame to Meribath Kadesh.\" /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. We do not know where Sinai was situated, and the Bible is\nscarcely at one on the subject.  Only dilettanti care much for\ncontroversy on the matter.  The Midian of Exodus ii. tells us\nmost: it is probably Madian on the Arabic shore of the Ked sea.\nIn our passage Sinai seems to be S.E. of Edom; the way from\nSinai to Kadesh is by Seir and Paran.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nBut it is not difficult to see how it came to be thought more seemly\nthat the Israelites should undertake the journey to Jehovah.  This\nwas at first put in the form that they appeared there before the\nface of Jehovah to worship Him and offer Him a sacrifice (Exodus\niii. 12), and at their departure they received the ark instead\nof Jehovah Himself, who continued to dwell on Sinai (Exodus\nxxxiii.); for the ark represents Jehovah, that constitutes its\nsignificance, and not the tables of the law, which were not in it\nat first.  It was a further step to make Sinai the scene of the\nsolemn inauguration of the historical relation between Jehovah and\nIsrael.  This was done under the poetic impulse to represent the\nconstituting of the people of Jehovah as a dramatic act on an\nexalted stage.  What in the older tradition was a process which\nwent on quietly  and slowly, occupied completely the whole period\nof Moses, and was at the beginning just such as it still continued\nto be, was now, for the sake of solemnity  and vividness,\ncompressed into a striking scene of inauguration.  If this were\ndone, the covenant between Jehovah and Israel must receive a\npositive (as well as a negative) character, that is to say,\nJehovah Himself must announce to the people the basis and the\nconditions of it.  Thus the necessity arose to communicate in\nthis place the contents of the fundamental laws, and so the matter\nof the legislation made its way into the historical narrative.\nBut that it did not belong originally to this place we see from\nthe confusion which obtains even in the Jehovistic Sinai section\n(Exodus xix.-xxiv., xxxii.-xxxiv.).  The small bodies of laws\nwhich are here communicated may in themselves be old enough,\nbut they are forced into the narrative.  It is only of what is\nrelatively the most recent corpus, the Decalogue (in E), that\nthis cannot be asserted.\n\nAs the Jehovistic work was originally a pure history-book, so\nDeuteronomy, when it was first discovered, was a pure law-book.\n/1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Chapters xii.-xxvii.  The two historical introductions, chapter\ni.-iv. and chapter v.-xi. were added later, as well as the\nappendices, chapter xxviii. seq.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThese two works, the historical and legal, were at first quite\nindependent of each other; only afterwards were they conjoined,\nperhaps that the new law might share in the popularity of the old\npeople's book, and at the same time infuse into it its own spirit.\nIt made it the easier to do this, that, as we have just seen, a\npiece of law had already been taken up into the Jehovistic\nhistory-book.  To the Decalogue, at the beginning of the period of\nthe forty  years, was now added Deuteronomy at the close of that\nperiod.  The situation--of which the law itself knows nothing--is\nvery well chosen, not only because Moses is entitled when making\nhis testament to anticipate the future and make a law for the time\nto come, but also because, the law being placed at the close of\nhis life, the thread of the narrative is not further interrupted,\nthe law being simply inserted between the Pentateuch and the Book\nof Joshua.  This combination of Deuteronomy with the Jehovist was\nthe beginning of the combination of narrative and law; and the\nfact that this precedent was before the author of the Priestly\nCode explains how, though his concern was with the Torah alone,\nhe yet went to work from the very outset and comprised in his work\nthe history of the creation, as if it also belonged to the Torah.\nThis manner of setting forth the Torah in the form of a history\nbook is not in the least involved in the nature of the case; on\nthe contrary, it introduces the greatest amount of awkwardness.\nHow it came about can only be explained in the way above\ndescribed; an antecedent process of the same nature in literary\nhistory led the way and made the suggestion. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. That the author of the Priestly Code had before him the\ncombination of the Sinai legislation of the Jehovist and\nDeuteronomy is shown further by the circumstance that he has both\na legislation at Mount Sinai and a legislation in the Arboth Moah,\nand in addition to these one in the wilderness of Sinai.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nAs from the literary point of view, so also from the historical,\nthe Moses of the Jehovist appears more original than the Moses of\nthe Priestly Code.  To prove this is, it is true, the aim of the\nentire present work: yet it will not on that account be thought\nout of place if we take advantage of this convenient opportunity\nfor a brief sketch and criticism of the conflicting historical views\nof Moses and his work in the two main sources of the Pentateuch.\nAccording to the Priestly Code Moses is a religious founder and\nlegislator, as we are accustomed to think of him. He receives and\npromulgates the Torah, /1/ perhaps not as a book--though, when we\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The law might accordingly be called Moses, as with the Ethiopians\nthe Psalter is called David,\n-- Footnote\n\n\ncome to think of it, we can hardly represent the transaction to\nourselves in any other way--but certainly fixed and finished as\nan elaborate and minutely organised system, which comprises the\nsacred constitution of the congregation for all time to come.\nThe whole significance of Moses consists in the office of messenger\nwhich he holds as mediator of the law; what else he does is of no\nimportance.  That the law is given once for all is the great event\nof the time, not that the people of Israel begins to appear on the\nstage of the world.  The people is there for the sake of the law,\nnot the law for the sake of the people.  With the Jehovist, on the\ncontrary, Moses' work consists in this, that he delivers his\npeople from the Egyptians and cares for it in every way in the\nwilderness.  In the prelude scene from his youth, when he smites\nthe Egyptian and seeks to adjust the dispute of his brethren\n(Exodus ii. 11 seq.), his whole history is prefigured.  His care\nfor the Israelites embraces both catering for their sustenance,\nand making and preserving peace and order among them (Numbers xi.).\nThe Torah is but a part of his activity, and proceeds from his\nmore general office as the guardian of the young people, who has,\nas it were, to teach the fledgling to fly (Numbers xi. xii.).\nAccording to Exodus xviii. his Torah is nothing but a giving of\ncounsel, a finding the way out of complications and difficulties\nwhich had actually arisen.  Individuals bring their different\ncases before him; he pronounces judgment or gives advice, and in\nso doing teaches the people the way they should go.  Thus he is\nthe beginner of the teaching of Jehovah which lives on after him\nin priest and prophet.  Here all is life and movement: as Jehovah\nHimself, so the man of God, is working in a medium which is alive;\nis working practically, by no means theoretically, in history,\nnot in literature.  His work and activity may be told in a\nnarrative, but the contents of it are more than a system, and are\nnot to be reduced to a compendium; it is not done and finished off,\nit is the beginning of a series of infinite activities.  In the\nPriestly Code the work of Moses lies before us clearly defined\nand rounded off; one living a thousand years after knows it as\nwell as one who saw it with his eyes.  It is detached from its\noriginator and from his age: lifeless itself, it has driven the\nlife out of Moses and out of the people, nay, out of the very\nDeity.  This precipitate of history, appearing as law at the\nbeginning of the history, stifles and kills the history itself.\nWhich of the two views is the more historical, we can accordingly\nbe at no loss to decide.  It may be added that in the older Hebrew\nliterature the founding of the nation and not the giving of the\nlaw is regarded as the theocratic creative act of Jehovah.  The\nvery notion of the law is absent: only covenants are spoken of,\nin which the representatives of the people undertake solemn\nobligations to do or leave undone something which is described\nin general terms.\n\nAnother point of difference must be mentioned here, though indeed\nit is a matter which has been before us more than once already.\nThat which is in the Priestly Code the subject-matter of the\nTorah of Moses, namely, the institution of the cultus, the\nJehovist traces to the practice of the patriarchs--one more result\nof the difference between law and legend.  The Moses of the\nPriestly  Code conflicts not only with the future, but with the\npast; he comes into collision with history on every side.  That\nview is manifestly the only natural one according to which the\nworship is not specifically Israelite, not a thing instituted by\nMoses in obedience to a sudden command of the Deity, but an\nancestral tradition.  But at the time when the Priestly Code was\ndrawn up the worship was certainly the one thing that made Israel\nIsrael.  In it the church, the one congregation of worship, takes\nthe place of the people even in the Mosaic age--sorely against\nhistory, but characteristically for the author's point of view.\n\nNow even such authorities as Bleek, Hupfeld, and Knobel have been\nmisled by the appearance of historical reality which the Priestly\nCode creates by its learned art here as well as in the history\nof the patriarchs.  They have regarded the multiplicity of\nnumbers and names, the minute technical descriptions, the strict\nkeeping up of the scenery of camp-life, as so many  signs of\nauthentic objectivity.  Noldeke made an end of this critical\nposition once for all, but Colenso is properly entitled to the\ncredit of having first torn the web asunder. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. See Kuenen in the Theol. Tijdschrift, 1870, p. 393-401.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe boldness with which numbers and names are stated, and the\npreciseness of the details about indifferent matters of furniture,\ndo not prove them to be reliable: they are not drawn from\ncontemporary records, but are the fruit solely of late Jewish\nfancy, a fancy which, it is well known, does not design nor\nsketch, but counts and constructs, and produces nothing more than\nbarren plans.  Without repeating the description of the tabernacle\nin Exodus xxv. word for word, it is difficult to give an idea how\ncircumstantial it is; we must go to the source to satisfy\nourselves what the narrator can do in this line.  One would imagine\nthat he was giving specifications to measurers for estimates, or\nthat he was writing for carpet-makers and upholsterers; but they\ncould not proceed upon his information, for the incredibly matter-\nof-fact statements are fancy all the same, as was shown in chapter\ni.  The description of the tabernacle is supplemented in the Book\nof Numbers by that of the camp; the former being the centre, this\nis the circle drawn about it, and consists of an outer ring, the\ntwelve secular tribes, a middle ring, the Levites, and an innermost\none, the sons of Aaron: a mathematical demonstration of the\ntheocracy in the wilderness.  The two first chapters contain the\ncensus of the twelve tribes, and their allocation in four quarters,\nnothing but names and numbers.  To this first census chapter xxxiv.\nadds another at the close of the forty years, in which the various\ndetailed figures are different, but the total is about the same.\nThis total, 600,000 warriors, comes from the older tradition, but\nis proved to be quite worthless by the fact that in a really\nauthentic document the levy of Israel in the time of Deborah is\nstated to be 40,000 strong.  Still, the Priestly Code is entitled\nto the credit of having made the total a little less round, and of\nhaving broken it up into artificial component parts.  The muster of\nthe people is followed in Numbers iii. iv. by the dedication of\nthe tribe of Levi to the sanctuary, in compensation for the\nfirstborn males of the Israelites who up to that time had not been\nsacrificed nor yet redeemed.  There are 22,273 firstborn males to\nbe provided for, and there are 22,000 male Levites above a month\nold.  The 273 extra firstborn males are specially redeemed at five\nshekels a head.  What accuracy!  But what of the fact that a people\nof at least two millions has only 22,273 firstborn males, or say\n50,000 firstborn of both sexes?  This gives an average of forty\nchildren to every woman, for the firstborn in the sense of the law\nis that which first opens the womb.  The continuation of Numbers iii.\niv. is in chapter viii.  As the Levites are an offering of firstlings\nto the sanctuary on the part of the people, which, however, is not\nto be sacrificed but made over to the priests, the characteristic\nrite of this sort of sacred due has to be gone through with them,\nnamely, an act imitating that of throwing into the flame of the altar\n(Aristeas 31,1. 5).  To think of Moses and Aaron heaving the 22,000\nmen!  Not less striking as an example of this kind of fiction is the\nstory of Numbers xxxi.  Twelve thousand Israelites, a thousand from\neach tribe, take the field against Midian, extirpate without any\nfighting--at least nothing is anywhere said of this important\npoint--the whole people, slay  all the men and a part of the women,\ntake captive the unmarried girls, and suffer themselves no loss\nwhatever.  The latter point is asserted very definitely.\n\n\"The captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds came to\nMoses, and said to him, Thy servants have taken the sum of the men\nof war which are under our charge, and there lacketh not one of us.\"\n\nOf the immeasurable booty of men and cattle Jehovah assigns half\nto those who took the field and took part in the battle, the other\nhalf to the congregation; and the former are to give the 500th\npart to the priests, the latter the 50th part to the Levites.  The\nexecution of this order is especially reported as follows:\n\n\"The booty which the men of war had taken was 675,000 sheep, 72,000\nbeeves, 61,000 asses, and 32,000 women that had not lain by man.\nAnd the half which was the portion of them that went out to war\nwas 337,500 sheep, and Jehovah's tribute of the sheep was 675;\n36,000 beeves, tribute to Jehovah 72; 30,500 asses, tribute to\nJehovah 61; 16,000 persons, tribute to Jehovah 32.  And Moses\ngave the tribute to Jehovah to Eleazar the priest.  But the other\nhalf, which Moses divided to the children of Israel, the half due\nto the congregation, was 337,500 sheep, 36,000 beeves, 30,500 asses,\n16,000 persons, and of the children of Israel's half Moses took one\nof fifty and gave them to the Levites.\"\n\nThe calculation of the contribution to Jehovah was quite\neasy for Moses, as the 500th part of the half is equivalent to\nthe 1000th part of the whole; he had only to leave off the\nthousands from the first totals.  In conclusion, the captains\nbrought offerings to Jehovah of golden dishes, chains, bracelets,\nrings, and earrings, altogether 16,750 shekels weight, as\natonement for their souls\n\n\"But that was only the gold which the captains had taken as booty,\nfor the men of war had taken spoil, every man for himself.\"\n\nWe may perhaps be allowed to speculate as to the relation between\nthese 16,750 shekels which in this passage the captains alone offer\nto the tabernacle OF THE GOLD ORNAMENTS OF THE MIDIANITES, and the\n1700 shekels which in Judges viii. the whole people dedicate OF THE\nGOLD ORNAMENTS OF THE MIDIANITES to set up an image in Ophra.\n\nIt is less easy to account on the theory of pure fiction for the\nnumerous names sometimes arranged together like a catalogue than\nfor reported circumstances and numbers.  There can certainly be\nno doubt that the forty places which are mentioned in the list of\nencampments in the wanderings, really existed in the region the\nIsraelites are reported to have traversed.  But he who is\nsatisfied with this as evidence that we have before us here a\nhistorical document of primitive antiquity, will never be\ndisturbed by criticism.  Was it such a difficult matter to find\nout forty definite stations in the wilderness for the forty\nyears of the wanderings?  Even if the elements of the composition\nare not fictitious, that is far from proving the composition\nitself to be authentic.  And in the case of lists of the names of\npersons, the elements are often of an extremely doubtful nature;\nand here it is well to keep in view the principle of Vatke (op.\ncit. p. 675) that no confidence is to be placed in subjects devoid\nof predicates, and that persons are not to be taken for real who\nhave nothing to do.  The dozens of names in Numbers i. vii. x.\nare almost all made to the same pattern, and have no similarity\nwhatever to the names genuinely old.  The fact that the name of\nJehovah does not enter into their composition only shows that the\ncomposer was not forgetful of his religio-historical theory.\n\nBy its taste for barren names and numbers and technical\ndescriptions, the Priestly Code comes to stand on the same line\nwith the Chronicles and the other literature of Judaism which\nlabours at an artificial revival of the old tradition [VI.I.2\nVI.III.2., VI.III.3. ad fin.].  Of a piece with this tendency is\nan indescribable pedantry, belonging to the very being of the\nauthor of the Priestly Code.  He has a very passion for classifying\nand drawing plans; if he has once dissected a genus into different\nspecies, we get all the species named to us one by one every\ntime he has occasion to mention the genus.  The subsuming use of\nthe prepositions Lamed and Beth is characteristic of him.  He\nselects a long-drawn expression wherever he can; he does not weary\nof repeating for the hundredth time what is a matter of course\n(Numbers viii.), he hates pronouns and all abbreviating substitutes.\nWhat is interesting is passed over, what is of no importance is\ndescribed with minuteness, his exhaustive clearness is such as\nwith its numerous details to confuse our apprehension of what is\nin itself perfectly clear.  This is what used to be described\nin the phraseology of historical criticism as epic breadth. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Riehm, p. 292.  \"The style is quiet, simple, free from all\nrhetorical and poetical ornament, and the expression in speaking\nof similar objects has an epic uniformity.  Impressive as many\npieces are, just from their unassuming simplicity  and\nobjectivity, there is nowhere any apparent effort to produce\neffect or to raise the interest of the reader by the resources of\nliterary art.\"  For an opposite opinion compare Lichtenberg,\nWerke, ii. 162.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nVIII.III.2. Having thus attempted to describe the general contrast\nof the Priestly Code and the Jehovist in the Mosaic period, it\nremains for us to compare the several stories in the two works.\nThe Exodus from Egypt is everywhere regarded as the commencement\nof Israelite history.  In the Priestly Code it is made the epoch\nof an era (Exodus xii. 2), which is afterwards dated from, not only\nin years but even in months and days.  It is unquestionable that\nthis precise style of dating only came into use among the Hebrews\nat a very late period.  *We find in the historical books only one\nstatement of the month in which an event took place (1Kings vi.\n38), and in that case the day is not given.  To the prophetic\nwriters dates were of some importance, and the growth of the\npractice may to some extent be traced with them.  Amos first came\nforward \"two years before the earthquake.\"  /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. Agh. xv. 11, 17: when al-Walid b. al-Mughira was dead, the\nArabs dated after his death to the year of the elephant, which\nthereafter was made an epoch.  According to others they reckoned\nnine years after the death of Hisham b. al-Mughira, to the time\nwhen they built the Caaba, and then they dated from the building\nof the Caaba.  Comp. the 'Am al Ramada and the 'Am al Ru'af.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe most precise date in Isaiah is \"the year in which king Uzziah\ndied.\"  Numbers of years are first found in Jeremiah, \"the thirteenth\nyear of king Josiah,\" and a few more instances.  All at once there was\na change: Haggai and Zechariah, prophets who grew up in the Babylonian\nexile, always give dates, not only the year and month, but the day of\nthe month as well.  In the Priestly Code this precise reckoning,\nwhich the Jews obviously learned from the Chaldeans, is in use\nfrom the age of Moses onwards.\n\nIn the Jehovist the ostensible occasion of the Exodus is a festival\nwhich the children of Israel desire to hold in honour of their God\nin the wilderness.  In the Priestly Code this occasion\ndisappears; there can be no pre-Mosaic festivals.  But with this\nthe reason falls away for which Jehovah kills the firstborn of the\nEgyptians, He does it because the king of Egypt is keeping from Him\nthe firstborn of the Israelites, which ought to be offered to Him\nat the festival; for the celebration in question is the sacrificial\nfestival of the first-fruits of cattle in spring.  In the older\ntradition the festival is the first thing; it explains the circumstances\nof the Exodus and the time of year at which it took place: in the\nlater one the relation is reversed--the killing of the firstborn of\nthe Egyptians leads to the sacrifice of the firstborn of Israel,\nthe Exodus in spring is followed by the festival in spring as its\nconsequence.  The Priestly Code follows this younger tradition,\nand deviates from the original account still more widely in the\nview it gives of the passover.  It obliterates completely the\nconnection between the passover and the sacrifice of the\nfirstborn, and represents it not as a giving of thanks to Jehovah\nfor having slain the firstborn of Egypt, but as instituted at the\nmoment of the Exodus to induce Jehovah to spare the firstborn of\nIsrael.  How all this is to be understood and judged of we have\ndiscussed more at large in the chapter on the festivals (III.I.1.,\nIII.III.1.).\n\nAs to the accounts given in the two sources of the crossing of the\nRed Sea, all we can say is that that of the Jehovist (J) is the\nmore complicated.  According to him the sea is dried up by a\nstrong wind, and the Egyptians succeed at first in crossing it,\nand encounter the Hebrews on the eastern shore during he night.\n\"But in the morning watch Jehovah turned, in the pillar of fire\nand of the cloud, against the host of the Egyptian, and overthrew\nthe host of the Egyptian, and hindered the wheels of his chariot\nand caused him to drive heavily.  Then the Egyptian said: I will\nflee before Israel, for Jehovah fighteth for them against Egypt.\nBut the sea turned back towards morning to its ordinary level,\nand the Egyptians fled against it, and Jehovah shook them into\nthe midst of the sea\" (Exodus xiv. 24, 25, 27).\nAccording to the Priestly Code /1/ the waves meet over the pursuers,\n\n-- Footnote\n1. And the younger tradition generally: also according to the\nsong Exodus xv., which apart from the beginning, which is old,\nis a psalm in the manner of the Psalms and has no similarity\nwith the historical songs, Judges v., 2Samuel i., Numbers xxi.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nbefore they reach the further shore; the idea is much simpler,\nbut poorer in incidental features.\n\nThe miracle of the manna (Exodus xvi.) is taken advantage of\nin the Priestly Code as a very suitable occasion for urging on\nthe people a strict sanctification of the Sabbath: none falls\non the seventh day, but what is gathered on the sixth keeps two\ndays, while at other times it requires to be eaten quite fresh.\nThis pursuit of a legal object destroys the story and obscures\nits original meaning, as no one can help seeing.  Nor is it any\nsign of originality, rather of senility, that in the Priestly Code\nthe manna is not eaten raw, but boiled and baked.\n\nAt Mount Sinai Moses receives, according to the Priestly Code,\nthe revelation of--the model of the tabernacle, and he follows\nthe pattern thus presented to him in the construction, down below,\nof the real tabernacle.  All further revelation takes place, even\nin Moses' time, as far as possible in the tabernacle (Exodus xxv.\n22).  Even Sinai must not stand any longer than necessary by the\nside of the one legitimate seat of Deity. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Compare, however, Jahrbb.fur Deutsche Theologie, 1877, p. 453,\nnote 1.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe tables of the law, it appears, are silently presupposed\nwithout being mentioned beforehand, it being of course assumed\nthat the readers would know all about them from the old tradition.\nThe outside of the ark, however, is furnished in the most extravagant\nstyle, and with a splendour which other descriptions of the chest\nof acacia-wood are far from suggesting.  The ark in the Priestly Code\ndiffers indeed in every way from the appearance of it in 1Kings\nvii. 23 seq.  We are reminded of the Haggada by the covering which\nMoses has to put before his face, which is shining with the reflection\nof the glory of Jehovah (Exodus xxxiv. 29-35), and by the making of\nthe brazen laver of the looking-glasses of the women who serve the\ntemple (Exodus xxxviii. 8, cf. Numbers xvii. 1, 9); these traits\ndo not, it is true, belong to the original contents of the Priestly\nCode, but they belong to its circle.\n\nFrom Sinai the old tradition takes us by this and that station,\nmentioned by name, without delay to Kadesh.  Here the chief part\nof the forty years' sojourn in the wilderness is spent; this,\nas we said before, is the true scene of all the stories that are\ntold about Moses.  The Priestly Code takes us in this period, as\nin the legend of the patriarchs, not to definite places, but up and\ndown in the wilderness of Sinai, in the wilderness of Paran, in\nthe wilderness of Sin.  Kadesh is with evident intention thrust as\nfar as possible into the background--no doubt on account of the\nhigh sanctity the place originally had as the encampment for\nmany years of the Israelites under Moses.\n\nThe spies are sent out according to the Jehovist from Kadesh,\naccording to the Priestly Code from the wilderness of Paran.\nIn the former authority they penetrate to Hebron, whence they\nbring back with them fine grapes, but they find that the land\nwhere these grow is not to be conquered.  In the latter they\nproceed without any difficulty throughout the whole of Palestine\nto Lebanon, but have nothing to bring back with them, and advise\nagainst attacking the land because they have not found it\nparticularly desirable, as if its advantages had been accessible\nto faith alone and not to be discovered by  unbelieving eyes, as\nwas actually the case in the time of Haggai and Zechariah, and at\nthe time of Ezra and Nehemiah.  To the genuine Israelite of old,\nhowever, the goodness of his beloved land was not a mere point of\nfaith which he could ever have doubted.  In the former source, as\nwe judge from Deuteronomy i. 23, only the number of the spies was\ngiven; in the latter all the twelve are named.  In the former\nCaleb is the only good spy, in the latter Caleb and Joshua.  At\nfirst probably neither the one nor the other belonged to this\nstory; but Caleb easily came to be named as an exception,\nbecause he actually conquered the district from Kadesh to Hebron,\nwhich the spies had declared it impossible to take, and which the\nIsraelites, alarmed by their account, had not ventured to attack.\nJoshua, again, was added from the consideration that, according to\nthe principle enunciated by the Jehovist in Numbers xiv. 23, 24,\nhe must have shared the merit of Caleb, because he partook of the\nsame exceptional reward with him.\n\nIn the Jehovist Moses alone instructs the spies and receives their\nreport on their return; in the Priestly Code Moses and Aaron do\nso.  In the oldest source of the Jehovist (J) Aaron has not yet\nmade his appearance; in the Priestly Code Moses must not do any\npublic act without him. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. In the same way, in the former source Joshua always acts alone;\nin the latter, he always has the priest Eleazar at his side.\nCompare notes [in IV.III.2.]\n-- Footnote\n\n\nMoses is still the moving spirit here as well as there, but Aaron\nis the representative of the theocracy, and pains are taken to\nsecure that he shall never be absent where the representatives of\nthe theocracy are brought face to face with the community.  The\ndesire to introduce the leader of the hierocracy, and with its\nleader the hierocracy itself, into the Mosaic history, has borne\nthe most remarkable fruits in the so-called story of the rebellion\nof the company of Korah.  According to the Jehovistic tradition\nthe rebellion proceeds from the Reubenites, Dathan, and Abiram,\nprominent members of the firstborn tribe of Israel, and is directed\nagainst MOSES AS LEADER AND JUDGE OF THE PEOPLE.  According to the\nversion of the main-stock of the Priestly Code (Q), the author of\nthe agitation is Korah, a prince of the tribe of Judah, and he rebels\nnot only against Moses, but against MOSES AND AARON AS REPRESENTING\nTHE PRIESTHOOD.  In a later addition, which, to judge from its style,\nbelongs likewise to the Priestly Code, but not to its original\ncontents, the Levite Korah appears at the head of a revolt of the\nLevites against AARON AS HIGH PRIEST, and demands the equalisation\nof the lower with the higher clergy.  Starting from the Jehovistic\nversion, the historical basis of which is dimly discerned to be the\nfall of Reuben from its old place at the head of the brother-tribes,\nwe have no difficulty in seeing how the second version arose out of\nit.  The people of the congregation, i.e., of the church, having once\ncome on the scene, the spiritual heads, Moses and Aaron, take the\nplace of the popular leader Moses, and the jealousy of the secular\ngrandees is now directed against the class of hereditary priests,\ninstead of against the extraordinary influence on the community of\na heaven-sent hero.  All these changes are the natural outcome of\nthe importation of the hierocracy into Mosaic times.  From the\nsecond version we can go further and understand the origin of the\nthird.  In the earlier version the princes of the tribe of Reuben\nwere forced to give way to a prince of the tribe of Judah.  In\nthe progress of time Korah the prince of the tribe of Judah is\nreplaced by the eponymous head of a post-exilic Levitical family,\nof the same name.  The contest between clergy and aristocracy is\nhere transformed into a domestic strife between the higher and the\ninferior clergy, which was no doubt raging in the time of the\nnarrator.  Thus the three versions are developed, the origin and\ncollocation of which appears from every other point of view to be\nan insoluble enigma.  The one arises out of the other in the\ndirect line of descent: the metamorphoses took place under the\ninfluence of great historical changes which are well known to us;\nand in the light of Jewish history  from Josiah downwards they\nare by no means unintelligible. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1 The details of the demonstration will be found in the Jahrbb.\nfuer Deutsche Theologie, 1776, p. 572 seq., 1877, p. 454, note,\nand in the Leyden Theol. Tijdschrift, 1878, p. 139 seq.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nWe come to the migration of the Israelites to the land east of the\nJordan.  According to the Jehovist the neighbouring tribes place\nobstacles in their way, and the land in which they desire to\nsettle has to be conquered with the sword.  The Priestly Code tells\nus as little of all this as in an earlier instance of the war with\nAmalek; from all it says we should imagine that the Israelites went\nstraight to their mark and met with no difficulty in the region\nin question; the land is ownerless, and the possession of it is\ngranted by  Moses and Eleazar to the two tribes Reuben and Gad\n(Numbers xxxii.).  But that war may not be completely wanting\nunder Moses, we have afterwards the war with the Midianites, on\nwhich we have already commented (Numbers xxxi.).  There is not much\nstory about it, only numbers and directions; and in verse 27\nthere is a suspicion of 1Samuel xxx. 24, as if that passage were\nthe groundwork of the whole.  The passage is extremely\ninteresting as showing us the views taken of war by the Jews of\nthe later time who had grown quite unaccustomed to it.  The\noccasion of the war also is noticeable; it is undertaken not for\nthe acquisition of territory, nor with any other practical\nobject, but only to take vengeance on the Midianites for having\nseduced some of the Israelites to uncleanness.\n\nThe elders of Midian, so the story goes, went to the soothsayer\nBalaam to ask his advice as to what should be done against the\nIsraelite invaders.  He suggested a means by which the edge of\nthe invasion might be broken; the Midianites should give their\ndaughters to the Israelites for wives, and so deprive the holy\npeople of their strength, the secret of which lay in their\nisolation from other peoples.  The Midianites took Balaam's advice\nand succeeded in entangling many of the Israelites with the\ncharms of their women; in consequence of which Jehovah visited\nthe faithless people with a severe plague.  The narrative of the\nPriestly Code up to this point has to be pieced together from Numbers\nxxxi. 8, 16 and Joshua xiii. 22, and from what is implied in the\nsequel of it; at this point the portion of it begins which is\npreserved to us (Numbers xxv. 6 seq.), and we are told how the\nplague was ultimately stayed.  A certain man coolly brings a\nMidianitish woman into the camp before the very eyes of Moses and\nthe weeping children of Israel: then the young hereditary priest\nPhinehas takes a spear, transfixes the godless pair, and by this\nzeal averts the anger of Jehovah.  This narrative is based on the\nJehovistic one, which is also preserved to us only in part (Numbers\nxxv. 1-5), about the backsliding of Israel in the camp of Shittim\nto the service of Baal-Peor, to which they were seduced by the\ndaughters of Moab.  In the Priestly Code the idolatry has quite\ndisappeared, all but some unconscious reminiscences, and no\nsin is alleged but that of whoredom, which in the original story\nmerely led up to the main offence.  This is done manifestly with\nthe idea that marriage with foreign women is in itself a falling\naway from Jehovah, a breach of the covenant.  This change was\nextremely suitable to the circumstances of exilic and post-exilic\nJudaism, for in these later days there was no immediate danger of\ngross idolatry, but it took a good deal of trouble to prevent\nheathenism from making its way into the midst of the people under\nthe friendly form of mixed marriages.  The version of the\nPriestly Code, however, mixes up with the Baal-Peor story of the\nJehovist the figure of Balaam, which is also borrowed from the\nJehovist but entirely transformed in the process.  In the form\nunder which he appears in the early history he transgresses all\nthe ideas of the Priestly Code.  An Aramaean seer, who is hired\nfor money and makes all sorts of heathen preparations to\nprophesy, but who yet is not an impostor, but a true prophet as\nmuch as any in Israel, who even stands in the most intimate\nrelations with Jehovah, though cherishing the intention of cursing\nJehovah's people--that is too much for exclusive Judaism.  The\ncorrection is effected by the simple device of connecting Balaam\nwith the following section, and making him the intellectual\ninstigator of the devilry of the Midianitish women; and in this\nnew form which he assumes in the Priestly  Code he lives on in the\nHaggada.  The reason for changing the Moabites into Midianites\nis not made clear; but the fact is undoubted that the Midianites\nnever lived in that part of the world.\n\nIn the Book of Numbers the narrative sections, which are in the\nstyle and colour of the Priestly Code, have more and more the\ncharacter of mere additions and editorial supplements to a\nconnection which was already there and had a different origin.\nThe independent main stock of the Priestly Code, the Book of the\nFour Covenants, or the Book of Origins (Q), more and more gives way\nto later additions, and ceases altogether, it appears, at the\ndeath of Moses.  It is at least nowhere to be traced in the first\nhalf of the Book of Joshua, and so we cannot reckon as part of it\nthose extensive sections of the second half, belonging to the\nPriestly Code, which treat of the division of the land.  Without a\npreceding history of the conquest these sections are quite in the\nair; they cannot be taken as telling a continuous story of\ntheir own, but presuppose the Jehovistic-Deuteronomic work. In\nspite of distaste to war and to records of war (1Chronicles xxii.\n8, xxviii. 3), an independent work like the Book of the Four Covenants\ncould not possibly have passed over the wars of Joshua in silence.\n\nA comparison of the different accounts of the entry of the\nIsraelite tribes into the occupation of the conquered land may\nclose this discussion.  The Priestly Code, agreeing in this with\nthe Deuteronomistic revision, represents the whole of Canaan as\nhaving been made a _tabula rasa_, and then, masterless and denuded\nof population, submitted to the lot.  First the tribe of Judah\nreceives its lot, then Manasseh and Ephraim, then the two tribes\nwhich attached themselves to Ephraim and Judah, Benjamin and\nSimeon, and lastly the five northern tribes, Zebulon, Issachar,\nAsher, Naphtali, Dan.\n\n\"These are the inheritances which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua\nben Nun, and the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel\ndivided for an inheritance by lot in Shiloh before Jehovah at\nthe door of the tabernacle.\"\n\nAccording to the Jehovist, Judah and Joseph appear to have had\ntheir territory allocated to them at Gilgal (xiv. 6), and not by\nlot, and to have entered into occupation of it from there.  A good\nwhile afterwards the land remaining over is divided by lot among\nthe seven small tribes still unprovided for, from Shiloh, or\nperhaps originally from Shechem (xviii. 2-10).  Joshua alone\ncasts the lot and gives instructions; Eleazar the priest does not\nact with him.  Even here the general principle of the Priestly\nCode, which knows no differences among the tribes, is somewhat\nlimited; but it is much more decidedly contradicted by\nthe important chapter, Judges i.\n\nThe chapter is, in fact, not a continuation of the Book of Joshua\nat all, but a parallel to it, which, while it presupposes the\nconquest of the east-Jordan lands, does not speak of the\nwest-Jordan lands as conquered, but tells the story of the\nconquest, and that in a manner somewhat differing from the other\nsource.  From Gilgal, where the \"Angel of Jehovah\" first set up\nhis tent, the tribes march out one by one to conquer their \"lot\"\nby fighting; first Judah, then Joseph. We hear only of these two,\nand with regard to Joseph we only hear of the very  beginning of\nthe conquest of his land.  There is no mention of Joshua; nor\nwould his figure as commander-general of Israel suit the view here\ngiven of the situation; though it would very well admit of him as\nleader of his tribe.  The incompleteness of the conquest is\nacknowledged unreservedly; the Canaanites lived on quietly in the\ncities of the plain, and not till the period of the monarchy,\nwhen Israel had grown strong, were they subdued and made tributary.\nThis chapter, as well as the main stem of the Book of Judges,\ncorresponds to the Jehovistic stratum of the tradition, to which\nalso passages in Joshua, of an identical or similar import, may\nbe added without hesitation.  The Angel of Jehovah is enough to tell\nus this.  The difference which exists between it and the\nJehovistic main version in the Book of Joshua is to be explained\nfor the most part by the fact that the latter is of Ephraimite origin,\nand in consequence ascribes the conquest of the whole land to the\nhero of Ephraim or of Joseph, while Judges i. leans more to the tribe\nof Judah.  Moreover, we find in the Book of Joshua itself the remnant\nof a version (ix. 4-7, 12-14) in which, just as in Judges i., the\nactors are the \"men of Israel,\" who \"ask counsel of the mouth of\nJehovah,\" while elsewhere Joshua alone has anything to say, being\nthe successor of Moses, and drawing his decisions from no source\nbut the authority of his own spirit.  And finally, we have to consider\nExodus xxiii., 20 seq., where also there is a correspondence with\nJudges i., in the fact that not Joshua but the Angel of Jehovah\n(Judges v. 23) is the leader of Israel, and that the promised land\nis not conquered all at once but gradually, in the process of time.\n\nJudges i. presents certain anachronisms, and is partly made up of\nanecdotes, but these should not prevent us from acknowledging that\nthe general view given in this chapter of the process of the\nconquest, is, when judged by what we know of the subsequent\nperiod of Israel, incomparably more historical than that in the\nBook of Joshua, where the whole thing is done at once with\nsystematic thoroughness, the whole land being first denuded of its\ninhabitants, and then divided by lot among the different tribes.\nThe latter view may have come about partly from a literal\ninterpretation of \"lot\" (Judges xviii. 1), an expression which\nproperly applies to the farm of a family but is here used for the\nterritory  of a tribe.  It was also favoured no doubt by the\ntendency to compress a long development into its first great act;\nand as this tendency is carried out with the greatest\nthoroughness in the Priestly Code, that document stands furthest\nfrom the origin of the tradition. /1/ The same conclusion is led up\n\n-- Footnote\n1. In the Deuteronomistic revision (Joshua xxi, 43-45) there is\nstill a trace of hesitation, a certain difficulty in parting with\nthe old view altogether (Deuteronomy vii.  22; Judg. iii. 1, 2);\nand besides the motives for the change are much plainer here:\nthe Canaanites are extirpated to guard against the infection of the\nnew settlers with their idolatary.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nto by the circumstance that the tribe of Joseph is never mentioned,\none of the two tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, being always spoken of\ninstead, and that these two tribes are almost put out of sight by\nJudah.  And yet Joshua, the leader of Ephraim, is leader here also\nof all Israel, having been preserved from the old original tradition,\nwhich was Ephraimitic.\n\nIt involves no contradiction that, in comparing the versions of the\ntradition, we should decline the historical standard in the case\nof the legend of the origins of mankind and of the legend of the\npatriarchs, while we employ it to a certain extent for the epic\nperiod of Moses and Joshua.  The epic tradition certainly\ncontains elements which cannot be explained on any other\nhypothesis than that there are historical facts underlying them;\nits source is in the period it deals with, while the patriarchal\nlegend has no connection whatever with the times of the\npatriarchs. /1/  This justifies the difference of treatment.\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Some isolated statements there are here also to which the\nhistorical standard may be applied.  We may call it a more\naccurate representation that Hebron was inhabited in the time of\nAbraham by the, Canaanites and Perizzites, than that the Hittites\ndwelt there at that time.  The latter, according to 2Samuel\nxxiv. 6 (Bleek, Einleitung, 4th edition, pp. 228, 597), dwelt in\nCoele-Syria, and according to 2Kings vii. 6, in the neihbourhood\nof the Aramaeans of Damascus.  The statement that the Israelites\nreceived from Pharaoh because they were shepherds the pasture-land\nof Goshen on the north-east frontier of Egypt and there dwelt by\nthemselves, is to be preferred to the statement that they were\nsettled among the Egyptians in the best part of the land,\n-- Footnote\n\n\nOur last result is still the same: whether tried by the standard of\npoetry or by that of history, the Priestly Code stands both in\nvalue and in time far below the Jehovist.\n\n\nVIII.III.3. In rough strokes I have sought to place before the\nreader's view the contrast between the beginning and the end of\nthe tradition of the Hexateuch.  It would not be impossible to trace\nthe inner development of the tradition in the intermediate stages\nbetween the two extremities.  To do this we should have to make\nuse of the more delicate results of the process of source-sifting,\nand to call to our aid the hints, not numerous indeed, but\nimportant, which are to be found in Deuteronomy and in the\nhistorical and prophetical books, especially Hosea.  It would\nappear that legend from its very nature causes those who deal with\nit to strike out variations, that it cannot be represented\nobjectively at all.  Even at the first act of reducing it to\nwriting the discolouring influences are at work, without any\nviolence being done to the meaning which dwells in the matter.\nWe can trace first of all the influence on the tradition of that\nspecific prophetism which we are able to follow from Amos onwards.\nThis is least traceable in the old main source of the Jehovist,\nin J; and yet it is remarkable that the Asheras never occur in\nthe worship of the patriarchs.  The second Jehovistic source, E,\nbreathes the air of the prophets much more markedly, and shows a\nmore advanced and thorough-going religiosity.  Significant in this\nview are the introduction of Abraham as a Nabi, Jacob's burying the\nteraphim, the view taken of the macceba at Shechem (Jos. xxiv.\n27), and above all the story of the golden calf.  The Deity\nappears less primitive than in J, and does not approach men in\nbodily form, but calls to them from heaven, or appears to them in\ndreams.  The religious element has become more refined, but at the\nsame time more energetic, and has laid hold even of elements\nheterogeneous to itself, producing on occasion such strange\nmixtures as that in Genesis xxxi. 10-13.  Then the law comes in\nand leavens the Jehovistic narrative, first the Deuteronomic (in\nGenesis even, and then quite strongly in Exodus and Joshua), while\nlast of all, in the Priestly Code, under the influence of the\nlegislation of the post-exile restoration, there is brought about\na complete metamorphosis of the old tradition.  The law is the key\nto the understanding even of the narrative of the Priestly Code.\nAll the distinctive peculiarities of the work are connected with\nthe influence of the law: everywhere we hear the voice of theory,\nrule, judgment. What was said above of the cultus may be\nrepeated word for word of the legend: in the early time it may\nbe likened to the green tree which grows out of the ground as it\nwill and can; at a later time it is dry wood that is cut and made\nto a pattern with compass and square.  It is an extraordinary\nobjection to this when it is said that the post-exile period had\nno genius for productions such as the tabernacle or the chronology.\nIt certainly was not an original age, but the matter was all there\nin writing, and did not require to be invented.  What great genius\nwas needed to transform the temple into a portable tent?  What sort\nof creative power is that which brings forth nothing but numbers\nand names?  In connection with such an age there can be no question\nat least of youthful freshness.  With infinitely greater justice\nmay it be maintained that such theoretical modelling and adaptation\nof the legend as is practiced in the Priestly Code, could only gain\nan entrance when the legend had died away from the memory and\nthe heart of the people, and was dead at the root.\n\nThe history of the pre-historic and the epic tradition thus passed\nthrough the same stages as that of the historic; and in this\nparallel the Priestly Code answers both as a whole, and in every\ndetail, to the Chronicles.  The connecting link between old and\nnew, between Israel and Judaism, is everywhere Deuteronomy.\n\nThe Antar-romance says of itself, that it had attained an age of\n670 years, 400 years of which it had spent in the age of ignorance\n(i.e. old Arabic heathenism), and the other 270 in Islam.  The\nhistorical books of the Bible might say something similar, if\nthey were personified, and their life considered to begin with\nthe reduction to writing of the oldest kernel of the tradition and\nto close with the last great revision.  The time of ignorance\nwould extend to the appearance of \"the book,\" which, it is true,\ndid not in the Old Testament come down from heaven all at once\nlike the Koran, but came into existence during a longer period,\nand passed through various phases.\n\n\nC.   ISRAEL AND JUDAISM.\n\n\"The Law came in between.\"--VATKE, p. 183.\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.  CONCLUSION OF THE CRITICISM OF THE LAW.\n\nObjections have been made to the general style of the proof on\nwhich Graf's hypothesis is based. It is said to be an illicit\nargument _ex silentio_ to conclude from the fact that the priestly\nlegislation is latent in Ezekiel, where it should be in operation,\nunknown where it should be known, that in his time it had not yet\ncome into existence.  But what would the objectors have?  Do they\nexpect to find positive statements of the non-existence of what\nhad not yet come into being?  Is it more rational, to deduce _ex\nsilentio_, as they do, a positive proof that it did exist?-_to say,\nthat as there are no traces of the hierocracy in the times of the\njudges and the kings it must have originated in the most remote\nantiquity, with Moses?  The problem would in this case still be\nthe same, namely, to explain how it is that with and after the\nexile the hierocracy begins to come into practical activity.\nWhat the opponents of Graf's hypothesis call its argument _ex\nsilentio_, is nothing more or less than the universally valid\nmethod of historical investigation.\n\nThe protest against the argument _ex silentio_ takes another form.\nIt is pointed out that laws are in many cases theories, and that\nit is no disproof of the existence of a theory that it has not\ngot itself carried out into practice.  Deuteronomy was really\nnothing more than a theory during the pre-exile period, but who\nwould argue from this that it was not there at all?  Though laws\nare not kept, this does not prove they are not there,--provided,\nthat is to say, that there is sufficient proof of their existence\non other grounds.  But these other proofs of the existence of the\nPriestly Code are not to be found--not a trace of them.  It is,\nmoreover, rarely the case with laws that they are theory and\nnothing more: the possibility that a thing may be mere theory\nis not to be asserted generally, but only in particular cases.\nAnd even where law is undoubtedly theory, the fact does not\nprevent us from fixing its position in history.  Even legislative\nfancy always proceeds upon some definite presupposition or other;\nand these presuppositions, rather than the laws themselves, must\nguide the steps of historical criticism. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Cf. <I.III.2. ad fin., IV.III.3., V.II.1., VII.II.2.>. This is\nthe reason why the strata of the tradition require to be compared as\ncarefully as those of the law.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nAn argument which is the very opposite of this is also urged.\nThe fact is insisted on that the laws of the Priestly Code are\nactually attested everywhere in the practice of the historical\nperiod; that there were always sacrifices and festivals, priests\nand purifications, and everything of the kind in early Israel.\nThese statements must, though this seems scarcely possible,\nproceed on the assumption that on Graf's hypothesis the whole\ncultus was invented all at once by the Priestly Code, and only\nintroduced after the exile.  But the defenders of Graf's\nhypothesis do not go so far as to believe that the Israelite cultus\nentered the world of a sudden,--as little by Ezekiel or by Ezra\nas by Moses,--else why  should they be accused of Darwinism by\nZoeckler and Delitzsch?  They merely  consider that the works of\nthe law were done before the law, that there is a difference\nbetween traditional usage and formulated law, and that even where\nthis difference appears to be only in form it yet has a material\nbasis, being connected with the centralisation of the worship and\nthe hierocracy which that centralisation called into existence.\nHere also the important point is not the matter, but the spirit\nwhich is behind it, and may everywhere be recognised as the\nspirit of the age at one period or another. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. Comp. <II.III., III.III.1.>\n-- Footnote\n\n\nAll these objections, meanwhile, labour under the same defect,\nnamely, that they leave out of view that which is the real point\nat issue.  The point is not to prove that the Mosaic law was not\nin force in the period before the exile.  There are in the\nPentateuch three strata of law and three strata of tradition, and\nthe problem is to place them in their true historical order.  So\nfar as the Jehovist and Deuteronomy are concerned, the problem\nhas found a solution which may  be said to be accepted\nuniversally, and all that remains is to apply to the Priestly Code\nalso the procedure by which the succession and the date of these\ntwo works has been determined--that procedure consisting in the\ncomparison of them with the ascertained facts of Israelite\nhistory. /3/\n\n-- Footnote\n3. The method is stated in the introduction: and special pains are\ntaken to bring it out distinctly in the first chapter, that about\nthe place of worship.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nOne would imagine that this could not be objected to.  But\nobjections have been raised; the procedure which, when applied to\nDeuteronomy, is called historico-critical method, is called, when\napplied to the Priestly Code, construction of history.  But\nhistory, it is well known, has always to be constructed: the\norder, Priestly Code, Jehovist, Deuteronomy, is not a thing\nhanded down by tradition or prescribed by the nature of the case,\nbut a hypothesis as yet only a score of years old or thereby, the\nreasons for which were somewhat incomprehensible, so that people\nhave forgotten them and begun to regard the hypothesis as\nsomething objective, partaking of the character of dogma.  The\nquestion is whether one constructs well or ill.  Count Baudissin\nthinks a grave warning necessary of a certain danger, that,\nnamely, of an exaggerated application of logic: that the laws\nfollow each other in a certain order logically, he says, does not\nprove that they appeared in the same order in history.  But it is\nnot for the sake of logical sequence that we consider the\ndevelopment which began with the prophets to have issued finally\nin the laws of cultus; and those who set out from \"sound human\nreason\" have generally forced the reverse process of this on the\nhistory, in spite of the traces which have come down to us, and\nwhich point the other way. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. And it would not be surprising when we consider the whole\ncharacter of the polemic against Graf's hypothesis, if the next\nobjection should be the very  opposite of the above, viz. that it\nis not able to construct the history.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nAfter laboriously collecting the data offered by the historical\nand prophetical books, we constructed a sketch of the Israelite\nhistory of worship; we then compared the Pentateuch with this\nsketch, and recognised that one element of the Pentateuch bore\na definite relation to this phase of the history of worship, and\nanother element of the Pentateuch to that phase of it.  This is not\nputting logic in the place of historical investigation.  The new\ndoctrine of the irrationality of what exists is surely not to be\npushed so far, as that we should regard the correspondence between\nan element of the law and a particular phase of the history as a\nreason for placing the two as far as possible asunder.  At least\nthis principle would have to be applied to the Jehovist and\nDeuteronomy too, and not to the Priestly Code only.  What is\nright in the one case is fair in the other too; a little logic\nunfortunately is almost unavoidable.\n\nNot everything that I have brought forward in the history of the\ncultus and the tradition, is a proof of the hypothesis; there is\nmuch that serves merely to explain phenomena at the basis of the\nhypothesis, and cannot be used as proving it.  This is a matter\nof course.  My procedure has intentionally differed from that of\nGraf in this respect.  He brought forward his arguments somewhat\nunconnectedly, not seeking to change the general view which prevailed\nof the history of Israel.  For this reason he made no impression\non the majority of those who study these subjects; they did not see\ninto the root of the matter, they could still regard the system\nas unshaken, and the numerous attacks on details of it as\nunimportant.  I differ from Graf chiefly in this, that I always\ngo back to the centralisation of the cultus, and deduce from it the\nparticular divergences.  My whole position is contained in my\nfirst chapter: there I have placed in a clear light that which is\nof such importance for Israelite history, namely, the part taken\nby the prophetical party in the great metamorphosis of the\nworship, which by no means came about of itself.  Again I attach\nmuch more weight than Graf did to the change of ruling ideas which\nruns parallel with the change in the institutions and usages of\nworship; this has been shown mostly in the second part of the\npresent work.  Almost more important to me than the phenomena\nthemselves, are the presuppositions which lie behind them.\n\nNot everything that we have hitherto discussed proves, or is meant\nto prove, Graf's hypothesis.  On the other hand, however, there is\nabundance of evidence, which has not yet been noticed.  To discuss\nit all in detail, would take another book: in this work only a\nselection can be with all brevity indicated, if the limits are\nnot to be transgressed which are imposed by the essentially\nhistorical character of these prolegomena.  In these discussions\nthe Pro will as a rule naturally suggest itself in the refutation\nof the Contra.\n\n\nIX.I.\n\nIX.I.1. Eberhard Schrader mentions, in his Introduction to the Old\nTestament, that Graf assigns the legislation of the middle books\nof the Pentateuch to the period after the exile; but he does not\ngive the least idea of the arguments on which that position is\nbuilt up, simply dismissing it with the remark, that \"even\ncritical analysis enters its veto\" against it.  Even critical\nanalysis?  How does it manage that?  How can it prove that the\none and sole cultus, worked out on every side to a great system,\nthe denaturalising of the sacrifices and festivals, the distinction\nbetween the priests and Levites, and the autonomous hierarchy, are\nolder than the Deuteronomic reform?  Schrader's meaning is\nperhaps, that while the signs collected by a comparison of the\nsources as bearing on the history of worship show the order of\nsuccession to be Jehovist, Deuteronomy, Priestly Code, other\nsigns of a more formal and literary nature would show the Priestly\nCode to be entitled to the first place, or at any rate not the\nlast, and that the latter kind of evidence is of as much force as\nthe former.  Were this so, the scales would be equally balanced,\nand the question would not admit of a decision.  But this awkward\nsituation would only occur if the arguments of a literary nature\nto be urged on that side really balanced those belonging to the\nsubstance of the case which plead for Graf's hypothesis.  In\ndiscussing the composition of the Hexateuch, /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Jahrb. Deutsche Theol., 1876, p. 392 seq, 531 seq; 1877,\np. 407 seq.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nI have shown, following in the steps of other scholars, that this\nis by no means the case; and for the sake of completeness I will\nhere repeat the principal points of that discussion.\n\nIX.I.2. It is asserted that the historical situation of Deuteronomy\nis based not only on the Jehovistic, but also on the Priestly\nnarrative.  Deuteronomy proper (chaps. xii.-xxvi.) contains\nscarcely any historical matter, but before Moses comes to the\nbusiness in hand, we have two introductions, chapter v.-xi. and\nchapter i.-iv., to explain the situation in which he promulgates\n\"this Torah\" shortly before his death.  We are in the Amorite\nkingdom, east of the Jordan, which has already been conquered.\nThe forty years' wanderings are about to close: the passage to\nthe land of Canaan, for which this legislation is intended, is\njust approaching.  Till this time, we hear in chapter v. 9, 10,\nthe only law was that which is binding in all circumstances, and\nwas therefore promulgated by God Himself from Horeb, the Law of\nthe Ten Words on that occasion.  The people deprecated any\nfurther direct revelation by Jehovah, and commissioned Moses to\nbe their representative; and he accordingly betook himself to the\nsacred mount, stayed there forty days and forty nights, and\nreceived the two tables of the decalogue, and besides them the\nstatutes and laws which now, forty years after, he is on the\npoint of publishing, as they will come into force at the\nsettlement.  In the meantime the golden calf had been made down\nbelow;  and when Moses descended from the mount, in his anger he\nbroke the tables and destroyed the idol.  Then he betook himself\nfor a second period of forty days and nights to the mount, pleaded\nfor mercy for the people and for Aaron; and after he had made,\naccording to divine command, two new tables and a wooden chest\nfor them, Jehovah once more wrote down exactly what stood on the\ntables which were broken.  On this occasion, it is remarked in x.\n8 seq., the Levites received their appointment as priests.\n\nThis is evidently a reproduction of the Jehovistic narrative,\nExodus xix. xx. xxiv. xxxii-xxxiv.  The Priestly Code, on the\ncontrary, is entirely ignored.  Deuteronomy knows only two\nlaws, the decalogue, which the people received, and the statutes\nand judgments which Moses received, at Mount Horeb.  They were\nboth given at the same time, one directly after the other: but\nonly the decalogue had till now been made public.  Where is the\nwhole wilderness-legislation as given from the tabernacle?  Is\nit not denying the very notion of its existence, that Moses only\npublishes the Torah at the passage into the Holy Land, because it\nhas application and force for that land, and not for the\nwilderness?  Apart from the fact that the Deuteronomist,\naccording to chapter xii., knew nothing of a Mosaic central\nsanctuary, can he have read what we now read between Exodus xxiv.\nand xxxii.?   He passes over all that is there inserted from the\nPriestly Code. Noldeke finds, it is true, /1 /\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Jahrbb. fuer prot. Theologie, 1875, p. 350.\n-- Footnote\n\n\na reminiscence of that code in the ark of acacia wood, Deuteronomy\nx. 1.  But the ark is here spoken of in a connection which answers\nexactly to that of the Jehovist (Exod xxxii. xxxiii.), and is\nquite inconsistent with that, of the Priestly Code (Exodus xxv.\nseq.).  It is only instituted after the erection of the golden\ncalf, not at the very beginning of the divine revelation, as the\nfoundation-stone of the theocracy.  True, the ark is not mentioned\nin JE, Exodus xxxiii., as we now have it, but in the next\nJehovistic piece (Numbers x. 33) it suddenly appears, and there\nmust have been some statement in the work as to how it came there.\nThe tabernacle also appears ready set up in xxxiii. 7, without\nany foregoing account of its erection.  The institution of the\nark as well as the erection of the tabernacle must have been\nnarrated between xxxiii. 6 and 7, and then omitted by the present\neditor of the Pentateuch from the necessity of paying some regard\nto Q, Exodus xxv.; that this is the case many other\nconsiderations also tend to prove. /2/\n\n-- Footnote-- Footnote\n2. Without the ark there is no use of the tabernacle, and the\ndistinction in Exodus xxxiii. which is treated as one of\nimportance, between the representation (Mal'ak) of Jehovah and\nJehovah Himself, has no meaning.  By making an image the Israelites\nshowed that they could not do without a sensible representation of\nthe Deity, and Jehovah therefore gave them the ark instead of the calf.\n-- Footnote-- Footnote\n\nThat the Deuteronomist found JE in a more complete form, before\nit was worked up with Q, than that in which we have it after the\nworking up, is not such a difficult assumption that one should be\ndriven into utter impossibilities in order to avoid it.  For\naccording to Noldeke either the author of Deuteronomy v.-xi. had\nbefore him the Pentateuch as it now is, and was enabled, very\ncuriously, to sift out JE from it, or he used JE as an independent\nwork, but read Q as well, only in such a way that his general view\nwas in no way influenced by that of the priestly work, but on the\ncontrary contradicts it entirely and yet unconsciously--since his\nwork leaves no opening for a ritual legislation given side by side\nwith the Decalogue, and that ritual legislation is the whole sum\nand substance of the Priestly Code.  To such a dilemma are we to\nmake up our minds, because one trait or another of the Deuteronomic\nnarrative cannot be traced in JE as we now have it, and is preserved\nin Q?  Does this amount, in the circumstances, to a proof that such\ntraits were derived from that source?  Must not some regard in fairness\nbe paid to the ensemble of the question ?\n\nWe may, further, remember in this connection Vatke's remark, that\nthe wooden ark in Deuteronomy x. 1, is by no means very similar to\nthat of Exodus xxv., which, to judge by the analogy of the\ngolden table and altar, must rather have been called a golden ark.\nIt takes even more good will to regard the statement about Aaron's\ndeath and burial in Mosera and the induction of Eleazar in his\nplace (Deuteronomy x. 6, 7) as a reminiscence of Q (Numbers xx. 22\nseq.), where Aaron dies and is buried on Mount Hor.  In JE also\nthe priests Aaron and Eleazar stand by the side of Moses and\nJoshua (cf. Joshua xxiv. 33).  The death and burial of Aaron are\ncertainly no longer preserved in JE; but we cannot require of the\neditor of the Pentateuch that he should make a man die twice, once\naccording to Q and once according to JE.  And it must further be\nsaid that Deuteronomy x. 6, 7 is an interpolation; for the following\nverses x. 8 seq., in which not only Aaron and Eleazar, but all\nthe Levites are in possession of the priesthood, are the\ncontinuation of x. 5, and rest on Exodus xxxii.  Here we are still\nin Horeb, not in Mosera.\n\nThe historical thread which runs through Deuteronomy v. ix. x. may\nbe traced further in chaps. i.-iv.  After their departure from\nHoreb the Israelites come straight to Kadesh Barnea, and from this\npoint, being commanded to invade the hill-land of Judaea, they first\nsend twelve spies to reconnoitre the country, guided thereto by\ntheir own prudence, but also with the approval of Moses.  Caleb is\none of the spies, but not Joshua.  After penetrating as far as the\nbrook Eshcol they return; and though they praise the goodness of\nthe land, yet the people are so discouraged by their report, that\nthey murmur and do not venture to advance.  Jehovah is angry at\nthis, and orders them to turn back to the wilderness, where they\nare to wander up and down till the old generation is extinct and\na new one grown up.  Seized with shame they advance after all,\nbut are beaten and driven back.  Now they retreat to the wilderness,\nwhere for many years they march up and down in the neighbourhood\nof Mount Seir, till at length, 38 years after the departure from\nKadesh, they are commanded to advance towards the north, but to\nspare the brother-peoples of Moab and Ammon.  They conquer the\nterritory of the Amorite kings, Sihon of Heshbon and Og of\nBashan.  Moses assigns it to the tribes of Reuben and Gad and the\nhalf-tribe of Manasseh, on condition that their army is to yield\nassistance in the remaining war.  The continuous report comes to an\nend with the nomination of Joshua as future leader of the people.\n\nThis same narrative, with the addition of some scattered\nparticulars in the Book of Deuteronomy, /1/ will serve perfectly\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Appointment of judges and wardens (#W+RYM = peace-officials,\nwho, according to xx. 9, are in war replaced by the captains),\ni. 9-18, Taberah, Massah, Kibroth Taavah (ix. 22), Dathan and Abiram\n(xi. 6), Balaam (xxiii. 5), Baal-peor (iv. 3).  Only the\nJehovist narrative of Numbers xii. seems to be nowhere referred to.\nIn Deuteronomy i. 9-18 the scene is still at Horeb, but this passage\nshows acquaintance with Numbers xi. and uses both versions for a\nnew and somewhat different one.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nwell as a thread to understand JE.  What, on the contrary, is\npeculiar to the Priestly Code is passed over in deep silence,\nand from Exodus xxxiv. Deuteronomy takes us at once to Numbers x.\nWhile not a few of the narratives which Deuteronomy repeats or\nalludes to, occur only in JE and not in Q, the converse does not\noccur at all.  And in those narratives which are found both in JE\nand in Q, Deuteronomy follows, in every  case in which there is a\ndistinct divergence, the version of JE.  The spies are sent out\nfrom Kadesh, not from the wilderness of Paran; they only reach\nHebron, not the neighbourhood of Hamath; Caleb is one of them, and\nnot Joshua.  The rebels of Numbers xvi. are the Reubenites Dathan\nand Abiram, not Korah and the Levites.  After the settlement in\nthe land east of Jordan the people have to do with Moab and Ammon,\nnot with Midian: Balaam is connected with the former, not with the\nlatter.  The same of Baal-peor: Deuteronomy iv. 3 agrees with JE\n(Numbers xxv. 1-5), not with Q (Numbers xxv. 6 seq.).  Things being\nso, we cannot, with Noldeke, see in the number of the spies (Deuteronomy\ni. 23) an unmistakable sign of the influence of Q (Numbers xiii.\n2).  Had the author read the narrative as it is now before us in\nNumbers xiii. xiv., it would be impossible to understand how, as we\nhave seen, the Jehovist version alone made any impression on him.\nHe must, accordingly, have known Q as a separate work, but it is a\nbold step to argue from such a small particular to the use of a\nsource which everywhere else is entirely without influence and\nunknown, especially as the priority of this source is by no\nmeans established on independent grounds, but is to be proved by\nthis alleged use of it.  lf there were a palpable difference\nbetween JE and Q in this point, if we could say that in Q there\nwere twelve spies sent out, and in JE; three, the case would be\ndifferent;  but in Numbers xiii. the beginning of the narrative of\nJE has been removed and that of Q put in place of it, so that we\ndo not know how the narrative of JE began, and what number, if\nany, was given in it.  In such a state of matters the only\nreasonable course is to supply what is lacking in JE from\nDeuteronomy, which generally follows the Jehovist alone, and to\nconclude that the spies were twelve in number in this source also.\n\nThe instance in which the proof would be strongest that Deuteronomy\nwas acquainted with the narrative of the Priestly Code, is x. 22.\nFor the seventy souls which make up the whole of Israel at the\nimmigration into Egypt, are not mentioned in JE, and there is no\ngap that we are aware of in the Jehovist tradition at this point.\nBut they are by no means in conflict with that tradition, and\neven should we not take Deuteronomy x. 22 for a proof that the\nseventy souls found a place in it also, yet it must at least be\nacknowledged, that that passage is by no means sufficient to\nbreak down the evidence that the priestly  legislation has the\nlegislation of Deuteronomy for its starting-point. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Noldeke frequently argues from such numbers as 12 and 70, as\nif they only  occurred in Q.  But that is not the case.  As Q in\nthe beginning of Genesis has groups of 10, JE has groups of 7;\n12 and 40 occur in JE as frequently as in Q, and 70 not less\nfrequently.  It is therefore surprising to find the story of the\n12 springs of water and the 70 palm-trees of Elim ascribed to Q\nfor no other reason than because of the 12 and the 70.  Not even\nthe statements of the age of the patriarchs--except so far as they\nserve the chronological system--are a certain mark of Q: compare\nGenesis xxxi. 18, xxxvii. 2, xli. 26, l. 26; Deuteronomy xxxiv.\n7; Joshua xxiv. 29.  Only the names of the 12 spies and the 70\nsouls are incontestably the property of the Priestly Code, but\nit is by no means diflicult to show (especially in Genesis xlvi.\n8-27) that they are far less original than the figures.  The\nnumbers are round numbers, and in fact do not admit of such a\nrecital of the items of which they are made up.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nVIII.I.3. As a further objection to Graf's hypothesis, the\nDeuteronomistic revision of the Hexateuch is brought into the\nfield.  That revision appears most clearly, it is said, in those\nparts which follow the Deuteronomic Torah and point back to it.\nIt used to be taken for granted that it extends over the Priestly\nportions as well as the Jehovistic; but since the occasion arose\nto look into this point, it is found that it is not so.  The\ntraces which Noldeke brings together on the point are trifling,\nand besides this do not stand the test.  He says that the\nDeuteronomistic account of the death of Moses (Deuteronomy xxxii. 48\nseq., xxxiv. 1 seq.) cannot be regarded as anything else than an\namplification of the account of the main stem (Q), which is\npreserved almost in the same words.  But Deuteronomy xxxiv. 1b-7\ncontains nothing of Q and xxxii. 48-52 has not undergone\nDeuteronomistic revision.  He also refers to Josh. ix. 27:\n\"Joshua made the Gibeonites at that day hewers of wood and drawers\nof water for the congregation and for the altar of Jehovah even\nunto this day, in the place which He should choose.\"\nThe second part of this sentence, he says, is a Deuteronomistic\naddition to the first, which belongs to the Priestly narrative.\nBut Noldeke himself acknowledges that the Deuteronomistically-revised\nverses ix. 22 seq. are not the continuation of the priestly version\n15c, 17-21, but of the Jehovistic version 15ab, 16; and between\nverse 16 and verse 22 there is nothing wanting but the\ncircumstance referred to in verse 26.  The phrase _hewer of wood\nand drawer of water_ is not enough to warrant us to separate verse\n27 from 22-26; the phrase occurs not only in verse 21 but also\nin JE verse 23.  The words FOR THE CONGREGATION do certainly\npoint to the Priestly Code, but are balanced by the words which\nfollow, FOR THE ALTAR OF JEHOVAH, which is according to the\nJehovistic view.  The original statement is undoubtedly that the\nGibeonites are assigned to the altar or the house of Jehovah.  But\naccording to Ezekiel xliv. the hierodulic services in the temple\nwere not to be undertaken by foreigners, but by Levites; hence\nin the Priestly Code the servants of the altar appear as servants\nof the congregation.  From this it results that LMZBX is to be\npreferred in verse 27 to L(DH W, the latter being a later\ncorrection.  As such it affords a proof that the last revision of\nthe Hexateuch proceeded from the Priestly Code, and not from Deuteronomy.\nAs for Joshua xviii. 3-10, where Noldeke sees in the account of the\ndivision of the land another instance of Deuteronomistic addition,\nI have already indicated my opinion, <VIII.III.2.>.  The piece is\nJehovistic, and if the view were to be found in the Priestly Code\nat all, that Joshua first allotted their territory to Judah and Ephraim,\nand then, a good while after, to the other seven tribes, that source\nmust have derived such a view from JE, where alone it has its roots. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Jahrbb. fur Deutsche Theol., 1876, p. 596 seq.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nAnd lastly, Noldeke considers Josh. xxii. to speak quite decidedly\nfor his view;  but in the narrative of the Priestly Code, xxii. 9-34,\nto which the verses l-8 do not belong, there is no sign of\nDeuteronomistic revision to be found. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. Joh. Hollenberg in Stud. und Krit., 1874, p. 462 seq.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThere is a more serious difficulty only in the case of the short\nchapter, Josh. xx., of which the kernel belongs to the Priestly\nCode, though it contains all sorts of additions which savour\nstrongly of the Deuteronomistic revision.  Kayser declares these\nawkward accretions to be glosses of quite a late period.  This may\nseem to be pure tendency-criticism; but it is reinforced by the\nconfirmation of the Septuagint, which did not find any of those\nalleged Deuteronomistic additions where they now are. /3/\n\n-- Footnote\n3. Aug. Kayser, Das vorexilische Buch der Urgeschichtc Israels\n(Strassburg, 1874), p. 147, seq.; Joh. Hollenberg, der\nCharactcr der Alex. Uebersetzung des B.  Josua (Programm des\nGymn. zu Moers, 1876), p. 15.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nBut were it the case that some probable traces of Deuteronomistic\nrevision were actually to be found in the Priestly Code, we must\nstill ask for an explanation of the disproportionately greater\nfrequency of such traces in JE.  Why, for example, are there none\nof them in the mass of laws of the middle books of the Hexateuch?\nThis is undoubtedly and everywhere the fact, and this must\ndispose us a priori to attach less weight to isolated instances to\nthe contrary: the more so, as Joshua xx. shows that the later\nretouchings of the canonical text often imitate the tone of the\nDeuteronomist.\n\n\nIX.II.\n\nIX.II.1. I have said that in the L)DH W of Josh. ix. 27, we have\nthe addition of a final priestly revision.  Such a revision must be\nassumed to have taken place, if the Priestly Code is younger than\nDeuteronomy.  But the assumption of its existence does not depend\non deduction merely: Kuenen argued for it inductively, even\nbefore he became a supporter of Graf's hypothesis. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Historisch-Kritisch Onderzoek I. (Leyden, 1861), p. 165; the\nreviser of the Pentateuch must be sought in the same circles in\nwhich the Book of Origins (Q) arose and was gradually extended\nand modified, i.e., among the priests of Jerusalem, p. 194; it is\ngenerally thought that the Deuteronomist is the reviser of the\nwhole Book of Joshua, but his hand is not to be traced\neverywhere,--not, for example, in the priestly sections; the last\nreviser is to be distinguished from the Deuteronomist.  In\ncertain narratives of Numbers and Joshua, Kuenen detected very\nconsiderable additions by the last reviser, and the results of\nhis investigation have now been published in the first part of the\nsecond edition of his great isagogic work (Leyden, 1885).\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThis may be best demonstrated by examining the chapters Leviticus\nxvii.-xxvi.  At present they are incorporated in the Priestly\nCode, having undergone a revision with that view, which in some\nplaces adds little, in others a good deal.  Viewed, however, as\nthey originally were, they form a work of a peculiar character\nby themselves, a work pervaded by a somewhat affected religious\nhortatory tone, which harmonises but little with the Priestly\nCode.  The author worked largely from earlier authorities, which\nexplains, for example, how chapter xviii. and chapter xx. both\nfind a place in his production.  Leviticus xvii.-xxvi is incomparably\ninstructive for the knowledge it affords of literary relationships:\nit is a perfect compendium of the literary  history of the Pentateuch. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. Compare Jahrbb. fur Deutsche Theol., 1877, p. 422-444,\nespecially on the elimination of the additions of the reviser.\nIn the present discussion I shall not take these into account.\nIn chapter xxiii., for example, I only take account of verses\n9-22, 39-44, in chapter xxiv. only of vers. 15-22\n-- Footnote\n\n\nAs with Deuteronomy, so with this legislation; it is clear that\nit goes back to the Jehovistic legislation of Sinai (Exodus\nxx.-xxiii.) as its source.  It also bears to have been given on\nMount Sinai (xxv. 1, xxvi. 46).  It is addressed to the people,\nand is popular in its contents, which are chiefly of a civic and\nmoral character.  It is meant only for the promised land and for\nsettled life, not for the wilderness as well.  The festivals are\nthree in number, and have not quite parted with their character\nas feasts of harvest.  Among the sacrifices the sin-offering and\nthe trespass-offering are wanting.  The legislation does deal with\nthe cultus to a disproportionate extent, but the directions about\nit do not go into technical details, and are always addressed to\nthe people.  Even in those directions which concern the priests\nthe people are addressed, and the priests are spoken of in the\nthird person.  Nor are palpable points of contact wanting.  Leviticus\nxix. 2-8, 9-18, may be regarded as counterparts of the first and\nsecond tables of the decalogue.  The precept, \"Thou shalt not\nrespect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty,\"\nxix. 15, is a development of that in Exodus xxiii. 3, and a number\nof other precepts in Leviticus xix. could stand with equal\nappropriateness in Exodus xxii. 17 seq.  The directions in Leviticus\nxxii. 27-29 are similar to those of Exodus xxii. 29, xxiii. 18, 19.\nIn the same way those of Leviticus xxiv.  15-22 are based both in\ncontents and form on Exodus xxi. 12. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Compare xxiv. 15 seq. with Exodus xxii. 27 (xxi. 17); xxiv.\n18 with Exodus xxi. 28 seq.; xxiv. 19, 20 with Exodus xxi. 33,\n34; xxiv. 21 with Exodus xxi. 28 seq.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIn xxiv. 22 we notice a polemical reference to Exodus xxi. 20\nseq., 26 seq.  In xxv. 1-7 the whole of the expressions of Exodus\nxxiii. 10, 11 are repeated.  In xx. 24, we have the Jehovistic\nphrase, \"a land flowing with milk and honey.\"\n\nYet Leviticus xvii.-xxvi. only takes its starting-point from the\nJehovistic legislation, and modifies it very considerably,\nsomewhat in the manner of Deuteronomy.  There is a demonstrable\naffinity with Deuteronomy both in the ideas and in the\nexpressions.  Common to both is the care for the poor and the\nundefended: to both humanity is a main object of legislation.\n\"If a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex\nhim; he shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt\nlove him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt\"\n(xix. 34).\n\nLeviticus xvii. seq. attaches great importance to unity of worship.\nIt is still a demand, not a presupposition (xvii. 8 seq., xix. 30,\nxxvi. 2); the motive of it is to guard against heathen influences\nand to secure the establishment of a monotheism without images. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. xvii. 7 (cf. 2Chronicles xi. 15), xviii. 21, xix. 4, 19, 26,\n29, 31, xx. 2 seq. 6, xxvi. 1, 30.  With regard to the date we\nhave to note the stern prohibition of the service of Moloch.  On\nLev, xvii. see above, p. 376.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThis is quite recognisable, and forms an important point of\ncontact with Deuteronomy.  The same contact may be observed in\nthe prohibition of certain observances of mourning (xix. 27 seq.),\nthe calculation of Pentecost from the beginning of barley harvest\n(xxiii. 15), the seven days' duration of the feast of tabernacles,\nand the cheerful sacrificial feasts which are to accompany its\nobservance.  Add to this a similarity by no means slight in the\ncolour of the language, e.g., in xviii. 1-5, 24-30, xix. 33-37,\nxx. 22 seq., xxv. 35 seq.  Some of the phrases may be mentioned.\n\"When ye are come into the land that I shall give you.\"  \"Ye shall\nrejoice before Jehovah.\"  \"I am Jehovah that brought you up out\nof the land of Egypt.\"  \"Ye shall keep my commandments and statutes\nand laws, to do them.\"\n\nBut the legislation we have here is further advanced than\nDeuteronomy.  In the festivals the joint sacrifice of the\ncongregation is already prominent (xxiii. 9-22).  The priests\nare not the Levites, but the sons and brothers of Aaron, their\nincome has grown materially, their separate holiness has reached a\nhigher point.  Stricter demands are also made on the laity for\npersonal holiness, especially as regards continence from the sins\nof the flesh, and the marriage of relatives (Leviticus xviii. xx.).\nMarriage with an uncle's wife is forbidden (xviii. 14, xx. 20),\nwhereas in Deuteronomy it is still legal.  The work dates from a\ntime when exile was a familiar idea: xviii. 26 seq.:\n\"Ye shall keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit\nany of those abominations; for the men that were in the land before\nyou did these things, and the land vomited them out.  Take care\nthat the land spue not you out also as it spued out the nations\nthat were before you.\"\nSimilarly xx. 23 seq.: and in a legislative work such utterances\nprove more than they would in a prophecy.  Now as our section\ndeparts from Deuteronomy, it approaches to Ezekiel.  This is its\nclosest relationship, and that to which attention has been most\ndrawn.  It appears in the peculiar fusion of cultus and morality,\nin the notion of holiness, in a somewhat materialistic sense, as\nthe great requirement of religion, and in the fact that the demand\nof holiness is made to rest on the residence of the people near\nthe sanctuary and in the holy land. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. On Leviticus xxii. 24, 25, compare Kuenen's Hibbert Lectures.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nBut the affinity is still more striking in the language: many\nunusual phrases, and even whole sentences, from Ezekiel, are\nrepeated in Leviticus xvii. seq. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. Compare Colenso, Pentateuch and Joshua, vi. p. 3-23.  Kayser,\nop. cit. p.  177- 179.  Smend on Ezekiel, p. xxv.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe 10th of the 7th month is in Leviticus xxv. 9 as in Ezekiel,\nnew-year's day, not, as in the Priestly Code, the great day of\natonement.  This led Graf to regard Ezekiel himself as the author\nof this collection of laws in Leviticus; and Colenso and Kayser\nfollowed him.  But this is out of the question; notwithstanding\nthe numerous points of contact both in linguistic and material\nrespects, the agreement is by no means complete.  Ezekiel knows\nno seed of Aaron, and no wine at the sacrifices (Leviticus xxiii.\n13); his festival legislation shows considerable differences,\nand in spirit is more akin to the Priestly Code.  And if he were\nthe author he would have said something about the proper place\nin the cultus of the Levites and of the prince.\n\nThe corpus in question, which Klostermann called, not\ninappropriately, the Law of Holiness, inclines from Ezekiel\ntowards the Priestly Code: in such pieces as xvii. xxi. xxii.\nit takes some closeness of attention to see the differences from\nthe latter, though in fact they are not inconsiderable.  It stands\nbetween the two, somewhat nearer, no doubt, to Ezekiel.  How are\nwe to regard this fact?  Jehovist, Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, are a\nhistorical series; Ezekiel, Law of Holiness, Priestly  Code, must\nalso be taken as historical steps, and this in such a way as to\nexplain at the same time the dependence of the Law of Holiness on\nthe Jehovist and on Deuteronomy.  To assume that Ezekiel, having\nthe Pentateuch in all other respects as we have it, had a great\nliking for this piece of it, and made it his model in the\nfoundation of his style of thought and expression--such an\nassumption does not free us from the necessity of seeking the\nhistorical order, and of assigning his natural place in that order\nto Ezekiel; we cannot argue on such a mere chance.  Now the\nquestion is not a complicated one, whether in the Law of Holiness\nwe are passing from the Priestly Code to Ezekiel or from Ezekiel\nto the Priestly Code.  The Law of Holiness underwent a last\nrevision, which represents, not the views of Ezekiel, but those of\nthe Priestly Code, and by means of which it is incorporated in\nthat code.  This revision has not been equally incisive in all\nparts. Some of its corrections and supplements are very\nconsiderable, e.g., xxiii. 1-8, 23-38; xxiv. 1-14, 23.  Some\nof them are quite unimportant, e.g., the importation of the Ohel\nMoed (instead of the Mikdash or the Mishkan), xvii. 4, 6, 9, xix.\n21 seq.; the trespass-offering, xix. 21 seq.; the Kodesh\nKodashim, xxi. 22.  Only in xxv. 8 seq. is the elimination of\nthe additions difficult.  But the fact that the last edition of\nthe Law of Holiness proceeds from the Priestly Code, is\nuniversally  acknowledged. Its importance for the literary history\nof Israel cannot be over-estimated. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. L. Horst, in his discussion on Leviticus XVii,-XXYi, and Ezekiel\n(Colmar, 1881), has strikingly shown that the mechanical style of\ncriticism in which Dillmann even surpasses his predecessor Knobel,\nis not equal to the problem presented by the Law of Holiness.  He\ngoes on, however, to an attempt to save, by modifying it, the old\nStrassburg view of Ezekiel's authorship; and as Kuenen justly\nremarks, he makes ship-wreck on Leviticus xxvi. (Theol. Tijdschr.\n1882, p. 646). Cf. <next note, beginning \"Horst...\">.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIX.II.2. The concluding oration, Leviticus xxvi. 3-46, calls for\nspecial consideration.  Earlier scholars silently assumed that this\npiece belonged to Leviticus xvii. 1-XXVI. 2; but many critics,\nNoldeke for example, now regard it as an interpolation in Leviticus\nof a piece which from its character should be elsewhere.  At any rate\nthe oration is composed with special reference to what precedes it.\nIf it is not taken as a peroration, such as Exodus xxiii. 30-33,\nDeuteronomy xxviii., its position in such a part of the Priestly Code\nis quite incomprehensible.  It has, moreover, a palpable\nconnection with the laws in xvii.-xxv. The _land_, and _agriculture_,\nhave here the same significance for religion as in chaps. xix.\nxxiii. xxv.; the threat of vomiting out (xviii. 25 seq., xx.\n22) is repeated here more circumstantially; the only statute\nactually named is that of the fallow of the seventh year (xxvi.\n34, xxv. 1-7).  The piece begins with the expression, which is so\ncharacteristic of the author of chapter xvii. seq.  \"If ye walk\nin my statutes, and keep my  commandments, and do them,\" and the\nsame phrase recurs, with slight alteration, in vers. 15 and 43.\nThe conclusion, verse 46, is, \"These are the statutes and\njudgments and laws which Jehovah gave, to regulate the relation\nbetween Him and Israel on Mount Sinai, by Moses.\"  This is\nobviously the subscription of a preceding corpus of statutes and\njudgments, such as we have in, xvii. 1-xxvi. 2.  Mount Sinai is\nmentioned also in xxv. 1 as the place of revelation.\n\nIf Leviticus xxvi. is incontestably intended to form the conclusion\nof chaps. xvii.-xxv., it would be natural to suppose that the\nauthor of that collection was also the author of the oration.\nNoldeke thinks, however, that the language differs too much from\nthat of xvii.-xxv.  Yet he is obliged to acknowledge several\nresemblances, and these not unimportant; while some of the\ndifferences which he adduces (Bamoth, Gillulim, Hammanim, xxvi.\n30) are really examples of similarity.  Rare and original words\nmay be found in the preceding chapters also.  It may be that in\nchapter xxvi they are more frequent in proportion: yet this does\nnot entitle us to say that the language generally is very original.\nOn the contrary, it is everywhere characterised by borrowed\nexpressions.  So much of linguistic difference as actually remains\nis sufficiently accounted for by  the difference of subject: first\ncome laws in a dry matter-of-fact style, then prophecy in a\npoetical pathetic style.  The idiosyncrasy of the writer has no\nscope in the former case, from the nature of the materials, some\nof which had already assumed their form before he made use of them.\nIn the latter case he can express himself freely; and it is fair\nthat this should not be overlooked.\n\nThe arguments brought forward by Noldeke against the probability\nthat Leviticus xxvi. belongs to chaps. xvii.-xxv. and is not merely\ntacked on to them, disappear completely on a closer comparison of\nthe literary character of the two pieces.  Chapter xxvi. reminds\nus most strongly of Ezekiel's style, both in thought and\nlanguage.  The most significant passage is Leviticus xxvi. 39.\nThe threat has been uttered that Israel is to be destroyed as a\npeople, and that the remnant which escapes the destroying sword\nof the enemy is to be carried into exile, to sink under the weight\nof past calamity and present affliction.  Then the speech goes\non: \"And they that are left of you shall _pine away_ in their\niniquity in your enemies' land; and also in the iniquities of\ntheir fathers shall they _pine away_.  Then they will confess\ntheir own sin and the sin of their fathers.\" In Ezekiel, this\nconfession actually occurs in the mouth of one of his\nfellow-exiles: they say  (xxxiii. 10), \"Our transgressions\nand our sins are heavy upon us, and we _pine away_ in them, and\ncannot live.\"  In the same strain the prophet says (xxiv. 23)\nthat in his dull sorrow for the death of his wife he will be an\nemblem of the people: \"ye shall not mourn nor weep, but ye shall\n_pine away_ in your iniquities.\"\n\nNor are the other traits wanting in the oration which, as we say,\naccompanied the Ezekielic colouring of the preceding chapters.\nWe do not expect to find traces of the influence of the Jehovist\nlegislation (further than that Exodus xxiii. 20 seq. formed the\nmodel both for Deuteronomy xxviii. and Leviticus xxvi.); but to\nmake up for this we find very distinct marks of the influence of\nthe prophets, the older prophets too, as Amos (verse 31).  We can\nas little conceive the existence of the Book of Ezekiel as of this\nchapter without the prophetic literature having preceded it and\nlaid the foundation for it.\n\nAs for the relation to Deuteronomy, the resemblance of Leviticus xxvi.\nto Deuteronomy xxviii. is very great, in the arrangement as well as in\nthe ideas.  True, there are not many verbal coincidences, but the\nfew which do occur are important.  The expressions of xxvi. 16\noccur nowhere in the Old Testament but in Deuteronomy xxviii. 22, 65:\nsimilarly R)#YM with the meaning it has in verse 45 only occurs\nin Deuteronomy xix. 14 and in the later literature (Isaiah lxi.  6).\nThe metaphor of the uncircumcised heart (verse 41) only occurs in\none other passage in the law, in Deuteronomy; the other instances\nof it are in prophecy, of contemporary or later date (Jeremiah iv.\n4, ix. 24, 25, Ezekiel xliv. 7, 9).  There are several more\nreminiscences of Jeremiah, most of them, however, not very\ndistinct.  We may remark on the relation between Jeremiah xvi. 18\nin one respect to verse 30, and in another to verse 18 of our\nchapter.  Here the sin is punished sevenfold, in Jeremiah double.\nThe same is said in Isaiah xl. 2, lx. 7; and our chapter has\nalso in common with this prophet the remarkable use of rtc,h (with\nsin or trespass as object).  Did not the chapter stand in\nLeviticus, it would, doubtless, be held to be a reproduction, some\nsmall part of it of the older prophecies, the most of it of those\nof Jeremiah and Ezekiel: Leviticus xxvi. 34 is actually quoted in\n2Chronicles xxxvi 22 as a word of the prophet Jeremiah.\n\nLeviticus xxvi. has points of contact, finally, with the Priestly\nCode, in PRH WRBH, HQYM BRYT, HTWDH, )NY, (never )NKY), in the\nexcessive use of the accusative participle and avoidance of verbal\nsuffixes, and in its preferring the colourless NTN to verbs of\nmore special meaning.\n\nThe only reason for the attempt to separate Leviticus xxvi. from\nxvii.-xxv. lies in the fact, that the exilic or post-exilic origin\nof this hortatory and denunciatory oration is too plain to be\nmistaken.  To us, this circumstance can only prove that it belongs\nto xvii.-xxv., providing a weighty confirmation of the opinion we\nhave already formed on other grounds as to the period which produced\nthese laws.\n\n\"If ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary to me,\nthen I will also walk contrary to you in fury; and I will chastise you\nseven times for your sins.  Ye shall eat the flesh of your sons\nand daughters, and I will destroy your high places, and cast down\nyour sun-pillars' and cast your  carcasses upon the carcasses of\nyour idols, and my soul shall abhor you.  And I will make your\ncities waste, and bring your sanctuaries into desolation, and I\nwill not smell the savour of your sweet odours.  And I will bring\nthe land into desolation, and your enemies who settle therein\nshall be astonished at it; and I will scatter you among the peoples,\nand will draw out the sword after you, and your land shall be\ndesolate and your cities ruins.  Then shall the land pay her\nsabbaths all the years of the desolation when you are in your\nenemies' land: even then shall the land rest and pay her\nsabbaths.  As long as it lieth desolate it shall make up the\ncelebration of the sabbaths which it did not celebrate as long as\nyou dwelt in it.  And upon them that are left alive of you I will\nsend a faintness into their hearts in the land of their enemies,\nand the sound of a shaken leaf shall chase them, and they shall\nflee as fleeing from a sword, and they shall fall when none\npursueth.  And they shall fall one upon another as it were before\na sword when none pursueth, and there shall be no stopping in the\nflight before your enemies.  And ye shall lose yourselves among\nthe peoples, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up.  And\nthey that are left of you shall pine away in their iniquity in\nyour enemies' lands, and also in the iniquities of their fathers\nshall they pine away. And they shall confess their iniquity\nand the iniquity of their fathers in regard to their\nunfaithfulness which they committed against me, and that because\nthey have walked contrary to me, I also walk contrary to them,\nand bring them into the land of their enemies.  Then their\nuncircumcised heart is humbled, and then they pay their penalty,\nand I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my  covenant with\nIsaac, and also my covenant with Abraham, and I remember the land.\nThe land also, left by them, pays its sabbaths, while she lieth\nwithout inhabitant and waste, and they themselves pay the penalty\nof their iniquity because, even because, they despised my judgments,\nand their soul abhorred my statutes.  And yet for all that, when\nthey be in the land of their enemies, I have not rejected them,\nneither have I abhorred them to destroy them utterly, and to break\nmy covenant with them: for I am Jehovah their God. And I will for\ntheir sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors whom I brought\nforth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the peoples, that\nI might be their God: I am Jehovah\" (xxvi. 27-45).\n\nThese words undoubtedly cannot have been written before the\nBabylonian exile.  It is said that the Assyrian exile will explain\nthe passage: but where is there any similarity between the\noration before us and the old genuine Isaiah?  In Ezekiel's day\nsuch thoughts, feelings, and expressions as we have here can be\nshown to have prevailed: but it would be difficult to show that\nthe fall of Samaria gave rise to such depression at Jerusalem:\nand Leviticus xxvi. was not written outside Jerusalem, for it\npresupposes unity of worship.  The _Jews_ are addressed here, as\nin Deuteronomy xxix., xxx., and they had no such lively feeling\nof solidarity with the deported Israelites as to think of them\nin connection with such threats.  I even think it certain that\nthe writer lived either towards the end of the Babylonian exile\nor after it, since at the close of the oration he turns his eyes\nto the restoration.  In such prophets as Jeremiah and Ezekiel\nthere is a meaning in such forecasting of the joyful future but\nhere it contradicts both the historical position and the object\nof the threats, and appears to be explained most naturally as\nthe result of an accident, i.e., of actuality.  That in a\ncomparison of Leviticus xxvi. with Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the\nformer cannot claim priority, appears distinctly from the\ncomparative use of the phrase _uncircumised heart_.  That phrase\noriginates in Jeremiah (iv. 4, ix. 24 seq.), but in Leviticus\nxxvi. it is used as a well-known set term.  In the same way the\nphrase _pine away in their iniquity_ is repeated by Ezekiel as he\nheard it in the mouth of the people.  He is its originator in\nliterature; in Leviticus xxvi. it is borrowed. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Horst tries to find a place for Leviticus xxvi. in the last\nyears of king Zedekiah (op. cit. p. 65, 66), but in this he is\nmerely working out his theory that the author was the youthful\nEzekiel; and the theory is sufficiently condemned if it leads\nto this consequence.  Delitzsch (Zeitschr. fur Kirchl. Wissench.\n1880, p. 619) thinks it a piece of impertinence in me to read out\nof Ezekiel xxxiii. what that passage says.  On Deuteronomy x. 16,\nxxx. 6, and generally on the color Hieremianus in Deuteronomy, see\nJahrb. fur D. Thhcol., 1877, p. 464.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe criticism of Leviticus xvii. seq. Ieads us to the result, that\na collection of laws which took form during the period of the exile\nwas received into the Priestly Code, and there clothed with fresh\nlife.  We need not then tremble at Schrader's threatening us with\n\"critical analysis,\" and Graf's hypothesis will not be thereby\noverturned.\n\n\nIX.II.3. Two or three further important traces of the final priestly\nrevision of the Hexateuch may here find mention.  In the story\nof the flood the verses vii. 6-9 are an editorial addition, with\nthe object of removing a contradiction between JE and Q; it\nshares the ideas and speaks the language of the Priestly Code.\nIn the title of Deuteronomy the verse, \"It came to pass in the\nfortieth year, in the eleventh [(#TY] month, on the first day of\nthe month, that Moses spake unto the children of Israel according\nto all that Jehovah had given him in commandment unto them\" (i. 3)\nis shown by the most undoubted signs to belong to the Priestly Code,\nand is intended to incorporate Deuteronomy in that work.  We have\nalready shown that the Priestly Code in the Book of Joshua is simply\na filling-up of the Jehovistic-Deuteronomistic narrative.\n\nThat the Priestly Code consists of elements of two kinds, first of\nan independent stem, the Book of the Four Covenants (Q), and\nsecond, of innumerable additions and supplements which attach\nthemselves principally to the Book of the Four Covenants, but not\nto it alone, and indeed to the whole of the Hexateuch--this\nassertion has not, strange to say, met with the opposition which\nmight have been expected.  Ryssel has even seen in the twofold\nnature of the Priestly Code a means to maintain the position of\nthe Book of the Four Covenants before the exile: he sacrifices\nthe additions, and places the necessary interval between them and\nthe main body of the work.  He thinks the close affinity between\nthe two parts is sufficiently explained by the supposition that\nthey both issued from the same circle, that of the priesthood of\nJerusalem.  Were it the case that the temple of Jerusalem was as\nautonomous and as solely legitimate in the days of Solomon as in\nthose of the foreign domination, that the priests had as much to\nsay under Ahaz, Hezekiah, and Josiah as after the exile, if it\nwere allowable to represent them according as it suits one's views,\nand not according to the historical evidence, if, in short, there\nwere no Israelite history at all, such an explanation might be\nallowed to stand.  The secondary part of the Priestly Code of\nnecessity draws the primary part with it.  The similarity in\nmatter and in form, the perfect agreement in tendencies and ideas,\nin expressions and ways of putting things, all compel us to think\nthat the whole, if not a literary, is yet a historical, unity.\n\n\nIX.III.\n\n<IX.III.1.> It has lately been the fashion to regard the language of\nthe Priestly Code as an insuperable barrier to the destructive\nefforts of tendency criticism.  But it is unfortunate that this veto\nof language is left as destitute of detailed proof, by Delitzsch,\nRiehm, and Dillmann, as the veto of critical analysis by Schrader;\nand we cannot be called upon to show proof against a contention\nwhich is unsupported by evidence.  But I take advantage of the\nopportunity to communicate some detached observations, which I\nmay perhaps remark did not occur to me in connection with the\ninvestigation of the Pentateuch, but on a quite different occasion.\nIn the passage 2Samuel vi. 12 I was exceedingly struck with L(MT,\nand not less with BR) in the two passages Isaiah iv. 5, Amos iv. 13,\nand while following out the distribution of these two words I came\non the traces of similar phenomena.\n\nThe language of the pre-exilic historical books is in general much\nakin to that of the Jehovistic work; that of the Priestly Code,\non the contrary, is quite different.  It is common enough to\ninterpret this fact, as if the latter belonged to an earlier\nperiod.  But not to mention that in that case the Code must have\nbeen entirely without influence on the history of the language,\nit agrees ill with this view, that on going back to the oldest\ndocuments preserved to us of the historical literature of the\nHebrews we find the difference increasing rather than diminishing.\nTake Judges v. and 2Samuel i.; the poetical pieces in JE may be\ncompared with them, but in Q there is nothing like them.  And on\nthe other hand, it is in the narratives which were introduced very\nlate into the history, such as Judges xix.-xxi.; 1Samuel vii.\nviii. x. 17 seq. xii.; 1Kings xiii., and the apocryphal\nadditions in 1Kings vi.-viii. that we recognise most readily\nsome linguistic approximation to the Priestly Code.  And as in the\nhistorical so also in the prophetical literature.  The speech of\nAmos, Isaiah, Micah, answers on the whole to that of the Jehovist,\nnot to that of the priestly author.\n\nDeuteronomy and the Book of Jeremiah first agree with the Priestly\nCode in certain important expressions. In Ezekiel such expressions\nare much more numerous, and the agreement is by no means with\nLeviticus xvii.-xxvi. alone. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\nI Especially noticeable is P)T NGB TYMNH in Ezekiel and the\nPriestly Code.  In the latter Negeb, even when it refers to the\nactual Negeb, yet is used as denoting south (Numbers xxxiv. 3,\nxxv. 2-4), i.e., it has completely lost its original meaning.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIn the subsequent post-exilic prophets down to Malachi the points\nof contact are limited to details, but do not cease to occur; they\noccur also in the Psalms and in Ecclesiastes.  Reminiscences of the\nPriestly Code are found nowhere but in the Chronicles and some of\nthe Psalms.  For that Amos iv. 11 is borrowed from Genesis xix. 29\nis not a whit more clear than that the original of Amos i. 2 must\nbe sought in Joel iv. 19 [iii. 16].\n\nThe Priestly Code maintains its isolated literary character as\nagainst the later literature also.  This is the result partly of\nthe use of a number of technical terms, partly of the incessant\nrepetition of the same formulae, and of its great poverty of\nlanguage.  But if we neglect what is due to the stiff and hard\nidiosyncrasy of the author, it is undoubtedly the case that he\nmakes use of a whole series of characteristic expressions which\nare not found before the exile, but gradually emerge and come\ninto use after it.  The fact is not even denied, it is merely\nput aside.  To show what weight is due to it we may find room\nhere for a short statement of the interesting points for the\nhistory of language to be found in Genesis i.\n\nGenesis i. 1, R)#YT means in the older Hebrew, not the COMMENCEMENT\nof a process which goes forward in time, but the FIRST\n(and generally the BEST) part of a thing.  In the sense of a\nbeginning in time, as the contrary to )XRYT, it is first found in\na passage of Deuteronomy, xi. 12; then in the titles in the Book\nof Jeremiah, xxvi. 1, xxvii. 1, xxviii. 1, xlix. 34, and in Isaiah\nxlvi. 10, and lastly in the Hagiographa, Job viii. 7, xili. 12;\nProverbs xvii. 14; Ecclesiastes vii. 8.  In Genesis x. 10\nR)#YT MMLKTW has a different meaning from that in Jeremiah xxvi. 1\nin the one it is the principal part of the kingdom; in the other\nit is the beginning of the reign.  _In the beginning_ was in the\nearly time, if absolute, BFR)#NH, BATTXLH; if relative, BTXLT\nTXLT. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1 The vocalisation B:R#YT is very curious: we should expect\nBFRA$YT.  It has been attempted to do justice to it by translating:\n\n\"In the beginning, when God created heaven and earth--but the earth\nwas without form and void, and darkness lay upon the deep, and the\nspirit of God brooded over the water--then God spake: Let there be\nlight.\"\n\nBut this translation is desperate, and certainly not that followed\nby the punctuators, for the Jewish tradition (Septuagint, Aquila,\nOnkelos) is unanimous in translating:\n\n\"In the beginning God created heaven and earth.\"\nIn Aramaic, on the contrary, such adverbs take, as is well known,\nthe form of the _status constructus_.  Cf. RBT Psalm lxvv. 10, cxx. 6.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nWe have already spoken <VIII.I.1. \"a special word\"> of the word\nBR), a word remarkable for its specific theological import.  Apart\nfrom Amos iv. 13 and Isaiah iv. 5 it is first found outside the\nPriestly Code in the Deuteronomist in Exodus xxxiv. 10, Numbers xvi.\n30 (?), Deuteronomy iv. 32, and in the Book of Jeremiah, xxxi. 22:\nthen in Ezekiel xxi. 35, xxviii. 13, 15; Malachi ii. 10; in Psalms\nli. 12, lxxxix. 13, 48, cii. 19, civ. 30, cxlviii. 5; Ecclesiastes\nxii. 1.  It occurs, however, most frequently, 20 times in fact,\nin Isaiah xl.-lxvi.; and curiously enough, never in Job, where we\nshould expect to find it. It has nothing to do with B\"R\") (cut down\nwood) and BRY) (fat). /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. I do not speak of the use of _Elohim_ and the application of\nthe names of God in the Priestly Code: the matter is not yet clear\nto me.  Very curious is H#M, Leviticus xxiv. 11.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nGenesis i. 2, THW WBHW occurs also in Jeremiah iv. 23; Isaiah xxxiv.\n11.  THW alone is not so rare, but it also occurs, Isaiah xxix. 21\nexcepted, only in the later literature Deuteronomy xxxii. 10; 1Samuel\nxii. 21; Isaiah xxiv. 10, xl. 17, 23, xli. 29, xliv. 9, xlv.\n18 seq., xlix. 4, lix. 4; Job vi. 18, xii.24, xxvi. 7; Psalm\ncvii. 40.  The verb RXP (brood), which is common in Aramaic, only\nrecurs in a single passage in the Old Testament, and that a late\none, Deuteronomy xxxii. 11.  Yet the possibility must be conceded\nthat there was no occasion for its more frequent employment.\n\nGenesis i. 4, HBDYL and NBDL (divide and divide one's self), common\nin the Priestly Code, is first used by Deuteronomy and the\nDeuteronomist (Deuteronomy iv. 41, x.8, xix. 7, xxix. 10; 1Kings\nviii. 53), then by Ezekiel (xxii. 26, xxxix. 14, xlii. 10) and\nthe author of Isaiah xl. seq. (lvi. 3, lix. 2).  It is most used by\nthe writer of Chronicles, (1Chronicles xii. 8, xxiii. 13, xxv. 1;\n2Chronicles xxv. 10; Ezra vi. 21, viii.24, ix. 1, x. 8, 11, 16 ;\nNehemiah x. 2, 29, xiii. 3).  On YWM )XD Genesis i. 5 compare\nJosephus, Antiquities I. i. 1: \"That now would be the FIRST day,\nbut Moses says ONE day; I could give the reason of this here, but\nas I have promised (in the Introduction) to give such reasons for\neverything in a separate work, I shall defer the exposition till\nthen.\"  The Rabbis also, in Genesis Rabba, feel the difficulty of\nthe expression, which, however, has its parallel in the )XD LXD#,\nwhich belongs to the later way of speaking.  In Syriac the\nordinary expression is XD B#B); hence in the New Testament MIA\nSABBATWN for the first day of the week.\n\nGenesis i. 6, RQY( (firmament) is found, outside the Priestly\nCode, only in Ezekiel (i. 22-26, x. 1), and in still later\nwriters ; Psalms xix. 2, cl. 1 ; Daniel xii. 3; cf. Job\nxxxviii. 18. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. It does not mean, as is generally assumed, that which is\nbeaten out thin, is stretched out.  For, firstly, the heaven is\nnever considered to be made of sheet-metal; secondly, the meaning\nin question only belongs to the Piel, and the substantive derived\nfrom it is RIQQUA(.  The Kal, with which RQY( must be connected,\nis found in Isaiah xiii. 5, xliv. 24; Psalms cxxxvi. 6.  It is\ngenerally translated _spread out_, but quite unwarrantably.\nParallel with it are YSD and KWNN (compare Psalms xxiv. 2 with cxxxvi.\n6); the Septuagint translates in all three passages with stereoun,\nand accordingly renders RQY( with STEREWMA (firmamentum).  This\nrendering, which alone is supported by tradition, and which is very\nsatisfactory, is confirmed by the Syriac, where the verb RQ( is\nfrequent in the sense of _fortify_.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nGenesis i. 10 YMYM (the sea, singular, see i. 22; Leviticus xi. 9,\n10), is rare in older times, and belongs to lofty poetical\nlanguage; it is, on the contrary, frequent in Ezekiel (ten\ntimes), and in the Psalms (seven times); and occurs besides in Job\nvi. 3; Nehemiah ix. 6 ; Jonah ii. 4 ; Daniel xi. 45.  Genesis i. 11\nMYN (kind), a very peculiar word, especially in the form _Jeminehu_,\nis found outside of this chapter and Leviticus xiv., Genesis vi. 20,\nvii. 14, only in Deuteronomy xiv. and Ezekiel xlvii. 10.\n\nGenesis i. 26, DMWT (likeness, verses 1, 3) does not occur in the\nearlier literature.  It first appears in 2Kings xvi. 10, in a\npost-Deuteronomic passage, for the writer is that of chapter xi.\nseq., xxi. seq.  Then in Ezekiel (15 times), Isaiah xiii. 4, xl.\n18; 2Chronicles iv. 3; Psalms lxviii. 5.  It is a borrowed word\nfrom Aramaic; and the corresponding verb only came into use in\nthe period when Aramaic began to find its way in.\n\nGenesis i. 27 ZFKFR (male) is in earlier times ZFKW.R; for\nthis is the vocalization in Exodus xxiii. 17, xxxiv. 23; Deuteronomy\nxvi. 16, xx. 13; and if it is right in these passages, as we cannot\ndoubt it is, it must be introduced in Exodus xxxiv. 19; Deuteronomy\nxv. 19; 1Kings xi. 15 seq. as well.  In the Priestly Code ZFKFR\noccurs with great frequency, and elsewhere only in the later\nliterature, Deuteronomy iv. 16; Jeremiah xx. 15, xxx. 6; Ezekiel xvi.\n17; Isaiah lxvi. 7; Malachi i. 14; Judges xxi. 11, 12; 2Chronicles\nxxxi. 16; Ezra viii.  As for NQBH (female), matters are even worse.\nOutside the Priestly Code it is only found in Jeremiah (xxxi. 22)\nand the Deuteronomist (iv. 16).  The Jehovist, it is well known,\nalways says )Y#, W)Y#H even of the lower animals: the editor of\nthe Hexateuch, on the contrary, always follows the usage of the\nPriestly Code.\n\nGenesis i. 28 XYH HRM#T attracts attention by the omission of the\narticle with the substantive and its being merely prefixed to the\nfollowing adjective; as if one should say in Greek, )ANHR (O\n)AGATHOS instead of (O )ANER (O )AGATHOS. In the same way i. 21\nYWM H##Y, and ii. 3  YWM H#BY(Y.  In Arabic there are some\nanalogies for this, but on seeking one in Hebrew we have to come\ndown to the period when it was usual to say KNST HGDWLH.  KB#\nand RDH are Aramaisms.  In KBSHWH we find the only verbal suffix\nin Genesis i.  Instead we have always the forms )TM )TW; this is\nso in the Priestly Code generally.  In the Jehovistic main work,\nin J, these substitutes with )T are only used sometimes and for\nspecial reasons: it may be generally asserted that they are\nmore used the later we come down.  Parallel with this is the use\nof )nky in J and )ny in the Priestly Code;  the latter form\ngrows always more frequent in later times.\n\nThese remarks carry us beyond Genesis i.; for the Priestly Code\ngenerally I am now able to refer to F. Giesebrecht's essay on\nthe criticism of the Hexateuch.  Such words as QRBN, (CM, L(MT,\n(#TY are each, by itself, strong arguments for assuming a late\ndate for the production of the Priestly Code.  We cannot believe\nthat such everyday words should never have come into use in the\nother literature before the exile, if they were in existence.\nThey cannot be counted technical terms: QRBN used in Hebrew for\nsacrifice and offering is simply as if an English writer should\nsay priere instead of worship.  In such comparisons of the\nvocabulary we have, however, to consider first the working up\nand revision which has been at work in every part of the books\nof the Bible, and secondly the caprice of the writers in apparent\ntrifles, such as )NKY and )NY, especially outside the Pentateuch.\nThese two agencies have so dislocated the original facts in this\nmatter, that in general we can only deal in proportions, and must\nbe content with showing that a word occurs say 3 times in the\nother literature and 27 times in an equal extent of the later. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Too much importance must not be attached to Aramaisms: even when\nthey admit of clear demonstration they prove little while\noccurring merely in single instances.  We early find remarkable\nphenomena, such as NDR for NZR (hence NZYR = vovens), N+R for NCR\n(Amos i. 11 , Y+R for Y+RP?), comp.  Arabic _lata_ for _laisa_, Sur.\n38, 2. Hudh. 84, 1.  And yet such an Aramaism as BT #NTH in Numbers\nxv. 27, or even QRBN, is very remarkable.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIX.III.2. The study of the history of language is still at a very\nelementary stage in Hebrew.  In that which pertains to the\nlexicographer it would do well to include in its scope the proper\nnames of the Old Testament; when it would probably  appear that\nnot only Parnach (Numbers xxxiv. 25) but also composite names such\nas Peda-zur, Peda-el, Nathana-el, Pazi-el, Eli-asaph, point less to\nthe Mosaic than to the Persian period, and have their analogies in\nthe Chronicles.  On the other hand, the prepositions and particles\nwould have to be examined the use of the prepositions Beth and\nLamed in the Priestly Code is very peculiar.  That would lead\nfurther, to syntax; or better still, to rhetoric and style--a\ndiffcult and little cultivated field of study, but one of great\nimportance and lending itself readily to comparative treatment.\nThis treatment yields the most far-reaching results in the case\nof those parallels which have an undoubted and direct relation\nto each other.  The dependence of the Priestly Code on the Jehovist\ncannot be more strikingly demonstrated than by comparing its CDYQ,\nGenesis vi. 9, with the CDYQ BDWR HZH, of Genesis vii. 1 (JE.).\nThe plural DRWT is quite on a line with the MYNYM, and the (MY\nH)RC, of the Rabbis, and the SPERMATA of Galatians iii. 15; it\ndoes not denote the successive generations, but contemporaries,\nthe contemporaneous individuals of one and the same generation.\n\nFrom words we are brought back to things again by noting that the\nage of the word depends in many cases on the introduction of the\nthing.  The name BTR in the Song of Songs, for example,\npresupposes the cultivation of the malobathron in Syria and\nPalestine.  The Priestly Code enumerates colours, stuffs,\ngoldsmiths'  work and jewels, which nowhere occur in the older\nliterature: along with the Book of Ezekiel it is the principal\nquarry in the Old Testament for the history  of art; and this is\nthe less likely to be due to chance, as the geographical horizon\nof the two works is also the same.  There is also some contact in\nthis respect, though to a less degree, between the Priestly Code\nand Isaiah xl.-lxvi., and this must doubtless receive a historical\nexplanation in the circumstances of the Babylonian age. /l/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. On Canticles cf. Schuerer's Theol. Lit. Z., 1879, p. 31.  It\nalso, by the names of plants and similar details mentioned in it,\nis an important source for the history of external civilisation.\nIn Isaiah liv. 11, read with the Septuagint NPK: instead of the\nmeaningless PWK:, and )DNYK instead of )BNYK.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nCHAPTER X. THE ORAL AND THE WRITTEN TORAH.\n\nWhat importance the written letter, the book of the law, possessed\nfor the Jews, we all know from the New Testament.  Of ancient\nIsrael, again, it is said in the introductory poem of Goethe's\nWest-Oestlicher Divan, that the word was so important there,\nbecause it was a spoken word.  The contrast which Goethe evidently\nperceived is really characteristic, and deserves some further\nattention.\n\n\nX.I.\n\nX.I.1. Even if it be the case that Deuteronomy and the Priestly\nCode were only reduced to writing at a late period, still there\nremains the Jehovistic legislation (Exodus xx.-xxiii. xxxiv.)\nwhich might be regarded as the document which formed the\nstarting-point of the religious history of Israel.  And this\nposition is in fact generally claimed for it; yet not for the\nwhole of it, since it is commonly  recognised that the Sinaitic\nBook of the Covenant (Exodus xx.-xxiii. 19) was given to a\npeople who were settled and thoroughly accustomed to agriculture,\nand who, moreover, had passed somewhat beyond the earliest stage\nin the use of money.  /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Exodus xxi. 35: compare xxi. 33 with Judges ix. 4\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe Decalogue alone is commonly maintained to be in the strictest\nsense Mosaic.  This is principally on account of the statement\nthat it was written down on the two stone tables of the sacred\nark.  Yet of Deuteronomy also we read, both that it was written\non twelve stones and that it was deposited in the sacred ark\n(Deuteronomy xxxi. 26).  We cannot therefore place implicit reliance\non such statements.  What is attested in this way of the Decalogue\nseems to find confirmation in 1Kings viii. 9.  But the authority\nof this statement is greatly weakened by the fact that it occurs\nin a passage which has undergone the Deuteronomistic revision, and\nhas been, in addition to this, subjected to interpolation.  The more\nweight must we therefore allow to the circumstance, which makes for\na different conclusion, that the name \"The Ark of the Covenant\"\n(i.e., the box of the law) /1/ is peculiar to the later writers,\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Compare 1Kings viii. 21, \"the ark wherein is the covenant of\nJehovah,\" and viii 9, \"there was nothing in the ark save the two\ntables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, the tables of the\ncovenant which Jehovah had made with the children of Israel.\"  The\nDeuteronomistic expression \"tables of the covenant\", alternates\nin the Priestly Code with that of \"tables of testimony\"; i e.,\nlikewise of the law.  For H(DWT, \"the testimony,\" 2Kings xi. 12,\nread HC(DWT, \"the bracelets,\" according to 2Samuel i. 10.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nand, when it occurs in older narratives, is proved by its sporadic\nappearance, as well as by a comparison of the Septuagint with\nthe Massoretic text, to be a correction.  In early times the ark\nwas not a mere casket for the law; the \"the ark of Jehovah\" was of\nitself important, as we see clearly enough from 1Samuel iv.-vi.\nLike the twelve maccebas which surrounded the altar on the holy hill\nof Shechem, and which only later assumed the character of monuments\nof the law, so the ark of the covenant no doubt arose by a change\nof meaning out of the old idol.  If there were stones in it at all,\nthey probably served some other purpose than that of writing materials,\notherwise they would not have been hidden as a mystery in the\ndarkness of the sanctuary; they must have been exposed to public\nview.  Add to this that the tradition is not agreed as to the\ntenor of the ten words said to have been inserted on the two\ntables; two decalogues being preserved to us, Exodus xx. and\nExodus  xxxiv., which are quite different from each other.  It\nresults from this that there was no real or certain knowledge as\nto what stood on the tables, and further that if there were such\nstones in the ark--and probably there were--there was nothing\nwritten on them.  This is not the place to decide which of the two\nversions is prior to the other; the negative result we have\nobtained is sufficient for our present purpose.\n\nX.I.2. Ancient Israel was certainly not without God-given bases\nfor the ordering of human life; only they were not fixed in\nwriting.  Usage and tradition were looked on to a large extent as\nthe institution of the Deity.  Thus, for example, the ways and\nrules of agriculture.  Jehovah had instructed the husbandman and\ntaught him the right way.  He it was whose authority gave to\nthe unwritten laws of custom their binding power.  \"It is never so\ndone in Israel,\" \"that is folly in Israel,\" and similar\nexpressions of insulted public conscience are of frequent occurrence,\nand show the power of custom: the fear of God acts as a\nmotive for respecting it.  \"Surely there is no fear of God in\nthis place, and they will slay me for my wife's sake,\" so\nAbraham says to himself in Gerar.  \"How shall I do such great\nwrong and sin against God?\" says Joseph to the woman in Egypt.\n\"The people of Sodom were wicked and sinned grievously against\nJehovah,\" we read in Genesis xiii. 13.  Similarly Deuteronomy\nxxv. 18: \"The Amalekites attacked Israel on the march, and killed\nthe stragglers, all that were feeble and fell behind, and feared\nnot God.\"  We see that the requirements of the Deity are known and\nof force, not to the Israelites only, but to all the world; and\naccordingly they are not to be identified with any positive\ncommands.  The patriarchs observed them long before Moses.  \"I\nknow Abraham,\" Jehovah says, xviii. 19, \"that he will command his\nchildren to keep the way of Jehovah, to do justice and judgment.\"\n\nMuch greater importance is attached to the special Torah of\nJehovah, which not only sets up laws of action of universal\nvalidity, but shows man the way in special cases of difficulty,\nwhere he is at a loss.  This Torah is one of the special gifts\nwith which Israel is endowed (Deuteronomy xxxiii. 4); and it is\nintrusted to the priests, whose influence, during the period of\nthe Hebrew kings, of which we are now speaking, rested much more\non this possession than on the privilege of sacrifice.  The verb\nfrom which Torah is derived signifies in its earliest usage to\ngive direction, decision.  The participle signifies _giver of\noracles_ in the two, examples _gibeath moreh_ and _allon moreh_.\nThe latter expression is explained by another which alternates\nwith it, \"oak of the soothsayers.\"  Now we know that the priests\nin the days of Saul and David gave divine oracles by the ephod\nand the lots connected with it, which answered one way or the other\nto a question put in an alternative form.  Their Torah grew no doubt\nout of this practice. /1/ The Urim and Thummim are regarded,\n\n-- Footnote\n1. 1Sam xiv. xxiii. xxx.  In connection with 1Samuel xxxi. 3\nI have conjectured that the verb of which Torah is the abstract\nmeans originally to throw the lot-arrows.  The Thummim have been\ncompared in the most felicitous way by Freytag, and by Lagarde\nindependently of him (Proph. Chald. p. xlvii.) with the\nArabian Tamaim, which not only signifies children's amulets but\nany means of \"averruncatio\".  Urim is probably connected with\n)RR \"to curse\" (cf. Iliad i. 11 and Numbers xxiii. 23): the two\nwords of the formula seem mutually to supplement each other.\n-- Footnote\n\n\naccording to Deuteronomy xxxiii. 8, as the true and universal insignia\nof the priesthood; the ephod is last mentioned in the historical\nbooks in 1Kings ii. 26, /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1 Bleek, Einleiung in das A. T., 1878, p. 642.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nbut appears to have remained in use down to the time of Isaiah\n(Hosea iii. 4; Isaiah  xxx. 22).  The Torah freed itself in the\nprocess of time, following the general mental movement, from such\nheathenish media and vehicles (Hab. ii. 19).  But it continued\nto be an oral decision and direction.  As a whole it is only a\npower and activity of God, or of the priests.  Of this subject\nthere can be no abstract; the TEACHING; is only thought of as\nthe action of the TEACHER.  There is no torah as a ready-made\nproduct, as a system existing independently of its originator and\naccessible to every one: it becomes actual only in the various\nutterances, which naturally form by degrees the basis of a fixed\ntradition.  \"They preserve Thy word, and keep Thy law; they teach\nJacob Thy judgments and Israel Thy statutes \" (Deuteronomy xxxiii.\n9, 10).\n\nThe Torah of the priests appears to have had primarily a legal\ncharacter.  In cases which there was no regular authority to\ndecide, or which were too difficult for human decision, the latter\nwas brought in the last instance before God, i.e., before the\nsanctuary or the priests (Exodus xviii. 25 seq.).  The priests\nthus formed a kind of supreme court, which, however, rested on a\nvoluntary  recognition of its moral authority, and could not\nsupport its decisions by force.  \"If a man sin against another,\nGod shall judge him,\" 1Samuel ii. 25 says, very indefinitely.\nCertain legal transactions of special solemnity are executed\nbefore God (Exodus xxi. 6).  Now in proportion as the executive\ngained strength under the monarchy, _jus_--civil justice--necessarily\ngrew up into a separate existence from the older sacred _fas_.  The\nknowledge of God, which Hosea (chapter iv.) regards as the contents\nof the torah, has as yet a closer connection with jurisprudence\nthan with theology; but as its practical issue is that God\nrequires of man righteousness, and faithfulness, and good-will,\nit is fundamentally and essentially morality, though morality\nat that time addressed its demands less to the conscience than\nto society.  A ritual tradition naturally developed itself even\nbefore the exile (2Kings xvii. 27, 28).  But only those rites\nwere included in the Torah which the priests had to teach others,\nnot those which they discharged themselves; even in Leviticus\nthis distinction may be traced; the instructions characterised\nas toroth being chiefly those as to animals which might or might\nnot be eaten, as to clean and unclean states, as to leprosy and\nits marks (cf. Deuteronomy xxiv. 8).\n\nSo it was in Israel, to which the testimony applies which we have\ncited: and so it was in Judah also.  There was a common proverb in\nthe days of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, \"The Torah shall not perish\nfrom the priest, nor counsel from the ancient, nor the word from\nthe prophet:\" but no doubt the saying was not new in their time,\nand at any rate it will apply to the earlier time as well.  Not\nbecause they sacrifice but because they teach, do the priests\nhere appear as pillars of the religious order of things; and\ntheir Torah is a living power, equal to the occasion and\nnever-failing.  Micah reproaches them with judging for reward\n(iii. 11), and this shows their wisdom to have been based on a\ntradition accessible to them alone; this is also shown by some\nexpressions of Deuteronomy (xvii. 10 seq., xxiv. 8).  We have\nthe counterpart to the proverb above cited (Jeremiah xviii. 18;\nEzekiel vii. 26) in the complaint in Lamentations (ii. 9):\n\"Jerusalem is destroyed; her king and her princes are among the\nGentiles: the Torah is no more; the prophets obtain no vision\nfrom Jehovah;\" after the ruin of the sanctuary and the priests\nthere is no longer any Torah; and if that be so, the axe is laid\nto the root of the life of the people.  In the post-exile prophets\nthe torah, which even in Deuteronomy (xvii. 11) was mainly\nlegal in its nature, acquires a strong savour of ritual which one\ndid not notice before; yet even here it is still an oral teaching\nof the priests (Haggai ii. 11).\n\nThe priests derived their Torah from Moses: they claimed only\nto preserve and guard what Moses had left (Deuteronomy xxxiii 4,\n9 seq.).  He counted as their ancestor (xxxiii. 8; Judges xviii.\n30); his father in-law is the PRIEST of Midian at Mount Sinai,\nas Jehovah also is derived in a certain sense from the older deity\nof Sinai.  But at the same time Moses was reputed to be the\nincomparable originator and practicer of PROPHECY (Numbers xii. 6\nseq.; Deuteronomy xxxiv. 10; Hos. xii. 14), as his brother Aaron\nalso is not only  a Levite (Exodus iv. 14), but also a prophet\n(iv. 15; Numbers xii. 2).  There is thus a close relation between\npriests and prophets, i.e., seers; as with other peoples (1Samuel\nvi.,; 1Kings xviii. 19, compare with 2Kings x. 19), so also\nwith the Hebrews.  In the earliest time it was not knowing the\ntechnique of worship, which was still very simple and\nundeveloped, but being a man of God, standing on an intimate\nfooting with God, that made a man a priest, that is one who keeps\nup the communication with heaven for others; and the seer is\nbetter qualified than others for the office (1Kings xviii. 30\nseq.).  There is no fixed distinction in early times between the\ntwo offices; Samuel is in 1Samuel i.-iii. an aspirant to the\npriesthood; in ix. x. he is regarded as a seer.\n\nIn later times also, when priests and prophets drew off and\nseparated from each other, they yet remained connected, both in\nthe kingdom of Israel (Host iv. 5) and in Judah.  In the latter\nthis was very markedly the case (2Kings xxiii. 2; Jeremiah xxvi.\n7 seq., v. 31; Deuteronomy xviii. 1-8, 9-22; Zechariah vii. 3).\nWhat connected them with each other was the revelation of Jehovah\nwhich went on and was kept alive in both of them.  It is Jehovah\nfrom whom the torah of the priest and the word of the prophet\nproceeds: He is the true DIRECTOR, as Isaiah calls Him in the\npassage xxx. 20 seq., where, speaking of the Messianic time,\nhe says to the people, \"Then thy  director (MWRYK) is no more\nconcealed, but thine eyes see thy director, and thine ears hear\nthe words of One calling behind thee; this is the way, walk ye\nin it; when ye are turning to the right hand or to the left.\"\nTORAH and WORD are cognate notions, and capable of being\ninterchanged (Deuteronomy xxxiii. 9; Isaiah i. 10, ii. 3, v. 24,\nviii. 16, 20).  This explains how both priests and prophets\nclaimed Moses for their order: he was not regarded as the founder\nof the cultus.\n\nThe difference, in the period when it had fully developed itself,\nmay  be said to be this: the Torah of the priests was like a\nspring which runs always, that of the prophets like a spring which\nis intermittent, but when it does break forth, flows with all the\ngreater force.  The priests take precedence of the prophets when\nboth are named together; they obviously consolidated themselves\nearlier and more strongly.  The order, and the tradition which\npropagates itself within the order, are essential to them:\nthey observe and keep the torah (Deuteronomy xxxiii. 9).\nFor this reason, that they take their stand so entirely on the\ntradition, and depend on it, their claim to have Moses for\ntheir father, the beginner and founder of their tradition,\nis in itself the better founded of the two.  /l/\n\n-- Footnote\n1 It is also more firmly rooted in history; for if Moses did\nanything at all, he certainly founded the sanctuary at Kadesh\nand the torah there, which the priests of the ark carried on after\nhim, thus continuing the thread of the history of Israel, which\nwas taken up again in power by the monarchy.   The prophets only\nappeared among the Hebrews from the time of Samuel onwards, but\nthe seers were older than Moses, and can scarcely have had such\na close connection with his tradition as the priests at the\nsanctuary of the ark of Jehovah.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIn the ordinary parlance of the Hebrews torah always meant first,\nand chiefly the Priestly Torah.  The prophets have notoriously no\nfather (1Samuel x.  12), their importance rests on the\nindividuals; it is characteristic that only names and sketches\nof their lives have reached us.  They do indeed, following the\ntendency of the times, draw together in corporations; but in\ndoing so they really renounce their own distinctive\ncharacteristics: the representative men are always single,\nresting on nothing outside themselves.  We have thus on the one\nside the tradition of a class, which suffices for the occasions of\nordinary life, and on the other the inspiration of awakened\nindividuals, stirred up by occasions which are more than ordinary.\nAfter the spirit of the oldest men of God, Moses at the head of\nthem, had been in a fashion laid to sleep in institutions,\nit sought and found in the prophets a new opening; the old fire\nburst out like a volcano through the strata which once, too, rose\nfluid from the deep, but now were fixed and dead.\n\nThe element in which the prophets live is the storm of the world's\nhistory, which sweeps away human institutions; in which the\nrubbish of past generations with the houses built on it begins to\nshake, and that foundation alone remains firm, which needs no\nsupport but itself.  When the earth trembles and seems to be passing\naway, then they triumph because Jehovah alone is exalted.  They\ndo not preach on set texts; they speak out of the spirit which\njudges all things and itself is judged of no man.  Where do they\never lean on any  other authority than the truth of what they\nsay; where do they rest on any  other foundation than their own\ncertainty?  It belongs to the notion of prophecy of true\nrevelation, that Jehovah, overlooking all the media of ordinances\nand institutions, communicates Himself to the INDIVIDUAL, the\ncalled one, in whom that mysterious and irreducible rapport in\nwhich the deity stands with man clothes itself with energy.\nApart from the prophet, _in abstracto_, there is no revelation;\nit lives in his divine-human ego.  This gives rise to a synthesis\nof apparent contradictions: the subjective in the highest sense,\nwhich is exalted above all ordinances, is the truly objective,\nthe divine.  This it proves itself to be by the consent of the\nconscience of all, on which the prophets count, just as Jesus\ndoes in the Gospel of John, in spite of all their polemic\nagainst the traditional religion.  They are not saying anything\nnew: they are only  proclaiming old truth.  While acting in the\nmost creative way they feel entirely  passive: the _homo tantum\net audacia_ which may with perfect justice be applied to such men\nas Elijah, Amos, and Isaiah, is with them equivalent to _deus\ntantum et servitus_.  But their creed is not to be found in\nany book.  It is barbarism, in dealing with such a phenomenon, to\ndistort its physiognomy  by introducing the law.\n\nX.I.3. It is a vain imagination to suppose that the prophets\nexpounded and applied the law.  Malachi (circa 450 B.C.) says,\nit is true, iv. 4, \"Remember ye the torah of Moses my servant;\"\nbut where shall we look for any second expression of this nature?\nMuch more correctly than modern scholars did these men judge, who\nat the close of the preexilic history looked back on the forces\nwhich had moulded it, both the divine and those opposed to God.\nIn their eyes the prophets are not the expounders of Moses, but\nhis continuators and equals; the word of God in their mouth is\nnot less weighty than in the mouth of Moses; they, as well as he,\nare organs of the spirit of Jehovah by which He is present in\nIsrael.  The immediate revelation to the people, we read in Deuteronomy\nxviii., ceased with the ten commandments: from that point onwards\nJehovah uses the prophets as His mouth: \"A prophet like unto\nthee,\" He says to Moses, \"will I raise up to them from among their\nbrethren, and will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak\nunto them all that I shall command him; and whosoever shall not\nhearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will\nrequire it of him.\"\n\nWe find it the same in Jeremiah; the voice of the prophets, always\nsounding when there is need for it, occupies the place which,\naccording to the prevailing view, should have been filled by the\nlaw: this living command of Jehovah is all he knows of, and not\nany testament given once for all.\n\n\"This only I commanded your fathers when I brought them up out\nof Egypt: Obey my voice, and walk ye in all the ways that I will\ncommand you. Since the day that your fathers came forth out of Egypt,\nI have sent unto you all my servants the prophets, daily rising up\nearly and sending them; but ye would not hear.\"\n\nAnd even after the exile we meet in Zechariah (520 B.C.) the\nfollowing view of the significance of the prophets: \"Thus spake\nJehovah of hosts [to the fathers before the exile], Speak true\njudgment, and show mercy  and compassions every man to his brother,\nand oppress not the widow nor the fatherless, the stranger nor the\npoor: and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in his\nheart.  But they refused to hearken, and shrugged the shoulder,\nand stopped their ears, that they should not hear.  Yea, they made\ntheir hearts as a flint, lest they should hear the Torah and the\nwords which Jehovah Sebaoth hath sent by His Spirit through the\nold prophets: therefore came a great wrath from Jehovah Sebaoth.\nAnd as He cried and they would not hear, so now shall they cry\nand I will not hear, and I will blow them away among the\npeoples.... Thus saith Jehovah Sebaoth [after the exile to the\npresent generation], As I thought to punish you without pity\nbecause your fathers provoked me to anger, so again have I\nthought in these days to do well to the house of Judah: fear\nye not.  These are the things that ye shall do: Speak ye every\nman the truth to his neighbour; execute the judgment of truth\nand peace in your gates; and let none of you imagine evil in\nyour hearts against his neighbour, and love no false oath,\nfor all these are things which I hate, saith Jehovah\"\n(Zechariah vii. 9-11, viii. 14-16).\n\nThe contents of the Torah, on obedience to which the theocracy is\nhere based, are very  suggestive, as also its derivation from the\n\"old\" prophets.  Even Ezra can say (ix. 10, 11):\n\n\"We have forsaken Thy commandments which Thou hast commanded by the\nservants the prophets, saying, The land unto which ye go to\npossess it is an unclean land with the filthiness of the people of\nthe land, which have filled it from one end to another with their\nuncleanness.\"\n\nHe is thinking of Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, and Leviticus xvii.-xxvi.\n\nOf those who at the end reflected on the meaning of the\ndevelopment which had run its course, the writer of Isaiah\nxl.-lxvi. occupies the first place.  The Torah, which he also\ncalls _mishpat_, right (i.e., truth), appears to him to be the\ndivine and imperishable element in Israel.  With him, however,\nit is inseparable from its mouthpiece, the servant of Jehovah,\nxlii. 1-4, xlix. 1-6, l. 4-9, lii. 13-liii. 12.  The name would\ndenote the prophet, but here it stands for the people, a prophet\non a large scale.  Israel's calling is not that of the\nworld-monarchies, to make sensation and noise in the streets\n(xiii. 1-4), but the greater one of promulgating the Torah and\ngetting it received.  This is to be done both in Israel and among\nthe heathen.  What makes Israel a prophet is not his own inner\nqualities, but his relation to Jehovah, his calling as the\ndepository of divine truth: hence it involves no contradiction\nthat the servant should begin his work in Israel itself. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. This is as if one were to say that there is much to be done\nbefore we Evangelicals are truly evangelical.  Yet the\ndistinction as worked out in Isaiah xl. seq. is certainly very\nremarkable, and speaks for a surprising degree of profound\nmeditation.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nTill now he has spent his strength only in the bosom of his own\npeople, which is always inclined to fall away from Jehovah and\nfrom itself: heedless of reproach and suffering he has laboured\nunweariedly in carrying out the behests of his Master and has\ndeclared His word.  All in vain.  He has not been able to avert\nthe victory of heathenism in Israel, now followed by its victory\nover Israel.  Now in the exile Jehovah has severed His relation\nwith His people; the individual Hebrews survive, but the servant,\nthe people of Jehovah, is dead.  Then is the Torah to die with\nhim, and truth itself to succumb to falsehood, to heathenism?\nThat cannot be; truth must prevail, must come to the light.\nAs to the Apostle Paul the Spirit is the earnest of the\nresurrection of those who are born again, so to our author the\nTorah is the pledge of the resurrection of Israel, the\njustification of the servant of Jehovah.  The final triumph of\nthe cause, which is God's, will surpass all expectations.  Not\nonly in Israel itself will the Torah, will the servant of Jehovah\nprevail and bring about a regeneration of the people: the truth\nwill in the future shine forth from Israel into the whole world,\nand obtain the victory among all the Gentiles (xlix. 6).  Then it\nwill appear that the work of the servant, resultless as it seemed\nto be up to the exile, has yet not been in vain.\n\nIt is surely unnecessary for me to demonstrate how uncommonly\nvivid, I might say how uncommonly historical, the notion of the\nTorah is as here set forth, and how entirely incompatible that\nnotion is with \"the Torah of Moses.\"  It might most fitly be\ncompared with the Logos of the prologue of John, if the latter\nis understood in accordance with John x. 35, an utterance\ncertainly authentic, and not according to Philo.  As Jesus is\nthe revelation of God made man, so the servant of Jehovah is\nthe revelation of God made a people.  The similarity of their\nnature and their significance involves the similarity of their\nwork and of their sufferings, so that the Messianic interpretation\nof Isaiah lii. 13-liii. 12 is in fact one which could not fail to\nsuggest itself. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The personification is carried further in this passage than\nanywhere else, and it is possible that the colours of the sketch\nare borrowed from some actual instance of a prophet-martyr: yet\nthe Ebed Jahve cannot have a different meaning here from that\nwhich it has everywhere else.  It is to be noted that the\nsufferings and death of the servant are in the past, and his\nglorification in the future, a long pause lying between them in\nthe present.  A resurrection of the individual could not be in\nthe mind of the writer of Isaiah xl seq., nor do the details of\nthe description, lii. 12 seq., at all agree with such an idea.\nMoreover, it is clear that liv. 1-lvi. 8 is a kind of sermon on\nthe text lii. 13-liii. 12; and there the prophecy of the\nglorification of the servant has reference to Zion.  See Vatke,\np. 528 seq.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nX.II.\n\nX.II.1. In the 18th year of King Josiah (621 B.C) Deuteronomy was\nfound and published.  In the account of the discovery, 2Kings\nxxii. xxiii., it is always called simply _the book of the Torah_;\nit was accordingly the first, and in its time the only book of\nthe kind.  It is certainly the case that the prophets had written\ndown some of their speeches before this, and the priests also may\nbefore this time have written down many of their precepts: it\nappears in fact, as Vatke surmises, that we have a monument of\ntheir spirit, e.g., in the Sinaitic Book of the Covenant.\nDeuteronomy presupposes earlier attempts of this kind, and\nborrows its materials largely from them; but on the other hand it\nis distinguished from them not only by its greater compass but\nalso by its much higher claims.  It is written with the distinct\nintention not to remain a private memorandum, but to obtain public\nauthority as a book.  The idea of making a definite formulated\nwritten Torah the law of the land, is the important point /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Duhm, ap. Cil. p. 201.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nit was a first attempt and succeeded at the outset beyond\nexpectation.  A reaction set in afterwards, it is true; but the\nBabylonian exile completed the triumph of the law.  Extraordinary\nexcitement was at that time followed by the deepest depression\n(Amos viii. 11 seq.).  At such a time those who did not despair\nof the future clung anxiously to the religious acquisitions of the\npast.  These had been put in a book just in time in Deuteronomy,\nwith a view to practical use in the civil and religious life of\nthe people . The book of the Torah did not perish in the general\nruin, but remained in existence, and was the compass of those who\nwere shaping their course for a new Israel.  How thoroughly\ndetermined they were to use it as their rule we see from the\nrevision of the Hexateuch and of the historical books which was taken\nin hand during the exile.\n\nWith the appearance of the law came to an end the old freedom,\nnot only in the sphere of worship, now restricted to Jerusalem,\nbut in the sphere of the religious spirit as well.  There was now\nin existence an authority as objective as could be; and this was\nthe death of prophecy.\n\nFor it was a necessary condition of prophecy that the tares\nshould be at liberty to grow up beside the wheat.  The signs given\nin Deuteronomy to distinguish the true from the false prophet,\nare no doubt vague and unpractical: still they show the tendency\ntowards control and the introduction of uniformity; that is the\ngreat step which is new.  /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The difference between Deuteronomy xviii. 22 and 1Kings xxii.\n19-23 may be thought to throw light on the two positions.  In the\nformer passage we read that if a prophet says something in the\nname of Jehovah which does not come to pass, it is a word which\nJehovah has not spoken.  Here, on the contrary, Micaiah ben Imlah,\nwhen the prophets of Jehovah promise the king of Israel a happy\nissue of the campaign against the Syrians, regards the prediction\nas contrary to the truth, but as none the less on that account\ninspired by the spirit of prophecy; Jehovah, he said, had made\nhis spirit a Iying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.  It\nmay be that this difference reflects to us the interval between\ntwo different ages: but on the whole Micaiah's view appears to be\nrather a piece of ingenuity which might have been resorted to in\nlater times as well.  In the seventh century the command, \"every\nfirstborn is mine,\" was held to apply to the human firstborn as\nwell, the sacrifice of which Jehovah was thought to require: this\nappears from Jeremiah's protest, \"I commanded them not, neither\ncame it into my mind,\" vii. 31, xix. 5.  With reference to this\nEzekiel says that because the Israelites despised the wholesome\ncommandments of Jehovah, He gave them laws which were not good and\nstatutes by which they could not live.  That is a similar\ningenious escape from a difficulty, without deeper meaning.  See\nthe converse, Koran, Sura ii. 174.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIt certainly was not the intention of the legislator to encroach\nupon the spoken Torah or the free word.  But the consequence,\nfavoured by outward circumstances, was not to be avoided: the\nfeeling that the prophets had come to an end did not arise in the\nMaccabean wars only.  In the exile we hear the complaint that the\ninstruction of the priests and the word of the prophets are silent\n(Lamentations ii. 9); it is asked, where he is who in former times\nput his spirit in Israel (Isa lxiii. 11); in Nehemiah's time a\ndoubtful question is left unsettled, at least theoretically, till\nthe priest with Urim and Thummim, i.e., with a trustworthy\nprophecy, shall appear (Nehemiah vii. 69). We may call Jeremiah the\nlast of the prophets: /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. In his early years Jeremiah had a share in the introduction of\nthe law: but in later times he shows himself little edified by\nthe effects it produced: the Iying pen of the scribes, he says,\nhas written for a lie.  People despised the prophetic word because\nthey had the Torah in black and white (viii. 7-9).\n-- Footnote\n\n\nthose who came after him were prophets only in name.  Ezekiel had\nswallowed a book (iii. 1-3), and gave it out again.  He also,\nlike Zechariah, calls the pre-exilic prophets the old prophets,\nconscious that he himself belongs to the epigoni: he meditates on\ntheir words like Daniel and comments on them in his own prophecy\n(xxxviii. 17, xxxix. 8).  The writer of Isaiah xl. seq. might with\nmuch more reason be called a prophet, but he does not claim to be\none; his anonymity, which is evidently intentional, leaves no doubt\nas to this.  He is, in fact, more of a theologian: he is principally\noccupied in reflecting on the results of the foregoing development,\nof which prophecy had been the leaven; these are fixed possessions\nnow secured; he is gathering in the harvest.  As for the prophets\nafter the exile, we have already seen how Zechariah speaks of the\nold prophets as a series which is closed, in which he and those\nlike him are not to be reckoned.  In the writing of an anonymous\ncontemporary which is appended to his book we find the following\nnotable expression:\n\n\"In that (hoped-for) day, saith Jehovah, I will cut off the names\nof the idols out of the land, that they be no more remembered,\nand also I will cause to cease the prophets and the unclean\nspirit; and if a man will yet prophesy, his parents shall say\nunto him, Thou shalt not live, for thou speakest lies in the name\nof Jehovah, and his parents shall thrust him through when he\nprophesieth\" (xiii. 2-3).\n\nX.II.2. Deuteronomy was the programme of a reform, not of a\nrestoration.  It took for granted the existence of the cultus,\nand only corrected it in certain general respects.  But the temple\nwas now destroyed and the worship interrupted, and the practice of\npast times had to be written down if it was not to be lost.  Thus\nit came about that in the exile the conduct of worship became the\nsubject of the Torah, and in this process reformation was naturally\naimed at as well as restoration.  We have seen <II.II.1.>) that\nEzekiel was the first to take this step which the circumstances of\nthe time indicated.  In the last part of his work he made the\nfirst attempt to record the ritual which had been customary in\nthe temple of Jerusalem.  Other priests attached themselves to him\n(Leviticus xvii.-xxvi.), and thus there grew up in the exile from\namong the members of this profession a kind of school of people\nwho reduced to writing and to a system what they had formerly\npracticed in the way of their calling.  After the temple was\nrestored this theoretical zeal still continued to work, and the\nritual when renewed was still further developed by the action and\nreaction on each other of theory and practice: the priests who\nhad stayed in Babylon took as great a part, from a distance, in\nthe sacred services, as their brothers at Jerusalem who had\nactually to conduct them.  The latter indeed lived in adverse\ncircumstances and do not appear to have conformed with great\nstrictness or accuracy to the observances which had been agreed\nupon.  The last result of this labour of many years is the\nPriestly Code.  It has indeed been said that we cannot ascribe\nthe creation of such a work to an age which was bent on nothing\nbut repristination.  Granted that this is a correct description of\nit, such an age is peculiarly fitted for an artificial\nsystematising of given materials, and this is what the originality\nof the Priestly Code in substance amounts to. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Dillmann arrives at the conclusion that the assumption is the\nmost natural one in the world, and still capable of proof from ACD\n(!) that the priesthood of the central sanctuary wrote down their\ntoroth even in early times; and that it is absurd to suppose\nthat the priestly and ceremonial laws were first written down,\nor even made, in the exile and in Babylon, where there was no\nworship.  We will let it be absurd, if it is true.  It is not\nprogress, though it is a fact, that the kings were succeeded by\nthe high-priests, and the prophets by the Rabbis.  Yet it is a\nthing which is likely to occur, that a body of traditional\npractice should only be written down when it is threatening to\ndie out, and that a book should be, as it were, the ghost of a\nlife which is closed.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe Priestly Code, worked into the Pentateuch as the standard\nlegislative element in it, became the definite \"Mosaic law.\"\nAs such it was published and introduced in the year 444 B.C.,\na century after the exile . In the interval, the duration of which\nis frequently under-estimated, Deuteronomy alone had been known\nand recognised as the written Torah, though as a fact the essays of\nEzekiel and his successors may have had no inconsiderable\ninfluence in leading circles.  The man who made the Pentateuch the\nconstitution of Judaism was the Babylonian priest and scribe,\nEzra.  He had come from Babylon to Jerusalem as early as the year\n458 B.C., the seventh of Artaxerxes Longimanus, at the head of a\nconsiderable company of zealous Jews, provided it is said with a\nmandate from the Persian king, empowering him to reform according\nto the law the congregation of the temple, which had not yet been\nable to consolidate itself inwardly nor to shut itself off\nsufficiently from those without.\n\n\"Thou art sent of the king and of his seven counsellors to hold an\ninquiry concerning Judah and Jerusalem _according to the law of thy\nGod which is in thine hand_....And thou Ezra, according to _the\nwisdom of thy God which is in thine hand_, set magistrates and\njudges which may judge all the people that are beyond the river,\nall such as acknowledge the laws of thy God, and teach ye them\nthat know them not.  And whosoever will not do the law of thy God\nand the law of the king, let him be prosecuted.\"\n\nSo we read in the commission of the Persian king to Ezra, vii.\n12-26; which, even should it be spurious, must yet reflect the\nviews of his contemporaries.  The expression taken from Ezra's\nown memoirs, vii. 27, leaves no doubt that he was assisted by\nArtaxerxes in the objects he had in view. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. With regard to his relation to the law, we have to consider the\nfollowing points: he was a scribe (SWPR = literatus), at home in\nthe Torah of Moses, vii. 6.  He had directed his mind to study\nthe Torah of Jehovah, and to do and to teach in Israel judgment\nand statute, vii. 10.  \"The priest Ezra, the master of the law\nof the God of heaven,\" vii. 21.  The most important expression,\nhowever, is that which states that the law (the wisdom) of his God\nwas in his hand: thus it was his private property, though it\nclaimed authority for all Israel.  With this agree the statements\nas to the object of the learned priest's mission.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nBut Ezra did not, as we should expect, at once introduce the law\non his arrival in Judah.  In concert with the heads of the people,\nand proceeding on the existing Torah, that, namely, of\nDeuteronony, he ordained and relentlessly  carried out a strict\nseparation of the returned exiles from the heathen and\nhalf-heathen inhabitants of the land.  This was done a few months\nafter his arrival in Jerusalem.  But a long time, at least\nfourteen years, elapsed before he produced the law which he had\nbrought with him.  Why he delayed so long we can at the best only\nsurmise, as no accounts have reached us of what he did in the\ninterval; there is a great gap in the narrative of the Books of\nEzra and Nehemiah between the 7th and the 20th year of Artaxerxes.\nPerhaps the outward circumstances of the young community, which,\nprobably in consequence of the repellent attitude taken up to the\nsurrounding peoples, were not of the happiest, made it unadvisable\nat once to introduce a legislative innovation; perhaps, too, Ezra\ndesired to wait to see the correcting influence of the practice of\nJerusalem on the product of Babylonian scholarship, and moreover\nto train up assistants for the work.  The principal reason,\nhowever, appears to have been, that in spite of the good-will of\nthe king he did not enjoy the energetic support of the Persian\nauthorities on the spot, and could not without it get the\nauthority of the new law recognised.\n\nBut in the year 445 it came about that a Jew and a sympathiser of\nEzra, Nehemiah ben Hakkelejah, cup-bearer and favourite of\nArtaxerxes, appeared in Judea as Persian governor.  With\nstraightforward earnestness he first addressed himself to the task\nof liberating the Jewish community from outward pressure and\nlifting them up from their depressed condition; and, this being\naccomplished, the time had come to go forward with the introduction\nof the Pentateuch.  Ezra and Nehemiah were manifestly in concert\nas to this.  On the 1st day of the 7th month--we do not know the\nyear, but it cannot have been earlier than 444 B.C.--the whole\npeople came together as one man before the water-gate, and Ezra\nwas called on to produce the book of the law of Moses, which\nJehovah had commanded Israel.  The scribe mounted a wooden pulpit;\nseven priests stood beside him on the right hand, and seven on the\nleft.  When he opened the book all present stood up, both men and\nwomen; with loud Amen they joined in the opening blessing, lifted\nup their heads, and cast themselves on the ground.  Then he read\nthe book, from early morning till mid-day, in small sections,\nwhich were repeated and expounded by a number of Levites dispersed\nthroughout the crowd.  The effect was that a general weeping arose,\nthe people being aware that they had not till then followed the\ncommandments of God.  Nehemiah and Ezra and the Levites had to\nallay the  excitement, and said: \"This day is holy unto Jehovah\nyour God; mourn not nor weep.  Go your way, eat the fat and drink\nthe sweet, and give unto them that have brought nothing with them.\"\nThe assembled people then dispersed and set on foot a \"great mirth,\"\nbecause they had understood the words which had been communicated\nto them.  The reading was continued the next day, but before the\nheads of families only, and a very appropriate section was read,\nviz., the ordinances as to festivals, and particularly that about\nthe feast of tabernacles, which was to be kept under branches of\ntrees on the 15th day of the 7th month, the month then just\nbeginning.  The matter was taken up with the greatest zeal, and\nthe festival, which had not been kept RITE <sic!> since the days\nof Joshua ben Nun, was now instituted in accordance with the\nprecepts of Leviticus xxiii. and celebrated with general enthusiasm\nfrom the 15th to the 22nd of the month. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. For eight days, according to Leviticus xxiii. 39: as against\nDeuteronomy xvi. 13-15.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nOn the 24th, however, a great day of humiliation was held, with\nsackcloth and ashes. On this occasion also the proceedings began\nwith reading the law, and then followed a confession of sins\nspoken by the Levites in the name of the people, and concluding\nwith a prayer for mercy and compassion.  This was preparatory to\nthe principal and concluding act, in which the secular and\nspiritual officials and elders, 85 in number, bound themselves\nin writing to the Book of the Law, published by Ezra, and all\nthe rest undertook an obligation, with oath and curse, to walk\nin the Torah of God, given by His servant Moses, and to keep\nall the commandments of Jehovah and His statutes and laws.\nSpecial attention was directed to such provisions of the Pentateuch\nas were of immediate importance for the people in the circumstances\nof the day--the greater part of the whole work is about the ritual\nof the priests--and those were in particular insisted on which\nrefer to the contributions of the laity to the priesthood, on\nwhich the very existence of the hierocracy depended. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Nehemiah viii. 1-x. 40.  The credibility of the narrative\nappears on the face of it.  The writer of Chronicles did not write\nit himself, but took it from his main source, from which also he\ndrew the fragments he gives us of the memoirs of Ezra and\nNehemiah.  This we see from the fact that while copying Nehemiah vii.\nin Ezra ii. he unconsciously goes on with the beginning of Nehemiah\nviii. (= Ezra iii. 1).  That shows that he found Nehemiah vii. and\nviii. in their present connection, and did not write viii. seq.\nhimself, as we might suppose.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nLagarde expresses great surprise--and the surprise is reasonable--\nthat so little importance is attributed to this narrative by Old\nTestament critics; only  Kuenen had rightly appreciated its\nsignificance. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2 Goettinger Gel. Anzeigen, 1870, p. 1557 seq.  Kuenen, Religion\nof Israel, vol. ii. chapter viii.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIt is obvious that Nehemiah viii.-x. is a close parallel to 2Kings\nxxii. xxiii., especially to xxiii. 1-3.  There we read that\nJosiah caused all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem to come\ntogether, and went up with the men of Judah and the inhabitants of\nJerusalem, with the priests and the prophets and all the people,\nhigh and low, to the house of Jehovah; where he read to the\nassemblage all the words of the Book of the Law, and bound himself\nwith all the people before Jehovah to keep all the words of the\nbook.  Just as it is in evidence that Deuteronomy became known in\nthe year 621, and that it was unknown up to that date, so it is in\nevidence that the remaining Torah of the Pentateuch--for there is\nno doubt that the law of Ezra was the whole Pentateuch--became\nknown in the year 444 and was unknown till then.  This shows in the\nfirst place, and puts it beyond question, that Deuteronomy is the\nfirst, and the priestly Torah the second, stage of the\nlegislation.  But in the second place, as we are accustomed to\ninfer the date of the composition of Deuteronomy from its\npublication and introduction by Josiah, so we must infer the date\nof the composition of the Priestly Code from its publication and\nintroduction by Ezra and Nehemiah.  It would require very strong\ninternal evidence to destroy the probability, thus based on a\nmost positive statement of facts, that the codification of the\nritual only took place in the post-exile period.  We have already\nseen of what nature the internal evidence is which is brought\nforward with this view.  /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. It is not, however, necessary, and it can scarcely be correct,\nto make Ezra more than the editor, the real and principal editor,\nof the Hexateuch: and in particular he is not likely to have\nbeen the author of Q.  Nor on the other hand is it meant to deny\nthat many new features may have been added and alterations made\nafter Ezra.  A body of customs is a subject which can scarcely\nbe treated quite exhaustively.  There are no directions about the\n_nervus ischiadicus_ <**sciatic nerve??**>, about the priests\nhaving their feet bare, about shutting up before Jehovah\n(1Samuel xxi cf. Jeremiah xxxvi. 5), or about the stoning of adulterers.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nX.II.3. Ezra and Nehemiah, and the eighty-five men of the great\nassembly (Nehemiah viii. seq.), who are named as signatories of\nthe covenant, are regarded by later tradition as the founders of\nthe canon.  And not without reason: only King Josiah has a still\nstronger claim to this place of honour.  The introduction of the\nlaw, first Deuteronomy, and then the whole Pentateuch, was in fact\nthe decisive step, by which the written took the place of the\nspoken word, and the people of the word became a \"people of the\nbook.\"  To THE BOOK were added in course of time THE BOOKS; the\nformer was formally and solemnly introduced in two successive\nacts, the latter acquired imperceptibly a similar public authority\nfor the Jewish church.  The notion of the canon proceeds entirely\nfrom that of the written Torah; the prophets and the hagiographa\nare also called Torah by the Jews, though not Torah of Moses.\n\nThe origin of the canon thus lies, thanks to the two narratives\n2Kings xxii. xxiii., Nehemiah viii.-x. in the full light of\nhistory; but the traditional science of Biblical introduction has\nno clear or satisfactory account to give of it.  Josiah, the\nordinary notion is, introduced the law, but not the canon; Ezra,\non the other hand, the canon and not the law.  An analogy drawn\nfrom the secondary part of the canon, the prophets and\nhagiographa, is applied without consideration to the primary\npart, the Torah of Moses.  The historical and prophetical books\nwere, in part at least, a long time in existence before they\nbecame canonical, and the same, it is thought, might be the case\nwith the law.  But the case of the law is essentially different.\nThe law claims to have public authority, to be a book of the\ncommunity;  the difference between law and canon, does not exist.\nHence it is easy to understand that the Torah, though as a\nliterary product later than the historical and prophetical books,\nis yet as law older than these writings, which have originally\nand in their nature no legal character, but only acquired such\na character in a sort of metaphorical way, through their association\nwith the law itself.\n\nWhen it is recognised that THE CANON is what distinguishes Judaism\nfrom ancient Israel, it is recognised at the same time that what\ndistinguishes Judaism from ancient Israel is THE WRITTEN TORAH.\nThe water which in old times rose from a spring, the Epigoni\nstored up in cisterns.\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.  THE THEOCRACY AS IDEA AND AS INSTITUTION.\n\nWriters of the present day play with the expressions \"theocracy,\"\nand \"theocratic\" without making it clear to themselves\nwhat these words mean and how far they are entitled to use them.\nBut we know that the word theokratia was only coined by\nJosephus; /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. )OUKOUN )APEIROI MEN (AI KATA MEROS TWN )ETHWN KAI TWN NOMWN PARA\nTOIS )APASIN )ANTHRWPOS DIAFORAI.  )OI MEN GAR MONARXIAIS, (OI DE\nTAIS )OLIGWN DUNASTEIAIS, )ALLOI DE TOIS PLHTHESIN  )EPETREPYAN THN\n'ECOUSIAN TWN POLITEUMATWN. (O D' (HMETEROS NOMOQETHS )EIS MEN\nTOUTWN OUD' (OTIOUN )APEIDEN, (WS D' )AN TIS )EIPOI BIASAMENOS TON\nLOGON QEOKRATIAN )APEDEICE TO POLITEUMA, QEW| THN )ARXHN KAI TO\nKRATOS )ANAQEIS (contra Apion ii.  17). (\" There are innumerable\ndifferences in the particular customs and laws that are among\nmankind; some have intrusted the power of their states to\nmonarchies, some to oligarchies, and some to democracies: but our\nlegislator had no regard to any of these forms, _but he ordered\nour governmernt to be what I may call by a strained expression a\ntheocracy_, attributing the power and the authority to God.\"\nCompare also, on this whole chapter, Die Pharisaer und die\nSadducaer, Greifswald, 1874.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nand when this writer speaks of the Mosaic constitution, he has\nbefore his eyes, it is well known, the sacred community of his\nown day as it existed down to the year 70 A.D.  In ancient Israel\nthe theocracy never existed in fact as a form of constitution.\nThe rule of Jehovah is here an ideal representation; only  after\nthe exile was it attempted to realise it in the shape of a Rule of\nthe Holy  with outward means.  It is perhaps the principal merit\nof Vatke's Biblical Theology to have traced through the centuries\nthe rise of the theocracy and the metamorphosis of the idea to an\ninstitution.\n\n\nXI.I.\n\nXI.I.1. The upholders of the prevailing view do not assert that\nMoses wrote the Pentateuch, but they maintain all the more firmly\nthat he organised the congregation of the tabernacle in the\nwilderness after the fashion described in the Priestly Code.  They\nseem to think that Moses had no importance further than this; as\nif it were an act of no moment to cast into the field of time a\nseed which the action and reaction thence arising bring an\nimmeasurable time after to maturity (Mark iv. 26 seq.).  In fact\nMoses is the originator of the Mosaic constitution in about the\nsame way as Peter is the founder of the Roman hierarchy.  Of the\nsacred organisation supposed to have existed from the earliest\ntimes, there is no trace in the time of the judges and the kings.\nIt is thought to have been a sort of pedagogic strait-waistcoat,\nto subdue the ungovernable obstinacy of the Hebrews and to guard\nthem from evil influences from without.  But even should it be\nconceded that a constitution could come into existence in ancient\ntimes which was so utterly out of relation to the peculiar life\nand temper of the people, the history of the ancient Israelites\nshows us nothing so distinctly as the uncommon freshness and\nnaturalness of their impulses.  The persons who appear always\nact from the constraining impulse of their nature, the men of\nGod not less than the murderers and  adulterers: they are such\nfigures as could only grow up in the open air.  Judaism, which\nrealised the Mosaic constitution and carried it out logically,\nleft no free scope for the individual; but in ancient Israel\nthe divine right did not attach to the institution but was in\nthe Creator Spirit, in individuals.  Not only did they speak\nlike the prophets, they also acted like the judges and kings,\nfrom their own free impulse, not in accordance with an outward\nnorm, and yet, or just because of this, in the Spirit of Jehovah.\nThe different view of different times is seen very characteristically\nin the views taken of Saul by the two versions above sifted and\ncompared <VII.II.2 >.\n\nXI.I.2. It is a simple and yet a very important remark of Vatke,\nthat the sacred constitution of the congregation, so circumstantially\ndescribed to us in the Priestly Code,  is after all very\ndefective, and presupposes the existence of that which it was the\nchief task of the age of Moses to bring about, namely the state,\nin the absence of which the church cannot have any subsistence\neither.  To maintain an elaborate and expensive worship, and an\nimmense swarm of clergy, must have required considerable rates and\ntaxes: and to raise these, as well as to uphold the authority of\nthe sacred persons and institutions, and most of all to enforce\nthe strict centralization and uniformity of the legitimate\nworship, all this among a people not yet very civilised, must have\nrequired an executive power which embraced and was able to\ncontrol, the whole people.  But where is this central authority\nin the period of the judges?  Judicial competence resided at that\ntime chiefly in the smallest circles, the families and houses.\nThese were but little controlled, as it appears, by the superior\npower of the tribe, and the very notion of the state or of the\nkingdom did not as yet exist.  Houses related to each other\nsometimes united for common undertakings, as no doubt also did\nneighbouring tribes; but this was not on the basis of any\nconstitutional order, but from necessity, when it happened that\na well-known man came forward to take the command and his summons\nto the levy was obeyed.  These transient combinations under generals\nwere the forerunners of a permanent union under a king: and even\nat the time of the Midianite war an attempt seems to have been\nmade in this direction, which, however, was not quite successful.\nIn the severe and protracted struggle with the Philistines the\nnecessity for a solid union of the tribes was cryingly manifest,\nand the man came forward to meet the hour.  Saul, a distinguished\nBenjamite of Gibeah, was overcome by anger at the scornful\nchallenge which even the Ammonites ventured at such a time to cast\nin the teeth of his people: he called his fellow-countrymen to battle,\nnot in virtue of any  office he held, but on the strength of his\nown impulses; his enthusiasm proved contagious, none dared to say\nhim nay.  He began his career just like one of the earlier judges,\nbut after he had led his people to victory they did not let him\nretire again.  The person sought for, the king, was found.\n\nOut of such natural beginnings did the state at that time arise:\nit owed nothing to the pattern of the \"Mosaic theocracy,\" but\nbears all the marks of a new creation.  Saul and David first made\nout of the Hebrew tribes a real people in the political sense\n(Deuteronomy xxxiii. 5).  David was in the eyes of later generations\ninseparable from the idea of Israel: he was the king par\nexcellence: Saul was thrown into the shade, but both together are\nthe founders of the kingdom, and have thus a much wider importance\nthan any of their successors.  It was they who drew the life of\nthe people together at a centre, and gave it an aim; to them the\nnation is indebted for its historical self-consciousness.  All the\norder of aftertimes is built up on the monarchy; it is the soil\nout of which all the other institutions of Israel grow up.  In the\ntime of the judges, we read, every man did that which was right\nin his own eyes, not because the Mosaic constitution was not in\nforce, but because there was no king in those days.  The\nconsequences were very important in the sphere of religion as well:\nsince the political advance of the people brought the historic\nand national character of Jehovah to the front again.  During the\ntime of the judges the Canaanite festival cultus had gradually\nbeen coming to be embodied in the worship of Jehovah, a process\nwhich was certainly necessary; but in this process there was for\nsome time a danger that Jehovah would become a God of husbandry\nand of cattle, like Baal-Dionysus.  The festivals long continued\nto be a source of heathenism, but now they were gradually divested\nof their character as nature-festivals, and forced at length to\nhave reference to the nation and to its history, if they were not\nto disappear completely.  The relation of Jehovah to people and\nkingdom remained firm as a rock: even to the worst idolaters He was\nthe God of Israel; in war no one thought of looking for victory\nand success to any other God.  This was the result of Israel's\nbecoming a kingdom: the kingship of Jehovah, in that precise\nsense which we associate with it, is the religious expression of\nthe fact of the foundation of the kingdom by Saul and David.  The\ntheocracy was the state of itself; the ancient Israelites\nregarded the civil state as a miracle, or, in their own words,\na help of God.  When the later Jews thought or spoke of the\ntheocracy, they took the state for granted as already there, and\nso they could build the theocracy on the top of it as a\nspecially spiritual feature: just as we moderns sometimes see the\ndivine element in settled ordinances, such as marriage, not in\ntheir own nature, but in the consecration added to them by the church.\n\nXI.I.3. The kingdom of Saul and David did not long remain at its\nheight.  Decay set in even at the separation, and when once the\nAssyrians were heard at the door, it advanced with steps not to be\narrested.  But the memory of the period of glory and power was\nall the greener, and the hope arose of its return.  From the\ncontrast between the sorrowful present and the brilliant past there\narose the picture of the state as it should be; when ruin was\nseen without and anarchy within, the prophets set against this\nthe pattern of the theocracy.  The theocracy  as the prophets\nrepresent it to themselves is not a thing essentially different\nfrom the political community, as a spiritual differs from a secular\npower; rather, it rests on the same foundations and is in fact\nthe ideal of the state.  Isaiah gave this ideal its classical form\nin those pictures of the future which we are accustomed to call\nMessianic prophecies.  These passages are not predictions of this\nor that occurrence, but announcements of the aims which, it is true,\nthe prophet only expects the future to realise, but which are of\nforce or ought to be of force in the present, and towards which the\ncommunity, if true to its own nature, must strive.\n\nThe first feature of these Messianic descriptions is the expulsion\nof the Assyrians; but most emphasis is laid on the restoration of\nthe inner bases of the state, the rottenness of which has brought\nabout and rendered inevitable the present crisis.  The collapse of\nthe government, the paralysis fallen on the law, the spoliation of\nthe weak by the strong, these are the evils that call for redress.\n\"How is the honourable city become a harlot; it was full of\njudgment, righteousness lodged in it--but now murderers!  Thy\nprinces are rascals and companions of thieves, every one loveth\ngifts and followeth after bribes; they judge not the fatherless,\nneither cloth the cause of the widow come unto them.  Therefore\nsaith the Lord: Ah, I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge\nme of mine enemies! And I will turn my hand against thee, Zion,\nand as with Iye I will purge away thy dross, and I will restore\nthy judges as at the first, and thy  counsellors as at the\nbeginning; afterwards thou shalt be called a righteous and\nhonourable city. Zion shall be redeemed by judgment and her\ninhabitants by  righteousness\" (Isaiah i. 21-27).\nThe state the prophet has before his eye is always the natural\nstate as it exists, never a community distinguished by a peculiar\nholiness in its organisation.  The kingdom of Jehovah is with him\nentirely identical with the kingdom of David; the tasks he sets\nbefore it are political in their nature, similar, we might say,\nto the demands one would address to the Turkish Empire in our own\ndays. He is unconscious of any difference between human and divine\nlaw: law in itself, jurist's law in the proper juristic sense of\nthe word, is divine, and has behind it the authority of the Holy\nOne of Israel.\n\nIn that day shall Jehovah of hosts be for a crown of glory and a\ndiadem of beauty unto the residue of His people, and for a spirit\nof judgment to him that sitteth in judgment, and a spirit of strength\nto them that drive back the battle from the  borders \" (xxviii. 5, 6).\nJehovah is a true and perfect King, hence justice is His principal\nattribute and His chief demand.  And this justice is a purely forensic\nor social notion: the righteousness of the Sermon on the Mount can\nonly come into consideration when civil justice and order have come\nto be a matter of course--which at that time they had not yet done.\n\nThe representative of Jehovah is the human king.  The earthly\nruler is not in the way of the heavenly: even the glorious\nkingdom of the future cannot dispense with him.\n\n\"Then a king shall reign in righteousness and princes shall rule\nin judgment; each of them shall be as an hiding-place from the wind\nand as a covert from the tempest; as rivers of waters in a dry place,\nas the shadow of a great rock in a weary land\" (xxxii. 1, 2).\n\nAs the reigning king is in general unsatisfactory, Isaiah hopes for\na new one who will answer the pattern of David of old, the Messiah.\n\n\"There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a\nbranch shall grow out of his roots: and the spirit of Jehovah\nshall rest upon Him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the\nspirit of counsel and of warlike might, the spirit of knowledge\nand of the fear of the Lord; and His breath shall be drawn in the\nfear of Jehovah.  And He shall not judge after the sight of His\neyes, nor decide by hearsay: but with righteousness shall He\njudge the poor, and give sentence with equity for the meek of the\nearth; but He shall smite the scorners with the rod of His mouth,\nand with the breath of His lips shall He slay the wicked, so that\nrighteousness shall be the girdle of His loins, and faithfulness\nthe girdle of His reins.  Then the wolf shall dwell with the lamb,\nand the leopard shall lie down with the kid: and the calf and the\nyoung lion together, and a little child shall lead them. And the\ncow and the bear shall feed, their young ones shall lie down\ntogether; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox: and the\nsucking child shall stroke the head of the adder, and the weaned\nchild shall put his hand on the eye-ball of the basilisk.  They\nshall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain\" (xi. 1-9)\n\nThis is generally considered to be a prediction of a universal\ngolden age on earth; but Isaiah only speaks of the holy\nmountain as the scene, meaning by this the whole city of David\nas the centre of his kingdom.  The just and strict government of\nthe descendant of David is to bring it about that righteousness\nand truth kiss each other, and that the strong do not dare to\ninjure the weak.  Fear of the severity of the law engenders\ngeneral confidence; the lamb is no longer afraid of the wolf.  The\nopposite of this ideal is lawlessness and anarchy within, not war\nwithout; the hope is not that of international peace, as we see\nboth from verse 1-5 and from verse 9.  The Messiah is adorned just\nwith the virtues which befit a ruler; and this shows sufficiently\nwhat is the nature of the kingdom of which he is to be the head,\ni.e., what is the notion of the theocracy.\n\nThe other prophets of this period agree with Isaiah (Lamentations iv.\n20), only Hosea is peculiar in this as in other points.  He\nappears to have regarded the kingdom as such as an evil; in more\nthan one expression he makes it the antithesis of the rule of\nJehovah.  But we have to remember that this judgment of his is\nbased entirely on his historical experience.  In the kingdom of\nthe ten tribes the supreme power was constantly being seized by\nusurpers, so that instead of being the pillar of order and law it\nwas the plaything of parties and the occasion of incessant\ndisturbances.  It is this North-Israelite kingdom that Hosea has\nin view; and he reprobates it for no other reason than that, in\nthe three hundred years of its existence, it has not approved\nitself, and does not approve itself in the present time of need.\nHe does not proceed as on _a priori_ theory, he does not apply as\nhis rule a pattern of the theocratic constitution given\nantecedently to any historical development.  There can be no\ndoubt that it never entered his head that the form God desired the\ncommunity to take was not a thing to be determined by circumstances,\nbut had been revealed at Mount Sinai. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. He even speaks with favour of David and the kingdom of Judah,\nbut I consider all such references in Hosea (as well as in Amos)\nto, be interpolations.  In i. 7 there is a reference to the\ndeliverance of Jerusalem under Hezekiah.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nXI.I.4. Nor did the theocracy exist from the time of Moses in the\nform of the covenant, though that was afterwards a favourite mode\nof regarding it.  The relation of Jehovah to Israel was in its nature\nand origin a natural one; there was no interval between Him and\nHis people to call for thought or question.  Only when the\nexistence of Israel had come to be threatened by the Syrians and\nAssyrians, did such prophets as Elijah and Amos raise the Deity\nhigh above the people, sever the natural bond between them, and\nput in its place a relation depending on conditions, conditions of\na moral character.  To them Jehovah was the God of righteousness\nin the first place, and the God of Israel in the second place, and\neven that only so far as Israel came up to the righteous demands\nwhich in His grace He had revealed to him.  They inverted the\norder of these two fundamental articles of faith.  \"If your sins\nare as scarlet, how should they be reckoned white as snow?  If\nthey are red like crimson, how should they be as wool? If ye\nbe willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land,\nbut if ye refuse and rebel, ye must eat the sword, for the mouth\nof Jehovah hath spoken it.\"\n\nThus the nature of the conditions which Jehovah required of His\npeople came to the very front in considering His relations with\nthem: the Torah of Jehovah, which originally, like all His dealings,\nfell under the category of divine aid, especially in the doing of\njustice, of divine guidance in the solution of difficult questions,\nwas now conceived of as incorporating the demands on the fulfilment\nof which His attitude towards Israel entirely depended.  In this way\narose, from ideas which easily suggested it, but yet as an entirely\nnew thing, the substance of the notion of covenant or treaty.  The\nname Berith, however, does not occur in the old prophets, not even\nin Hosea, who certainly  presents us as clearly as possible with\nthe thing, in his figure of the marriage of Jehovah and Israel\n(Isaiah i. 21).  That he was unacquainted with the technical usage\nof Berith is strikingly proved by ii. 20 and vi. 7; and these\npassages must decide the view we take of viii. 1, a passage which\nis probably interpolated.\n\nThe NAME Berith comes, it is likely, from quite a different\nquarter.  The ancient Hebrews had no other conception of law nor\nany other designation for it than that of a treaty.  A law only\nobtained force by the fact of those to whom it was given binding\nthemselves to keep it.  So it is in Exodus xxiv. 3-8, and in\n2Kings xxiii. 1-3; so also in Jeremiah xxxiv. 8 seq.--curiously\nenough just as with the people of Mecca at the time of Mohammed\n(lbn Hisham, p. 230 seq.).  Hence also the term Sepher Berith for\nthe Deuteronomic as well as the Jehovistic Book of the Law.\n\nThis use of the phrase Berith (ie., treaty) for law, fitted very\nwell with the great idea of the prophets, and received from it in\nturn an interpretation, according to which the relation of Jehovah\nto Israel was conditioned by the demands of His righteousness, as\nset forth in His word and instruction.  In this view of the matter\nJehovah and Israel came to be regarded as the contracting parties\nof the covenant by which the various representatives of the people\nhad originally pledged each other to keep, say, the Deuteronomic\nlaw. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\nI This variation gained entrance the more easily as Berith is used\nin various applications, e.g:, of the capitulation, the terms of\nwhich are imposed by the stronger on the weaker party: that the\ncontracting parties had equal rights was by no means involved in\nthe notion of the Berith.  See the wavering of the notion in\nJeremiah xxxiv. 13-18.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nAfter the solemn and far-reaching act by which Josiah introduced\nthis law, the notion of covenant-making between Jehovah and Israel\nappears to have occupied the central position in religious thought:\nit prevails in Deuteronomy, in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, in Isaiah xl.-lxvi.,\nLeviticus xvii.-xxvi., and most of all in the Book of the Four\nCovenants.  The Babylonian exile no doubt helped, as the Assyrian\nexile had previously done, to familiarise the Jewish mind with the\nidea that the covenant depended on conditions, and might possibly be\ndissolved.\n\n\nXI.II.\n\nXI.II.1. The tabernacle of David fell at last, and no king was born\nto set it up again.  The state suffered not a crisis, but\ndestruction.  And the result was that such of the religious hopes\nof the people as they still held fast, were no longer limited to\nexisting political conditions, but now took a freer flight, became\ntinged with enthusiasm, and cast off all restrictions.  In former\ntimes there was always an enemy threatening in the background, a\ndanger really approaching, to give rise to the expectation of a\ngreat conflagration, the materials for which had long been\ncollected in the nation itself: but after the exile fancy dealt\nin general coalitions of God knows what peoples against the New\nJerusalem, vaticinations for which there was no ground whatever\nin reality. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1 Ezekiel xxxviii. xxxix.; Isaiah lxvi. 18-24; Joel iv.;\nZechariah xii. xiv.  In Isaiah v. 26, on the other hand, we must,\nof course, read GWY, for GWYM, the singular instead of the plural.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIn earlier times the national state as it had existed under David\nwas the goal of all wishes.  Now a universal world empire was\nerected in imagination, which was to lift up its head at Jerusalem\nover the ruins of the heathen powers.  Prophecy was no longer\ntied to history, nor supported by it.\n\nBut the extravagant hopes now built on Jehovah were balanced on\nthe other side by sober and realisable aims which the course of\nhistory presented.  Those who waited for the consolation of\nIsrael were then confronted from the nature of their situation\nwith practical tasks.  The old prophets were satisfied with\nexpressing their ideas, with criticising existing evils; as to\npractical points they had nothing to say, the leadership of the\npeople was in other hands.  But the old community being now gone\nand its heads having fallen with it, the godly both had the power\nand felt the obligation to place themselves at the head of the\nIsrael now to be anew created, after which they had long been\nstriving, and their faith in which was still unshaken.  In former\ntimes the nation had not been so seriously threatened as that its\ncontinued existence, notwithstanding the dangerous crises it might\nhave to pass through, should ever cease to be regarded as natural,\nas a thing of course.  But now this was by no means a thing of\ncourse, the danger was a pressing one that the Jewish exiles,\nlike the Samaritan exiles before them, would be absorbed by the\nheathens among whom they dwelt.  In that case the Messianic hopes\nalso would have lost their point of application, for, however true\nit was that the realising of them was Jehovah's concern, the men must\nstill be there to whom they were to be fulfilled.  Thus everything\ndepended on getting the sacred remnant safe across this danger, and\ngiving it so solid an organisation that it might survive the\nstorms and keep alive the expectation of the promise.\n\nBut in the eyes of those whose words had weight in the restoration\nthe old community, as it had existed formerly, was not in good\nrepute.  They could not but allow Jehovah's sentence of\ncondemnation to be just which He had spoken by the mouth of His\nservants and through the voice of history.  The utterances of the\nprophets, that fortresses and horses and men of war, that kings and\nprinces, cannot help, were called to mind and turned into practical\nprinciples: the sole rule of Jehovah was to be carried out in earnest.\nCircumstances favoured the design, and this was the great point.\nAs matters then were, the reconstitution of an actual state was\nnot to be thought of, the foreign rule would not admit of it (Ezra\niv. 19 seq.).  What plan was to be taken, what materials to be\nused for such a building as the times allowed?  The prophetic\nideas would not serve as building stones; they were not\nsufficiently practical.  Then appeared the importance of\ninstitutions, of traditional forms, for the conservation even of\nthe spiritual side of the religion.\n\nThe Jewish royal temple had early overshadowed the other\nsanctuaries, and in the course of the seventh century they were\nextinct or verging on extinction.  Under the shelter of the\nmonarchy the priests of Jerusalem  had grown great and had at last\nattained, as against their professional brethren elsewhere, a\nposition of exclusive legitimacy.  The weaker the state grew, the\ndeeper it sank from the fall of Josiah onwards, the higher became\nthe prestige of the temple in the eyes of the people, and the\ngreater and the more independent grew the power of its numerous\npriesthood; how much more do we feel it in Jeremiah's time than in\nthat of Isaiah! This advance of the priesthood indicates unmistakably\nthe rise into prominence of the cultus in the seventh century,\na rise rather helped than hindered by the long reign of Manasseh,\nevil as is the reputation of that reign.  It shows itself not only\nin the introduction of more luxurious materials, incense, for example,\nbut even more in the importance given to great and striking services,\ne.g., the sacrifice of children, and the expiatory  offering.  Even\nafter the abolition of the horrid atrocities of Manasseh's time,\nthe bloody earnestness remained behind with which the performance\nof divine service was gone about.\n\nSo closely was the cultus of Jerusalem interwoven with the\nconsciousness of the Jewish people, and so strongly had the\npriesthood established their order, that after the collapse of the\nkingdom the elements still survived here for the new formation of\na \"congregation\" answering to the circumstances and needs of the\ntime.  Around the ruined sanctuary the community once more lifted\nup its head (1Kings viii.; Haggai i. seq.; Zechariah i. seq.).\nThe usages and ordinances were, though everywhere changes in\ndetail, yet not created afresh.  Whatever creating there was lay\nin this, that these usages were bound together in a system and\nmade the instruments of restoring an organisation of \"the remnant.\"\n\nEzekiel first pointed out the way which was suited for the time.\nHe is the connecting link between the prophets and the law.  He\nclaims to be a prophet, and starts from prophetic ideas: but they\nare not his own ideas, they are those of his predecessors which\nhe turns into dogmas.  He is by nature a priest, and his peculiar\nmerit is that he enclosed the soul of prophecy in the body of a\ncommunity which was not political, but founded on the temple and\nthe cultus.  The chapters xl.-xlviii. are the most important in\nhis book, and have been called by J. Orth, not incorrectly, the\nkey of the Old Testament.\n\nThus arose that artificial product, the sacred constitution of\nJudaism. In the Priestly Code we have the picture of it in\ndetail. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. It is not the case that the hierocracy is based on the\nPriestly Code: that code was only introduced after the\nhierocracy was already in existence, but helped, no doubt, to\nconsolidate and legalise it.  The written law afterwards\nundermined the rule of the priests; and the scriptures played\ninto the hands of the scribes and Pharisees.  (Compare the case\nof the Parsees and Sabians, and <the reference given here,..\nnamely \"p.157, note\" is in error.  There is no note on p. 157\nand I do not know what is being referred to ..>.)\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe distinction, drawn with such pains between the Mosaic\ntheocracy and the post-exilic hierocracy, is too fine. Theocracy\nas a constitution is hierocracy.  If Moses founded such a\nconstitution, he did it prophetically, with a view to circumstances\nwhich only arose a thousand years after his day, <V.II.1.; VII.II.4.>.\nOld Israel had not shrunk to a religious congregation, public life\nwas not quite absorbed in the service of the sanctuary; the high\npriest and the dwelling of Jehovah were not the centre round which\nall revolved <p.170 is not correct; >. These great changes were\nwrought by the destruction of the political existence first of\nSamaria, then of Judah.  In this way the people became \"a kingdom\nof priests and a holy nation,\" as we read in a Deuteronomistic\npassage, Exodus xix. 6.  If the divine rule was formerly a belief\nsupporting the natural ordinances of human society, it was now set\nforth in visible form as a divine state, in an artificial sphere\npeculiar to itself and transcending the ordinary life of the people.\nThe idea had formerly informed and possessed the natural body, but\nnow, in order that it might be thoroughly realised, it was to have\nspiritual body of its own. There arose a material, external antithesis\nof a sacred and profane; men's minds came to be full of this, and\nit was their great endeavour to draw the line as sharply as possible\nand to repress the natural sphere more and more.  Holiness is the\nruling idea in Ezekiel, in Leviticus xvii.-xxvi., and in the Priestly\nCode.  The notion is a somewhat empty one, expressing rather what\na thing is not than what it is; at first it meant the same as divine,\nbut now it is used mainly in the sense of spiritual, priestly, as if\nthe divine could be distinguished from the worldly, the natural, by\noutward visible marks of that kind.\n\nThe Mosaic theocracy, the residuum of a ruined state, is itself not\na state at all, but an unpolitical artificial product created in\nspite of unfavourable circumstances by the impulse of an\never-memorable energy: and foreign rule is its necessary\ncounterpart.  In its nature it is intimately allied to the old\nCatholic church, which was in fact its child. As a matter of taste\nit may be objectionable to speak of the Jewish church, but as a\nmatter of history it is not inaccurate, and the name is perhaps\npreferable to that of theocracy, which shelters such confusion of\nideas.\n\nXI.II.2. The Mosaic theocracy appears to show an immense\nretrogression.  The law of Jehovah should denote what is\ncharacteristic of His people over against the heathen.  But\nthis certainly did not consist in the cultus of Israel: it would\nbe vain labour to seek in this and that slight variation between\nthe Hebrew and the Greek ritual a difference of principle between\nthem.  The cultus is the heathen element in the Israelite religion--\nthe word heathen not being understood, of course, in an ignoble or\nunworthy sense.  If the Priestly Code makes the cultus the principal\nthing, that appears to amount to a systematic decline into the\nheathenism which the prophets incessantly combated and yet were\nunable to eradicate.  It will be readily acknowledged that at the\nconstitution of the new Jerusalem the prophetic impulses were\ndeflected by a previously existing natural tendency of the mass on\nwhich they had to operate.  Yet in every part of the legal worship\nwe see the most decided traces of their influence.  We have seen to\nwhat a large extent that worship is everywhere marked by a\ncentralising tendency.  This tendency is not connected in the Priestly\nCode with opposition to improper or foreign worship; yet it must be\ninterpreted as a polemical measure; and if it be regarded as an\naxiom necessary in the Priestly Code from the nature of the case,\nthat is only saving that the demands of the prophets had prevailed\nmost completely in a field where they had the greatest obstacles to\ncontend with.  Exclusive monolatry is by no means innate in the\ncultus; it can only be deduced from considerations which are\nforeign to the nature of the cultus: it is the antitype of strict\nmonotheism.  The prohibition of images, too, in the worship of the\nDeity, is not expressly insisted on, as in Deuteronomy, but is a\nprovision which is taken for granted; so little is this position\nin danger of question that even doubtful and repugnant elements are\nembodied in the worship and assimilated by it without hesitation.\nThe golden ephod, denounced by Isaiah, has become an insignificant\ndecoration of the high-priest: talismans, forbidden even by\nEzekiel, are allowed (Numbers xv. 37-41), but the object of them is\n\"that ye may look upon them and remember all the commandments of\nJehovah, and do them, and that ye follow not after your own heart\nand your own eyes, after which ye used to go a whoring.\"  The gross\nidolatry, with which the expression znh is always connected in\nother passages, is by this time out of the question: the heart\nitself with its lawless motions is the strange God, whose service\nis forbidden.\n\nWe may go further and say that by the cultus-legislation the\ncultus is estranged from its own nature, and overthrown in its own\nsphere.  That is most unmistakably the case with regard to the\nfestivals.  They have lost their reference to harvest and cattle,\nand have become historical commemorations: they deny their\nbirth from nature, and celebrate the institution of supernatural\nreligion and the gracious acts of Jehovah therewith connected.\nThe broadly human, the indigenous element falls away, they receive\na statutory character and a significance limited to Israel.\nThey no longer draw down the Deity into human life on all important\noccasions, to take part in its joys and its necessities: they are\nnot HUMAN ATTEMPTS with such naive means as are at command to please\nthe Deity and render Him favourable.  They are removed from the\nnatural sphere, and made DIVINE MEANS OF GRACE, which Jehovah has\ninstituted in Israel as sacraments of the theocracy.  The worshipper\nno longer thinks that in his gift he is doing God a pleasure,\nproviding Him with an enjoyment: what pleases Him and is effectual\nis only the strict observance of the rite.  The sacrifices must be\noffered exactly according to prescription: at the right place, at\nthe right time, by the right individuals, in the right way.  They are\nnot based on the inner value of what is done, on the impulse arising\nout of fresh occasions, but on the positive command of a will outside\nthe worshipper, which is not explained, and which prescribes every\nparticular.  The bond between cultus and sensuality is severed:\nno danger can arise of an admixture of impure immoral elements,\na danger which was always present in Hebrew antiquity.  Worship no\nlonger springs from an inner impulse, it has come to be an\nexercise of religiosity.  It has no natural significance; its\nsignificance is transcendental, incomparable, not to be defined;\nthe chief effect of it, which is always produced with certainty,\nis atonement.  For after the exile the consciousness of sin, called\nforth by the rejection of the people from the face of Jehovah,\nwas to a certain extent permanent: even when the hard service of\nIsrael was accomplished and the wrath really blown over, it would\nnot disappear.\n\nIf then the value of the sacred offerings lay not in themselves\nbut in obedience to the commandments of God, the centre of gravity\nof the cultus was removed from that exercise itself and\ntransferred to another field, that of morality.  The consequence\nwas that sacrifices and gifts gave way to ascetic exerctses,\nwhich were more strictly and more simply connected with morality.\nPrecepts given originally in reference to the consecration of the\npriests for their religious functions were extended to the laity:\nthe observance of these laws of physical cleanliness was of much\nmore radical importance in Judaism than the great public cultus,\nand led by the straightest road towards the theocratic ideal of\nholiness and of universal priesthood.  The whole of life was\ncompressed into a certain holy path; there was always a divine\ncommand to be fulfilled, and by thinking of it a man kept himself\nfrom following after the desires and lusts of his own heart.\nOn the other hand this private cultus, which constantly required\nattention, kept alive and active the individual sense of sin.\n\nThe great pathologist of Judaism is quite right: in the Mosaic\ntheocracy the cultus became a pedagogic instrument of discipline.\nIt is estranged from the heart; its revival was due to old\ncustom, it would never have blossomed again of itself.  It no\nlonger has its roots in childlike impulse, it is a dead work, in\nspite of all the importance attached to it, nay, just because of\nthe anxious conscientiousness with which it was gone about.  At\nthe restoration of Judaism the old usages were patched together in\na new system, which, however, only served as the form to preserve\nsomething that was nobler in its nature, but could not have been\nsaved otherwise than in a narrow shell that stoutly resisted all\nforeign influences.  That heathenism in Israel against which the\nprophets vainly protested was inwardly overcome by the law on\nits own ground; and the cultus, after nature had been killed in\nit, became the shield of supernaturalistic monotheism.\n\nThe end of the Prolegomena\n\n\n\nISRAEL\n\nReprinted from the \"Encyclopaedia Britannica\"\n\n\nI S R A E L.\n\n\n1.  THE BEGINNINGS OF THE NATION.\n\nAccording to the Book of Genesis, Israel was the brother of Edom,\nand the cousin of Moab and Ammon.  These four petty peoples,\nwhich may be classed together as the Hebrew group, must at one\ntime have formed some sort of a unity and have passed through a\ncommon history which resulted in their settlement in\nsouth-eastern Palestine.  The Israelites, or rather that section of\nthe Hebrew group which afterwards developed into Israel, appear at\nfirst to have been the immediate neighbours of Edom, and to have\nextended westwards towards the border of Egypt.  As regards the\nethnological position of the Hebrews as a whole, tradition has it\nthat they had connexions not only with the Aramaeans of Osrhoene\n(Nahor), but also with certain of the old half-Arab inhabitants of\nthe Sinaitic peninsula (Kenites, Amalek, Midian).  To the Canaanites,\nwhose language they had adopted, their relation was that of foreign\nconquerors and lords to a subject race (Gen. ix, 26).\n\nSome fifteen centuries before our era a section of the Hebrew group\nleft its ancient seat in the extreme south of Palestine to occupy\nthe not distant pasture lands of Egypt (Goshen), where they\ncarried on their old calling, that of shepherds and goatherds.\nAlthough settled within the territory of the Pharaohs,\nand recognising their authority, they continued to retain all\ntheir old characteristics,--their language, their patriarchal\ninstitutions, their nomad habits of life.\n\nBut in course of time these foreign guests were subjected to\nchanged treatment.  Forced labour was exacted of them for the\nconstruction of new public works in Goshen, an exaction which was\nfelt to be an assault upon their freedom and honour, and which in\npoint of fact was fitted to take away all that was distinctive of\ntheir nationality.  But they had no remedy at hand, and had\nsubmitted in despair, until Moses at last saw a favourable\nopportunity of deliverance.  Reminding his oppressed brethren\nof the God of their fathers, and urging that their cause was His,\nhe taught them to regard self-assertion against the Egyptians as\nan article of religion; and they became once more a united people\nin a determination to seek refuge from oppression in the wilderness\nwhich was the dwelling-place of their kindred and the seat of their\nGod.  At a time when Egypt was scourged by a grievous plague, the\nHebrews broke up their settlement in Goshen one night in spring,\nand directed their steps towards their old home again.  According\nto the accounts, the king had consented to the exodus, and latterly\nhad even forced it on, but it was none the less a secret flight.\n\nTo a not very numerous pastoral people such an undertaking\npresented no great difficulty.  Nevertheless its execution was not\nto be carried out unimpeded.  The Hebrews, compelled to abandon\nthe direct eastward road (Exod. xiii. 17, 18), turned towards\nthe south-west and encamped at last on the Egyptian shore of the\nnorthern arm of the Red Sea, where they were overtaken by\nPharaoh's army.   The situation was a critical one; but a high\nwind during the night left the shallow sea so low that it became\npossible to ford it.  Moses eagerly accepted the suggestion, and\nmade the venture with success.  The Egyptians, rushing after, came\nup with them on the further shore, and a struggle ensued.  But the\nassailants fought at a disadvantage, the ground being ill suited\nfor their chariots and horsemen; they fell into confusion and\nattempted a retreat.  Meanwhile the wind had changed; the waters\nreturned, apd the pursuers were annihilated./1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Exod. xvi. 21, 24, 25, 27, 30, 31.  According to the Old\nTestament the exodus took place 480 years before the building of\nSolomon's temple, and 960 years before the end of the Babylonian\ncaptivity.  These figures are \"systematic\" or at least\nsystematised, but even so they are certainly more trustworthy\nthan the combinations of the Egyptologists.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nAfter turning aside to visit Sinai as related in Exodus, the\nemigrants settled at Kadesh, eastwards from Goshen, on the\nsouthern borders of Palestine, /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. The site of Sinai (= Horeb?) hardly admits of ascertainment.\nThe best datum would be the sanctuary of Jethro, if we could\nidentify it with Midian (Jakut, iv.  451), which lies\non the Arabian coast of the Red Sea obliquely facing the\ntraditional Sinai.  With regard to Qadesh, see Quarterly\nStatement of the Palestine Exploration Fund (1871), pp. 20, 21.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nwhere they remained for many years, having at the well of Kadesh\ntheir sanctuary and judgment-seat only, while with their flocks\nthey ranged over an extensive tract.  In all probability their\nstay at Kadesh was no involuntary detention; rather was it this\nlocality they had more immediately had in view in setting out.\nFor a civilised community of from two to three millions such a\nsettlement would, of course, have been impossible; but it was\nquite sufficient for the immediate requirements of the Goshen\nshepherds, few in number as they were and inured to the life of\nthe desert.  That attempts may have been made by them to obtain\npossession of the more fertile country to the north is very likely;\nbut that from the outset they  contemplated the conquest of the\nwhole of Palestine proper, and that it was only in expiation of\na fault that they were held back at the gate of the promised land\nuntil the whole generation of the disobedient had died out, is not\nhistorically probable.\n\nWe can assign a definite reason for their final departure from\nKadesh.  In the district to the east of Jordan the (Canaanite)\nAmorites had, sometime previously, driven the Ammonites from the\nlower Jabbok and deprived the Moabites of all their territory to\nthe north of the Arnon; on the plateau opposite Jericho Heshbon\nhad become the capital of Sihon, the Amorite king.   This sovereign\nnow set himself to subdue southern Moab also, and not without\nsuccess.\n\n\"Fire went out from Heshbon, flame from the stronghold of Sihon,\ndevoured the cities of Moab upon the heights of Arnon.\nWoe to thee, O Moab!  thou art undone, O people of Chemosh!\"\n\nFrom these straits the Moabites were rescued by their cousins,\nthe nomads of the wilderness of Kadesh.  The Israelites came\nforward on behalf of what was at once the common Hebrew cause\nand their own particular interest; they took the field against\nthe Amorites, vanquished them in battle, and broke up the kingdom\nof Sihon.  The consequence was that the land to the south of the\nArnon remained in the undisputed possession of Moab, while the\nvictors themselves became masters of the territory immediately\nto the north.  Settled thus between Moab and Ammon their kinsmen,\nthe Israelites supplied the link that was wanting in the chain of\npetty Hebrew nationalities established in the south of eastern\nPalestine.\n\nThe army that went out against the Amorites from Kadesh was\ncertainly not exclusively composed of men who, or whose fathers,\nhad accomplished the passage of the Red Sea Israel was not a\nformed nation when it left Egypt; and throughout the whole period\nof its sojourn in the wilderness it continued to be in process of\ngrowth.  Instead of excluding the kindred elements which offered\nthemselves to it on its new soil, it received and assimilated them.\nThe life they had lived together under Moses had been the first\nthing to awaken a feeling of solidarity among the tribes which\nafterwards constituted the nation; whether they had previously\nbeen a unity in any sense of the word is doubtful.  On the other\nhand, the basis of the unification of the tribes must certainly\nhave been laid before the conquest of Palestine proper; for with\nthat it broke up, though the memory of it continued.  At the same\ntime it must not be supposed that all the twelve tribes already\nexisted side be side in Kadesh.  The sons of the concubines of\nJacob--Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher--manifestly do not pertain\nto Israel in the same sense as do those of Leah and Rachel;\nprobably they were late arrivals and of very mixed origin.\nWe know, besides, that Benjamin was not born until afterwards,\nin Palestine.  If this view be correct, Israel at first consisted\nof seven tribes, of which one only, that of Joseph, traced its\ndescent to Rachel, though in point of numbers and physical strength\nit was the equal of all the others together, while in intellectual\nforce it surpassed them.  The remaining six were the sons of\nLeah:--Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah; Issachar, Zebulon.  They are\nalways enumerated in this order; the fact that the last two are\nalso invariably  mentioned apart from the rest and after Joseph\nhas its explanation in geographical considerations.\n\nThe time of Moses is invariably regarded as the properly creative\nperiod in Israel's history, and on that account also as giving\nthe pattern and norm for the ages which followed.  In point of\nfact the history of Israel must be held to have begun then, and\nthe foundations of a new epoch to have been laid.  The prophets\nwho came after gave, it is true, greater distinctness to the peculiar\ncharacter of the nation, but they did not make it; on the contrary,\nit made them.  Again, it is true that the movement which\nresulted in the establishment of the monarchy brought together\nfor the first time into organic unity the elements which\npreviously had existed only in an isolated condition; but\nIsrael's sense of national personality was a thing of much earlier\norigin, which even in the time of the judges bound the\nvarious tribes and families together, and must have had a great\nhold on the mind of the nation, although there was no formal and\nbinding constitution to give it support.  When the Israelites\nsettled in Palestine they found it inhabited by a population\nsuperior to themselves both in numbers and in civilisation, which\nthey did not extirpate, but on the contrary gradually subdued\nand absorbed.  The process was favoured by affinity of race\nand similarity of speech; but, however far it went, it never had\nthe effect of making Israelites Canaanites; on the contrary, it\nmade Canaanites Israelites.   Notwithstanding their inferiority,\nnumerical and otherwise, they maintained their individuality,\nand that without the support of any external organisation.\nThus a certain inner unity actually subsisted long before it\nhad found any outward political expression; it goes back to\nthe time of Moses, who is to be regarded as its author.\n\nThe foundation upon which, at all periods, Israel's sense of its\nnational unity rested was religious in its character.  It was the\nfaith which may be summed up in the formula, Jehovah is the God\nof Israel, and Israel is the people of Jehovah.  Moses was not the\nfirst discoverer of this faith, but it was through him that it\ncame to be the fundamental basis of the national existence and\nhistory.  /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Jehovah is to be regarded as having originally been a family\nor tribal god, either of the family to which Moses belonged or of\nthe tribe of Joseph, in the possession of which we find the ark of\nJehovah, and within which occurs the earliest certain instance of\na composite proper name with the word Jehovah for one of its\nelements (Jeho-shua, Joshua).  No essential distinction was felt to\nexist between Jehovah and El, any more than between Asshur and\nEl; Jehovah was only a special name of El which had become\ncurrent within a powerful circle, and which on that account was\nall the more fitted to become the designation of a national god.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe exigencies of their position severe a number of kindred clans\nfrom their customary surroundings, and drove them into his arms.\nHe undertook the responsibilities of their leader, and the\nconfidence of success which he manifested was justified by the\nresult.  But it was not through any merit of his that the\nundertaking (of which he was the soul) prospered as it did; his\ndesign was aided in a wholly unlooked-for way, by a marvellous\noccurrence quite beyond his control, and which no sagacity could\npossibly have foreseen.  One whom the wind and sea obeyed had\ngiven him His aid.  Behind him stood One higher than he, whose\nspirit wrought in him and whose arm wrought for him,--not for his\npersonal aggrandisement indeed, but for the weal of the nation.\nIt was Jehovah.  Alike what was done by the deliberate purpose of\nMoses and what was done without any  human contrivance by nature\nand by accident came to be regarded in one great totality as the\ndoing of Jehovah for Israel.  Jehovah it was who had directed each\nstep in that process through which these so diverse elements,\nbrought together by the pressure of necessity, had been caused to\npass, and in the course of which the first beginnings of a feeling\nof national unity had been made to grow.\n\nThis feeling Moses was the first to elicit; he it was also who\nmaintained it in life and cherished its growth.  The extraordinary\nset of circumstances which had first occasioned the new national\nmovement continued to subsist, though in a less degree, throughout\nthe sojourn of the people in the wilderness, and it was under\ntheir pressure that Israel continued to be moulded.  To Moses, who\nhad been the means of so brilliantly helping out of their first\nstraits the Hebrews who had accompanied him out of Egypt, they\nnaturally turned in all subsequent difficulties; before him they\nbrought all affairs with which they were not themselves able to\ncope.  The authority which his antecedents had secured for him\nmade him as matter of course the great national \"Kadhi\" in the\nwilderness.   Equally as matter of course did he exercise his\njudicial functions, neither in his own interest nor in his own\nname, but in the interest of the whole community and in the name\nof Jehovah.  By connecting them with the sanctuary of Jehovah,\nwhich stood at the well of Kadesh, he made these functions\nindependent of his person, and thus he laid a firm basis for a\nconsuetudinary law and became the originator of the Torah in\nIsrael.  In doing this he succeeded in inspiring the national\nbeing with that which was the very life of his own soul; through\nthe Torah he gave a definite positive expression to their sense\nof nationality and their idea of God.  Jehovah was not merely\nthe God of Israel; as such he was the God at once of law and\nof justice, the basis, the informing principle, and the implied\npostulate of their national consciousness.\n\nThe relationship was carried on in precisely the same manner as\nthat in which it had been begun.  It was most especially in the\ngraver moments of its history that Israel awoke to full\nconsciousness of itself and of Jehovah.  Now, at that time and\nfor centuries afterwards, the highwater marks of history were\nindicated by the wars it recorded.  The name \"Israel\" means\n\"El does battle,\" and Jehovah was the warrior El, after whom the\nnation styled itself.  The camp was, so to speak, at once the\ncradle in which the nation was nursed and the smithy in which it\nwas welded into unity; it was also the primitive sanctuary.\nThere Israel was, and there was Jehovah.  If in times of peace the\nrelations between the two had become dormant, they were at once\ncalled forth into fullest activity when the alarm of danger was\nraised; Israel's awakening was always preceded by the awakening\nof Jehovah.  Jehovah awakened men who under the guidance of His\nspirit placed themselves at the nation's head; in them His proper\nleadership was visibly expressed.   Jehovah went forth with the\nhost to battle, and in its enthusiasm His presence was seen\n(Judges. v. 13, 23).  With signs and wonders from heaven Jehovah\ndecided the struggle carried on upon earth.  In it He was always\nupon Israel's side; on Israel was His whole interest concentrated,\nalthough His power (for He was God) reached far beyond their local\nlimits.\n\nThus Jehovah was in a very real sense a living God; but the\nmanifestations of His life in the great crises of His people's\nhistory were of necessity separated by considerable intervals\nof time.  His activity had something abrupt and tumultuary about\nit, better suited for extraordinary occasions than for ordinary\ndaily life.  Traces of this feeling appear very prominently in\nthe later stages of the development.  But although the relations\nbetween Israel and Israel's God came most strongly into\nprominence in times of excitement, yet it did not altogether die\nout in the periods of comparative repose.  It was in the case of\nJehovah just as in the case of the human leaders of the people, who\ndid not in times of peace wholly lose the influence they had\ngained in war.  Jehovah had His permanent court at the places of\nworship where in times of quietude men clung to Him that they\nmight not lose Him in times of trouble.  His chief, perhaps in the\ntime of Moses His only, sanctuary was with the so-called ark of\nthe covenant.  It was a standard, adapted primarily to the\nrequirements of a wandering and warlike life; brought back from\nthe field, it became, as symbol of Jehovah's presence, the central\nseat of His worship.  The cultus itself was more than a mere\npaying of court to Jehovah, more than a mere expedient for\nretaining His sympathies against times of necessity; the Torah of\nJehovah, the holy administration of law, was conjoined with it.\nThis had first of all been exercised, at the instance of the\npriest of Midian, by Moses at the well of Kadesh; it was\ncontinued after him, at the sanctuary, within the circle of those\nwho had attached themselves to him and were spiritually his heirs.\nIn cases where the wisdom or the competency of the ordinary\njudges failed, men turned direct to the Godhead, i.e., to the\nsanctuary and those who served it.  Their decisions, whether\ngiven according to their own lights or by lot (according to the\ncharacter of the question), were not derived from any law,\nbut were received direct from Jehovah.  /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1 They were consulted chiefly on points of law, but also on all\nsorts of difficulties as to what was right and to be done, or\nwrong and to be avoided.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe execution of their decisions did not lie with them; they\ncould only advise and teach.  Their authority was divine, or,\nas we should say, moral, in its character; it rested upon that\nspontaneous recognition of the idea of right which, though\nunexpressed, was alive and working among the tribes--upon Jehovah\nHimself, who was the author of this generally diffused sense of\nright, but revealed the proper determinations on points of detail\nonly to certain individuals.  The priestly Torah was an entirely\nunpolitical or rather prepolitical institution; it had an\nexistence before the state had, and it was one of the invisible\nfoundation pillars on which the state rested.\n\nWar and the administration of justice were regarded as matters\nof religion before they became matters of obligation and civil\norder; this is all that is really  meant when a theocracy is\nspoken of.  Moses certainly organised no formal state, endowed\nwith specific holiness, upon the basis of the proposition \"Jehovah\nis the God of Israel;\" or, at all events, if he did so, the fact\nhad not in the slightest degree any practical consequence or\nhistorical significance.  The old patriarchal system of families\nand clans continued as before to be the ordinary  constitution, if\none can apply such a word as constitution at all to an unorganised\nconglomeration of homogeneous elements.  What there was\nof permanent official authority lay in the hands of the elders\nand heads of houses; in time of war they commanded each his own\nhousehold force, and in peace they dispensed justice each within\nhis own circle.  But this obviously imperfect and inefficient\nform of government showed a growing tendency to break down just\nin proportion to the magnitude of the tasks which the nation in\nthe course of its history was called upon to undertake.  Appeal\nto Jehovah was always in these circumstances resorted to; His\ncourt was properly that of last resort, but the ordinary authorities\nwere so inadequate that it had often enough to be applied to.\nTheocracy, if one may so say, arose as the complement of anarchy.\nActual and legal existence (in the modern sense) was predicable\nonly of each of the many clans; the unity of the nation was\nrealised in the first instance only through its religion.  It was\nout of the religion of Israel that the commonwealth of Israel\nunfolded itself,--not a HOLY state, but THE state.  And the state\ncontinued to be, consciously, rooted in religion, which prevented\nit from quitting or losing its rapport with the soil from which\nit had originally sprung.  With the intermediate and higher stages\nof political organisation, with the building of the upper structure,\nhowever, religion had no concern; they were too far removed from\nthe foundation.  The derivative, which did not carry immediately\nin itself its own title to exist, was a matter of indifference\nto it; what had come into being it suffered to go its own way\nas soon as it was capable of asserting its independence.  For\nthis reason it always turned by preference to the future, not\nin a utopian but in a thoroughly practical way; by a single\nstep only did it keep ahead of the present.  It prepared the\nway  for such developments as are not derived from existing\ninstitutions, but spring immediately from the depths in\nwhich human society has its secret and mysterious roots.\n\nThe expression \"Jehovah is the God of Israel,\" accordingly, meant\nthat every tosk of the nation, internal as well as external, was\nconceived as holy.  It certainly did not mean that the almighty\nCreator of heaven and earth was conceived of as having first made\na covenant with this one people that by them He might be truly\nknown and worshipped.  It was not as if Jehovah had originally\nbeen regarded as the God of the universe who subsequently became\nthe God of Israel; on the contrary, He was primarily Israel's\nGod, and only  afterwards (very long afterwards) did He come to\nbe regarded as the God of the universe.  For Moses to have given\nto the Israelites an \"enlightened conception of God\" would have\nbeen to have given them a stone instead of bread; it is in the\nhighest degree probable that, with regard to the essential nature\nof Jehovah, as distinct from His relation to men, he allowed them\nto continue in the same way of thinking with their fathers.  With\ntheoretical truths, which were not at all in demand, He did not\noccupy himself, but purely with practical questions which were\nput and urged by the pressure of the times.  The religious\nstarting-point of the history of Israel was remarkable, not for\nits novelty, but for its normal character.  In all ancient\nprimitive peoples the relation in which God is conceived to stand\nto the circumstances of the nation--in other words,\nreligion--furnishes a motive for law and morals; in the case of\nnone did it become so with such purity and power as in that of\nthe Israelites.  Whatever Jehovah may have been conceived to be\nin His essential nature-God of the thunderstorm or the like--this\nfell more and more into the background as mysterious and\ntranscendental; the subject was not one for inquiry.  All stress\nwas laid upon His activity within the world of mankind, whose ends\nHe made one with His own.  Religion thus did not make men partakers\nin a divine life, but contrariwise it made God a partaker in the\nlife of men; life in this way was not straitened by it, but enlarged.\nThe so-called \"particularism\" of Israel's idea of God was in fact\nthe real strength of Israel's religion; it thus escaped from barren\nmythologisings, and became free to apply itself to the moral\ntasks which are always given, and admit of being discharged, only\nin definite spheres.  As God of the nation, Jehovah became the God\nof justice and of right; as God of justice and right, He came to\nbe thought of as the highest, and at last as the only, power in\nheaven and earth.\n\n\nIn the preceding sketch the attempt has been made to exhibit\nMosaism as it must be supposed to have existed on the assumption\nthat the history of Israel commenced with it, and that for\ncenturies it continued to be the ideal root out of which that\nhistory continued to grow.  This being assumed, we cannot treat\nthe legislative portion of the Pentateuch as a source from which\nour knowledge of what Mosaism really was can be derived; for it\ncannot in any sense be regarded as the starting-point of the\nsubsequent development.  If it was the work of Moses, then we\nmust suppose it to have remained a dead letter for centuries,\nand only through King Josiah and Ezra the scribe to have become\noperative in the national history (compare sections 8 and 10).\nThe historical tradition which has reached us relating to the\nperiod of the judges and of the kings of Israel is the main\nsource, though only of course in an indirect way, of our knowledge\nof Mosaism.  But within the Pentateuch itself also the historical\ntradition about Moses (which admits of being distinguished, and\nmust carefully be separated, from the legislative, although the\nlatter often clothes itself in narrative form) is in its main\nfeatures manifestly trustworthy, and can only be explained as\nresting on actual facts.\n\nFrom the historical tradition, then, it is certain that Moses was\nthe founder of the Torah.  But the legislative tradition cannot\ntell us what were the positive contents of his Torah.  In fact it\ncan be shown that throughout the whole of the older period the\nTorah was no finished legislative code, but consisted entirely\nof the oral decisions and instructions of the priests, as a whole\nit was potential only; what actually existed were the individual\nsentences given by the priesthood as they were asked for.  Thus\nMoses was not regarded as the promulgator once for all of a\nnational constitution, but rather as the first to call into\nactivity the actual sense for law and justice, and to begin the\nseries of oral decisions which were continued after him by the\npriests.  He was the founder of the nation out of which the Torah\nand prophecy came as later growths.  He laid the basis of\nIsrael's subsequent peculiar individuality, not by any one formal\nact, but in virtue of his having throughout the whole of his long\nlife been the people's leader, judge, and centre of union.\n\nA correct conception of the manner in which the Torah was made by\nhim can be derived from the narrative contained in Exod. xviii.,\nbut not from the long section which follows, relating to the\nSinaitic covenant (chap. xix. seq.).  The giving of the law at\nSinai has only a formal, not to say dramatic, significance.  It\nis the product of the poetic necessity for such a representation\nof the manner in which the people was constituted Jehovah's people\nas should appeal directly and graphically to the imagination.\nOnly so can we justly interpret those expressions according to\nwhich Jehovah with His own mouth thundered the ten commandments\ndown from the mountain to the people below, and afterwards for\nforty days held a confidential conference with Moses alone on the\nsummit.   For the sake of producing a solemn and vivid impression,\nthat is represented as having taken place in a single thrilling\nmoment which in reality occurred slowly and almost unobserved.\nWhy Sinai should have been chosen as the scene admits of ready\nexplanation.  It was the Olympus of the Hebrew peoples, the earthly\nseat of the Godhead, and as such it continued to be regarded by\nthe Israelites even after their settlement in Palestine (Judges\nv. 4, 5).  This immemorial sanctity  of Sinai it was that led to\nits being selected as the ideal scene of the giving of the law,\nnot conversely.  If we eliminate from the historical narrative\nthe long Sinaitic section which has but a loose connection with it,\nthe wilderness of Kadesh becomes the locality of the preceding\nand subsequent events.  It was during the sojourn of many years\nhere that the organisation of the nation, in any historical sense,\ntook place.  \"There He made for them statute and ordinance, and\nthere He proved them,\" as we read in Exod. xv. 26 in a dislocated\npoetical fragment.  \"Judgment and trial,\" \"Massa and Meribah,\"\npoint to Kadesh as the place referred to; there at all events is\nthe scene of the narrative immediately following (Exod. xvii. =\nNum. xx.), and doubtless also of Exod. xviii.\n\nIf the legislation of the Pentateuch cease as a whole to be\nregarded as an authentic source for our knowledge of what Mosaism\nwas, it becomes a somewhat precarious matter to make any\nexception in favour of the Decalogue.  In particular, the\nfollowing arguments against its authenticity must be taken into\naccount.\n\n(1) According to Exod. xxxiv. the commandments which stood upon\nthe two tables were quite different.\n\n(2) The prohibition of images was during the older period quite\nunknown; Moses himself is said to have made a brazen serpent which\ndown to Hezekiah's time continued to be worshipped at Jerusalem as\nan image of Jehovah.\n\n(3) The essentially and necessarily national character of the older\nphases of the religion of Jehovah completely disappears in the quite\nuniversal code of morals which is given in the Decalogue as the\nfundamental law of Israel; but the entire series of religious\npersonalities throughout the period of the judges and the kings--\nfrom Deborah, who praised Jael's treacherous act of murder, to David,\nwho treated his prisoners of war with the utmost cruelty--make it\nvery difficult to believe that the religion of Israel was from\nthe outset one of a specifically moral character.  The true spirit\nof the old religion may be gathered much more truly from Judges v.\nthan from Exod. xx.\n\n(4) It is extremely doubtful whether the actual monotheism which\nis undoubtedly pre-supposed in the universal moral precepts of\nthe Decalogue could have formed the foundation of a national\nreligion.  It was first developed out of the national religion at\nthe downfall of the nation, and thereupon kept its hold upon the\npeople in an artificial manner by  means of the idea of a covenant\nformed by the God of the universe with, in the first instance,\nIsrael alone (compare sections 6-10).\n\nAs for the question regarding the historical presuppositions of\nMosaism, there generally underlies it a misunderstanding arising\nout of theological intellectualism-an attribute found with\nspecial frequency among nontheologians.  Moses gave no new idea\nof God to his people.  The question whence he could have derived\nit therefore need not be raised.  It could not possibly be worse\nanswered, however, than by a reference to his relations witb the\npriestly caste of Egypt and their wisdom.  It is not to be\nbelieved that an Egyptian deity could inspire the Hebrews of\nGoshen with courage for the struggle against the Egyptians, or\nthat an abstraction of esoteric speculation could become the\nnational deity of Israel.  It is not inconceivable indeed,\nalthough at the same time quite incapable of proof, that Moses\nwas indebted to the Egyptian priests for certain advantages of\npersonal culture, or that he borrowed from them on all hands in\nexternal details of organisation or in matters of ritual.  But\nthe origin of the germ which developed into Israel is not to be\nsought for in Egypt, and Jehovah has nothing in common with the\ncolourless divinity of Penta-ur or with the God-forsaken dreariness\nof certain modern Egyptologists.  That monotheism must have been\na foreign importation, because it is contrary to that sexual\ndualism of Godhead which is the fundamental characteristic of\nSemitic religion, is an untenable exaggeration which has recently\nbecome popular out of opposition to the familiar thesis about the\nmonotheistic instinct of the Semites (Noldeke, Literar.\nCentralbl., 1877, p. 365).  Moab, Ammon, and Edom, Israel's\nnearest kinsfolk and neighbours, were monotheists in precisely\nthe same sense in which Israel itself was; but it would be foolish\nsurely in their case to think of foreign importation.\n\nManetho's statements about the Israelites are for the most part\nto be regarded as malicious inventions: whether any genuine\ntradition underlies them at all is a point much needing to be\ninvestigated.  The story of Exod. ii. 1 seq. is a mythus of\nfrequent recurrence elsewhere, to which no further significance is\nattached, for that Moses was trained in all the wisdom of the\nEgyptians is vouched for by no earlier authorities than Philo and\nthe New Testament.   According to the Old Testament tradition his\nconnexion is with Jethro's priesthood or with that of the Kenites.\nThis historical presupposition of Mosaism has external evidence in\nits favour, and is inherently quite probable.\n\n\n2.  THE SETTLEMENT IN PALESTINE.\n\nThe kingdom of Sihon did not permanently suffice the Israelites,\nand the disintegration of the Canaanites to the west of Jordan in\nan endless number of kingdoms and cities invited attack.  The\nfirst essay was made by Judah in conjunction with Simeon and\nLevi, but was far from prosperous.  Simeon and Levi were\nannihilated; Judah also, though successful in mastering the\nmountain land to the west of the Dead Sea, was so only at the cost\nof severe losses which were not again made up until the accession\nof the Kenite families of the south (Caleb).  As a consequence of\nthe secession of these tribes, a new division of the nation into\nIsrael and Judah took the place of that which had previously\nsubsisted between the families of Leah and Rachel; under Israel\nwere included all the tribes except Simeon, Levi, and Judah,\nwhich three are no longer mentioned in Judges v., where all\nthe others are carefully and exhaustively enumerated.  This\nhalf-abortive first invasion of the west was followed by a second,\nwhich was stronger and attended with much better results.  It was\nled by the tribe of Joseph, to which the others attached themselves,\nReuben and Gad only remaining behind in the old settlements.\nThe district to the north of Judah, inhabited afterwards by\nBenjamin, was the first to be attacked.  It was not until after\nseveral towns of this district had one by one fallen into the\nhands of the conquerors that the Canaanites set about a united\nresistance.  They  were, however, decisively repulsed by Joshua\nin the neighbourhood of Gibeon; and by this victory the Israelites\nbecame masters of the whole central plateau of Palestine.\nThe first camp, at Gilgal, near the ford of Jordan, which had\nbeen maintained until then, was now removed, and the ark of Jehovah\nbrought further inland (perhaps by way of Bethel) to Shiloh, where\nhenceforward the headquarters were fixed, in a position which\nseemed as if it had been expressly made to favour attacks upon\nthe fertile tract Iying beneath it on the north.  The Bne Rachel\nnow occupied the new territory which up to that time had been\nacquired,--Benjamin, in immediate contiguity with the frontier\nof Judah, then Ephraim, stretching to beyond Shiloh, and lastly\nManasseh, furthest to the north, as far as to the plain of Jezreel.\nThe centre of gravity, so to speak, already lay in Ephraim,\nto which belonged Joshua and that is mentioned as the last\nachievement of Joshua that at the waters of Merom he defeated\nJabin, king of Hazor, and the allied princes of Galilee, thereby\nopening up the north for Israelitish settlers.  It is quite what\nwe should expect that a great and united blow had to be struck\nat the Canaanites of the north before the new comers could occupy\nit in peace; and King Jabin, who reappears at a later date,\ncertainly does not suit the situation described in Judges iv. v.\n\nThe Book of Joshua represents the conquest of western Palestine as\nhaving been the common undertaking of all the tribes together,\nwhich, after the original inhabitants have been extirpated, are\nexhibited as laying the ownerless country  at Joshua's feet in\norder that he may divide it by lot amongst them.  But this is a\n\"systematic\" generalisation, contradicted by the facts which we\notherwise know.  For we possess another account of the conquest of\nPalestine, that of Judges i., which runs parallel with the Book of\nJoshua.  It is shorter indeed and more superficial, yet in its\nentire mode of presenting the subject more historical.   According\nto its narrative, it appears that Joshua was the leader of Joseph\nand Benjamin only, with whom indeed Issachar, Zebulon, Dan,\nNaphtali, and Asher made common cause.  But before his time the\ntribe of Judah had already crossed the Jordan and effected a\nlodgment in the territory which lay between the earlier seat of\nthe nation in the wilderness of Kadesh and its then settlement on\nthe plateau of Moab, forming in some degree a link of connection\nbetween the two.   It might be supposed that the tribe of Judah had\nnot taken the longer route to the eastward of the Dead Sea at\nall, but had already at Kadesh broken off from the main body and\nthence turned its steps directly northward.  But the representation\nactually given in Judges i., to the effect that it was from the\ndirection of the Jordan and not from that of the Negeb that they\ncame to take possession of their land, finds its confirmation\nin the fact that the southern portion of their territory was\nthe last to come into their possession.  The tradition is\nunwavering that Hebron was taken not by Judah but by Caleb,\na family which stood in friendly relations with Israel, but had\nno connexion with it by blood.  It was only through the policy\nof David that Caleb, Othniel, Jerachmeel, and the rest of the\nKenites who had their homes in the Negeb became completely\nincorporated with Judah, so that Hebron became at last the capital\nof that tribe.  Its oldest seats, however, lay further to the\nnorth, in the region of Tekoa, Bethlehem, Baal Judah.\n\nIt harmonises well with this view to suppose that Simeon\nand Levi must have made at the same time their attempt to\neffect a settlement in the hill country of Ephraim.  One\nof their families, Dinah bath Leah, met with a favourable\nreception in the town of Shechem, and began to mix freely with\nits population, and thus the way was paved for the establishment\nof peaceable relations between the old inhabitants of the land\nand the new importations.  But these relations were brought to\nan end by the two brothers who, in concert it must be supposed\nwith their sister, fell upon the Shechemites and massacred\nthem.  The final result proved disastrous.  The Canaanites\nof the surrounding country united against them and completely\ndestroyed them.   There can be no doubt as to the trustworthiness\nof the somewhat enigmatical records of those events which are\ngiven in Gen. xlix. and xxxiv.; in no other way is it possible\nto explain why Simeon and Levi, which originally came upon the\nstage of history on an equal footing with Reuben and Judah, should\nhave already disappeared as independent tribes at the very\nbeginning of the period of the judges.  Now, that the destruction\nof Shechem by the Manassite Abimelech is quite distinct from the\nattack made by Simeon and Levi need hardly be said.   On the\nother hand, the occurrence cannot be regarded as pre-Mosaic, but\nmust be assigned to a time previous to the conquest of the hill\ncountry of Ephraim by Joseph; for after Joseph's settlement\nthere the two sons of Leah had manifestly nothing more to hope\nfor in that locality.  We are shut up, therefore, to the\nconclusion that they crossed the Jordan at the same time as Judah\nseparated himself from the main body in search of a suitable\nterritory.  That Simeon accompanied Judah in the first westward\nattempt is expressly stated in Judges i.  The fate of Levi,\nagain, cannot be separated from that of Simeon (Gen. xlix. 5-7);\nthat he is not expressly mentioned in Judges i. ought not to\ncause surprise, when it is considered that later generations which\nregarded Levi as neither more nor less than a priest would have\nsome difficulty in representing him as a thoroughly secular\ntribe.  Such nevertheless he must have been, for the poet in Genesis\nxlix. 5-7 puts him on a footing of perfect equality with Simeon,\nand attributes to both brothers a very secular and bloodthirsty\ncharacter; he has no conception that Levi has a sacred vocation\nwhich is the reason of the dispersion of the tribe; the\ndispersion, on the contrary, is regarded as a curse and no\nblessing, an annihilation and not the means of giving permanence\nto its tribal individuality.  The shattered remains of Simeon,\nand doubtless those of Levi also, became incorporated with Judah,\nwhich thenceforward was the sole representative of the three sons\nof Leah, who according to the genealogy had been born immediately\nafter Reuben the first-born.  Judah itself seems at the same time\nto have suffered severely.  Of its three older branches, Er, Onan,\nand Shelah, one only survived, and only by the accession of\nforeign elements did the tribe regain its vigour,--by the fresh\nblood which the Kenites of the Negeb brought.  For Zarah and\nPharez, which took the place of Er and Onan after these had\ndisappeared, belonged originally, not to Israel, but to Hezron or\nthe Kenites; under this designation are included families like\nthose of Othniel, Jerachmeel, and Caleb, and, as has been already\nremarked, even in David's time these were not reckoned as strictly\nbelonging to Judah.  Thus the depletion which the tribe had to\nsuffer in the struggle with the Canaanites at the beginning of the\nperiod of the judges was the remote cause of the prominence which,\naccording to 1Chronicles ii., the Bne Hezron afterwards attained in\nJudah.   The survivors of Simeon also appear to have been forced\nback upon these Hezronites in the Negeb; the cities assigned to\nthem in the Book of Joshua all belong to that region.\n\nEven after the united resistance of the Canaanites had been broken,\neach individual community had still enough to do before it could\ntake firm hold of the spot which it had searched out for itself or\nto which it had been assigned.  The business of effecting permanent\nsettlement was just a continuation of the former struggle, only\non a diminished scale; every tribe and every family now fought\nfor its own land after the preliminary work had been accomplished\nby a united effort.  Naturally, therefore, the conquest was at first\nbut an incomplete one.   The plain which fringed the coast was\nhardly touched; so also the valley of Jezreel with its girdle\nof fortified cities stretching from Acco to Bethshean.  All that\nwas subdued in the strict sense of that word was the mountainous\nland, particularly the southern hill country of \"Mount Ephraim;\"\nyet, even here the Canaanites retained possession of not a few\ncities, such as Jebus, Shechem, Thebez.  It was only after the\nlapse of centuries that all the lacunae were filled up, and the\nCanaanite enclaves made tributary.\n\nThe Israelites had the extraordinarily disintegrated state of\nthe enemy to thank for the ease with which they had achieved\nsuccess.  The first storm subsided comparatively soon, and\nconquerors and conquered alike learned to accommodate themselves\nto the new circumstances.  Then the Canaanites once more collected\nall their energies to strike a blow for freedom.  Under the\nhegemony of Sisera a great league was formed, and the plain of\nJezreel became the centre of the reorganised power which made\nitself felt by its attacks both northwards and southwards.  The\nIsraelites were strangely helpless; it was as if neither shield\nnor spear could be found among their 40,000 fighting men.  But at\nlast there came an impulse from above, and brought life and soul to\nthe unorganised mass; Deborah sent out the summons to the tribes,\nBarak came forward as their leader against the kings of Canaan who\nhad assembled under Sisera's command by the brook of Kishon.  The\ncavalry of the enemy  was unable to withstand the impetuous rush\nof the army of Jehovah, and Sisera himself perished in the\nflight.  From that day the Canaanites, although many strong\ntowns continued to be held by them, never again raised their\nheads.\n\nAfter these occurrences some further changes of a fundamental\ncharacter took place in the relations of the tribes.  The Danites\nproved unable to hold against the forward pressure of the\nPhilistines their territory on the coast to the west of Benjamin\nand Ephraim; they accordingly sought a new settlement, which was\nfound in the north at the foot of Hermon.  In this way all the\nsecondary tribes westward of Jordan (Asher, Naphtali, Dan) came\nto have their seats beside each other in the northern division\nof the land.  Eastward of Jordan, Reuben rapidly fell from his\nold prominence, sharing the fate of his next eldest brethren\nSimeon and Levi.  When Eglon of Moab took Jericho, and laid\nBenjamin under tribute, it is obvious that he must previously\nhave made himself master of Reuben's territory.  This territory\nbecame thenceforward a subject of constant dispute between Moab\nand Israel; the efforts to recover it, however, did not proceed\nfrom Reuben himself, but from Gad, a tribe which knew how to\nassert itself with vigour against the enemies by which it was\nsurrounded.  But if the Hebrews lost ground in the south, they\nmaterially enlarged their borders in the north of the land\neastward of Jordan.  Various Manassite families, finding their\nholdings at home too small, crossed the Jordan and founded\ncolonies at Bashan and northern Gilead.  Although this\ncolonisation, on account of the rivalry of the Aramaeans, who\nwere also pressing forward in this direction, was but\nimperfectly successful, it nevertheless was of very great\nimportance, inasmuch as it seemed to give new strength to the bonds\nthat united the eastern with the western tribes.  Not only was\nGilead not lost; it even became a very vigorous member of the\nbody politic.  /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. It is probable that Manasseh's migration to the territory\neastward of Jordan took place from the west, and later than the\ntime of Moses.  The older portions of the Hexateuch speak not of\ntwo and a half but only of two trans-Jordanic tribes, and exclude\nManasseh; according to them the kingdom of Sihon alone was subdued\nby Moses, not that of Og also, the latter, indeed, being a wholly\nlegendary personage.  In the song of Deborah, Machir is reckoned\namong the western tribes, and it was not until much later that\nthis became the designation of the Manassites eastward of Jordan.\nIt is also worth noticing that Jair's colonisation of northern\nGilead did not take place until the time of the judges (Judges x.\n3 seq.), but is related also in Num. xxxii. 39-42.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe times of agitation and insecurity which followed upon the\nconquest of Palestine invited attacks by the eastern nomads, and\nonce more the Israelite peasantry showed all its old helplessness,\nuntil at last the indignation of a Manassite of good family,\nGideon or Jerubbaal, was roused by  the Midianites, who had\ncaptured some of his brothers and put them to death.   With his\nfamily, that of Abiezer, he gave pursuit, and, overtaking the enemy\non the borders of the wilderness, inflicted on them such\nchastisement as put an end to these incursions.  His heroism\nhad consequences which reached far beyond the scope of his original\npurpose.  He became the champion of the peasantry against the\nfreebooters, of the cultivated land against the waste; social\nrespect and predominance were his rewards.  In his native town\nof Ophrah he kept up a great establishment, where also he built\na temple with an image of Jehovah overlaid with the gold which\nhe had taken from the Midianites.  He transmitted to his sons\nan authority, which was not limited to Abiezer and Manasseh\nalone, but, however slightly  and indirectly, extended over\nEphraim as well.\n\nOn the foundations laid by Gideon Abimelech his son sought to\nestablish a kingship over Israel, that is, over Ephraim and\nManasseh.  The predominance, however, which had been naturally\naccorded to his father in virtue of his personal merits, Abimelech\nlooked upon as a thing seized by force and to be maintained with\ninjustice; and in this way he soon destroyed those fair\nbeginnings out of which even at that time a kingdom might have\narisen within the house of Joseph.  The one permanent fruit of his\nactivity was that Shechem was destroyed as a Canaanite city and\nrebuilt for Israel.  /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. On the narratives contained in the Book of Judges see Bleek,\nEinl. ins Alte Testament (4th ed.), 88-98, and especially the\nsections on Barak and Sisera, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, the Danite\nmigration, and the Benjamites of Gibeah (93-98).\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe most important change of the period of the judges went on\ngradually  and in silence.  The old population of the country,\nwhich, according to Deuteronomy, was to have been exterminated,\nslowly became amalgamated with the new.  In this way the\nIsraelites received a very important accession to their numbers.\nIn Deborah's time the fighting men of Israel numbered 40,000;\nthe tribe of Dan when it migrated to Laish, counted 600 warriors;\nGideon pursued the Midianites with 300.  But in the reigns of Saul\nand David we find a population reckoned by millions.  The rapid\nincrease is to be accounted for by  the incorporation of the\nCanaanites.\n\nAt the same time the Hebrews learned to participate in the culture\nof the Canaanites, and quietly entered into the enjoyment of the\nlabours of their predecessors.  From the pastoral they advanced\nto the agricultural stage; corn and wine, the olive and the fig,\nwith them are habitually spoken of as the necessaries of life.\nIt was not strange that this change in the manner of their\neveryday life should be attended with certain consequences in\nthe sphere of religion also.  It is inconceivable that the\nIsraelites should have brought with them out of the desert the\ncultus they  observed in the time of the kings (Exod. xxii. xxiii.\nxxiv.), which throughout presupposed the fields and gardens of\nPalestine; they borrowed it from the Canaanites.  /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. In the earliest case where the feast of the ingathering,\nafterwards the chief feast of the Israelites, is mentioned, it is\ncelebrated by Canaanites of Shechem in honour of Baal (Judges ix.\n27).\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThis is confirmed by the fact that they took over from these the\n\"Bamoth\" or \"high places\" also, notwithstanding the prohibition\nin Deuteronomy xii.\n\nIt was natural enough that the Hebrews should also appropriate\nthe divinity worshipped by the Canaanite peasants as the giver\nof their corn, wine, and oil, the Baal whom the Greeks identified\nwith Dionysus.  The apostasy to Baal, on the part of the first\ngeneration which had quitted the wilderness and adopted a settled\nagricultural life, is attested alike by historical and prophetical\ntradition.   Doubtless Baal, as the god of the land of Canaan, and\nJehovah, as the God of the nation of Israel, were in the first\ninstance co-ordinated.  /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. In Judges v. Jehovah retains his original abode in the\nwilderness of Sinai, and only on occasions of necessity quits it\nto come to Palestine.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nBut it was not to be expected that the divinity of the land\nshould permanently be different from the God of the dominant\npeople.  In proportion as Israel identified itself with the\nconquered territory, the divinities also were identified.  Hence\narose a certain syncretism between Baal and Jehovah, which had not\nbeen got over even in the time of the prophet Hosea.  At the same\ntime the functions of Baal were more frequently transferred to\nJehovah than conversely.  Canaan and Baal represented the female,\nIsrael and Jehovah the male, principle in this union.\n\nHad the Israelites remained in the wilderness and in barbarism,\nthe historical development they subsequently reached would hardly\nhave been possible; their career would have been like that of\nAmalek, or, at best, like those of Edom, Moab, and Ammon.  Their\nacceptance of civilisation was undoubtedly a step in the forward\ndirection; but as certainly did it also involve a peril.  It\ninvolved an overloading, as it were, of the system with materials\nwhich it was incapable of assimilating at once.  The material\ntasks imposed threatened to destroy the religious basis of the\nold national life.  The offensive and defensive alliances\namong the tribes gradually dissolved under the continuance of\npeace; the subsequent occupation of the country dispersed those\nwhom the camp had united.  The enthusiastic _elan_ with which the\nconquest had been achieved gave way to the petty drudgery by which\nthe individual families, each in its own circle, had to accommodate\nthemselves to their new surroundings.  Yet under the ashes the\nembers were still aglow; and the course of history ever fanned\nthem anew into flame, bringing home to Israel the truths that man\ndoes not live by bread alone, and that there are other things of\nworth than those which Baal can bestow; it brought ever again\ninto the foreground the divineness of heroical self sacrifice of\nthe individual for the good of the nation.\n\n\n3.  THE FOUNDATION OF THE KINGDOM, AND THE FIRST THREE KINGS.\n\nThe Philistines were the means of arousing from their slumber\nIsrael and Jehovah.  From their settlements by the sea on the\nlow-lying plain which skirts the mountains of Judah on the west,\nthey pressed northwards into the plain of Sharon, and thence into\nthe plain of Jezreel beyond, which is connected with that of\nSharon by the upland valley of Dothan.  Here, having driven out\nthe Danites, they came into direct contact with the tribe of\nJoseph, the chief bulwark of Israel, and a great battle took\nplace at Aphek, where the plain of Sharon merges into the valley\nof Dothan.  The Philistines were victorious and carried off as a\ntrophy the Israelite standard, the ark of Jehovah.  Their further\nconquests included, not only the plain of Jezreel and the hill\ncountry bordering it on the south, but also the proper citadel\nof the country, \"Mount Ephraim.\"  The old sanctuary at Shiloh\nwas destroyed by them; its temple of Jehovah thenceforward lay\nin ruins.  Their supremacy extended as far as to Benjamin; the\nPhilistines had a nec,ib in Gibeah.  /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. _nec,ib_ is an Aramaic word of uncertain meaning.  In the name of\nthe town _Nec,ibin_ (Nisibis) it certainly seems to mean \"pillars;\"\naccording to 1Kings iv. 5 and xxii. 48 (where it is pointed\nniccab), \"governor\", seems the best translation, and this is the\nonly rendering consistent with the expression in 1Samuel xiii. 3\n(\"Jonathan slew the _necib_,\" &c.).\n-- Footnote\n\n\nBut the assertion that they had confiscated all weapons and\nremoved all smiths must be regarded as an unhistorical\nexaggeration; under their regime at all events it was possible\nfor the messengers of a beleaguered city on the east of Jordan\nto summon their countrymen in the west to their relief.\n\nThe shame of the Israelites under the reproach of Philistine\noppression led, in the first instance, to a widespread exaltation\nof religious feeling.  Troops of ecstatic enthusiasts showed\nthemselves here and there, and went about with musical\naccompaniments in processions which often took the shape of wild\ndances; even men of the most sedate temperament were sometimes\nsmitten with the contagion, and drawn into the charmed circle.\nIn such a phenomenon, occurring in the East, there was nothing\nintrinsically strange; among the Canaanites, such \"Nebiim\"--for\nso they were styled--had long been familiar, and they continued\nto exist in the country after the old fashion, long after their\noriginal character, so far as Israel was concerned, had been wholly\nlost.  The new thing at this juncture was that this spirit passed\nover upon Israel, and that the best members of the community were\nseized by it.  It afforded an outlet for the suppressed excitement\nof the nation.\n\nThe new-kindled zeal had for its object, not the abolition of Baal\nworship, but resistance to the enemies of Israel.  Religion and\npatriotism were then identical.  This spirit of the times was\nunderstood by an old man, Samuel ben Elkanah, who lived at Ramah\nin south-western Ephraim.  He was not himself one of the Nebiim;\non the contrary, he was a seer of that old type which had for a\nlong time existed amongst the Hebrews much as we find it amongst\nthe Greeks or Arabs.  Raised by his foreseeing talent to a\nposition of great prominence, he found opportunity to occupy\nhimself with other questions besides those which he was\nprofessionally called on to answer.  The national distress\nweighed upon his heart; the neighbouring peoples had taught him to\nrecognise the advantages which are secured by the consolidation of\nfamilies and tribes into a kingdom.  But Samuel's peculiar merit\nlay, not in discovering what it was that the nation needed, but in\nfinding out the man who was capable of supplying that need.\nHaving come to know Saul ben Kish, a Benjamite of the town of\nGibeah, a man of gigantic form, and swift, enthusiastic nature, he\ndeclared to him his destiny to become king over Israel.\n\nSaul very soon had an opportunity for showing whether Samuel\nhad been a true seer or no.  The city of Jabesh in Gilead was\nbesieged by the Ammonites, and the inhabitants declared\nthemselves ready to surrender should they fail in obtaining\nspeedy succour from their countrymen.  Their messengers had\npassed through all Israel without meeting with anything more\nhelpful than pity, until at last tidings of their case reached\nSaul as he was returning with a yoke of oxen from the field.\nHewing his cattle in pieces, he caused the portions to be sent\nin all directions, with the threat that so should it be done\nwith the oxen of every one who should refuse to help in relieving\nJabesh.  The people obeyed the summons, fell suddenly one morning\nupon the Ammonites, and delivered the beleaguered city.\n\nHaving thus found Saul the man for their need, they refused to\nlet him go.  In Gilgal, Joshua's old camp, they anointed him king.\nThe act was equivalent to imposing upon him the conduct of the\nstruggle against the Philistines, and so he understood it.  The\nfirst signal for the attack was given by his son Jonathan, when\nhe slew the _necib_ of the Philistines at Gibeah.  These in\nconsequence advanced in force towards the focus of the revolt,\nand took up a position opposite Gibeah on the north, being divided\nfrom it only by the gorge of Michmash.  Only a few hundred\nBenjamites ventured to remain with Saul.   The struggle opened\nwith a piece of genuine old heroic daring.   While the Philistines\nwere dispersed over the country in foraging expeditions, Jonathan,\naccompanied by his armour-bearer only, and without the knowledge\nof Saul, made an attack upon the weak post which they had left\nbehind at the pass of Michmash.  After the first had been\nsurprised and overmastered, the others took to flight, no doubt\nin the belief that the two assailants were supported.  They\ncarried their panic with them into the half-deserted camp, whence\nit spread among the various foraging bands.  The commotion was\nobserved from Gibeah opposite, and, without pausing to consult the\npriestly oracle, King Saul determined to attack the camp.  The\nattempt was completely successful, but involved no more than the\ncamp and its stores; the Philistines themselves effected an\nunmolested retreat by the difficult road of Bethhoron.\n\nSaul was no mere raw stripling when he ascended the throne;\nhe already had a grown-up son at his side.  Nor was he of\ninsignificant descent, the family to which he belonged being a\nwidespread one, and his heritage considerable.  His establishment\nat Gibeah was throughout his entire reign the nucleus of his\nkingdom.  The men on whom he could always reckon were his Benjamite\nkinsmen.  He recognised as belonging to him no other public\nfunction besides that of war; the internal affairs of the country\nhe permitted to remain as they  had been before his accession.\nWar was at once the business and the resource of the new kingdom.\nIt was carried on against the Philistines without interruption,\nthough for the most part not in the grand style but rather in a\nseries of border skirmishes.  /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1 As regards the position of Samuel in the theocracy and the\nrelation in which the stood to Saul, the several narratives in the\nBook of Samuel differ widely.  The preceding account, so far as it\nrelates to Samuel, is based upon 1Samuel ix., x. 1-15, xi., where\nhe appears simply as a Roeh at Ramah, and has nothing to do\neither with the administration of the theocracy or with the\nNebiim.  Compare Prolegomena above, chap. VII.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIt is not without significance that the warlike revival of the\nnation proceeded from Benjamin.  By the battle of Aphek Ephraim\nhad lost at once the hegemony and its symbols (the camp-sanctuary\nat Shiloh, the ark of the covenant).  The centre of Israel\ngravitated southward, and Benjamin became the connecting link\nbetween Ephraim and Judah.  It would appear that there the tyranny\nof the Philistines was not so much felt.  Their attacks never were\nmade through Judah, but always came from the north; on the other\nhand, people fled from them southwards, as is instanced by the\npriests of Shiloh, who settled in Nob near Jerusalem.  Through\nSaul Judah entered definitely into the history of Israel; it\nbelonged to his kingdom, and it more than most others supplied him\nwith energetic and faithful supporters.  His famous expedition\nagainst the Amalekites had been undertaken purely in the\ninterests of Judah, for it only  could possibly suffer from their\nmarauding hordes.\n\nAmong the men of Judah whom the war brought to Gibeah, David ben\nJesse of Bethlehem took a conspicuous place; his skill on the harp\nbrought him into close relations with the king.  He became Saul's\narmour-bearer, afterwards the most intimate friend of his son,\nfinally the husband of his daughter.  While he was thus winning\nthe affections of the court, he at the same time became the\ndeclared favourite of the people, the more so because unexampled\ngood fortune attended him in all he undertook.  This excited the\njealousy of Saul, naturally enough in an age in which the king\nalways required to be the best man.  Its first outburst admitted\nof explanation as occasioned by an attack of illness; but soon\nit became obtrusively clear that the king's love for his\nson-in-law had changed into bitter hatred.  Jonathan warned his\nfriend and facilitated his flight, the priests of Nob at the same\ntime providing him with arms and food.  He went into the\nwilderness of Judah, and became the leader of a miscellaneous band\nof outlaws who had been attracted by his name to lead a roving life\nunder his leadership.  His kinsmen from Bethlehem were of their\nnumber, but also Philistines and Hittites.  Out of this band David's\nbodyguard subsequently grew, the nucleus of his army.  They reckoned\nalso a priest among them, Abiathar ben Ahimelech ben Ahitub ben\nPhinehas ben Eli, the solitary survivor of the massacre of the\nsons of Eli at Nob which Saul had ordered on account of suspected\nconspiracy with David.   Through him David was able to have\nrecourse to the sacred lot before the ephod.  In the end he found\nit impossible to hold his own in Judah against Saul's\npersecutions, especially as his countrymen for the most part\nwithheld their assistance.  He therefore took the desperate step\nof placing his services at the disposal of Achish the Philistine\nking of Gath, by whom he was received with open arms, the town of\nZiklag being assigned him as a residence.  Here with his band he\ncontinued to follow his old manner of life as an independent\nprince, subject only to an obligation to render military service\nto Achish.\n\nMeanwhile the Philistines had once more mustered their forces and\nmarched by the usual route against Israel.  Saul did not allow\nthem to advance upon Gibeah, but awaited their attack in the plain\nof Jezreel.  A disastrous battle on Mount Gilboa ensued; after\nseeing his three eldest sons fall one after another at his side,\nSaul threw himself upon his sword, and was followed by his\narmour-bearer.  The defeat seemed to have undone the work of his\nlife.  The immediate consequence at least was that the Philistines\nregained their lost ascendancy over the country to the west of\nJordan.  Beyond Jordan, however, Abner, the cousin and\ngeneralissimo of Saul, made his son Ishbaal, still a minor, king\nin Mahanaim, and he was successful in again establishing the\ndominion of the house over Jezreel, Ephraim, and Benjamin,\nof course in uninterrupted struggle with the Philistines.\n\nBut he did not regain hold of Judah.  David seized the opportunity\nto set up for himself, with the sanction of the Philistines, and,\nit may safely be presumed, as their vassal, a separate\nprincipality which had its centre of gravity in the south, which\nwas inhabited, not by the tribe of Judah properly so called, but\nby the Calebites and Jerachmeelites.  This territory Abner\ndisputed with him in vain.  In the protracted feud between the\nhouses of Saul and David, the fortunes of war declared themselves\never increasingly for the latter.  Personal causes at last\nbrought matters to a crisis.  Abner, by taking to himself a\nconcubine of Saul's called Rizpah, had roused Ishbaal's suspicions\nthat he was aiming at the inheritance, and was challenged on the\npoint.  This proved too much for his patience, and forthwith he\nabandoned the cause of his ward (the hopelessness of which had\nalready perhaps become apparent), and entered into negotiations\nwith David at Hebron.  When about to set out on his return he fell\nby the hand of Joab in the gate of Hebron, a victim of jealousy\nand blood-feud.  His plans nevertheless were realised.  His death\nleft Israel leaderless and in great confusion;  Ishbaal was personally\ninsignificant, and the people's homage continued to be rendered to\nhim only out of grateful fidelity to his father's memory.  At\nthis juncture he also fell by assassins' hands.  As he was\ntaking his midday rest, and even the portress had gone to sleep\nover her task of cleaning wheat, two Benjamite captains introduced\nthemselves into his palace at Mahanaim and murdered him in the\nvain hope of earning David's thanks.  The elders of Israel no\nlonger hesitated about offering David the crown, which he accepted.\n\nHis residence was immediately transferred from Hebron to Jebus,\nwhich until then had remained in possession of the Canaanites,\nand first derives historical importance from him.  It lay on the\nborder between Israel and Judah,--still within the territory of\nBenjamin, but not far from Bethlehem; near also to Nob, the old\npriestly city.  David made it not only the political but also\nthe religious metropolis by transferring thither from\nKirjathjearim the ark of the covenant, which he placed within\nhis citadel on what afterwards became the temple hill.\n\nStill the crown was far from being a merely honorary possession;\nit involved heavy responsibilities, and doubtless what\ncontributed more than anything else to David's elevation to the\nthrone was the general recognition of the fact that he was the man\nbest fitted on the whole to overtake the labour it brought with\nit, viz., the prosecution of the war with the Philistines, a war\nwhich was as it were the forge in which the kingdom of Israel was\nwelded into one.  The struggle began with the transference of the\nseat of royalty to Jerusalem; unfortunately we possess only\nscanty details as to its progress, hardly anything more indeed\nthan a few anecdotes about deeds of prowess by individual heroes.\nThe result was in the end that David completed what Saul had\nbegun, and broke for ever the Philistine yoke.  This was\nundoubtedly the greatest achievement of his reign.\n\nFrom the defensive against the Philistines David proceeded to\naggressive war, in which he subjugated the three kinsfolk of\nIsrael,--Moab, Ammon, and Edom.  He appears to have come into\nconflict first with the Moabites, whom he vanquished and treated\nwith savage atrocity.  Not long afterwards the king of Ammon died,\nand David sent an embassy of condolence to Hanun his successor.\nHanun suspected in this a sinister design,--a suspicion we can\nreadily understand if David had already, as is probable,\nsubjugated Moab,--and with the utmost contumely sent back the\nmessengers to their master forthwith, at the same time making\npreparations for war by entering into alliance with various\nSyrian kings, and particularly with the powerful king of Soba /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Soba appears to have been situated somewhat to the north of\nDamascus, and to have bordered on the west with Hamath.  The\nAramaeans were beginning even at that period to press westwards;\nthe Hittites, Phoenicians, and Israelites had common interests\nagainst them.  To the kingdom of Soba succeeded afterwards that\nof Damascus.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nDavid took the initiative, and sent his army under command of Joab\nagainst Rabbath-Ammon.  The Syrians advanced to the relief of the\nbesieged city; but Joab divided his forces, and, leaving his\nbrother Abishai to hold the Ammonites in the town in check,\nproceeded himself against the Syrians and repulsed them.  On their\nafterwards threatening to renew the attack in increased force,\nDavid went against them in strength and defeated them at Helam\n\"on the river.\" It seems that as a result of this the kingdom of\nSoba was broken up and made tributary to Damascus.  Rabbath-Ammon\ncould not now hold out any longer, and the Ammonites shared the\nfate of their Moabite brethren.  Finally, Edom was about the same\ntime coerced and depopulated; and thus was fulfilled the vision of\nBalaam,--the youngest of the four Hebrew nationalities trod the\nthree elder under his feet.\n\nSo far as external foes were concerned, David henceforward had\npeace; but new dangers arose at home within his own family.\nAt once by ill-judged leniency and equally ill-timed severity\nhe had completely alienated his son Absalom, who, after Amnon's\ndeath, was heir-apparent to the throne.  Absalom organised a\nrevolt against his father, and to foster it availed himself of a\nmisunderstanding which had arisen between David and the men of\nJudah, probably because they thought they were not treated with\nsufficient favour.  The revolt had its focus in Hebron;\nAhithophel, a man of Judah, was its soul; Amasa, also of Judah,\nits arm; but the rest of Israel was also drawn into the\nrebellion, and only the territory to the east of Jordan remained\nfaithful.  Thither David betook himself with precipitancy, for\nthe outbreak had taken him completely by  surprise.  At Mahanaim,\nwhich had once before been the centre from which the kingdom was\nregained, he collected his faithful followers around him with his\n600 Cherethites and Pelethites for a nucleus, Absalom against\nAhithophel's advice allowing him time for this.  In the\nneighbourbood of Mahanaim, in the wood of Ephraim, the decisive\nblow was struck.  Absalom fell, and with his death the rebellion\nwas at an end.  It was Joseph that, in the first instance,\npenitently sent a deputation to the king to bring him back.  Judah,\non the other hand, continued to hold aloof.  Ultimately a piece\nof finesse on the king's part had the effect of bringing Judah\nalso to its allegiance, though at the cost of kindling such\njealousy between Israel and Judah that Sheba the Benjamite raised\na new revolt, this time of Israelites, which was soon, however,\nrepressed by Joab.\n\nDavid seems to have died soon afterwards.  His historical\nimportance is very  great.  Judah and Jerusalem were wholly his\ncreation, and, though the united kingdom of Israel founded by him\nand Saul together soon fell to pieces, the recollection of it\nnevertheless continued in all time to be proudly cherished by\nthe whole body of the people.  His personal character has been\noften treated with undue disparagement.  For this we must chiefly\nblame his canonisation by the later Jewish tradition which made a\nLevitical saint of him and a pious hymn-writer.  It then becomes a\nstrange inconsistency that he caused military prisoners to be\ntreated with barbarity, and the bastard sons of Saul to be hanged\nup before the Lord in Gibeon.  But if we take him as we find him,\nan antique king in a barbarous age, our judgment of him will be\nmuch more favourable.  The most daring courage was combined in him\nwith tender susceptibility; even after he had ascended the throne\nbe continued to retain the charm of a pre-eminent and at the same\ntime child-like personality.  Even his conduct in the affair of\nUriah is not by any means wholly to his discredit; not many\nkings can be mentioned who would have shown repentance public and\ndeep such as he manifested at Nathan's rebuke.  Least to his\ncredit was his weakness in relation to his sons and to Joab.\nOn the other hand, the testament attributed to him in 1Kings ii.\ncannot be justly laid to his charge; it is the libel of a later\nhand seeking to invest him with a fictitious glory.  In like\nmanner it is unjust to hold him responsible for the deaths of\nAbner and Amasa, or to attribute to him any conspiracy with\nthe hierocracy for the destruction of Saul, and thus to deprive\nhim of the authorship of the elegy in 2Samuel i, which certainly\nwas not the work of a hypocrite.\n\nSolomon had already reached the throne, some time before his\nfather's death, not in virtue of hereditary right, but by palace\nintrigue which had the support of the bodyguard of the Six\nHundred.  His glory was not purchased on the battlefield.  So far\nwas he from showing military capacity that he allowed a new\nSyrian kingdom to arise at Damascus, a far more dangerous thing for\nIsrael than that of Soba which had been destroyed, and which it\nsucceeded.  During this reign Edom also regained its independence,\nnothing but the port of Elath remaining in Solomon's hands.  As\nregards Moab and Ammon we have no information; it is not\nimprobable that they also revolted.  But if war was not Solomon's\nforte, he certainly took much greater pains than either of his\npredecessors in matters of internal administration; according to\ntradition, the wisdom of the ruler and the judge was his special\n\"gift.\"  Disregarding the tribal system, he divided his kingdom\ninto twelve provinces, over each of which he placed a royal\ngovernor, thus making a beginning of vigorous and orderly\nadministration.  /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Very possibly the Canaanites, whose complete absorption falls\nwithin this period, were an element that helped to loosen the\nbonds of tribal unity, and consolidate a state in its place.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nJudah alone he exempted from this arrangement, as if to show\nspecial favour.  For his aim was less the advantage of his\nsubjects than the benefit of his exchequer, and the same object\nappears in his horse traffic (1Kings ix. 19), his Ophir trade\n(1Kings x. 11), and his cession of territory to Hiram (1Kings ix.\n11).  His passions were architecture, a gorgeous court, and the\nharem, in which he sought to rival other Oriental kings, as for\nexample his Egyptian father-in-law.  For this he required copious\nmeans-forced labour, tribute in kind, and money.  He had\nespecially at heart the extension and improvement of Jerusalem as\na strong and splendid capital; the temple which he built was only\na portion of his vast citadel, which included within its precincts\na number of private and public buildings designed for various\nuses.\n\nIt is plain that new currents were introduced into the stream of\nthe nation's development by such a king as this.  As formerly,\nafter the occupation, Canaanite culture had come in, so now, after\nthe establishment of the kingdom, the floodgate was open for the\nadmission of Oriental civilisation in a deeper and wider sense.\nWhatever the personal motives which led to it may have been,\nthe results were very importent, and by no means disadvantageous\non the whole.  On the basis of the firmer administration now\nintroduced, stability and order could rest; Judah had no cause\nto regret its acceptance of this yoke.  Closer intercourse with\nforeign lands widened the intellectual horizon of the people,\nand at the same time awakened it to a deeper sense of its own\npeculiar individuality.  If Solomon imported Phoenician and\nEgyptian elements into the worship of Jehovah at his court\ntemple, the rigid old Israelite indeed might naturally\nenough take offence (Exodus  xx. 24-26), but the temple itself\nnevertheless ultimately acquired a great and positive\nimportance for religion.  It need not be denied that mischievous\nconsequences of various kinds slipped in along with the good.\nThe king, moreover, can hardly be blamed for his conduct in\nerecting in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem altars to deities of\nAmmon and Egypt.  For those altars remained undisturbed until\nthe time of Josiah, although between Solomon and him there\nreigned more than one pious king who would certainly have\ndestroyed them had he found them as offensive as did the author\nof Deuteronomy.\n\n\n4.  FROM JEROBOAM I. TO JEROBOAM II.\n\nAfter the death of Solomon the discontent which had been aroused by\nhis innovations, and especially by the rigour of his government,\nopenly showed itself against his successor; and when Rehoboam\ncurtly refused the demands which had been laid before him by an\nassembly of the elders at Shechem, they withdrew from their\nallegiance and summoned to be their king the Ephraimite Jeroboam\nben Nebat, who already had made an abortive attempt at revolt\nfrom Solomon, and afterwards had taken refuge in Egypt.  Only\nJudah and Jerusalem remained faithful to the house of David.\nAmong the causes of the revolt of the ten tribes, jealousy of\nJudah must certainly be reckoned as one.  The power of Joseph had\nbeen weakened by the Philistines, and by the establishment of the\nmonarchy the centre of gravity had been shifted from the north\nwhere it naturally lay.  But now it was restored to its old seat;\nfor once more it was situated, not in Judah, but in Joseph.\nMonarchy itself, however, was not abolished by the revolting\ntribes, conclusively showing how unavoidable and how advantageous\nthat institution was now felt to be; but at the same time they did\nnot refrain from attempts to combine its advantages with those\nof anarchy, a folly which was ultimately the cause of their ruin.\nAs for their departure from the Mosaic cultus observed at\nJerusalem on the other hand, it was first alleged against them as\na sin only by the later Jews.  At the time religion put no\nobstacle in the way of their separation; on the contrary, it\nactually suggested and promoted it (Ahijah of Shiloh).  The\nJerusalem cultus had not yet come to be regarded as the alone\nlegitimate; that instituted by Jeroboam at Bethel and at Dan was\nrecognised as equally right; images of the Deity were exhibited\nin all three places, and indeed in every place where a house of\nGod was found.  So far as the religious and intellectual life of\nthe nation was concerned, there was no substantial difference\nbetween the two kingdoms, except indeed in so far as new displays\nof vigorous initiative generally proceeded from Israel.  /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Even in the Deuteronomic redaction of the Book of Kings indeed,\nand still more by the Chronicler, the political rebellion of\nIsrael is regarded as having been ecclesiastical and religious in\nits character.  The Book of Chronicles regards Samaria as a\nheathen kingdom, and recognises Judah alone as Israel.  But in\npoint of fact Judah takes up the history of Israel only after\nthe fall of Samaria;  see ## 6, 7.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nRehoboam did not readily accept the situation; he sought to\nreduce the revolt by force of arms, with what degree of success\nis shown by the fact that his rival found himself constrained to\ntake up his residence at Peniel (near Mahanaim) on the other side\nof Jordan.  The invasion of Shishak, however, who took Jerusalem\nand burnt it, gave Jeroboam at last a breathing space.  The feud\ncontinued indeed, but Rehoboam could no longer dream of bringing\nback the ten tribes.   The scale by and by turned in Israel's\nfavour.  King Baasha, who had seated himself on the throne in\nplace of Nadab, Jeroboam's son, took the offensive, and Asa ben\nRehoboam had no help for it but to call in Benhadad of Damascus\nagainst his adversary.  In this way he gained his immediate\npurpose, it is true, but by the most dangerous of expedients.\n\nBaasha's son Elah was supplanted by his vizier Zimri, who,\nhowever, was in his turn unable to hold his own against Omri, who\nhad supreme command of the army.  Against Omri there arose in\nanother part of the country a rival, Tibni ben Ginath, who\nsucceeded in maintaining some footing until his death, when Omri\nbecame supreme.  Omri must be regarded as the founder of the first\ndynasty, in the proper sense of that word, in Israel, and as the\nsecond founder of the kingdom itself, to which he gave a permanent\ncapital in Samaria.  The Bible has hardly anything to tell us about\nhim, but his importance is evident from the fact that among the\nAssyrians \"the kingdom of Omri\" / 1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Bit Humri, like )OIKOS *LUSANIOU, and similar territorial names\nin Syriac.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nwas the ordinary name of Israel.  According to the inscription of\nMesha, it was he who again subjugated Moab, which had become\nindependent at the death of David or of Solomon.  He was not so\nsuccessful against the Damascenes, to whom he had to concede\ncertain privileges in his own capital (1Kings xx. 34) /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. Omri's accession is to be placed somewhere about 900 B.C It is\na date, and the first, that can be determined with some precision,\nif we place the battle of Karkar (854) near the end of Ahab's\nreign, and take the servitude of Moab, which lasted forty years\nand ended with Ahab's deatb, to begin in Omri's first decade.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nAhab, who succeeded Omri his father, seems during the greater part\nof his reign to have in some sort acknowledged Syrian suzerainty.\nIn no other way can we account for the fact that in the battle of\nKarkar against the Assyrians (854 B.C.) a contingent was\ncontributed by him.  But this very battle made the political\nsituation so clear that he was led to break off his relations with\nDamascus.  With this began a series of ferocious attacks on Israel\nby Benhadad and Hazael.  They were met by Ahab with courage\nand success, but in the third year of that fifty years' war he\nfell in the battle at Ramoth Gilead (c. 851).\n\nAfter the events recorded in 1Kings xx., a forced alliance with\nDamascus on the part of Samaria is incredible; but the idea of\nspontaneous friendly relations is also inadmissible.  Schrader\nindeed finds support for the latter theory in 1Kings xx. 34;\nbut in that passage there is no word of any offensive or defensive\nalliance between the rival kings; all that is stated is that Ahab\nreleases the captive Benhadad on condition (BBRYT) that the latter\nundertakes certain obligations, particularly those of keeping the\npeace and restoring the cities which had been taken.  By this\narrangement no change was made in the previously  strained\nrelations of the two kingdoms; and, moreover, the BRYT was not\nkept (xxii. 1 seq.).  Not much nearer the truth than the\npreceding is the view that the danger threatened by Assyria drove\nthe kings of Syria and Palestine into one another's arms, and so\noccasioned an alliance between Ahab and Benhadad also.  For if\nfeelings of hostility existed at all between the two last named,\nthen Ahab could not do otherwise than congratulate himself that\nin the person of Shalmaneser II. there had arisen against\nBenhadad an enemy who would be able to keep him effectually in\ncheck.  That Shalmaneser might prove dangerous to himself probably\ndid not at that time occur to him; but if it had he would still\nhave chosen the remote in preference to the immediately\nthreatening evil.  For it was the political existence of Israel\nthat was at stake in the struggle with Damascus; in such\ncircumstances every ally would of course be welcome, every enemy\nof the enemy would be hailed as a friend, and the political\nwisdom which Max Duncker attributes to Ahab would have been\nnothing less than unpardonable folly.  The state of matters was at\nthe outset in this respect just what it continued to be throughout\nthe subsequent course of events; the Assyrian danger grew in\nsubsequent years, and with it grew the hostility between Damascus\nand Samaria.  This fact admits only of one explanation,--that the\nIsraelites utilised to the utmost of their power for their own\nprotection against the Syrians the difficulties into which the\nlatter were thrown by Shalmaneser II., and that these in their\nturn, when the Assyrians gave them respite, were all the fiercer\nin their revenge.  On the evidence of the monuments and the Bible\nwe may even venture to assert that it was the Assyrian attacks upon\nDamascus which at that time preserved Israel from becoming\nAramaic,--of course only because Israel made the most of them for\nher political advantage.\n\nAssuming that Ahab the Israelite (Ahabu Sirlaai) fought in the\nbattle of Karkar (854) on the side of the king of Damascus, it\nwas only because he could not help himself; but if it is actually\nthe case that he did so, the battle of Karkar must have taken\nplace BEFORE the events recorded in 1Kings xx.\n\nThe Moabites took advantage of an accession under such critical\ncircumstances to shake off the yoke imposed by Omri forty years\nbefore; an accurate account of their success, obviously written\nwhile the impression of it was still fresh, /1/ has come down to\n\n-- Footnote\n1. It is obvious that Mesha's narrative is to be taken with\n2Kings i. 1, and not with 2Kings iii.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nus in the famous inscription of King Mesha.  Ahaziah, Ahab's\nimmediate successor, was obliged to accept the situation; after\nhis early death a futile attempt again to subjugate them was made\nby his brother Joram.  Such a campaign was possible to him only\nin the event of the Syrians keeping quiet, and in point of fact\nit would appear that they were not in a position to follow up the\nadvantage they had gained at Ramoth; doubtless they were\nhampered by the inroads of the Assyrians in 850 and 849.  As soon\nas they got a little respite, however, they lost no time in\nattacking Joram, driving him into his capital, where they\nbesieged him.  Samaria had already been brought to the utmost\nextremities of famine, when suddenly the enemy raised the siege\non account of a report of an invasion of their own land by the\n\"Egyptians and Hittites.\"  Possibly we ought to understand by these\nthe Assyrians rather, who in 846 renewed their attacks upon Syria;\nto ordinary people in Israel the Assyrians were an unknown quantity,\nfor which it would be natural in popular story to substitute something\nmore familiar.  This turn of affairs relieved Joram from his straits;\nit would even seem that, favoured by a change of dynasty at\nDamascus, he had succeeded in taking from the Syrians the fortress\nof Ramoth in Gilead, which had been the object of Ahab's\nunsuccessful endeavours, when suddenly there burst upon the house\nof Omri the overwhelming catastrophe for which the prophets had\nlong been preparing.\n\nWhen the prophets first made their appearance, some time before the\nbeginning of the Philistine war, they were a novel phenomenon in\nIsrael; but in the interval they had become so naturalised that\nthey now had a recognised and essential place in connection with\nthe religion of Jehovah.  They had in the process divested\nthemselves of much that had originally characterised them, but\nthey still retained their habit of appearing in companies and\nliving together in societies, and also that of wearing a peculiar\ndistinctive dress.  These societies of theirs had no ulterior\naims; the rabbinical notion that they were schools and academies\nin which the study of the Torah and of sacred history was pursued\nimports later ideas into an earlier time.  First-rate importance\non the whole cannot be claimed for the Nebiim, but occasionally\nthere arose amongst them a man in whom the spirit which was\ncultivated within their circles may be said to have risen to the\nexplosive pitch.  Historical influence was exercised at no time\nsave by these individuals, who rose above their order and even\nplaced themselves in opposition to it, but always at the same time\nhad their base of operations within it.  The prototype of this\nclass of exceptional prophets, whom we not unjustly have been\naccustomed to regard as the true, is Elijah of Thisbe, the\ncontemporary of Ahab.\n\nln compliment to Jezebel his wife, Ahab had set up in Samaria a\ntemple with richly endowed religious services in honour of the\nSyrian Baal.  In doing so he had no intention of renouncing\nJehovah; Jehovah continued to be the national God after whom he\nnamed his sons Ahaziah and Jehoram.  The destruction of Jehovah's\naltars or the persecution of His prophets was not at all proposed,\nor even the introduction of a foreign cultus elsewhere than in\nSamaria.  Jehovah's sovereignty over Israel being thus only\nremotely if at all imperilled, the popular faith found nothing\nspecially offensive in a course of action which had been followed\na hundred years before by Solomon also.  Elijah alone was strenuous\nin his opposition; the masses did not understand him, and were far\nfrom taking his side.  To him only, but not to the nation, did it\nseem like a halting between two opinions, an irreconcilable\ninconsistency, that Jehovah should be worshipped as Israel's God\nand a chapel to Baal should at the same time be erected in Israel.\n\nIn solitary grandeur did this prophet tower conspicuously over\nhis time; legend, and not history, could alone preserve the\nmemory of his figure.  There remains a vague impression that with\nhim the development of Israel's conception of Jehovah entered upon\na new stadium, rather than any data from which it can be\nascertained wherein the contrast of the new with the old lay.\nAfter Jehovah, acting more immediately within the political\nsphere, had established the nation and kingdom, he now began in\nthe spiritual sphere to operate against the foreign elements, the\ninfusion of which previously had been permitted to go on almost\nunchecked.  /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1.  It is worth noticing how much more frequent from this period\nonwards proper names compounded with the word Jehovah become.\nAmong the names of the judges and of the kings before Ahab in\nIsrael and Asa in Judah, not a single instance occurs;\nthenceforward they become the rule.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe Rechabites, who arose at that time, protested in their zeal\nfor Jehovah altogether against all civilisation which presupposes\nagriculture, and in their fundamental principles aimed at a\nrecurrence to the primitive nomadic life of Israel in the\nwilderness; the Nazarites abstained at least from wine, the chief\nsymbol of Dionysiac civilisation.  In this indeed Elijah was not\nwith them;  had he been so, he would doubtless have been\nintelligible to the masses.  But, comprehending as he did the\nspirit from which these demonstrations proceeded, he thought of\nJehovah as a great principle which cannot coexist in the same\nheart with Baal.  To him first was it revealed that we have not\nin the various departments of nature a variety of forces worthy\nof our worship, but that there exists over all but one Holy One\nand one Mighty  One, who reveals Himself not in nature but in law\nand righteousness in the world of man.  The indignation he displayed\nagainst the judicial murder at Jezreel was as genuine and strong\nas that which he manifested against the worship of Baal in\nSamaria; the one was as much a crime against Jehovah as the\nother.\n\nElijah ascended to heaven before he had actually achieved much\nin the world.  The idea which his successors took from him was that\nit was necessary to make a thorough clearance from Samaria of the\nBaal worship and of the house of Ahab as well.  For this practical\nend Elisha made use of practical means.  When Elijah, after the\nmurder of Naboth, had suddenly appeared before Ahab and\nthreatened him with a violent end, an officer of high command had\nbeen present, Jehu ben Nimshi, and he had never forgotten the\nincident.  He now found himself at the head of the troops at\nRamoth Gilead after the withdrawal to Jezreel of Joram ben Ahab\nfrom the field to be healed of his wound.  To Elisha the moment\nseemed a suitable one for giving to Jehu in Jehovah's name the\ncommand now to carry out Elijah's threat against the house of\nAhab.  Jehu gained over the captains of the army, and carried out\nso well the task with which the prophet had commissioned him that\nnot a single survivor of Ahab's dynasty or of his court was left.\nHe next extirpated Baal and his worshippers in Samaria.  From that\ndate no worship of foreign gods seems ever to have recurred in\nIsrael.  Idolatry indeed continued to subsist, but the images,\nstones, and trees, even the seraphim apparently, belonged to the\ncultus of Jehovah, or were at least brought into relation with it.\n\nJehu founded the second and last dynasty of the kingdom of Samaria\nHis inheritance from the house of Omri included the task of\ndefending himself against the Syrians.  The forces at his disposal\nbeing insufficient for this, he resorted to the expedient of\nseeking to urge the Assyrians to renew their hostilities against\nthe Arameeans.  For this end his ambassadors carried presents to\nShalmaneser II.; these were not of a regular but only of an\noccasional character, but the vanity of the great king represents\nthem as the tribute of a vassal.  In the years 842 and 839 Assyrian\ncampaigns against Hazael of Damascus actually took place; then\nthey were intermitted for a long time, and the kings of Samaria,\nJehu and his two successors, were left to their own resources.\nThese were evil times for Israel.  With a barbarity never\nintermitted the frontier war went on in Gilead, where Ammon and\nMoab showed  themselves friendly to the Syrian cause (Amos i.);\noccasionally great expeditions took place, one of which brought\nKing Hazael to the very walls of Jerusalem.  It was only with\nthe greatest difficulty that Israel's independence was maintained.\nOnce more religion went hand in hand with the national cause;\nthe prophet Elisha was the main stay of the kings in the struggle\nwith the Syrians, \"the chariot and horsemen of Israel.\"  Joash ben\nJoahaz ben Jehu at last succeeded in inflicting upon Syria several\nblows which proved decisive.  Thenceforward Israel had nothing to\nfear from that quarter.  Under Joash's son, Jeroboam II., the\nkingdom even reached a height of external power which recalled the\ntimes of David.  Moab was again subdued; southwards the frontier\nextended to the brook of the wilderness (Amos vi. 14), and northward\nto Hamath.\n\n\n5.  GOD, THE WORLD, AND THE LIFE OF MEN IN OLD ISRAEL.\n\nBefore proceeding to consider the rise of those prophets who were\nthe makers of the new Israel, it will not be out of place here to\ncast a glance backwards upon the old order of things which\nperished with the kingdom of Samaria.  With reference to any\nperiod earlier than the century 850-750 B.C., we can hardly be\nsaid to possess any statistics.  For, while the facts of history\nadmit of being handed down with tolerable accuracy through a\nconsiderable time, a contemporary literature is indispensable for\nthe description of standing conditions.  But it was within this\nperiod that Hebrew literature first flourished--after the Syrians\nhad been finally repulsed, it would seem.  Writing of course had\nbeen practiced from a much earlier period, but only in formal\ninstruments, mainly upon stone.  At an early period also the\nhistorical sense of the people developed itself in connection\nwith their religion; but it found its expression in songs, which\nin the first instance were handed down by word of mouth only.\nLiterature began with the collection and writing out of those\nsongs; _the Book of the Wars of the Lord_ and _the Book of Jashar_\nwere the oldest historical books.  The transition was next made to\nthe writing of prose history  with the aid of legal documents and\nfamily reminiscences; a large portion of this early\nhistoriography has been preserved to us in the Books of Judges,\nSamuel, and Kings.  Contemporaneously also certain collections of\nlaws and decisions of the priests, of which we have an example in\nExodus xxi. xxii., were committed to writing.  Somewhat later,\nperhaps, the legends about the patriarchs and primitive times,\nthe origin of which cannot be assigned to a very early date, /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1.  Even the Jehovistic narratives about the patriarchs belong\nto the time when Israel had already become a powerful kingdom;\nMoab, Ammon,, and Edom had been subjugated (Genesis xxvii. 29),\nand vigorous frontier wars were being carried on with the Syrians\nabout Gilead (Genesis  xxxi. 52).  In Genesis xxvii. 40\nallusion is made to the constantly repeated subjugations of Edom\nby Judah, alternating with successful revolts on the part of the\nformer; see Delitzsch on K)$R;.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nreceived literary shape.  Specially remarkable is the rise of\na written prophecy.  The question why it was that Elijah and\nElisha committed nothing to writing, while Amos a hundred years\nlater is an author, hardly admits of any other answer than that\nin the interval a non-literary had developed into a literary age.\nHow rapid the process was may be gathered from a comparison between\nthe singularly broken utterances of the earlier oracle contained\nin Isaiah xv. xvi. with the orations of Isaiah himself.\n\nWe begin our survey with that of the family relations.  Polygamy\nwas rare, monogamy the rule; but the right of concubinage was\nunlimited.  While a high position was accorded both by affection\nand custom to the married wife, traces still existed of a state of\nsociety in which she was regarded as property that went with the\ninheritance.  The marriage of relations was by no means\nprohibited; no offence was taken at the circumstance that Abraham\nwas the husband of his sister (by a different mother).  Parents\nhad full power over their children; they had the right to sell\nand even to sacrifice them.  In this respect, however, the\nprevailing usage was mild, as also in regard to slaves, who\nsocially  held a position of comparative equality with their\nmasters, and even enjoyed some measure of legal protection.\nSlavery, it is plain, had not thc same political importance as\nwith the Greeks and Romans; it could have been abolished without\nany shock to the foundations of the state.\n\nThroughout this period agriculture and gardening continued to be\nregarded as man's normal calling (Genesis iii. iv.); the laws\ncontained in Exod. xxi.-xxiii. rest entirely upon this\nassumption.  To dwell in peace under his vine and under his\nfig-tree was the ideal of every genuine lsraelite.  Only in a few\nisolated districts, as in the country to the east of Jordan and\nin portions of Judah, did the pastoral life predominate.  Art and\nindustry were undeveloped, and were confined to the production of\nsimple domestic necessaries.\n\nCommerce was in old time followed exclusively by the Canaanite\ntowns, so that the word \"Canaanite\" was used in the general sense\nof \"trader.\"  But by and by Israel began to tread in Canaan's\nfootsteps (Hosea xii. 8, 9), /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. \"Canaan (i.e., Ephraim Canaanised) has deceitful balances in his\nhand, and loves to overreach.  Ephraim indeed saith, I am become\nrich, I have gained weealth; but all his profits will not suffice\nfor (expiation of) the guilt which he has incurred.\"\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe towns grew more influential than the country; money notably\nincreased; and the zeal of piety was quite unable to arrest the\nprogress of the change which set in.  The kings themselves, from\nSolomon onwards, were the first to set the bad example; they eagerly\nsought to acquire suitable harbours, and in company or in competition\nwith the Syrians entered upon large commercial transactions.\nThe extortions of the corn-market, the formation of large estates,\nthe frequency of mortgages, all show that the small peasant\nproprietorship was unable to hold its own against the accumulations\nof wealth.  The wage-receiving class increased, and cases in which\nfree Hebrews sold themselves into slavery were not rare.\n\nOn all hands the material progress of the commonwealth made itself\nfelt, the old simplicity of manners disappeared, and luxury\nincreased.   Buildings of hewn stone began to be used even by\nprivate individuals.  The towns, especially the chief ones, were\nfortified; and in time of war refuge was sought in them, and not\nas formerly in woods and caves.  Even in the time of David the\nIsraelites always fought on foot; but now horses and chariots were\nregarded as indispensable.  The bow came to be the principal weapon\nof offence, and a military class appears to have sprung up.\n\nThe monarchy retained in the kingdom of the ten tribes its\nmilitary  character; the commander-in-chief was the first person\nin the kingdom.  In internal affairs its interference was slight;\nwith systematic despotism it had little in common, although of\ncourse within its narrow sphere it united executive and\nlegislative functions.  It was little more than the greatest house\nin Israel.  The highest official was called \"master of the\nhousehold.\"  The court ultimately grew into a capital, the\nmunicipal offices of which were held by royal officials.  The\nprovinces had governors who, however, in time of war withdrew to\nthe capital (1Kings xx.); the presumption is that their sole\ncharge was collection of the revenue.\n\nThe state was not charged with affairs of internal administration;\nall parties were left free to maintain their own interests.  Only\nin cases in which conflicts had emerged in consequence could the\nking be approached.  Ruling and judging were regarded as one and\nthe same; there was but one word for both (2Kings xv. 5).\nStill, the king was not altogether the only judge; there were, in\nfact, a number of independent jurisdictions.  Wherever within a\nparticular circle the power lay, there the right of judging was\nalso found, whether exercised by heads of families and communities\nor by warriors and powerful lords.  It was only because the king\nwas the most powerful that he was regarded as the judge of last\nresort; but it was equally permitted to apply to him from the first.\nOf method and rule in these things there was but little; a man was\nglad to find any court to receive his complaint.  Of course without\ncomplaint one got no justice.  The administration of justice was at\nbest but a scanty supplement to the practice of self-help.  The heir\nof the murdered man would not forego the right of blood revenge; but\nhis  family or the commune gave him aid, and in case of need took\nhis place, for bloodshed had at all hazards to be atoned for.\n\nThe firm establishment of civil order was rendered all the more\ndifficult by the continual wars and violent changes of dynasty\nwhich ever and anon made its very existence problematical.\nPower, which is more important than righteousness to a judicatory,\nwas what the government was wanting in In the simpler social\nconditions of the earlier time a state which was adapted merely\nfor purposes of war might easily be found to work satisfactorily\nenough, but a more complex order of things had now arisen.  Social\nproblems had begun to crop up; for the poor and the proletariat\nthe protection of a thoughtful government had come to be required,\nbut was not forthcoming.\n\nBut these defects did not check all progress.  The weakness of the\ngovernment, the want of political consolidation, were insufficient\nto arrest intellectual advance or to corrupt the prevailing moral\ntone and feeling for justice; in fact it was precisely in this\nperiod (the period in which the main part of the Jehovistic\nhistory must have been written) that the intellectual and moral\nculture of the people stood at its highest.  Even when the\nmachinery of the monarchy had got out of order, the organisation\nof the families and communes continued to subsist; the smaller\ncircles of social life remained comparatively  untouched by the\ncatastrophes that shook the greater.  Above all, the national\nreligion supplied the spiritual life with an immovable basis.\n\nThe favourite illustrations of the power of religion in the Israel\nof that period are drawn from the instances of great prophets who\nraised kings out of the dust and smote them to it again.  But the\ninfluence and importance of these is generally exaggerated in the\naccounts we have.  That among them there occasionally occurred\nmanifestations of such power as to give a new turn in history is\nindeed true; a figure like that of Elijah is no mere invention.\nBut such a man as he was a prophecy of the future rather than an\nactual agent in shaping the present.  On the whole, religion was\na peaceful influence, conserving rather than assailing the existing\norder of things.  The majority of the prophets were no revolutionists;\nrather in fact were they always too much inclined to prophesy in\naccordance with the wishes of the party in power.  Besides, in\nordinary circumstances their influence was inferior to that of\nthe priests, who were servants of royalty at the chief\nsanctuaries, but everywhere attached to the established order.\n\nThe Torah of Jehovah still continued to be their special charge.\nIt was not even now a code or law in our sense of the word;\nJehovah had not yet made His Testament; He was still living and\nactive in Israel.  But the Torah appears during this period to\nhave withdrawn itself somewhat from the business of merely\npronouncing legal decisions and to have begun to move in a freer\nfield.  It now consisted in teaching the knowledge of God, in\nshowing the right God-given way  where men were not sure of\nthemselves.  Many of the counsels of the priests had become a\ncommon stock of moral convictions, which, indeed, were all of them\nreferred to Jehovah as their author, yet had ceased to be matters\nof direct revelation.  Nevertheless the Torah had still occupation\nenough, the progressive life of the nation ever affording matter\nfor new questions.\n\nAlthough in truth the Torah and the moral influence of Jehovah\nupon the national life were things much weightier and much more\ngenuinely Israelitic than the cultus, yet this latter held on the\nwhole a higher place in public opinion.  To the ordinary man it\nwas not moral but liturgical acts that seemed to be truly\nreligious.  Altars of Jehovah occurred everywhere, with sacred\nstones and trees--the latter either artificial (Asheras) or\nnatural--beside them; it was considered desirable also to have\nwater in the neighbourhood (brazen sea).  In cases where a temple\nstood before the altar it contained an ephod and teraphim, a kind\nof images before which the lot was cast by the priest.  Of the\nold simplicity the cultus retained nothing; at the great\nsanctuaries especially (Bethel, Gilgal, Beersheba) it had become\nvery  elaborate.  Its chief seasons were the agricultural\nfestivals--the passover, the feast of weeks, and most especially\nthe feast of the ingathering at the close of the year.  These were\nthe only occasions of public worship properly so called, at which\nevery one was expected to attend; in other cases each worshipper\nsought the presence of God only in special circumstances, as for\nexample at the beginning and at the end of particular undertakings.\nThe cultus, as to place, time, matter, and form, belonged almost\nentirely to the inheritance which Israel had received from Canaan;\nto distinguish what belonged to the worship of Jehovah from that\nwhich belonged to Baal was no easy matter. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1.  The description of the cultus by the Prophet Hosea shows this\nvery clearly.  It is obvious enough, however, that the object\nwas to serve JEHOVAH, and not any foreign deity, by this worship.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIt was the channel through which also paganism could and did ever\nanew gain admittance into the worship of Jehovah.  Yet that\npublicity of the cultus which arose out of the very nature of Jehovah,\nand in consequence of which the teraphim even were removed from the\nhouses to the temples, cannot but have acted as a corrective against\nthe most fatal excesses.\n\nAs for the substance of the national faith, it was summed up\nprincipally in the proposition that Jehovah is the God of Israel.\nBut \"God\" was equivalent to \"helper;\" that was the meaning of\nthe word.  \"Help,\" assistance in all occasions of life,--that was\nwhat Israel looked for from Jehovah, not \"salvation\" in the\ntheological sense.  The forgiveness of sins was a matter of\nsubordinate importance; it was involved in the \"help,\" and was a\nmatter not of faith but of experience.  The relation between the\npeople and God was a natural one as that of son to father; it did\nnot rest upon observance of the conditions of a pact.  But it was\nnot on that account always equally lively and hearty; Jehovah\nwas regarded as having varieties of mood.  To secure and retain\nHis favour sacrifices were useful; by them prayer and\nthanksgiving were seconded.\n\nAnother main article of faith was that Jehovah judges and\nrecompenses, not after death (then all men were thought to be\nalike), but upon the earth.  Here, however, but little account\nwas taken of the individual; over him the wheel of destiny\nremorselessly rolled; his part was resignation and not hope.\nNot in the career of the individual but in the fate of families\nand nations did the righteousness of Jehovah find scope for its\nmanifestation; and this is the only  reason why the religion\ncould dispense with the conceptions of heaven and hell.   For the\nrest, it was not always easy to bring the second article into\ncorrelation with the first; in practice the latter received the\nsuperior place.\n\nIt need hardly be said that superstition of every kind also\nabounded.  But the superstition of the Israelites had as little\nreal religious significance as had that poetical view of nature\nwhich the Hebrews doubtless shared in greater or less degree with\nall the other nations of antiquity.\n\n\n6.  THE FALL OF SAMARIA.\n\nUnder King Jeroboam II., two years before a great earthquake that\nserved ever after for a date to all who had experienced it, there\noccurred at Bethel, the greatest and most conspicuous sanctuary\nof Jehovah in Israel, a scene full of significance.  The multitude\nwere assembled there with gifts and offerings for the observance\nof a festival, when there stepped forward a man whose grim\nseriousness interrupted the joy of the feast.  It was a Judaean,\nAmos of Tekoa, a shepherd from the wilderness bordering on the\nDead Sea.  Into the midst of the joyful tones of the songs which\nwith harp and tabor were being sung at the sacred banquet he\nbrought the discordant note of the mourner's wail.  For over all\nthe joyous stir of busy life his ear caught the sounds of death:\n\"the virgin of Israel is fallen, never more to rise;\nlies prostrate in her own land with no one to lift her up.\"\nHe prophesied as close at hand the downfall of the kingdom which\njust at that moment was rejoicing most in the consciousness of\npower, and the deportation of the people to a far-off northern land.\n\nThere was something rotten in the state of Israel in spite of\nthe halcyon days it enjoyed under Jeroboam II.  From the indirect\nresults of war, from changes in the tenure and in the culture of\nthe soil, from defective administration of justice, the humbler\nclasses had much to suffer; they found that the times were evil.\nBut it was not this that caused Amos to foresee the end of Israel,\nnot a mere vague foreboding of evil that forced him to leave his\nflocks; the dark cloud that threatened on the horizon was plain\nenough--the Assyrians.  Once already at an earlier date they had\ndirected their course south-westwards, without, however, on that\noccasion becoming a source of danger to the Israelites.  But now\nthat the bulwark against the Assyrians, Aram of Damascus, was\nfalling into ruins, a movement of these against Lebanon in the time\nof Jeroboam II. opened to Israel the alarming prospect that\nsooner or later they  would have to meet the full force of the\nirresistible avalanche.\n\nWhat then?  The common man was in no position truly to estimate\nthe danger; and, so far as he apprehended it, he lived in the\nfirm faith that Jehovah would not abandon His people in their\nstraits.  The governing classes prided themselves on the military\nresources of Israel, or otherwise tried to dismiss from their\nminds all thought of the gravity of the situation.  But Amos heard\nthe question distinctly enough, and did not hesitate to answer\nit: the downfall of Israel is imminent.  It was nothing short of\nblasphemy to utter anything of this kind, for everything, Jehovah\nHimself included, depended on the existence of the nation.  But\nthe most astounding thing has yet to come; not Asshur, but Jehovah\nHimself, is bringing about the overthrow of Israel; through Asshur\nit is Jehovah that is triumphing over Israel.  A paradoxical\nthought--as if the national God were to cut the ground from under\nHis own feet!  For the faith in Jehovah as the God of Israel was\na faith that He intervenes on behalf of His people against all\nenemies, against the whole World; precisely in times of danger\nwas religion shown by staying oneself upon this faith.  Jehovah\nmight indeed, of course, hide His face for a time, but not\ndefinitively; in the end He ever arose at last against all\nopposing powers.  \"The day of the Lord\" was an object of hope\nin all times of difficulty and oppression; it was understood\nas self-evident that the crisis would certainly end in favour of\nIsrael.  Amos took up the popular conception of that day; but how\nthoroughly did he change its meaning!  \"Woe to them who long\nfor the day of the Lord!--What to you is the day of the Lord,?\nIt is darkness, not light.\" His own opposition to the popular\nconception is formulated in a paradox which he prefixes as theme\nto the principal section of his book:--\"Us alone does Jehovah\nknow,\" say the Israelites, drawing from this the inference that\nHe is on their side, and of course must take their part.  \"You\nonly do I know,\" Amos represents Jehovah as saying, \"therefore do\nI visit upon you all your sins.\"\n\nIf the question, Whereon did Jehovah's relation to Israel\nultimately rest? be asked, the answer, according to the popular\nfaith, must substantially be that it rested on the fact that\nJehovah was worshipped in Israel and not among the heathen, that\nin Israel were His altars and His dwelling.  His cultus was the\nbond between Him and the nation; when therefore it was desired\nto draw the bond still closer, the solemn services of religion\nwere redoubled.  But to the conception of Amos Jehovah is no\njudge capable of accepting a bribe; with the utmost indignation\nhe repudiates the notion that it is possible to influence\nHim by gifts and offerings.  Though Israel alone has served Him\nhe does not on that account apply any other standard to it than\nto other nations (chaps. i. ii.).  If Israel is better known to\nHim, it does not follow that on that account He shuts His eyes and\nblindly takes a side.  Neither Jehovah nor His prophet recognises\ntwo moral standards; right is everywhere right, wrong always\nwrong, even though committed against Israel's worst enemies (ii. 1).\nWhat Jehovah demands is righteousness,--nothing more and\nnothing less; what He hates is injustice.  Sin or offence to the\nDeity is a thing of purely moral character; with such emphasis\nthis doctrine had never before been heard.  Morality is that for\nthe sake of which all other things exist; it is the alone\nessential thing in the world.  It is no postulate, no idea, but at\nonce a necessity and a fact, the most intensely living of\npersonal powers-Jehovah the God of Hosts.  In wrath, in ruin, this\nholy reality makes its existence known; it annihilates all that\nis hollow and false.\n\nAmos calls Jehovah the God of Hosts, never the God of Israel.\nThe nation as such is no religious conception to him; from its mere\nexistence he cannot formulate any article of faith.  Sometimes it\nseems as if he were denying Israel's prerogative altogether.  He\ndoes not really do so, but at least the prerogative is\nconditional and involves a heavy responsibility.  The saying in\niii. 2 recalls Luke xii. 47.  The proposition \"Jehovah knows\nIsrael\" is in the mouth of Amos almost the same thing as \"Israel\nknows Jehovah; \" save only that this is not to be regarded as\nany merit on Israel's part, but as a manifestation of the grace of\nJehovah, who has led His people by great deeds and holy men, and\nso made Himself known.  Amos knows no other truth than that\npractical one which he has found among his own people and nowhere\nelse, Iying at the foundation of life and morality, and which he\nregards as the product of a divine providential ordering of\nhistory.  From this point of view, so thoroughly Israelitish, he\npronounces Israel's condemnation.  He starts from premisses\ngenerally conceded, but he accentuates them differently and\ndraws from them divergent conclusions.\n\nAmos was the founder, and the purest type, of a new phase of\nprophecy.   The impending conflict of Asshur with Jehovah and\nIsrael, the ultimate downfall of Israel, is its theme.  Until that\ndate there had subsisted in Palestine and Syria a number of petty\nkingdoms and nationalities, which had their friendships and\nenmities with one another, but paid no heed to anything outside\ntheir own immediate environment, and revolved, each on its own axis,\ncareless of the outside world, until suddenly the Assyrians burst\nin upon them.  These commenced the work which was carried on by\nthe Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks, and completed by the Romans.\nThey introduced a new factor, the conception of the world,--the world\nof course in the historical sense of that expression.  In presence\nof that conception the petty nationalities lost their centre of\ngravity, brute fact dispelled their illusions, they flung their\ngods to the moles and to the bats (Isaiah ii.).  The prophets of\nIsrael alone did not allow themselves to be taken by surprise by\nwhat had occurred, or to be plunged in despair; they solved by\nanticipation the grim problem which history set before them.\nThey absorbed into their religion that conception of the world\nwhich was destroying the religions of the nations, even before it\nhad been fully grasped by the secular consciousness.  Where\nothers saw only the ruin of everything that is holiest, they saw\nthe triumph of Jehovah over delusion and error.  Whatever else\nmight be overthrown, the really  worthy remained unshaken.  They\nrecognised ideal powers only, right and wrong truth and falsehood;\nsecond causes were matters of indifference to them, they were no\npractical politicians.  But they watched the course of events\nattentively, nay, with passionate interest.  The present, which\nwas passing before them, became to them as it were the plot of a\ndivine drama which they  watched with an intelligence that\nanticipated the _denouement_.  Everywhere the same goal of the\ndevelopment, everywhere the same laws.  The nations are the\n_dramatis personae_, Israel the hero, Jehovah the poet of the\ntragedy.  /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. In very much the same way the threatened and actual political\nannihilation of Ionia led to the rise of Greek philosophy\n(Xenophanes, Heraclitus).\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe canonical prophets, the series of whom begins with Amos, were\nseparated by an essential distinction from the class which had\npreceded them and which still continued to be the type of the\ncommon prophet.  They did not seek to kindle either the\nenthusiasm or the fanaticism of the multitude; they swam not\nwith but against the stream.  They were not patriotic, at least\nin the ordinary acceptation of that word; they prophesied not good\nbut evil for their people (Jer. xxviii. 8).  Until their time\nthe nation had sprung up out of the conception of Jehovah; now\nthe conception of Jehovah was casting the nation into the shade.\nThe natural bond between the two was severed, and the relation\nwas henceforward viewed as conditional.  As God of the\nrighteousness which is the law of the whole universe, Jehovah\ncould be Israel's God only in so far as in Israel the right was\nrecognised and followed.  The ethical element destroyed the\nnational character of the old religion.  It still addressed itself,\nto be sure, more to the nation and to society at large than to\nthe individual; it insisted less upon a pure heart than upon\nrighteous institutions; but nevertheless the first step towards\nuniversalism had been accomplished, towards at once the general\ndiffusion and the individualisation of religion.  Thus, although\nthe prophets were far from originating a new conception of God,\nthey  none the less were the founders of what has been called\n\"ethical monotheism.\"  But with them this ethical monotheism was no\nproduct of the \"self-evolution of dogma,\" but a progressive step\nwhich had been called forth simply by the course of events.  The\nprovidence of God brought it about that this call came at an\nopportune period, and not too suddenly.  The downfall of the nation\ndid not take place until the truths and precepts of religion were\nalready strong enough to be able to live on alone; to the\nprophets belongs the merit of having recognised the independence\nof these, and of having secured perpetuity to Israel by refusing\nto allow the conception of Jehovah to be involved in the ruin of\nthe kingdom.  They saved faith by destroying illusion.\n\nThe event which Amos had foreseen was not long in coming.  The\nIsraelites flew spontaneously, like \"silly doves,\" into the net\nof the Assyrians.  Zechariah ben Jeroboam was overthrown after a\nshort reign, Shallum his murderer and successor was also unable to\nhold his own, and was followed after the horrors of a civil war by\nMenahem ben Gadi (745 B.C).  But Menahem, in the presence of\ndomestic (and perhaps also foreign) assailants, /1/ had no other\n\n-- Footnote\n1. It is not inconceivable that the wars carried on by\nTiglath-pileser II. against Hamath had some connection with his\ninterventions in favour of Menahem.  The kingdom of Hamath, which\nmay have been threatened by Jeroboam II., may have availed\nitself of the state of matters which followed his death to secure\nits own aggrandisement at Israel's expense; in correspondence\nwith this attack from the northern side another by Judah in\nconcert with Hamath may well have been made from the south.  In\nthis way, though not without the aid of pure hypothesis, it might\nbe possible to fit into the general historical connection the\nfragmentary Assyrian notices about Azariah of Judah and his\nrelations to Hamath; the explanations suggested by the\nAssyriologists have hitherto been total failures.  But in that\ncase it would certainly be necessary to assume that the Assyrians\nwere badly informed as to the nature of the relations between\nHamath and Judah, and also as to the individual who at that time\nheld the throne of Judah.  Uzziah (= Azariah), who in his old age\nhad become a leper, could only nominally at best have been king\nof Judah then.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nresort than to purchase by payment of a great tribute the assistance\nof King Tiglath-pileser II., who at that time was giving new force\nto the Assyrian predominance in these regions.   By such means he\nsucceeded in attaining his immediate end, but the further\nconsequence was that the rival party in the state turned for\nsupport to Egypt, and Palestine now became the arena of conflict\nbetween the two great world-powers.\n\nMenahem transmitted his kingdom to Pekahiah; Pekahiah was murdered\nabout 735 B.C. by Pekah, and Pekah himself shortly afterwards\nwas overthrown.  All this happened within a few years.  It would\nhave been possible to conjecture the state of the country in\nthese circumstances, even if we had not been informed of it by\nmeans of the prophetical book of Hosea, which dates from the time\nwhen the Assyrians had begun indeed to tamper with the country,\nbut had not yet shown their full design.  After the death of\nJeroboam II. there had been wild outbursts of partisan war; none\nof the kings who in quick succession appeared and disappeared had\nreal power, none established order.  It was as if the danger from\nwithout, which was only too obviously  threatening the existence\nof the kingdom, had already dissolved all internal bonds; every\none was at war with his neighbour.  Assyrians and Egyptians were\ncalled in to support this or that government; by such expedients\nthe external confusion was, naturally, only increased.  Was there\nany other quarter in which help could yet be sought?  The\npeople, led by the priests, turned to the altars of Jehovah, and\noutdid itself in pious works, as if by any such illusory means,\nout of all relation to the practical problem in hand, the gangrene\nof anarchy could possibly be healed.  Still more zealous than\nAmos against the cultus was Hosea, not merely on the ground that\nit had the absurd motive of forcing Jehovah's favour, but also\nbecause it was of heathenish character, nature-worship and\nidolatry.  That Jehovah is the true and only helper is certainly\nnot denied by  Hosea.  But His help is coupled with the condition\nthat Israel shall undergo a complete change, and of such a change\nhe sees no prospect.  On this account the downfall of the state is\nin Hosea's view inevitable, but not final ruin, only such an\noverthrow as is necessary for the transition to a new and fair\nrecommencement.  In Hosea's prophecies the relation between Jehovah\nand Israel is conceived of as dissoluble, and as actually on the point\nof being dissolved, but it has struck its roots so deep that it\nmust inevitably at last establish itself again.\n\nThe first actual collision between Israel and Assyria occurred in\n734.  Resin, king of Damascus, and Pekah, king of Samaria, had\nunited in an expedition against Judah, where at that time Ahaz ben\nJotham occupied the throne.  But Ahaz parried the blow by placing\nhimself under the protection of the Assyrians, who perhaps would\nin any case have struck in against the alliance between Aram and\nIsrael.  Tiglath-pileser made his first appearance in 734, first on\nthe sea-coast of Palestine, and subsequently either in this or in\nthe following year took up his quarters in the kingdom of the ten\ntribes.  After he had ravaged Galilee and Gilead, he finally\nconcluded a peace with Samaria conditionally on his receiving the\nhead of King Pekah and a considerable yearly tribute.  Hosea ben\nElah was raised to the throne in Pekah's place and acknowledged by\nthe Assyrian as a vassal For some ten years he held his position\nquietly, regularly  paying his dues.  But when at the death of\nTiglath-pileser the Syro-Palestinian kingdoms rebelled _en masse_,\nSamaria also was seized with the delirium of patriotic fanaticism\n(Isaiah xxviii.).  Relying upon the help of Seve, king of Ethiopia\nand Egypt, Hosea ventured on a revolt from Assyria.  But the\nEgyptians left him in the lurch as soon as Shalmaneser IV.,\nTiglath-pileser's successor, invaded his territory.  Before his\ncapital had fallen, Hosea himself fell into the hands of the\nAssyrians.  Samaria offered a desperate resistance, and succumbed\nonly to Sargon, Shalmaneser's successor (72I).  Energetic\nmeasures were adopted by the victor for the pacification of the\ncountry; he carried all the inhabitants of mark into captivity\nto Calachene, Gozanitis, and Armenia.  Much light is thrown upon\nthe conditions of the national religion then and upon its\nsubsequent development by the single fact that the exiled\nIsraelites were absorbed by the surrounding heathenism without\nleaving a trace behind them, while the population of Judah, who\nhad the benefit of a hundred years respite, held their faith fast\nthroughout the period of the Babylonian exile, and by means of it\nwere able to maintain their own individuality afterwards in all\nthe circumstances that arose.  The fact that the fall of Samaria\ndid not hinder but helped the religion of Jehovah is entirely due\nto the prophets.  That they had foreseen the downfall of the\nstate, and declared in the name of religion that it was\ninevitable, was a matter of much greater historical importance\nthan the actual downfall itself.\n\n\n7.  THE DELIVERANCE OF JUDAH.\n\nHitherto the small kingdom of Judah had stood in the background.\nIts political history had been determined almost exclusively by\nits relation to Israel.  Under the dynasty of Omri the original\nenmity had been changed into a close but perhaps not quite\nvoluntary friendship.  Judah found itself drawn completely into\nthe train of the more powerful neighbouring state, and seems even\nto have rendered it military service.  The fall of the house of\nOmri was an ominous event for Judah as well as Israel; Jehu, as\nhe passed to the throne, put to death not only Ahaziah the king\nbut also two and forty other members of the royal house of David\nwho had fallen into his hands; and those who still survived,\nchildren for the most part, were murdered wholesale by the regent\nAthaliah for reasons that are unknown.  Only one little boy,\nJoash, was concealed from her fury, and by a successful\nconspiracy six years afterwards was placed upon the throne of his\nancestors.  At that time the Syrians were extending their\nincursions to Judah and Philistia, and Joash bought them off from\nJerusalem with the temple treasures.  Perhaps it was this disgrace\nthat he expiated with his death; in like manner perhaps the\nassassination of his successor Amaziah is to be accounted for by\nthe discredit he had incurred by a reckless and unsuccessful war\nagainst Israel.  Just as Israel was beginning to recover itself\nafter the happy termination of the Syrian wars, Judah also\nexperienced its period of highest prosperity.  What Jeroboam II.\nwas to the northern kingdom, Uzziah was to that of the south.  He\nappears to have obtained possession of Edom, and for a\nconsiderable time to have held that one province of David's\nconquests which fell to Judah; and at the trading port of Elath\nhe revived the commerce which Solomon had created.  The prosperity\nof his long reign was uninterrupted till in his later years he was\nsmitten with leprosy, and found it necessary to hand over the\naffairs of the kingdom to his son Jotham.  But Jotham appears to\nhave died about the same time as his father,--his successor, still\nin very early youth (Isaiah iii. 12), being Ahaz ben Jotham\nben Uzziah.\n\nIf Judah could not compare with Israel in political and general\nhistorical importance, it nevertheless enjoyed more than one\nconsiderable advantage over the larger kingdom.  It was much safer\nfrom foreign foes; for the Egyptians, as a rule, were not\ndangerous neighbours.  But its chief advantage consisted in the\nstability of its dynasty.  It was David who had elevated Judah\nand Jerusalem to a position of historical significance, and the\nprosperity of his house was most intimately connected with that\nof the town and territory, and even with that of religion.  On two\nseparate occasions it occurred that a king of Judah was murdered\nby subjects, but in both cases the \"people of the land\" rose up\nagainst the assassins and once more placed a member of the Davidic\nfamily upon the throne.  The one actual recorded revolution was\nthat against Athaliah, which had for its object the restoration of\nthe throne to the legitimate heir.  Under shelter of the monarchy\nthe other institutions of the state also acquired a measure of\npermanency such as was not found at all in Israel, where\neverything depended on the character of individuals, and the\nexisting order of things was ever liable to be subjected to fresh\ndispute.  Life in Judah was a much more stable affair, though not\nso exciting or dramatic.  Possibly the greater isolation of the\nlittle kingdom, its more intimate relations with the neighbouring\nwilderness, and the more primitive modes of life which resulted,\nwere also factors which contributed to this general result.\n\nIn the capital of course the life was not primitive, and its\ninfluence was undoubtedly greater than that of the country.\nSuccessive kings exerted themselves for its external improvement,\nand in this respect Hezekiah ben Ahaz was specially\ndistinguished.  Above all they manifested sincere interest in the\ntemple, which from an early period exerted a powerful force of\nattraction over the entire mass of the population.  They\nregulated the cultus according to their individual tastes, added\nto it or curtailed it at their pleasure, and dealt with the sacred\ntreasures as they chose.  Although the priests had in a certain\nsense great power--the conspiracy against Athaliah was led not by\na prophet but by a priest,--they were nevertheless subjects of\nthe king, and had to act according to his orders.  That the cultus\nof Jehovah at Jerusalem was purer than that at Bethel or at\nSamaria is an assertion which is contradicted by  more than one\nwell-attested fact.  In this respect there was no essential\ndifference between Israel and Judah.  It was in Israel that the\nreaction against Baal-worship originated which afterwards passed\nover into Judah; the initiative in all such matters was Israel's.\nThere the experiments were made from which Jerusalem learned the\nlesson.  How deep was the interest felt in the affairs of the larger\nkingdom by the inhabitants even of one of the smaller provincial\ntowns of Judah is shown in the instance of Amos of Tekoah.\n\nStep by step with the decline of Israel after the death of\nJeroboam II. did Judah rise in importance; it was already\npreparing to take the inheritance.  The man through whom the\ntransition of the history from Israel to Judah was effected, and\nwho was the means of securing for the latter kingdom a period of\nrespite which was fruitful of the best results for the\nconsolidation of true religion, was the Prophet Isaiah.  The\nhistory of his activity is at the same time the history of\nJudah during that period.\n\nIsaiah became conscious of his vocation in the year of King\nUzziah's death;  his earliest discourses date from the beginning\nof the reign of Ahaz.  In them he contemplates the imminent\ndownfall of Samaria, and threatens Judah also with the\nchastisement its political and social sins deserve.  In chapter ix.,\nand also in chapters ii.-v., he still confines himself on the whole\nto generalities quite after the manner of Amos.  But on the\noccasion of the expedition of the allied Syrians and Ephraimites\nagainst Jerusalem he interposed with bold decision in the sphere of\npractical politics.  To the very last he endeavoured to restrain\nAhaz from his purpose of summoning the Assyrians to his help; he\nassured him of Jehovah's countenance, and offered him a token in\npledge.  When the king refused this, the prophet recognised that\nmatters had gone too far, and that the coming of the Assyrians\ncould not be averted.  He then declared that the dreaded danger\nwould indeed be obviated by that course, but that another far\nmore serious would be incurred.  For the Egyptians would resist\nthe westward movement of Assyria, and Judah as the field of war\nwould be utterly laid waste; only a remnant would remain as the\nbasis of a better future.\n\nThe actual issue, however, was not yet quite so disastrous.  The\nEgyptians did not interfere with the Assyrians, and left Samaria\nand Damascus to their fate.  Judah became indeed tributary to\nAssyria, but at the same time enjoyed considerable prosperity.\nHenceforward the prophet's most zealous efforts were directed to\nthe object of securing the maintenance, at any price, of this\ncondition of affairs.  He sought by every means at his command to\nkeep Judah from any sort of intervention in the politics of the\ngreat powers, in order that it might devote itself with undivided\nenergies to the necessities of internal affairs.  He actually\nsucceeded in maintaining the peace for many years, even at times\nwhen in the petty kingdoms around the spirit of revolt was abroad.\nThe ill success of all attempts elsewhere to shake off the yoke\nconfirmed him in the conviction that Assyria was the rod of\nchastisement wielded by Jehovah over the nations, who had no\nalternative but to yield to its iron sway.\n\nWhile thirty years passed thus peacefully away so far as foreign\nrelations were concerned, internal changes of all the greater\nimportance were taking place.  Hezekiah ben Ahaz undertook for\nthe first time a thoroughgoing reformation in the cultus of\nJehovah.  \"He removed the high places, and brake the pillars,\nand cut down the Ashera, and brake in pieces the brazen serpent\nthat Moses had made;\" so we are told in 2Kings xviii. 4, with\na mixture of the general and the special that does not inspire\nmuch confidence.  For, e.g., the \"high places\" which Solomon\nhad raised on the Mount of Olives were not removed by Hezekiah,\nalthough they stood quite close to Jerusalem, and moreover were\nconsecrated to foreign deities.  But in every respect there must\nhave been a wide difference between the objects and results of\nthe reformations of Hezekiah and Josiah.  Undoubtedly Hezekiah\nundertook his reforms in worship under the influence of Isaiah.\nFollowing in the footsteps of Hosea, who had been the first to\ntake and to express offence at the use of images in the worship\nof Jehovah, this prophet, utilising the impression which the\ndestruction of Samaria had produced in Jerusalem (Isaiah\nxvii., cf. Jeremiah iii.), strove to the utmost against the\nadoration of the work of men's hands in the holy places, against\nthe Asheras and pillars (sun-pillars), and above all against the\nephods, i.e., the idols of silver and gold, of which the land was\nfull.  But against the high places in and by themselves, against\nthe multiplicity of the altars of Jehovah, he made no protest.\n\"( In the Messianic time) ye shall loathe and cast away as an\nunclean thing your graven images with silver coverings and your\nmolten images overlaid with gold,\" he says (xxx. 22); and the\ninference is that he contemplated the purification of the high\nplaces from superstitious excesses, but by no means their abolition.\nTo this one object /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. That is, to the abolition of the images.  Jeremiah's polemic\nis directed no longer against the images, but against wood\nand stone, i.e, Asheras and pillars.  The date of the reformation\nunder Hezekiah is uncertain; perhaps it ought to be placed after\nSennacherib's withdrawal from Jerusalem.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nHezekiah's reformation seems to have confined itself,--an object\nof much greater primary importance than the destruction of the\naltars themselves.  Their destruction was a measure which arose\nsimply out of despair of the possibility  of cleansing them.\n\nSargon, king of Assyria, was succeeded in 705 by Sennacherib.\nThe opportunity was seized by Merodach Baladan of Babylon to secure\nhis independence; and by means of an embassy he urged Hezekiah\nalso to throw off the yoke.  The proposal was adopted, and the\nking of Judah was joined by other petty kingdoms, especially\nsome of the Philistine towns.  Relations with Egypt were\nestablished to secure its support in case of need.  Sennacherib's\nmore immediate and pressing business in Babylon enabled Palestine\nto gain some time; but the issue of that revolt made\nself-deception impossible as to the probable result of the other\nmovement.\n\nThis was the period at which Isaiah, already far advanced in life,\nwielded his greatest influence.  The preparations for revolt, the\nnegotiations with Egypt, were concealed from him,-a proof how\ngreatly he was feared at court.  When he came to know of them, it\nwas already too late to undo what had been done.   But he could at\nleast give vent to his anger.  With Jerusalem, it seemed to him,\nthe story of Samaria was repeating itself; uninstructed by that\nsad lesson, the capital was giving itself up to the mad\nintoxication of leaders who would inevitably bring her to ruin.\n\"Quietness and rest\" had been the motto given by  Jehovah to\nJudah, powerless as it was and much in need of a period of peace;\ninstead of this, defiance based on ignorance and falsehood\nexpressed the prevailing temper.  But those who refused to listen\nto the intelligible language of Jehovah would be compelled to hear\nHim speak in Assyrian speech in a way  that would deafen and blind\nthem.  Isaiah shows himself no less indignant against the crowd\nthat stupidly stared at his excitement than against the\nGod-forsaken folly of the king, with his counsellors, his priests,\nand his prophets.  They do not suffer themselves to be shaken out\nof their ordinary  routine by the gravity of such a crisis as\nthis; the living work of Jehovah is to them a sealed book; their\npiety does not extend beyond the respect they show for certain\nhuman precepts learnt by rote.\n\nMeanwhile Sennacherib, at the head of a great army, was advancing\nagainst Philistia and Judah along the Phoenician coast (701).\nHaving captured Ascalon, he next laid siege to Ekron, which,\nafter the combined Egyptian and Ethiopian army sent to its relief\nhad been defeated at Eltheke, fell into the enemy's hand, and was\nseverely dealt with.  Simultaneously various fortresses of Judah\nwere occupied, and the level country was devastated (Isaiah i.).\nThe consequence was that Hezekiah, in a state of panic, offered\nto the Assyrians his sub-mission, which was accepted on payment of\na heavy penalty, he being permitted, however, to retain possession\nof Jerusalem.  He seemed to have got cheaply off from the unequal\ncontest.\n\nThe way being thus cleared, Sennacherib pressed on southwards, for\nthe Egyptians were collecting their forces against him.  The nearer\nhe came to the enemy the more undesirable did he find it that he\nshould leave in his rear so important a fortress as Jerusalem in\nthe hands of a doubtful vassal.  Notwithstanding the recently\nratified treaty, therefore, he demanded the surrender of the\ncity, believing that a policy of intimidation would be enough to\nsecure it from Hezekiah.  But there was another personality in\nJerusalem of whom his plans had taken no account.  Isaiah had\nindeed regarded the revolt from Assyria as a rebellion against\nJehovah Himself, and therefore as a perfectly hopeless undertaking\nwhich could only result in the utmost humiliation and sternest\nchastisement for Judah.  But still more distinctly than those who\nhad gone before him did he hold firm as an article of faith the\nconviction that the kingdom would not be utterly annihilated; all\nhis speeches of solemn warning closed with the announcement that\na remnant should return and form the kernel of a new commonwealth\nto be fashioned after Jehovah's own heart.  For him, in contrast to\nAmos, the great crisis had a positive character; in contrast to\nHosea, he did not expect a temporary suspension of the theocracy,\nto be followed by its complete reconstruction, but in the pious\nand God-fearing individuals who were still to be met with in this\nSodom of iniquity, he saw the threads, thin indeed yet sufficient,\nwhich formed the links between the Israel of the present and its\nbetter future.  Over against the vain confidence of the multitude\nIsaiah had hitherto brought into prominence the darker obverse of\nhis religious belief, but now he confronted their present\ndepression with its bright reverse; faint-heartedness was still\nmore alien to his nature than temerity.  In the name of Jehovah he\nbade King Hezekiah be of good courage, and urged that he should by\nno means surrender.  The Assyrians would not be able to take the\ncity, not even to shoot an arrow into it nor to bring up their\nsiege train against it.  \"I know thy sitting, thy going, and thy\nstanding,\" is Jehovah's language to the Assyrian, \"and also thy\nrage against me.  And I will put my ring in thy nose, and my\nbridle in thy lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by\nwhich thou camest.\"  And thus it proved in the issue.  By a still\nunexplained catastrophe, the main army of Sennacherib was\nannihilated on the frontier between Egypt and Palestine, and\nJerusalem thereby freed from all danger.  The Assyrian king had to\nsave himself by a hurried retreat to Nineveh; Isaiah was\ntriumphant.  A more magnificent close of a period of influential\npublic life can hardly be imagined.\n\nWhat Sennacherib himself relates of his expedition against his\nrebellious vassals in Palestine (George Smith, Assyrian Eponym\nCanon, p. 67, 68, 131-136) runs parallel with 2 Kings xviii. 14-16,\nbut not with the rest of the Bible narrative.  These three verses\nare peculiar, and their source is different from that of the context.\nAfter having captured various Phoenician cities, and received tribute\nfrom a number of kings, his first measure is forcibly to restore the\nAssyrian governor who had been expelled from Ascalon, and next he\nturns his arms against Ekron.  This city had put in irons its own\nking, Padi (who remained loyal to the suzerain), and handed him over\nto Hezekiah, who appears as the soul of the rebellion in these\nquarters.  The Egyptians, who as usual have a hand in the matter,\nadvance with an army for the relief of the beleaguered city, but\nare defeated near Eltheke in the immediate neighbourhood; Ekron is\ntaken, remorselessly chastised, and forced to take Padi back again\nas its king.  For Hezekiah in the meantime has delivered up his\nprisoner, and, terrified by the fall of his fortresses and the\ndevastation of his territory, has accepted the position of a vassal\nonce more, paying at the same time a heavy fine, inclusive of\n30 talents of gold and 800 of silver.  Such is the Assyrian account.\nIf we treat the 300 talents mentioned in 2Kings xviii.  14 as\nSyrian (=800 Babylonian), it completely fills in the vague outlines\ngiven in 2Kings xviii. 14-16, and, while confirming in their place\nimmediately after ver. 13 these verses, unrelated as they are to\nthe main connection of the Biblical narrative, corrects them only\nin one point, by making it probable that the subjection of\nHezekiah (which is not equivalent to the surrender of his city)\ntook place while Sennacherib was still before Ekron, and not at\nlater date when he had gone further south towards Libnah.  As\nregards his further advance towards Egypt, and the reasons of his\nsudden withdrawal (related by Herodotus also from Egyptian tradition),\nthe great king is silent, having nothing to boast of in it.\nThe battle of Eltheke, which is to be regarded only as an episode\nin the siege of Ekron, being merely the repulse of the Egyptian\nrelieving army, was not an event of great historical importance,\nand ought not to be brought into any connection either with 2Kings\nxix. 7 or with xix. 35; Sennacherib's inscription speaks only of\nthe first and prosperous stage of the expedition, not of the decisive\none which resulted so disastrously for him, as must be clear from\nthe words themselves to every unprejudiced reader.\n\n\n8.  THE PROPHETIC REFORMATION.\n\nIsaiah was so completely a prophet that even his wife was called\nthe prophetess after him.  No such title could have been bestowed\non the wife of either Amos or Hosea.  But what distinguished him\nmore than anything else from those predecessors was that his\nposition was not, like theirs, apart from the government; he sat\nclose to the helm, and took a very real part in directing the\ncourse of the vessel.  He was more positive and practical than\nthey; he wished to make his influence felt, and when for the\nmoment he was unsuccessful in this so far as the great whole of the\nstate was concerned, he busied himself in gathering round him a\nsmall circle of like-minded persons on whom his hope for the future\nrested.  Now that Israel had been destroyed, he wished at all\nevents to save Judah.  The lofty ideality of his faith (ii. 1 seq.)\ndid not hinder him from calling in the aid of practical means\nfor this end.  But the current of his activities was by the\ncircumstances of the case directed into a channel in which after\nhis death they continued to flow towards a goal which had hardly\nbeen contemplated by himself.\n\nThe political importance of the people of Jehovah was reduced to a\nminimum when Judah only was left.  Already at an earlier period\nin that kingdom the sacred had come to be of more importance than\nthe secular; much more was this the case under the suzerainty of\nAssyria.  The circumstances of the time themselves urged that the\nreligion of Israel should divest itself of all politico-national\ncharacter; but Isaiah also did his best to further this end.  It\nwas his most zealous endeavour to hold king and people aloof from\nevery patriotic movement; to him the true religious attitude was\none of quietness and sitting still, non-intervention in political\naffairs, concentration on the problems of internal government.  But\nhe was compelled to leave over for the coming Messiah (xi. 1 seq.)\nthat reformation in legal and social matters which seemed to him so\nnecessary; all that he could bring the secular rulers of his\ncountry to undertake was a reform in worship.  This was the most\neasily solved of the problems alluded to above, and it was also\nthat which most closely corresponded to the character of the\nkingdom of Judah.  Thus it came about that the reform of the\ntheocracy which had been contemplated by Isaiah led to its\ntransformation into an ecclesiastical state.  No less influential\nin effecting a radical change in the old popular religion was\nIsaiah's doctrine which identified the true Israel with the\nholy remnant which alone should emerge from the crisis unconsumed.\nFor that remnant was more than a mere object of hope; it actually\nstood before him in the persons of that little group of pious\nindividuals gathered around him.  Isaiah founded no \"ecclesiola\nin ecclesia\" indeed, but certainly an \"ecclesia in civitate Dei.\"\nNow began that distinction between the true Israel and the Israel\naccording to the flesh, that bipartite division of the nation\nwhich became so important in later times.  As head and founder\nof the prophetic party in Judah, Isaiah was, involuntarily,\nthe man who took the first steps towards the institution of\nthe church.\n\nThe catastrophe which befell the army of Sennacherib had no very\ngreat effect upon the external affairs of Judah.  Sennacherib\nindeed, being busy in the east, was unable to retrieve the loss he\nhad sustained, but his son Esarhaddon, who succeeded him in 681,\nresumed the Egyptian war with better success.  He made himself\nmaster of the Nile valley, and brought the Ethiopians into\nsubmission.  That the petty kingdoms of Palestine returned to the\nold relations of dependence is to be taken as a matter of course.\nJudah appears to have resumed the yoke voluntarily, but the\nSamaritans only after force had been applied; they were\nafterwards deported, whereupon the deserted country was occupied\nby foreign colonists, who, however, accepted the cultus of the god\nof the land.\n\nThat Manasseh ben Hezekiah should have again come under Assyrian\nsuzerainty appears at that time to have made but little impression;\nsince the time of Ahaz Judah had been accustomed to this\nrelation.  The Book of Kings speaks only of internal affairs under the\nreign of Manasseh.  According to it, he was a bad ruler, who\npermitted, and even caused, innocent blood to flow like water.\nBut what was of greater consequence for the future, he took up an\nattitude of hostility towards the prophetic party of reform, and\nput himself on the side of the reaction which would fain bring back\nto the place of honour the old popular half-pagan conception of\nJehovah, as against the pure and holy God whom the prophets\nworshipped.  The revulsion manifested itself as the reform had\ndone, chiefly in matters of worship.  The old idolatrous\nfurniture of the sanctuaries was reinstated in its place, and new\nfrippery was imported from all quarters, especially from Assyria\nand Babylon, to renovate the old religion; with Jehovah was now\nassociated a \"queen of heaven.\"  Yet, as usual, the restoration did\nmore than merely bring back the old order of things.  What at an\nearlier period had been mere naivete now became superstition, and\ncould hold its ground only by having imparted to it artificially\na deeper meaning which was itself borrowed from the prophetical\ncircle of ideas.  Again, earnestness superseded the old joyousness\nof the cultus; this now had reference principally to sin and its\natonement.  Value was attached to services rendered to the Deity,\njust in proportion to their hardness and unnaturalness; at this\nperiod it was that the old precept to sacrifice to Jehovah the male\nthat opens the matrix was extended to children.  The counter-\nreformation was far from being unaffected by the preceding\nreformation, although it understood religious earnestness in\nquite another sense, and sought, not to eliminate heathenism from\nthe cultus, but to animate it with new life.  On the other hand,\nthe reaction was, in the end, found to have left distinct traces of\nits influence in the ultimate issue of the reformation.\n\nWe possess one document dating from Manasseh's time in Micah vi. 1-\nvii. 6.  Here, where the lawlessness and utter disregard of\nevery moral restraint in Judah are set in a hideous light, the\nprophetic point of view, as contrasted with the new refinements in\nworship, attains also its simplest and purest expression.  Perhaps\nto this period the Decalogue also, which is so eloquently\nsilent in regard to cultus, is to be assigned.  Jehovah demands\nnothing for Himself, all that He asks is only for men; this is\nhere the fundamental law of the theocracy.\n\nManasseh's life was a long one, and his son Amon walked in his\nways.  The latter died after a brief reign, and with his death a\nnew era for Judah began.  It was introduced by the great\ncatastrophe in which the Assyrian empire came to an end.  The\nsovereignty of the world was beginning to pass out of the hands of\nthe Semites into those of the Aryans.  Phraortes of Media indeed\nwas unsuccessful in his attempt against the Assyrians, but Cyaxares\nbeat them and proceeded to besiege their capital.  The Scythian\ninvasion of Media and Western Asia (c. 630) at this juncture gave\nthem another respite of more than twenty years; but even it\ntended to break in pieces the great, loosely-compacted monarchy.\nThe provinces became gradually disintegrated, and the kingdom\nshrivelled up till it covered no more than the land of Asshur. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Our knowledge of the events of the second half of the 7th century\nhas remained singularly imperfect hitherto, notwithstanding the\nimportance of the changes they wrought on the face of the ancient\nworld.  The account given above is that of Herodotus (i. 103-106),\nand there the matter must rest until really authentic sources shall\nhave been brought to light.  With regard to the final\nsiege of Nineveh, our chief informant is Ctesias as quoted by\nDiodorus (ii.  26, 27).  Whether the prophecy of Nabum relates to\nthe LAST siege is doubtful (in spite of ii. 7, and the oracle\ngiven in Diodorus, (OTI THN *NINON )OUDEIS (ELEI KATA KRATOS )EAN\nMH PROTERON (O POTAMOS TH| POLEI GENHTAI POLEMOS), inasmuch as Nahum\n(i. 9) expressly speaks of the siege alluded to by him as the\nfirst, saying, \"the trouble shall not rise up the second time.\"\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe inroad of the Scythians aroused to energy again the voice of\nprophecy which had been dumb during the very sinful but not very\nanimated period of Manasseh's reign.  Zephaniah and Jeremiah\nthreatened with the mysterious northern foe, just as Amos and Hosea\nhad formerly done with the Assyrians.  The Scythians actually did\ninvade Palestine in 626 (the 13th year of Josiah), and penetrated\nas far as to Egypt; but their course lay along the shore line,\nand they left Judah untouched.  This danger that had come so near\nand yet passed them by, this instance of a prophetic threatening\nthat had come to pass and yet been mercifully averted, made a\npowerful impression upon the people of Judah; public opinion went\nthrough a revolution in favour of the reforming party which was\nable to gain for itself the support also of the young king Josiah\nben Amon.  The circumstances were favourable for coming forward\nwith a comprehensive programme for a reconstruction of the\ntheocracy.  In the year 621 (the eighteenth of Josiah) Deuteronomy\nwas discovered, accepted, and carried into effect.\n\nThe Deuteronomic legislation is designed for the reformation, by\nno means of the cultus alone, but at least quite as much of the\ncivil relations of life.  The social interest is placed above the\ncultus, inasmuch as everywhere humane ends are assigned for the\nrites and offerings.  In this it is plainly seen that\nDeuteronomy is the progeny of the prophetic spirit.  Still more\nplainly does this appear in the _motifs_ of the legislation;\naccording to these, Jehovah is the only God, whose service demands\nthe whole heart and every energy; He has entered into a covenant\nwith Israel, but upon fundamental conditions that, as contained\nin the Decalogue, are purely moral and of absolute universality.\nNowhere does the fundamental religious thought of prophecy find\nclearer expression than in Deuteronomy,--the thought that Jehovah\nasks nothing for Himself, but asks it as a religious duty that man\nshould render to man what is right, that His will lies not in any\nunknown height, but in the moral sphere which is known and\nunderstood by all. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The commandments which I command thee are not unattainable for\nthee, neither are they far off; not in heaven so that one might\nsay, Who can climb up into heaven and bring them down, and tell us\nthem that we might do them! not beyond the sea so that one might\nsay, Who shall go over the sea, and fetch them, and tell us them\nthat we might do them!--but the matter lies very near thee, in thy\nmouth and in thy heart, so that thou canst do it (Deut. xxx. 11-14).\n-- Footnote\n\n\nBut the result of the innovation did not correspond exactly to its\nprophetic origin.  Prophecy died when its precepts attained to the\nforce of laws; the prophetic ideas lost their purity when they\nbecame practical.  Whatever may have been contemplated, only\nprovisional regulations actually admitted of being carried, and\neven these only in co-operation with the king and the priests, and\nwith due regard to the capacity of the masses.  The final outcome\nof the Deuteronomic reformation was principally that the cultus\nof Jehovah was limited to Jerusalem and abolished everywhere\nelse,--such was the popular and practical form of prophetic\nmonotheism.  The importance of the Salomonic temple was thereby\nincreased in the highest degree, and so also the influence of the\npriests of Jerusalem, the sons of Zadok, who now in point of fact\ngot rid entirely of their rivals, the priests of the country\ndistricts.\n\n\n9.  JEREMIAH AND THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM.\n\nJosiah lived for thirteen years after the accomplishment of his\ngreat work.  It was a happy period of external and internal\nprosperity.  The nation possessed the covenant, and kept it.  It\nseemed as if the conditions had been attained on which, according\nto the prophets, the continuance of the theocracy depended; if\ntheir threatenings against Israel had been fulfilled, so now was\nJudah proving itself the heir of their promises.  Already in\nDeuteronomy is the \"extension of the frontier\" taken into\nconsideration, and Josiah actually put his hand to the task of\nseeking the attainment of this end.\n\nJehovah and Israel, religion and patriotism, once more went hand in\nhand.  Jeremiah alone did not suffer himself to be misled by the\ngeneral feeling.  He was a second Amos, upon a higher platform--\nbut, unlike his predecessor, a prophet by profession; his\nhistory, like Isaiah's, is practically the history of his time.\nIn the work of introducing Deuteronomy he had taken an active part,\nand throughout his life he showed his zeal against unlawful altars\nand against the adoration of wood and stone (Asheras and pillars).\nBut he was by no means satisfied with the efforts of the reformation\nthat had been effected; nothing appeared to him more sinful or\nmore silly than the false confidence produced by it in Jehovah\nand in the inviolability of His one true temple.  This confidence\nhe maintained to be delusive; Judah was not a whit better than\nIsrael had been, Jerusalem would be destroyed one day like the\ntemple of Shiloh.  The external improvements on which the people\nof Judah prided themselves he held to leave this severe judgment\nunaffected; what was needed was a quite different sort of change,\na change of heart, not very easy positively to define.\n\nAn opportunity for showing his opposition presented itself to the\nprophet at the juncture when King Josiah had fallen at Megiddo in\nthe battle with Pharaoh Necho (608), and when the people were\nseeking safety and protection by cleaving to Jehovah and His holy\ntemple.  At the instance of the priests and the prophets he had\nalmost expiated with his blood the blasphemies he had uttered\nagainst the popular belief; but he did not suffer himself to be\ndriven from his course.  Even when the times had grown quiet again,\nhe persisted, at the risk of his life and under universal reproach\nand ridicule, in his work as a prophet of evil.  Moments of despair\nsometimes came to him; but that he had correctly estimated the\ntrue value of the great conversion of the nation was speedily\nproved by the facts.  Although Deuteronomy was not formally\nabolished under Jehoiakim, who as the vassal of Egypt ascended the\nthrone of his father Josiah, nevertheless it ceased to have\npractical weight, the battle of Megiddo having shown that in spite\nof the covenant with Jehovah the possibilities of non-success in\nwar remained the same as before.  Jehoiakim tended to return to the\nways of Manasseh, not only as regarded idolatry, but also in his\ncontempt for law and the private rights of his subjects;--the two\nthings seem to stand in connection.\n\nThe course of events at last brought upon the theocracy the\nvisible ruin which Jeremiah had been so long expecting.  After the\nEgyptians had, with comparative ease, subjugated Syria at the time\nwhen the Medes and Chaldaeans were busied with the siege of\nNineveh, Nebuchadnezzar, that task accomplished, came upon them\nfrom Babylon and routed them on the Euphrates near Carchemish (605-4).\nThe people of Judah rejoiced at the fall of Nineveh, and also at\nthe result of Carchemish; but they were soon undeceived when the\nprospect began to open on them of simply exchanging the Egyptian\nfor the Chaldaean yoke.  The power of the Chaldaeans had been quite\nunsuspected, and now it was found that in them the Assyrians had\nsuddenly returned to life.  Jeremiah was the only man who gained\nany credit by these events.  His much ridiculed \"enemy out of\nthe north,\" of whom he had of old been wont to speak so much, now\nbegan to be talked of with respect, although his name was no longer\n\"the Scythian\" but \"the Babylonian.\"  It was an epoch,--the close\nof an account which balanced in his favour.  Therefore it was that\nprecisely at this moment he received the Divine command to commit\nto writing that which for twenty-three years he had been preaching,\nand which, ever pronounced impossible, had now showed itself so\nclose at hand.\n\nAfter the victory of Carchemish the Chaldaeans drove Pharaoh out\nof Syria, and also compelled the submission of Jehoiakim (c. 602).\nFor three years he continued to pay his tribute, and then he\nwithheld it; a mad passion for liberty, kindled by religious\nfanaticism, had begun to rage with portentous power amongst the\ninfluential classes, the grandees, the priests, and the prophets.\nNebuchadnezzar satisfied himself in the first instance with raising\nagainst Judah several of the smaller nationalities around,\nespecially the Edomites; not till 597 did he appear in person\nbefore Jerusalem.  The town was compelled to yield; the more\nimportant citizens were carried into exile, amongst them the young\nking Jechoniah, son of Jehoiakim, who had died in the interval;\nZedekiah ben Josiah was made king in his stead over the remnant\nleft behind.  The patriotic fanaticism that had led to the revolt\nwas not broken even by this blow.  Within four years afterwards\nnew plans of liberation began to be again set on foot; but on this\noccasion the influence of Jeremiah proved strong enough to avert\nthe danger.  But when a definite prospect of help from Pharaoh\nHophra (Apries) presented itself in 589, the craving for\nindependence proved quite irrepressible.  Revolt was declared; and\nin a very short time the Chaldaean army, with Nebuchadnezzar at\nits head, lay before Jerusalem.  For a while everything seemed to\nmove prosperously; the Egyptians came to the rescue, and the\nChaleaeans were compelled to raise the siege in order to cope\nwith them.  At this there was great joy in Jerusalem; but Jeremiah\ncontinued to express his gloomy views.  The event proved that he\nwas right; the Egyptians were repulsed and the siege resumed.\nThe city was bent on obstinate resistance; in vain did Jeremiah,\nat continual risk of his life, endeavour to bring it to reason.\nThe king, who agreed with the prophet, did not venture to assert\nhis opinion against the dominant terrorism.  The town in these\ncircumstances was at last taken by storm, and along with the temple,\nreduced to ruins.  Cruel vengeance was taken on the king and grandees,\nand the pacification of the country was ensured by another and\nlarger deportation of the inhabitants to Babylon.  Thus terminated\nin 586 the kingdom of Judah.\n\nThe prophets had been the spiritual destroyers of the old Israel.\nIn old times the nation had been the ideal of religion in actual\nrealisation; the prophets confronted the nation with an ideal to\nwhich it did not correspond.  Then to bridge over this interval the\nabstract ideal was framed into a law, and to this law the nation\nwas to be conformed.  The attempt had very important consequences,\ninasmuch as Jehovah continued to be a living power in the law,\nwhen He was no longer realised as present in the nation; but that\nwas not what the prophets had meant to effect.  What they were\nunconsciously labouring towards was that religious individualism\nwhich had its historical source in the national downfall, and\nmanifested itself not exclusively within the prophetical sphere.\nWith such men as Amos and Hosea the moral personality based upon\nan inner conviction burst through the limits of mere nationality;\ntheir mistake was in supposing that they could make their way of\nthinking the basis of a national life.  Jeremiah saw through the\nmistake; the true Israel was narrowed to himself.  Of the truth of\nhis conviction he never had a moment's doubt; he knew that Jehovah\nwas on his side, that on Him depended the eternal future.  But,\ninstead of the nation, the heart and the individual conviction were\nto him the subject of religion.  On the ruins of Jerusalem he gazed\ninto the future filled with joyful hope, sure of this that Jehovah\nwould one day pardon past sin and renew the relation which had\nbeen broken off-though on the basis of another covenant than that\nlaid down in Deuteronomy.  \"I will put my law upon their heart,\nand write it on their mind; none shall say to his neighbour, Know\nthe Lord, for all shall have that knowledge within them.\"\n\n\n10.  THE CAPTIVITY AND THE RESTORATION\n\nThe exiled Jews were not scattered all over Chaldaea, but were\nallowed to remain together in families and clans.  Many of them,\nnotwithstanding this circumstance, must have lapsed and become\nmerged in the surrounding heathenism; but many also continued\nfaithful to Jehovah and to Israel.  They laboured under much\ndepression and sadness, groaning under the wrath of Jehovah, who\nhad rejected His people and cancelled His covenant.  They were\nlying under a sort of vast interdict; they could not celebrate\nany sacrifice or keep any feast; they could only observe days of\nfasting and humiliation, and such rites as had no inseparable\nconnection with the holy land.  The observance of the Sabbath,\nand the practice of the rite of circumcision, acquired much\ngreater importance than they formerly possessed as signs of a\ncommon religion.  The meetings on the Sabbath day out of which\nthe synagogues were afterwards developed appear to have first\ncome into use during this period; perhaps also even then it had\nbecome customary to read aloud from the prophetic writings which\nset forth that all had happened in the providence of God, and\nmoreover that the days of adversity were not to last for ever.\n\nMatters improved somewhat as Cyrus entered upon his victorious\ncareer.  Was he the man in whom the Messianic prophecies had found\ntheir fulfilment?  The majority were unwilling to think so.  For it\nwas out of Israel (they argued) that the Messiah was to proceed who\nshould establish the kingdom of God upon the ruins of the kingdoms\nof the world; the restitution effected by means of a Persian could\nonly be regarded as a passing incident in the course of an historical\nprocess that had its goal entirely elsewhere.  This doubt was met by\nmore than one prophetical writer, and especially by the great\nanonymous author to whom we are indebted for Isaiah xl.-lxvi.\n\n\"Away with sorrow; deliverance is at the door!  Is it a humiliating\nthing that Israel should owe its freedom to a Persian?  Nay, is it\nnot rather a proof of the world-wide sway of the God of Jacob that He\nshould thus summon His instruments from the ends of the earth?  Who\nelse than Jehovah could have thus sent Cyrus?  Surely not the false\ngods which he has destroyed?  Jehovah alone it was who foretold and\nforeknew the things which are now coming to pass,--because long ago\nHe had prearranged and predetermined them, and they are now being\nexecuted in accordance with his plan.  Rejoice therefore in the\nprospect of your near deliverance; prepare yourselves for the new era;\ngird yourselves for the return to your homes.\"\n\nIt is to be observed, as characteristic in this prophecy, how the\nidea of Jehovah as God alone and God over all--in constantly recurring\nlyrical parenthesis he is praised as the author of the world and of\nall nature--is yet placed in positive relation to Israel alone, and\nthat upon the principle that Israel is in exclusive possession of the\nuniversal truth, which cannot perish with Israel, but must through\nthe instrumentality of Israel, become the common possession of the\nwhole world.  \"There is no God but Jehovah, and Israel is his prophet.\"\n\nFor many years the Persian monarch put the patience of the Jews to\nthe proof; Jehovah's judgment upon the Chaldaeans, instead of\nadvancing, seemed to recede.  At length, however, their hopes were\nrealised; in the year 538 Cyrus brought the empire of Babylon to\nan end, and gave the exiles leave to seek their fatherland once more.\nThis permission was not made use of by all, or even by a majority.\nThe number of those who returned is stated at 42,360; whether women\nand children are included in this figure is uncertain.  On arriving\nat their destination, after the difficult march through the desert,\nthey did not spread themselves over the whole of Judah, but settled\nchiefly in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem.  The Calebites, for example,\nwho previously had had their settlements in and around Hebron, now\nsettled in Bethlehem and in the district of Ephrath.  They found\nit necessary to concentrate themselves in face of a threatened\nadmixture of doubtful elements.  From all sides people belonging\nto the surrounding nations had pressed into the depopulated territory\nof Judah.  Not only had they annexed the border territories--where,\nfor example, the Edomites or Idumaeans held the whole of the Negeb\nas far as to Hebron; they had effected lodgments everywhere, and--\nas the Ammonites, Ashdodites, and especially the Samaritans--had\namalgamated with the older Jewish population, a residue of which\nhad remained in the country in spite of all that had happened.\nThese half-breed \"pagani\" (Amme haarec 'oxloi) gave a friendly\nreception to the returning exiles (Bne haggola); particularly\ndid the Samaritans show themselves anxious to make common cause\nwith them.  But they were met with no reciprocal cordiality.\nThe lesson of religious isolation which the children of the\ncaptivity had learned in Babylon, they did not forget on their\nreturn to their home.  Here also they lived as in a strange land.\nNot the native of Judaea, but the man who could trace his descent\nfrom the exiles in Babylon, was reckoned as belonging to their\ncommunity.\n\nThe first decennia after the return of the exiles, during which\nthey were occupied in adjusting themselves to their new homes,\nwere passed under a variety of adverse circumstances and by no\nmeans either in joyousness or security.  Were these then the\nMessianic times which, it had been foretold, were to dawn at the\nclose of their captivity?  They did not at all events answer the\nexpectations which had been formed.  A settlement had been again\nobtained, it was true, in the fatherland; but the Persian yoke\npressed now more heavily than ever the Babylonian had done.  The\nsins of God's people seemed still unforgiven, their period of\nbond-service not yet at an end.  A slight improvement, as is shown\nby the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, followed when in the\nyear 520 the obstacles disappeared which until then had stood in\nthe way of the rebuilding of the temple; the work then begun was\ncompleted in 516.  Inasmuch as the Jews were now nothing more\nthan a religious community, based upon the traditions of a national\nexistence that had ceased, the rebuilding of the temple, naturally,\nwas for them an event of supreme importance.\n\nThe law of the new theocracy was the Book of Deuteronomy; this\nwas the foundation on which the structure was to be built.  But the\nforce of circumstances, and the spirit of the age, had even before\nand during the exile exerted a modifying influence upon that\nlegislative code; and it continued to do so still.  At first a\n\"son of David\" had continued to stand at the head of the Bne\nhaggola, but this last relic of the old monarchy soon had to give\nway to a Persian governor who was under the control of the satrap\nof trans-Euphratic Syria, and whose principal business was the\ncollection of revenue.  Thenceforward the sole national chief was\nJoshua the high priest, on whom, accordingly, the political\nrepresentation also of the community naturally devolved.  In the\ncircumstances as they then were no other arrangement was possible.\nThe way had been paved for it long before in so far as the\nAssyrians had destroyed the kingdom of Israel, while in the kingdom\nof Judah which survived it the religious cultus had greater importance\nattached to it than political affairs, and also inasmuch as in\npoint of fact the practical issue of the prophetic reformation\nsketched in Deuteronomy had been to make the temple the national\ncentre still more than formerly.  The hierocracy towards which\nEzekiel had already opened the way was simply inevitable.  It took\nthe form of a monarchy of the high priest, he having stepped into\nthe place formerly occupied by the theocratic king.  As his peers\nand at his side stood the members of his clan, the Levites of the\nold Jerusalem, who traced their descent from Zadok (Sadduk);\nthe common Levites held a much lower rank, so far as they had\nmaintained their priestly rank at all and had not been degraded,\nin accordance with Ezekiel's law (chapter xliv.), to the position\nof mere temple servitors.  \"Levite,\" once the title of honour\nbestowed on all priests, became more and more confined to members\nof the second order of the clergy.\n\nMeanwhile no improvement was taking place in the condition of the\nJewish colonists.  They were poor; they had incurred the\nhostility of their neighbours by their exclusiveness; the\nPersian Government was suspicious; the incipient decline of the\ngreat kingdom was accompanied with specially unpleasant\nconsequences so far as Palestine was concerned (Megabyzus).  All\nthis naturally tended to produce in the community a certain\nlaxity and depression.  To what purpose (it was asked) all this\nreligious strictness, which led to so much that was unpleasant?\nWhy all this zeal for Jehovah, who refused to be mollified by it?\nIt is a significant fact that the upper ranks of the priesthood\nwere least of all concerned to counteract this tendency.  Their\npriesthood was less to them than the predominance which was based\nupon it; they looked upon the neighbouring ethnarchs as their\nequals, and maintained relations of friendship with them.  The\ngeneral community was only following their example when it also\nbegan to mingle with the Amme haarec.\n\nThe danger of Judaism merging into heathenism was imminent.  But it\nwas averted by a new accession from without.  In the year 458 Ezra\nthe scribe, with a great number of his compatriots, set out from\nBabylon, for the purpose of reinforcing the Jewish element in\nPalestine.  The Jews of Babylon were more happily situated than\ntheir Palestinian brethren, and it was comparatively easy for\nthem to take up a separatist attitude, because they were\nsurrounded by heathenism not partial but entire.  They were no\ngreat losers from the circumstance that they were precluded from\nparticipating directly in the life of the ecclesiastical\ncommunity; the Torah had long ago become separated from the\npeople, and was now an independent abstraction following a career\nof its own.  Babylonia was the place where a further codification\nof the law had been placed alongside of Deuteronomy.  Ezekiel had\nled the way in reducing to theory and to writing the sacred praxis\nof his time; in this he was followed by an entire school; in their\nexile the Levites turned scribes.  Since then Babylon continued to\nbe the home of the Torah; and, while in Palestine itself the\npractice was becoming laxer, their literary study had gradually\nintensified the strictness and distinctive peculiarities of\nJudaism.  And now there came to Palestine a Babylonian scribe\nhaving the law of his God in his hand, and armed with authority\nfrom the Persian king to proceed upon the basis of this law with a\nreformation of the community.\n\nEzra did not set about introducing the new law immediately on his\narrival in Judaea In the first instance he concentrated his\nattention on the task of effecting a strict separation between the\nBne haggola and the heathen or half-heathen inhabitants.  So much\nhe could accomplish upon the basis of Deuteronomy, but it was long\nbefore he gave publicity to the law which he himself had brought.\nWhy he hesitated so long it is impossible to say; between the\nseventh and the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus (458-445\nB.C.) there is a great hiatus in the narrative of the books of Ezra\nand Nehemiah.  The main reason appears to have been that, in spite\nof the good will of the Persian king, Ezra had not the vigorous\nsupport of the local authorities.  But this was indispensably\nnecessary in order to secure recognition for a new law.\n\nAt last, in 445, it fell to the lot of a Jew, who also shared the\nviews of Ezra, Nehemiah ben Hakkelejah, /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. According to the present punctuation this name is Hakalja\n(Hachaljah), but such a pronunciation is inadmissible; it has no\npossible etymology, the language having no such word as _hakal_.\nThe name in its correct form means \"wait upon Jehovah.\"\n-- Footnote\n\n\nthe cupbearer and the favourite of Artaxerxes, to be sent as Persian\ngovernor to Judaea.  After he had freed the community from external\npressure with vigour and success, and brought it into more tolerable\noutward circumstances, the business of introducing the new law-book\nwas next proceeded with; in this Ezra and Nehemiah plainly acted in\nconcert.\n\nOn the first of Tisri--the year is unfortunately not given, but it\ncannot have been earlier than 444 B.C.--the promulgation of the\nlaw began at a great gathering in Jerusalem; Ezra, supported by\nthe Levites, was present.  Towards the end of the month, the\nconcluding act took place, in which the community became solemnly\nbound by the contents of the law.  Special prominence was given to\nthose provisions with which the people were directly concerned,\nparticularly those which related to the dues payable by the laity\nto the priests.\n\nThe covenant which hitherto had rested on Deuteronomy was thus\nexpanded into a covenant based upon the entire Pentateuch.\nSubstantially at least Ezra's law-book, in the form in which it\nbecame the Magna Charta of Judaism in or about the year 444, must\nbe regarded as practically identical with our Pentateuch, although\nmany minor amendments and very considerable additions may have\nbeen made at a later date.\n\nThe character of the post-Deuteronomic legislation (Priestly Code)\nis chiefly marked, in its external aspects, by the immense\nextension of the dues payable to the priests, and by the sharp\ndistinction made between the descendants of Aaron and the common\nLevites; this last feature is to be traced historically to the\ncircumstance that after the Deuteronomic reformation the legal\nequality between the Levites who until then had ministered at the\n\"high places\" and the priests of the temple at Jerusalem was not\n_de facto_ recognised.  Internally, it is mainly characterised by\nits ideal of Levitical holiness, the way in which it everywhere\nsurrounds life with purificatory and propitiatory ceremonies, and\nits prevailing reference of sacrifice to sin.  Noteworthy also is\nthe manner in which everything is regarded from the point of view\nof Jerusalem, a feature which comes much more boldly into\nprominence here than in Deuteronomy; the nation and the temple are\nstrictly speaking identified.  That externalisation towards which\nthe prophetical movement, in order to become practical, had\nalready been tending in Deuteronomy finally achieved its acme\nin the legislation of Ezra; a new artificial Israel was the\nresult; but, after all, the old would have pleased an Amos better.\nAt the same time it must be remembered that the kernel needed a\nshell.  It was a necessity that Judaism should incrust itself in\nthis manner; without those hard and ossified forms the preservation\nof its essential elements would have proved impossible.  At\na time when all nationalities, and at the same time all bonds of\nreligion and national customs, were beginning to be broken up in\nthe seeming cosmos and real chaos of the Graeco-Roman empire, the\nJews stood out like a rock in the midst of the ocean.  When the\nnatural conditions of independent nationality all failed them,\nthey nevertheless artificially  maintained it with an energy\ntruly marvellous, and thereby preserved for themselves, and at the\nsame time for the whole world, an eternal good.\n\nAs regards the subsequent history of the Jewish community under\nthe Persian domination, we have almost no information.  The high\npriest in Nehemiah's time was Eliashib, son of Joiakim and grandson\nof Joshua, the patriarchal head of the sons of Zadok, who had\nreturned from Babylon; he was succeeded in the direct line by\nJoiada, Johanan, and Jaddua (Nehemiah  xii. 10, 11, 22); the\nlast-named was in office at the time of Alexander the Great\n(Josephus, Antiquities, xi. 8).  Palestine was the province which\nsuffered most severely of all from the storms which marked the last\ndays of the sinking Persian empire, and it is hardly likely that\nthe Jews escaped their force; we know definitely, however, of only\none episode, in which the Persian general Bagoses interfered in a\ndisagreeable controversy about the high-priesthood (cir. 375).\n\nTo this period also (and not, as Josephus states, to the time of\nAlexander) belongs the constitution of the Samaritan community on\nan independent footing by Manasseh, a Jewish priest of rank.  He\nwas expelled from Jerusalem by Nehemiah in 432, for refusing to\nseparate from his alien wife.  He took shelter with his father-in-law\nSanballat, the Samaritan prince, who built him a temple on Mount\nGerizim near Shechem, where he organised a Samaritan church and a\nSamaritan worship, on the Jerusalem model, and on the basis of a\nbut slightly modified Jerusalem Pentateuch.  If the Samaritans\nhad hitherto exerted, themselves to the utmost to obtain admission\ninto the fellowship of the Jews, they henceforward were as averse\nto have anything to do with these as these were to have any\ndealings with them; the temple on Mount Gerizim was now the symbol\nof their independence as a distinct religious sect.  For the Jews\nthis was a great advantage, as they had no longer to dread the\ndanger of syncretism.  They could now quite confidently admit\nthe Amme haarec into their communion, in the assurance of\nassimilating them without any risk of the opposite process taking\nplace.  The Judaizing process began first with the country\ndistricts immediately surrounding Jerusalem, and then extended to\nGalilee and many portions of Peraea.  In connection with it, the\nHebrew language, which hitherto had been firmly retained by the\nBne haggola, now began to yield to the Aramaic, and to hold its own\nonly as a sacred speech.\n\n\n11.  JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.\n\nThe post-Deuteronomic legislation is not addressed to the people,\nbut to the congregation; its chief concern is the regulation of\nworship.  Political matters are not touched upon, as they are in\nthe hands of a foreigner lord.  The hierocracy is taken for granted\nas the constitution of the congregation.  The head of the cultus is\nthe head of the whole; the high priest takes the place of the\nking.  The other priests, though his brothers or his sons, are\nofficially subordinate to him, as bishops to the supreme pontiff.\nThey, again, are distinguished from the Levites not only by their\noffice but also by their noble blood, though the Levites belong by\ndescent to the clergy, of which they form the lowest grade.  The\nmaterial basis of the hierarchical pyramid is furnished by the\ncontributions of the laity, which are required on a scale which\ncannot be called modest.  Such is the outward aspect of the rule\nof the holy in Israel.  Inwardly, the ideal of holiness governs\nthe whole of life by means of a net of ceremonies and observances\nwhich separate the Jew from the natural man.  \"Holy\" means almost\nthe same as \"exclusive.\"  Originally the term was equivalent to\ndivine, but now it is used chiefly in the sense of religious,\npriestly, as if the divine were to be known from the worldly, the\nnatural, by outward marks.\n\nIt had so fallen out, even before the exile, that the reform of\nthe theocracy which the prophets demanded began in the cultus;\nand after the exile this tendency could not fail to be persisted in.\nThe restoration of Judaism took place in the form of a\nrestoration of the cultus.  Yet this restoration was not a relapse\ninto the heathen ways which the prophets had attacked.  The old\nmeaning of the festivals and of the sacrifices had long faded away,\nand after the interruption of the exile they would scarcely have\nblossomed again of themselves; they had become simply statutes,\nunexplained commands of an absolute will.  The cultus had no longer\nany real value for the Deity; it was valuable only as an\nexercise of obedience to the law.  If it had been at first the\nbond connecting Israel with heathenism, now, on the contrary, it\nwas the shield behind which Judaism retreated to be safe from\nheathenism.  There was no other means to make Judaism secure;\nand the cultus was nothing more than a means to that end.  It was\nthe shell around the faith and practice of the fathers, around the\nreligion of moral monotheism, which it alone preserved until it\ncould become the common property of the world.  The great public\nworship gave the new theocracy a firm centre, thus keeping it one\nand undivided, and helped it to an organisation.  But of more\nimportance was the minor private cultus of pious exercises, which\nserved to Judaize the whole life of every individual.  For the centre\nof gravity of Judaism was in the individual.  Judaism was gathered\nfrom scattered elements, and it depended on the labour of the\nindividual to make himself a Jew.  This is the secret of the\npersistence of Judaism, even in the diaspora.  The initiatory act\nof circumcision, which conferred an indelible character, was not\nthe only safeguard; the whole of the education which followed that\nact went to guard against the disintegrating effects of individualism.\nThis is the real significance of the incessant discipline, which\nconsisted mainly in the observance of laws of purity and generally\nof regulations devised to guard against sin.  For what holiness\nrequired was not to do good, but to avoid sin.  By the sin and\ntrespass offerings, and by the great day of atonement, this\nprivate cultus was connected with that of the temple; hence it was\nthat all these institutions fitted so admirably into the system.\nThe whole of life was directed in a definite sacred path; every\nmoment there was a divine command to fulfil, and this kept a man\nfrom following too much the thoughts and desires of his own heart.\nThe Jews trained themselves with an earnestness and zeal which have\nno parallel to create, in the absence of all natural conditions,\na holy nation which should answer to the law, the concrete embodiment\nof the ideals of the prophets.\n\nIn the individualism thus moulded into uniformity lay the chief\ndifference which separated the new period from the old.  The aim\nwas universal culture by the law, that the prophecy should be\nfulfilled which says: \"They shall all be taught of God.\"  This\nuniversal culture was certainly of a peculiar kind, and imposed\nmore troublesome observances than the culture of our day.  Yet the\nstrange duties which the law imposed were not universally felt\nto be a heavy burden.  Precepts which were plain and had to do\nwith something outward were very capable of being kept; the\nharder they seemed at first, the easier were they when the habit\nhad been formed.  A man saw that he was doing what was prescribed,\nand did not ask what was the use of it.  The ever-growing body of\nregulations even came to be felt as a sort of emancipation from\nself.  Never had the individual felt himself so responsible for all\nhe did and left undone, but the responsibility was oppressive, and\nit was well that there should be a definite precept for every hour\nof his life, thus diminishing the risk of his going astray.  Nor\nmust we forget that the Torah contained other precepts than those\nwhich were merely ceremonial.  The kernel did not quite harden into\nwood inside the shell; we must even acknowledge that moral sentiment\ngained very perceptibly in this period both in delicacy and in\npower.  This also is connected with the fact that religion was not,\nas before, the custom of the people, but the work of the\nindividual.  A further consequence of this was, that men began to\nreflect upon religion.  The age in question saw the rise of the\nso-called \"Wisdom,\" of which we possess examples in the Book of\nJob, in the Proverbs of Solomon and of the Son of Sirach, and in\nEcclesiastes.  This wisdom flourished not only in Judah, but also\nat the same time in Edom; it had the universalistic tendency\nwhich is natural to reflection.  The Proverbs of Solomon would\nscarcely claim attention had they arisen on Greek or Arabian\nsoil; they are remarkable in their pale generality only because\nthey are of Jewish origin.  In the Book of Job, a problem of faith\nis treated by Syrians and Arabians just as if they were Jews.  In\nEcclesiastes religion abandons the theocratic ground altogether,\nand becomes a kind of philosophy in which there is room even for\ndoubt and unbelief.  Speculation did not on the whole take away\nfrom depth of feeling; on the contrary, individualism helped to\nmake religion more intense.  This is seen strikingly in the Psalms,\nwhich are altogether the fruit of this period.  Even the sacrificial\npractice of the priests was made subjective, being incorporated in\nthe Torah, i.e., made a matter for every one to learn.  Though the\nlaity could not take part in the ceremony, they were at least to\nbe thoroughly informed in all the minutiae of the system; the law\nwas a means of interesting every one in the great public\nsacrificial procedure.  Another circumstance also tended to remove\nthe centre of gravity of the temple service from the priests to\nthe congregation.  The service of song, though executed by choirs\nof singers, was yet in idea the song of the congregation, and came\nto be of more importance than the acts of worship which it\naccompanied and inspired.  The Holy One of Israel sat enthroned,\nnot on the smoke-pillars of the altar, but in the praises of the\ncongregation pouring out its heart in prayer; the sacrifices were\nmerely the external occasion for visiting the temple, the real\nreason for doing so lay in the need for the strength and\nrefreshment to be found in religious fellowship.\n\nBy the Torah religion came to be a thing to be learned.  Hence the\nneed of teachers in the church of the second temple.  As the\nscribes had codified the Torah, it was also their task to imprint\nit on the minds of the people and to fill their life with it; in\nthis way they at the same time founded a supplementary and\nchanging tradition, which kept pace with the needs of the time.\nThe place of teaching was the synagogue; there the law and the\nprophets were read and explained on the Sabbath.  The synagogue and\nthe Sabbath were of more importance than the temple and the\nfestivals; and the moral influence of the scribes transcended that\nof the priests, who had to be content with outward power and\ndignity.  The rule of religion was essentially the rule of the\nlaw, and consequently the Rabbis at last served themselves heirs\nto the hierarchs.  At the same time, while the government of the\nlaw was acknowledged in principle, it could at no time be said to\nbe even approximately realised in fact.  The high-born priests who\nstood at the head of the theocracy, cared chiefly, as was quite\nnatural, for the maintenance of their own supremacy.  And there\nwere sheep in the flock not to be kept from breaking out, both in\nthe upper and in the lower classes of society; the school could not\nsuppress nature altogether.  It was no trifle even to know the six\nhundred and thirteen commandments of the written law, and the\nincalculable number of the unwritten.  Religion had to be made a\nprofession of, if it was to be practiced aright.  It became an art,\nand thereby at the same time a matter of party:, the leaders of the\nreligious were of course the scribes.  The division became very apparent\nin the time of the Hellenization which preceded the Maccabaean revolt;\nat that period the name of Pharisees, i.e., the Separated, came\ninto vogue for the party of the religious.  But the separation and\nantipathy between the godly and the ungodly had existed before\nthis, and had marked the life of the congregation after the exile\nfrom the very first.\n\nIt was the law that gave the Jewish religion its peculiar\ncharacter.  But, on the other hand, a hope was not wanting to that\nreligion; the Jews cherished the prospect of a reward for the\nfulfilling of the law.  This hope attached itself to the old\nprophecies, certainly in a very fantastic way.  The Jews had no\nhistorical life, and therefore painted the old time according to\ntheir ideas, and framed the time to come according to their wishes.\nThey stood in no living relation with either the past or the\nfuture; the present was not with them a bridge from the\none to the other; they did not think of bestirring themselves\nwith a view to the kingdom of God.  They had no national and\nhistorical existence, and made no preparations to procure such a\nthing for themselves; they only hoped for it as a reward of\nfaithful keeping of the law.  Yet they dreamed not only of a\nrestoration of the old kingdom, but of the erection of a universal\nworld-monarchy, which should raise its head at Jerusalem over the\nruins of the heathen empires.  They regarded the history of the\nworld as a great suit between themselves and the heathen.  In this\nsuit they were in the right; and they waited for right to be\ndone them.  If the decision was delayed, their sins were the\nreason; Satan was accusing them before the throne of God, and\ncausing the judgment to be postponed.  They were subjected to hard\ntrials, and if tribulation revived their hopes, with much greater\ncertainty did it bring their sins into sorrowful remembrance.\nOutward circumstances still influenced in the strongest way\ntheir religious mood.\n\nBut the old belief in retribution which sought to justify itself\nin connection with the fortunes of the congregation proved here\nalso unequal to the strain laid upon it.  Even in Deuteronomy it\nis maintained that the race is not to suffer for the act of an\nindividual.  Jeremiah's contemporaries thought it monstrous that\nbecause the fathers had eaten sour grapes the teeth of the children\nshould be set on edge.  Ezekiel championed in a notable way the\ncause of individualism on this ground.  He denounced the Jews who\nhad remained in Palestine, and who regarded themselves as the\nsuccessors of the people of Jehovah because they dwelt in the Holy\nLand and had maintained some sort of existence as a people.  In his\nview only those souls which were saved from the dispersion of the\nexile were to count as heirs of the promise; the theocracy was\nnot to be perpetuated by the nation, but by the individual\nrighteous men.  He maintained that each man lived because of his\nown righteousness, and died because of his own wickedness; nay\nmore, the fate of the individual corresponded even in its\nfluctuations to his moral worth at successive times.  The aim he\npursued in this was a good one; in view of a despair which thought\nthere was nothing for it but to pine and rot away because of\nformer sins, he was anxious to maintain the freedom of the will,\nie., the possibility of repentance and forgiveness.  But the way\nhe chose for this end was not a good one; on his showing it was\nchance which ultimately decided who was good and who was wicked.\nThe old view of retribution which allowed time for judgment to\noperate far beyond the limit of the individual life had truth in it,\nbut this view had none.  Yet it possessed one merit, that it brought\nup a problem which had to be faced, and which was a subject of\nreflection for a long time afterwards.\n\nThe problem assumed the form of a controversy as to the principle\non which piety was rewarded--this controversy taking the place of\nthe great contest between Israel and the heathen.  Were the wicked\nright in saying that there was no God, i.e., that He did not rule\nand judge on earth?  Did He in truth dwell behind the clouds, and\ndid He not care about the doings of men?  In that case piety\nwould be an illusion.  Piety cannot maintain itself if God makes\nno difference between the godly and the wicked, and has nothing\nmore to say to the one than to the other; for piety is not\ncontent to stretch out its hands to the empty air, it must meet an\narm descending from heaven.  It must have a reward, not for the\nsake of the reward, but in order to be sure of its own reality, in\norder to know that there is a communion of God with men and a road\nwhich leads to it.  The usual form of this reward is the\nforgiveness of sins; that is the true motive of the fear of God.\nThat is to say, as long as it is well with him, the godly man does\nnot doubt, and so does not require any unmistakable evidence by\nwhich he may be justified and assured of the favour of God.  But\nmisfortune and pain destroy this certainty.  They are accusers\nof sin, God's warnings and corrections.  Now is the time to hold\nfast the faith that God leads the godly to repentance, and\ndestroys the wicked, that He forgives the sin of the former, but\npunishes and avenges that of the latter.  But this faith involves a\nhope of living to see better things; the justification of which\nthe good man is sure must at last be attested by an objective\njudgment of God before the whole world, and the godly delivered\nfrom his sufferings.  Hence the constant anxiety and restlessness\nof his conscience; the judgment passed upon him is ultimately\nto be gathered from the external world, and he can never be sure\nhow it is to turn out.  And a principle is also at stake the whole\ntime, namely, the question whether godliness or ungodliness is\nright in its fundamental conviction.  Each individual case at once\naffects the generality, the sufferings of one godly person touch\nall the godly.  When he recovers and is saved, they triumph; when\nhe succumbs, or seems to succumb, to death, they are cast down,\nunless in this case they should change their minds about him and hold\nhim to be a hypocrite whom God has judged and unmasked.  In the same\nway, they are all hurt at the prosperity of an ungodly man, and\nrejoice together at his fall, not from jealousy or pleasure in\nmisfortune for its own sake, but because in the one case their\nfaith is overturned, while in the other it is confirmed.\n\nThe tortures incident to this curious oscillation between believing\nand seeing are set forth in the most trenchant way in the Book of\nJob.  Job, placed in an agonizing situation, condemned without hope\nto the death of sinners, and yet conscious of his godliness,\ndemands vengeance for his blood unjustly shed.  But the\nvengeance is to be executed on God, and in such a case who can be\nthe avenger?  There is no one but God Himself, and thus the\nstriking thought arises, that God will be the champion against God\nof his innocence, after having first murdered it.  From the God of\nthe present he appeals to the God of the future; but the identity\nbetween these two is yet maintained, and even now the God who slays\nhim is the sole witness of his innocence, in which the world and\nhis friends have ceased to believe.  God must be this now if He is to\navenge him in the future.  An inner antinomy is in this way\nimpersonated; the view of the friends is one of which the sufferer\nhimself cannot divest himself; hence the conflict in his soul.\nBut, supported by the unconquerable power of his good conscience,\nhe struggles till he frees himself from the delusion; he believes\nmore firmly in the direct testimony of his conscience than in the\nevidence of facts and the world's judgment about him, and against\nthe dreadful God of reality, the righteous God of faith\nvictoriously asserts Himself.\n\nJob in the end reaches the conclusion that he cannot understand\nGod's ways.  This is a negative expression of the position that he\nholds fast, in spite of all, to himself and to God; that is to\nsay, that not outward experience, but inner feeling, is to\ndecide.  This inner feeling of the union of God with the godly\nmeets us also in some of the Psalms, where, in spite of depression\narising from untoward circumstances, it maintains itself as a\nreality which cannot be shaken, which temptations and doubts even\ntend to strengthen.  It was a momentous step when the soul in its\nrelations to God ventured to take its stand upon itself, to trust\nitself.  This was an indirect product of prophecy, but one of not\nless importance than its direct product, the law.  The prophets\ndeclared the revelation of God, which had authority for all, but\nalong with this they had their own personal experience, and the\nsubjective truth of which they thus became aware proved a more\npowerful solvent and emancipator than the objective one which formed\nthe subject of their revelation.  They preached the law to deaf ears,\nand laboured in vain to convert the people.  But if their labour had\nproduced no outward result, it had an inner result for them.\nRejected by the people, they clung the more closely to Jehovah,\nin the conviction that the defeated cause was favoured by Him,\nthat He was with them and not with the people.  Especially with\nJeremiah did prophecy, which is designed primarily to act on\nothers, transform itself into an inner converse with the Deity,\nwhich lifted him above all the annoyances of his life.  In this\nrelation, however, there was nothing distinctively prophetical,\njust because it was a matter of the inner life alone, and was\nsufficient for itself; it was just the essence of the life of\nreligion that the prophets thus brought to view and helped to\ndeclare itself.  The experience of Jeremiah propagated itself and\nbecame the experience of religious Israel.  This was the power by\nwhich Israel was enabled to rise again after every fall; the good\nconscience towards God, the profound sentiment of union with Him,\nproved able to defy all the blows of outward fortune.  In this\nstrength the servant, despised and slain, triumphed over the world;\nthe broken and contrite heart was clothed and set on high with the\nlife and power of the Almighty God.  This divine spirit of\nassurance rises to its boldest expression in the 73rd Psalm:\n\n  \"Nevertheless I am continually with Thee;\n  Thou holdest me by my right hand;\n  Thou guidest me with Thy counsel,\n  and drawest me after Thee by the hand.\n  If I have Thee, I desire not heaven nor earth;\n  if my flesh and my heart fail,\n  Thou, God, art for ever the strength of my heart, and my portion.\"\n\nThe life surrendered is here found again in a higher life, without\nany expression of hope of a hereafter.  In the Book of Job we do\nindeed find a trace of this hope, in the form that even after the\ndeath of the martyr, God may still find opportunity to justify\nhim and pronounce him innocent; yet this idea is only touched on\nas a distant possibility, and is at once dropped.  Certainly the\nposition of that man is a grand one who can cast into the scale\nagainst death and devil his inner certainty of union with God--\nso grand indeed that we must in honesty be ashamed to repeat those\nwords of the 73d Psalm.  But the point of view is too high.\nThe danger was imminent of falling from it down into the dust\nand seeking comfort and support in the first earthly experience\nthat might offer, or, on the other hand, sinking into despair.\nSubjective feeling was not enough of itself to outbid the\ncontradictions of nature; the feeling must take an objective form,\na world other than this one, answering the demands of morality,\nmust build itself up to form a contrast to the world actually\nexisting.  The merit of laying the foundations for this\nreligious metaphysic which the time called for belongs, if not to\nthe Pharisees themselves, at least to the circles from which they\nimmediately proceeded.  The main features of that metaphysic first\nappear in the Book of Daniel, where we find a doctrine of the last\nthings.  We have already spoken of the transition from the old\nprophecy to apocalypse.  With the destruction of the nation and\nthe cessation of historical life, hope was released from all\nobligation to conform to historical conditions; it no longer set\nup an aim to which even the present might aspire, but ran riot\nafter an ideal, at the advent of which the historical development\nwould be suddenly broken off.  To be pious was all the Jews could\ndo at the time; but it caused them bitter regret that they had no\npart in the government of the world, and in thought they anticipated\nthe fulfilment of their wishes.  These they raised to an ever-higher\npitch in proportion as their antagonism to the heathen became more\npronounced, and as the world became more hostile to them and they\nto the world.  As the heathen empires stood in the way of the\nuniversal dominion of Israel, the whole of them together were\nregarded as one power, and this world-empire was then set over\nagainst the kingdom of God, i.e., of Israel.  The kingdom of God\nwas entirely future; the fulfilling of the law did not prepare the\nway for it, but was only a statutory condition for its coming,\nnot related to it inwardly as cause to effect.  History was suddenly\nto come to a stop and cease.  The Jews counted the days to the\njudgment; the judgment was the act by which God would at once realise\nall their wishes.  The view thus taken of the world's history was a\nvery comprehensive one and well worked out from its principle, yet\nof an entirely negative character; the further the world's history\nwent wilfully away from its goal, the nearer did it unintentionally\napproach its goal.  In this view, moreover, the earth always continued\nto be the place of hope; the kingdom of God was brought by the judgment\ninto earthly history; it was on earth that the ideal was to be\nrealised.  A step further, and the struggle of the dualism of the\nearth was preluded in the skies by the angels, as the representatives\nof the different powers and nations.  In this struggle a place was\nassigned to Satan; at first he was merely the accuser whom God Himself\nhad appointed, and in this character he drew attention to the sins\nof the Jews before God's judgment-seat, and thereby delayed the judicial\nsentence in their favour; but ultimately (though this took place late,\nand is not met with in the Book of Daniel) he came to be the independent\nleader of the power opposed to God, God's cause being identified\nwith that of the Jews.  But as this prelude of the struggle took\nplace in heaven, its result was also anticipated.  The kingdom of\nGod is on earth a thing of the future, but even now it is preserved\nin heaven with all its treasures, one day to descend from there to\nthe earth.  Heaven is the place where the good things of the future\nare kept, which are not and yet must be; that is its original and\ntrue signification.  But the most important question came at last\nto be, how individuals were to have part in the glory of the\nfuture?  How was it with the martyrs who had died in the\nexpectation of the kingdom of God, before it came?  The doctrine of\nthe _zakuth_ was formed: if their merit was not of service to\nthemselves, it was yet of service to others.  But this was a\nsolution with which individualism could not rest content.  And what\nof the ungodly?  Were they to escape from wrath because they\ndied before the day of judgment?  It was necessary that the\ndeparted also should be allowed to take some part in the coming\nretribution.  Thus there arose--it is remarkable how late and how\nslowly--the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, that the\nkingdom of God might not be of service only to those who happened\nto be alive at the judgment.  Yet at first this doctrine was only\nused to explain particularly striking cases.  The Book of Daniel\nsays nothing of a general resurrection, but speaks in fact only of\na resurrection of the martyrs and a punishment of the wicked after\ndeath.  With all this the resurrection is not the entrance to a\nlife above the earth but to a second earthly life, to a world in\nwhich it is no longer the heathen but the Jews who bear rule and\ntake the lead.  Of a general judgment at the last day, or of heaven\nand hell in the Christian sense, the Jews know nothing, though\nthese ideas might so easily have suggested themselves to them.\n\nIt is not easy to find points of view from which to pronounce on\nthe character of Judaism.  It is a system, but a practical system,\nwhich can scarcely be set forth in relation to one leading\nthought, as it is an irregular product of history.  It lives on the\nstores of the past, but is not simply the total of what had been\npreviously acquired; it is full of new impulses, and has an\nentirely different physiognomy from that of Hebrew antiquity,\nso much so that it is hard even to catch a likeness.  Judaism is\neverywhere historically comprehensible, and yet it is a mass of\nantinomies.  We are struck with the free flight of thought and the\ndeep inwardness of feeling which are found in some passages in the\nWisdom and in the Psalms; but, on the other hand, we meet with a\npedantic asceticism which is far from lovely, and with pious\nwishes the greediness of which is ill-concealed; and these\nunedifying features are the dominant ones of the system.\nMonotheism is worked out to its furthest consequences, and at the\nsame time is enlisted in the service of the narrowest selfishness;\nIsrael participates in the sovereignty of the One God.  The\nCreator of heaven and earth becomes the manager of a petty scheme\nof salvation; the living God descends from His throne to make way\nfor the law.  The law thrusts itself in everywhere; it commands\nand blocks up the access to heaven; it regulates and sets limits\nto the understanding of the divine working on earth.  As far as it\ncan, it takes the soul out of religion and spoils morality.  It\ndemands a service of God, which, though revealed, may yet with truth\nbe called a self-chosen and unnatural one, the sense and use of which\nare apparent neither to the understanding nor the heart.  The labour\nis done for the sake of the exercise; it does no one any good, and\nrejoices neither God nor man.  It has no inner aim after which it\nspontaneously strives and which it hopes to attain by itself, but\nonly an outward one, namely, the reward attached to it, which\nmight as well be attached to other and possibly even more curious\nconditions.  The ideal is a negative one, to keep one's self from\nsin, not a positive one, to do good upon the earth; the morality\nis one which scarcely requires for its exercise the existence of\nfellow-creatures.  Now pious exercises can dam up life and hold it\nin bounds, they may conquer from it more and more ground, and at\nlast turn it into one great Sabbath, but they cannot penetrate it\nat the root.  The occupation of the hands and the desire of the\nheart fall asunder.  What the hands are doing has nothing in common\nwith the earth, and bears no reference to earthly objects; but\nwith the Jews the result of this is that their hope assumes a more\nworldly complexion.  There is no connection between the Good One\nand goodness.  There are exceptions, but they disappear in the\nsystem.\n\nThe Gospel develops hidden impulses of the Old Testament, but it is\na protest against the ruling tendency of Judaism.  Jesus understands\nmonotheism in a different way from his contemporaries.  They think\nin connection with it of the folly of the heathen and their great\nhappiness in calling the true God their own; He thinks of the claims,\nnot to be disputed or avoided, which the Creator makes on the creature.\nHe feels the reality of God dominating the whole of life, He breathes\nin the fear of the Judge who requires an account for every idle word,\nand has power to destroy body and soul in hell.  \"No man can serve two\nmasters; ye cannot serve God and Mammon; where your treasure is, there\nwill your heart be also.\"  This monotheism is not to be satisfied with\nstipulated services, how many and great soever; it demands the whole\nman, it renders doubleness of heart and hypocrisy impossible.  Jesus\ncasts ridicule on the works of the law, the washing of hands and\nvessels, the tithing of mint and cummin, the abstinence even from\ndoing good on the Sabbath.  Against unfruitful self-sanctification\nHe sets up another principle of morality, that of the service of one's\nneighbour.  He rejects that lofty kind of goodness, which says to father\nand mother, If I dedicate what I might give to you, that will be best\neven for you yourselves; He contends for the weightier matters in the\nlaw, for the common morality which sees its aim in the furtherance of\nthe well-being of others, and which commends itself at once to the\nheart of every one.  Just this natural morality of self-surrender\ndoes He call the law of God; that supernatural morality which thinks\nto outbid this, He calls the commandment of men.  Thus religion\nceases to be an art which the Rabbis and Pharisees understand better\nthan the unlearned people which know nothing of the law.  The\narrogance of the school fares ill at the hands of Jesus; He will\nknow nothing of the partisanship of piety or of the separateness\nof the godly; He condemns the practice of judging a man's value\nbefore God.  Holiness shrinks from contact with sinners, but He\nhelps the world of misery and sin; and there is no commandment\non which He insists more than that of forgiving others their debts\nas one hopes for forgiveness himself from heaven.  He is most\ndistinctly opposed to Judaism in His view of the kingdom of heaven,\nnot as merely the future reward of the worker, but as the present\ngoal of effort, it being the supreme duty of man to help it to\nrealise itself on earth, from the individual outwards.  Love is\nthe means, and the community of love the end.\n\nSelf-denial is the chief demand of the Gospel; it means the same\nthing as that repentance which must precede entrance into the\nkingdom of God.  The will thereby breaks away from the chain of\nits own acts, and makes an absolutely new beginning not conditioned\nby the past.  The causal nexus which admits of being traced comes\nhere to an end, and the mutual action, which cannot be analysed,\nbetween God and the soul begins.  Miracle does not require to be\nunderstood, only to be believed, in order to take place.  With men\nit is impossible, but with God it is possible.  Jesus not only\naffirmed this, but proved it in His own person.  The impression of\nHis personality convinced the disciples of the fact of the\nforgiveness of their sins and of their second birth, and gave them\ncourage to believe in a new divine life and to live it.  He had in\nfact lost His life and saved it; He could do as he would.  He had\nescaped the limits of the race and the pains of self-seeking\nnature; He had found freedom and personality in God, who alone is\nmaster of Himself, and lifts those up to Himself who seek after\nHim.\n\nJesus works in the world and for the world, but with His faith He\nstands above the world and outside it.  He can sacrifice Himself\nfor the world because He asks nothing from the world, but has\nattained in retirement with God to equanimity and peace of soul.\nAnd further, the entirely supra-mundane position, at which Jesus\nfinds courage and love to take an interest in the world, does not\nlead Him to anything strained or unnatural.  He trusts God's\nProvidence, and resigns Himself to His will, He takes up the\nattitude of a child towards Him, and loves best to call Him the\nHeavenly Father.  The expression is simple, but the thing\nsignified is new.  He first knows Himself, not in emotion but in\nsober quietness, to be God's child; before Him no one ever felt\nhimself to be so, or called himself so.  He is the first-born of\nthe Father, yet, according to His own view, a first-born among\nmany brethren.  For He stands in this relation to God not because\nHis nature is unique, but because He is man; He uses always and\nemphatically this general name of the race to designate His own\nperson.  In finding the way to God for Himself He has opened it to\nall; along with the nature of God He has at the same time\ndiscovered in Himself the nature of man.\n\nEternity extends into the present with Him, even on earth He lives\nin the midst of the kingdom of God; even the judgment He sees\ninwardly accomplished here below in the soul of man.  Yet He is\nfar from holding the opinion that he who loves God aright does not\ndesire that God should love him in return.  He teaches men to bear\nthe cross, but he does not teach that the cross is sweet and that\nsickness is sound.  A coming reconciliation between believing and\nseeing, between morality and nature, everywhere forms the\nbackground of His view of the world; even if He could have done\nwithout it for His own person, yet it is a thing He takes for\ngranted, as it is an objective demand of righteousness.  So much is\ncertain; for the rest the eschatology of the New Testament is so\nthoroughly saturated with the Jewish ideas of the disciples, that\nit is difficult to know what of it is genuine.\n\nJesus was so full of new and positive ideas that He did not feel\nany need for breaking old idols, so free that no constraint could\ndepress Him, so unconquerable that even under the load of the\ngreatest accumulations of rubbish He could still breathe.  This\nought ye to do, He said, and not to leave the other undone; He did\nnot seek to take away one iota, but only to fulfil.  He never\nthought of leaving the Jewish community.  The Church is not His\nwork, but an inheritance from Judaism to Christianity.  Under the\nPersian domination the Jews built up an unpolitical community on\nthe basis of religion.  The Christians found themselves in a\nposition with regard to the Roman Empire precisely similar to that\nwhich the Jews had occupied with regard to the Persian; and so\nthey also founded, after the Jewish pattern, in the midst of the\nstate which was foreign and hostile to them, and in which they\ncould not feel themselves at home, a religious community as\ntheir true fatherland.  The state is always the presupposition of\nthe Church; but it was at first, in the case both of the Jewish\nand of the Christian Church, a foreign state.  The original meaning\nof the Church thus disappeared when it no longer stood over against\nthe heathen world-power, it having become possible for the\nChristians also to possess a natural fatherland in the nation.\nIn this way it became much more difficult to define accurately the\nspheres of the state and the Church respectively, regarding the\nChurch as an organisation, not as an invisible community of the\nfaithful.  The distinction of religious and secular is a variable\none; every formation of a religious community is a step towards\nthe secularisation of religion; the religion of the heart alone\nremains an inward thing.  The tasks of the two competing\norganisations are not radically different in their nature; on the\none side it may be said that had not the Christian religion found\ncivil order already in existence, had it come, like Islam, in\ncontact with the anarchy of Arabia instead of the Empire of Rome\nit must have founded not the Church, but the state; on the other\nside it is well known that the state has everywhere entered into\npossession of fields first reclaimed to cultivation by the Church.\nNow we must acknowledge that the nation is more certainly created\nby God than the Church, and that God works more powerfully in the\nhistory of the nations than in Church history.  The Church, at\nfirst a substitute for the nation which was wanting, is affected by\nthe same evils incident to an artificial cultivation as meet us in\nJudaism.  We cannot create for ourselves our sphere of life and\naction; better that it should be a natural one, given by God.\nAnd yet it would be unjust to deny the permanent advantages of\nthe differentiation of the two.  The Church will always be able\nto work in advance for the state of the future.  The present state\nunfortunately is in many respects only nothing more than a barrier\nto chaos; if the Church has still a task, it is that of preparing\nan inner unity of practical conviction, and awakening a sentiment,\nfirst in small circles, that we belong to each other.\n\nWhether she is to succeed in this task is certainly the question.\nThe religious individualism of the Gospel is, and must remain for\nall time, the true salt of the earth.  The certainty that neither\ndeath nor life can separate us from the love of God drives out that\nfear which is opposed to love; an entirely supra-mundane faith\nlends courage for resultless self-sacrifice and resigned obedience\non earth.  We must succeed: _sursum corda_!\n\n\n12.  THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD.\n\nPalestine fell into Alexander's possession in 332; after his death\nit had an ample share of the troubles arising out of the partition\nof his inheritance.  In 320 it was seized by Ptolemy I., who on a\nSabbath-day took Jerusalem; but in 3I5 he had to give way before\nAntigonus.  Even before the battle of Ipsus, however, he recovered\npossession once more, and for a century thereafter Southern Syria\ncontinued to belong to the Egyptian crown, although the Seleucidae\nmore than once sought to wrench it away.\n\nIn the priestly dynasty during the period of the Ptolemies, Onias\nI. ben Jaddua was succeeded by his son Simon I., after whom\nagain came first his brothers Eleazar and Manasseh, and next his\nson Onias II.; the last-named was in his turn followed by his son\nSimon II., whose praises are sung by the son of Sirach (xlix. 14-16).\nAt the side of the high priest stood the gerusia of the town of\nJerusalem, as a council of state, including the higher ranks of the\npriesthood.  The new sovereign power was at once stronger and\njuster than the Persian,--at least under the earlier Ptolemies;\nthe power of the national government increased; to it was\nintrusted the business of raising the tribute.\n\nAs a consequence of the revolutionary changes which had taken\nplace in the conditions of the whole East, the Jewish dispersion\n(diaspora) began vigorously to spread.  It dated its beginning\nindeed from an earlier period,--from the time when the Jews had lost\ntheir land and kingdom, but yet, thanks to their religion, could\nnot part with their nationality.  They did not by any means all\nreturn from Babylon; perhaps the majority permanently settled\nabroad.  The successors of Alexander (diadochi) fully appreciated\nthis international element, and used it as a link between their\nbarbarian and Hellenic populations.  Everywhere they encouraged\nthe settlement of Jews,--in Asia Minor, in Syria, and especially\nin Egypt.  Alongside of the Palestinian there arose a Hellenistic\nJudaism which had its metropolis in Alexandria.  Here, under\nPtolemy I. and II., the Torah had already been translated into\nGreek, and around this sprung up a Jewish-Greek literature which\nsoon became very extensive.  At the court and in the army of the\nPtolemies many Jews rose to prominent positions; everywhere they\nreceived the preference over, and everywhere they in consequence\nearned the hatred of, the indigenous population.\n\nAfter the death of Ptolemy IV. (205) Antiochus III. attained the\nobject towards which he and his predecessors had long been vainly\nstriving; after a war protracted with varying success through\nseveral years, he succeeded at last in incorporating Palestine with\nthe kingdom of the Seleucidae.  The Jews took his side, less perhaps\nbecause they had become disgusted with the really sadly\ndegenerate Egyptian rule, than because they had foreseen the issue\nof the contest, and preferred to attach themselves voluntarily to\nthe winning side.  In grateful acknowledgment, Antiochus\nconfirmed and enlarged certain privileges of the \"holy camp,\"\ni.e., of Jerusalem (Josephus, Antiquities, xii. 3, 3).  It soon,\nhowever, became manifest that the Jews had made but a poor bargain\nin this exchange.  Three years after his defeat at Magnesia,\nAntiochus III.  died (187), leaving to his son Seleucus IV. an immense\nburden of debt, which he had incurred by his unprosperous Roman\nwar.  Seleucus, in his straits, could not afford to be over-scrupulous\nin appropriating money where it was to be found: he did not need to\nbe twice told that the wealth of the temple at Jerusalem was out of\nall proportion to the expenses of the sacrificial service.  The\nsacred treasure accordingly made the narrowest possible escape\nfrom being plundered; Heliodorus, who had been charged by the\nking to seize it, was deterred at the last moment by a heavenly\nvision.  But the Jews derived no permanent advantage from this.\n\nIt was a priest of rank, Simon by name, who had called the\nattention of the king to the temple treasure; his motive had been\nspite against the high priest Onias III., the son and successor of\nSimon II.  The circumstance is one indication of a melancholy\nprocess of disintegration that was at that time going on within the\nhierocracy.  The high-priesthood, although there were exceptional\ncases, such as that of Simon II., was regarded less as a sacred\noffice than as a profitable princedom; within the ranks of the\npriestly nobility arose envious and jealous factions; personal\nadvancement was sought by means of the favour of the overlord, who\nhad something to say in the making of appointments.  A collateral\nbranch of the ruling family, that of the children of Tobias, had by\nmeans of the ill-gotten wealth of Joseph ben Tobias attained to a\nposition of ascendancy, and competed in point of power with the\nhigh priest himself.  It appears that the above-mentioned Simon,\nand his still more scandalous brother AIenelaus, also belonged to\nthe Tobiadae, and, relying upon the support of their powerful party\n(Josephus, Antiquities, xii. 5, 1), cherished the purpose of securing\nthe high-priesthood by the aid of the Syrian king.\n\nThe failure of the mission of Heliodorus was attributed by Simon\nto a piece of trickery on the part of Onias the high priest, who\naccordingly found himself called upon to make his own\njustification at court and to expose the intrigues of his\nadversary.  Meanwhile Seleucus IV. died of poison (175), and\nAntiochus IV. Epiphanes did not confirm Onias in his dignity,\nbut detained him in Antioch, while he made over the office to his\nbrother Jason, who had offered a higher rent.  Possibly the\nTobiadae also had something to do with this arrangement; at all\nevents, Menelaus was at the outset the right hand of the new high\npriest.  To secure still further the favour of the king, Jason held\nhimself out to be an enlightened friend of the Greeks, and begged\nfor leave to found in Jerusalem a gymnasium and an ephebeum, and to\nbe allowed to sell to the inhabitants there the rights of citizenship\nin Antioch,--a request which was readily granted.\n\nThe malady which had long been incubating now reached its acute\nphase.  Just in proportion as Hellenism showed itself friendly did\nit present elements of danger to Judaism.  From the periphery it\nslowly advanced towards the centre, from the diaspora to\nJerusalem, from mere matters of external fashion to matters of the\nmost profound conviction. /1/ Especially did the upper and cultivated\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The Hellenising fashion is amusingly exemplified in the Grecising\nof the Jewish names; e.g., Alcimus = Eljakim, Jason = Jesus, Joshua;\nMenelaus = Menahem.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nclasses of society begin to feel ashamed, in presence of the\nrefined Greeks, of their Jewish singularity, and to do all in\ntheir power to tone it down and conceal it.  In this the priestly\nnobility made itself conspicuous as the most secular section of\nthe community, and it was the high priest who took the initiative\nin measures which aimed at a complete Hellenising of the Jews.  He\noutdid every one else in paganism.  Once he sent a considerable\npresent for offerings to the Syrian Hercules on the occasion of his\nfestival; but his messenger, ashamed to apply the money to such\na purpose, set it apart for the construction of royal ships of war.\n\nThe friendship shown by Jason for the Greek king and for all that\nwas Hellenic did not prevent Antiochus IV. from setting pecuniary\nconsiderations before all others.  Menelaus, intrusted with the\nmission of conveying to Antioch the annual Jewish tribute, availed\nhimself of the opportunity to promote his own personal interests\nby offering a higher sum for the high-priesthood, and having\notherwise ingratiated himself with the king, gained his object\n(171).  But though nominated, he did not find it quite easy to\nobtain possession of the post.  The Tobiadae took his side, but the\nbody of the people stuck to Jason, who was compelled to give way\nonly when Syrian troops had been brought upon the scene.  Menelaus\nhad immediately, however, to encounter another difficulty, for he\ncould not at once pay the amount of tribute which he had promised.\nHe helped himself so far indeed by robbing the temple, but this\nlanded him in new embarrassments.  Onias III., who was living out\nof employment at Antioch, threatened to make compromising revelations\nto the king; he was, however, opportunely assassinated.\nThe rage of the people against the priestly temple-plunderer now\nbroke out in a rising against a certain Lysimachus, who at the\ninstance of the absent Menelaus had made further inroads upon the\nsacred treasury.  The Jews' defence before the king (at Tyre) on\naccount of this uproar resolved itself into a grievous complaint\nagainst the conduct of Menelaus.  His case was a bad one, but money\nagain helped him out of his straits, and the extreme penalty of the\nlaw fell upon his accusers.\n\nThe feelings of the Jews with reference to this wolfish shepherd\nmay easily be imagined.  Nothing but fear of Antiochus held them\nin check.  Then a report gained currency that the king had\nperished in an expedition against Egypt (170); and Jason, who\nmeanwhile had found refuge in Ammanitis, availed himself of the\nprevailing current of feeling to resume his authority with the\nhelp of one thousand men.  He was not able, however, to hold the\nposition long, partly because he showed an unwise vindictiveness\nagainst his enemies, partly (and chiefly) because the rumour of\nthe death of Antiochus turned out to be false.  The king was\nalready, in fact, close at hand on his return from Egypt, full of\nanger at an insurrection which he regarded as having been directed\nagainst himself.  He inflicted severe and bloody chastisement\nupon Jerusalem, carried off the treasures of the temple, and\nrestored Menelaus, placing Syrian officials at his side.  Jason\nfled from place to place, and ultimately died in misery at\nLacedaemon.\n\nThe deepest despondency prevailed in Judaea; but its cup of\nsorrow was not yet full.  Antiochus, probably soon after his last\nEgyptian expedition (168), sent Apollonius with an army against\nJerusalem.  He fell upon the unsuspecting city, disarmed the\ninhabitants and demolished the walls, but on the other hand\nfortified Acra, and garrisoned it strongly, so as to make it a\nstanding menace to the whole country.  Having thus made his\npreparations, he proceeded to carry out his main instructions.\nAll that was religiously distinctive of Judaism was to be removed;\nsuch was the will of the king.  The Mosaic cultus was abolished,\nSabbath observance and the rite of circumcision prohibited, all\ncopies of the Torah confiscated and burnt.  In the desecrated and\npartially-destroyed temple pagan ceremonies were performed, and\nupon the great altar of burnt-offering a small altar to Jupiter\nCapitolinus was erected, on which the first offering was made on\n25th Kislev 168.  In the country towns also heathen altars were\nerected, and the Jews compelled, on pain of death, publicly to\nadore the false gods and to eat swine's flesh that had been\nsacrificed to idols.\n\nThe princes and grandees of the Jews had represented to Antiochus\nthat the people were ripe for Hellenisation; and inasmuch as,\napart from this, to reduce to uniformity the extremely motley\nconstituents of his kingdom was a scheme that lay near his heart,\nhe was very willing to believe them.  That the very opposite was\nthe case must of course have become quite evident very soon; but\nthe resistance of the Jews taking the form of rebellious risings\nagainst his creatures, he fell upon the hopeless plan of\ncoercion,--hopeless, for he could attain his end only by making\nall Judaea one vast graveyard.  There existed indeed a pagan party;\nthe Syrian garrison of Acra was partly composed of Jews who sold\nthemselves to be the executioners of their countrymen.  Fear also\ninfluenced many to deny their convictions; but the majority\nadhered firmly to the religion of their fathers.  Jerusalem,\nthe centre of the process of Hellenisation, was abandoned by its\ninhabitants, who made their escape to Egypt, or hid themselves in\nthe country, in deserts and caves.  The scribes in especial held\nfast by the law; and they were joined by the party of the\nAsidaeans (i.e., pious ones).\n\n\n13.  THE HASMONAEANS.\n\nAt first there was no thought of meeting violence with violence;\nas the Book of Daniel shows, people consoled themselves with\nthoughts of the immediate intervention of God which would occur in\ndue time.  Quite casually, without either plan or concert, a\nwarlike opposition arose.  There was a certain priest Mattathias,\nof the family of the Hasmonaeans, a man far advanced in life,\nwhose home was in Modein, a little country town to the west of\nJerusalem.  Hither also the Syrian soldiers came to put the\npopulation to a positive proof of their change of faith; they\ninsisted upon Mattathias leading the way.  But he was steadfast in\nhis refusal; and, when another Jew addressed himself before his\neyes to the work of making the heathen offering, he killed him and\nthe Syrian officer as well, and destroyed the altar.  Thereupon he\nfled to the hill country, accompanied by his sons (Johannes Gaddi,\nSimon Thassi, Judas Maccabaeus, Eleazar Auaran, Jonathan Apphus)\nand other followers.  But he resolved to defend himself to the\nlast, and not to act as some other fugitives had done, who about\nthe same time had allowed themselves to be surrounded and butchered\non a Sabbath-day without lifting a finger.  Thus he became the head\nof a band which defended the ancestral religion with the sword.\nThey traversed the country, demolished the altars of the false gods,\ncircumcised the children, and persecuted the heathen and heathenishly\ndisposed.  The sect of the Asidaeans also intrusted itself to their\nwarlike protection (1Maccabees ii. 42).\n\nMattathias soon died and left his leadership to Judas Maccabaeus,\nby whom the struggle was carried on in the first instance after\nthe old fashion; soon, however, it assumed larger dimensions, when\nregular armies were sent out against the insurgents.  First\nApollonius, the governor of Judaea, took the field; but he was\ndefeated and fell in battle.  Next came Seron, governor of\nCcelesyria, who also was routed near Bethhoron (I66).  Upon this\nLysias, the regent to whom Antiochus IV., who was busied in the far\neast, had intrusted the government of Syria and the charge of his\nson, Antiochus Philopator, a minor, sent a strong force under the\ncommand of three generals.  Approaching from the west, it was their\ndesign to advance separately upon Jerusalem, but Judas anticipated\ntheir plan and compelled them to quit the field (166).  The regent\nnow felt himself called on to interpose in person.  Invading Judaea\nfrom the south, he encountered the Jews at Bethsur, who, however,\noffered an opposition that was not easily overcome; he was\nprevented from resorting to the last measures by the intelligence\nwhich reached him of the death of the king in Elymais (165).\n\nThe withdrawal of Lysias secured the fulfilment of the desires of\nthe defenders of the faith in so far as it now enabled them to\nrestore the Jerusalem worship to its previous condition.  They\nlost no time in setting about the accomplishment of this.  They\nwere not successful indeed in wresting Acra from the possession of\nthe Syrians, but they so occupied the garrison as to prevent it\nfrom interfering with the work of restoration.  On 25th Kislev 165,\nthe very day on which, three years before, \"the abomination of\ndesolation\" had been inaugurated, the first sacrifice was offered\non the new altar, and in commemoration of this the feast of the\ndedication was thenceforth celebrated.\n\nAs it was easy to see that danger still impended, the temple was\nput into a state of defence, as also was the town of Bethsur, where\nLysias had been checked.  But the favourable moment presented by\nthe change of sovereign was made use of for still bolder attempts.\nScattered over the whole of Southern Syria there were a number of\nJewish localities on which the heathens now proceeded to wreak\ntheir vengeance.\n\nFor the purpose of rescuing these oppressed co-religionists, and of\nbringing them in safety to Judaea, the Maccabees made a series of\nexcursions, extending in some cases as far as to Lebanon and\nDamascus.  Lysias had his hands otherwise fully occupied, and\nperhaps did not feel much disposed to continue the fight on behalf\nof the cultus of Jupiter Capitolinus.  Daily gaining in boldness,\nthe Jews now took in hand also to lay regular siege to Acra.  Then\nat last Lysias yielded to the pressure of Syrian and Jewish\ndeputations and determined to take serious steps (162).  With a\nlarge force he entered Judaea, again from the south, and laid siege\nto Bethsur.  Judas vainly attempted the relief of the fortress;\nhe sustained near Bethzachariah a defeat in which his brother Eleazar\nperished.  Bethsur was unable to hold out, being short of provisions\non account of the sabbatic year.  The Syrians advanced next to Jerusalem\nand besieged the temple; it also was insufficiently provisioned, and\nwould soon have been compelled to surrender, had not Lysias been again\ncalled away at the critical moment by other exigencies.  A certain\nPhilip was endeavouring to oust him from the regency; as it was\nnecessary for him to have his hands free in dealing with this new\nenemy, he closed a treaty with the temple garrison and the people at\nlarge, in accordance with which at once the political subjection\nand the religious freedom of the Jews were to be maintained; Thus\nthe situation as it had existed before Antiochus IV. was restored.\nOnly no attempt was made to replace Menelaus as high priest and\nethnarch; this post was to be filled by Alcimus.\n\nThe concessions thus made by Lysias were inevitable; and even\nKing Demetrius I., son of Seleucus IV., who towards the end of 162\nascended the throne and caused both Lysias and his ward to be put\nto death, had no thought of interfering with their religious\nfreedom.  But the Maccabees desired something more than the _status\nquo ante_; after having done their duty they were disinclined to\nretire in favour of Alcimus, whose sole claim lay in his descent\nfrom the old heathenishly-disposed high-priestly family.  Alcimus\nwas compelled to invoke the assistance of the king, who caused him\nto be installed by Bacchides.  He was at once recognised by the\nscribes and Asidaeans, for whom, with religious liberty, everything\nthey wished had been secured; the claims to supremacy made by\nthe Hasmonaeans were of no consequence to them.  Doubtless the\nmasses also would ultimately have quietly accepted Alcimus, who of\ncourse refrained from interference with either law or worship, had\nhe not abused the momentary power he derived from the presence of\nBacchides to take a foolish revenge.  But the consequence of his\naction was that, as soon as Bacchides had turned his back, Alcimus\nwas compelled to follow him.  For the purpose of restoring him a\nSyrian army once more invaded Judaea under Nicanor (I60), but\nfirst at Kapharsalama and afterwards at Bethhoron was defeated by\nJudas, and almost annihilated in the subsequent flight, Nicanor\nhimself being among the slain (13th Adar = Nicanor's day).  Judas\nwas now at the acme of his prosperity; about this time he concluded\nhis (profitless) treaty with the Romans.  But disaster was impending.\nIn the month of Nisan, barely a month after the defeat of Nicanor,\na new Syrian army under Bacchides entered Judaea from the north;\nnear Elasa, southward from Jerusalem, a decisive battle was fought\nwhich was lost by Judas, and in which he himself fell.\n\nThe religious war properly so called had already been brought\nonce for all to an end by the convention of Lysias.  If the\nstruggle continued to be carried on, it was not for the faith but\nfor the supremacy,--less in the interests of the community than in\nthose of the Hasmonaeans.  After the death of Judas the secular\ncharacter which the conflict had assumed ever since 162 continually\nbecame more conspicuous.  Jonathan Apphus fought for his house, and\nin doing so used thoroughly worldly means.  The high-priesthood,\ni.e., the ethnarchy, was the goal of his ambition.  So long as\nAlcimus lived, it was far from his reach.  Confined to the rocky\nfastnesses beside the Dead Sea, he had nothing for it but,\nsurrounded by his faithful followers, to wait for better times.\nBut on the death of Alcimus (159) the Syrians refrained from\nappointing a successor, to obviate the necessity of always having\nto protect him with military force.  During the interregnum of\nseven years which followed, Jonathan again came more and more to\nthe front, so that at last Bacchides concluded an armistice with\nhim on the basis of the _status quo_ (1Maccabees ix. 13).  From his\nresidence at Michmash Jonathan now exercised a _de facto_ authority\nover the entire nation.\n\nWhen accordingly Alexander Balas, a reputed son of Antiochus IV.,\nrose against Demetrius, both rivals exerted themselves to secure\nthe alliance of Jonathan, who did not fail to benefit by their\ncompetition.  First of all, Demetrius formally recognised him as\nprince of Judah; in consequence of this he removed to Jerusalem,\nand expelled the heathen and heathenishly disposed, who continued\nto maintain a footing only in Acra and Bethsur.  Next Alexander\nBalas conferred on him the title of \"high priest of the nation\nand friend of the king;\" in gratitude for which Jonathan went\nover to his side (152).  He remained loya], although Demetrius\nnow made larger offers; he was justified by the event, for\nDemetrius I. had the worst of it and was slain (150).  The\nvictorious Balas heaped honours upon Jonathan, who maintained\nhis fidelity, and fought successfully in his interests when\nin I47 Demetrius II., the son of Demetrius I., challenged a\nconflict.  The high priest was unable indeed to prevent the\ndownfall of Alexander in 145; but Demetrius II., won by presents,\nfar from showing any hostility, confirmed him in his position\nin consideration of a tribute of 300 talents.\n\nJonathan was grateful to the king, as he showed by going with 3000\nmen to his aid against the insurgent Antiochenes.  But when the\nlatter drew back from his promise to withdraw the garrison from\nAcra, he went over to the side of Trypho, who had set up a son of\nAlexander Balas (Antiochus) as a rival.  In the war which he now\nwaged as Seleucid-strategus against Demetrius he succeeded in\nsubduing almost the whole of Palestine.  Meanwhile his brother\nSimon remained behind in Judaea, mastered the fortress of Bethsur,\nand resumed with great energy the siege of Acra.  All this was\ndone in the names of Antiochus and Trypho, but really of course in\nthe interests of the Jews themselves.  There were concluded also\ntreaties with the Romans and Lacedaemonians, certainly not to\nthe advantage of the Syrians.\n\nTrypho sought now to get rid of the man whom he himself had made\nso powerful.  He treacherously seized and imprisoned Jonathan in\nPtolemais, and meditated an attack upon the leaderless country.\nBut on the frontier Simon, the last remaining son of Mattathias,\nmet him in force.  All Trypho's efforts to break through proved\nfutile; after skirting all Judaea from west to south, without\nbeing able to get clear of Simon, he at last withdrew to Peraea\nwithout having accomplished anything.  On the person of Jonathan,\nwhom he caused to be executed, he vented the spleen he felt on the\ndiscovery that the cause for which that prince had fought was able\nto gain the victory even when deprived of his help.  Simon, in\npoint of fact, was Jonathan's equal as a soldier and his superior\nas a ruler.  He secured his frontier by means of fortresses, made\nhimself master of Acra (141), and understood how to enable the\npeople in time of peace to reap the advantages that result from\nsuccessful war; agriculture, industry, and commerce (from the\nhaven of Joppa) began to flourish vigorously.  In grateful\nrecognition of his services the high-priesthood and the ethnarchy\nwere bestowed upon him as hereditary possessions by a solemn\nassembly of the people, \"until a trustworthy prophet should\narise.\"\n\nNominally the Seleucidae still continued to possess the\nsuzerainty.  Simon naturally had detached himself from Trypho\nand turned to Demetrius II., who confirmed him in his position,\nremitted all arrears of tribute, and waived his rights for the\nfuture (142).  The friendship of Demetrius II. and of his\nsuccessor Antiochus Sidetes with Simon, however, lasted only as\nlong as Trypho still remained in the way.  But, he once removed,\nSidetes altered his policy.  He demanded of Simon the surrender of\nJoppa, Gazara, and other towns, besides the citadel of Jerusalem,\nas well as payment of all tribute resting due.  The refusal of\nthese demands led to war, which in its earlier stages was carried\non with success, but the scales were turned after the murder of\nSimon, when Sidetes in person took the field against John Hyrcanus,\nSimon's son and successor.  Jerusalem capitulated; in the\nnegotiations for peace the surrender of all the external\npossessions of the Jews was insisted upon; the suzerainty of the\nSyrians became once more a reality (I35).  But in 130 the powerful\nAntiochus Sidetes fell in an expedition against the Parthians, and\nthe complications anew arising in reference to the succession to\nthe Syrian throne placed Hyrcanus in a position to recover what he\nhad lost and to make new acquisitions.  He subjugated Samaria\nand Idumaea, compelling the inhabitants of the latter to accept\ncircumcision.  Like his predecessors, he too sought to secure the\nfavour of the Romans, but derived no greater benefit from the\neffort than they had done.  After a prosperous reign of thirty\nyears he died in 105.  By Josephus he is represented as a pattern\nof all that a pious prince ought to be; by the rabbins as\nrepresenting a splendid high-priesthood.  The darkness of the\nsucceeding age lent a brighter colour to his image.\n\nThe external splendour of the Hasmonaean kingdom did not at once\ndie away,--the downfall of the Seleucidae, which was its negative\ncondition, being also a slow affair.  Judah Aristobulus, the son\nof Hyrcanus, who reigned for only one year, was the first to\nassume the Greek title of royalty; Ituraea was subdued by him,\nand circumcision forced upon the inhabitants.  His brother Jonathan\n(Jannaeus) Alexander (104-79), in a series of continual wars,\nwhich were never very prosperous, never-theless succeeded in adding\nthe whole coast of Philistia (Gaza) as well as a great portion of\nPeraea to his hereditary dominions. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. A number of half-independent towns and communes lay as tempting\nsubjects of dispute between the Seleucidae, the Nabathaeans or\nArabs of Petra, and the Jews.  The background was occupied by the\nParthians and the Romans.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nBut the external enlargement of the structure was secured at the cost\nof its internal consistency.\n\nFrom the time when Jonathan, the son of Mattathias, began to carry\non the struggle no longer for the cause of God but for his own\ninterests, the scribes and the Asidaeans, as we have seen, had\nwithdrawn themselves from the party of the Maccabees There can\nbe no doubt that from their legal standpoint they were perfectly\nright in contenting themselves, as they did, with the attainment\nof religious liberty, and in accepting Alcimus.  The Hasmonaeans\nhad no hereditary right to the high-priesthood, and their\npolitics, which aimed at the establishment of a national monarchy,\nwere contrary to the whole spirit and essence of the second\ntheocracy.  The presupposition of that theocracy was foreign\ndomination; in no other way could its sacred--i.e., clerical--\ncharacter be maintained.  God and the law could not but be\nforced into the background if a warlike kingdom, retaining indeed\nthe forms of a hierocracy, but really violating its spirit at\nevery point, should ever grow out of a mere pious community.\nAbove all, how could the scribes hope to retain their importance\nif temple and synagogue were cast into the shade by politics and\nclash of arms?  But under the first great Hasmonaeans the\nzealots for the law were unable to force their way to the front;\nthe enthusiasm of the people was too strong for them; they had\nnothing for it but to keep themselves out of the current and refuse\nto be swept along by it.  Even under Hyrcanus, however, they\ngained more prominence, and under Jannaeus their influence upon\npopular opinion was paramount.  For under the last-named the\nsecularisation of the hierocracy no longer presented any\nattractive aspects; it was wholly repellent.  It was looked upon\nas a revolting anomaly that the king, who was usually in the\nfield with his army, should once and again assume the sacred mantle\nin order to perform the sacrifice on some high festival, and that\nhis officers, profane persons as they were, should at the same\ntime be holders of the highest spiritual offices.  The danger which\nin all this threatened \"the idea of Judaism\" could not in these\ncircumstances escape the observation of even the common people; for\nthis idea was God and the law, not any earthly fatherland.  The\nmasses accordingly ranged themselves with ever-growing unanimity\non the side of the Pharisees (i.e., the party of the scribes) as\nagainst the Sadducees (i.e., the Hasmonaean party). /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. PRW# means \"separated,\" and refers perhaps to the attitude of\nisolation taken by the zealots for the law during the interval\nbetween 162 and 105.  CDWQY (*SADDOUKAIOS) comes from CDWQ (*SADDOUK,\nLXX.) the ancestor of the higher priesthood of Jerusalem (1Kings ii.\n35; 1Samuel ii. 35; Ezekiel xliv. 15), and designates the\ngoverning nobility.  The original character of the opposition, as\nit appeared under Jannaeus, changed entirely with the lapse of\ntime, on account of the Sadducees' gradual loss of political\npower, till they fell at last to the condition of a sort of \"fronde.\"\n-- Footnote\n\n\nOn one occasion, when Alexander Jannaeus had returned to Jerusalem\nat the feast of tabernacles, and was standing in his priestly\nvestments before the altar to sacrifice, he was pelted by the\nassembled crowd of worshippers with citrons from the green branches\nthey carried.  By the cruelty with which he punished this insult\nhe excited the populace to the highest pitch, and, when he lost\nhis army in the disaster of Gadara, rebellion broke out.  The\nPharisees summoned the Syrian king Demetrius Eucaerus; Jannaeus\nwas worsted and fled into the desert.  But as he wandered in\nhelplessness there, the patriotism of the people and sympathy for\nthe heir of the Maccabees suddenly awoke; nature proved itself\nstronger than that consistency which in the cause of the Divine\nhonour had not shrunk from treason.  The insurgents for the most\npart went over to the side of the fugitive king; the others he\nultimately overpowered after a struggle which lasted through\nseveral years, Demetrius having withdrawn his intervention.  The\nvengeance which he took on the Pharisees was a bloody one; their\nonly escape was by voluntary exile.  Thenceforward he had peace\nso far as they were concerned.  His last years were occupied with\nthe reacquisition of the conquests which he had been compelled to\nyield to the Arabs during the civil war.  He died in the field\nat the siege of Ragaba in Peraea (79).\n\nUnder Queen Salome, his widow, matters were as if they had been\nspecially arranged for the satisfaction of the Pharisees.  The\nhigh-priesthood passed to Salome's son, Hyrcanus II.; she herself\nwas only queen.  In the management of external affairs her\nauthority was absolute (Antiquities, xiii. 16, 6); in home policy\nshe permitted the scribes to wield a paramount influence.  The\ncommon assertion, indeed, that the synedrium was at that time\npractically composed of scribes, is inconsistent with the known\nfacts of the case; the synedrium at that time was a political\nand not a scholastic authority.   /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Kuenen, \"Over de Samenstelling van het Sanhedrin,\" in\nProceedings of Royal Netherl. Acad., 1866.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIn its origin it was the municipal council of Jerusalem (so also\nthe councils of provincial towns are called synedria, Mark xiii. 9),\nbut its authority extended over the entire Jewish community;\nalongside of the elders of the city the ruling priests were those\nwho had the greatest number of seats and votes.  John Hyrcanus\nappears to have been the first to introduce some scribes into its\ncomposition; it is possible that Salome may have increased their\nnumber, but even so this high court was far from being changed into\na college of scribes like that at Jamnia.  If the domination of the\nPharisees at this time is spoken of, the expression cannot be\nunderstood as meaning that they already held all the public\noffices, but only at most that the holders of those offices found\nit necessary to administer and to judge in their spirit and\naccording to their fundamental principles.\n\nThe party of the Sadducees (consisting of the old Hasmonaean\nofficers and officials, who were of priestly family indeed, but\nattached only slight importance to their priestly functions) at\nlength lost all patience.  Led by Aristobulus, the second son of\nJannaeus, the leaders of the party came to the palace, and begged\nthe queen to dismiss them from the court and to send them into the\nprovinces.  There they were successful in securing possession of\nseveral fortresses /2/ in preparation for insurrection, a favourable\n\n-- Footnote\n2. Alexandrium, Coreae, and similar citadels, which were at that\ntime of great importance for Palestine and Syria.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nopportunity for which they were watching.  Such an opportunity\noccurred, it seemed to Aristobulus, as his mother lay on her\ndeath-bed.  The commandants of the fortresses were at his orders,\nand by their assistance an army also, with which he accordingly\nadvanced upon Jerusalem, and, on the death of Salome, made himself\nmaster of the situation (69).  Hyrcanus was compelled to resign\noffice.  With this event the good understanding between the civil\ngovernment and the Pharisees came to an end; the old antagonisms\nbecame active once more, and now began to operate for the advantage\nof a third party, the Idumaean Antipater, Hyrcanus's confidential\nfriend.  After the latter, aided by Antipater, had at length with\ngreat difficulty got himself into a position for asserting his\nrights against Aristobulus, the Pharisees could not do otherwise\nthan rank themselves upon his side, and the masses joined them\nagainst the usurper.  With the help of the Nabataean monarch the\neffort to restore the elder brother to the supreme authority would\ndoubtless have succeeded had not the Romans procured relief for\nAristobulus, besieged as he was in Jerusalem (65), though without\nthereby recognising his claims.  Pompey continued to delay a decision\non the controversy in 64 also when the rival claimants presented\nthemselves before him at Damascus; he wished first to have the\nNabataeans disposed of, and to have free access to them through\nJudaea.  This hesitation roused the suspicions of Aristobulus;\nstill he did not venture to take decisive action upon them.  He\nclosed the passes (to Mount Ephraim) against the Romans, but\nafterwards gave them up; he prepared Jerusalem for war, and then\nwent in person to the Roman camp at Jericho, where he promised\nto open the gates of the city and also to pay a sum of money.\nBut the Roman ambassadors found the gates barred, and had to\nreturn empty-handed.  Aristobulus thereupon was arrested, and\nsiege was laid to Jerusalem.  The party of Hyrcanus, as soon\nas it had gained the upper hand, surrendered the town; but the\nsupporters of Aristobulus took their stand in the temple, and\ndefended it obstinately.  In June 63 the place was carried by\nstorm; Pompey personally inspected the Holy of Holies, but\notherwise spared the religious feelings of the Jews.  But he\ncaused the chief promoters of the war to be executed, and carried\nAristobulus and his family into captivity.  He abolished the\nkingship, but restored the high-priestly dignity to Hyrcanus.\nThe territory was materially reduced in area, and made tributary\nto the Romans; the city was occupied by a Roman garrison.\n\n\n14.  HEROD AND THE ROMANS.\n\nHenceforward Roman intervention forms a constant disturbing factor\nin Jewish history.  The struggle between the Pharisees and the\nSadducees continued indeed to be carried on, but only because the\nmomentum of their old feud was not yet exhausted.  The Pharisees in\na sense had been victorious.  While the two brothers were pleading\ntheir rival claims before Pompey, ambassadors from the Pharisees\nhad made their appearance in Damascus to petition for the abolition\nof the kingship; this object had now to some extent been gained.\nLess ambiguous than the victory of the Pharisees was the fall of\nthe Sadducees, who in losing the sovereignty of the Jewish state\nlost all real importance.  But the intervention of the foreign\nelement exercised its most powerful influence upon the temper of\nthe lower classes.  Though in times of peace the masses still\ncontinued to accept the guidance of the rabbins, their patriotism\ninstantly burst into flame as soon as a pretender to the throne,\nbelonging to the family of Aristobulus, appeared in Palestine.\nDuring the decennia which immediately followed, Jewish history\nwas practically absorbed in vain attempts to restore the old\nHasmonaean kingdom.  Insurrections of steadily increasing\ndimensions were made in favour of Aristobulus, the representative\nof the national cause.  For Hyrcanus was not regarded as a\nHasmonaean at all, but merely as the creature of Antipater and the\nRomans.  First, in the year 57, Alexander the son of Aristobulus\nbroke into rebellion, then in 56 Aristobulus himself and his son\nAntigonus, and in 55 Alexander again.  Antipater was never able to\nhold his own; Roman intervention was in every case necessary.\nThe division of the Hasmonaean state into five \"aristocracies\" by\nGabinius had no effect in diminishing the feeling of national unity\ncherished by the Jews of Palestine.  Once again, after the battle\nof Carrhae, a rising took place, which Cassius speedily repressed.\n\nIn 49 the great Roman civil war broke out; Caesar instigated\nAristobulus against Antipater, who in common with the whole East\nhad espoused the cause of Pompey.  But Aristobulus was poisoned by\nthe opposite party while yet in Italy, and about the same time his\nson Alexander was also put to death at Antioch; thus the danger\nto Antipater passed away.  After the battle of Pharsalus he went\nover to Caesar's side, and soon after rendered him an important\nservice by helping him out of his difficulties at Alexandria.  By\nthis means he earned the good-will of Caesar towards the whole body\nof the Jews and secured for himself (or Hyrcanus) a great extension\nof power and of territory.  The five \"synedria\" or \"aristocracies\"\nof Gabinius were superseded, the most important conquest of the\nHasmonaeans restored, the walls of Jerusalem, which Pompey had razed,\nrebuilt.\n\nHowever indisputable the advantages conferred by the rule of\nAntipater, the Jews could not forget that the Idumaean, in name\nof Hyrcanus, the rightful heir of the Hasmonaeans, was in truth\nsetting up an authority of his own.  The Sadducaean aristocracy\nin particular, which formerly in the synedrium had shared the\nsupreme power with the high priest, endeavoured to restore\nreality once more to the nominal ascendancy which still continued\nto be attributed to the ethnarch and the synedrium.  \"When the\nauthorities (hoi 'en telei) of the Jews saw how the power of\nAntipater and his sons was growing, their disposition towards him\nbecame hostile\" (Josephus, Antiquities, xiv. 9, 3).  They were\nspecially jealous of the youthful Herod, to whom Galilee had been\nentrusted by his father.  On account of the arbitrary execution\nof a robber chief Ezechias, who perhaps had originally been a\nHasmonaean partisan, they summoned him before the synedrium,\nunder the impression that it was not yet too late to remind him\nthat he was after all but a servant.  But the defiant demeanour\nof the culprit, and a threatening missive which at the same time\narrived from Sextus Caesar demanding his acquittal, rendered his\njudges speechless, nor did they regain their courage until they\nhad heard the stinging reproaches of Sameas the scribe.  Yet the\naged Hyrcanus, who did not comprehend the danger that was\nthreatening himself, postponed judgment upon Herod, and gave him\nopportunity to withdraw.  Having been appointed strategus of\nCoelesyria by Sextus Caesar in the meanwhile he soon afterwards\nappeared before Jerusalem at the head of an army, and the\nauthorities were compelled to address themselves in a conciliatory\nmanner to his father and to Phasael his brother in order to secure\nhis withdrawal.\n\nThe attempt to crush the serpent which had thus effected a lodgment\nin the Hasmonaean house came too late.  The result of it simply\nwas that the Herodians had now the advantage of being able to\ndistinguish between Hyrcanus and his \"evil counsellors.\"  From that\nmoment the downfall of the Sadducaean notables was certain.  It was\nof no avail to them that after the battle of Philippi (42) they\naccused Herod and Phasael (Antipater having been murdered in 43)\nbefore Antony of having been helpful in every possible way to\nCassius; Antony declared himself in the most decisive manner for\nthe two brothers.  In their despair--for properly speaking they\nwere not national fanatics but only egoistic politicians--they\nultimately made common cause with Antigonus the son of\nAristobulus, and threw themselves into the arms of the Parthians,\nperceiving the interests of the Romans and of Herod to be\ninseparable (40).  Fortune at first seemed to have declared in\nfavour of the pretender.  The masses unanimously took his side;\nPhasael committed suicide in prison; with a single blow Herod was\nstripped of all his following and made a helpless fugitive.  He\ntook refuge in Rome, however, where he was named king of Judaea\nby the senate, and after a somewhat protracted war he finally,\nwith the help of the legions of Sosius, made himself master of\nJerusalem (37).  The captive Antigonus was beheaded at Antioch.\n\nKing Herod began his reign by reorganising the synedrium; he\nordered the execution of forty-five of its noblest members, his\nmost zealous opponents.  These were the Sadducaean notables who\nlong had headed the struggle against the Idumaean interlopers.\nHaving thus made away with the leaders of the Jerusalem\naristocracy, he directed his efforts to the business of corrupting\nthe rest.  He appointed to the most important posts obscure\nindividuals, of priestly descent, from Babylon and Alexandria,\nand thus replaced with creatures of his own the old aristocracy.\nNor did he rest content with this; in order to preclude the\npossibility of any independent authority ever arising alongside\nof his own, he abolished the life-tenure of the high-priestly\noffice, and brought it completely under the control of the secular\npower.  By this means he succeeded in relegating the Sadducees to\nutter insignificance.  They were driven out of their native\nsphere--the political--into the region of theoretical and\necclesiastical discussion, where they continued, but on quite\nunequal terms, their old dispute with the Pharisees.\n\nIt was during the period of Herod's activity that the Pharisees,\nstrictly speaking, enjoyed their greatest prosperity (Sameas and\nAbtalion, Hillel and Shammai); in the synedrium they became so\nnumerous as almost to equal the priests and elders.  Quite\nconsistently with their principles they had abstained from\ntaking any part in the life and death struggle for the existence\nof the national state.  Their leaders had even counselled the\nfanatical defenders of Jerusalem to open the gates to the enemy;\nfor this service they were treated with the highest honour by Herod.\nHe made it part of his general policy to favour the Pharisees\n(as also the sect of the Essenes, insignificant though it was),\nit being his purpose to restrict the national life again within\nthose purely ecclesiastical channels of activity which it had\nabandoned since the Maccabaean wars. However reckless his conduct\nin other respects, he was always scrupulously careful to avoid\nwounding religious susceptibilities (Antiquities, xiv. 16, 3).\nBut although the Pharisees might be quite pleased that the\nhigh-priesthood and the kingship were no longer united in one\nand the same person, and that interest in the law again overshadowed\ninterest in politics, the populace for their part could never\nforgive Herod for overthrowing the old dynasty.  That he himself,\nat least in religious profession, was a Jew did not improve his\nposition, but rather made it worse.  It was not easy for him to\nstifle the national feeling after it had once been revived among\nthe Jews; they could not forget the recent past, and objected to\nbeing thrust back into the time when foreign domination was endured\nby them as a matter of course.  The Romans were regarded in quite\na different light from that in which the Persians and the Greeks\nhad been viewed, and Herod was only the client of the Romans.\n\nHis greatest danger seemed to arise from the still surviving\nmembers of the Hasmonaean family, to whom, as is easily\nunderstood, the national hopes clung.  In the course of the earlier\nyears of his reign he removed every one of them from his path,\nbeginning with his youthful brother-in-law Aristobulus (35), after\nwhom came his old patron Hyrcanus II. (30), then Mariamne his wife\n(29), and finally his stepmother Alexandra (28), the daughter of\nHyrcanus and the widow of Alexander Aristobuli.  Subsequently,\nin 25, he caused Costobarus and the sons of Babas to be executed.\nWhile thus occupied with domestic affairs, Herod had constant\ntrouble also in his external relations, and each new phase in his\npolitical position immediately made itself felt at home.  In the\nfirst instance he had much to suffer from Cleopatra, who would\nwillingly have seen Palestine reduced under Egyptian domination\nonce more, and who actually succeeded in inducing Antony to take\nfrom Herod several fair and valuable provinces of his realm.  Next,\nhis whole position was imperilled by the result of the battle of\nActium; he had once more ranged himself upon the wrong side.  But\nhis tact did not fail him in winning Octavianus, as before it had\nmade Antony his friend.  In fact he reaped nothing but advantage\nfrom the great overturn which took place in Roman affairs; it\nrid him of Cleopatra, a dangerous enemy, and gave him in the new\nimperator a much better master than before.\n\nDuring the following years he had leisure to carry out those\nsplendid works of peace by which it was his aim to ingratiate\nhimself with the emperor.  He founded cities and harbours\n(Antipatris, Caesarea), constructed roads, theatres, and temples,\nand subsidised far beyond his frontier all works of public utility.\nHe taxed the Jews heavily, but in compensation promoted their\nmaterial interests with energy and discretion, and built for them,\nfrom 20 or 19 B.C. onwards, the temple at Jerusalem.  To gain their\nsympathies he well knew to be impossible. Apart from the Roman\nlegions at his back his authority had its main support in his\nfortresses and in his system of espionage.\n\nBut just as the acme of his splendour had been reached, he himself\nbecame the instrument of a terrible vengeance for the crimes by\nwhich his previous years had been stained; as executioner of all\nthe Hasmonaeans, he was now constrained to be the executioner of\nhis own children also.  His suspicious temper had been aroused\nagainst his now grown-up sons by Mariamne, whose claims through\ntheir mother to the throne were superior to his own; his brother\nPheroras and his sister Salome made it their special business to\nfan his jealousy into flame.  To show the two somewhat arrogant\nyouths that the succession was not so absolutely secure in their\nfavour as they were supposing, the father summoned to his court\nAntipater, the exiled son of a former marriage.  Antipater, under\nthe mask of friendship, immediately began to carry on infamous\nintrigues against his half brothers, in which Pheroras and Salome\nunconsciously played into his hands.  For years he persevered\nalike in favouring and unfavouring circumstances with his part,\nuntil at last, by the machinations of a Lacedemonian, Eurycles,\nwho had been bribed, Herod was induced to condemn the sons of\nMariamne at Berytus, and cause them to be strangled (Samaria, 7-6\nB.C.).  Not long afterwards a difference between Antipater and\nSalome led to the exposure of the former.  Herod was compelled\nto drain the cup to the dregs; he was not spared the knowledge\nthat he had murdered his children without a cause.  His remorse\nthrew him into a serious illness, in which his strong constitution\nwrestled long with death.  While he lay at Jericho near his end\nhe gave orders for the execution of Antipater also; and to embitter\nthe joy of the Jews at his removal he caused their elders to be\nshut up together in the hippodrome at Jericho with the injunction\nto butcher them as soon as he breathed his last, that so there\nmight be sorrow throughout the land.  The latter order, however,\nwas not carried out.\n\nHis death (4 B.C.) gave the signal for an insurrection of small\nbeginnings which gradually spread until it ultimately infected\nall the people; it was repressed by Varus with great cruelty.\nMeanwhile Herod's connexions were at Rome disputing about the\ninheritance.  The deceased king (who was survived by several\nchildren of various marriages) had made a will, which was\nsubstantially confirmed by Augustus.  By it his son Philip\nreceived the northern portion of the territory on the east\nof the Jordan along with the district of Paneas (Caesarea\nPhilippi); his thirty-seven years' reign over this region was\nhappy.  Another son, Herod Antipas, obtained Galilee and Peraea;\nhe beautified his domains with architectural works (Sepphoris,\nTiberias; Livias, Machaerus), and succeeded by his fox-like\npolicy in ingratiating himself with the emperors, particularly\nwith Tiberius, for that very cause, however, becoming odious to\nthe Roman provincial officials.  The principal heir was Archelaus,\nto whom Idumaea, Judaea, and Samaritis were allotted; Augustus at\nfirst refused him the title of king.  Archelaus had experienced\nthe greatest difficulty in carrying through his claims before\nthe emperor in face of the manifold oppositions of his enemies;\nthe vengeance which he wreaked upon his subjects was so severe\nthat in 6 A,D. a Jewish and Samaritan embassy besought the emperor\nfor his deposition.  Augustus assented, banishing Archelaus to\nVienne, and putting in his place a Roman procurator.  Thenceforward\nJudaea continued under procurators, with the exception of a brief\ninterval (41-44 A.D.), during which Herod Agrippa I. united under\nhis sway all the dominions of his grandfather. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Agrippa was the grandson of Mariamne through Aristobulus.\nCaligula, whose friendship he had secured in Rome, bestowed upon\nhim in 37 the dominions of Philip with the title of king, and\nafterwards the tetrarchy of Antipas, whom he deposed and banished\nto Lugdunum (39).  Claudius added the possessions of Archelaus.\nBut the kingdom was again taken away from his son Agrippa II.\n(44), who, however, after the death of his uncle, Herod of Chalcis,\nobtained that principality for which at a later period (52) the\ntetrarchy of Philip was substituted.  His sister Berenice is known\nas the mistress of Titus; another sister, Drusilla, was the wife\nof the procurator Felix.  The descendants of Mariamne through\nAlexander held for some time an Armenian principality.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe termination of the vassal kingship resulted in manifest\nadvantage to the Sadducees.  The high priest and synedrium again\nacquired political importance; they were the responsible\nrepresentatives of the nation in presence of the suzerain power,\nand conceived themselves to be in some sort lords of land and\npeople (John xi. 48).  For the Pharisees the new state of affairs\nappears to have been less satisfactory.  That the Romans were\nmuch less oppressive to the Jews than the rulers of the house of\nHerod was a consideration of less importance to them than the\nfact that the heathen first unintentionally and then deliberately\nwere guilty of the rudest outrages upon the law, outrages against\nwhich those sly half-Jews had well understood how to be on their\nguard.  It was among the lower ranks of the people, however, that\nhatred to the Romans had its proper seat.  On the basis of the views\nand tendencies which had long prevailed there, a new party was now\nformed, that of the Zealots, which did not, like the Pharisees, aim\nmerely at the fulfilment of all righteousness, i.e., of the law,\nand leave everything else in the hands of God, but was determined\nto take an active part in bringing about the realisation of the\nkingdom of God (Josephus, Antiquities, xviii. 1, 1).\n\nAs the transition to the new order of things was going on, the\ncensus of Quirinius took place (6-7 A.D.); it occasioned an\nimmense excitement, which, however, was successfully allayed.\nOn the withdrawal of Quirinius, Coponius remained behind as\nprocurator of Judaea; he was followed, under Augustus, by Marcus\nAmbivius and Annius Rufus; under Tiberius, by Valerius Gratus\n(15-26 A.D.) and Pontius Pilatus (26-36 A.D.); under Caligula,\nby Marcellus (36-37) and Marullus (37-41 A.D.).  The procurators\nwere subordinate to the imperial legati of Syria; they resided\nin Caesarea, and visited Jerusalem on special occasions only.\nThey had command of the military, and their chief business was\nthe maintenance of the peace and the care of the revenue.  They\ninterested themselves in affairs of religion only in so far as\nthese had a political side; the temple citadel Antonia was constantly\ngarrisoned with a cohort.  The administration of justice appears\nto have been left to a very considerable extent in the hands of\nthe synedrium, but it was not allowed to give effect to any capital\nsentence.  At the head of the native authorities stood at this time\nnot so much the actual high priest as the college of the chief priests.\nThe actual office of high priest had lost its political importance\nin consequence of the frequency with which its holders were changed;\nthus, for example, Annas had more influence than Caiaphas.\n\nThe principle of interfering as little as possible with the\nreligious liberty of the Jews was rudely assailed by the Emperor\nCaius, who like a second Antiochus, after various minor vexations,\ngave orders that his image should be set up in the temple of\nJerusalem as in others elsewhere.  It was entirely through the\ncourage and tact of the Syrian governor P. Petronius that the\nexecution of these orders was temporarily postponed until the\nemperor was induced by Agrippa I. to withdraw them.  Caius soon\nafterwards died, and under the rule of Agrippa I., to whom the\ngovernment of the entire kingdom of his grandfather was committed\nby Claudius, the Jews enjoyed much prosperity; in every respect\nthe king was all they could wish.  This very prosperity seems,\nhowever, to have caused them fresh danger.  For it made them feel\nthe government by procurators, which was resumed after the death\nof Agrippa I., to be particularly hard to bear, whatever the\nindividual characters of these might be.  They were Cuspius Fadus\n(from 44, under whom Theudas), Tiberius Alexander (the Romanised\nnephew of Philo, till 48), Cumanus (48-52, under whom the volcano\nalready began to give dangerous signs of activity), and Felix\n(52-60).  Felix, who has the honour to be pilloried in the pages of\nTacitus, contrived to make the dispeace permanent.  The influence\nof the two older parties, both of which were equally interested in\nthe maintenance of the existing order, and in that interest were\nbeing drawn nearer to each other, diminished day by day.  The\nmasses broke loose completely from the authority of the scribes;\nthe ruling nobility adapted itself better to the times; under the\ncircumstances which then prevailed, it is not surprising that\nthey became thoroughly secular and did not shrink from the\nemployment of directly immoral means for the attainment of their\nends.  The Zealots became the dominant party.  It was a combination\nof noble and base elements; superstitious enthusiasts (Acts xxi.\n38) and political assassins, the so-called sicarii, were conjoined\nwith honest but fanatical patriots.  Felix favoured the sicarii in\norder that he might utilise them; against the others his hostility\nraged with indiscriminating cruelty, yet without being able to\ncheck them.  The anarchy which he left behind him as a legacy was\nbeyond the control of his able successor Porcius Festus (60-62),\nand the last two procurators, Albinus (62-64) and Gessius Florus,\nacted as if it had been their special business to encourage and\npromote it.  All the bonds of social order were dissolved; no\nproperty was secure; the assassins alone prospered, and the\nprocurators went shares with them in the profits.\n\nIt was inevitable that deep resentment against the Romans should\nbe felt in every honest heart.  At last it found expression.\nDuring his visit to Jerusalem in May 66 Florus laid hands upon the\ntemple treasure; the Jews allowed themselves to go so far as to\nmake a joke about it, which he avenged by giving over a portion of\nthe city to be plundered, and crucifying a number of the\ninhabitants.  He next insisted upon their kissing the rod, ordering\nthat a body of troops which was approaching should be met and\nwelcomed.  At the persuasion of their leaders the Jews forced\nthemselves even to this; but a constant succession of fresh\ninsults and cruelties followed, till patience was quite exhausted\nat last, and in a violent street fight the Romans were so handled\nthat the procurator withdrew from the town, leaving only the\ncohort in Antonia.  Once again was an attempt at pacification made\nby Agrippa II., who hastened from Alexandria with this purpose,\nbut the Jews could not bring themselves to make submission to\nGessius Florus.  It so happened that at this juncture the fortress\nof Masada on the Dead Sea fell into the hands of the Zealots; the\ncourage of the party of action rose, and at the instance of the\nhot-headed Eleazar the son of Ananias, a man, still young, of\nhighest priestly family, the sacrifice on behalf of the emperor\nwas discontinued, ie., revolt was declared.  But the native\nauthorities continued opposed to a war.  At their request King\nAgrippa sent soldiers to Jerusalem; at first they appeared to\nhave some effect, but ultimately they were glad to make their\nescape in safety from the city.  The cohort in Antonia was in like\nmanner unable to hold its own; freedom was given it to withdraw;\nbut, contrary to the terms of capitulation, it was put to the\nsword.  The war party now signalised its triumph over all elements\nof opposition from within by the murder of the high priest\nAnanias.\n\nA triumph was gained also over the outer foe.  The Syrian legate,\nCestius Gallus, appeared before Jerusalem in the autumn of 66, but\nafter a short period raised the siege; his deliberate withdrawal\nwas changed into a precipitate flight in an attack made by the\nJews at Bethhoron.  The revolt now spread irresistibly through\nall ranks and classes of the population, and the aristocracy found\nit expedient itself to assume the leadership.  An autonomous\ngovernment was organised, with the noblest members of the community\nat its head; of these the most important was the high priest\nAnanus.\n\nMeanwhile Nero entrusted the conduct of the Jewish war to Vespasian,\nhis best general.  In the spring of 67 he began his task in\nGalilee, where the historian Josephus had command of the\ninsurgents.  The Jews entirely distrusted him and he them; in a\nshort time the Romans were masters of Galilee, only a few strong\nplaces holding out against them.  Josephus was besieged in\nJotapata, and taken prisoner; the other places also were unable to\nhold out long.  Such of the champions of freedom in Galilee as\nescaped betook themselves to Jerusalem; amongst these was the\nZealot leader John of Giscala.  There they told the story of their\nmisfortunes, of which they laid the blame upon Josephus, and upon\nthe aristocratic government as having no heart for the common cause\nand having treachery for their motto.  The Zealots now openly aimed\nat the overthrow of the existing government, but Ananus bravely\nwithstood them, and pressed so hard on them that they summoned\nthe Idumaeans into the city to their aid.  These honourable fanatics\nindeed withdrew again as soon as they had discovered that they were\nbeing used for sinister designs; but in the meanwhile they had\naccomplished the work of the Zealots.  The old magistracy of\nJerusalem was destroyed, Ananus with the heads of the aristocracy\nand very many other respectable citizens put to death.  The radicals,\nfor the most part not natives of the city, came into power; John\nof Giscala at their head tyrannized over the inhabitants.\n\nWhile these events were taking place in Jerusalem, Vespasian had\nsubdued the whole country, with the exception of one or two\nfortresses.  But as he was setting about the siege of the capital,\ntidings arrived of the death of Nero, and the offensive was\ndiscontinued.  For almost two years (June 68 to April 70), with\na short break, war was suspended.  When Vespasian at the end of\nthis period became emperor, he entrusted to Titus the task of\nreducing Jerusalem.  There in the interval the internal struggle\nhad been going on, even after the radicals had gained the mastery.\nAs a counterpoise to John of Giscala the citizens had received\nthe guerilla captain Simon bar Giora into the city; the two were\nnow at feud with each other, but were alike in their rapacity\ntowards the citizens.  John occupied the temple, Simon the upper\ncity Iying over against it on the west.  For a short time a third\nentered into competition with the two rivals, a certain Eleazar\nwho had separated from John and established himself in the inner\ntemple.  But just as Titus was beginning the siege (Easter, 70)\nJohn contrived to get rid of this interloper.\n\nTitus attacked from the north.  After the lower city had fallen\ninto his hands, he raised banks with a view to the storm of the\ntemple and the upper city.  But the defenders, who were now united\nin a common cause, taught him by their vigorous resistance that\nhis object was not to be so quickly gained.  He therefore\ndetermined to reduce them by famine, and for this end completely\nsurrounded the city with a strong wall.  In the beginning of July\nhe renewed the attack, which he directed in the first instance\nagainst the temple.  The tower of Antonia fell on the 5th, but the\ntemple continued to beheld notwithstanding; until the I7th the\ndaily sacrifice continued to be offered.  The Romans succeeded in\ngaining the outer court in August only.  To drive them out, the\nJews in the night of August 10-11 made a sortie, but were\ncompelled to retire, the enemy forcing their way behind them into\nthe inner court.  A legionary flung a firebrand into an annexe of\nthe temple, and soon the whole structure was in flames.  A terrible\nslaughter of the defenders ensued, but John with a determined band\nsucceeded in cutting his way out, and by means of the bridge over\nthe Tyropceon valley made his escape into the upper city.\n\nNo attack had as yet been directed against this quarter; but\nfamine was working terrible ravages among the crowded population.\nThose in command, however, refused to capitulate unless freedom to\nwithdraw along with their wives and children were granted.  These\nterms being withheld, a storm, after the usual preparations on the\npart of the Romans, took place.  The resistance was feeble; the\nstrong towers were hardly defended at all; Simon bar Giora and\nJohn of Giscala now thought only of their personal safety.  In the\nunprotected city the Roman soldiers spread fire and slaughter\nunchecked (September 7, 70).\n\nOf those who survived also some were put to death; the rest were\nsold or carried off to the mines and amphitheatres.  The city was\nlevelled with the ground; the tenth legion was left behind in\ncharge.  Titus took with him to Rome for his triumphal procession\nSimon bar Giora and John of Giscala, along with seven hundred other\nprisoners, also the sacred booty taken from the temple, the\ncandlestick, the golden table, and a copy of the Torah.  He was\nslightly premature with his triumph; for some time elapsed, and\nmore than one bloody battle was necessary before the rebellion\nwas completely stifled.  It did not come wholly to an end until\nthe fall of Masada (April 73).\n\n\nI5.  THE RABBINS.\n\nEven now Palestine continued for a while to be the centre of Jewish\nlife, but only in order to prepare the way for its transition\ninto thoroughly cosmopolitan forms.  The development of thought\nsustained no break on account of the sad events which had taken\nplace, but was only directed once more in a consistent manner\ntowards these objects which had been set before it from the time of\nthe Babylonian exile.  On the ruins of the city and of the temple\nthe Pharisaic Judaism which rests upon the law and the school\ncelebrated its triumph.  National fanaticism indeed was not yet\nextinguished, but it burnt itself completely out in the vigorous\ninsurrection led by Simeon bar Koziba (Bar Cochebas, 132-135).\nThat a conspicuous rabbin, Akiba, should have taken part in it,\nand have recognised in Simeon the Messiah, was an inconsistency\non his part which redounds to his honour.\n\nInasmuch as the power of the rabbins did not depend upon the\npolitical or hierarchical forms of the old commonwealth, it\nsurvived the fall of the latter.  Out of what hitherto had been a\npurely moral influence something of an official position now\ngrew.  They formed themselves into a college which regarded\nitself as a continuation of the old synedrium, and which carried\nforward its name.  At first its seat was at Jamnia, but it soon\nremoved to Galilee, and remained longest at Tiberias.  The\npresidency was hereditary in the family of Hillel, with the last\ndescendants of whom the court itself came to an end. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The following is the genealogy of the first Nasi:--Gamaliel ben\nSimeon (Josephus, Vita, 38) ben Gamaliel (Acts v. 34, xxii. 3) ben\nsimeon ben Hillel.  The name Gamaliel was that which occurred most\nfrequently among the patriarchs; see Codex  Theod. xvi. 8, 22.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe respect in which the synedrial president was held rapidly\nincreased; like Christian patriarchs under Mahometan rule, he was\nalso recognised by the imperial government as the municipal head\nof the Jews of Palestine, and bore the secular title of the old\nhigh priests (nasi, ethnarch, patriarch).  Under him the Palestinian\nJews continued to form a kind of state within a state until the 5th\ncentury.  From the non-Palestinian Jews he received offerings of\nmoney.  (Compare Gothofredus on Codex Theod., xvi. 8, \"De Judaeis;\"\nand Morinus, Exer. Bibl., ii. exerc. 3, 4).\n\nThe task of the rabbins was so to reorganise Judaism under the new\ncircumstances that it could continue to assert its distinctive\ncharacter.  What of external consistency had been lost through the\nextinction of the ancient commonwealth required to be compensated\nfor by an inner centralisation proportionately stronger.  The\nseparation from everything heathenish became more pronounced than\nbefore; the use of the Greek language was of necessity still\npermitted, but at least the Septuagint was set aside by Aquila\n(Cod. Justinian., Nov. 146) inasmuch as it had now become the\nChristian Bible.  For to this period also belongs the definitive\nseparation between the synagogue and the church; henceforward\nChristianity could no longer figure as a Jewish sect.\nIntensified exclusiveness was accompanied by increased internal\nstringency.  What at an earlier period had still remained to some\nextent fluid now became rigidly fixed; for example, an authentic\ntext of the canon was now established, and at the same time the\ndistinction between canon and apocrypha sharply drawn.  The old\ntendency of the scribes to leave as little as possible free to the\nindividual conscience, but to bring everything within the scope of\npositive ordinance, now celebrated its greatest triumphs.  It was\nonly an apparent movement in the direction of liberty, if\nregulations which had become quite impossible were now modified or\ncancelled.  The most influential of the rabbins were indeed the\nleast solicitous about the maintenance of what was old, and had no\nhesitation in introducing numerous and thoroughgoing innovations;\nbut the conservatives R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus and R. Ishmael ben\nElisha were in truth more liberal-minded than the leaders of the\nparty of progress, notably than R.  Akiba.  Even the Ultramontanes\nhave never hesitated at departures from the usage of the ancient\nand mediaeval church; and the Pharisaic rabbins were guided in\ntheir innovations by liberal principles no more than they.\nThe object of the new determinations was simply to widen the\ndomain of the law in a consistent manner, to bring the individual\nentirely under the iron rule of system.  But the Jewish\ncommunities gave willing obedience to the hierarchy of the\nrabbins; Judaism had to be maintained, cost what it might.  That\nthe means employed were well adapted to the purpose of maintaining\nthe Jews as a firmly compacted religious community even after all\nbonds of nationality had fallen away cannot be doubted.  But\nwhether the attainment of this purpose by incredible exertion was\na real blessing to themselves and the world may very well be\ndisputed.\n\nOne consequence of the process of intellectual isolation and of the\neffort to shape everything in accordance with hard and fast rules\nand doctrines was the systematisation and codification of juristic\nand ritual tradition, a work with which a beginning was made in the\ncentury following the destruction of Jerusalem.  Towards the end\nof the 2nd century the Pharisaic doctrine of Hillel as it had been\nfurther matured by Akiba was codified and elevated to the position\nof statute law by the patriarch Rabban Judah the Holy (Mishna). /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The Mishna succeeded almost, but not quite, in completely doing\naway with all conflicting tendencies.  At first the heterodox\ntradition of that time was also committed to writing (R. Ishmael\nben Elisha) and so handed down,--in various forms (col]ection of\nthe Baraithas, that is, of old precepts which had not been received\ninto the Mishna, in the Tosephtha).  Nor did the active opposition\naltogether die out even at a later period; under favouring\ncircumstances it awoke to new life in Karaism, the founder of which,\nAnan ben David, lived in Babylonia in the middle of the 8th century.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nBut this was only the first stage in the process of systematising\nand fixing tradition.  The Mishna became itself the object of\nrabbinical comment and supplement; the Tannaim, whose work was\nregistered in the Mathnetha (Mishna, DEUTERWSIS = doctrine), were\nfollowed by the Amoraim, whose work in turn took permanent shape\nin the Gemara (= doctrine).  The Palestinian Gemara was reduced\nto writing in perhaps the 4th or 5th century; unfortunately it\nhas been preserved to us only in part, but appears to have reached\nthe Middle Ages in a perfect state (compare Schiller-Szinessy in\nthe Academy, 1878, p. 170 seq.).  Even thus the process which\nissued in the production of the Talmud was not yet completed;\nthe Babylonian Amoraim carried it forward for some time longer,\nuntil at last at the rise of Islam the Babylonian Gemara was\nalso written down.\n\nIn the sth century Palestine ceased to be the centre of Judaism.\nSeveral circumstances conspired to bring this about.  The position\nof the Jews in the Roman Empire had changed for the worse with the\nelevation of Christianity to be the religion of the state; the\nlarge autonomy which until then they had enjoyed in Palestine\nwas now restricted; above all, the family of the Patriarchs,\nwhich had come to form a veritable dynasty, became extinct. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Compare Gothofredus on Cod. Theod., xvi. 8, 29, ad voc. \"post\nexcessum patriarcharum.\"\n-- Footnote\n\n\nBut this did not make an end of what may be called the Jewish\nchurch-state; henceforward it had its home in Babylonia.  From the\nperiod of the exile, a numerous and coherent body of Jews had\ncontinued to subsist there; the Parthians and Sassanidae granted\nthem self-government; at their head was a native prince (Resh\nGalutha,--can be clearly traced from 2nd century A.D. onwards)\nwho, when the Palestinian patriarchate came to an end, was left\nwithout a rival.  This remarkable relic of a Jewish commonwealth\ncontinued to exist until the time of the Abassides. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. See Noeldeke, Tabari; 68, 118, and Kremer, Culturgeschichte des\nOrients unter den Chalifen, i. 188, ii. 176.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nEven as early as the beginning of the 3rd century A.D. certain\nrabbins, at their head Abba Areka (Rab), had migrated from Palestine\nand founded a settlement for learning in the law in Babylonia.\nThe schools there (at Pumbeditha, Sora, Nahardea) prospered greatly,\nvied with those of Palestine, and continued to exist after the\ncessation of the latter, when the patriarchate became extinct; thus\nthey had the last word in the settlement of doctrine.\n\nAlongside of the settlement of tradition went another task, that\nof fixing the letters of the consonantal text of the Bible (by the\nMassora), its vowel pronunciation (by the punctuation), and its\ntranslation into the Aramaic vernacular (Targum).  Here also the\nBabylonians came after the Palestinians, yet of this sort of\nerudition Palestine continued to be the headquarters even after the\n5th century.\n\nWith this task--that of attaining to the greatest possible\nconformity to the letter and of continuing therein--the inner\ndevelopment of Jewish thought came to an end.  /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Compare  F. Weber, System der altsynagagalen palaestinischen\nTheologie, Leipsic, 1880.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe later Hebrew literature, which does not fall to be considered\nhere, contributed very few new elements; in so far as an intellectual\nlife existed at all among the Jews of the Middle Ages, it was not\na growth of native soil but proceeded from the Mahometan or Latin\nculture of individuals.  The Kabbala at most, and even it hardly\nwith justice, can be regarded as having been a genuine product of\nJudaism.  It originated in Palestine, and subsequently flourished\nchiefly in the later Middle Ages in Spain, and, like all other\nmethodised nonsense, had strong attractions for Christian scholars.\n\n\n16.  THE JEWISH DISPERSION.\n\nSomething still remains to be said with reference to the diaspora.\nWe have seen how it began; in spite of Josephus (Antiquities,\nxi. 5, 2), it is to be carried back not to the Assyrian but merely\nto the Babylonian captivity; it was not composed of Israelites,\nbut solely of citizens of the southern kingdom.  It received its\ngreatest impulse from Alexander, and then afterwards from Caesar.\nIn the Graeco-Roman period Jerusalem at the time of the great\nfestival presented the appearance of a veritable Babel (Acts ii.\n9-11); with the Jews themselves were mingled the proselytes (Acts\nii. 11), for even already that religion was gaining considerable\nconquests among the heathen; as King Agrippa I. writes to the\nEmperor Caius (Philo, Legat. ad Gaium, sec. 36),\n\n\"Jerusalem is the metropolis not only of Judaea but of very many\nlands, on account of the colonies which on various occasions\n('epi xairwn) it has sent out into the adjoining countries of Egypt,\nPhoenicia, Syria, and Coelesyria, and into the more remote Pamphylia,\nCilicia, the greater part of Asia Minor as far as to Bithynia and\nthe remotest parts of Pontus; likewise into Europe--Thessaly,\nBoeotia, Macedonia, AEtolia, Attica, Argos, Corinth, most parts\n(and these the fairest) of the Peloponnesus.  Nor are the Jewish\nsettlements confined to the mainland only; they are found also in\nthe more important islands, Euboea, Cyprus, Crete.  I do not insist\non the countries beyond the Euphrates, for with few exceptions all\nof them, Babylon and the fertile regions around it, have Jewish\ninhabitants.\"\n\nIn the west of Europe also they were not wanting; many thousands\nof them lived in Rome.  In those cities where they were at all\nnumerous they, during the imperial period, formed separate\ncommunities; Josephus has preserved a great variety of documents\nin which the Roman authorities recognise their rights and liberties\n(especially as regards the Sabbath rest and the observance of\nfestivals).  Of greatest importance was the community in Alexandria;\naccording to Philo a million of Jews had their residence there under\nan ethnarch for whom a gerusia was afterwards substituted by Augustus\n(In Flac., secs. 6, 10).  The extent to which this diaspora was\nhelpful in the diffusion of Christianity, the manner in which the\nmission of the apostles everywhere attached itself to the synagogues\nand proseuchai, is well known from the New Testament.  That the\nChristians of the 1st cenentury had much to suffer along with the Jews\nis also a familiar fact.  For at this period, in other respects\nmore favourable to them than any other had previously been, the\nJews had occasionally to endure persecution.  The emperors, taking\numbrage at their intrusiveness, more than once banished them from\nRome (Acts xviii. 2).  The good will of the native population they\nnever secured; they were most hated in Egypt and Syria, where they\nwere strongest.     /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Compare  Schuerer, Neutest. Zeitgeschichte (1874), sec. 31.\nThe place taken by the Jewish element in the world of that time\nis brilliantly set forth by Mommsen in his History of Rome (book\nv. chapter ii.; English translation iv. p. 538 seq., 1866):--\n\"How numerous even in Rome the Jewish population was already before\nCaesar's time, and how closely at the same time the Jews even then\nkept together as fellow-countrymen, is shown by the remark of an\nauthor of this period, that it was dangerous for a governor to offend\nthe Jews in his province, because he might then certainly reckon on\nbeing hissed after his return, by the populace of the capital.\nEven at this time the predominant business of the Jews was trade....\nAt this period too we encounter the peculiar antipathy of the\nOccidentals touards this so thoroughly Oriental race and their\nforeign opinions and customs.  This Judaism, although not the most\npleasing feature in the nowhere pleasing picture of the mixture of\nnations which then prevailed, was, nevertheless, an historical\nelement developing itself in the natural course of things,...\nwhich Caesar just like his predecessor Alexander fostered as far\nas possible....They did not, of course, contemplate placing the\nJewish nationality on an equal footing with the Hellenic or\nItalo-Hellenic.  But the Jew who has not, like the Occidental,\nreceived the Pandora's gift of political organisation, and stands\nsubstantially in a relation of indifference to the state, who,\nmoreover, is as reluctant to give up the essence of his national\nidiosyncrasy as he is ready to clothe it with any nationality at\npleasure and to adapt himself up to a certain degree to foreign\nhabits--the Jew was, for this very reason, as it were, made for\na state which was to be built on the ruins of a hundred living\npolities, and to be endowed with a somewhat abstract and, from\nthe outset, weakened nationality.  In the ancient world also Judaism\nwas an effective leaven of cosmopolitanism and of national\ndecomposition.\"\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe position of the Jews in the Roman Empire was naturally not\nimproved by the great risings under Nero, Trajan (in Cyrene,\nCyprus, Mesopotamia), and Hadrian.  The East strictly so called,\nbecame more and more their proper home.  The Christianization of\nthe empire helped still further in a very special way to detach\nthem from the Western world. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. For a brief time only were they again favoured by Julian the\nApostate; compare Gibbon, chapter xxiii.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThey sided with the Persians against the Byzantines; in the year\n614 they were even put in possession of Jerusalem by Chosroes,\nbut were not long able to hold their own against Heraclius. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. Gibbon, chapter xlvi.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nWith Islam also they found themselves in greater sympathy than with\nChristianity, although they were cruelly treated by Mahomet in Arabia,\nand driven by Omar out of the Hejaz, and notwithstanding the facts\nthat they were as matter of course excluded from citizenship, and\nthat they were held by Moslems as a whole in greater contempt than\nthe Christians.  They throve especially well on what may be called\nthe bridge between East and West, in Mauretania and Spain, where they\nwere the intellectual intermediaries between the Arab and the Latin\nculture.  In the Sephardim and Ashkenazim the distinction between the\nsubtler Oriental and the more conservative Western Jews has maintained\nitself in Europe also.  From the 8th century onwards Judaism put\nforth a remarkable side shoot in the Khazars on the Volga; if\nlegend Is to he believed, but little was required at one time to\nhave induced the Russians to accept the Jewish rather than the\nChristian faith.\n\nIn the West the equal civil rights which Caracalla had conferred on\nall free inhabitants of the empire came to an end, so far as the\nJews were concerned, in the time of Constantine.  The state then\nbecame the secular arm of the church, and took action, though with\nless severity, against Jews just as against heretics and pagans.\nAs early as the year 315, Constantine made conversion from\nChristianity to Judaism a penal offence, and prohibited Jews, on\npain of death, from circumcising their Christian slaves.  These\nlaws were re-enacted and made more severe by Constantius, who\nattached the penalty of death to marriages between Jews and\nChristians.  Theodosius I. and Honorius, indeed, by strictly\nprohibiting the destruction of synagogues, and by maintaining the\nold regulation that a Jew was not to be summoned before a court of\njustice on a Sabbath-day, put a check upon the militant zeal of the\nChurch, by which even Chrysostom, for example, allowed himself to\nbe carried away at Antioch.  But Honorius rendered them ineligible\nfor civil or military service, leaving open to them only the bar\nand the decurionate, the latter being a _privilegiium odiosum_.\nTheir liberty to try cases by their own law was curtailed; the cases\nbetween Jews and Christians were to be tried by Christian judges\nonly.  Theodosius II. prohibited them from building new synagogues,\nand anew enforced their disability for all state employments.  Most\nhostile of all was the orthodox Justinian, who, however, was still\nmore severe against Pagans and Samaritans. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Cod. Theod., xvi. 8: \"De Judaeis, Coelicolis, et Samaritanis;\"\nCod. Just., i. 9: \"De Judaeis et Coelicolis.\"  With regard to\nthese coelicolae, see Gothofredus on Cod. Theod., xvi. 8, 9, and\nalso J. Bernays, \"Ueber die Gottesfuerchtigen bei Juvenal,\" in\nthe Comm. Philol in hon. Th. Mommsen, 1877, p. 163.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nHe harassed the Jews with a law enjoining them to observe Easter on\nthe same day as the Christians, a law which it was of course found\nimpossible to carry out. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. Gibbon, chapter xlvii.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIn the Germanic states which arose upon the ruins of the Roman\nempire, the Jews did not fare badly on the whole.  It was only\nin cases where the state was dominated by the Catholic Church, as,\nfor example; among the Spanish Visigoths, that they were cruelly\noppressed; among the Arian Ostrogoths, on the other hand, they\nhad nothing to complain of.  One thing in their favour was the\nGermanic principle that the law to be applied depended not on the\nland but on the nationality, as now in the East Europeans are\njudged by the consuls according to the law of their respective\nnations.  The autonomy of the Jewish communities, which had been\ncurtailed by the later emperors, was now enlarged once more under\nthe laxer political and legal conditions.  The Jews fared\nremarkably well under the Frankish monarchy; the Carolingians helped\nthem in every possible way, making no account of the complaints of\nthe bishops.  They were allowed to hold property in land, but\nshowed no eagerness for it; leaving agriculture to the Germans, they\ndevoted them selves to trade.  The market was completely in their\nhands; as a specially lucrative branch of commerce they still\ncarried on the traffic in slaves, which had engaged them even in\nancient times. /1/\n\n-- Footnote\n1. Agobardus Lugdunensis, Die Insolentia Judaeorum, De Judaicis\nsuperstitionibus.  Agobard was no superstitious fanatic, but one\nof the weightiest and most enlightened ecclesiastics of the Middle\nAges.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nMeanwhile the Church was not remiss in seeking constantly repeated\nre-enactments of the old imperial laws, in the framing of which she\nhad had paramount influence, and which she now incorporated with\nher own canon law. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. Compare Decret. i., dist. 45, c. 3; Decr. ii., caus. 23,\nqaest. 8, c. 9, caus. 28, qu. 1, c. 10-12; Decr. iii., de\nconsecr., dist. 4, c. 93; Decretal. Greg. 5, 6 (\"De Judaeis,\nSarracenis, et eorum servis\"), 5, 19, 18; Extrav. commun 5, 2.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nGradually she succeeded in attaining her object.  In the later Middle\nAges the position of the Jews in the Christian society deteriorated.\nIntercourse with them was shunned; their isolation from being\nvoluntary became compulsory; from the I3th century onwards they were\nobliged to wear, as a distinctive mark (more necessary in the East\nthan in the West), a round or square yellow badge on their breast. /3/\n\n-- Footnote\n3. Compare Du Cange, s. v.  \"Judaei;\" also Reuter, Gesch. d.\nAufklaerung im Mittelalter, i. 154 seq.  In spite of all the legal\nrestrictions laid upon them, the Jews still continued to have great\ninfluence with the princes, and more especially with the popes, of\nthe Middle Ages.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe difference of religion elicited a well-marked religious hate with\noft-repeated deadly outbreaks, especially during the period of the\ncrusades, and afterwards when the Black Death was raging (1348-50).\nPractical consequences like these the Church of course did not\ncountenance; the popes set themselves against persecutions of\nthe Jews, /4/\n\n-- Footnote\n4. Decr. ii. 23, 8, 9.  Alexander II. omnibus episeopis Hispaniae:\nDispar...est Judaeorum et Sarracenorum eausa; in illos enim, qui\nChristianos persequuntur et ex urbibus et propriis sedibus pellunt,\njuste pugnatur, hi vero ubique servire parati sunt.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nbut with imperfect success.  The popular aversion rested by no means\nexclusively on religious considerations; worldly motives were also\npresent.  The Jews of that period had in a still higher degree\nthan now the control of financial affairs in their hands; and they\nused it without scruple.  The Church herself had unintentionally\ngiven them a monopoly of the money market, by forbidding\nChristians to take interest. /5/\n\n-- Footnote\n5. Decretal. Greg. v. 19, 18.  Innocent III. in name of the\nLateran Council: Quanto amplius Christiana religio ab exactione\ncompescitur usurarum, tanto gravisu super his Judaeorum perfidia\ninsolescit, ita quod brevi tempore Christianorum exhauriunt\nfacultates.  Volentes igitur in hac parse prospicere Christianis,\nne a Judaeis immaniter aggraventur, synodali decreto statuimus, ut,\nsi de caetero quocunque praetextu Judaaei a Christianis graves\nimmoderatasve usuras extorserint, Christianorum eis participium\nsubtrahatur, donec de immoderato gravamine satisfecerint competenter....\nPrincipibus autem injungimus, ut propter hoc non sint Christianis\ninfesti, sed potius a tanto gravamine studeant cohibere Judaeos.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nIn this way the Jews became rich indeed, but at the same time made\nthemselves still more repugnant to the Christian population than\nthey previously were by reason of their religion.\n\nHaving, according to the later mediaeval system, no rights in the\nChristian state, the Jews were tolerated only in those territories\nwhere the sovereign in the exercise of free favour accorded them\nprotection.  This protection was granted them in many quarters,\nbut never for nothing; numerous and various taxes, which could be\nraised or changed in a perfectly arbitrary way, were exacted in\nexchange.  But in countries where the feeling of nationality\nattained to a vigorous development, the spirit of toleration was\nspeedily exhausted; the Jews were expelled by the act of the\nstate.  England was the first kingdom in which this occurred\n(1290); France followed in 1395, Spain and Portugal in 1492 and\n1495.  In this way it came about that the Holy Roman Empire--\nGermany, Italy, and adjoining districts--became the chief abode of\nthe Jews. /1/ In the anarchy which here prevailed they could best\n\n-- Footnote\n1. The Polish Jews are German Jews who migrated in the Middle Ages\nto Poland, but have maintained to the present day their German\nspeech, a mediaeval South-Frankish dialect, of course greatly\ncorrupted.  In Russian \"German\" and \"Jew\" mean the same thing.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nmaintain their separate attitude, and if they were expelled from\none locality they readily found refuge in some other.  The\nemperor had indeed the right of extirpating them altogether (with\nthe exception of a small number to be left as a memorial); but,\nin the first place, he had in various ways given up this right to\nthe states of the empire, and, moreover, his pecuniary resources\nwere so small that he could not afford to want the tax which the\nJews as his \"servi camerae\" paid him for protecting their persons\nand property.  In spite of many savage persecutions the Jews\nmaintained their ground, especially in those parts of Germany\nwhere the political confusion was greatest.  They even succeeded\nin maintaining a kind of autonomy by means of an arrangement in\nvirtue of which civil processes which they had against each other\nwere decided by their own rabbins in accordance with the law of\nthe Talmud. /2/\n\n-- Footnote\n2. Stobbe, Die Juden in Deutschl. waehr. d. Mittelalt.,\nBrunsw., 1866.\n-- Footnote\n\n\nThe Jews, through their having on the one hand separated theselves,\nand on the other hand been excluded on religious grounds\nfrom the Gentiles, gained an internal solidarity and solidity\nwhich has hitherto enabled them to survive all the attacks of time.\nThe hostility of the Middle Ages involved them in no danger; the\ngreatest peril has been brought upon them by modern times, along\nwith permission and increasing inducements to abandon their\nseparate position.  It is worth while to recall on this point the\nopinion of Spinoza, who was well able to form a competent judgment\n(Tract. Theol. polit., c. 4, ad fin.):--\n\n\"That the Jews have maintained themselves so long in spite of their\ndispersed and disorganised condition is not at all to be wondered at,\nwhen it is considered how they separated themselves from all other\nnationalities in such a way as to bring upon themselves the hatred\nof all, and that not only by external rites contrary to those of\nother nations, but also by the sign of circumcision, which they\nmaintain most religiously.  Experience shows that their\nconservation is due in a great degree to the very hatred which\nthey have incurred.  When the king of Spain compelled the Jews\neither to accept the national religion or to go into banishment,\nvery many of them accepted the Roman Catholic faith, and in\nvirtue of this received all the privileges of Spanish subjects, and\nwere declared eligible for every honour; the consequence was that\na process of absorption began immediately, and in a short time\nneither trace nor memory of them survived.  Quite different was\nthe history of those whom the king of Portugal compelled to accept\nthe creed of his nation; although converted, they continued to\nlive apart from the rest of their fellow-subjects, having been\ndeclared unfit for any dignity.  So great importance do I attach\nto the sign of circumcision also in this connection, that I am\npersuaded that it is sufficient by itself to maintain the separate\nexistence of the nation for ever.\"\n\nThe persistency of the race may of course prove a harder thing to\novercome than Spinoza has supposed; but nevertheless he will be\nfound to have spoken truly in declaring that the so-called\nemancipation of the Jews must inevitably lead to the extinction\nof Judaism wherever the process is extended beyond the political\nto the social sphere.  For the accomplishment of this centuries\nmay be required.","title":"Prolegomena to the History of Israel","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":250110}