{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_75324/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_75324","id":"gutenberg_75324","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75324","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Old Testament -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Ancient","Category: History - Religious","Jews -- History -- To 953 B.C."],"text":"The Early History of the Hebrews\n\n\n\n\n_BY THE SAME AUTHOR_\n\n_Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d._\n\nTHE EGYPT OF THE HEBREWS AND HERODOTOS\n\n\nCONTENTS.\u2014The Patriarchal Age\u2014The Age of Moses\u2014The Exodus\u2014-The Hebrew\nSettlement in Canaan\u2014The Age of the Israelitish Monarchies\u2014The Age of\nthe Ptolemies\u2014Herodotos in Egypt\u2014In the Steps of Herodotos\u2014Memphis and\nthe Fayy\u00fbm\u2014Appendices\u2014Index.\n\n    \u2018Professor Sayce has written a charming work, which every lover of\n    Egypt will fly to. He makes the old Egypt live again with all the\n    vitality of accurate research and of sympathetic explanation; he has\n    produced one of the most readable, useful, and instructive books we\n    have ever read.\u2019\u2014=Church Bells.=\n\n    \u2018Professor Sayce has a story of singular fascination to tell. Every\n    person interested intelligently in Holy Scripture should make it a\n    matter of duty to read this book.\u2019\u2014=Yorkshire Post.=\n\n    \u2018Truly a valuable addition to existing works on Egypt.\u2019\u2014=Western\n    Morning News.=\n\n    \u2018On the whole, we know of no more useful handbook to Egyptian\n    history, summing up in a popular form in a short compass the results\n    of Egyptian research down to the present time.\u2019\u2014=Church Times.=\n\n\nLONDON: RIVINGTONS\n\n\n\n\n                    THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE HEBREWS\n\n                                   BY\n\n                          The Rev. A. H. SAYCE\n\n                   PROFESSOR OF ASSYRIOLOGY AT OXFORD\n             AUTHOR OF \u2018EGYPT OF THE HEBREWS AND HERODOTOS\u2019\n\n\n                               RIVINGTONS\n                      _KING STREET, COVENT GARDEN_\n                                 LONDON\n                                  1897\n\n                         _All rights reserved_\n\n\n\n\n                                PREFACE\n\n\nThere are many histories of Israel, but this is the first attempt to\nwrite one from a purely arch\u00e6ological point of view. During the last few\nyears discovery after discovery has come crowding upon us from the\nancient East, revolutionising all our past conceptions of early Oriental\nhistory, and opening out a new and unexpected world of culture and\ncivilisation. For the Oriental arch\u00e6ologist Hebrew history has ceased to\nstand alone; it has taken its place in that great stream of human life\nand action which the excavator and decipherer are revealing to us, and\nit can at last be studied like the history of Greece or Rome. The age of\nthe Patriarchs is being brought close to us; our museums are filled with\nwritten documents which are centuries older than Abraham; and we are\nbeginning to understand the politics which underlie the story of the\nPentateuch and the causes of the events which are narrated in it.\n\nOver against the facts of arch\u00e6ology stand the subjective assumptions of\na certain school, which, now that they have ceased to be predominant in\nthe higher latitudes of scholarship, are finding their way into the\npopular literature of the country. Between the results of Oriental\narch\u00e6ology and those which are the logical end of the so-called \u2018higher\ncriticism\u2019 no reconciliation is possible, and the latter must therefore\nbe cleared out of the way before the arch\u00e6ologist can begin his work.\nHence some of the pages that follow are necessarily controversial, and\nit has been needful to show why the linguistic method of the \u2018literary\nanalysis\u2019 is essentially unscientific and fallacious when applied to\nhistory, and must be replaced by the method of historical comparison.\n\nEven while my book has been passing through the press, a new fact has\ncome to light which supplements and enforces the conclusion I have drawn\nin the second chapter from a comparison of the account of the Deluge in\nthe book of Genesis with that which has been recovered from the\ncuneiform inscriptions. At the recent meeting of the Oriental Congress\nin Paris, Dr. Scheil stated that among the tablets lately brought from\nSippara to the museum at Constantinople is one which contains the same\ntext of the story of the Flood as that which was discovered by George\nSmith. But whereas the text found by George Smith was written for the\nlibrary of Nineveh in the seventh century B.C., the newly-discovered\ntext was inscribed in the reign of Ammi-zadok, the fourth successor of\nKhammurabi or Amraphel, in the Abrahamic age. And even then the text was\nalready old. Here and there the word _khibi_, \u2018lacuna,\u2019 was inserted,\nindicating that the original from which it had been copied was already\nillegible in places. Since this text agrees, not with the \u2018Elohist\u2019 or\nthe \u2018Yahvist\u2019 separately, but with the supposed combination of the two\ndocuments in the book of Genesis, it is difficult to see, as the\ndiscoverer remarked, how the \u2018literary analysis\u2019 of the Pentateuch can\nbe any longer maintained. At all events, the discovery shows the minute\ncare and accuracy with which the literature of the past was copied and\nhanded down. Edition after edition had been published of the story of\nthe Deluge, and yet the text of the Abrahamic age and that of the\nseventh century B.C. agree even to the spelling of words.\n\nIt is the \u2018higher critics\u2019 themselves, and not the ancient writers whom\nthey criticise, that are careless or contemptuous in their use of\nevidence. In the preface to my _Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the\nMonuments_ I have referred to a flagrant example of their attempt to\nexplain away unwelcome testimony. Here it was the inscription on an\nearly Israelitish weight, which was first pronounced to be a forgery,\nthen to have been misread, and finally to have been engraved by\ndifferent persons at different times! The weight is now in the Ashmolean\nMuseum in Oxford, to which it was presented by Dr. Chaplin, and the\ncritics have conveniently forgotten the dogmatic assertions that were\nmade about it. They have, in fact, been busy elsewhere. Cuneiform\ntablets have been found relating to Chedorlaomer and the other kings of\nthe East mentioned in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, while in the\nTel el-Amarna correspondence the King of Jerusalem declares that he had\nbeen raised to the throne by the \u2018arm\u2019 of his god, and was therefore,\nlike Melchizedek, a priest-king. But Chedorlaomer and Melchizedek had\nlong ago been banished to mythland, and criticism could not admit that\narch\u00e6ological discovery had restored them to actual history. Writers,\naccordingly, in complacent ignorance of the cuneiform texts, told the\nAssyriologists that their translations and interpretations were alike\nerroneous, that they had misread the names of Chedorlaomer and his\nallies, and that the \u2018arm of the Mighty King,\u2019 in the letters of\nEbed-Tob, meant the Pharaoh of Egypt. Unfortunately, the infallibility\nof the \u2018critical\u2019 consciousness can be better tested in the case of\nAssyriology than in that of the old Hebrew records, and the\nAssyriologist may therefore be pardoned if he finds in such displays of\nignorance merely a proof of the worthlessness of the \u2018critical\u2019 method.\nA method which leads its advocates to deny the facts stated by experts\nwhen these run counter to their own prepossessions cannot be of much\nvalue. At all events, it is a method with which the arch\u00e6ologist and the\nhistorian can have nothing to do.\n\nThis, indeed, is tacitly admitted in a modern German work on Hebrew\nhistory, which is more than once referred to in the following pages. Dr.\nKittel\u2019s _History of the Hebrews_ is partly filled with an imposing\n\u2018analysis\u2019 of the documents which constitute the historical books of the\nOld Testament, and we might therefore expect that the history to which\nit forms an introduction would be influenced throughout by the results\nof the literary disintegration. But nothing of the sort is the case. So\nfar as Dr. Kittel\u2019s treatment of the history is concerned, the\n\u2018analysis\u2019 might never have been made; all that it does is to prove his\nacquaintance with modern \u2018critical\u2019 literature. The history is judged on\nits own merits without any reference to the age or character of the\n\u2018sources\u2019 upon which it is supposed to rest. The instinct of the\nhistorian has been too strong for the author to resist, and the results\nof the linguistic analysis have accordingly been quietly set aside.\n\nBut history also has its canons of evidence, and criticism, in the true\nsense of the word, is not confined to the philologists. There is no\ninfallible history any more than there is infallible philology; and if\nwe are to understand the history of the Hebrews aright, we must deal\nwith it as we should with the history of any other ancient people. The\nOld Testament writers were human; and in so far as they were historians,\ntheir conceptions and manner of writing history were the same as those\nof their Oriental contemporaries. They were not European historians of\nthe nineteenth century, and to treat them as such would be not only to\npursue a radically false method, but to falsify the history they have\nrecorded. No human history is, or can be, inerrant, and to claim\ninerrancy for the history of Israel is to introduce into Christianity\nthe Hindu doctrine of the inerrancy of the Veda. For the historian, at\nany rate, the questions involved in a theological treatment of the Old\nTestament do not exist.\n\nThe present writer, accordingly, must be understood to speak throughout\nsimply as an arch\u00e6ologist and historian. Theologically he accepts\nunreservedly whatever doctrine has been laid down by the Church as an\narticle of the faith. But among these doctrines he fails to find any\nwhich forbids a free and impartial handling of Old Testament history.\n\nPerhaps it is necessary to apologise for the multitude of unfamiliar\nproper names which make the first chapter of this book somewhat\ndifficult reading. But they represent the arch\u00e6ological discoveries of\nthe last few years in their bearing upon the history of the Patriarchs,\nand an attempt has been made to lighten the burden of remembering them\nby repeating the newly-discovered facts, at all events in outline,\nwherever it has been needful to allude to them. Those, however, who find\nthe burden too heavy and wearisome may pass on to the second chapter.\n\nA. H. SAYCE,\n\n23 CHEPSTOW VILLAS, W.\n\n_September 25, 1897._\n\n\n                                CONTENTS\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE HEBREW PATRIARCHS\n\nWho were the Hebrews?\u2014Origin of the Name\u2014Ur and its Kings\u2014Amraphel or\nKhammu-rabi\u2014Canaanites in Babylonia\u2014Harran\u2014The Amorites\u2014Abram in Canaan\nand Egypt\u2014The Campaign of Chedorlaomer\u2014Melchizedek\u2014Sodom and\nGomorrha\u2014Circumcision\u2014Name of Abraham\u2014Hebrew and Aramaic\u2014Moab and\nAmmon\u2014Amorite Kingdoms\u2014Dedan\u2014Sacrifice of the Firstborn\u2014Mount\nMoriah\u2014Purchase of the Field of Machpelah\u2014The Hittites\u2014Babylonian\nLaw\u2014Isaac as a Bed\u00e2wi Sh\u00eakh\u2014Esau and the Edomites\u2014Jacob\u2014Settles at\nShechem\u2014His Sons\u2014The Israelitish Tribes\u2014Joseph\u2014The Hyksos in\nEgypt\u2014Egyptian Character of Joseph\u2019s History\u2014Goshen\u2014Deaths of Jacob and\nJoseph ... Pp. 1-99\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE COMPOSITION OF THE PENTATEUCH\n\nThe Literary Analysis and its Conclusions\u2014Based on a Theory and an\nAssumption\u2014Weakness of the Philological Evidence\u2014Disregard of the\nScientific Method of Comparison\u2014Imperfection of our Knowledge of\nHebrew\u2014Arch\u00e6eology unfavourable to the Higher Criticism\u2014Analysis of\nHistorical Sources\u2014Tel el-Amarna Tablets\u2014Antiquity of Writing in the\nEast\u2014The Mosaic Age highly Literary\u2014Scribes mentioned in the Song of\nDeborah\u2014The Story of the Deluge brought from Babylonia to Canaan before\nthe time of Moses\u2014The Narratives of the Pentateuch confirmed by\nArch\u00e6eology\u2014Compiled from early Written Documents\u2014Revised and re-edited\nfrom time to time\u2014Three Strata of Legislation\u2014Accuracy in the\nText\u2014Tendencies\u2014Chronology ... Pp. 100-151\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE EXODUS OUT OF EGYPT\n\nGoshen\u2014The Pharaohs of the Oppression and Exodus\u2014The Heretic King at Tel\nel-Amarna\u2014Causes of the Exodus\u2014The Stela of Meneptah\u2014Moses\u2014Flight to\nMidian\u2014The Ten Plagues\u2014The Exodus\u2014Egyptian Version of it\u2014Origin of the\nPassover\u2014Geography of the Exodus\u2014Position of Sinai\u2014Promulgation of the\nLaw\u2014Babylonian Analogies\u2014The Tabernacle\u2014The Levitical Law\u2014The\nFeasts\u2014Number of the Israelites\u2014Kadesh-barnea\u2014Failure to conquer\nCanaan\u2014The High-priest and the Levites\u2014Edom\u2014Conquests on the East of the\nJordan\u2014Balaam\u2014Destruction of the Midianites\u2014Cities of Refuge and of the\nLevites\u2014The Deuteronomic Law\u2014Death of Moses ... Pp. 152-245\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nTHE CONQUEST OF CANAAN\n\nJoshua not the Conqueror of Canaan\u2014The Conquest gradual\u2014The Passage of\nthe Jordan\u2014Jericho, Ai, and the Gibeonites\u2014Battle of Makkedah\u2014Lachish\nand Hazor\u2014The Kenizzites at Hebron and Kirjath-Sepher\u2014Shechem\u2014Death of\nJoshua ... Pp. 246-271\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE AGE OF THE JUDGES\n\nThe Condition of Israel\u2014The Destruction of the Benjamites\u2014Story of\nMicah and the Conquest of Dan\u2014Chushan-rishathaim and Ramses\nIII.\u2014Office of Judge\u2014Eglon of Moab\u2014The Philistines\u2014Deborah and\nBarak\u2014Sisera and the Hittites\u2014The Song of Deborah\u2014Gideon\u2014Kingdom of\nAbimelech\u2014Jephthah\u2014Sacrifice of his Daughter\u2014Defeat and Slaughter of\nthe Ephraimites\u2014Samson\u2014Historical Character of the Book of Judges ...\nPp. 272-331\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MONARCHY\n\nInfluence of Shiloh\u2014Samuel and the Philistines\u2014Duplicate Narratives in\nthe Books of Samuel\u2014Prophet and Seer\u2014Dervish Monasteries\u2014Capture of the\nArk and Destruction of Shiloh\u2014Saul made King\u2014Quarrels with\nSamuel\u2014Delivers Israel from the Philistines\u2014Attacks the\nAmalekites\u2014David\u2014Two Accounts of his Rise to Power\u2014Jealousy of\nSaul\u2014David\u2019s Flight\u2014Massacre of the Priests at Nob\u2014Wanderings of\nDavid\u2014He sells his Services to the King of Gath\u2014Duties of a\nMercenary\u2014Battle of Gilboa and David\u2019s Position\u2014He is made King of\nJudah\u2014War with Esh-Baal\u2014Intrigues with Abner\u2014Murder of Esh-Baal\u2014David\nrevolts from the Philistines and becomes King of Israel\u2014Capture of\nJerusalem, which is made the Capital\u2014Results of this\u2014Conquest of the\nPhilistines, of Moab, Ammon, Zobah, and Edom\u2014The Israelitish\nEmpire\u2014Murder of Uriah and Birth of Solomon\u2014Influence of Nathan\u2014Polygamy\nand its Effects in the Family of David\u2014Revolt of Absalom\u2014Of Sheba\u2014Folly\nand Ingratitude of David\u2014Saul\u2019s Descendants sacrificed because of a\nDrought\u2014The Plague and the Purchase of the Site of the Temple\u2014David\u2019s\nOfficers and last Instructions\u2014His Character\u2014Chronology\u2014Solomon puts\nJoab and Others to Death\u2014His Religious Policy\u2014Queen of Sheba\u2014Trade and\nBuildings\u2014Hiram of Tyre\u2014Palace and Temple Built\u2014Tadmor\u2014Zoological and\nBotanical Gardens\u2014Discontent in Israel\u2014Impoverishment of the\nCountry\u2014Jeroboam\u2014Tastes and Character of Solomon ... Pp. 332-480\n\n\n                             ABBREVIATIONS\n\n\nW. A. I. = _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia._ Published by the\nTrustees of the British Museum.\n\nZ.D.M.G. = _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft._\n\nW. & A. = Winckler and Abel\u2019s edition of the Tel el-Amarna Tablets at\nBerlin and Cairo in _Mitthetlungen aus den orientalischen Sammlungen_,\ni. ii. iii.\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I\n                         THE HEBREW PATRIARCHS\n\n\n    Who were the Hebrews?\u2014Origin of the Name\u2014Ur and its Kings\u2014Amraphel\n    or Khammu-rabi\u2014Canaanites in Babylonia\u2014Harran\u2014The Amorites\u2014Abram in\n    Canaan and Egypt\u2014The Campaign of Chedor-laomer\u2014Melchizedek\u2014Sodom and\n    Gomorrha\u2014Circumcision\u2014Name of Abraham\u2014Hebrew and Aramaic\u2014Moab and\n    Ammon\u2014Amorite Kingdoms\u2014Dedan\u2014Sacrifice of the firstborn\u2014Mount\n    Moriah\u2014Purchase of the Field of Machpelah\u2014The Hittites\u2014Babylonian\n    Law\u2014Isaac as a Bed\u00e2wi Sh\u00eakh\u2014Esau and the Edomites\u2014Jacob\u2014Settles at\n    Shechem\u2014His Sons\u2014The Israelitish Tribes\u2014Joseph\u2014The Hyksos in\n    Egypt\u2014Egyptian Character of Joseph\u2019s History\u2014Goshen\u2014Deaths of Jacob\n    and Joseph.\n\n\nThe historian of the Hebrews is met at the very outset by a strange\ndifficulty. Who were the Hebrews whose history he proposes to write? We\nspeak of a Hebrew people, of a Hebrew literature, and of a Hebrew\nlanguage; and by the one we mean the people who called themselves\nIsraelites or Jews, by the other the literary records of this\nIsraelitish nation, and by the third a language which the Israelites\nshared with the older population of Canaan. It is from the Old Testament\nthat we derive the term \u2018Hebrew,\u2019 and the use of the term is by no means\nclear.\n\nAbram is called \u2018the Hebrew\u2019 before he became Abraham the father of\nIsaac and the Israelites. The confederate of the Amorite chieftains of\nMamre, the conqueror of the Babylonian invaders of Canaan, is a\n\u2018Hebrew\u2019; when he comes before us as a simple Bed\u00e2wi sh\u00eakh he is a\nHebrew no longer. When Joseph is sold into Egypt it is as a \u2018Hebrew\u2019\nslave; and he tells the Pharaoh that he had been \u2018stolen\u2019 out of \u2018the\nland of the Hebrews.\u2019 The oppressed people in the age of the Exodus are\nknown as \u2018Hebrews\u2019 to their Egyptian taskmasters. Moses was one of \u2018the\nHebrews\u2019 children\u2019; and he declares to the Egyptian monarch that Yahveh\nof Israel was \u2018the God of the Hebrews.\u2019 It would seem, therefore, as if\nit were the name by which the people of Canaan, and more especially the\nIsraelites, were known to the Egyptians.\n\nAnd yet there is no certain trace of it on the Egyptian monuments. In\nthe Egyptian texts the south of Palestine is called Khar, perhaps the\nland of the \u2018Horites\u2019; the coast-land is termed Zahi, \u2018the dry\u2019; and the\nwhole country is indifferently known as that of the Upper Lotan or\nSyrians, and of the Fenkhu or Ph\u0153nicians. When we come down to the age\nof the nineteenth dynasty we find the name of Canaan already established\nin Egyptian literature. Seti I. destroyed the Shasu or Bed\u00e2win from the\nfrontiers of Egypt to \u2018the land of Canaan\u2019; and in a papyrus of the same\nage we hear of Kan\u2019amu or \u2018Canaanite slaves\u2019 from the land of Khar. Of\nany name that resembles that of the Hebrews there is not a trace.\n\nIt is equally impossible to discover it in the cuneiform records of\nBabylonia and Assyria. The Babylonians, from time immemorial, called\nPalestine \u2018the land of the Amorites,\u2019 doubtless because the Amorites\nwere the dominant people there in those early ages when Babylonian\narmies first made their way to the distant West. The Assyrians called it\n\u2018the land of the Hittites\u2019 for the same reason, while in the letters\nfrom the Asiatic correspondents of the Pharaoh found at Tel el-Amarna,\nand dating from the century before the Exodus, it is termed Kinakhna or\nCanaan. How then comes Joseph to describe it as \u2018the land of the\nHebrews,\u2019 and himself as a \u2018Hebrew\u2019 slave?\n\nMore than one attempt has been made to identify the mysterious name with\nnames met with in hieroglyphic and cuneiform texts. The Egyptian\nmonuments refer to a class of foreigners called \u2019Apuriu, who were\nemployed in the time of the nineteenth and twentieth dynasties to convey\nthe blocks of stone needed for the great buildings of Egypt from the\nquarries of the eastern desert. We are told how they dragged the great\naltar of the Sun-god to Memphis for Ramses II.; and how, at a much later\ndate, Ramses IV. was still employing eight hundred men of the same race\nto transport his stone from the quarries of Hammam\u00e2t. Chabas and some\nother Egyptologists have seen in these \u2019Apuriu the Hebrews of Scripture,\nand have further identified them with the \u2019Aperu mentioned on the back\nof a papyrus, where it is said that one of them acted as a sort of\naide-de-camp to the great conqueror of the eighteenth dynasty, Thothmes\nIII.\n\nBut there are serious objections to these identifications.[1] There are\nreasons for believing that the \u2019Aperu and the \u2019Apuriu do not represent\nthe same name; and no satisfactory explanation has hitherto been\nforthcoming as to why we should meet with Hebrews of the Israelitish\nrace still serving as public slaves in Egypt so long after the Exodus as\nthe reigns of Ramses III. and Ramses IV. Moreover, in one text it is\nstated that the \u2019Apuriu belonged \u2018to the \u2019Anuti barbarians,\u2019 who\ninhabited the desert between Egypt and the Red Sea. It is true that some\nof the Semitic kinsfolk of the Israelites led a nomad life here in the\nold times, as they still do to-day; nevertheless, \u2018the \u2019Anuti\nbarbarians\u2019 were for the most part of African origin, and the eastern\ndesert of Egypt is not quite the place where we should expect to find\nthe nearest kindred of a Canaanitish people. At present, at all events,\nthe identification of Hebrews and \u2019Apuriu must be held to be non-proven.\n\nSince the discovery of the cuneiform tablets of Tel el-Amarna another\nattempt has been made to find the name of the Hebrews outside the pages\nof the Old Testament. Ebed-Tob, the vassal-king of Jerusalem, in his\nletters to Khu-n-Aten, the \u2018heretic\u2019 Pharaoh of the eighteenth dynasty,\nspeaks of certain enemies whom he terms Khabiri. They were threatening\nthe authority of the Egyptian monarch, and had already captured several\nof the cities under Ebed-Tob\u2019s jurisdiction. The Egyptian governors in\nthe south of Palestine had been slain, and the territory of Jerusalem\nwas no longer able to defend itself. If the Pharaoh could send no troops\nat once, all would be lost. The Khabiri, under their leader Elimelech,\nwere already established in the country, and in concert with the Sut\u00ea or\nBed\u00e2win were wresting it out of the hands of Egypt.[2]\n\nSome scholars, with more haste than discretion, have pronounced the\nKhabiri of the cuneiform tablets to be the Hebrews of the Old Testament.\nIf that were the case, Hebrew and Israelite could no longer be\nconsidered to be synonymous terms. In the age of the Khabiri the\nIsraelites of Scripture were still in Egypt, where the cities of Ramses\nand Pithom were not as yet built, and their leader to the conquest of\nCanaan was Joshua, and not Elimelech. When in subsequent centuries\nRamses II. and Ramses III. invaded and occupied Palestine, they found no\ntraces there of the children of Israel. They have left us lists of the\nplaces they captured; we look in vain among them for the name of Israel\nor of an Israelitish tribe. We look equally in vain in the Book of\nJudges for any allusion to Egyptian conquests.\n\nThe Khabiri, then, are not the Hebrews of Scripture, nor does the word\nthrow any light on the term \u2018Hebrew\u2019 itself. Khabiri is really a\ndescriptive title, meaning \u2018Confederates\u2019; it was a word borrowed by\nBabylonian from the language of Canaan, but is met with in old\nBabylonian and Assyrian hymns.[3] It may be that Hebron, the city of\n\u2018the Confederacy,\u2019 derived its name from these \u2018Confederated\u2019 bands; at\nall events, the name of Hebron is nowhere mentioned by Ebed-Tob or his\nbrother governors, and it first appears in the Egyptian records in the\ntime of Ramses III. under the form of Khibur.[4]\n\nThe Tel el-Amarna tablets, accordingly, give us no help in regard to the\nname of the Hebrews, nor do any other cuneiform inscriptions with which\nwe are acquainted. Babylonian records do indeed speak of a people called\nthe Khabir\u00e2, but they inhabited the mountains of Elam, on the eastern\nside of Babylonia, and between them and the Hebrews of Scripture no\nconnection is possible.[5] In an old Babylonian list of foreign\ncountries we read of a country of Khubur, which was situated in northern\nMesopotamia in the neighbourhood of Harran; but Khubur is more probably\nrelated to the river Khabur than to the kinsfolk of Terah and Laban.[6]\nMoreover, a part of the mountains of the Amanus, overlooking the Gulf of\nAntioch, from whence logs of pine were brought to the cities of Chald\u00e6a,\nwas also known as Khabur.[7]\n\nArch\u00e6ological discovery, therefore, has as yet given us no help. We must\nstill depend upon the Old Testament alone for an answer to our question,\nWho were the Hebrews? And, unfortunately, the evidence of the Old\nTestament is by no means clear. We have seen that on one side by the\nHebrews are meant the Israelites, and that from time to time the\nIsraelitish descendants of Abraham are characterised by that name. But\non the other side there are passages in which a distinction seems to be\nmade between them. Though Joseph is a Hebrew slave, it is because he has\nbeen stolen out of \u2018the land of the Hebrews.\u2019 Canaan, accordingly, even\nbefore its conquest by the Israelites, was inhabited by a Hebrew people.\nSo, too, in the early days of the reign of Saul, the Israelites and the\nHebrews appear to be still separate. While \u2018the men of Israel\u2019 hide\nthemselves in caves and thickets, \u2018the Hebrews\u2019 cross over the Jordan to\nthe lands of Gad and Gilead (1 Sam. xiii. 6, 7). Similarly we are told\nthat in Saul\u2019s first battle with the Philistines \u2018the Hebrews\u2019 that were\nwith the enemy deserted to \u2018the Israelites\u2019 that were with Saul (1 Sam.\nxiv. 21).\n\nPerhaps, however, all that is intended in these passages is to emphasise\nthe fact that among the Philistines, as among the Egyptians, the\nchildren of Israel were known as \u2018Hebrews.\u2019 The difficulty is that such\na name is not found in the monumental records of Egypt. When Shishak\ndescribes his campaign against Judah and Israel, it is not the Hebrews,\nbut the Fenkhu and the \u2019Amu whom he tells us he has conquered.\n\nIn fact, the Egyptian equivalent of Hebrew is \u2019Amu. What Joseph calls\n\u2018the land of the Hebrews\u2019 would have been termed \u2018the land of the \u2019Amu\u2019\nby an Egyptian scribe. Joseph himself would have been an \u2019Amu slave.\n\u2019Amu signified an Asiatic in a restricted sense. It denoted the Asiatics\nof Syria and of the desert between Palestine and Egypt. It included also\nthe nomad tribes of Edom and the Sinaitic Peninsula. It was thus larger\nin its meaning than the Biblical \u2018Hebrew\u2019; but, at the same time, it\nconveyed just the same ideas, and was used in much the same way. The\nHyksos conquerors of Egypt were termed \u2019Amu, and a famous Syrian oculist\nin the days of the eighteenth dynasty is described as an \u2019Amu of Gebal.\nThe name is probably derived from the Canaanitish and Hebrew word which\nsignifies \u2018a people.\u2019\n\nThe name \u2018Hebrew\u2019 comes from a root which means \u2018to pass\u2019 or \u2018cross\nover.\u2019 It has been variously explained as \u2018a pilgrim,\u2019 \u2018a dweller on the\nother side,\u2019 \u2018a crosser of the river.\u2019 But the second explanation is\nthat which best harmonises with philological probabilities. We find\nother derivatives from the same root. Among them is Abarim, the name of\nthat mountain-range of Moab on \u2018the other side\u2019 of the Jordan, from\nwhence Moses beheld the Promised Land (Numb. xxvii. 12), as well as\nEbronah, near the Gulf of Aqaba, one of the resting-places of the\nchildren of Israel (Numb. xxxiii. 34). Hebrew genealogists indeed seem\nto have connected the name with that of the patriarch Eber. But this is\nin accordance with that spirit of Semitic idiom which throws geography\nand ethnology into a genealogical form. It is probable that the name of\nthe patriarch is merely the Babylonian _ebar_, \u2018a priest,\u2019 which is met\nwith in Babylonian contracts of the age of Abraham.\n\nProfessor Hommel, however, supplementing a suggestion of Dr. Glaser, has\nrecently drawn attention to certain facts which throw light on the early\nuse of the name \u2018Hebrew,\u2019 even if they do not remove all the\ndifficulties connected with it.[8] A Min\u00e6an inscription from the south\nof Arabia, in which the name of \u2019Ammi-zadoq occurs, couples together the\ncountries of Misr or Egypt, of Aashur, the Ashshurim of Gen. xxv. 3, and\nof \u2019Ibr Nahar\u00e2n, \u2018the land beyond the river.\u2019 In another Min\u00e6an\ninscription of the same age, the name of \u2019Ibr Nahar\u00e2n is replaced by\nthat of Gaza. It is clear, therefore, that in \u2019Ibr Nahar\u00e2n we must see\nthe south of Palestine. But the Min\u00e6an texts are not alone in their use\nof the term. A broken Assyrian tablet from the library of Nineveh[9]\nalso refers to Ebir-n\u00e2ri, \u2018the land beyond the river,\u2019 in Canaan, and\nassociates it with Beth-el, Tyre, and Jeshimon. Professor Hommel is\nprobably right in assigning the inscription to the reign of\nAssur-bel-Kala, the son of Tiglath-pileser I. (B.C. 1080). At all\nevents, the name seems to be of Babylonian origin, like most of the\ngeographical expressions adopted by the Assyrians, and it is\nconsequently very possible that Ebir-n\u00e2ri primarily signified the\ncountry on the western bank of the Euphrates, where Ur was situated, and\nthat it was subsequently extended to the country west of the Jordan when\nSyria became a province of the Babylonian empire.[10]\n\nHowever this may be, the question with which we started remains\nunanswered. We are still unable to define with exactness who the Hebrews\nwere. The origin and first use of the name are still a matter of doubt.\nWe must be content with the fact that it came to be applied\u2014if not\nexclusively, at all events predominantly\u2014to the people of Israel in\ntheir dealings with their foreign neighbours. It may be that this\nspecial application of it was first fixed by the Philistines. In any\ncase it was a name which was accepted by the Israelites themselves, and\ngradually became synonymous with all that was specifically Israelitish.\nEven the old \u2018language of Canaan,\u2019 as it is still called by Isaiah (xix.\n18), became \u2018the Hebrew language\u2019 of modern lexicographers. For us of\nto-day the history of the Hebrew people means the history of the\ndescendants of Israel. It is with \u2018Abram the Hebrew\u2019 that the history\nbegins. Future ages looked back upon him as the ancestor of the Hebrew\nrace, \u2018the rock\u2019 from whence it was \u2018hewn.\u2019 He had come from the far\nEast, from \u2018Ur of the Casdim\u2019 or Babylonians. His younger brother Haran\nhad died \u2018in the land of his nativity\u2019; with his elder brother Nahor and\nhimself, his father Terah had migrated westward, to Harran in\nMesopotamia. There Terah had died, and there Abram had received the call\nwhich led him to journey still further onwards into the land of Canaan.\n\nHe was already married. Already in Babylonia he had made Sarai his wife,\nwho is also said to have been his step-sister; while the wife, Milcah,\nwhom his brother Nahor had taken to himself, was his niece. A time came\nwhen both Abram and Sarai took new names in token of the covenant they\nhad made with God. Abram became Abraham, and Sarai became Sarah.\n\nUpon these beginnings of Hebrew history light has been thrown by the\ndecipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions. The site of \u2018Ur of the\nChaldees\u2019 has been found. Geographers are no longer dependent on Arab\nlegends or vague coincidencies with classical names. Ur was one of the\nmost ancient and prosperous of Babylonian cities. The very name meant\n\u2018the city\u2019; it was, in fact, the capital of a district, and its kings at\none time had claimed sway over the rest of Chald\u00e6a. Alone among the\ngreat cities of Babylonia, it stood on the western bank of the Euphrates\nin close contact with the nomad tribes of Semitic Arabia. More than any\nother of the Babylonian towns it was thus able to influence and be\ninfluenced by the Semites of the west; it was an outpost of Babylonian\nculture, and its position made it a centre of trade.\n\nIts mounds of ruin are now known as Muqayyar or Mugheir. Highest among\nthem towers the mound which covers the remains of the great temple of\nthe moon-god. For it was to Sin, the moon-god, that the city had been\ndedicated from time immemorial, and in whose honour its temple had been\nbuilt. There was only one other temple of Sin that was equally famous,\nand this was the temple which stood at Harran in Mesopotamia, and which,\nlike that at Ur, had been erected and endowed by Babylonian kings.\n\nIt was not only with the Semites of Northern Arabia that Ur carried on\nits trade. It lay not very far from the mouth of the Euphrates, which in\nearly days flowed into the Persian Gulf nearly a hundred miles to the\nnorth of the present coast. We hear in the cuneiform tablets of \u2018the\nships of Ur,\u2019 and these ships must have been used in the trade that was\ncarried on by water. The products of Southern Arabia could thus be\nbrought to the Chaldean city; perhaps also there was intercourse even\nwith Egypt.\n\nThe kings of Ur grew in power, and a dynasty arose at last which gained\nascendency over the other states of Babylonia. We are beginning to learn\nsomething about these kings and the society over which they ruled.\nDuring the last few years excavations have been carried on by the\nAmericans, by the French, and even by the Turkish Government, which have\nbrought to light thousands of early cuneiform records, some of which are\ndated in their reigns. A large proportion of these records are contracts\nwhich throw an unexpected light on the commerce and law, the manners and\ncustoms and social life of the inhabitants of Babylonia at the time.\n\nAmong the last kings of the dynasty of Ur were In\u00ea-Sin and P\u00fbr-Sin,\nwhose names, it will be observed, are compounded with that of the\npatron-god of the state. In\u00ea-Sin not only invaded Elam, but the distant\nwest as well. His daughters married the High-Priests both of Ansan in\nElam and of Markhasi, now Mer\u2019ash, in Syria.[11] But it was not the\nfirst time that Babylonian armies had marched to the west. Centuries\nbefore (about B.C. 3800) another Babylonian king, Sargon of Accad, had\nmade campaign after campaign against the land of the Amorites, as Syria\nand Palestine were called, had set up images of himself on the shores of\nthe Mediterranean, and had united all Western Asia into a single empire,\nwhile his son and successor had marched southward into the Sinaitic\nPeninsula.[12] A predecessor of In\u00ea-Sin himself, Gimil-Sin by name, had\noverrun the land of Zabsali, which Professor Hommel is probably right in\nidentifying with Subsalla, from whence an earlier Babylonian prince\nobtained stone for his buildings, and which, we are told, was in the\nmountains of the Amorites. The stone, in fact, was the limestone of the\nLebanon.[13]\n\nIn\u00ea-Sin married his daughter to the High-Priest of Zabsali, but his\nsuccessor P\u00fbr-Sin II. appears to have been one of the last of the\ndynasty. Babylonia fell under Elamite domination, and a line of kings\narose at Babylon whose names show that they came from Southern Arabia.\nThe first of them was Khammu-rabi, whose reign lasted for fifty-five\nyears. He proved himself one of the most able and vigorous of Babylonian\nmonarchs. Before he died he had driven the Elamites out of the country,\nand united it into a single monarchy, with Babylon for its capital.\n\nWhen Khammu-rabi first mounted the throne, he was a vassal of the king\nof Elam. In Southern Babylonia, not far from Ur, though on the opposite\nside of the river, was a rival kingdom, that of Larsa, whose king,\nEri-Aku or Arioch, was the son of an Elamite prince. His father\nKudur-Mabug is called \u2018the Father of the land of the Amorites,\u2019 implying\nnot only that Canaan was subject at the time to Elamite rule, but also\nthat Kudur-Mabug held some official position there. In one of his\ninscriptions Eri-Aku entitles himself \u2018the shepherd of Ur,\u2019 and tells us\nthat he had captured \u2018the ancient city of Erech.\u2019\n\nIn Eri-Aku or Arioch, Assyriologists have long since seen the Arioch of\nthe book of Genesis, the contemporary of Abram; and their belief has\nbeen raised to certainty by the recent discovery by Mr. Pinches of\ncertain fragmentary cuneiform tablets in which allusion is made not only\nto Khammu-rabi, but also to the kings who were his contemporaries. These\nare Arioch, Kudur-Laghghamar or Chedor-laomer, and Tudghula or Tid\u2019al.\nKhammu-rabi, accordingly, must be identified with Amraphel, who is\nstated in the Old Testament to have been king of Shinar or Babylonia,\nand we can approximately fix the period when the family of Terah\nmigrated from Ur of the Chaldees. It was about 2300 B.C. if the\nchronology of the native Babylonian historians is correct.[14]\n\nThere was at this time constant intercourse between Babylonia and the\nWest. The father of Eri-Aku, as we have seen, bore the title of \u2018Father\nof the land of the Amorites,\u2019 and Khammu-rabi himself claimed\nsovereignty over the same part of the world. So, too, did his\ngreat-grandson Ammi-satana (or Ammi-dhitana), who in one of his\ninscriptions adds the title of \u2018king of the land of the Amorites\u2019 to\nthat of \u2018king of Babylon.\u2019 Indeed, the kings of the dynasty to which\nKhammu-rabi belonged bear names which are almost as much Canaanitish or\nHebrew as they are South Arabic in form. The Babylonians had some\ndifficulty in spelling them, and in the contract-tablets, consequently,\nthe same name is written in different ways. Thus we learn from a\nphilological tablet in which the names are translated into Semitic\nBabylonian that Khammu and Ammi are but variant attempts to represent\nthe same word\u2014that of a god whose name appears in those of South Arabian\nprinces as well as Israelites of the Old Testament, and from whom the\nBeni-Ammi or Ammonites derived their name.[15]\n\nThe founder of the dynasty had been Sumu-abi (or Samu-abi), \u2018Shem is my\nfather,\u2019 and his son had been Sumu-la-il, \u2018Is not Shem a god?\u2019 The\nmonarchs who ruled at Babylon, therefore, when Abram was born claimed\nthe same ancestor as did Abram\u2019s family, and worshipped him as a god.\nThe father of Ammi-satana was Abesukh, the Abishua\u2019 of the Bible; and\nhis son was Ammi-zaduq, where _zaduq_, \u2018righteous,\u2019 is a word well known\nto the languages of Southern Arabia and Canaan, but not to that of\nBabylonia. The kings who succeeded to the inheritance of the old\nBabylonian monarchs of Ur were thus allied in language and race to the\nHebrew patriarch.\n\nBut this is not all. We find in the contracts which were drawn up in the\nreigns of the kings of Ur and the successors of Sumu-abi not only names\nlike Sab\u00e2, \u2018the Sab\u00e6an,\u2019 which carry us to the spice-bearing lands of\nSouthern Arabia,[16] but names also which are specifically Canaanitish,\nor as we should usually term it, Hebrew, in form. Thus Mr. Pinches has\ndiscovered in them Ya\u2019qub-il and Yasup-il, of which the Biblical Jacob\nand Joseph are abbreviations, and elsewhere we meet with Abdiel and\nLama-il, the Lemuel of the Old Testament. Even the name of Abram\n(Abi-ramu) himself occurs among the witnesses to a deed which is dated\nin the reign of Khammu-rabi\u2019s grandfather, and its Canaanitish character\nis put beyond question by the fact that he is called the father of \u2018the\nAmorite.\u2019[17]\n\nFrom other documents we learn that there were Amoritish or Canaanite\nsettlements in Babylonia where the foreigner was allowed to acquire land\nand carry on trade with the natives. One of these was just outside the\nwalls of Sippara in Northern Babylonia, and a good many references to it\nhave already been detected. Thus in the reign of Ammi-zaduq a case of\ndisputed title was brought before four of the royal judges which related\nto certain feddans or \u2018acres\u2019 of land \u2018in the district of the Amorites,\u2019\n\u2018at the entrance to the city of Sippara\u2019;[18] and a contract dated in\nthe reign of Khammu-rabi\u2019s father further describes the district as just\noutside the principal gate of the city. It included arable and garden\nland, pasturage and woods, as well as houses, and was thus like the land\nof Goshen, which was similarly handed over to the Israelites to settle\nin. An Egyptian inscription of the time of the eighteenth dynasty also\nspeaks of a similar district close to Memphis, which had been given to\nthe Hittites by the Pharaohs.[19] The strangers had their own judges. We\nlearn, for instance, from a lawsuit which was decided in the time of\nKhammu-rabi that a Canaanite, Nahid-Amurri (\u2018the exalted of the Amorite\ngod\u2019), who was defendant in a case of disputed property, was first\ntaken, along with the plaintiff, before the judges of Nin-Marki, \u2018the\nlady of the Amorite land,\u2019 and then before another set of judges and the\nassembled people of the city. It is clear from this that the judges who\nwere deputed to look after the interests of the settlers from the West\nalso acted when one of the parties was a native of Babylonia.[20]\n\nThe migration of Terah and his family thus ceases to be an isolated and\nunexplained fact. In the age to which it belonged Canaan and Babylonia\nwere in close connection one with the other. Babylonian kings claimed\nrule over Canaan, and Canaanitish merchants were established in\nBabylonia. The language of Canaan was heard in the Babylonian cities,\nand even the rulers of the land were of foreign blood. Between Babylonia\nand Canaan there was a highway which had been trodden for generations,\nand along which soldiers and civil officials, merchants and messengers,\npassed frequently to and fro.\n\nMidway, on a tributary of the river Belikh, was the city of Harran, so\ncalled from a Sumerian word which signified \u2018a high-road.\u2019 Its name\npointed to a Babylonian foundation, as did also its temple dedicated to\nthe Babylonian moon-god. The temple, in fact, counted among its founders\nand restorers a long line of Babylonian and Assyrian kings, and almost\nthe last act of the Babylonian Empire was the restoration of the ancient\nshrine. Merodach, the god of Babylon, came in a dream to the last of the\nBabylonian monarchs, and bade him raise once more from its ruins the\nsanctuary of his brother-god. And Nabonidos tells us how he performed\nthe task laid upon him, how he disinterred the memorial-stones of the\nolder Assyrian kings, and how \u2018by the art of the god Laban, the lord of\nfoundations and brickwork, with silver and gold and precious stones,\nwith spices and cedarwood,\u2019 he built again \u00ca-Khulkhul, \u2018the temple of\nrejoicing.\u2019 The moon-god, Sin, who was adored within it, was known\nthroughout the Aramaic lands of Northern Syria as Baal-Kharran, \u2018the\nLord of Harran.\u2019\n\nBut there was another city of the moon-god besides Harran. This was Ur\nin Babylonia. In Babylonian literature it is commonly known as the city\nof Sin. Between Ur and Harran there must have been some close\nconnection, and it may be that Harran owed its foundation to the kings\nof Ur. At all events, there was good reason why an emigrant from Ur\nshould establish his abode in Harran. Both cities were under the same\ndivine patron, and that meant, in the ancient world, that both lived the\nsame religious and civil life. Harran obeyed the rule of the Babylonian\nkings; its very name showed that it was of Babylonian origin, and its\nculture was that of Babylonia. Law and religion, manners and customs,\nall were alike in Harran and Ur. The migration from the one city to the\nother did not differ from a change of dwelling from London to Edinburgh.\n\nThe country in which Harran was built formed part of the vast tract\nbetween the Tigris and Euphrates, which was known to the Babylonians in\nearly days as Suru or Suri, a name which perhaps survived in that of the\ncity Suru, the Suriyeh of modern geography. In Semitic times it was\ncalled Subari or Suwari by the Assyrians, sometimes also Subartu. Suru\nthus corresponded with our Mesopotamia, though it seems to have included\na part of Northern Syria as well. But to the district in which Harran\nstood the Babylonians gave a more special name. It was Padan or Padin,\n\u2018the cultivated plain,\u2019 of which it is said in a cuneiform tablet that\nit lies \u2018in front of the mountains of the Aram\u00e6ans,\u2019[21] while an early\nBabylonian sovereign entitles himself king of Padan as well as of\nNorthern Babylonia.[22] The name bore witness to the fertility of the\ncountry to which it was applied. The Babylonian lexicographers make\n_padan_ a synonym of words signifying \u2018field\u2019 and \u2018garden\u2019; it was, in\nfact, originally the piece of ground which a yoke of oxen could plough\nin a given period of time. Hence it came to mean an \u2018acre,\u2019 a sense\nwhich still survives in the Arabic _fedd\u00e2n_. The Babylonian leases and\nsales of land which were drawn up in the Abrahamic age repeatedly\ndescribe the \u2018feddans\u2019 or \u2018acres\u2019 of which the property consists. The\nfertile plain of Mesopotamia, accordingly, was not a plain merely; it\nwas also \u2018the field\u2019 or \u2018acre\u2019 of Aram where the Semites of the Aram\u00e6an\nstock ploughed and harvested their corn.[23]\n\nIn Egyptian its name was Naharina. The name had been borrowed from the\nAram\u00e6ans, who called their country the land of Naharain, \u2018the two\nrivers.\u2019 In Canaan, as we know from the cuneiform tablets of Tel\nel-Amarna, it bore the Canaanitish form of Naharaim, Nahrima, the final\nnasal of the Aramaic dialects becoming _m_. Aram-Naharaim was thus the\nEgyptian and Canaanitish title of the country which the Babylonian spoke\nof as Padan Arman, \u2018Padan of the Aram\u00e6ans.\u2019 Both names go back to the\nage before the Israelitish Exodus out of Egypt; the one belongs to Egypt\nand Palestine, the other to Babylonia.\n\nBefore the age of the Exodus, however, the Aram\u00e6an population of\nMesopotamia became the subjects of a people who seem to have come from\nthe north. Mitanni, on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, not far from\nthe modern Birejik, became the capital of a kingdom which extended over\nNaharaim on the one side, and to the neighbourhood of the Orontes on the\nother. The race which founded the kingdom spoke a language unlike any\nother with which we are acquainted; it was, however, agglutinative, and\nexhibits certain general resemblances to some of the languages of the\nCaucasus. From the sixteenth century B.C. onwards, Mitanni and Naharaim\nare synonymous terms, even though, at times, the Egyptian scribes still\nobserved the old distinction between them; even though also, it may be,\nNaharaim had a larger meaning than Mitanni. But the kings of Mitanni\nwere vigorous and powerful. In the age of the Tel el-Amarna\ncorrespondence we find them intriguing with the Hittites and Babylonians\nin the Egyptian province of Canaan, and Ramses III. of the twentieth\nEgyptian dynasty still counts the people of Mitanni among his enemies.\nAt an earlier date the royal families of Egypt and Mitanni had\nintermarried with one another, and the marriages had introduced new\nideas and a revolutionary policy into the ancient monarchy of the Nile.\nWhen the kingdom of Mitanni had been founded we do not know. There is no\ntrace of it in the earlier records of Babylonia, and we may safely say\nthat it arose long after the era of Khammu-rabi and Abram.[24]\n\nTerah, we are told, died in Harran, and there Nahor, his second son,\nremained to dwell. Terah and Nahor are names which we look for in vain\nelsewhere in the Old Testament or in the inscriptions of Babylonia. And\nyet light has been thrown upon them by the cuneiform texts. Tablets have\nbeen found in Cappadocia, written in archaic cuneiform characters and in\na dialect of Assyrian, which are at least as old as the the of the Tel\nel-Amarna letters; according to some scholars, they are coeval with the\ndynasty of Khammu-rabi. In one of these tablets we find the word, or\nname, _Nakhur_; what its signification may be, we cannot, unfortunately,\ntell; all we can be sure of is that it was known to the Semitic\ninhabitants of eastern Cappadocia, not far from the Aram\u00e6an border.[25]\nThe name of Terah points in the same direction, Tarkhu was a god whose\nname enters into the composition of Cappadocian and North-Syrian\nprinces; he was worshipped by the Hittites, and so belongs to the same\nregion as that in which we have found the name of Nahor.\n\nBut neither Tarkhu nor Nakhur is Aramaic in the usual sense of the term.\nBoth seem to belong to that mixed dialect which has been revealed to us\nby German excavation at Sinjerli, north of the Gulf of Antioch, and\nabout which scholars have disputed whether to call it Hebraised Aramaic\nor Aramaised Hebrew. At any rate, it is a dialect which, though Aramaic\nin origin, has been profoundly influenced by \u2018the language of Canaan.\u2019\nIt bears witness to the existence of a Hebrew-speaking population in\nthat part of the world. It would be rash to affirm that this population\nalready existed there in patriarchal days, though words which seem to be\nof Hebrew origin are met with in the Cappadocian tablets. But we now\nknow that Northern Syria was once the meeting-place of the northern\nSemitic languages; that here they mingled with one another and with\nother languages which were not Semitic in type, and that here alone,\noutside the pages of the Old Testament, are the names of Terah and Nahor\nto be found.[26]\n\nNahor remained in Harran, but Abram moved on still further to the West.\nThe road was well known to his contemporaries, and probably followed the\nlater line of march which led past Carchemish, now Jerabl\u00fbs, Aleppo, and\nHamath. From Hamath southward the land was in the possession of the\nAmorites. Their chief seat was immediately to the north of the Palestine\nof later days, but they had already occupied large portions of the\nterritory to the south of them as far as the Dead Sea and the limits of\nthe cultivated land. They had been for many centuries the dominant\npeople of the West. Already in the time of Sargon of Akkad they had\ngiven their name among the Babylonians to Central Syria and Canaan. The\nname, indeed, goes back to the pre-Semitic days of Babylonian history.\nWhat the Semites called the land of the Amurr\u00e2 or Amorites, the\nSumerians had termed Martu. And the two names, Amurr\u00e2 and Martu,\ncontinued to designate Syria and Palestine almost to the latest epoch of\nBabylonian political life.\n\nThe monuments of Egypt have shown us what these Amorites were like. They\nbelonged to the blond race, like the Libyans of Northern Africa. At\nAbu-Simbel their skins are painted yellow\u2014the Egyptian equivalent of\nwhite\u2014their eyes blue, and the beard and eyebrows red. At Med\u00eenet Habu\nthe skin, as Professor Flinders Petrie expresses it, is \u2018rather pinker\nthan flesh-colour,\u2019 while in a tomb of the eighteenth dynasty at Thebes\nit is painted white, the eyes and hair being a light red-brown. At\nKarnak the names of the places captured by Thothmes III. in Palestine\nare surmounted by the figures of Amorites whose skin is alternately red\nand yellow, the red denoting sunburn, the yellow what we term white. In\nfeatures the Amorites belonged to the Indo-European type. The nose was\nstraight and regular, the forehead high, the lips thin, and the\ncheek-bones somewhat prominent, while they wore whiskers and a pointed\nbeard. So far as we can judge from the representations of the Egyptian\nartists, they belonged to a dolichocephalic or long-headed race.[27]\n\nThat they were tall in stature we know from the Old Testament. By the\nside of them the Hebrew spies described themselves as grasshoppers. The\ncities they built were strong and \u2018walled up to heaven\u2019; the thick walls\nof one of them have been disinterred on the site of Lachish by Professor\nPetrie and Mr. Bliss. But though the Babylonians continued to include\nCanaan in the general term, \u2018land of the Amorites,\u2019 and spoke of the\nCanaanite himself as an \u2018Amorite,\u2019 they nevertheless came to know that\nthere was a distinction between them. The Babylonian king, Burna-buryas,\nwhose letters to the Egyptian Pharaoh have been found at Tel el-Amarna,\ndistinguishes Kinakhkhi or Canaan from the land of the Amorites, which\nhad come to be confined to the country immediately to the north of\nPalestine. From the seventeenth century B.C. downwards, Amorite and\nCanaanite cease to be synonymous terms. It is only in certain parts of\nthe Pentateuch that the old Babylonian use of the name \u2018Amorite\u2019 still\nsurvives.\n\nIt was a use that never prevailed among the Assyrians. When Assyria\nbecame a kingdom, and its rulers first led their armies to the West, the\nAmorites were no longer the dominant power. Their place had been taken\nby the Hittites. And it is the Khatt\u00e2 or Hittites, therefore, who in the\nAssyrian inscriptions, as distinguished from those of Babylonia, are the\nrepresentatives of Western Syria. On the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser\nII., now in the British Museum, even Ahab of Israel and Ba\u2019asha of Ammon\nare included among the \u2018kings of the country of the Hittites.\u2019 But of\nthis Assyrian use of the term Hittite there are slight, if any, traces\nin the Old Testament.[28]\n\nAbram, the Hebrew, first pitched his tent near the future Shechem, under\n\u2018the terebinth of Moreh.\u2019 Moreh is the Sumerian Martu, \u2018the Amorite,\u2019 in\nHebrew letters; and the fact gives point to the statement which follows\nimmediately, that \u2018the Canaanite\u2019\u2014and not the Amorite\u2014\u2018was then in the\nland\u2019 (Gen. xii. 6). \u2018The mountain of Shechem\u2019 is mentioned in an\nEgyptian papyrus which describes the travels of an Egyptian officer in\nPalestine, in the fourteenth century B.C.,[29] but the book of Genesis\nrepresents the city as founded only in the lifetime of Jacob (Gen.\nxxxiv. 6). Hence we are told that it was to \u2018the place\u2019 or \u2018site\u2019 of\nShechem that Abram made his way, not to the town itself. And after the\nfoundation of the town its Canaanite inhabitants are still called\nAmorites, in accordance with ancient Babylonian custom (Gen. xlviii.\n22).\n\nWe next find the Hebrew patriarch in Egypt. There was famine in Canaan,\nand Egypt was already the granary of the eastern world. In the Tel\nel-Amarna tablets we hear of Egyptian corn being sent to the starving\npopulation of Syria; and Meneptah, the son of the Pharaoh of the Exodus,\ntells us that he had loaded ships with wheat for the Hittites when they\nwere suffering from a famine. The want of rain which destroyed the crops\nof Canaan did not affect Egypt, where the fertility of the soil depends\nupon the irrigating waters of the Nile.\n\nEgypt at the time must have been under the sway of the Hyksos kings.\nThey were Asiatic invaders who had overrun the country from north to\nsouth, and established themselves on the throne of the Pharaohs. In\nthree successive dynasties did they govern the land, and the descendants\nof the native monarchs sank into _hiqu_ or vassal \u2018princes\u2019 of Thebes.\nAt first, it is said, they laid Egypt waste, destroying the temples and\nmassacring the people. But the influence of Egyptian culture soon led\nthem captive. The Hyksos court became Egyptianised; the Hyksos king\nassumed the titles and state of the ancient sovereigns; Sutekh, the\nHyksos god, was identified with Ra, the Sun-god of On, and the official\nlanguage itself remained Egyptian. A treatise on mathematics, one of the\nfew scientific works that have survived the shipwreck of Egyptian\nliterature, was written under the patronage of the Hyksos king, Apophis\nI.[30]\n\nNevertheless, with all this outward varnish of Egyptian culture, the\nHyksos rule continued to be foreign. Even the names of the kings were\nnot Egyptian, and up to the last the supreme object of their worship was\na foreign deity. According to the Sallier Papyrus, the war of\nindependence was occasioned by the demand of Apophis II. that Sutekh,\nand not Amon, should be acknowledged as the god of Thebes, and a scarab\nfound at Kom Ombos in 1896 bears upon it, in confirmation of the story,\nthe name of Sutekh-Apopi.[31] Moreover, the Hyksos capital was not in\nany of the old centres of Egyptian government. Zoan, it is true, now\nS\u00e2n, in the north-eastern part of the Delta, was nominally their\nofficial residence; but they preferred to dwell in the fortress of\nAvaris, on the extreme eastern edge of Egypt, and within hail of their\nAsiatic kinsmen. It was from Avaris that Apophis had sent his insolent\nmessage to the terrified Prince of Thebes.\n\nThe Hebrew visitor to Egypt, therefore, was among friends and not\nstrangers. Moreover, he had only to cross the frontier to find himself\nin the presence of the Pharaoh\u2019s court. Whether at Zoan or at Avaris, it\nwas alike close at hand to the traveller from Asia.\n\nAfter leaving Egypt, Abram established himself at Hebron. It would seem\nthat the name of Hebron, \u2018the Confederacy,\u2019 was not yet in existence, as\nit was to the \u2018terebinth\u2019 of Mamre, and not of Hebron, that Abram\n\u2018removed his tent.\u2019 Indeed, it is more than doubtful whether Mamre and\nHebron occupied precisely the same site. It may be that Mamre was the\nolder fortress of the Amorites, whose place was taken in after times by\nthe town which gathered round the adjoining sanctuary of Hebron.\n\nIn any case, its population was Amorite, though probably we should\nunderstand \u2018Amorite\u2019 here in its Babylonian sense. \u2018Abram the Hebrew,\u2019\nit is declared, \u2018dwelt under the terebinth of Mamre the Amorite, brother\nof Eshcol and brother of Aner; and these were confederate with Abram.\u2019\nIn other words, the Hebrew settler in Canaan had formed an alliance with\nthe native chiefs.\n\nThen came an event upon which the cuneiform records of Babylonia are\nbeginning to cast light. Chedor-laomer, king of Elam, and the vassal\nkings Amraphel of Shinar, Arioch of Ellasar, and Tid\u2019al of \u2018nations,\u2019\nmarched against the five Canaanitish princes of the Vale of Siddim at\nthe northern end of the Dead Sea, bent upon obtaining possession of the\nnaphtha springs that abounded there, and the produce of which had\nalready made its way to Babylonia. No resistance was made to the\ninvader; it is clear, in fact, that the invasion was no new thing, and\nthat the rest of Canaan was already subject to the lords of the East.\nFor \u2018twelve years\u2019 the five Canaanitish kings \u2018served Chedor-laomer, and\nin the thirteenth year they rebelled.\u2019 Once more, therefore, the forces\nof Elam and Babylonia moved westward. The revolt, it would appear, had\nspread to other parts of the \u2018land of the Amorites,\u2019 and the invading\narmy marched southward along the eastern side of the Jordan. First, the\nRephaim were overthrown at Ashteroth-Karnaim, in \u2018the field of Bashan,\u2019\nas it was termed in the days of the Tel el-Amarna tablets; then followed\nthe turn of the Zuzim in the future land of Ammon, and of the Emim in\nwhat was to be the land of Moab; and after smiting the Horites of Mount\nSeir, the invaders penetrated into the wilderness of Paran, fell upon\nthe desert sanctuary of Kadesh, now called \u2019Ain el-Qad\u00ees, and returned\nnorthward along the western shore of the Dead Sea. They had thus\npartially followed in the footsteps of an earlier Chald\u00e6an king,\nNaram-Sin, who centuries before had made his way to the Sinaitic\nPeninsula, and there gained possession of the coveted copper-mines.\n\nThe native princes in the Vale of Siddim were no match for the foe. A\nbattle was fought which ended disastrously for the Canaanitish troops.\nThe kings of Sodom and Gomorrah were slain, their men were driven into\nthe naphtha-pits of which the plain was full, or else fled to the\nmountains. Their cities fell into the hands of the conquerors, who\ncarried away both captives and spoil.\n\nBut Abram heard that among the captives was his \u2018brother\u2019 Lot. Thereupon\nhe started in pursuit of the Chald\u00e6an army, with his three hundred and\neighteen armed followers and the forces of his Amorite allies. The\nvictorious army was overtaken near Damascus, and its rear surprised in a\nnight attack. The captives and spoil were recovered, and brought back in\ntriumph to the south of Canaan. Here at the \u2018King\u2019s Dale,\u2019 just outside\nthe walls of Jerusalem, the new king of Sodom went to welcome him; and\nMelchizedek, the priest-king of Jerusalem, blessed the conqueror in the\nname of \u2018the Most High God.\u2019\n\nThe history of the campaign of Chedor-laomer reads like an extract from\nthe Babylonian chronicles. It is dated in the reign of the king of\nShinar or Babylon, as it would have been had it been written by a\nBabylonian scribe, although the Babylonian king was but the vassal and\ntributary of the sovereign of Elam. Even the spelling of the names\nindicates that they are taken from a cuneiform document. \u2018Ham\u2019 for\nAmmon, and \u2018Zuzim\u2019 for Zamzummim, can be explained only by the\npeculiarities of the cuneiform system of writing.[32]\n\nThe whole story, however, has been thrown into a Canaanitish form. The\nking of Northern Babylonia, whose capital was Babylon, has become a king\nof Shinar, that being the name given in the West to the northern half of\nChald\u00e6a.[33] Larsa, the capital of Eri-Aku or Arioch, has been\ntransformed into Ellasar, perhaps through the influence of the\nBabylonian _al_, city.\u2019 Lastly, Tid\u2019al, the Tudghula of the cuneiform\ntexts, is entitled the \u2018king of nations.\u2019\n\nThe fragmentary tablets discovered by Mr. Pinches, in which we hear of\nKhammu-rabi, king of Babylon, of Eri-Aku or Arioch, and his son\nBad-makh-dingirene, and of Kudur-Laghghamar, the Chedor-laomer of\nGenesis, refer to Tudghula or Tid\u2019al as \u2018the son of Gazza[ni].\u2019\nUnfortunately, the words which follow, and which gave a description of\nthe prince, have been lost through a fracture of the clay tablet. But\nthere is another tablet from which we may supply the deficiency. On the\none hand we are told that Tudghula burned the sanctuaries of Babylonia\nand allowed the waters of the Euphrates to roll over the ruins of the\ngreat temples of Babylon; on the other hand we read: \u2018Who is this\nKudur-Laghghamar who has wrought evil? He has assembled the Umman Manda,\nhas devastated the land of Bel, and [has marched] at their side.\u2019\nElsewhere Kudur-Laghghamar is called the king of Elam.[34]\n\nThe Umman Manda were the barbarous tribes in the mountains which\nadjoined the northern part of Elam and formed the eastern boundary of\nBabylonia. The term means the \u2018Nomad,\u2019 or \u2018Barbarous Peoples,\u2019 and is\nthus the Babylonian equivalent of the Hebrew Goyyim, \u2018Nations.\u2019[35] What\nthe \u2018Gentiles,\u2019 or Goyyim, were to the Hebrews, or the \u2018Barbarians\u2019 to\nthe Greeks, the Umman Manda were to the civilised population of Chald\u00e6a.\nThe fact that the king of Elam summons them to his help when he invades\nBabylonia implies that they acknowledged his suzerainty. It would seem,\ntherefore, that the \u2018Nations\u2019 over which Tid\u2019al is said to have ruled\nwere the Kurdish tribes to the east of the Babylonian frontier.\n\nKhammu-rabi eventually succeeded in overthrowing the king of Elam, in\ncrushing his rival Eri-Aku and his Elamite allies, and in making himself\nmaster of an independent Babylonia, which was henceforth a united\nkingdom, with its centre and sovereign city at Babylon. Recent\nexcavations have brought letters of his to light which were written to\nhis faithful vassal Sin-idinnam, Sin-idinnam had been the king of Larsa\nwhom Eri-Aku and his Elamite troops had driven from the city of his\nfathers, and he had found refuge and protection in the court of\nKhammu-rabi at Babylon. When the great war finally broke out, which\nended in leaving Khammu-rabi sole monarch of Babylonia, Sin-idinnam\nrendered him active service, and after the conclusion of the struggle he\nwas reinstated in his ancestral princedom. Khammu-rabi loaded him with\nother honours as well; and one of the letters which have been recovered\nrefers to certain statues which were presented to him as a reward for\nhis \u2018valour on the day of Kudur-Laghghamar\u2019s defeat.\u2019 This was an\nOriental anticipation of the statues which the Greek cities of a later\nage bestowed upon those they would honour.[36]\n\nIt has been suggested that the reverse sustained by Kudur-Laghghamar in\nPalestine at the hands of the \u2018Amorites,\u2019 under the leadership of \u2018Abram\nthe Hebrew,\u2019 may have given the king of Babylon his opportunity for\nsuccessfully revolting from his liege lord. If so, the Hebrew patriarch\nwould have influenced the destinies of the country he had forsaken. What\nis more certain is that his victory gave him a commanding position in\nthe country of his adoption. Syrian legend in after days made him a king\nin Damascus;[37] and when he buys the rock-tomb of Machpelah, the owners\nof the land tell him that he is no \u2018stranger and sojourner\u2019 among them,\nbut \u2018a mighty prince,\u2019 \u2018a prince of Elohim.\u2019 From henceforth the\n\u2018Hebrew\u2019 occupies a recognised place in \u2018the land of the Amorites.\u2019\n\nThe figure of Melchizedek, king of Salem, loomed large upon the\nimagination of later ages out of the mists that enveloped the history of\nCanaanitish Jerusalem. But the romance is now making way for sober\nhistory. The letters on clay tablets in the Babylonian language and\nwriting, found at Tel el-Amarna in Upper Egypt, have come to our help.\nSeveral of them were sent to the Pharaoh from Ebed-Tob, king of\nJerusalem, and they show that Jerusalem was already the dominant state\nof Southern Palestine. Its strong position made it a fortress of\nimportance, and it was the capital of a territory which stretched away\ntowards the desert of the South. Its name was already Jerusalem or\nUru-Salim, \u2018the city of Salim,\u2019 the God of Peace, and the hieroglyphic\ntexts of Egypt accordingly speak of it simply as Shalama or Salem,\nomitting the needless Uru, \u2018city.\u2019[38]\n\nEbed-Tob reiterates that he was not, like the other governors of Canaan,\nunder Egyptian rule. They had been appointed to their offices by the\nPharaoh, or had inherited them by descent from the older royal lines of\nthe country whom the Egyptian Government had allowed to remain. He, on\nthe contrary, was the friend and ally of the Egyptian king. His kingly\ndignity had not been derived from either father or mother, but from the\n\u2018Mighty King,\u2019 from the god, that is to say, whose temple stood on \u2018the\nmountain of Jerusalem.\u2019 He was, therefore, a priest-king, without father\nor mother, so far as his royal office was concerned.[39]\n\nThat the king of Salem, the priest of the God of Peace, should have come\nforth from his city and its temple to welcome the conqueror when he\nreturned in peace, was both natural and fitting. It was equally natural\nand fitting that he should bless the Hebrew in the name of the \u2018Most\nHigh God\u2019\u2014the patron deity of Jerusalem, whom Ebed-Tob identifies with\nthe Babylonian Ninip\u2014and that Abram should in return have given him\ntithes of the spoil. From time immemorial, the _esr\u00e2_ or tithe had been\nexacted in Babylonia for the temples and their priests, and had been\npaid alike by prince and peasant. It passed to the West along with the\nother elements and institutions of Babylonian culture.[40]\n\nThe destruction of the cities of the Vale of Siddim, which is\nrepresented as occurring not long after the retreat of the king of Elam,\nmade a profound impression on the Western world. References are made to\nthe catastrophe up to the latest days of Hebrew literature; and the mist\ncaused by the evaporation of the salt on the surface of the Dead Sea was\npopularly supposed to be the smoke which hung eternally over the ruins\nof the doomed cities of the plain. The storm which burst from the\nheavens set fire to the naphtha springs that oozed through the soil, and\nhouses and men alike were enveloped in a sheet of fire. Similar\ncatastrophes have happened in our own time at Baku on the Caspian, where\nthe petroleum, accidentally ignited, has blazed for days in columns of\nfire.\n\nIngenious Germans have connected with the destruction of Sodom and its\nsister cities a passage in the Latin writer Justin (xviii. 3. 2, 3), in\nwhich it is said that the Ph\u0153nicians were driven to the Canaanitish\ncoast by an earthquake which took place in their original home near \u2018the\nAssyrian lake.\u2019 Instead of \u2018Assyrian,\u2019 some manuscripts read \u2018Syrian,\u2019\nand the lake has accordingly been imagined to be the Dead Sea, and the\nearthquake to be the rain of fire which destroyed the cities of the\nplain.[41] But there is no other instance in which the Dead Sea is\ncalled \u2018the Syrian lake,\u2019 supposing this to be the true reading, nor is\nthere any trace of an earthquake in the catastrophe described in\nGenesis. Moreover, the unanimous voice of classical antiquity declared\nthat the Ph\u0153nicians had come from the Persian Gulf, not from the valley\nof the Jordan, and their seafaring propensities were explained by the\nfact that they once lived in the islands of the Erythr\u00e6an Sea. Whatever\nthe \u2018Assyrian lake\u2019 may have been, it was not the \u2018Salt Sea\u2019 of the Old\nTestament.\n\nThe Israelites traced back to Abram the rite of circumcision which they\npractised. The rite, however, was not confined to Israel. So far as\nWestern Asia is concerned, it seems to have been of African origin. It\nis to be found among most of the races and tribes of Africa, and in\nEgypt the institution was of immemorial antiquity. According to\nHerodotos (ii. 36), the Egyptians, the Ethiopians, and the Kolkhians\nalone observed it \u2018from the beginning,\u2019 the Ph\u0153nicians and Syrians of\nPalestine having learned it from the Egyptians, and the Cappadocians\nfrom the people of Kolkhis. But the knowledge of the world possessed by\nHerodotos was limited, and his anthropology is not profound. The\npractice is met with in various parts of the world; it owes its origin\nto considerations of chastity, its maintenance to sanitary reasons. It\nis true that Africa was peculiarly its home, and that it seems to have\nbeen common to the aboriginal tribes of that continent, but it is also\ntrue that it was known to aboriginal tribes in other parts of the globe\namong whom\u2014so far as our evidence can tell us\u2014the practice originated\nindependently.[42]\n\nWhether it was originally a Semitic as well as an African rite, we do\nnot at present know. We have as yet no certain evidence that it was\npractised among the Babylonians. Indeed, the fact that Abraham was not\ncircumcised until after his arrival in Canaan would imply that it was\nnot. Even in Canaan itself there were tribes, apart from the Philistine\nimmigrants, to whom it was unknown, as we learn from the story of Hamor\nand Shechem (Gen. xxxiv. 14, _sqq._). And though the inhabitants of\nNorthern Arabia were circumcised in their thirteenth year, as we are\ntold by Josephus, it is doubtful whether the same custom prevailed in\nthe southern half of the peninsula. So far as Midian was concerned, we\nhave express testimony (Exod. iv. 24-26, cf. ii. 19) that the rite was\nregarded as peculiar to the stranger from Egypt.\n\nIt seems probable, therefore, that Herodotos was right in declaring that\ncircumcision had been introduced into Palestine by the Egyptians.\nIntercourse between Canaan and the Delta went back to the early days of\nEgyptian history, and it would not be surprising if Egyptian influences\nhad found their way into Canaan at the same time. Canaanitish slaves\nwere carried into the valley of the Nile, and doubtless Egyptian slaves\nwere at times kidnapped into Canaan.\n\nThe circumcision of Abraham and his household may, consequently, have\nbeen in accordance with a custom which had already grown up among the\nAmoritish population around him. But whether this were the case or not,\nthe rite received a new meaning and assumed a new form. It became the\nsign and seal of a religious covenant. Those who had been circumcised\nwere thereby devoted to the God of Abraham and his descendants.\nHenceforth there was not only a division between the circumcised and the\nuncircumcised, there was also a division between those who had received\nthe circumcision of Abraham and those who had not. It is noticeable that\nthe narrative expressly includes among those who were thus outwardly\ndedicated to the God of Israel not only the ancestor of the Ishmaelite\ntribes of Northern Arabia, but also the foreign slaves who belonged to\nthe household of the patriarch. They had left the home of their fathers,\nand his God accordingly had become theirs. The fact is paralleled by the\nlaw relating to another seal of the covenant between Israel and its God;\nthe Sabbath had to be kept not only by the Israelite, but also by the\n\u2018stranger\u2019 within his gates.\n\nA change of name accompanied the rite which the patriarch performed. The\nBabylonian Abram became the Palestinian Abraham. To the native of the\nold Oriental world the name was not merely the representation of a\nthing; it was, in a measure, the thing itself. Even Greek philosophy\nfailed at first to distinguish between an object and its expression in\nspeech. A thing was known only through its name, and in the name were to\nbe found its qualities and its essence. A name which brought with it\nunlucky associations was itself the bringer of ill-luck, but the\nill-luck would turn to good if once the name were changed. The belief\nhas lingered on into our own times, and the change of the Cape of Storms\ninto the Cape of Good Hope is an illustration of its influence. The name\nmeant personality as well as a thing. The man himself was changed when\nhis name was changed. Hence it was that the Canaanites or Karians, who\nsettled in Egypt, and there became Egyptian citizens, at once assumed\nEgyptian names. They had left Canaan and Karia behind them, with the\ngods and the habits of their ancestors, and had adopted the religion and\nmanners of another country. They had, as it were, stripped themselves of\ntheir old personality, and had clothed themselves with a new one. It was\nthus a new personality that was assumed by the Babylonian Abram when he\nbecame the Abraham of Western Asia. It cut him off, as it were, from the\nland of his birth, and gave him a new birth in the country of his\nadoption. The merchant-prince of Babylonia, who had overthrown the\nrearguard of the host of Chedor-laomer, and whose maid had borne to him\nthe ancestor of the Ishmaelites, thus passed into the forefather and\nfounder of the Israelitish race.\n\nThe etymology and meaning of the new name are unknown. It would seem\nthat they had been forgotten even at the time when the book of Genesis\nwas written. At all events, the explanation of the name given there\n(xvii. 5) is one of those plays upon words of which the Biblical\nwriters, like Orientals generally, are so fond. \u2018Ab-(ra)ham,\u2019 it is\nsaid, is Ab-ham(\u00f4n), \u2018the father of a multitude,\u2019 in total disregard of\nthe second syllable of the name. It may be, however, that there was\nstill a tradition that in _raham_ we have a word which had a similar\nsignification to that of _ham\u00f4n_, \u2018a multitude,\u2019 though the attempts\nthat have been made to discover any word of the kind in the Semitic\nlanguages have hitherto been unsuccessful. We must be content with the\nfact that Ab-ram, \u2018the exalted father,\u2019 was transformed into the\nIsraelitish Ab-raham.[43]\n\nThe change of name was followed by the birth of Isaac and the expulsion\nof Ishmael from his father\u2019s house. Closely allied in blood as the\nIshmaelites of north-western Arabia were to the house of Israel, it was\nonly in part that they shared in the covenant made with their common\nfather. Circumcision indeed they also possessed, but to Israel alone was\ngranted the Law. To Israel alone did God reveal Himself under His name\nof Yahveh.\n\nThe inscriptions of a later age, which have been found in the Ishmaelite\nterritory, show that the language then spoken by the Ishmaelitish tribes\nwas Aramaic rather than what we call Arabic.[44] From the borders of\nBabylonia to the Sinaitic Peninsula, and as far north as the\nmountain-ranges of the Taurus, Aramaic dialects were used. How far the\ndifference in language meant that the populations who spoke these\nAramaic dialects differed also in blood from the other members of the\nSemitic family, we do not know, but it is probable that the difference\nin blood was not great. The Semitic family seems to have been as\nhomogeneous in race as it was in speech, and the differences in speech\nwere comparatively slight. In fact, the Semitic languages do not differ\nmore from one another than the languages of modern Europe which claim\ndescent from Latin, and it is probable that the speaker of an Aramaic\ndialect would not have had very great difficulty in making himself\nintelligible to the speakers of what we term Hebrew.\n\nHebrew was, as Isaiah tells us (xix. 18), \u2018the language of Canaan.\u2019 The\nfact became clear to European scholars as soon as the Ph\u0153nician\ninscriptions were deciphered. Between the Hebrew of the Old Testament\nand the Ph\u0153nician of the older inhabitants of Canaan the differences are\nless than those between one English dialect and another. Chief among\nthem is the absence in Ph\u0153nician of the Hebrew article and _waw\nconversivum_. But the idiom to which grammarians have given the latter\nname seems to have been an independent creation of Hebrew itself, and\neven in Hebrew it disappeared in the later stage of the language. The\narticle is found in the so-called Lihyanian inscriptions of Northern\nArabia,[45] and we may regard it as one of the indications that the\nIsraelites had been Bed\u00e2win before they entered Palestine and made their\nway from the desert into the Promised Land.\n\nThe Tel el-Amarna tablets have carried the history of Canaanitish or\nHebrew beyond the age of the Exodus. In some of the letters written from\nPalestine the writers have added the Canaanitish equivalents of certain\nAssyrian words and phrases. They show that from the pre-Mosaic epoch\ndown to the period of the Exile the language changed but little; the\nwords and phrases that have thus been preserved being substantially the\nsame as those which we find in the pages of the Old Testament.[46]\n\nThe northern boundary between Canaanitish and Aramaic dialects was among\nthe mountains of Gilead. This is made clear by the narrative of the\ncovenant between Laban and Jacob. At Mizpah, the \u2018Watch-tower,\u2019 which\nguarded the approaches to the south, a cairn was raised, called\nYegar-sahadutha in the language of Laban, Galeed in that of Jacob (Gen.\nxxxi. 47, 48). The two names alike signified the \u2018heap of witnesses,\u2019\nbut while the first was Aramaic, the second was Canaanitish. The fact\nthat the names survived into later history shows that the line of\ndemarcation between the two Semitic languages which they represent\ncontinued to remain in the same place.[47]\n\nJacob, despite his long residence in Aram and his relationship to an\nAram\u00e6an family, is nevertheless Canaanite in his language. It is a sign\nand proof how completely the ancestors of the Israelites had identified\nthemselves with the country which their descendants were afterwards to\npossess. The Canaanitish history of Israel begins long before the days\nof Moses or Joshua; it already dates from the day when the Babylonian\nAbram became the Abraham of Canaan, and when the field of Machpelah was\nsold to him by the children of Heth.\n\nIt is true that Jacob\u2014or it may be, Terah\u2014is once called in the Old\nTestament (Deut. xxvi. 5) \u2018a wandering Aram\u00e6an.\u2019 But he was so only in a\nsecondary sense. It was not as an Aram\u00e6an, but as a wanderer out of\nAramaic lands, that the title is given him. Israel was closely connected\nwith Aram and Harran, but it was a relationship only.\n\nDiscoveries recently made in Northern Syria by the German explorer, Dr.\nvon Luschan, have thrown some light on the matter. At Sinjerli,\ntwenty-five miles north-east of the Gulf of Antioch, and nearly midway\nbetween Yarpuz and Aintab, he has excavated the ruins of the capital of\nthe ancient kingdom of Sam\u00e2la, and found monuments which make mention of\nthe Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser.[48] Most of them, in fact, were\nerected by a prince who acknowledged the supremacy of the Assyrian\nmonarch, and whose father\u2019s name is met with in the annals of the latter\nsovereign. The inscriptions on them are in an Aramaic dialect; but the\ndialect is so largely mixed with Hebrew words and idioms as to have made\nscholars doubt at first whether it was not an Aramaised form of Hebrew\nrather than an Hebraised form of Aramaic. In any case, it is plain that\nthe dialect was in close contact with a population which spoke \u2018the\nlanguage of Canaan.\u2019 Far away to the north, therefore, in the heart of\nan Aramaic country, there must have been speakers of Hebrew or\nCanaanite. Nor is this all. Two or three miles from the ruins of Sam\u00e2la\nare the ruins of another ancient town, the modern name of which is\nGirshin. Here, too, the German excavators have found an inscription of\nthe same age as those of Sam\u00e2la, and we may gather from it that Girshin\nstands on the site of a city which was the capital of the land of\n\u2018Ya\u2019di.\u2019 In the Tel el-Amarna tablets, written in the century before the\nExodus, Yaud\u00e2 are mentioned as living in the same part of the world.[49]\nNow Yaud\u00e2 is also the Assyrian mode of spelling the name of the Jews,\nand it would accordingly seem that a tribe which bore a name similar to\nthat of Judah existed in Northern Syria as far back as the Patriarchal\nage.[50]\n\nAll this is in singular harmony with the Scriptural narrative which\ntells us that a part of Terah\u2019s family lingered at Harran, and that the\nwives of both Isaac and Jacob came from their Aram\u00e6an kindred in the\nnorth. There were Hebrews in Northern Syria as well as in Canaan, and\nScripture and arch\u00e6ology are alike in agreement in testifying to the\nfact.\n\nEven in Babylonia it may be that Abraham had been educated in \u2018the\nlanguage of Canaan.\u2019 There were colonies of Amorite (or, as we should\nsay, Canaanitish) merchants in Chald\u00e6a who had special districts and\nprivileges assigned to them by the Babylonian kings. Reference is not\nunfrequently made to them in the contracts of the Abrahamic age. The\nproper names, which sometimes make their appearance in deeds of sale or\nlease, or in legal suits in which the foreign merchants were involved,\nare Canaanitish and not Babylonian. Thus we find names like Ishmael and\nAbdiel, Jacob-el (Ya\u2019qub-il), and Joseph-el (Yasup-il), and we even read\nof \u2018the Amorite the son of Abi-ramu\u2019 or Abram, who appears as a witness\nto a deed dated in the reign of the grandfather of Amraphel.\n\nIsrael thus stood in close relation to almost all the chief linguistic\ndivisions of the Semitic world. Its first forefather had been born in\nthe land where Babylonian\u2014or Assyrian, as we usually term it\u2014was spoken,\nand its contact with Aramaic had been early and intimate. Its desert\nwanderings had led it into a region into which the Bed\u00e2win tribes of\nCentral Arabia could make their way, and the Hebrew article seems to be\na relic of its intercourse with them and the Arabic they spoke. But with\nall this contact with other Semitic tongues, Israel nevertheless\nremained true to that of the land of its destiny: the language of the\nOld Testament is the language which was spoken in Canaan before the days\nof Moses, the language of the inscriptions of Ph\u0153nicia and Carthage, the\nlanguage of Hannibal as well as of Joshua.\n\nIf Israel was connected by language with Canaan, it was connected by\nblood as well as by language with Moab, and Ammon, and Edom. In fact,\nEdom and Israel were brothers. While the relationship with Moab and\nAmmon was comparatively distant, the relationship with Edom was\npeculiarly close. The fact was never forgotten, and in the later days of\nJewish history the unbrotherly conduct of Edom caused a bitterness of\nfeeling towards it on the part of the Jews such as no other Gentiles\nwere able to excite.\n\nMoab and Ammon were the children of Lot, and had possessed themselves of\nthe mountain and fertile plains on the east side of the Dead Sea and\nsouthern course of the Jordan long before Israel had entered into its\ninheritance, or even Edom had carved out a possession for itself with\nthe sword. They were accused of being of incestuous origin, and it was\nrelated how the ancestors of each had been born in hiding and in the\nwild solitude of a cave. Moab was the eldest, Ben-Ammi, \u2018the Ammonite,\u2019\nbeing the younger of the two.\n\nThe name of Moab (or Muab) is engraved among the conquests of the\nEgyptian Pharaoh, Ramses II., on the base of one of the statues which\nstand before the northern entrance of the temple of Luxor. Ammi, whose\n\u2018son\u2019 the ancestor of the Ammonites was called, was the supreme God of\nAmmon, standing to the Ammonites in the same relation that Chemosh stood\nto Moab, or Yahveh to Israel. Ammon, indeed, is but another form of\nAmmi. The god was widely worshipped, as we may learn from the proper\nnames into which his own name enters. Thus the Old Testament knows of\nAmmiel, \u2018Ammi is god\u2019; of Ammi-shaddai, \u2018Ammi is the Almighty\u2019; and of\nAmmi-nadab, \u2018Ammi is noble.\u2019 Ammi-nadab was king of Ammon in the time of\nthe Assyrian king Assur-bani-pal; the early Min\u00e6an inscriptions of\nSouthern Arabia contain names like Ammi-zadoq and Ammi-zadiqa, \u2018Ammi is\nrighteous,\u2019 as well as Ammi-karib and Ammi-anshi; while among the kings\nof the south Arabian dynasty which ruled over Babylonia in the age of\nAbraham we find Ammi-zadoq, or Ammu-zadoq and Ammi-dhitana; and the\nKadmonite chieftain east of the Jordan, with whom the Egyptian fugitive\nSinuhit found a home in the time of the twelfth dynasty, bore the name\nof Ammi-anshi.[51] Balaam the seer, moreover, was summoned by the king\nof Moab from his city of Pethor, at the junction of the Euphrates and\nthe Sajur, in \u2018the land of the children of Ammo,\u2019\u2014for such is the\ncorrect translation of the Hebrew text. It may not be an accident that\none who thus belonged to the \u2018Beni-Ammo,\u2019 or \u2018Ammonites\u2019 of the north,\nshould have been called to the country which bordered on that of the\nBeni-Ammi, or Ammonites of the south.[52]\n\nA few miles to the north of Pethor was Carchemish, now Jerabl\u00fbs, which\nwas destined to become one of the most important strongholds of the\nHittite tribes. The Semites explained the name as \u2018the fortified wall of\nChemosh\u2019;[53] and whether this etymology were true or not, at all events\nit indicates a belief that the worship of Chemosh extended as far\nnorthward into Aram as did the worship of Ammi. Chemosh was the national\ngod of Moab. Like Yahveh of Israel and Assur in Assyria, he had neither\nwife nor children; and on the Moabite Stone even the Babylonian goddess\nAshtar, whose cult had been carried to the West, is identified with him.\nShe ceases to have any independent existence or sex of her own, and is\nabsorbed into the one supreme deity of Moabite faith. It is probable\nthat Ammi also was similarly conceived of as standing alone in jealous\nisolation, supreme over all other gods, and having no consort with whom\nto share his power.\n\nMoab and Ammon were alike intruders in the lands which subsequently bore\ntheir names. The older inhabitants of Moab were known as the Emim, \u2018a\npeople great and many and tall, as the Anakim, which also were accounted\ngiants.\u2019 Ammon too had been \u2018accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt\ntherein in old time, and the Ammonites call them Zamzummim.\u2019 The word\nrendered \u2018giants\u2019 in the Authorised Version is Rephaim; and it is very\npossible that a trace of it survives in the name On-Repha, \u2018On of the\ngiant,\u2019 the Raphon or Raphana of classical geography, which is coupled\nby the Egyptian conqueror Thothmes III. with Astartu or\nAshteroth-Karnaim.[54] When Chedor-laomer made his campaign in Canaan\nthe Rephaim were still living at Ashteroth-Karnaim, and the \u2018Zuzim\u2019 or\nZamzummim in \u2018Ham.\u2019 The name of the latter seems to occur in the\ninscriptions of the kings of Ur, who reigned some centuries before the\nbirth of Abraham; they mention hostile expeditions against the land of\nZavzala or the Zuzim; and a Babylonian high-priest who owned allegiance\nto one of them brought blocks of limestone for his temples and palace\nfrom the same district, which he tells us was situated \u2018in the mountains\nof the Amorites.\u2019[55]\n\nWhether or not the Emim and Zamzummim were Amorite tribes, we cannot\ntell. The physical characteristics ascribed to them in the Old Testament\nwould, however, seem to indicate that such was the case. Moreover, the\nAmorites had at one time been the dominant population, not only in\nPalestine itself, but also in the country east of the Jordan as well as\nin the Syrian districts to the north. When the Babylonians first became\nacquainted with Western Asia in the fifth or fourth millennium before\nthe Christian era, the inhabitants of Syria were mainly of the Amorite\nrace. Syria, accordingly, and more especially that part of it which is\nknown to us as Palestine, was called in the old agglutinative language\nof Chald\u00e6a \u2018the land of Martu\u2019 or \u2018the Amorite,\u2019 a word which has\nsurvived in the book of Genesis under the form of Moreh.[56] When the\nolder language of Chald\u00e6a made way for Semitic Babylonian, _Martu_\nbecame _Amurru_, and Hadad, the supreme Baal or sun-god of Canaan,\nbecame known as \u2018Amurru,\u2019 \u2018the Amorite.\u2019 By the Egyptians the Amorites\nwere termed Amur; and, as has been already stated,[57] the Egyptian\nartists have shown us that they were a fair-skinned people, with blue\neyes and reddish hair; that they were also tall and handsome, and wore\nshort and pointed beards. In fact, they resembled in features the\nLibyans of Northern Africa, whose modern descendants\u2014the Kabyles of\nAlgeria\u2014offer such a striking likeness to the golden-haired Kelt. The\nAmorite type may still be seen in its purity among the Arabs of the\nEl-Ar\u00eesh desert, who inhabit the district between the frontiers of\nPalestine and Egypt: many of the latter, as we see them to-day, might\nwell have sat for the portraits of the Amorites depicted on the walls of\nthe old Egyptian temples and tombs. It would seem that the Amorite race,\nfair and tall and energetic, once extended along the northern coast of\nAfrica into Asia itself, where they occupied the larger part of Southern\nSyria. There they have left behind them cromlechs and dolmens which\nremind us of those of our own islands. Indeed, if the Amorite were the\neastern branch of the Libyan race, it is probable that he could claim\nkindred with the so-called red Kelt of Britain. The physiological\ncharacteristics of the Libyan and fair-haired Kelt are similar; and many\nanthropologists assume the existence of a Libyo-Keltic or \u2018Eurafrican\u2019\nfamily, which has spread northward through Spain and the western side of\nFrance into the British Isles.[58]\n\nThe Emim and Zamzummim, accordingly, whom the descendants of Lot partly\nexpelled, partly absorbed, may have been of Amorite origin, and\nconnected in race with a portion of the population of our own country.\nAt all events, when the Israelites entered Canaan, the Amorites were\nalready settled on the eastern side of the Jordan. At that time the land\nwas divided between the Amalekites or Bed\u00e2win of the desert to the\nsouth, the Hittites, Jebusites, and Amorites \u2018in the mountains,\u2019 and the\nCanaanites on the coast of the Mediterranean and in the valley of the\nJordan (Numb. xiii. 29). As might have been expected in the case of a\nfair-skinned people, the Amorites needed the bracing air of the\nmountains in order to hold their own against the other populations of\nthe country; in the hot plains their vigour was in danger of being lost.\n\nThe Egyptian rule, which the Pharaohs of the eighteenth and nineteenth\ndynasties had maintained eastward of the Jordan, passed away with the\nfall of the Egyptian empire, and its place was taken by the Amorite\nkingdoms of Sihon and Og. Sihon had overthrown the Moabites in battle,\nand had wrested their territory from them as far south as the Arnon\n(Numb. xxi. 26). They had been driven out of their cities into the\nbarren mountains which overlooked the Dead Sea. A fragment of the\nAmorite Song of Triumph which recorded the conquest has been preserved\nto us. \u2018Come unto Heshbon,\u2019 it said, \u2018let the city of Sihon be built and\nfortified. For a fire has gone forth from Heshbon, a flame from the city\nof Sihon; it hath consumed Ar of Moab, and the Baalim of the high places\nof Arnon. Woe to thee, Moab! thou art undone, O people of Chemosh:\n[Chemosh] hath given his sons that escaped [the battle], and his\ndaughters, into captivity unto Sihon king of the Amorites\u2019 (Numb. xxi.\n27-29).\n\nThe southern half of Ammon also, as far north as the Jabbok, was in\nAmorite hands. Here, however, the Ammonites had strongly fortified their\n\u2018border\u2019 (Numb. xxi. 24), so that neither Sihon himself, nor his\nIsraelitish conquerors, succeeded in passing it. But Rabbah, \u2018the city\nof waters,\u2019 the future capital of Ammon, must have been held by the\nAmorites, and the two intrusive populations of Ammon and Moab were\nseparated from one another by the Amorite conquest.\n\nIf the older inhabitants of the country were Amorite by race, the\nkingdom of Sihon will have represented an Amorite reaction against the\ndescendants of Lot. But we must remember that the Babylonians had given\nthe name of \u2018Amorite\u2019 to all the populations of Palestine and the\nadjoining districts, whether they were Amorites in blood or not. The old\nBabylonian usage is followed in several passages of the Pentateuch, and\npoints to their origin in those pre-Mosaic days when Babylonian\ninfluence was still dominant in Western Asia. Thus in Gen. xv. 16, God\ndeclares to Abraham that \u2018the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full,\u2019\nand Jacob reminded his sons (Gen. xlviii. 22) that he had wrested\nShechem \u2018out of the hand of the Amorite\u2019 with his sword and bow. Perhaps\nthe emphatic statement that \u2018the Canaanite was then in the land,\u2019 which\nwe read in Gen. xii. 6, is due to the previous mention of the terebinth\nof Moreh\u2019 or Martu, Martu being the primitive Babylonian equivalent of\nthe later \u2018Amorite.\u2019 The terebinth, indeed, was in the country of the\nAmorites, but the country was already inhabited by Canaanitish\ntribes.[59]\n\nWe cannot, then, be certain that the aboriginal peoples of Moab and\nAmmon were actually of the Amorite race. They were, it is true, included\nby the Babylonians under the common name of \u2018Amorites,\u2019 but this was\nbecause all the rest of the population of Southern Syria was known under\nthe same title. The fact, however, that the Hebrew writers have\ndescribed them as tall, like the Anakim, and that popular tradition\nshould have spoken of them as Rephaim or giants, is in favour of their\nhaving been really of Amorite descent. In this case we may see in them\nthe easternmost representatives of the blond race, and the builders of\nthe cromlechs with which the hillsides of Moab are covered.\n\nSouthward of Moab came other tribes which, like the Ishmaelites, were\nsaid to have sprung directly from Abraham himself. These were the\nMidianites and the merchant tribes of Sheba and Dedan, who possessed\nstations on the great desert road that led from the spice-bearing\nregions of Southern Arabia to the borders of Canaan. They claimed to be\nthe descendants of Keturah, or \u2018Incence,\u2019 the second wife of the Hebrew\npatriarch, after Sarah\u2019s death. Another genealogy (Gen. x. 7) placed\nSheba and Dedan in the extreme south of the Arabian peninsula, among the\nchildren of Cush. Both genealogies, however, are correct. Sheba was the\nkingdom of the Sab\u00e6ans, whose centre was in Southern Arabia, but whose\npower and commerce extended far to the north. Their trading settlements\nand garrisons were to be found in the immediate neighbourhood of Midian,\nat Tema, the modern Teimah, and elsewhere.[60] If Professor Hommel is\nright in identifying Dedan with Tidanum, one of the names by which\nPalestine was known in early days to the natives of Babylonia, it would\nseem that the Dedanites also had become a leading people on the\nfrontiers of Canaan. At all events, it is clear that Abraham was claimed\nas an ancestor by the tribes of Western Arabia from its northern to its\nsouthern extremity, by the descendants of Keturah on the western coast\nand caravan-road, as well as by the Ishmaelites further to the east.\nThey represented the trading and more cultured population of the\npeninsula as opposed to the wild Amalekites or Bed\u00e2win hordes, who had\ntheir home among the mountains of Seir and the desert south of\nPalestine. The connection between Midian and Israel, which found\nexpression in a common ancestry, was reasserted in later days when the\ngreat legislator of Israel fled to Midian and married the daughter of\nits high-priest.\n\nHow nearly that connection had been lost through the death of the\nforefather of the Israelitish people was recorded in the story of the\nsacrifice of Isaac. A voice came to Abraham, which he believed to be\ndivine, bidding him offer \u2018for a burnt-offering\u2019 the son of his old age,\nthe heir of the covenant which had been made with him. It was a form of\nsacrifice only too well known in Canaan. In time of pestilence or\ntrouble the parent was called upon to sacrifice to Baal that which was\ndearest and nearest to him, his firstborn or his only son. The gods\nthemselves had set the example. Once when a plague had fallen upon the\nland, El had clothed Yeud, his only son, in royal purple, and on one of\nthe high-places of Palestine had offered him up to the offended\ndeities.[61] The doctrine of vicarious sacrifice was deeply enrooted in\nthe minds of the Canaanitish people. But it needed to be a sacrifice\nwhich cost the offerer almost as much as his own life. The fruit of his\nown body could alone wipe away the sin of his soul. And the sacrifice\nhad to be by fire. Only through that purifying element could the stains\nof sin and impurity be obliterated, and the offering made acceptable to\nheaven.\n\nThe practice, horrible as it seems to us, was nevertheless founded on a\ntruth. The victim, if he were to be accepted, must be the most precious\nthat the offerer could present. The gods did not require that which cost\nhim nothing. It needed to be the most costly that could be given; it\nneeded to be also, in the words of the prophet, the fruit of the\nsinner\u2019s own body. Nothing else would suffice: the gods demanded the\nfirstborn son, still more the only son. In no other way could Baal be\nsatisfied that the sinner had repented of his guilt or had made to him\nan offering which was of equal value to his own life.\n\nThe firstborn of all animals, of beasts as well as of men, was owed to\nthe gods. The belief was not confined to the Canaanites. We find traces\nof it in Babylonian literature, and all the denunciations of the\nprophets before the Exile failed to eradicate it from the mind of the\nJew. Up to the closing days of the Jewish monarchy, the valley of the\nsons of Hinnom was defiled with the smoke of the sacrifices wherein, as\nit is euphemistically said, the kings and people of Jerusalem made their\nchildren to pass through the fire. The belief, indeed, was consecrated\nby the Mosaic law itself. Human sacrifice, it is true, was forbidden,\nbut the firstborn, nevertheless, had to be redeemed (Exod. xxxiv. 20).\nLike the firstfruits and the firstborn of beasts, Yahveh had declared\nthat the firstborn of the sons of Israel also belonged to Him (Exod.\nxxii. 29). He could claim them, and it was of His own freewill that He\nwaived the claim. And along with this assertion of His claim to the\nfirstborn went the doctrine of vicarious punishment. It was not the\nfirstborn only in whose case a substitution was allowed: once a year the\nsins of the whole people were laid upon the head of the scapegoat, which\nwas then driven like an evil spirit into the wilderness. The idea of\nvicarious punishment, which lies at the foundation of historical\nChristianity, had already found expression in the Mosaic law.\n\nThe sacrifice of the firstborn was thus part of a larger conception\nbehind which there lay a profound truth. The sins of the father were\nvisited upon the child in more senses than one; the child, in fact,\ncould become an expiation for them, and divert to himself the anger of\nthe gods. Experience had shown how often the son must suffer for the\ndeeds of the parent, and the inference was drawn that if that suffering\nwere voluntarily offered to heaven by the parent, he would receive all\nthe benefits that flowed from it. Moreover, the gods had a right to the\nfirstborn, if they chose to exercise it; and in offering the firstborn,\naccordingly, man was only giving back to them what was strictly their\nown.\n\nThe heathenism of the Mosaic age went no further. Israel was the first\nto learn that the law of the substitution of the firstborn for the sins\nof the father was subordinate to a higher and more general law\u2014that of\nvicarious punishment. As the firstborn of men could be substituted for\nthe parent, so, too, could a lower animal, or the price of a lower\nanimal, be substituted for the firstborn of men. It was not the\nsacrifice which the God of Israel demanded, but the spirit of sacrifice;\nnot the blood of bulls and goats, or even men, but obedience and\nreadiness to give up all that was dearest and best at the command of\nGod.\n\nThe story of the sacrifice of Isaac was a practical illustration of the\nlesson. Abraham was called upon to slay with his own hand his only\nchild, the son through whom he had believed that he would become the\nancestor of a mighty nation. He was summoned to lead him to one of those\nhigh-places of Canaan where the deity seemed nearer to the worshipper\nthan in the plain below, and there, like the Ph\u0153nician god El, to offer\nhim up to his God. We are told how he set forth from Beer-sheba, on the\nborders of the desert, and on the third day reached the sacred mountain\non whose summit the Canaanitish rite was to be celebrated. It was in\n\u2018the land of Moriah,\u2019 according to the reading of the Hebrew text, a\nname which the chronicler (2 Chron. iii. 1) transfers to the\ntemple-mount at Jerusalem. But the Septuagint changes the name in the\nbooks of Chronicles into that of \u2018the mountain of Amoria\u2019 or the\nAmorites; while in Genesis the Greek translators must have read Moreh,\nsince the Hebrew word is rendered by \u2018Highlands.\u2019 Moreh is the\nBabylonian Martu, the land of the Amorites, so that we need not be\nsurprised at finding the Syriac version boldly substituting \u2018Amorites\u2019\nfor the Masoretic \u2018Moriah.\u2019\n\nIn any case, the belief that the scene of Abraham\u2019s sacrifice was the\nspot whereon the Jewish temple afterwards stood went back to an early\ndate. When the book of Genesis assumed its present form it had already\nbecome fixed in the Jewish mind. This is clear from the proverb quoted\nto explain the name of Yahveh-yireh. \u2018To this day,\u2019 we are told, it was\nsaid: \u2018In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen.\u2019 For the Jew there was\nbut one \u2018mount of the Lord,\u2019 that mountain whereon Yahveh revealed\nHimself above the cherubim of the ark. It was \u2018the hill of God,\u2019 wherein\nHe desired to dwell (Ps. lxviii. 15), the seat of the sanctuary of\nYahveh the God of Israel. When the Samaritans set up on Gerizim their\nrival temple to that of Jerusalem, it was necessary that the scene of\nthe sacrifice of the Hebrew patriarch should be transferred to the new\nsite. It was a proof how firm was the conviction that the temple-mount\nhad been consecrated to the sacrifice of the firstborn by the great\nancestor of the Israelitish family. The spot whereon the victims of the\nJewish ritual were offered up was the very spot to which Abraham had\nbeen led by God that he might offer there the terrible sacrifice of his\nonly son. Its name had been given to it by Abraham, and this name found\nits explanation in a saying that was current at Jerusalem about the\ntemple-mount.\n\nThe actual meaning of the name is not certain, nor indeed is the\noriginal signification of the proverb itself. Already in the time of the\nSeptuagint translation the meaning of the latter was doubtful, and the\nGreek translators have made the divine name the subject of the verb,\nreading, \u2018In the mountain the Lord was seen.\u2019 But the fact that the\nChronicler calls the temple-mount Moriah shows that such a rendering was\nnot accepted in Jerusalem.\n\nIt may be that the name \u2018mount of the Lord\u2019 goes back, at all events in\nsubstance, to patriarchal times. Among the places in Southern Palestine\nconquered by the Egyptian Pharaoh, Thothmes III., of the eighteenth\ndynasty, and recorded on the temple walls of Karnak, is Har-el, \u2018the\nmountain of God.\u2019[62] The names found in immediate connection with\nHar-el indicate that its site is to be sought in the neighbourhood of\nJerusalem; and as the name of Jerusalem itself does not occur in the\nPharaoh\u2019s list of his conquests, it is probable that we are to see in it\nthe future capital of Judah. As we now know from the Tel el-Amarna\ntablets, Jerusalem was an important city of Canaan long before the\nMosaic age; it was, moreover, the centre of a district which had been\nconquered by the Egyptians, and its ruler was a vassal of the Egyptian\nmonarch. It is therefore difficult to account for the omission of any\nreference to it in the catalogue of the conquests of the Pharaoh except\nupon the supposition that it is really mentioned among them, though\nunder another name.\n\nThe distance that separates Jerusalem from Beer-sheba would correspond\nwith the three days\u2019 journey of Abraham to the destined place of\nsacrifice. It was on the third day that Abraham lifted up his eyes \u2018and\nsaw the place afar off.\u2019 The main, in fact, the only, argument of any\nweight that has been urged against the identification is the fact that\nthe place of sacrifice seems to have been a desert spot. No spectators\nare mentioned as present, and close to it was a thicket in which a ram\nwas caught by the horns. How can such solitude, it is asked, be\nreconciled with the existence of a city in the same spot? How can the\ndeserted high-place whereon the patriarch raised the altar of sacrifice\nfor his son be identical with the fortress-city of which Melchizedek was\nking?\n\nAt first sight the difficulty seems overwhelming. But we must remember\nthat nothing is said in the narrative about the place being desert and\nremote from men, nor even that it was not within the walls of a city.\nAnd we must further remember that the temple of Solomon itself was built\non what had been the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite. Before the\nage of Solomon, therefore, the place must have been open and free from\nbuildings; it must, too, have been a level platform of rock on the\nsummit of the hill where the winds could freely play and scatter the\nchaff when the grain was threshed. Such open spaces are not infrequent\nin Oriental cities, and the visitor sometimes finds himself suddenly\nemerging out of close and crowded lanes into a growth of rank brushwood\nand weeds.\n\nIt is true that in the books of Samuel, where we are told how the\nthreshing-floor of the Jebusite came to be chosen as the site of the\ntemple, no allusion is made to Abraham\u2019s sacrifice. Another reason is\nassigned for the choice of the spot. But Oriental modes of writing\nhistory are not the same as ours, and the so-called argument from\nsilence is worthless when applied to them. Arch\u00e6ological discovery has\nshown, time after time, that facts and references are passed over in\nsilence by the writers of ancient Oriental history, not because the\nwriters did not know them, but because their conception of history was\ndifferent from ours.\n\nMount Moriah, then, may well have been the scene of that temptation of\nAbraham when, in accordance with the fierce ritual of Syria, he believed\nhimself called upon to offer up in sacrifice his only son. At all\nevents, the belief that it was so can be traced back to an early date\namong the Jews. The very fact that the Samaritans transported the place\nof sacrifice to Mount Gerizim proves that it had already been associated\nwith the site of the temple, and the transference of the site was\nnecessary in support of the claim that the true centre of Hebrew worship\nwas at Samaria and not in Jerusalem.\n\nLight has been cast on the substitution of a ram for the human victim by\nan acute observation of M. Clermont-Ganneau.[63] We know that human\nsacrifice occupied a prominent place in the ritual of Ph\u0153nicia and\nCarthage; and yet in the so-called sacrificial tariffs which have been\ndiscovered at Carthage and Marseilles, and in which the price is stated\nof each of the offerings demanded by the gods, there is absolute silence\nin regard to it. The place of the human victim is taken by the _ay\u00eel_,\nthe \u2018ram\u2019 of the book of Genesis.[64] The tariffs of Carthage and\nMarseilles belong to that later period of Ph\u0153nician religion, when\ncontact with the Greeks had introduced Western ideas of the value of\nhuman life, and a truer conception of what the gods required. The\nmerchants of Carthage had learned that Baal would be satisfied with a\nvictim less costly than man, and would accept instead of him the blood\nof rams.\n\nThe lesson which the Carthaginians learned from contact with the Greeks\nhad been taught the ancestors of the Hebrews by the Lord. The Law and\nthe Prophets alike protested against the old belief, hard as it was to\neradicate it from the Semitic mind. The sacrifice of Jephthah\u2019s daughter\nstands alone, even in the troublous period of the Judges; the sacrifice\nof his eldest son by the king of Moab (2 Kings iii. 27), though it\nstayed the Israelitish attack, was the act of one who did not\nacknowledge Yahveh of Israel as his God; and the Jewish children who\nwere burnt in the fire to Moloch were offered by renegades from the\nnational faith. Israelitish law and history bear upon them the traces of\nthe old Semitic custom, but they are traces only. The story of Abraham\u2019s\nsacrifice is an antitype of the future history of the religion of\nIsrael. The firstborn, indeed, belonged to Yahveh, if He chose to claim\nthem; but, unlike the gods of the heathen, He did not claim them when\nthey were the firstborn of man.\n\nOnce again we have a picture of Abraham; but this time it is not as the\nsh\u00eakh who conforms to the beliefs and practices of Canaan, but as a\nforeign prince who acquires land in the country of his adoption. Sarah\nis dead, and Abraham accordingly buys a field at Machpelah in the close\nneighbourhood of Hebron. The field included a portion of the limestone\ncliff which overlooked the city, and was pierced then, as now, by\nnumerous cavities, partly natural, partly excavated by the hand of man.\nThey were the burying-places of the inhabitants of the town, the\nchambered tombs in which the dead were laid to rest. That Abraham should\nchoose Hebron as the future home and resting-place of his family was\nperhaps natural. It was here that he had lived when he first came, as an\nimmigrant, into \u2018the land of the Amorites\u2019; it was here that he had been\nconfederate with its Amorite chieftains, and had led his forces against\nthe invading host of the king of Elam. Moreover, Hebron was one of the\nold centres of Canaan. It had been built seven years before Zoan in\nEgypt (Numb. xiii. 22), perhaps in the age when the Hyksos kings first\nconquered Egypt and rebuilt Zoan, making it the capital of their new\nkingdom. The sanctuary of Hebron rivalled that of Jerusalem in sanctity\nand fame, at all events in the years immediately succeeding the\nIsraelitish conquest, and it was at Hebron that David first established\nhis power and his son Absalom matured his rebellion.\n\nIn the age of Abraham the city had not yet received its later name of\nHebron, the \u2018Confederacy.\u2019 It was still known as Kirjath-Arba, and the\ndistrict in which it stood was that of Mamre. Amorites and Hittites\ndwelt there side by side. Arba, we are told, was \u2018a great man among the\nAmorite Anakim\u2019 (Josh. xiv. 15), but it was from \u2018the sons of Heth\u2019 that\nthe field of Machpelah was bought.\n\nCritics have raised the question who these Hittites of Southern\nPalestine may have been. It has been asserted that they are the\ninvention of a later Hebrew writer, and that the Hittites of Northern\nSyria were never settled in the south of Canaan. On the other hand, the\nveracity of the Hebrew record has been admitted, but the identity of\n\u2018the sons of Heth\u2019 with the great Hittite tribes of the north has been\ndenied.\n\nThe critics, however, have no grounds for their scepticism. The book of\nGenesis does not stand alone in testifying to the existence of Hittites\nin Southern Palestine. The prophet Ezekiel does the same. He too tells\nus that the origin of Jerusalem was partly Amorite, partly Hittite.\nIndeed, throughout the Pentateuch it is assumed that Hittites and\nAmorites were mingled together in the mountainous parts of the country.\n\u2018The Hittites and the Jebusites and the Amorites,\u2019 it is said in the\nbook of Numbers (xiii. 29), \u2018dwell in the mountains,\u2019 and the same\ncombination of names in the same order is found in the geographical\ntable of Genesis (x. 15, 16). Between these Hittites and the Hittites of\nthe north no distinction is made in the Old Testament. \u2018The land of the\nHittites,\u2019 mentioned in Judg. i. 26, into which the Canaanite betrayer\nof Beth-el made his way, was in the north, like the Hittite kingdoms\nwhose princes are referred to in 2 Kings vii. 6.\n\nThanks to arch\u00e6ological discovery, we now know a good deal about these\nHittites of Northern Syria. Their name is found on the monuments of\nEgypt, of Assyria, and of Armenia, and they are mentioned in Babylonian\ntablets which go back to the age of Abraham. Cappadocia was their\nearliest home; from hence they descended on the possessions of the\nAram\u00e6ans and established their power as far south as the Lake of Homs.\nThe cuneiform inscriptions of Armenia in the ninth century B.C. describe\nthem as on the Upper Euphrates in the neighbourhood of Malatiyeh, and\nthe Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser I. (B.C. 1100) tells us that\nCarchemish was one of their capitals. In the Tel el-Amarna tablets we\nhear of their growing power on the northern frontier of the Egyptian\nempire, of their intrigues with the Amorites and the people of Canaan,\nand of their steady advance to the south. Ramses II., the Pharaoh of the\nOppression, after twenty years of warfare, was glad to conclude peace on\nequal terms with \u2018the great king of the Hittites.\u2019 The Hittite capital\nwas already so near the northern border of Palestine as Kadesh on the\nOrontes \u2018in the land of the Amorites.\u2019 Here the Hittite monarch gathered\ntogether his vassals and allies from Syria and Asia Minor; even the\ndistant Lycians and Dardanians came at his call.\n\nThe Egyptian artists have left us portraits of the Hittite race. Their\nfeatures and dress were alike peculiar, and both reappear without change\non certain monuments which have been found in Asia Minor and Syria, thus\nfixing the character of the latter beyond dispute. The monuments are\ncovered with a still undeciphered system of hieroglyphic writing, and\namong the hieroglyphs are numerous human heads with the strange profile\nof the Hittite face. The nose and upper jaw protrude, the forehead is\nhigh and receding, the cheeks smooth, while we learn from the paintings\nof Egypt that the skin was yellow and the hair and the eyes were black.\nThe hair was gathered together in a kind of \u2018pig-tail,\u2019 and the feet\nwere shod with the shoes of mountaineers, the toes of which rose upwards\ninto a point.[65]\n\nWhy should not a body of Hittites have settled in Southern Palestine,\nand there have been, as it were, interlocked with the older Amorite\ninhabitants, as they were according to the testimony of the Egyptian\ninscriptions at Kadesh on the Lake of Homs? Indeed, there is indirect\nevidence that such was really the case.\n\nThothmes III., who conquered Syria for the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty,\ntells us that he received tribute from the king of \u2018the greater Hittite\nland.\u2019 There was then a lesser Hittite land; and as the \u2018greater Hittite\nland\u2019 was in the north, it is reasonable to look for the lesser land in\nthe south. Half a century later, at a time when the Tel el-Amarna\ncorrespondence was being carried on, the Hittites were actively\ninterfering in the internal politics of Canaan; and in one of the\nbas-reliefs of Ramses II. at Karnak the vanquished population of\nAshkelon\u2014in the near neighbourhood of Hebron\u2014is represented with the\npeculiar Hittite type of face.[66] At a still earlier date, when the\nAssyrians first became acquainted with Western Asia, the dominant people\nthere were the Hittites. In the Assyrian inscriptions, accordingly, the\nwhole of Syria, including Palestine, came to be known as \u2018the land of\nthe Hittites.\u2019 Shalmaneser II. even speaks of Ahab of Israel and Baasha\nof Ammon as \u2018Hittite\u2019 kings.[67] \u2018The land of the Hittites\u2019 in the\nAssyrian texts thus corresponds with the \u2018land of the Amorites\u2019 in the\ntexts of Babylonia. Just as Canaan was \u2018the land of the Amorites\u2019 to the\nBabylonian of the age of Abraham, so too it was \u2018the land of the\nHittites\u2019 to the Assyrian of the age of Moses. Before Assyria had become\nacquainted with the shores of the Mediterranean, the Hittites had taken\nthe place of the Amorites and become the leading power in the West.\n\nThere is, therefore, nothing antecedently improbable in the existence in\nSouthern Palestine of Hittites of the genuine northern stock. But the\nname may also be due to the Assyrian use of it at the time when the\nnarrative in the book of Genesis was written. The use of the term\n\u2018Amorite\u2019 in several passages of the Pentateuch is certainly of\nBabylonian origin, and takes us back to the age when all the natives of\nPalestine were alike included in it; it may be that the \u2018Hittites\u2019 of\nHebron and Jerusalem owe their title to a similar adoption of a foreign\nterm. If so, the Amorites and Hittites were equally one people; but\nwhereas the name of \u2018Amorite\u2019 comes from Babylonia and indicates an\nearlier date for the sources of the narrative in which it occurs, the\nname of \u2018Hittite\u2019 points to Assyria and the Assyrian epoch of Asiatic\nhistory.\n\nAgainst this is the Babylonian colouring of the story of Abraham\u2019s\ndealings with the children of Heth. During the last few years thousands\nof contract-tablets have been discovered in Babylonia which belong to\nthe age of Abraham or to a still earlier period. And these tablets show\nthat in the account of the purchase of the field of Machpelah we have a\nfaithful picture of such transactions as they were conducted at the time\nin the cities of Babylonia. It reads, in fact, like one of the cuneiform\ndocuments which have been unearthed from Babylonian soil. It is\nconformed to the law and procedure of Babylonia as they were in the\npatriarchal age. At a later date the law and procedure were altered, and\na narrative in which they are embodied must therefore go back to a\npre-Mosaic antiquity. It must belong to the Babylonian and not to the\nAssyrian epoch.\n\nThat the law and custom of Babylonia should have prevailed in Canaan is\nno longer surprising. The same contract-tablets which have revealed to\nus the commercial and social life of primitive Chald\u00e6a have also shown\nus that colonies of \u2018Amorite\u2019 or Canaanitish merchants were settled in\nBabylonia, where they enjoyed numerous rights and privileges, and could\nacquire land and other property. There were special districts called\n\u2018Amorite\u2019 allotted to them, one of which was just outside the walls of\nthe city of Sippara. They had judges of their own, and where disputes\narose between themselves and the native Babylonians the case was tried\nbefore both the \u2018Amorite\u2019 and the native courts. These foreign settlers\ncould act as witnesses in trials that concerned only Babylonians, and\ncould even rise to high offices of state. It must be remembered,\nhowever, that the Babylonian kings claimed to be kings also of \u2018the land\nof the Amorites,\u2019 and that consequently the natives of Canaan were as\nmuch subjects of the rulers of Chald\u00e6a as the Babylonians themselves.\n\nThrough the Canaanitish colonies in Babylonia a knowledge of Babylonian\nlaw was necessarily communicated to the commercial world of the West.\nMoreover, Babylonian rule brought with it Babylonian culture and law as\nwell. The \u2018Amorites\u2019 when the Babylonians first met with them were\ndoubtless in a semi-barbarous condition, and their subsequent culture,\nas we now know, was wholly Babylonian. A very important part of this\nculture, at all events in the eyes of the trading world, was the law of\nBabylonia, more especially in its relation to contracts. That the\npurchase of the field of Machpelah should have been conducted with all\nthe formalities to which Abraham had been accustomed in his Chald\u00e6an\nhome, is consequently what arch\u00e6ological discovery has informed us ought\nto have been the case.\n\nA simple form of contract for the sale and purchase of landed property\nin Babylonia is to be found in one that was drawn up in the reign of\nEri-Aku or Arioch. It is written in Sumerian, the old legal language of\nChald\u00e6a, as Latin was the legal language of Europe in the Middle Ages,\nand runs as follows:\u2014\u2018One and five-sixths _sar_[68] of a terrace with a\nhouse upon it, bounded on three sides by the house of Abil-Sin, and on\nthe fourth side by the street, has been purchased by Sin-uzilli the son\nof Tsili-Istar from Sin-illatsu the son of Nannar-arabit: 2-\u00bd shekels of\nsilver he has weighed as its full price. In days to come Sin-illatsu\nshall never make any claim in regard to the house or dispute the title.\nThe (contracting parties) have sworn by the names of Sin, Samas, and\nking Eri-Aku. Witnessed by Abu-ilisu the son of Tsili-Istar, Abil-Sin\nthe son of Uruki-bansum, Nur-Amurri the son of Abi-idinnam, Ibku-Urra,\nson of Nabi-ilisu, and Sin-sem\u00ea his brother. The seals of the witnesses\n(are attached).\u2019[69]\n\nStill more insight into the character and procedure of Babylonian\ncommercial law is given by the record of a case of disputed property\nwhich came before the judges in the reign of Khammu-rabi or Amraphel.\nThe following is a translation of it:\u2014\u2018Concerning the garden of\nSin-magir which Naid-Amurri bought for silver, but to which Ilu-bani\nlaid claim on the ground that he had bred horses there. They went before\nthe judges, and the judges took them to the gate of the goddess\nNin-Martu (the mistress of the land of the Amorites), and to the judges\nof the gate of Nin-Martu Ilu-bani thus declared in the gate of\nNin-Martu: I am indeed the son of Sin-magir; he adopted me as his son;\nthe sealed documents (recording the fact) he never destroyed. Thus he\ndeclared, and under (king) Eri-Aku they adjudged the garden and house to\nIlu-bani. Then came Sin-mubalidh and claimed the garden of Ilu-bani; so\nthey went before the judges, and the judges (said): To us and the elders\nthey have been taken, and must stand in the gate of the gods Merodach,\nSussa, Sin, Khusa, and Nin-Martu the daughter of Merodach ... and the\nelders who have already appeared in the case of Naid-Amurri have heard\nIlu-bani declare in the gate of Nin-Martu that \u201cI am indeed the son (of\nSin-magir)\u201d; accordingly, they adjudged the garden and house to\nIlu-bani. Sin-mubalidh cannot come again and make a claim. Oaths have\nbeen sworn by the names of Sin, Samas, Merodach, and king Khammu-rabi.\nWitnessed by Sin-imguranni the noble, Elilka-Sin, Abil-irzitim, Ubarrum,\nZanbil-arad-Sin, Akhiya, Bel-dugul (?), Samas-bani the son of\nAbid-rakhas, Zanik-pisu, Izkur-Ea the major-domo, and Bau-ila. The seals\nof the witnesses (are attached). The 4th day of the month Tammuz, the\nyear when Khammu-rabi the king offered prayers to Tasmit.\u2019[70]\n\nIt is needless to quote other documents of a similar nature, unless it\nbe to add that when a field or garden is sold, the palms and other trees\nplanted in it are carefully specified. So they were also in the case of\nthe field of Machpelah. Here, too, the transaction took place before the\n\u2018elders\u2019 of the city, at \u2018the gate\u2019 through which the people entered,\nand it was duly witnessed by \u2018the children of Heth.\u2019[71] The fact that\n\u2018a stranger and a sojourner\u2019 could thus acquire landed property and hand\nit down to his descendants was in strict accordance with Babylonian law.\nAs the Canaanite in Babylonia could buy land and leave it to his\nchildren, so too the Babylonian in Canaan could do the same. Even the\ntechnical words used in recording the deed of sale are of Babylonian\norigin. The shekel is the Babylonian _siqlu_, and the Babylonian was the\nfirst who spoke of \u2018weighing silver\u2019 in the sense of \u2018paying money.\u2019[72]\nThe statement that the shekels were \u2018current with the merchant\u2019 takes us\nback to those Babylonian \u2018merchants\u2019 who played so great a part in the\nearly Babylonian world. It was for them that Dungi, king of Ur, long\nbefore the birth of Abraham, had fixed the monetary standard which\nremained in use down to the later days of the Chald\u00e6an monarchy. He had\ndetermined by law the weight and value of the maneh, of which the\nsixtieth part was a shekel, and only those manehs and shekels which\nconformed to it could be accepted by the Babylonian trader. The words of\nGenesis are a curious indication of the period of society to which they\nmust belong.[73]\n\nThere was evolution in Babylonian law as in the law of all other\ncountries; and though the early contracts remained a model for those of\na later epoch, their style and form underwent change. The Assyrian and\nlater Babylonian contracts resemble them, it is true, in their main\noutlines; but they have become more complicated, and the older\nphraseology is altered in many respects. The \u2018elders\u2019 no longer appear\nas witnesses; it is no longer needful to try cases of disputed title at\nthe various gates of the city; and it is questionable whether foreigners\ncould claim the same rights in regard to possessions in land that they\ndid in the days of Amraphel and Arioch. The sale of the field of\nMachpelah belongs essentially to the early Babylonian and not to the\nAssyrian period.\n\nIt is only fragments of the life of Abraham that are brought before us\nin the pages of Genesis. They are like a series of pictures which have\nbeen saved from the shipwreck of the past. And the pictures are not\nalways painted in the same colours. At one time the patriarch appears as\n\u2018a mighty prince,\u2019 as a rich and cultured Chald\u00e6an immigrant, with armed\nbands of warriors under him with whom he can venture to attack even the\narmy of the king of Elam. He is the confederate of the Amorite\nchieftains, the prince whom the Hittites of Hebron hear with respect.\nBut at another time the colours on the canvas seem quite different. When\nthe angels warn the patriarch of the approaching overthrow of the cities\nof the plain, they find him in the tent of a Bed\u00e2wi, leading the simple\nlife of an uncultured nomad, and preparing the food of his guests with\nhis own hands. Between this Bed\u00e2wi sh\u00eakh and the companion of the king\nof Gerar or the Pharaoh of Egypt the contrast is indeed great.\n\nTo the Western mind, however, the contrast is greater than it would be\nto the Oriental. The traveller in the East is well acquainted with\nwealthy Bed\u00e2win sh\u00eakhs who live in the desert in barbaric simplicity,\nbut, nevertheless, have their houses at Cairo or Damascus, where they\nindulge in all the luxury and splendour of Oriental life. Moreover, the\nnarratives which have been combined in the book of Genesis do not all\ncome from the same source. Some of them have been taken from written\nhistorical documents which breathe the atmosphere of the cultured city,\nof the educated scribe, and the luxurious court. Others, derived it may\nbe from oral tradition, are filled with the spirit of the wanderer in\nthe desert, and set before us the simple life and rude fare of the\ndweller in tents. The history of the patriarchs is, in fact, like\nJoseph\u2019s coat of many colours. It is a series of pictures rather than a\nhomogeneous whole. The materials of which it is composed differ widely\nin both character and origin. Some of them can be shown to have been\ncontemporaneous with the events they record; some again to have been\nlike the tales of their old heroes recounted by the nomad Arabs in the\ndays before Islam as they sat at night round their camp-fires. The\ndetails and spirit of the story have necessarily caught the colour of\nthe medium through which they have passed. The life of Abraham,\ndoubtless, presented the contrasts still presented by that of a rich\nBed\u00e2wi sh\u00eakh; at one time spent in the wild freedom and privations of\nthe desert; at another amid the luxuries and culture of the town; but\nthe contrasts have been heightened by the difference in the sources\nthrough which they have been handed down. Naturally, while the scribe\nwould record only those phases of Abraham\u2019s history which brought him\ninto contact with the great world of kings and princes, of war and\ntrade, the nomad reciter of ancient stories would dwell rather on such\nparts of it as he and his hearers could understand. For them Abraham\nwould become a desert-wanderer like themselves.\n\nThis difference in the sources of the narrative explains why it is that\nthe figure of Abraham so largely overshadows that of his son Isaac.\nIsaac seems almost swallowed up in that darkness of antiquity through\nwhich the figure of his father looms so largely. Apart from his dispute\nwith Abimelech of Gerar, which reads like a repetition of the dispute\nbetween Abimelech and Abraham, there is little told of the life of Isaac\nwhich is not connected with his more famous father or son. Between\nAbraham and Jacob, the great ancestors of Israel, Isaac seems to\nintervene as merely a connecting link.\n\nBut the life of Isaac was that of a Bed\u00e2wi sh\u00eakh. The other side of his\nfather\u2019s life and character was lost. The forefather of Israel had\nceased to be a Chald\u00e6an, and had become simply a dweller in the desert,\nlike the fugitive slaves from Egypt in after days. Even Hebron was left,\nand the life of Isaac was mainly passed on the northern edge of that\ndesert in which his descendants were in later times to receive the Law.\nIf he approached Canaan, it was only to Beer-sheba and Gerar on the\nsouthern skirts of Canaanitish territory, where the Bed\u00e2win and their\nflocks still claimed to be masters. But his chief residence was further\nsouth, in the very heart of the wilderness.\n\nIsaac was thus essentially a Bed\u00e2wi, a fit type of the phase of life\nthrough which the Israelites were destined to pass before their conquest\nof the Promised Land. With the politics and trade of the civilised\nworld, accordingly, he never came into contact. There was nothing in his\nexistence for the historian to chronicle; nothing which could bring his\nname into the written history of the time. If his memory were to be\npreserved at all, it could be only through the unwritten traditions of\nthe desert, through the tales told of him among the desert tribes.\n\nOnce indeed, it is said, he had relations with a king. The king was one\nof those Canaanitish princelets with whose names the Tel el-Amarna\ntablets are filled. The dominions of Abimelech of Gerar were of small\nextent, and must have been barren in the extreme. The site of Gerar lies\ntwo hours south of Gaza,[74] and the territory of its king extended\neastward as far as Beer-sheba. It was essentially a desert territory:\nduring the greater part of the year the whole country is bare and\nsterile; only after rain does the wilderness break forth suddenly into\ngreen herbage.\n\nIn the story of Isaac\u2019s dispute with Abimelech the writer of Genesis\ncalls him \u2018king of the Philistines,\u2019 and speaks of his subjects as\n\u2018Philistines.\u2019 This, however, is an accommodation to the geography of a\nlater day. In the age of the patriarchs the south-eastern corner of\nPalestine has not as yet been occupied by the Philistine immigrants. We\nhave learned from the Egyptian monuments that they were pirates from the\nislands and coasts of the Greek Seas who did not seize upon the frontier\ncities of Southern Canaan until the time of the Pharaoh Meneptah, the\nson of Ramses II. Up to then, for more than three centuries, the\nfrontier cities had been garrisoned by Egyptian troops, and included in\nthe Egyptian empire. It was not till the period of the Exodus that the\ndistrict passed into Philistine hands, and the old road into Egypt by\nthe sea-coast became known as \u2018the way of the Philistines.\u2019\n\nIn speaking of the \u2018Philistines,\u2019 therefore, the writer of the book of\nGenesis is speaking proleptically. And in reading the narrative of\nIsaac\u2019s dealings with Abimelech by the side of that of Abraham\u2019s\ndealings with the same king, it is difficult to resist the conclusion\nthat we have before us two versions of the same event. Doubtless,\nhistory repeats itself; disputes about the possession of wells in a\ndesert-land can frequently recur, and it is possible that two kings of\nthe same name may have followed one another on the throne of Gerar. But\nwhat does not seem very possible is that each of these kings should have\nhad a \u2018chief captain of his host\u2019 called by the strange non-Semitic name\nof Phichol (Gen. xxi. 22; xxvi. 26); that each of them should have taken\nthe wife of the patriarch, believing her to be his sister; or that\nBeer-sheba should twice have received the same name from the oaths sworn\nover it.\n\nWhen we compare the two versions together, it is not difficult to see\nwhich of them is the more original. It is in the second that Abimelech\nis called \u2018king of the Philistines\u2019; in the first he is correctly\nentitled \u2018king of Gerar.\u2019 Abraham was justified in calling Sarah his\nsister; there was no ground and no reason for Isaac doing the same in\nthe case of his own wife. Moreover, Beer-sheba had already received its\nname from Abraham, who had planted there an _\u00eashel_ or tamarisk, and\n\u2018called on the name of the Lord, the everlasting God.\u2019\n\nThe wife of Isaac was brought from Harran, from the members of Abraham\u2019s\nrace who had settled in Northern Syria, and there become an Aram\u00e6an\nfamily. She was the daughter of Bethuel, \u2018the house of God,\u2019 a proper\nname which is found in the Tel el-Amarna letters, where it also belongs\nto a native of Northern Syria.[75] Bethuel is the older form of Bethel,\nthat anointed stone which, according to Semitic belief, was the special\nresidence of divinity. There was something peculiarly appropriate in\nsuch a name at Harran, where the great temple of the Moon-god, the \u2018Baal\nof Harran,\u2019 was itself a Beth-el on a large scale.\n\nThat Isaac should have lived all his life long in the southern desert,\nand that his name should have been associated with none of the ancient\nsanctuaries of Canaan, Beer-sheba alone excepted, is perhaps curious\nwhen we bear in mind a passage in the prophecies of Amos (vii. 9), where\nit is with Northern Israel and not with Judah that the name of the\npatriarch is connected. Isaac, however, was as much the forefather of\nthe Israelites of Samaria as he was of those of Jerusalem; and the use\nof his name by the prophet shows only that he was no mere Jewish hero,\nbut was regarded as an ancestor of the whole Israelitish nation. For the\nwhole of Israel, Isaac was no less historical than Abraham or Jacob.\n\nThat Isaac\u2019s dwelling-place should have been in the desert of the south\nagrees well with the fact that he was the father of Edom as well as of\nIsrael. He thus lived on the borderland of the two peoples who\nafterwards boasted of their descent from him.\n\nEsau, from whom the Edomites traced their origin, was the elder of his\ntwo twin sons. The name has been connected with that of the Ph\u0153nician\ndeity Usous, but Usous is really the eponymous god of the city of Usu,\nin the neighbourhood of Tyre. Esau took possession of the mountains of\nSeir. Here he partly absorbed, partly destroyed the older races, the\nAmalekites or Bed\u00e2win whose descendants still prowl among the wadis of\nEdom, and the Horites whom a somewhat doubtful etymology would turn into\nTroglodytes or dwellers in caves. Edom itself, the \u2018Red\u2019 land, took its\nname from the red hue of its cliffs. It was a name which went back to a\nremote antiquity, for among the Egyptians also the desert-country which\nstretched away eastward into Edom was known as Desher, \u2018the Red.\u2019 The\npunning etymology in Genesis (xxv. 30) preserves a recollection of the\ntrue origin of the name.\n\nThe territories of Esau extended southward to the head of the Gulf of\nAqaba. Here were the towns of Elath and Eziongeber, through which the\nmerchandise of the Indian Ocean was conveyed northward, enriching the\nmerchants and princes of Edom in its passage through their land. To the\nnorth Edom was in touch with the peoples of Canaan. The wives of Esau,\nwe are told, were \u2018of the daughters of Canaan\u2019 (Gen. xxxvi. 2); one of\nthem at least was Hittite, and another, according to one account (Gen.\nxxvi. 34), bore the name of the \u2018Jewess.\u2019 But other wives were taken\nfrom the tribes of Arabia. Bashemath was the daughter of Ishmael and\nsister of a Nabathean chief, while Aholibamah was the daughter of a\nHorite who belonged to the primeval race of Seir.\n\nLike the Ishmaelites, like the Israelites themselves, it was long before\nthe Edomites submitted to the rule of a king. At first they were divided\ninto tribes, each of them under a sh\u00eakh. In Israel the sh\u00eakhs were\nentitled \u2018judges,\u2019 a title borrowed from the Canaanite population; in\nEdom they bore the name of _al\u00fbphim_, which the Authorised Version\nrenders by \u2018dukes.\u2019[76] The old name still survived down to the time of\nthe Exodus, as we may gather from its use in the Song of Moses (Exod.\nxv. 15). But when the wanderings in the wilderness were almost over, and\nIsrael was preparing to invade Palestine, the \u2018dukes\u2019 of Edom had\nalready been superseded by kings. It was a \u2018king of Edom\u2019 to whom Moses\nsent messengers from Kadesh praying for a \u2018passage through his border,\u2019\nand it was a king of Edom who refused the request. But the ancient\nspirit of independence still lingered; and, as we may gather from the\nextract from the Edomite chronicles preserved in Gen. xxxvi., the\nmonarchy was elective. The son never succeeded the father on the throne,\nthe royal dignity passed from one division of the kingdom to the other,\nand each city in turn became the capital.[77]\n\nThough Esau was the elder, the birthright passed to the younger brother.\nIsraelitish tradition knew of more than one occurrence which accounted\nfor this. It was told how Esau had sold his birthright for a mess of\npottage; it was also told how it had been stolen from him by the craft\nof his brother Jacob. Naturally, the first tradition was more favoured\nin Israel, the second in Edom, and the union of the two in the book of\nGenesis is a proof of the diligence with which the writer of it has\ngathered together all that was known of the past of his people as well\nas the impartiality with which he has used his materials. Perhaps both\nstories owed their preservation to the play upon words which was\nconnected with them. The \u2018red\u2019 pottage served to explain the name of\nEdom, the craft of the younger son the name of Jacob.[78]\n\nUpon the real origin of the latter name, however, recent discovery has\nthrown light. It is the third person singular of a verb, and is formed\nlike numerous names of the same class in Arabic and Assyrian. But the\nthird person singular of a verb implies a nominative, and the nominative\nwas originally a divine name or title. In familiar use the nominative\ncame to be dropped, and the shortened form of the name to be alone\nemployed. The older form of the name Jacob has now been recovered from\nthe monuments of Babylonia and Egypt. Among the Canaanites who appear as\nwitnesses to Babylonian contracts of the age of Khammu-rabi, Mr. Pinches\nhas found a Jacob-el and a Joseph-el, \u2018God will recompense,\u2019 \u2018God will\nadd.\u2019[79] The same names, though written a little differently,[80] are\nmet with in contracts earlier than the time of Moses, which have been\ndiscovered near Kaisariyeh, in Cappadocia, and are inscribed on clay\ntablets in cuneiform characters and in a Babylonian dialect. We can thus\ntrace them from the primitive home of Abraham to the neighbourhood of\nthat Aram\u00e6an district of Northern Mesopotamia in which his father\nsettled.\n\nBut this is not all. Among the places in Palestine conquered by Thothmes\nIII. of the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty, and recorded on the walls of\nhis temple at Karnak, we find a Jacob-el and a Joseph-el. In Canaan,\ntherefore, the names were already current; it may even be that in the\ntown of Jacob-el we have a reminiscence of the patriarch, in Joseph-el a\nconnection with the ancestor of the \u2018House of Joseph.\u2019 At all events,\nthe name of Joseph-el follows immediately after that of the \u2018Har\u2019 or\n\u2018Mountain\u2019 of Ephraim, while that of Jacob-el is placed in the\nneighbourhood of Hebron.[81]\n\nThe name of Jacob-el can be carried still further back than the age of\nThothmes III., further back probably than the age of the patriarch\nhimself. There are Egyptian scarabs which bear the name of a Pharaoh\ncalled Jacob-el. The first part of the name is written just as it would\nbe in Hebrew, and the Pharaoh is given all the titles of a legitimate\nEgyptian king. On one he is \u2018the good God,\u2019 on another \u2018the son of the\nSun,\u2019 and \u2018the giver of life.\u2019 The scarabs belong to the period of the\nHyksos, and in the Pharaoh Jacob-el we must accordingly see one of those\nHyksos conquerors from Asia who ruled over Egypt for so many centuries.\nThere was thus a Jacob in Egypt before the patriarch migrated there, and\nhe belonged to that Hyksos race under whom Joseph rose to the highest\nhonours of the state.[82]\n\nThe shortened form of the name is also found in the Babylonian texts;\nand it is probable that Egibi, the founder of the great banking and\ntrading firm which carried on business in Babylonia down to the time of\nthe Persian kings, had a name which is identical with it. At any rate\nthe older forms of both \u2018Jacob\u2019 and \u2018Joseph\u2019 show that \u2018Isaac\u2019 too must\nbe an abbreviation from an earlier \u2018Isaac-el\u2019 (_Yitskhaq-\u00eal_). \u2018God\nsmileth\u2019 would have been the primitive signification of the word.\n\nThe craft of Jacob was the cause of his flight to his mother\u2019s family in\nPadan-Aram. He thus became that \u2018wandering Aram\u00e6an\u2019 of whom we read in\nDeuteronomy (xxvi. 5). On his way he rested at the great Beth-el of\nCentral Palestine, and there in a vision beheld the angels of God\nascending and descending the steps of limestone that were piled one upon\nthe other to the gates of heaven.[83] There, too, he poured oil upon the\nsacred stone and consecrated it to the deity, and future generations\nrevered it as a veritable Beth-el or \u2018House of God.\u2019\n\nThe name, in fact, we are told, was given to it by Jacob himself. \u2018If I\ncome again to my father\u2019s house in peace,\u2019 he said, \u2018then shall Yahveh\nbe my God: and this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God\u2019s\nhouse; and of all that Thou shalt give me, I will surely give the tenth\nunto Thee.\u2019 The vow was in accordance with a Canaanitish custom which\nhad originally come from Babylonia. From time immemorial the Babylonian\ntemples had been supported by the tenth or tithe, which was levied on\nboth king and people: it was not thought that the gods were asking too\nmuch when they demanded the tenth of the income which had been given to\nman by themselves. Among the Babylonian contract-tablets there are\nseveral which relate to the payment of the tithe as well as to the gifts\nthat were made to a Bit-ili or Beth-el.[84]\n\nJacob\u2019s vow was performed, at least in part, when once more he returned\nto Canaan. Then again \u2018God appeared to him\u2019 and changed the patriarch\u2019s\nname. Then again, too, \u2018he set up a pillar of stone; and he poured a\ndrink-offering thereon, and he poured oil thereon. And Jacob called the\nname of the place where God spake with him Beth-el.\u2019 This second account\nof the naming of the place doubtless comes from a different source from\nthat which recorded Jacob\u2019s dream, and is the account which was known to\nHosea, the prophet of the northern kingdom. Modern critics have alleged\nthat it is inconsistent with the first, and that consequently neither\nthe one nor the other is historical. The compiler of the book of\nGenesis, however, thought otherwise; he has made no attempt to smooth\nover what the European scholar declares to be inconsistencies, and which\ntherefore cannot have seemed inconsistencies to him. The Oriental mode\nof writing history, it must once more be remarked, is not the same as\nours; and as it is with the ancient East that we are now concerned, it\nwould be wiser to follow the judgment of the writer of Genesis than that\nof his European critics.\n\nAt Harran Jacob served his cousin Laban \u2018for a wife, and for a wife he\nkept sheep.\u2019 Such contracts of voluntary service are to be found in the\nBabylonian tablets of the age of Khammu-rabi and his predecessors. It\nwas not at all unusual for a slave to be hired out to another master for\na definite period of time; it sometimes happened that the master himself\nhired out his own services in a similar way.[85] In Babylonia the work\nwas partly pastoral, partly agricultural; the semi-Bed\u00e2wi Jacob was a\nherdsman only. His cousin Laban bore a name which was also that of an\nAssyrian deity; and it may not be a mere coincidence that when\nNabonidos, the last king of Babylonia, restored the great temple of the\nmoon-god at Harran, he tells us that he began the task \u2018by the art of\nthe god Laban, the god of foundations and brickwork.\u2019[86]\n\nThe two daughters of Laban bore names which had a familiar sound to the\near of a herdsman. Rachel means \u2018ewe\u2019; Leah is the Assyrian _li\u2019tu_, \u2018a\ncow.\u2019 It is needless to recount the well-known story of the wooing of\nthe younger daughter, and of the efforts made by Laban to retain Jacob\nin his service and marry both the sisters to him. Craft was met by\ncraft; but in the end the ancestor of Israel proved more than a match\nfor the wily Syrian. His cattle and riches multiplied like the children\nwho were born to him, and a time came when the sons of Laban began to\nview with envy the poor relative who was robbing them of their\npatrimony. So Jacob fled, before harm had come to him, carrying with him\nhis wives and children and all the wealth he had accumulated. Laban\npursued and succeeded in overtaking the heavily-weighted caravan at the\nvery spot where the frontiers of Aram and Canaan met together. There the\ncairn of stones was raised in which later generations saw a memorial of\nthe pact that had been sworn between Jacob and his father-in-law.\nHenceforth the tie with Aram was broken: the wives of Jacob forgot the\nhome of their father and looked to Canaan instead of Aram as the native\nland of their race. Over the cairn of Gilead the forefathers of Israel\nforswore for ever their Aram\u00e6an ties.\n\nBut Rachel had carried with her her father\u2019s teraphim, those household\ngods on whose cult the welfare of the family seemed to depend. What they\nwere like we may gather from the teraphim of David, which Michal placed\non the couch of her husband, and so deceived the messengers of Saul (1\nSam. xix. 13-16). They must have had the shape of a man, and, at all\nevents in the case of those of David, must have also been about a man\u2019s\nsize. Like the ephod and the Urim and Thummim, they were consulted as\noracles (Zech. x. 2), and their use lingered among the Jews as late as\nthe period of the Captivity. When Hosea depicts the coming desolation of\nIsrael, he describes it as a time when \u2018the children of Israel shall\nabide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a\nsacrifice, and without a sacred pillar, and without an ephod and\nteraphim\u2019 (Hos. iii. 4).\n\nThe final break between Jacob and the Aram\u00e6an portion of Terah\u2019s family\nwas marked by a change of name. From henceforth Jacob was to be\ndistinctively the father of the children of Israel. He and his\ndescendants were severed from the rest of their kinsmen whether in\nPadan-Aram, in Edom, or in the lands beyond the Jordan. Abraham had been\nthe \u2018father of many nations\u2019; Jacob was to be the father of but one\u2014of\nthat chosen people to whom the character and worship of Yahveh were\nrevealed.\n\nWe read of him in Hosea (xii. 3, 4), \u2018By his strength he had power with\nGod: yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed.\u2019 What the\nAuthorised Version translates \u2018had power\u2019 is _s\u00e2r\u00e2h_ and _y\u00e2sar_ in\nHebrew. The story of the mysterious struggle is told in full in the book\nof Genesis. The long caravan of Jacob had arrived at length at Mahanaim,\n\u2018the two camps\u2019 by the stream of the Jabbok, and from thence he sent\nmessengers to his brother, who had already established his power in the\nmountains of Seir. In after days the name of the place was connected\nwith the strange occurrence that there befel the patriarch. He was\nvisited by the angels of God, nay, by God Himself. In the visions of the\nnight he wrestled with one whom, when morning dawned, he believed to\nhave been his God. He had seen God, as it were, face to face, and a\npopular etymology saw in the fact an explanation of the name of Peniel.\nWhen Hosea wrote his prophecies, the belief was too well established\nthat man cannot \u2018see God\u2019s face and live,\u2019 and the angel of God\naccordingly takes the place of God Himself. But when the narrative in\nGenesis was composed, a more primitive conception of the Divine nature\nstill prevailed, and no reluctance was felt in stating exactly what the\npatriarch himself had believed. It was God with whom he had struggled,\nand from whom he had extorted a blessing, and a memory of the conflict\nand victory was preserved in the name of Israel, which Jacob henceforth\nbore.\n\nThe etymology, however, is really only one of those plays upon words of\nwhich the Biblical writers, like Oriental writers generally, are so\nfond. It has no scientific value, and never was intended to have any.\nIsrael is, like Edom, not the name of an individual, but of the people\nof whom the individual was the ancestor. The name is formed like that of\nJacob-el, and the abbreviated Jeshurun is used instead of it in the Song\nof Moses.[87] If the latter is correct, the root will not be _s\u00e2r\u00e2h_,\n\u2018he fought,\u2019 or _y\u00e2sar_, \u2018he is king,\u2019 but _y\u00e2shar_, \u2018to be upright,\u2019\n\u2018to direct\u2019; and Israel will signify \u2018God has directed.\u2019 Israel, in\nfact, will be the \u2018righteous\u2019 people who have been called to walk in the\nways of the Lord.\n\nWhile Jacob was keeping the sheep of his Aram\u00e6an father-in-law, Esau was\nmaking a name for himself among the mountains of the Horites. Half\nrobber, half huntsman, he had gathered about him a band of followers,\nand with their help had founded\u2014if not a kingdom\u2014at all events a nation\nto the south of Moab. It is true that the \u2018red\u2019 land he had occupied was\nrocky and barren, but the high-road of commerce from the spice-bearing\nregions of Southern Arabia passed through it, and the plunder or tribute\nof the merchants who travelled along it brought wealth to him and his\nwell-armed Bed\u00e2win. What David did in later days, when he made himself\nthe head of a band of outlaws, and with their assistance eventually\nraised himself to the throne of Judah, had already been accomplished by\nEsau among the barbarians of Seir.\n\nThe message of Jacob led him northward by the desert road which ran to\nthe east of Moab and Ammon. It is clear from the story that Jacob knew\nlittle about his brother\u2019s power. When news was brought that he was\ncoming with a troop of four hundred men, Jacob\u2019s heart sank within him,\nand his only thought was how to save himself and at least a portion of\nhis wealth from the powerful robber-chief. The event proved that his\nprecautions were needless. Esau behaved with a magnanimity which it must\nhave been hard for a Hebrew writer to describe, and pressed his brother\nto accompany him to Seir. Jacob feared to accept the invitation, and\nequally feared to refuse it. With characteristic caution and craft, he\npromised to come, but urged that the cattle and children that were with\nhim made it necessary to follow slowly in Esau\u2019s track. So the Edomite\nchieftain departed, and Jacob took good care to turn westward across the\nJordan into the land of Canaan. There, among the cities and fields of\nthe civilised \u2018Amorite,\u2019 he felt himself secure from the pursuit of the\ndesert tribes.\n\nWas it fear of Esau which kept him in Central Palestine and prevented\nhim so long from venturing near that southern part of the country where\nhis father and grandfather had mainly dwelt? At all events, while\nAbraham had bought land at Hebron, the land purchased by Jacob was near\nShechem. Moreover, it was the \u2018parcel of a field where he had spread his\ntent,\u2019 not a burying-place for his family. It would seem, therefore,\nthat it was intended for a permanent residence; here the patriarch\ndetermined to settle and to exchange the free life of the pastoral nomad\nfor that of a villager of Canaan.[88]\n\nThe field was bought from Hamor the father of Shechem, the founder of\nthe city which was destined to become the seat of the first monarchy in\nIsrael, and on it was raised the first altar consecrated to the God of\nIsrael. El-eloh\u00ea-Israel, \u2018El is the God of Israel,\u2019 the altar was\ntermed, a declaration that the El whom the Canaanites worshipped was the\nGod of Israel as well. But though the field was bought for one hundred\n\u2018pieces of money\u2019\u2014an expression, be it noted, which is not Babylonian\u2014we\nare assured also that Jacob had gained land at Shechem by the right of\nconquest. In blessing Joseph he declared to him that to the tribe of his\nfavourite son there was given \u2018a Shechem above\u2019 his \u2018brethren which\u2019 he\nhad taken \u2018out of the hand of the Amorite with\u2019 his \u2018sword and bow\u2019\n(Gen. xlviii. 22); and the story of the ravishment of Dinah recounts how\nthe sons of the patriarch massacred the men of the city, how they\nenslaved their women and carried away their goods. The terrible tale of\nvengeance was never forgotten; it is alluded to in the Blessing of Jacob\n(Gen. xlix. 5-7), and the disappearance of Simeon and Levi as separate\ntribes was looked upon as a punishment for the deed. It would seem that\nafter the Israelitish conquest of Canaan the population of Shechem\nremained half Canaanite, half Israelite,[89] and the Canaanitish\npopulation would naturally remember with horror and indignation the\ncrime of the sons of Jacob. That the deed should have been attributed to\nthe ancestors of two of the southern tribes instead of to those of\nIssachar or some other tribe of the north is evidence in favour of its\ntruthfulness.\n\nThe sons of Jacob were twelve in number, like the twelve sons of\nIshmael, and corresponded with the twelve tribes of Israel which were\ncalled after their names. And yet the correspondence required a little\nforcing. It is questionable whether, at any one time, there ever were\nexactly twelve Israelitish tribes. In the Song of Deborah Judah does not\nappear at all, Ephraim taking its place and, along with Benjamin,\nextending as far south as the desert of the Amalekites, while Machir is\nsubstituted for Manasseh and Gad. Levi never possessed a territory of\nits own; had it done so, the tribes would have been thirteen in number\nand not twelve. At the same time, it had just as much right to be\nconsidered a separate tribe as Dan, whose cities were in the north as\nwell as in the south, where, however, they were absorbed by Judah; more\nright perhaps than Simeon, which hardly existed except in name. The\nterritory of Reuben lay outside the boundaries of Palestine, and was\nmerely the desert-wadis and grazing-grounds of the kingdom of Moab; the\ncountry can be said to have belonged to the tribe only in the sense that\nthe wadis east of the Delta belong to the Bed\u00e2win, whom the Egyptian\ngovernment at present allows to live in them. Manasseh, lastly, was\ndivided into two halves, in order to bring the number of tribes up to\nthe requisite figure.\n\nIt is clear that the scheme is an artificial one. Israel, after its\nconquest of Canaan, could indeed be divided into twelve separate parts,\nbut such a division was theoretical only. There were no twelve\nterritories corresponding to the parts, while the parts themselves could\nbe reckoned as thirteen, eleven, or ten, just as easily as twelve.\n\nThe conclusion to be drawn from this is obvious. History credited Jacob\nwith twelve sons, and it was consequently necessary to bring the number\nof Israelitish tribes into harmony with the fact. Modern criticism has\namused itself with reversing the history, and assuming that the twelve\nsons of the patriarch owed their origin to the twelve tribes. It has\naccordingly drawn inferences from the fact that some of the sons of\nJacob are said to have been the offspring of concubines, and not of his\ntwo legitimate wives, and that Joseph and Benjamin were the youngest of\nall. But such inferences fall with the assumption that in the twelve\nsons we have merely the eponymous heroes of the twelve tribes. It is a\ncheap way of making history, and, after all, what we know of the tribes\ndoes not fit in with the theory. There is nothing in the history of Dan\nand Naphtali, or Gad and Asher, which would have caused them to be\nregarded of bastard descent, if that bastard descent had not been a\nfact; indeed, in the Song of Deborah, which is almost universally\nallowed to go back to the early age of the Judges, Naphtali and Zebulun\nare placed on exactly the same footing. The distinction between the sons\nof Leah and those of Rachel does not answer to the real cleavage between\nthe tribes of the south and those of the north of Palestine: Benjamin,\nafter the age of Saul, followed Judah and Simeon, while the sons of\nJoseph were joined with Zebulun and Issachar. Moreover, had the sons of\nJacob been mere reflections of the tribes, it would be difficult to\naccount for the existence of Joseph, or to understand why Machir takes\nthe place of Manasseh and Gad in the Song of Deborah.\n\nThe critical theory is the result of introducing Greek modes of thought\ninto Semitic history. The Greek tribe, it is true, traced its origin to\nan eponymous ancestor, but that ancestor was a god or a hero, and not a\nman. Among the Semites, however, as the history of Arabia may still\nteach us, the conception of the tribe was something wholly different.\nThe tribe was an enlarged family which called itself by the name of its\nfirst head. It began with the individual, and to the last styled itself\nhis children. The Greek tribe, on the contrary, began with the clan, and\nits theoretical ancestor, accordingly, was merely the divine personage\nwhose common cult kept it together. In the Semitic tribe there could be\nno cult of its ancestor, for the ancestor was but an ordinary man, who\nworshipped the same form of Baal and used the same rites as his\ndescendants after him.\n\nNevertheless, there may be an element of truth in the \u2018critical\u2019\nassumption. The names of the ancestors of some of the Israelitish tribes\nmay have been the reflex of the later names of the tribes themselves. It\ndoes not follow that the name by which one of the sons of Jacob became\nknown to later generations was actually the name which he bore himself.\nHad Jacob been uniformly called Israel by the Hebrew writers, we should\nnever have known his original name. And it is possible that the name of\nAsher is really a reflex of this kind. The _Travels of the Mohar_,\nwritten in Egypt in the reign of Ramses II. before the Israelitish\nconquest of Canaan, speak of \u2018the mountain of User\u2019 as being in the very\nlocality in which the tribe of Asher was afterwards settled. And in the\ncase of one tribe at least there is evidence that its name must have\nbeen reflected back upon that of its progenitor.\n\nThis is the tribe of Benjamin. In the book of Genesis (xxxv. 18)\nBenjamin is represented as having received two different names at his\nbirth. The statement excites our suspicion, for such a double naming is\ninconsistent with Hebrew practice, and our suspicion is confirmed when\nwe find that both names have a geographical meaning. Benjamin is \u2018the\nson of the South\u2019 or \u2018Southerner\u2019; Ben-Oni, as he is also said to have\nbeen called, is \u2018the son of On,\u2019 or \u2018the Onite.\u2019 On, or Beth-On, it will\nbe remembered, was an ancient name of Beth-el, the great sanctuary and\ncentre of the tribe of Benjamin, while \u2018the Southerner\u2019 was an\nappropriate title for the lesser brother tribe which lay to the south of\nthe dominant Ephraim. It is of Ephraim that Deborah says, in her Song of\nTriumph, \u2018Behind thee is Benjamin among thy peoples\u2019 (Judg. v. 14).\n\nThe etymology suggested in Genesis for the name of Ben-Oni is a sample\nof those plays upon words in which Oriental writers have always\ndelighted, and of which the Hebrew Scriptures contain so many\nillustrations. They all spring from the old confusion between the name\nand the thing, which substituted the name for the thing, and believed\nthat if the name could be explained, the thing would be explained also.\nHence the slight transformations in the form of names which allowed them\nto be assimilated to familiar words, or their identification with words\nwhich obviously gave an incorrect sense. Hence, too, the choice of\netymologies which was offered to the reader: where the real origin of\nthe name was unknown or uncertain, it was possible to explain it in more\nthan one way. Isaiah (xv. 9) changes the name of the Moabite city of\nDibon into Dimon in order to connect it with the Hebrew _d\u00e2m_, \u2018blood,\u2019\nand the writer of Genesis gives two contradictory derivations of the\nname of Joseph (Gen. xxx. 23, 24). The latter fact is of itself a\nsufficient proof of the true value of these etymologies, or rather,\npopular plays upon words, and the sayings in which they are embodied can\nstill be matched by the traveller in the East. Similar embodiments of\npopular etymologising are still repeated to explain the place-names of\nEgypt.[90]\n\nThe origin of some of the names of the sons of Jacob is as obscure to us\nas it was to the writer of Genesis. We do not know, for instance, the\nmeaning and derivation of the name of Reuben. Equally doubtful is the\nreal etymology of the name of Issachar.[91] The name of Simeon is\nalready found among the places in Canaan conquered by the Egyptian\nPharaoh Thothmes III. before the age of Moses, and in Judah we have a\nname which seems to be the same as that of a tribe in Northern\nSyria.[92] Levi, like Naphtali, is a gentilic noun, and must be\nconnected with the _lau\u2019\u00e2(n)_, or \u2018priest\u2019 of Southern Arabia.[93] Gad\nwas the god of good fortune, Dan \u2018the judge,\u2019 the title of certain\nBabylonian deities, and Dinah is the feminine corresponding to Dan.\n\nJacob, ever timorous, fled from Hivite vengeance after the destruction\nof Shechem, forsaking the property he had acquired there by purchase and\nthe sword. He made his way southward to Beth-el, and there rested on the\nedge of the great mountain block of Central Palestine. Hard by was the\ncity of Luz, soon to be eclipsed by the growing fame of the high-place\non the height above it. Here, at Beth-el, an altar was erected by the\npatriarch to the God of the locality who had once appeared to him in a\ndream. It was the prototype of the altar that was hereafter to arise\nthere when Beth-el had become a chief sanctuary of the house of Israel.\nWhether the altar stood on the high-place on the summit of the mountain,\nwhere the Beth-el or column of stone had been consecrated by Jacob, we\ndo not know; there are indications in the prophets, however, that the\nhigh-place and the temple were separate from one another. Indeed, from\nthe words of Genesis, it would seem that the altar and future temple\nwere on the lower slope of the hill, close to the old Canaanitish town.\nHere, at any rate, on the road to the city, was that Allon-bachuth, that\n\u2018Terebinth of Tears,\u2019 which is referred to by Hosea (xii. 4), and is\nconnected in the book of Genesis with the death of Deborah, the nurse of\nRachel. In later days another Deborah dwelt under the shadow of a\npalm-tree on the same road (Judg. iv. 6), and modern critical ingenuity\nhas accordingly discovered that the terebinth and the palm were one and\nthe same tree.\n\nBeth-el, however, was still too near the Hivites of Shechem, and Jacob\ncontinued his journey to the south. The death of Isaac called him to\nHebron, where, for the last time, he met his brother Esau, who came to\ntake part in his father\u2019s burial. But his own residence was at\nBeth-lehem, \u2018the Temple of the god Lakhmu,\u2019 called Ephrath in those\nearly days.[94] Here Rachel died, and here accordingly was raised the\ntombstone which marked her grave down to the day when the book of\nGenesis assumed its present form.[95]\n\nIt was \u2018beyond the tower of Edar,\u2019 the tower of \u2018the Flock,\u2019 that Jacob,\nwe are told, \u2018spread his tent.\u2019 The tower of the Flock guarded the\ncity-fortress of Jerusalem (Mic. iv. 8), and it was therefore between\nJerusalem and Beth-lehem that the patriarch made his home. But his\nflocks were scattered northwards as far as Shechem, grazing on the\nmountain slopes under the charge of his sons. Jacob remained like a\nBed\u00e2wi of to-day living among the settled inhabitants of the country,\nand yet keeping apart from them and sending his flocks far and wide\nwherever there was fresh grass and free pasturage.\n\nIt was while he thus lived that the disgraceful events occurred\nconnected with the marriage of Judah and the Canaanitish Tamar, which\nthrow an evil light on the manners and morals of the patriarch\u2019s family.\nThe whole episode stands in marked contrast to the ordinary character of\nthe history, and its insertion is evidence of the impartiality of the\nwriter. It is clear that he has put together all that reached him from\nthe past history of his people, omitting nothing, modifying nothing. All\nsides of the past are brought before us, the darker as well as the\nlighter, and no attempt is made to spare or condone the forefathers of\nIsrael. It has indeed been asked by an over-sensitive criticism how the\nrecital of such abominations can be consistent with the sanctity claimed\nfor the Mosaic writings. But the question has troubled the minds only of\nthe critics themselves; and not more than three centuries ago the\ncompilers of the Anglican lectionary saw no harm in ordering the chapter\nto be read publicly to men and maidens in church.\n\nThe episode was inserted in the midst of the story of Joseph, one of the\nmost pathetic and touching ever told. We need not repeat its details, or\ndescribe how Joseph, the spoilt darling of his father, dreamed dreams\nwhich aroused the alarm and jealousy of his brothers, how he was sold by\nthem into Egypt, how there he became the vizier of the Pharaoh, and how\neventually Jacob and his family were brought into the land of Goshen,\nthere to enjoy the good things of the valley of the Nile. But the story\nbrings us back again to the great stream of ancient Oriental history;\nonce more the history of Israel touches the history of the world, and\nceases to be a series of idyllic pictures, such as the memory of\nshepherds and Bed\u00e2win might alone preserve.\n\nThe story of Joseph forms a complete whole, distinguished by certain\nfeatures that mark it off from the rest of the book of Genesis. It\ncontains peculiar words, some of them of Egyptian origin,[96] and it\nshows a very minute acquaintance with Egyptian life in the Hyksos age.\nThere are even words and phrases which seem to have been translated into\nHebrew from some other language, and the meaning of which has not been\nfully understood: thus it is said that the cupbearer of Pharaoh \u2018pressed\nthe grapes\u2019 into his master\u2019s goblet instead of pouring the wine; and\nthe word employed to denote an Egyptian official, and translated\n\u2018officer\u2019 in the Authorised Version, properly signifies \u2018eunuch.\u2019 Can\nthe story have been translated from an Egyptian papyrus? The question is\nsuggested by the fact that one of the most characteristic portions of it\nhas actually been embodied in an ancient Egyptian tale. This is the\nso-called _Tale of the Two Brothers_, written by the scribe Enna for\nSeti II. of the nineteenth dynasty while he was crown-prince, and\ntherefore in the age of the Exodus. Here we have the episode of Joseph\nand Potiphar\u2019s wife told in Egyptian form. The fellah Bata takes the\nplace of Joseph; his sister-in-law plays the part of Potiphar\u2019s\nwife.[97]\n\nThis part of the story was therefore known among the literary classes of\nEgypt in the days when Moses was learned in all their wisdom. And if it\nhas been preserved among the few fragments that have been saved from the\nwreck of ancient Egyptian literature, may we not conclude that had the\nwhole of that literature come down to us, other portions of the story of\nJoseph would have been preserved in it as well? There is a gentleness in\nthe character of Joseph which reminds us forcibly of Egyptian manners,\nand offers a sharp contrast to the rough ways and readiness to shed\nblood which distinguished the Hebrew Semite.\n\nAt all events, the story must have been written by one who was well\nacquainted with the age of the Hyksos. It is true that an attempt has\nrecently been made, on the strength of certain proper names, to show\nthat it is not the Egypt of the Hyksos that is described, but the Egypt\nof Shishak and his successors. The names of Potipherah or Potiphar and\nAsenath are said to have been unknown before that date. A couple of\nproper names, however, is an insecure foundation on which to build a\ntheory, more especially when the argument rests upon the imperfections\nof our own knowledge. That no names corresponding in formation to\nPotipherah and Asenath should as yet have been met with earlier than the\ntime of Shishak is no proof that they did not exist. A single example of\neach is sufficient to prove the contrary. And, as a matter of fact, such\nexamples actually occur. A stela of the reign of Thothmes III. records\nthe name of Pe-tu-Baal, \u2018the Gift of Baal,\u2019 as that of the sixth\nancestor of the Egyptian whose name it records;[98] while the Tel\nel-Amarna tablets contain the name of Subanda, the Smendes of Greek\nwriters, which is an exact parallel in form to Asenath.[99] Pe-tu-Baal\nmust have lived at the close of the Hyksos period, and the Semitic deity\nwith whose name his own is compounded indicates that it has been formed\nunder Semitic influence. It was, in fact, as we learn from the Ph\u0153nician\ninscriptions, an imitation of a Canaanitish name.[100] The Hyksos had\ncome from Asia, and had imposed their yoke upon Egypt, where they ruled\nfor more than five hundred years. Though they held all Egypt under their\nsway, they had established their capital at Zoan, now called S\u00e2n, far to\nthe north on the eastern frontier of the Delta. Here they were near\ntheir kinsfolk in Canaan, and could readily summon fresh troops from\nAsia in case of Egyptian revolt.\n\nThe court of the Hyksos Pharaohs, however, soon became Egyptianised.\nThey adopted the arts and science, the manners and customs, of their\nmore cultured subjects, and one of the few scientific works of ancient\nEgypt that have come down to us\u2014the famous _Mathematical Papyrus_\u2014was\nwritten for a Hyksos king. It was only in physiognomy and religion that\nthe Hyksos conqueror continued to be distinguished from the native\nEgyptian.\n\nBesides Zoan, Heliopolis, or \u2018On of the North,\u2019 was a chief centre of\nHyksos power. It was the oldest and most celebrated sanctuary of Egypt,\nwhere ancient schools of learning were established, and from whence the\nreligious system had been disseminated which made the Sun-god the\nsupreme ruler of the universe. The Hyksos had no difficulty in\nidentifying the Sun-god of On with their own supreme deity Sutekh, who\nwas a form of the Canaanitish Baal. On, consequently, once the chief\nseat of the orthodox faith of Egypt, became the centre of foreign\nheresy. The Sallier Papyrus, which describes the origin of the war that\nresulted in the expulsion of the Hyksos, specially tells us that \u2018the\nImpure of (On), the city of Ra, were subject to Ra-Apopi,\u2019 the Hyksos\nPharaoh, and the Egyptians changed into Ra, the Egyptian Sun-god, the\nname of Sutekh, which a scarab of Apopi shows was really prefixed to\nthat Pharaoh\u2019s name.[101] The great temple of the Sun-god of On,\naccordingly, before which Usertesen of the twelfth dynasty had planted\nthe obelisks, one of which remains to this day, was transformed into a\ntemple of the foreign god; and though its high-priest still continued to\nbear his ancient title, and perform the ceremonies of the past, it was\nSutekh and not the native divinity whom he served. Potipherah\u2014in\nEgyptian, Pa-tu-pa-Ra\u2014was a literal translation of the Canaanitish\nMattan-Baal, \u2018the gift of Baal,\u2019 and implied of itself the foreign cult.\n\nPotiphar is an abbreviation of Potipherah, and reminds us of similar\nabbreviations met with in the letters of the Canaanitish correspondents\nof the Pharaoh in the Tel el-Amarna collection. It is an abbreviation\nwhich points to long familiarity with the name on the part of the Hebrew\npeople. The titles, however, given to Potiphar are obscure. The second\nseems to signify \u2018captain of the bodyguard,\u2019 but the first\u2014_saris_ in\nHebrew\u2014means an \u2018eunuch.\u2019 Ebers, it is true, has pointed out that\neunuchs in the East have not only held high positions of state, but have\nmarried wives as well;[102] this, however, has been in Turkey, not in\nancient Egypt. Perhaps the word is the Babylonian _saris_, \u2018an officer\u2019;\nat all events, the Rab-sar\u00ees of 2 Kings xviii. 17 is the Assyrian\nRab-sarisi, or \u2018chief officer.\u2019 That Babylonian words should have made\ntheir way into Egypt in the age of the Hyksos is by no means strange. We\nhave learned from the Tel el-Amarna tablets that Babylonian was for\ncenturies the literary language of Western Asia, and was studied and\nwritten even on the banks of the Nile, while the monuments of Babylonia\nitself have shown that Babylonian culture had made its way to the\nfrontiers of Egypt at a very remote age. The history of Joseph contains\nat least one word which bears testimony to its influence. When Joseph\nwas made \u2018governor over all the land of Egypt,\u2019 the heralds who ran\nbefore his chariot to announce the fact shouted the word \u2018abr\u00eak!\u2019 For\nthis word no explanation can be found either in Hebrew or in Egyptian.\nBut the language of the Babylonian inscriptions has unexpectedly come to\nour aid. In Chald\u00e6a _abarakku_ was the title of one of the highest\nofficers of State, and _abriqqu_, borrowed from the earlier Sumerian\n_abrik_, signified \u2018a seer.\u2019\n\nWe have said that the history of Joseph is marvellously true in all its\ndetails to what arch\u00e6ology has informed us were the facts of Egyptian\nlife. Thus the prison in which \u2018the king\u2019s prisoners\u2019 were confined is\ncalled by the strange name of \u2018the round house.\u2019 Such, at least, would\nseem to be the literal meaning of the Hebrew phrase, the second element\nof which signifies \u2018roundness.\u2019 The word is written _sohar_, though\nthere is evidence of another reading, _sokhar_. _Sohar_ or _sokhar_,\nhowever, is really an Egyptian word. The royal prison at Thebes, where\nthe State prisoners were kept under guard, was: called _suhan_, in which\nwe have the same interchange of final _r_ and _n_ that is still a\ncharacteristic of Egyptian Arabic.[103] The term _b\u00eath has-sohar_, \u2018the\nhouse of the Sohar,\u2019 is found nowhere else in the Old Testament: it is,\nin fact, one of the peculiarities which distinguish the story of Joseph,\nand at the same time testify to the acquaintance of its writer with the\ndetails of Egyptian life.\n\nThe titles of the royal cupbearer and the chief of the bakers have been\nfound in the lists of Egyptian officials; the Pharaoh\u2019s kitchen was\norganised on an elaborate scale;[104] and the Egyptians were famed for\ntheir skill in confectionery and in making various kinds of bread.[105]\nOn the monuments we may see depicted the cupbearer offering the goblet\nof wine, and the baker carrying on his head the baskets filled with\nround \u2018white loaves.\u2019 The \u2018birthday of the Pharaoh\u2019 was a general\nfestival, on which, as the decrees of Rosetta and Canopus have taught\nus, the sovereign proclaimed an amnesty and released such prisoners as\nwere thought deserving of pardon.[106] The dreams that Pharaoh dreamed\nare in full accordance with Egyptian mythology and symbolism. The seven\nkine fitly represent the Nile, which from time immemorial had been\nlikened to a milch-cow. The cow-headed goddess Hathor or Isis watched\nover the fertility of the country, and the fertilising water of the\nriver was called the milk that flowed from her breasts. The number seven\ndenotes the \u2018seven great Hathors,\u2019 the seven forms under which the\ngoddess was adored. The dreams themselves fall in with the Egyptian\nbelief of the age. Throughout Egyptian history they have been a power\nnot only in religion, but in politics as well. It was in consequence of\na dream that Thothmes IV. cleared away the sand from before the paws of\nthe Sphinx, and a thousand years later Nut-Amon of Ethiopia was summoned\nby a dream to invade Egypt. The dreams usually needed an interpreter to\nexplain them, such as is mentioned in a Greek inscription from the\nSerapeum at Memphis. Books, however, had been compiled in which the\nsignification of dreams was reduced to a science; and as in modern\nEgypt, so yet more in the past, men spent their lives in pondering over\nthe signification of the dreams of the night.[107]\n\nEven the statement that the east wind had blasted the ears of corn (Gen.\nxli. 6) betrays an acquaintance with the peculiarities of the Egyptian\nclimate. Those who have sailed up the Nile know that the wind feared\nalike by the peasant and the sailor is that which blows from the\nsouth-east; while the crops of spring are matured by the northern\nbreeze, they are parched and destroyed by the evil wind from the\nsouth-east.\n\nThe golden collar placed around the neck of the royal favourite is\nequally characteristic of Egyptian customs, at all events in the age of\nthe Hyksos and the eighteenth dynasty. \u2018Captain\u2019 Ahmes, whose tomb is at\nEl-Kab, and who took a prominent part in the final struggle which drove\nthe Hyksos strangers out of the Delta, describes the rewards bestowed\nupon him by the Pharaoh for his deeds of valour, and chief among the\nrewards are the chains of gold. Before Joseph was allowed to enter the\npresence of the monarch, he was not only clad in new raiment, but shorn\nas well. This, too, was in accordance with Egyptian custom. None could\nappear before Pharaoh unless they had been freshly shaven, and in the\neyes of the Egyptian not the least part of the \u2018impurity\u2019 of the Asiatic\nSemite was his habit of growing a beard.[108]\n\nThe change of name, moreover, which marked Joseph\u2019s elevation was again\ncharacteristic of Egypt. The monuments have told us of other cases in\nwhich an Asiatic from Canaan, or a Karian from Asia Minor, became an\nEgyptian official, and in so doing was required to adopt an Egyptian\nname.[109] That the name of Zaphnath-paaneah is of Egyptian origin has\nlong been recognised, and that it contains the Egyptian _pa-\u00e2nkh_,\n\u2018life\u2019 or \u2018the living one,\u2019 is clear. It is only over its first elements\nthat discussion is possible.\n\nIt is hardly necessary to notice further points which prove how\nintimately the writer of the history of Joseph was acquainted with\nEgyptian life and manners, language and soil. The Egyptians, he notes,\ncould not eat together with the Hebrews, for that would have been \u2018an\nabomination\u2019 to them. It would, indeed, have defiled them ceremonially,\nand have caused them to participate in the impurity of those whom they\ntermed \u2018the unclean.\u2019 So, too, we read, \u2018every shepherd is an\nabomination to the Egyptians,\u2019 not indeed, as has been imagined, because\nEgypt had been conquered by the \u2018Shepherd\u2019 kings, but because the flocks\nof the Delta were tended partly by Bed\u00e2win, partly by half-caste\nEgyptians, whose unclean habits and unshorn faces were the butt of the\nliterary world. The \u2018marshmen,\u2019 as they were contemptuously called, were\nlooked upon as pariahs.[110]\n\nWhile, however, the narrative is thus thoroughly Egyptian in character,\nthe Egypt it brings before us is the Egypt of the age of the Hyksos.\nChariots and horses have already been introduced. It has been supposed\nthat the horse came with the Hyksos; at all events, there is no trace of\nit before the conquest of the country by the Asiatic stranger. The\nPharaoh, moreover, holds his court in the Delta, not far from the\nCanaanitish border and the land of Goshen; and the waggons which carried\nJacob and his family travelled easily from Beth-lehem to the Egyptian\ncapital. Zoan consequently must still have been the residence of the\nPharaoh; and Thebes, in Upper Egypt, had not as yet taken its place.\n\nThere is one fact, furthermore, which stands out prominently in the\nhistory of Joseph, and points unmistakably to the Hyksos age. We are\ntold that it was his policy which reduced the people of Egypt to the\ncondition of serfs. Pressed by famine, they were compelled by him to\nsell their lands for corn, and to receive it again as tenants of the\nPharaoh, with the obligation of paying him a fifth part of the produce.\nThe priests, or rather, the temples, were alone allowed to retain their\nold possessions; henceforward the land of Egypt was shared between them\nand the king. In the language of modern Egypt, it became either\nGovernment property or _waqf_.\n\nNow, this fact corresponds with a change in the tenure of land which the\nmonuments have informed us must have taken place under the dominion of\nthe Hyksos dynasties. When Egypt was conquered by the Asiatics, it was\ndivided among a number of feudal families who were landowners on a large\nscale, and at times the rivals of the sovereign himself. By the side of\nthis higher aristocracy there was also a lower one, answering in some\nmeasure to the yeomen farmers of the northern counties, but equally\nowners of land. When, however, the Hyksos were finally driven out, a new\nEgypt comes into view. The feudal aristocracy has disappeared\u2014or almost\ndisappeared\u2014along with the other landowners of the country, and the only\nproprietors of land that are left are the Pharaoh and the priests, to\nwhom in after times the military caste was added. Only in Southern\nEgypt, where the struggle against the foreigner first began, do we find\ninstances of private ownership of land, and this, too, only in the\nearlier years of the eighteenth dynasty. Before long the Pharaoh had\nabsorbed into his own hands all the land that had not been given to the\ngods; the old nobility had disappeared, and their place been taken by an\narmy of officials who derived all their wealth and power from the king.\nThe Pharaoh, the priests, and the bureaucracy henceforth are the rulers\nof Egypt.\n\nThis momentous change must have had a cause, but we look in vain for\nsuch a cause in the Egyptian monuments. It has been suggested that the\nWar of Independence may have brought it about by increasing the power of\nthe king as leader in the struggle.[111] But this would not explain his\nabsorption of the land; and even if all the older families had perished\nin the war, which is not very probable, the lesser landowners would have\nremained. Moreover, the generals of the king would in this case have\nclaimed similar spoils to those of their leader. What their commander\nhad seized would have been seized also by the officers under him.\n\nHowever great may be our reluctance to accept the explanation offered by\nthe story of Joseph, certain it is that it is the only adequate\nexplanation forthcoming. And there is one strong argument in its favour.\nUnder Ahmes, the conqueror of the Hyksos and the founder of the\neighteenth dynasty, there are still instances of land being held by\nprivate individuals. But this was at El-Kab, in Upper Egypt, where the\nHyksos rule had long been nominal rather than real, and where it had not\nbeen obeyed at all for three generations previously.[112] As soon as the\neighteenth dynasty kings were established firmly on the throne of the\nHyksos Pharaohs in the north as well as in their ancestral homes in\nSouthern Egypt, even these instances of individual ownership in land\ncame to an end. It was only where the Hyksos supremacy had been weak\nthat they had lingered on. When once the Prince of Thebes had become in\nall respects the successor of the foreign Pharaohs who had reigned at\nZoan, they cease altogether.\n\nThe account of Joseph\u2019s procedure is true to facts in another point\nalso. From the time of the eighteenth dynasty onwards we hear repeatedly\nof the public _larits_ or granaries which were under State control.[113]\nThe peasantry were required to contribute to them yearly in a fixed\nproportion, and the corn stored up in them was only sold to the people\nin case of need. It was out of these granaries, furthermore, that many\nof the Government officials were paid in kind, as well as the workmen\nemployed by the State. The office of \u2018superintendent of the granaries\u2019\nwas therefore a very important one: once each year he presented to the\nking an \u2018account of the harvests of the south and the north\u2019; and if the\naccount was exceptionally good, if the inundation had been abundant and\nthe harvest better than \u2018for thirty years,\u2019 his grateful sovereign would\nthrow chains of gold around his neck.[114] The origin of these royal\ngranaries and of the office of their superintendent which thus\ncharacterise the \u2018new empire\u2019 of Egypt is explained by the history of\nJoseph.\n\nBefore the days when the conquests of the eighteenth dynasty had created\nan Egyptian empire in Asia, and brought foreign supplies of food to\nEgypt, the rise of the Nile was a matter of vital interest. The very\nexistence of the people depended upon it. Too high a Nile meant\nscarcity, too low a Nile famine. It was only when the river rose to its\nnormal level and overflowed the fields at the stated time that the heart\nof the agriculturist was gladdened, and he knew that the gods had given\nhim a year of plenty.\n\nThe seven years\u2019 famine of Joseph\u2019s age is not the only seven years\u2019\nfamine which Egypt has had to endure. El-Makr\u00eez\u00ee, the Arabic historian\nof Egypt, describes one which lasted for seven years, from A.D. 1064 to\n1071, and, like that of Joseph, was caused by a deficient Nile. A stela\ndiscovered by Mr. Wilbour on the island of Seh\u00eal, in the middle of the\nFirst Cataract, and engraved in the time of the Ptolemies, similarly\nrecords a famine that was wasting the country because \u2018the Nile-flood\nhad not come for seven years.\u2019[115] And it is possible that a memorial\nof the famine of Joseph has been discovered by Brugsch in one of the\ntombs of El-Kab. Here the dead man, a certain Baba, is made to say,\n\u2018When a famine arose, lasting many years, I issued out corn to the\ncity.\u2019 Baba must have lived in the latter part of the Hyksos domination,\nso that the date of his inscription would agree with that of\nJoseph.[116]\n\nWhether the power of Joseph and his master would still have extended as\nfar south as El-Kab in the age of Baba, we do not know. But we do know\nthat a famine which prevailed in Lower Egypt in consequence of a low\nNile would have equally prevailed in the Thebaid. It would not, however,\nhave prevailed in Canaan. In Canaan the ground is watered, not by the\nNile, but by the rains of heaven, and in Canaan, therefore, it was only\na want of rain that could have caused a scarcity of food.\n\nFamines, indeed, did occur in Palestine from time to time, and we hear\nof Egyptian kings sending corn to that country to supply its needs.[117]\nAs Egypt was the granary of Italy in the days of the Roman Empire, so\ntoo it had been the granary of Western Asia in an earlier age. A dry\nseason in Canaan brought famine in its train; and if that dry season\ncoincided with a deficient Nile in Egypt, there was no other land to\nwhich its inhabitants could look for food. It is quite possible that one\nof these famines in Canaan may have happened at the very time when the\nNile refused to irrigate the fields of Egypt. When, however, we read\nthat \u2018the famine was over all the face of the earth,\u2019 and that \u2018all\ncountries came into Egypt to Joseph to buy corn because the famine was\nsore in all lands,\u2019 it is evident that the narrative has been written\nfrom an Egyptian point of view. The Egyptians might have supposed that\nwhen a low Nile produced a scarcity of food all other countries would\nequally suffer\u2014such, indeed, was the case with Ethiopia\u2014but a\nsupposition of the kind is inconceivable in the mind of a Canaanite. An\ninhabitant of Palestine knew that the crops of his country were\ndependent on the rain, not on the waters of the Nile; it was only the\nEgyptian who modelled the rest of the world after that part of it which\nwas known to him.\n\nHere, then, we have a clear indication that the story of Joseph must\nhave been written in Egypt, and further probability is added to the\ntheory that it has been translated into Hebrew from an Egyptian\noriginal. But more than this. Is it likely that the Hebrew translator,\nif he had been acquainted with the climate of Canaan, would have left\nthe words of the story just as we find them? Can we imagine that the\nlanguage he employed about the extent of the famine would have been so\ndefinite, so comprehensive, so Egyptian in character? Like the Egyptian\nwords embodied in the narrative, it points to a writer or translator who\nlived in Egypt, and not in Canaan.\n\nWho was the Pharaoh under whom Joseph became the first minister of the\nState? Chronology shows that he must have been one of the kings of the\nlast Hyksos dynasty. George the Syncellus makes him Aphophis, Apopi\nRa-aa-kenen, or Apopi II. of the monuments, and the date would suit very\nwell.[118] Apopi II. was the last powerful Hyksos sovereign. His\nauthority was still obeyed in Upper Egypt, but it was in his reign that\nthe War of Independence broke out. According to the story in the Sallier\nPapyrus, it was caused by his message to the _hiq_ or vassal prince of\nThebes, requiring him to renounce the worship of Amon of Thebes and\nacknowledge Sutekh, the Hyksos Baal, as his supreme god.[119] The war\nlasted for four generations, and ended in the expulsion of the\nforeigner.\n\nBut long before this took place the family of Israel was settled in the\nland of Goshen, on the outskirts of Northern Egypt. The geographical\nposition of Goshen has been rediscovered by Dr. Naville. It corresponded\nwith the modern Wadi Tumil\u00e2t, through which the traveller by the railway\nnow passes on his way from Ismail\u00eeyeh to Zagazig. It took its name from\nQosem or Qos, the Pha-kussa of Greek geography, and the capital of the\nArabian nome, the site of which is marked by the mounds of Saft\nel-Hennah.[120] The very name of the \u2018Arabian nome\u2019 indicates that its\noccupants belonged to Arabia rather than to Egypt. It was, in fact, a\ndistrict handed over to the Bed\u00e2win by the Pharaohs, as it still is\nto-day. Meneptah, the son of Ramses II., says in his great inscription\nat Karnak that \u2018the country around Pa-Bailos (now Belbeis, near Zagazig)\nwas not cultivated, but left as pasture for cattle, because of the\nstrangers. It was abandoned since the time of the ancestors.\u2019[121]\nAbandoned, that is to say, by the Egyptians themselves. But the Semitic\nnomad pitched his tent and fed his flocks there, partly because it was\non the road to his own country and countrymen, partly because it was\nfitted for grazing and not for agriculture. Here, too, he was not in\nimmediate contact with the Egyptian fellah, though the court of the\nHyksos Pharaoh at Zoan was nigh at hand.\n\nJoseph\u2019s brethren were made overseers of the royal cattle, an official\npost of which we also hear in the native Egyptian texts. After a while,\nJacob died, full of years, and his body was embalmed in the Egyptian\nfashion. The actual process of embalming occupied forty days, the whole\nperiod during which \u2018the Egyptians mourned for him,\u2019 being threescore\nand ten. The statement is in accordance with other testimony as to the\nlength of time needed to embalm a mummy. Herodotos (ii. 86) states that\nthe corpse was kept in natron during seventy days, \u2018to which period they\nare strictly confined.\u2019 According to Diodoros,[122] \u2018oil of cedar and\nother things were applied to the whole body for upwards of thirty days,\u2019\nthe full period during which the mourning for the dead and the\npreparation of his mummy lasted being seventy-two days. Between the age\nof Joseph and that of Diodoros it would seem that little change had\ntaken place in this part, at any rate, of the Egyptian treatment of\ntheir dead. When, however, the Hebrew text states that the corpse was\nembalmed by \u2018the physicians, the slaves\u2019 of Joseph; the word\n\u2018physicians\u2019 must be understood in a restricted sense. Pliny,[123] it is\ntrue, avers that during the process of embalming physicians were\nemployed to examine the body of the dead man and determine of what\ndisease he had died. But the _paraskhist\u00e6_, who made the needful\nincision, were regarded with the utmost abhorrence; they were the\npariahs of society, who lived in a community apart. It was the embalmers\nwho were the associates of the priests, and whose persons, in the words\nof Diodoros, were looked upon as \u2018sacred.\u2019 Nor is it easy to see who\ncould have been the physicians who were the \u2018slaves\u2019 of the Hebrew\nvizier. The physician in Egypt was usually a free man, who followed a\nprofession which brought with it honour and respect. The doctor belonged\nto the learned classes, and, like the scribe, had no mean opinion of his\nworth and dignity. But such physicians were employed in healing the\nsick, not in embalming the dead, and must have stood in a very different\nposition from that of Joseph\u2019s \u2018slaves.\u2019 More light is still wanted on\nthe subject from monumental sources; in spite of the papyri which\ndescribe the ceremonies attendant on the various acts of the embalmment,\nwe are still ignorant of its practical details.\n\nWhen at last the days of mourning were past, Joseph spoke, we are told,\nto \u2018the house of Pharaoh.\u2019 The expression is purely Egyptian, and refers\nto the signification of the word \u2018Pharaoh\u2019 itself. Pharaoh, the Egyptian\nPer-\u00e2a, is the \u2018Great House\u2019; \u2018the son of the Sun-god\u2019 was too highly\nexalted to be spoken of as a man, and it was therefore to \u2018the Great\nHouse\u2019 that his subjects addressed themselves. Modern Europe is familiar\nwith a similar phrase; when we allude to the \u2018Sublime Porte\u2019 we mean the\nTurkish Sultan, who once administered justice from the \u2018High Gate\u2019 of\nhis palace.\n\nJacob was buried in the cave of Machpelah. A long procession of soldiers\nand mourners, partly in chariots, partly on foot, accompanied the mummy\non its way out of Egypt. Such a procession was no unusual thing. The\nwealthy Egyptian desired to be buried near the tomb of Osiris at Abydos,\nand it was therefore not unfrequently the custom to convey his mummy in\nsolemn procession to that sacred spot, and then to carry it back once\nmore to its own final resting-place. The procession which accompanied\nthe body of the patriarch must have followed the high-road which led\nthrough the Shur, or line of fortification on the eastern border of the\ndesert, and brought the traveller with little difficulty to Southern\nPalestine. The reference in the narrative to the threshing-floor of\nAtad, on the eastern side of the Jordan, is an interpolation, which\nembodies merely a local etymology. The chariot-road from Egypt to\nPalestine naturally never ran near the Jordan; and the threshing-floor\nof Atad would have been far out of the way. But popular imagination had\nseen in the name of Abel-Mizraim, where the threshing-floor was\nsituated, a \u2018mourning of Egypt,\u2019 and had accordingly connected it with\nthe great mourning that was made for Jacob. As a matter of fact,\nhowever, Abel-Mizraim really signifies \u2018the meadow of Egypt,\u2019 _abel_, \u2018a\nmeadow,\u2019 being a not uncommon element in the geographical names of\nancient Canaan.[124]\n\nTwo sons had been born to Joseph by his Egyptian wife, whom the\nIsraelites knew by their Hebrew names. They had been born before the\ndeath of his father, and had thus received his blessing. Joseph himself\nlived \u2018an hundred and ten years.\u2019 This was the limit of life the\nEgyptian desired for himself and his friends, and in the inscriptions\nthe boon of a life of \u2018an hundred and ten years\u2019 is from time to time\nasked for from the gods. It is the term of existence a court poet\npromises to Seti II. \u2018on earth,\u2019 and Ptah-hotep, the author of \u2018the\noldest book in the world,\u2019 who flourished in the days of the fifth\ndynasty, assures us that, thanks to his pursuit of wisdom he had already\nattained the age.[125]\n\nJoseph was embalmed, but his mummy was not carried to Hebron for burial,\nlike that of his father. If Apopi II. had been the Pharaoh who had\ntransformed him from a Hebrew slave into the highest of Egyptian\nofficials, the War of Independence must have broken out long before his\ndeath. The Hyksos dynasty was hastening to its decay. Its strength had\ndeparted from it, and the Pharaohs of Zoan, who had lost all power in\nUpper Egypt, would still more have lost all power in Asia. Their\nsoldiers were needed for other purposes than that of escorting the\ncoffin of the dead vizier across the desert of El-Arish. Moreover,\nJoseph was an Egyptian official, and by his marriage into the family of\nthe high priest of Heliopolis had become as much of an Egyptian as his\nHyksos master. We are told that he made the Israelites swear to carry\nhis corpse with them should they ever return to Palestine; the triumph\nof the Theban princes was growing more assured, and Joseph knew well\nthat the vengeance of the victorious party would be wreaked upon the\ndead as well as upon the living. The history of Egypt had already shown\nthat the tomb and the mummy were the first to suffer.\n\nA change of sepulchre was no unheard-of thing. King Ai of the eighteenth\ndynasty had two, if not three, tombs made for himself, and the mummy\ncould be transported from one place of burial to another. All knew where\nit was interred; year by year offerings were made to the spirit of the\ndead, and in many cases the estate of the deceased was taxed to support\na line of priests who should perform the stated services at the tomb. As\nlong as the sepulchre of Joseph was in the neighbourhood of his people\nit would have been easy to protect his mummy from violence, and to carry\nthe coffin out of Egypt when the needful time should come.\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  See Brugsch, _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, Eng. tr., second edit., ii.\n  p. 134.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  _Records of the Past_, new ser., v. pp. 66 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  Thus in an Assyrian hymn (K 890), published by Dr. Br\u00fcnnow in the\n  _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, July 1889, we have (line 8) _istu pan\n  Khabiriya iptarsanni \u00e2si_, \u2018from the face of my confederates he has\n  cut me off, even me.\u2019\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  _Records of the Past_, new ser., vi. p. 39.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  Thus Kharbi-Sipak, a Kassite or Koss\u00e6an, from the western mountains of\n  Elam, is called a \u2018Khabir\u00e2\u2019 (W. A. I. iv. 34, 2, 5). The name is\n  probably connected with that of Khapir or \u00c2pir, originally applied to\n  the district in which Mal-Amir is situated, south-east of Susa, but\n  afterwards in the Persian period extended to the whole of Elam (see my\n  memoir on the _Inscriptions of Mal-Amir_ in the Transactions of the\n  Sixth Oriental Congress at Leyden, vol. ii.). Kharbi-Sipak himself,\n  however, seems to have been employed by the Assyrian king in Palestine\n  in the neighbourhood of the cities of Arqa and Zaqqal (Hommel in the\n  _Proceedings_ of the Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology, May 1895, p.\n  203).\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  W. A. I. ii. 50, 51 (where Khubur is said to be a synonym of Subarti).\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  W. A. I. ii. 51, 4.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  Hommel, _The ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the\n  Monuments_, pp. 196, 245-262, 323-327; Glaser in the _Mittheilungen_\n  of the Vorderasiatische Gesellschaft, ii. 1897.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  K 3500.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  That _Ebir-n\u00e2ri_ signified the country west of the Euphrates in the\n  later days of Babylonian history is shown by a contract-tablet, dated\n  in the third year of Darius Hystaspis, and translated by Peiser\n  (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, iv. p. 305), in which mention is\n  made of \u2018Ustanni, the governor of Babylon and Ebir-n\u00e2ri\u2019 (line 2).\n  Meissner (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Alttestament_, _Wissenschaft_, xvii.) has\n  pointed out that Ustanni is the Tatnai of Ezra, v. 3, 6; vi. 6, 13,\n  who is there called the \u2018governor of the land beyond the river\u2019\n  (_\u2019Abar Nahara_).\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  See Hilprecht, _The Babylonian Expedition of the University of\n  Pennsylvania_, i. 2, p. 31.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  An inscription of Sargon recently published by M. Dangin (_Revue\n  S\u00e9mitique_, April 1897) states that \u2018the governor\u2019 of the subjugated\n  Amorites was Uru-Malik, where the name of Malik or Moloch is preceded\n  by the determinative of divinity. Uru-Malik, which is an analogous\n  formation to Uriel, Urijah, Melchi-ur (or Melchior), etc., shows that\n  what we call Hebrew was already the language of Canaan. The\n  inscription has been found at Tello in Southern Chald\u00e6a.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  Zabsali, also written Savsal(la) or Zavzal(la), probably represents\n  the Zuzim or Zamzummim of Scripture. See my article in the\n  _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology_, February 1897, p.\n  74.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  We possess a list of the kings of Babylonia, divided into dynasties,\n  from the first dynasty of Babylon, to which Khammu-rabi belonged, down\n  to the time of the fall of Nineveh. The number of years reigned by\n  each king is stated, as well as the number of years each dynasty\n  lasted. But, unfortunately, the compiler has forgotten to say what was\n  the duration of the dynasty to which Nabonassar (B.C. 747) belonged;\n  and as the tablet is broken here, the regnal years of most of the\n  kings who formed the dynasty have been lost. There are, however, a\n  good many synchronisms between the earlier period of Babylonian\n  history and that of Assyria, and by means of these the chronology has\n  been approximately restored. We can also test the date of Khammu-rabi\n  in the following way. We learn from Assur-bani-pal that\n  Kudur-Nankhundi, king of Elam, carried off the image of the goddess\n  Nana from the city of Erech 1635 years before his own conquest of\n  Elam, and therefore 2280 B.C. As Eri-Aku boasts of his capture of\n  Erech, and as he was assisted in his wars by his Elamite kinsmen, it\n  seems probable that the capture of the image by Kudur-Nankhundi was\n  coincident with the capture of the city by Eri-Aku.\n\n  The discovery of Mr. Pinches has been supplemented by that of Dr.\n  Scheil, who has found letters addressed by Khammu-rabi to Sin-idinnam\n  of Larsa, in which mention is made of the Elamite king\n  Kudur-Laghghamar. Sin-idinnam had been driven from Larsa by Eri-Aku\n  with the help of Kudur-Laghghamar, and had taken refuge at the court\n  of Khammu-rabi in Babylon. Fragments of other letters of Khammu-rabi\n  are in the possession of Lord Amherst of Hackney (see _inf._ pp. 27,\n  28).\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n  The name of Khammu-rabi himself is written Ammu-rabi in Bu. 88-5-12,\n  199 (_Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum_,\n  Part 2).\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  _Records of the Past_, new ser., iii. p. xvi.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  Hommel, _Geschichte des alten Morgenlandes_, p. 62, _The Ancient\n  Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, p. 96.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  Published by Budge, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, iii. 3, pp. 229,\n  230.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  The text, which is on a stela found in the ruined temple of Isis at\n  the south-east corner of the great pyramid of Gizeh, is now in the\n  Cairo Museum. It has been published by M. Daressy in the _Recueil des\n  Travaux relatifs \u00e0 la Philologie et \u00e0 l\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie \u00e9gyptiennes et\n  assyriennes_ (xvi. 3, 4, 1894), and is dated in the third year of king\n  Ai. It follows from the inscription that \u2018the domain called that of\n  the Hittites\u2019 lay to the north of the great temple of Ptah, and\n  immediately to the south of two smaller temples built by Thothmes I.\n  and Thothmes IV. In the time of Herodotos there was a similar district\n  assigned to the Ph\u0153nicians, and known as \u2018the Camp of the Tyrians,\u2019 on\n  the south side of the temple of Ptah (see my _Egypt of the Hebrews and\n  Herodotos_, p. 251).\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n  Amurru, \u2018the Amorite god,\u2019 was a name which had been given by the\n  Sumerians, the earlier population of Chald\u00e6a, to the Syrian Hadad whom\n  the Babylonians identified with their Ramman or Rimmon (cf. Zech. xii.\n  11). A cuneiform text published by Reisner (_Sumerisch-babylonische\n  Hymnen nach Thontafeln griechischer Zeit_, p. 139, lines 141-144)\n  couples Amurru, \u2018the lord of the mountains,\u2019 with Asratu, the\n  Canaanitish Asherah, \u2018the lady of the plain.\u2019 Asratu is identified\n  with the Babylonian Gubarra.\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n  W. A. I. v. 12, 47.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n  W. A. I. v. 33, i. 37.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n  _Padanu_ also had the meaning of \u2018path.\u2019 Whether this is derived from\n  the other or belongs to a different root is questionable. But in the\n  sense of \u2018path,\u2019 _padanu_ was a synonym of Kharran.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n  This does not imply that the population which founded the kingdom of\n  Mitanni, and probably came from the mountains of Komag\u00ean\u00ea or of Ararat\n  in the north, was unknown in early Babylonia. In fact, one of the\n  _Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets_, published by the British\n  Museum in 1896 (Bu. 91-5-9, 296), contains the names of \u2018the governor\u2019\n  Akhsir-Babu and other witnesses to a contract, most of which are\n  Mitannian.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n  I have given the tablet in transliteration in the _Proceedings_ of the\n  Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology, Nov. 1883, p. 18. The passage reads:\n  \u201814-\u00bd shekels of lead we have weighed in _nakhur_.\u2019\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n  See Sachau, _Die altaram\u00e4ische Inschrift auf der Statue des K\u00f6nigs\n  Panammu von Sam-al_ and _Aram\u00e4ische Inschriften_ in the _Mittheilungen\n  aus den orientalischen Sammlungen d. K. Museums zu Berlin_, ix., and\n  the _Sitzungsberichte der K. preussischen Akademie der\n  Wissenschaften_, xli. (1896).\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n  See my _Races of the Old Testament_, pp. 110-117, and H. G. Tomkins in\n  the _Journal_ of the Anthropological Institute, Feb. 1889.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n  In a report of an eclipse of the moon sent to an Assyrian king in the\n  eighth century B.C., the countries of \u2018the Amorites and the Hittites\u2019\n  represent the whole of Western Asia (R. F. Harper, _Assyrian and\n  Babylonian Letters_, Part iv. p. 345).\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n  The discovery of the name of Shakama or Shechem in the _Travels of the\n  Mohar_ is due to Dr. W. Max M\u00fcller (_Asien und Europa_, p. 394).\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n  Or II., according to Maspero, who makes three Hyksos sovereigns of\n  this name.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n  It is in the possession of Mr. John Ward.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n  See my _Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monument_, pp. 160,\n  161.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n  Recent discoveries have made it clear that the Amraphel of Genesis is\n  the Khammu-rabi of the cuneiform texts. Khammu-rabi is also written\n  Ammu-rabi (Bu. 88-5-12, 199, l. 17), and Dr. Lindl has pointed out\n  that the final syllable of Amraphel is the Babylonian _ilu_, \u2018god,\u2019 a\n  title which is frequently attached to the name of Khammu-rabi. We\n  learn from the Tel el-Amarna tablets that in the pronunciation of\n  Western Asia a Babylonian _b_ often became _p_.\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n  Pinches, _Certain Inscriptions and Records referring to Babylonia and\n  Elam_, a paper read before the Victoria Institute, Jan. 7, 1896; see\n  also Hommel, _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition_, pp. 180 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n  Some Assyriologists interpret Manda as \u2018much\u2019 or \u2018many\u2019; in this case\n  Umman Manda, \u2018much people,\u2019 will be still more literally the Hebrew\n  _Goyyim_.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n  Dr. Scheil, the discoverer of the letters of Khammu-rabi to\n  Sin-idinnam which are now in the Museum at Constantinople, gives the\n  following translations of them (_Recueil de Travaux relatifs \u00e0 la\n  Philologie et \u00e0 l\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie \u00e9gyptiennes et assyriennes_, xix. 1, 2,\n  pp. 40-44): (1) \u2018To Sin-idinnam Khammu-rabi says: I send you as a\n  present (the images of) the goddesses of the land of Emutbalum as a\n  reward for your valour on the day (of the defeat) of Kudur-Laghghamar.\n  If (the enemy) trouble you, destroy their forces with the troops at\n  your disposal, and let the images be restored in safety to their (old)\n  habitations.\u2019 (2) \u2018To Sin-idinnam Khammu-rabi says: When you have seen\n  this letter, you will understand in regard to Amil-Samas and\n  Nur-Nintu, the sons of Gisdubba, that if they are in Larsa, or in the\n  territory of Larsa, you will order them to be sent away, and that a\n  trusty official shall take them and bring them to Babylon.\u2019 (3) \u2018To\n  Sin-idinnam Khammu-rabi says: As to the officials who have resisted\n  you in the accomplishment of their work, do not impose upon them any\n  additional task, but oblige them to do what they ought to have done,\n  and then remove them from the influence of him who has brought them.\u2019\n  All three letters were found at Senkereh, the ancient Larsa. Fragments\n  of some other letters of Khammu-rabi are in the possession of Lord\n  Amherst of Hackney. See above, p. 12.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n  Nicolaus of Damascus, in Josephus _Antiq._ i. 7, 2.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n  See my _Patriarchal Palestine_, pp. 160, 165. The figure and name of\n  the god Salimmu, written in cuneiform characters, are on a gem now in\n  the Hermitage at St. Petersburg. The same god, under the name of\n  Shalman, is mentioned on a stela discovered at Sidon, and under that\n  of Selaman\u00eas in the inscriptions of Sh\u00eakh Barak\u00e2t, north-west of\n  Aleppo (Clermont-Ganneau, _\u00c9tudes d\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie orientale_ in the\n  _Biblioth\u00e8que de l\u2019\u00c9cole des Hautes \u00c9tudes_, cxiii. vol. ii. pp. 36,\n  48; Sayce in the _Proceedings_ of the Society of Biblical Archeology,\n  xix. 2. p. 74).\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n  As Professor Hommel says (_Expository Times_, Nov. 1896, p. 95), \u2018The\n  \u201cMighty King\u201d cannot possibly be the Pharaoh.\u2019 But he seems to me to\n  introduce an unnecessary element of complication into the subject by\n  supposing that in the Tel el-Amarna letters the epithet has been\n  transferred to the king of the Hittites from the supreme god of\n  Jerusalem, to whom it properly belonged. It is true that in a letter\n  of the governor of Ph\u0153nicia (Winckler und Abel, No. 76, l. 66) the\n  title is given to the king of the Hittites, but it does not follow\n  that the king of Jerusalem employs it in the same way.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n  It should be noticed that, according to Hesykhios (_s. v._), \u2018the most\n  high God\u2019 of the Syrians was Ramas, that is, Ramman or Rimmon, who was\n  identified with the sun-god Hadad, the supreme deity of Syria. The\n  Babylonians called him Amurru \u2018the Amorite.\u2019\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n  Pietschmann, _Geschichte der Ph\u00f6nizier_, p. 115. The suggestion was\n  first made by von Bunsen.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n  For a possible explanation of the origin of the practice, see H. N.\n  Moseley in the _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, vi. 4, p.\n  396. Bastian gives another in his description of the practice among\n  the Polynesians (_Anthropologie der Naturv\u00f6lker_, vi. pp. 40, 41).\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n  A brilliant suggestion of Professor Hommel, however, may prove to be\n  the true explanation of the mysterious name. In the Min\u00e6an\n  inscriptions of Southern Arabia a long _\u00e2_ is constantly denoted in\n  writing by _h_; and Abraham, therefore, may be merely the Min\u00e6an mode\n  of writing Abram. If so, this would show that the Hebrew scribes were\n  once under the influence of the Min\u00e6an script, and that portions of\n  the Pentateuch itself may have been written in the letters of the\n  Min\u00e6an alphabet (Hommel, _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition_, pp. 275-277).\n  Dr. Neubauer has suggested to me that this also may be the explanation\n  of the name of Aaron (_Ahar\u00f4n_), which, like Ab-raham, has no\n  etymology. Aaron would be the graphic form of \u00c2ron, an Arabic name\n  which appears as Aran in the genealogy of the Horites (Gen. xxxvi.\n  28).\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n  See Berger, _L\u2019Arabie avant Mahomet d\u2019apr\u00e8s les Inscriptions_ (1885),\n  pp. 27, 28.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n  D. H. M\u00fcller, _Epigraphische Denkm\u00e4ler aus Arabien_ (1889), p. 13.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n  Thus we have _anuki_ \u2018I,\u2019 Heb. _anochi_; _badiu_ \u2018in his hand,\u2019 Heb.\n  _b\u2019yado_; _akharunu_ \u2018after him,\u2019 Heb. _akharono_; _rusu_ \u2018head,\u2019 Heb.\n  _rosh_; _kilubi_ \u2018cage,\u2019 Heb. _chel\u00fbb_; _har_ \u2018mountain,\u2019 Heb. _har_.\n\n  See my _Patriarchal Palestine_, p. 247.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n  On the question of the site of Mizpah of Gilead, see G. A. Smith, _The\n  Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, pp. 586, 587.\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n  _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_ in _Mittheilungen aus den orientalischen\n  Sammlungen_, xi. (1893).\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n  _Records of the Past_, new ser., v. pp. vi, vii.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n  Dussaud (_Revue Arch\u00e9ologique_, iii. xxx. p. 346) states that\n  according to the Ansar\u00eeyeh of the Gulf of Antioch the \u2018Yudi\u2019 or\n  Hebrews formerly occupied their country, and constructed the ancient\n  monuments found in it, one of which is called after the name of\n  Solomon. For Neubauer\u2019s suggestion that the Dinhabah of Gen. xxxvi. 32\n  is identical in name with the Dunip or Tunip of Northern Syria, see\n  further on.\n\n  Hoffmann (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, xi. p. 210) maintains that\n  the origin of the Aramaic dialects is to be sought in a Bed\u00e2win\n  language allied to that of the Arabs and Sab\u00e6ans, which underwent\n  intermixture with Canaanitish (or Ph\u0153nician) through the settlement of\n  its speakers in a Canaanitish country.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n  In Assyrian letters of the Second Empire mention is made of the\n  Nabathean \u00c2-kamaru, the son of Amme\u2019te\u2019, and the Arabian Ami-li\u2019ti,\n  the son of Ameri or Omar (Harper, _Assyrian and Babylonian Letters_,\n  iii. p. 262; iv. p. 437).\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n  It is stated in Deut. xxiii. 4 that Balaam was hired from \u2018Pethor of\n  Aram Naharaim,\u2019 not only by the Moabites, but by the Ammonites as well\n  (though it is true that in the Hebrew text the word _s\u00e2kar_, \u2018hired,\u2019\n  is in the singular). It may be noted that the mother of Rehoboam,\n  whose name is compounded with that of Am or Ammi (compare Rehab-iah, 1\n  Chron. xxiii. 17), was an Ammonitess (1 Kings xiv. 21). For a full\n  discussion of the name of \u2019Ammi or \u2019Ammu, and the historical\n  conclusions which may be deduced from it, see Hommel, _The Ancient\n  Hebrew Tradition_, pp. 89 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n  The name of Carchemish is usually written Gargamis in the cuneiform\n  inscriptions (Qarqamish in the Egyptian hieroglyphs), but\n  Tiglath-pileser I. (W. A. I. i. 13, 49) calls it \u2018Kar-Gamis\u2019 (the\n  Fortified Wall of Gamis) \u2018in the land of the Hittites,\u2019 and from the\n  Hebrew spelling in the Old Testament we may gather that Gamis was\n  identified with the Moabite Chemosh. In Babylonian tablets of the age\n  of Ammi-zadoq mention is made of a wood Karkamis\u00fb or \u2018Carchemishian\u2019\n  (Bu. 88-5-12, 163, line 11; 88-5-12, 19, line 8). It may be noted that\n  the name \u2018Jerab\u00ees,\u2019 sometimes assigned to the site of Carchemish\n  instead of Jerabl\u00fbs, is, according to the unanimous testimony of\n  English and American residents in the neighbourhood, erroneous.\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n  See _Records of the Past_, new ser., v. p. 45.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n  For the identity of the Zuzim with the Babylonian Zavzala, see my note\n  in the _Proceedings_ of the Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology, xix. 2,\n  pp. 74, 75.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n  See above, p. 21.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n  See above, p. 20.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n  We owe the term \u2018Eurafrican\u2019 to Dr. Brinton (see his _Races and\n  Peoples_, 1890, Lecture iv.). For the relationship of the Libyan and\n  the Kelt, see my Address to the Anthropological Section of the British\n  Association, 1887.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n  The expression \u2018mountain of the Amorites,\u2019 which we meet with in Deut.\n  i. 7, 19, takes us back to Abrahamic times. One of the campaigns of\n  Samsu-iluna, the son and successor of Khammu-rabi or Amraphel, was\n  against \u2018the great mountain of the land of the Amorites\u2019 (_kharsag gal\n  mad Martu-ki_, Bu. 91-5-9, 333; _Rev._ 19).\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n  See my _Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_, p. 41; D.\n  H. M\u00fcller, _Epigraphische Denkm\u00e4ler aus Arabien_, p. 8 (the Min\u00e6an\n  inscriptions of El-Oela, south of Teima, are given pp. 21 _sqq._).\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n  Philo Byblius in his work \u2018On the Jews,\u2019 as quoted by Eusebius (_Pr\u00e6p.\n  Evang._ i, 10), stated that \u2018Kronos, whom the Ph\u0153nicians call El, the\n  king of the country, who was afterwards deified in the planet Saturn,\n  had an only son by a nymph of the country called An\u00f4bret. This son was\n  named Yeud, which signifies in Ph\u0153nician an only son. His country\n  having fallen into distress during a war, Kronos clothed his son in\n  royal robes, raised an altar, and sacrificed him upon it.\u2019 In his\n  account of the Ph\u0153nician mythology, the same writer describes the\n  sacrifice a little differently: \u2018A plague and a famine having\n  occurred, Kronos sacrificed his only son to his father the Sky,\n  circumcised himself, and obliged his companions to do the same\u2019\n  (Euseb. _l. c._).\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n  _Records of the Past_, new ser., v. p. 49, No. 81.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n  _L\u2019Imagerie Ph\u00e9nicienne_ (1880), p. 105.\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n  Which may also be read _ayyal_ or \u2018hart.\u2019\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n  See my _Races of the Old Testament_, pp. 130 _sq._\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n  See my _Races of the Old Testament_, pp. 127, 132, where a photograph\n  is given of Professor Flinders Petrie\u2019s cast of the Ashkelon profiles.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n  _Black Obelisk_, lines 60, 61, compared with _Monolith Inscription_,\n  ll. 90-95.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n  One _feddan_ or acre contained 1800 _sari_ (Reisner in the\n  _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_, xi. 4, p. 421). The area was not\n  great, though it was calculated that not more than 120 _sari_ could be\n  ploughed by a single ox.\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n  Published by Strassmaier in the Transactions of the Fifth Oriental\n  Congress, ii. 1, _Append._ pp. 14, 15; a translation will be found in\n  Peiser\u2019s _Altbabylonische Urkunden in the Keilschriftliche\n  Bibliothek_, iv. p. 7. The tablet was found at Tel-Sifr.\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n  Published by Meissner, _Beitr\u00e4ge zum altbabylonischen Privatrecht_,\n  No. 43 (with corrections by Pinches); a translation is given by\n  Peiser, _Keilschriftliche Bibliothek_, iv. pp. 23-25.\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n  Gen. xxiii. 18. The Hebrew expression \u2018In the presence of\u2019 is the same\n  as that which is translated \u2018Witnessed by\u2019 in the Babylonian\n  documents.\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n  Babylonian _shaq\u00e2lu kaspa_, Hebrew _sh\u00e2qal [eth-hak-] keseph_.\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n  According to Professor Flinders Petrie, the heavy maneh or mina as\n  fixed by Dungi and restored by Nebuchadrezzar weighed 978,309 grammes.\n  An example of it is now in the British Museum. See Lehmann in the\n  _Verhandlungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft_, 1893, p. 27.\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n  The identification is, however, doubtful, since only potsherds of the\n  Roman period are visible at Umm Jer\u00e2r, which, moreover, according to\n  Palmer (_Name-lists_ in the _Survey of Western Palestine_, p. 420), is\n  merely Umm el-Jerr\u00e2r, \u2018the mother of water-pots.\u2019\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n  Beti-ilu (Winckler\u2019s _Tel el-Amarna Letters_, Nos. 51, 125) is\n  associated with Tunip and the country of Nukhass\u00ea. The reading of the\n  name is not quite certain, however, as it may be transcribed Batti-ilu\n  or Mitti-ilu. A Babylonian of the Abrahamic age also has the name of\n  Beta-ili.\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n  The title seems to have been of Horite origin (see Gen. xxxvi. 21, 29,\n  30).\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n  It is noticeable that the Edomite leader who was carried captive to\n  Egypt by Ramses III. after he had destroyed \u2018the tents\u2019 of \u2018the Shasu\n  in Seir,\u2019 is entitled \u2018chieftain,\u2019 and not \u2018king.\u2019 There is a portrait\n  of him on the walls of Med\u00eenet Habu at Thebes.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n  For another explanation of the name, see Gen. xxv. 26; Hos. xii. 3.\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n  Jacob-el is written Ya\u2019akub-ilu; Joseph-el, Yasupu-ilu and Yasup-il,\n  which is found in a list of slaves of the same early age (Bu. 91-5-9,\n  324). In the same list mention is made of land belonging to Adunum,\n  the Heb. _adon_, and to Nakha-ya, which is a parallel formation to the\n  Heb. Noah. In a tablet dated in the reign of Zabium, the founder of\n  the dynasty to which Khammu-rabi or Amraphel belonged, we find the\n  name of Ya-kh-ku-ub-il, _i.e._ Ya\u2019qub-il (Bu. 91-5-9, 387).\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n  Iqib-ilu and Asupi-ilu.\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n  See _Records of the Past_, new ser., v. pp. 48, 51.\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n  One of the scarabs of Ya\u2019qob-el is in the Egyptian Museum of\n  University College, London. _El_ is written _h(a)l_.\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n  On the summit of the hill above Beit\u00een, the ancient Beth-On or\n  Beth-el, the strata of limestone rock take the form of vast steps\n  rising one above the other.\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n  Cf. the article of Mr. Pinches on \u2018Gifts to a Babylonian Bit-ili\u2019 in\n  the _Babylonian and Oriental Record_, ii. 6.\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n  See, for example, Peiser, _Texte juristischen und gesch\u00e4ftlichen\n  Inhalts_ (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, iv.), p. 49, No. iii.,\n  where Ubarum hires himself out to Ana-Samas-litsi for a month, for\n  half a shekel of silver.\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n  _Records of the Past_, new ser., v. p. 169.\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n  Deut. xxxii. 15. See also Deut. xxxiii. 5, 26; Isa. xliv. 2.\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n  According to immemorial tradition, the site of the field is marked by\n  Jacob\u2019s Well (S. John iv. 6). Dr. Masterman in the _Quarterly\n  Statement_ of the Palestine Exploration Fund, April 1897, gives for\n  the first time a satisfactory explanation why this deep well, which is\n  often dry in summer, should have been sunk in the neighbourhood of a\n  number of springs:\u2014\u2018The springs have probably always belonged to the\n  townsfolk (since they became settled); and, in the case of any\n  wandering tribes with considerable flocks among them, it is\n  exceedingly probable that the more settled inhabitants would first\n  resent and then resist the new-comers marching twice daily into their\n  midst to water their flocks at their springs, Probably any experienced\n  nomad with such flocks, accustomed to such a country as this, would\n  know pretty surely where he might, from the conformation of the hills,\n  expect to find water. If, then, a quarrel arose, what more probable\n  than that he should seek to make himself independent of these\n  disagreeable neighbours. Further, if we can accept the tradition, we\n  have, in the story of Jacob, two special facts connected with this:\n  firstly, he bought a piece of ground on which he could make a well for\n  himself; and then we gather from Genesis xxxiv. that his family made\n  themselves sufficiently obnoxious to the Shechemites to make it very\n  necessary for Jacob to be independent of their permission to use their\n  springs.\u2019\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n  Cf. Gen. xlix. 14, 15. The Hebrew word rendered \u2018two burdens\u2019 by the\n  Authorised Version in v. 14 should be translated \u2018sheepfolds,\u2019 as it\n  is in Judg. v. 16.\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n  Thus the ancient Abshek, the Abokkis of classical geography, has\n  become Abu Simbel, or \u2018father of an ear of corn\u2019; and Silsila is said\n  to have derived its name from a \u2018chain\u2019 or _silsila_ stretched across\n  the Nile from the rocks on either bank, though it really has its\n  origin in the classical Silsilis, the Coptic Joljel or \u2018barrier.\u2019\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n  In the list of Thothmes III. the name of Nekeb of Galilee (Josh. xix.\n  33) is followed by that of Ashushkhen, which may be compared with\n  Issachar, since the interchange of final _n_ and _r_ is not uncommon.\n  But the substitution of _kh_ for _k_ (_ch_) is difficult to account\n  for.\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n  Shm\u00e2na is the thirty-fifth name in the Palestine list of Thothmes, and\n  follows the name of Chinnereth (Josh. xix. 35; comp. also Shm\u00e2nau, No.\n  18. See Tomkins in _Records of the Past_, new series, v. pp. 44, 46).\n  One of the Tel el-Amarna tablets (W. and A. ii., No. 39) mentions \u2018the\n  Yaudu\u2019 in the neighbourhood of Tunip, now Tennib, north-west of\n  Aleppo. The name of the Jews is written in the same way in the\n  cuneiform texts, though the Yaudu of the Tel el-Amarna tablets are\n  probably to be identified with the land of Ya\u2019di, which the\n  inscriptions of Sinjerli place in Northern Syria. But it is noticeable\n  that the Tel el-Amarna correspondence makes Kinza a district near\n  Kadesh on the Orontes, close to the Lake of Homs, and Kinza is letter\n  for letter the Biblical Kenaz. The Kenizzites, it will be remembered,\n  formed an integral part of the later tribe of Judah.\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n  Hommel, _Aufs\u00e4tze und Abhandlungen sur Kunde der Sprachen, Literaturen\n  und der Geschichte des vorderen Orients_ (1890), p. 31.\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n  The Rev. H. G. Tomkins (_Quarterly Statement_ of the Palestine\n  Exploration Fund, April 1885) first pointed out the true signification\n  of the name of Beth-lehem, Lakhmu was one of the primeval gods of\n  Chald\u00e6an religion.\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n  The village of Rachel, which was probably where the stone stood, is\n  referred to in 1 Sam. xxx. 29.\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n  _E.g._ _Ye\u00f4r_, \u2018river,\u2019 Egyptian _aur_; _akhu_, \u2018herbage on the river\n  bank\u2019 (Gen. xli. 2), Egyptian _akhu_; _rebid_, \u2018collar,\u2019 Egyptian\n  _repit_. See Ebers, _Aegypten und die B\u00fccher Mose\u2019s_, pp. 337-339.\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n  See my _Egypt of the Hebrews and Herodotos_, pp. 25 _sq._\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n  See Tomkins, _Life and Times of Joseph_, p. 184.\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n  Asenath is probably Nes-Nit, \u2018Attached to Neith,\u2019 as Subanda is\n  Nes-Bandid, \u2018Attached to Bandid.\u2019\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n  Mattan-Baal. The corresponding Hebrew name is Mattaniah.\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n  A translation of the Sallier Papyrus is given by Maspero in the\n  _Records of the Past_, new series, ii. pp. 37 _sq._ For the scarab of\n  \u2018Sutekh-Apopi\u2019 see Maspero\u2019s _Struggle of the Nations_ (Eng. tr.), p.\n  vii. The names of Beth-On or Beth-el in Canaan, and of On near\n  Damascus (Amos i. 5), indicate a connection with the cult of the\n  Sun-god at On in Egypt. On in the \u2018Beka\u2019\u2019 of Damascus is probably the\n  Heliopolis of Syria, to which the worship of Ra of Heliopolis of Egypt\n  was brought in the reign of the Pharaoh Senemures (Macrobius,\n  _Saturnal._ i. 23, 10).\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n  _Aegypten und die B\u00fccher Mose\u2019s_, p. 299.\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n  Maspero, _The Struggle of the Nations_, p. 271, note 5.\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n  Cf. Brugsch, _Aegyptologie_, pp. 218 _sq._\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n  Ebers, _Aegypten und die B\u00fccher Mose\u2019s_, pp. 323-333.\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n  Ebers, _l.c._, pp. 335, 336.\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n  See Wiedemann, _Religion der alten Aegypter_, pp. 142-144. The\n  _khartumm\u00eem_ and _khak\u00e2m\u00eem_ (Authorised Version, \u2018magicians\u2019 and \u2018wise\n  men\u2019) seem to correspond with the Egyptian _kherhebu_, \u2018interpreters\n  of the sacred books,\u2019 and _rekhu khetu_, \u2018wise men.\u2019\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n  See Tomkins, _Life and Times of Joseph_, p. 44; Erman, _Life in\n  Ancient Egypt_ (Eng. tr.), p. 439.\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n  Mariette, _Abydos_, p. 421 (Ben-Mazan from Bashan becomes\n  Ramses-em-per-Ra); Daninos-Pasha and Maspero in the _Recueil de\n  Travaux relatifs \u00e0 la Philologie et \u00e0 l\u2019 Arch\u00e9ologie \u00e9gyptienne et\n  assyrienne_, xii. p. 214; and Sayce in the _Academy_, 1891, p. 461.\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n  See Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_ (Eng. tr.), p. 439.\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n  See Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_ (Eng. tr.), pp. 102, 103.\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n  Thus \u2018Captain\u2019 Ahmes had land given him according to his biographical\n  inscription, ll. 22, 24; see Brugsch, _Egypt under the Pharaohs_ (Eng.\n  tr.), second edit. i. p. 249.\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n  See Virey in _Records of the Past_, new ser., iii. pp. 7 _sqq._ There\n  were similar public granaries in Babylonia called _sutummi_, under the\n  charge of an officer who bore the title of _satammu_, and the\n  institution was probably introduced into Egypt from Asia.\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n  Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_ (Eng. tr.), p. 108.\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n  See Brugsch\u2019s translation of the inscription in his _Die biblischen\n  sieben Jahre der Hungersnoth_ (1891).\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n  See Brugsch, _Egypt under the Pharaohs_ (Eng. tr.), 2nd edit., i. pp.\n  262, 263. \u2018Captain\u2019 Ahmes, who took part in the War of Independence\n  under Ahmes I., calls himself the son of Abana, and traces his descent\n  to his \u2018forefather Baba.\u2019 In Abana, Maspero (_The Struggle of the\n  Nations_, p. 85) sees the Semitic Ab\u00eena, \u2018Our father.\u2019\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n  Thus in the Tel el-Amarna tablets, Rib-Hadad, the governor of\n  Ph\u0153nicia, asks the Pharaoh to send corn to Gebal, as the crops there\n  had failed (Winckler and Abel, No. 48, ll. 8-19), and Meneptah sent\n  corn to the Hittites when they suffered from a famine (Brugsch, _Egypt\n  under the Pharaohs_, Eng. tr., 2nd edit., ii. p. 119).\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n  According to Abulfarag (_Chron._ p. 14), Joseph became Vizier in the\n  seventeenth year of the reign of Apopi. Maspero (_Struggle of the\n  Nations_, pp. 59, 107) makes Apopi Ra-aa-kenen the third of the name.\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n  See Maspero\u2019s translation in _Records of the Past_, new ser., ii. pp.\n  37 _sq._\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n  E. Naville, _Goshen and the Shrine of Saft el-Hennah_, Fourth Memoir\n  of the Egypt Exploration Fund (1887), pp. 14 _sq._\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n  See Naville, _Goshen_, p. 26.\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n  _Bibl. Hist._, i. 91.\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n  N. H. xix. 5.\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n  Abel-Mizraim may be the Abel that is mentioned in connection with the\n  \u2018gardens,\u2019 the \u2018tilth,\u2019 and the \u2018spring\u2019 of Carmel of Judah in the\n  list of places in Canaan conquered by Thothmes III. (No. 92). Another\n  Abel is mentioned two names earlier (No. 90).\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n  See Virey\u2019s translation in _Records of the Past_, new ser., iii. p.\n  34.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER II\n                   THE COMPOSITION OF THE PENTATEUCH\n\n\n    The Literary Analysis and its Conclusions\u2014Based on a Theory and an\n    Assumption\u2014Weakness of the Philological Evidence\u2014Disregard of the\n    Scientific Method of Comparison\u2014Imperfection of our Knowledge of\n    Hebrew\u2014Arch\u00e6ology unfavourable to the Higher Criticism\u2014Analysis of\n    Historical Sources\u2014Tel el-Amarna Tablets\u2014Antiquity of Writing in the\n    East\u2014The Mosaic Age highly Literary\u2014Scribes mentioned in the Song of\n    Deborah\u2014The Story of the Deluge brought from Babylonia to Canaan\n    before the time of Moses\u2014The Narratives of the Pentateuch confirmed\n    by Arch\u00e6ology\u2014Compiled from early Written Documents\u2014Revised and\n    re-edited from time to time\u2014Three Strata of Legislation\u2014Accuracy in\n    the Text\u2014Tendencies\u2014Chronology.\n\n\nThe book of Genesis ends with the death of Joseph. When the five books\nof the Pentateuch were divided from one another we do not know. The\ndivision is older than the Septuagint translation, older too than the\ntime when the Law of Moses was accepted by the Samaritans as divinely\nauthoritative. As far back as we can trace the external history of the\nPentateuch, it has consisted of five books divided from one another as\nthey still are in our present Bibles.\n\nAn influential school of modern critics has come to conclusions which\nare difficult to reconcile with this external testimony. Instead of the\nPentateuch it offers us a Hexateuch, the Book of Joshua being added to\nthose of Moses, and of the origin and growth of this Hexateuch it\nprofesses to be able to give a minute and mathematically exact account.\nVery little, if any of it, we are told, goes back to the period of\nMoses, the larger part of the work having been composed or compiled in\nthe age of the Exile. It is true, the theories of criticism have changed\nfrom time to time; what was formerly held, for instance, to be the\noldest portion of the Hexateuch being now regarded as the latest; but\neach generation of critics has been equally confident that its own\nliterary analysis was mathematically correct. At present the\nhypothetical scheme most in favour is as follows.\n\nThe earliest part of the Hexateuch, at all events in its existing form,\nis a document distinguished by the use of the name Yahveh, and sometimes\ntherefore termed Yahvistic or Jehovistic, but more usually designated by\nthe symbol J. The Yahvist is supposed to have been a Jew who made use of\nolder materials, and lived in the ninth century B.C. His work begins\nwith \u2018the second\u2019 account of the Creation, in the middle of the fourth\nverse of the second chapter of Genesis, and the last trace of it is to\nbe found in the story of the death and burial of Moses at the end of\nDeuteronomy. His style is said to be na\u00efve and lively, and his\nconceptions of the Deity grossly anthropomorphic.\n\nNext in order to the Yahvist comes the Second Elohist (symbolised by the\nletter E), whose title is derived from the period, not very far distant,\nin the history of criticism, when what is now known as the Priestly Code\nwas assigned to a First Elohist. The Elohist is characterised by the use\nof the word Elohim, \u2018God,\u2019 rather than Yahveh, and the critics have\ndiscovered in him a native of the northern kingdom. To him belong the\n\u2018Ten Words\u2019 which represent the original form of the Ten Commandments,\nas well as the history of Joseph. He is said to have written with a\ncertain theological tendency, to which is due his predilection for\nintroducing dreams and angels into his narrative. His date is ascribed\nto the eighth century B.C., and the combination of his narrative with\nthat of the Yahvist (J.E.) produced a composite work to which the name\nof Prophetic or Pre-Deuteronomic Redaction has been applied. The\nRedactor endeavoured to reconcile the contradictions between the two\nnarratives by various harmonistic expedients; his success was not great,\nand the nineteenth century critic accordingly believes himself able not\nonly to separate the two original documents, but to point out the\nadditions of the Redactor as well.\n\nContemporaneous with this work of redaction was the appearance of a new\nbook, the so-called Book of the Covenant. This was of small dimensions;\nat any rate, all that remains of it is contained in a few chapters of\nExodus (xx. 24-xxiii. 33, xxiv. 3-8). It was added, however, to the\nProphetic Redaction, and the Mosaic Law for the first time was\nintroduced to the world.\n\nBut now appeared a book which was of momentous consequences for both the\nhistory and the religion of Judah. This was the book of Deuteronomy, or\nrather the middle portion of the book of Deuteronomy (chaps. xii-xxvi.),\nthe rest of the book being a subsequent addition. This abbreviated\nDeuteronomy, it is assumed, is \u2018the book of the Law\u2019 which Hilkiah the\nhigh priest declared he had \u2018found in the house of the Lord\u2019 in the\nreign of Josiah, and it is further assumed that the word \u2018found\u2019 is\nintended to cover a \u2018pious fraud.\u2019 The Egyptian inscriptions mention\nbooks of early date which had been similarly \u2018found\u2019 in the temples, and\nsome of these books really seem to have been forgeries of a later\ndate.[126] Modern criticism has determined that Hilkiah and his friends\nimitated the example of the Egyptian priests in the case of Deuteronomy.\nAt all events, the results were instantaneous and revolutionary. The\nking and his court believed that they had before them the actual\ncommands of their God to the great lawgiver of Israel, and the Jewish\nreligion underwent accordingly a radical reform. Nor did the effect of\nthe supposed discovery end here. Like the forged Decretals in medi\u00e6val\nEurope, the book of Deuteronomy had a continuous and wide-reaching\ninfluence upon Jewish thought. Its teaching was matured during the\nExile, and out of it grew that form of Jewish religion of which\nChristianity was the heir. The book of Deuteronomy (symbolised by D) in\nthe first as well as in the second or enlarged edition belongs to the\nlatter part of the seventh century B.C. But the Hexateuch was still far\nfrom complete. During the Exile a book of the Law, now contained in Lev.\nxvii.-xxvi., was written and promulgated, the author, it appears, having\nbeen incited to his work by Ezekiel\u2019s ideal of a theocratic state. This\nbook of the Law was followed by a far more ambitious production, the\n\u2018Priestly Code\u2019 (generally known as P, and not unfrequently called the\n\u2018Grundschrift\u2019 by German writers). The Priestly Code embodies what\nearlier critics knew as the work of the First Elohist; it not only in\nthe name of Moses shapes the ritual and religion of Israel to the\nadvantage of the priests, but it attempts to trace the history of the\nrevelation which resulted in that religion back to the Creation itself.\nThe name of Elohim is again a distinguishing feature in the narrative,\nwhich is described by the \u2018critics\u2019 as formal and pedantic, as\naffectedly archaistic, and as disfigured by a strong theological\ntendency. Wellhausen and Stade assure us that it transforms the\npatriarchs into pious Jews of the Exile. And yet it was just this\nnarrative, which we are now told bears so plainly on its face the marks\nof its late age and sacerdotal character, that hardly twenty years ago\nwas declared by the critics themselves to be the oldest portion of the\nHexateuch!\n\nBy this time the Hexateuch was nearly ready to become the Pentateuch,\nwhich should be read by Ezra before the Jewish community as \u2018the law of\nGod\u2019 (Nem. viii. 8), and be accepted by the hostile Samaritans as alone\nauthoritative among the sacred books of Israel. All that was needed\nfurther was to combine the existing books into a whole, smoothing over\nthe inconsistencies between them and supplying links of connection. The\n\u2018final Redactor\u2019 who accomplished this task lived shortly after the\nExile, and has been identified with Ezra by some of the critics. Whoever\nhe was, he was naturally more in harmony with the spirit and ideas of\nthe Priestly Code than he was with those of the Prophetic Redaction, or\neven of Deuteronomy; indeed, it is hard to understand why he should have\ntroubled himself about the Prophetic Redaction at all. Between the\nJewish religion of the days of Asa or Jehoshaphat and that of the period\nafter the Exile a great gulf was fixed.\n\nIt is clear that if the modern literary analysis of the Pentateuch is\njustified, it is useless to look to the five books of Moses for\nauthentic history. There is nothing in them which can be ascribed with\ncertainty to the age of Moses, nothing which goes back even to the age\nof the Judges. Between the Exodus out of Egypt and the composition of\nthe earliest portion of the so-called Mosaic Law there would have been a\ndark and illiterate interval of several centuries. Not even tradition\ncould be trusted to span them. For the Mosaic age, and still more for\nthe age before the Exodus, all that we read in the Old Testament would\nbe historically valueless.\n\nSuch criticism, therefore, as accepts the results of \u2018the literary\nanalysis\u2019 of the Hexateuch acts consistently in stamping as mythical the\nwhole period of Hebrew history which precedes the settlement of the\nIsraelitish tribes in Canaan. Doubt is thrown even on their residence in\nEgypt and subsequent escape from \u2018the house of bondage.\u2019 Moses himself\nbecomes a mere figure of mythland, a hero of popular imagination whose\nsepulchre was unknown because it had never been occupied. In order to\ndiscredit the earlier records of the Israelitish people, there is no\nneed of indicating contradictions\u2014real or otherwise\u2014in the details of\nthe narratives contained in them, of enlarging upon their chronological\ndifficulties, or of pointing to the supernatural elements they involve;\nthe late dates assigned to the medley of documents which have been\ndiscovered in the Hexateuch are sufficient of themselves to settle the\nquestion.[127]\n\nThe dates are largely, if not altogether, dependent on the assumption\nthat Hebrew literature is not older than the age of David. A few poems\nlike the Song of Deborah may have been handed down orally from an\nearlier period, but readers and writers, it is assumed, there were none.\nThe use of writing for literary purposes was coeval with the rise of the\nmonarchy. The oldest inscription in the letters of the Ph\u0153nician\nalphabet yet discovered is only of the ninth century B.C., and the\nalphabet would have been employed for monumental purposes long before it\nwas applied to the manufacture of books. As Wolf\u2019s theory of the origin\nand late date of the Homeric Poems avowedly rested on the belief that\nthe literary use of writing in Greece was of late date, so too the\ntheory of the analysts of the Hexateuch rests tacitly on the belief that\nthe Israelites of the age of Moses and the Judges were wholly\nilliterate. Moses did not write the Pentateuch because he could not have\ndone so.\n\nThe huge edifice of modern Pentateuchal criticism is thus based on a\ntheory and an assumption. The theory is that of \u2018the literary analysis\u2019\nof the Hexateuch, the assumption that a knowledge of writing in Israel\nwas of comparatively late date. The theory, however, is philological,\nnot historical. The analysis is philological rather than literary, and\ndepends entirely on the occurrence and use of certain words and phrases.\nLists have been drawn up of the words and phrases held to be peculiar to\nthe different writers between whom the Hexateuch is divided, and the\nportion of the Hexateuch to be assigned to each is determined\naccordingly. That it is sometimes necessary to cut a verse in two,\nsomewhat to the injury of the sense, matters but little; the necessities\nof the theory require the sacrifice, and the analyst looks no further.\nGreat things grow out of little, and the mathematical minuteness with\nwhich the Hexateuch is apportioned among its numerous authors, and the\nlong lists of words and idioms by which the apportionment is supported,\nall have their origin in Astruc\u2019s separation of the book of Genesis into\ntwo documents, in one of which the name of Yahveh is used, while in the\nother it is replaced by Elohim.[128]\n\nThe historian, however, is inclined to look with suspicion upon\nhistorical results which rest upon purely philological evidence. It is\nnot so very long ago since the comparative philologists believed they\nhad restored the early history of the Aryan race. With the help of the\ndictionary and grammar they had painted an idyllic picture of the life\nand culture of the primitive Aryan family and traced the migrations of\nits offshoots from their primeval Asiatic home. But anthropology has\nrudely dissipated all these reconstructions of primitive history, and\nhas not spared even the Aryan family or the Asiatic home itself. The\nhistory that was based on philology has been banished to fairyland. It\nmay be that the historical results based on the complicated and\ningenious system of Hexateuchal criticism will hereafter share the same\nfate.\n\nIn fact, there is one characteristic of them which cannot but excite\nsuspicion. A passage which runs counter to the theory of the critic is\nat once pronounced an interpolation, due to the clumsy hand of some\nlater \u2018Redactor.\u2019 Thus \u2018the tabernacle of the congregation\u2019 is declared\nto have been an invention of the Priestly Code; and therefore a verse in\nthe First Book of Samuel (ii. 22), which happens to refer to it, is\narbitrarily expunged from the text. Similarly passages in the historical\nbooks which imply an acquaintance on the part of Solomon and his\nsuccessors with the laws and institutions of the Priestly Code are\nasserted to be late additions, and assigned to the very circle of\nwriters to which the composition of the Code is credited. Indeed, if we\nare to believe the analysts, a considerable part of the professedly\nhistorical literature of the Old Testament was written or \u2018redacted\u2019\nchiefly with the purpose of bolstering up the ideas and inventions\neither of the Deuteronomist or of the later Code. This is a cheap and\neasy way of rewriting ancient history, but it is neither scientific nor\nin accordance with the historical method, however consonant it may be\nwith the methods of the philologist.\n\nWhen, however, we come to examine the philological evidence upon which\nwe are asked to accept this new reading of ancient Hebrew history, we\nfind that it is wofully defective. We are asked to believe that a\nEuropean scholar of the nineteenth century can analyse with mathematical\nprecision a work composed centuries ago in the East for Eastern readers\nin a language that is long since dead, can dissolve it verse by verse,\nand even word by word, into its several elements, and fix the\napproximate date and relation of each. The accomplishment of such a feat\nis an impossibility, and to attempt it is to sin as much against common\nsense as against the laws of science. Science teaches us that we can\nattain to truth only by the help of comparison; we can know things\nscientifically only in so far as they can be compared and measured one\nwith another. Where there is no comparison there can be no scientific\nresult. Even the logicians of the Middle Ages taught that no conclusion\ncan be drawn from what they termed a single instance. It is just this,\nhowever, that the Hexateuchal critics have essayed to do. The Pentateuch\nand its history have been compared with nothing except themselves, and\nthe results have been derived not from the method of comparison, but\nfrom the so-called \u2018tact\u2019 and arbitrary judgment of the individual\nscholar. Certain postulates have been assumed, the consequences of which\nhave been gradually evolved, one after another, while the coherence and\ncredibility of the general hypothesis has been supported by the\ninvention of further subordinate hypotheses as the need for them arose.\nThe \u2018critical\u2019 theory of the origin and character of the Hexateuch\nclosely resembles the Ptolemaic theory of the universe; like the latter,\nit is highly complicated and elaborate, coherent in itself, and perfect\non paper, but unfortunately baseless in reality.\n\nIts very complication condemns it. It is too ingenious to be true. Had\nthe Hexateuch been pieced together as we are told it was, it would have\nrequired a special revelation to discover the fact. We may lay it down\nas a general rule in science that the more simple a theory is, the more\nlikely it is to be correct. It is the complicated theories, which demand\nall kinds of subsidiary qualifications and assistant hypotheses, that\nare put aside by the progress of science. The wit of man may be great,\nbut it needs a mass of material before even a simple theory can be\nestablished with any pretence to scientific value.\n\nThere is yet another reason why the new theory of the origin of the\nMosaic Law stands self-condemned. It deals with the writers and readers\nof the ancient East as if they were modern German professors and their\nliterary audience. The author of the Priestly Code is supposed to go to\nwork with scissors and paste, and with a particular object in view, like\na rather wooden and unimaginative compiler of to-day. And so closely did\nthe minds and methods of the authors of the Hexateuch resemble those of\ntheir modern European critics, that in spite of their efforts to conceal\nthe piecemeal nature of their work, as well as of the fact that it\nactually deceived their countrymen to whom it was addressed, to the\nEuropean scholar of to-day it all lies open and revealed. When, however,\nwe turn to other products of Oriental thought, whether ancient or\nmodern, we do not find that this is the way in which the authors of them\nhave written history, or what purports to be history, neither do we find\ntheir readers to be at all like those for whom the Hexateuch is supposed\nto have been compiled. The point of view of an Oriental is still\nessentially different from that of a European, at all events so far as\nhistory and literature are concerned; and the attempt to transform the\nancient Israelitish historians into somewhat inferior German compilers\nproves only a strange want of familiarity with Eastern modes of thought.\n\nBut it is not only science, it is common sense as well, which is\nviolated by the endeavour to foist philological speculations into the\ntreatment of historical questions. Hebrew is a dead language; it is\nmoreover a language which is but imperfectly known. Our knowledge of it\nis derived entirely from that fragment of its literature which is\npreserved in the Old Testament, and the errors of copyists and the\ncorruptions of the text make a good deal even of this obscure and\ndoubtful. There are numerous words, the traditional rendering of which\nis questionable; there are numerous others in the case of which it is\ncertainly wrong; and there is passage after passage in which the\ntranslations of scholars vary from one another, sometimes even to\ncontradiction. Of both grammar and lexicon it may be said that we see\nthem through a glass darkly. Not unfrequently the reading of the\nSeptuagint\u2014the earliest manuscript of which is six hundred years older\nthan the earliest manuscript of the Hebrew text\u2014differs entirely from\nthe reading of the Hebrew; and there is a marked tendency among the\nHexateuchal analysts to prefer it, though the recently-discovered Hebrew\ntext of the book of Ecclesiasticus seems to show that the preference is\nnot altogether justified.\n\nHow, then, can a modern Western scholar analyse with even approximate\nexactitude an ancient Hebrew work, and on the strength of the language\nand style dissolve it once more into its component atoms? How can he\ndetermine the relation of these atoms one to the other, or presume to\nfix the dates to which they severally belong? The task would be\nimpossible even in the case of a modern English book, although English\nis a spoken language with which we are all supposed to be thoroughly\nacquainted, while its vast literature is familiar to us all. And yet\neven where we know that a work is composite, it passes the power of man\nto separate it into its elements and define the limits of each. No one,\nfor instance, would dream of attempting such a task in the case of the\nnovels of Besant and Rice; and the endeavour to distinguish in certain\nplays of Shakespeare what belongs to the poet himself and what to\nFletcher has met with the oblivion it deserved. Is it likely that a\nproblem which cannot be solved in the case of an English book can be\nsolved where its difficulties are increased a thousandfold? The\nminuteness and apparent precision of Hexateuchal criticism are simply\ndue, like that of the Ptolemaic theory, to the artificial character of\nthe basis on which it rests. It is, in fact, a philological mirage; it\nattempts the impossible, and in place of the scientific method of\ncomparison, it gives us as a starting-point the assumptions and\narbitrary principles of a one-sided critic.[129]\n\nWhere philology has failed, arch\u00e6ology has come to our help. The needful\ncomparison of the Old Testament record with something else than itself\nhas been afforded by the discoveries which have been made of recent\nyears in Egypt and Babylonia and other parts of the ancient East. At\nlast we are able to call in the aid of the scientific method, and test\nthe age and character, the authenticity and trustworthiness of the Old\nTestament history, by monuments about whose historical authority there\ncan be no question. And the result of the test has, on the whole, been\nin favour of tradition, and against the doctrines of the newer critical\nschool. It has vindicated the antiquity and credibility of the\nnarratives of the Pentateuch; it has proved that the Mosaic age was a\nhighly literary one, and that consequently the marvel would be, not that\nMoses should have written, but that he should not have done so; and it\nhas undermined the foundation on which the documentary hypothesis of the\norigin of the Hexateuch has been built. We are still indeed only at the\nbeginning of discoveries; those made during the past year or two have\nfor the student of Genesis been exceptionally important; but enough has\nnow been gained to assure us that the historian may safely disregard the\nphilological theory of Hexateuchal criticism, and treat the books of the\nPentateuch from a wholly different point of view. They are a historical\nrecord, and it is for the historian and arch\u00e6ologist, and not for the\ngrammarian, to determine their value and age.\n\nThe investigation of the literary sources of history has been a\npeculiarly German pastime. Doubtless such an investigation has been\nnecessary. But it is exposed to the danger of trying to make bricks\nwithout straw. More often than not the materials are wanting for\narriving at conclusions of solid scientific value. The results announced\nin such cases are due partly to the critic\u2019s own prepossessions and\npostulates, partly to the imperfection of the evidence. It is easy to\ndoubt, still easier to deny, especially where the evidence is defective,\nand the criticism of the literary sources of a narrative has sometimes\nmeant an unwarrantable and unintelligent scepticism. To reverse\ntraditional judgments, to reject external testimony, and to discover\nhalf-a-dozen authors where antiquity knew of but one, may be a proof of\nthe critic\u2019s ingenuity, but it does not always demonstrate his\nappreciation of evidence.\n\nCriticism of the literary sources of our historical knowledge is indeed\nnecessary, and a recognition of the fact has much to do with the advance\nwhich has been made during the present century in the study of the past.\nBut it must not be forgotten that such criticism has its weak side.\nInternal evidence alone is always unsatisfactory; it offers too much\nscope for the play of the critic\u2019s imagination and the impression of his\nown idiosyncrasies upon the records of history. It resembles too much\nthe procedure of the spider who spins his web out of himself. It is\nwanting in that element of comparison without which scientific truth is\nunattainable. To determine the age and trustworthiness of our literary\nauthorities is doubtless of extreme importance to the historian, but\nunfortunately the materials for doing so are too often absent, and the\nfancies and assumptions of the critic are put in their place.\n\nThe trustworthiness of an author, like the reality of the facts he\nnarrates, can be adequately tested in only one way. We must be able to\ncompare his accounts of past events with other contemporaneous records\nof them. Sometimes these records consist of pottery or other products of\nhuman industry which anthropology is able to interpret; often they are\nthe far more important inscriptions which were written or engraved by\nthe actors in the events themselves. In other words, it is to arch\u00e6ology\nthat we must look for a verification or the reverse of the ancient\nhistory that has been handed down to us as well as of the credibility of\nits narrators. The written monuments of the ancient East which belong to\nthe same age as the patriarchs or Moses can alone assure us whether we\nare to trust the narrative of the Pentateuch or to see in it a confused\nmedley of legends the late date of which makes belief in them\nimpossible.\n\nAs has been said above, Oriental arch\u00e6ology has already disclosed\nsufficient to show us to which of these two alternatives we must lean.\nOn the one hand, much of the history contained in the book of Genesis\nhas been shown, directly or indirectly, to be authentic; on the other\nhand, the new-fangled theory of the composition of the Hexateuch has\nbeen decisively ruled out of court. Let us take the second point first.\n\nIn 1887 a large collection of clay tablets inscribed with cuneiform\ncharacters was found by the Egyptian fellahin among the ruins of the\nancient city now known as Tel el-Amarna, on the eastern bank of the\nNile, about midway between Minieh and Si\u00fbt. The city had enjoyed but a\nbrief existence. Towards the close of the eighteenth dynasty, the\nPharaoh, Amenophis III., had died, leaving the throne to his son,\nAmenophis IV., a mere lad, who was still under the influence of his\nmother Teie. Teie was of Asiatic extraction, and fanatically devoted to\nan Asiatic form of faith. This devotion was shared by her son, and soon\nbegan to bear fruit. Amon of Thebes had to make way for a new deity, who\nwas worshipped under the visible form of the solar disk, and the old\nreligion of Egypt of which the Pharaoh was the official head was utterly\nproscribed. It was not long before the Pharaoh and the powerful\nhierarchy of Thebes were at open war; the very name of Amon was erased\nfrom the monuments where it occurred, and the king changed his own name\nto that of Khu-n-Aten, \u2018the glory of the Solar Disk.\u2019 But in the end,\nKhu-n-Aten had to quit the capital of his fathers and establish himself\nwith his adherents and courtiers in a new city further north. This city,\nKhut-Aten, as. it was called, is now represented by the mounds of Tel\nel-Amarna.\n\nHere the Pharaoh was surrounded by his followers, a large proportion of\nwhom were Asiatics, chiefly from Canaan. The court of Egypt, as well as\nits religion, became Asiatised. The revolution in religion was also\naccompanied by a revolution in art. The old hieratic canon of Egyptian\nart was cast aside, and an excessive realism was aimed at, sometimes\neven to the verge of caricature. In the centre of the new city a temple\nwas raised to the new divinity of Egypt, and hard by the temple rose the\npalace of the king. Its ornamentation was surpassingly gorgeous. Its\nwalls and columns were inlaid with precious stones, with coloured glass\nand gold; even its floors were painted with scenes from nature which are\nof the highest artistic excellence, and statues were erected, some of\nwhich remind us of the best work of classical Greece.[130]\n\nBut the glory of Khut-Aten was short-lived. The latter years of the\nreign of its founder were clouded with religious and civil dissension.\nReligious persecution at home had been followed by trouble and revolt\nabroad in the Asiatic provinces of the Empire. When Khu-n-Aten died, his\nenemies were already pressing around him, and the perils that threatened\nhim in Egypt obliged him to return no answer to the despairing appeals\nfor help that came to him from his governors in Palestine. Hardly had\nthe mummy of the king been deposited in the superb tomb that he had\ncarved out of a mountain amid the desolation and solitude of a distant\ngorge, when the spoiler was at hand. The royal sarcophagus never reached\nthe niche in which it was intended to be placed; the enemies of the\n\u2018Heretic King\u2019 hacked to pieces its granite sides as it lay upon the\nfloor of the inner chamber, and scattered to the winds the remains of\nits occupant. The destruction of Khut-Aten soon followed; one or two\nprinces of the family of Khu-n-Aten did indeed struggle for a brief\nwhile to maintain themselves upon his throne, but before long Amon\ntriumphed over the Solar Disk. The great temple of Aten was razed to the\nground, and its stones carried away to serve as materials for the\nsanctuaries of the victorious god of Thebes. The palace of Khu-n-Aten\nwas destroyed, the religion he had essayed to force upon his subjects\nwas forgotten, and the Asiatic officials who had filled his court were\ndriven into exile. The city he had built was deserted, never to be\ninhabited again.\n\nThe clay tablets found by the fellahin were discovered on the site of\nthe Foreign Office of the \u2018Heretic King,\u2019 the bricks of which were each\nstamped with the words \u2018The Record Office of Aten-Ra.\u2019[131] It adjoined\nthe palace, and we learn from a clay seal found among its ruins by\nProfessor Petrie that it was under the control of a Babylonian. This,\nhowever, was not extraordinary, since the foreign correspondence of the\nPharaoh was carried on in the Babylonian language and the Babylonian\nsystem of writing. In fact, the Tel el-Amarna tablets have shown that\nthe Western Asia conquered by the Egyptian kings of the eighteenth\ndynasty was wholly under the domination of Babylonian culture. All over\nthe civilised Oriental world, from the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates\nto those of the Nile, the common medium of literary and diplomatic\nintercourse was the language and script of Chald\u00e6a. Not only the writing\nmaterial, but all that was written upon it, was borrowed from Babylonia.\nSo powerful was this Babylonian influence, that the Egyptians themselves\nwere compelled to submit to it. In place of their own singular and less\ncumbrous hieratic or cursive script, they had to communicate with their\nAsiatic subjects and allies in the cuneiform characters and the\nBabylonian tongue. Indeed, there is evidence that the memoranda made by\nthe official scribes of the Pharaoh\u2019s court, at all events in Palestine,\nwere compiled in the same foreign speech and syllabary.[132] That the\nBabylonian language and script were studied in Egypt itself we know from\nthe evidence of the Tel el-Amarna tablets. Among them have been found\nfragments of dictionaries as well as Babylonian mythological tales. In\none of the latter certain of the words and phrases are separated from\none another in order to assist the learner.\n\nThe use of the Babylonian language and system of writing in Western Asia\nmust have been of considerable antiquity. This is proved by the fact\nthat the characters had gradually assumed peculiar forms in the\ndifferent countries in which they were employed, so that by merely\nglancing at the form of the writing we can tell whether a tablet was\nwritten in Palestine or in Northern Syria, in Cappadocia or Mesopotamia.\nThe knowledge of them, moreover, was not confined to the few. On the\ncontrary, education must have been widely spread; the Tel el-Amarna\ncorrespondence was carried on, not only by professional scribes, but\nalso by officials, by soldiers, and by merchants. Even women appear\namong the writers, and take part in the politics of the day. The\nletters, too, are sometimes written about the most trivial matters, and\nnot unfrequently enter into the most unimportant details.\n\nThey were sent from all parts of the known civilised world. The kings of\nBabylonia and Assyria, of Mesopotamia and Cappadocia, the Egyptian\ngovernors of Syria and Canaan, even the chiefs of the Bed\u00e2win tribes on\nthe Egyptian frontier, who were subsidised by the Pharaoh\u2019s government\nlike the Afghan chiefs of to-day, all alike contributed to the\ncorrespondence. Letters, in fact, must have been constantly passing to\nand fro along the high-roads which intersected Western Asia. From one\nend of it to the other the population was in perpetual literary\nintercourse, proving that the Oriental world in the century before the\nExodus was as highly educated and literary as was Europe in the age of\nthe Renaissance. Nor was all this literary activity and intercourse a\nnew thing. Several of the letters had been sent to Amenophis III., the\nfather of the \u2018Heretic King,\u2019 and had been removed by the latter from\nthe archives of Thebes when he transferred his residence to his new\ncapital. And the literary intercourse which was carried on in the time\nof Amenophis III. was merely a continuation of that which had been\ncarried on for centuries previously. The culture of Babylonia, like that\nof Egypt, was essentially literary, and this culture had been spread\nover Western Asia from a remote date. The letters of Khammu-rabi or\nAmraphel to his vassal, the king of Larsa, have just been recovered, and\namong the multitudinous contract-tablets of the same epoch are specimens\nof commercial correspondence.\n\nWe have, however, only to consider for a moment what was meant by\nlearning the language and script of Babylonia in order to realise what a\nhighly-organised system of education must have prevailed throughout the\nwhole civilised world of the day. Not only had the Babylonian language\nto be acquired, but some knowledge also of the older agglutinative\nlanguage of Chald\u00e6a was also needed in order to understand the system of\nwriting. It was as if the schoolboy of to-day had to add a knowledge of\nGreek to a knowledge of French. And the system of writing itself\ninvolved years of hard and patient study. It consisted of a syllabary\ncontaining hundreds of characters, each of which had not only several\ndifferent phonetic values, but several different ideographic\nsignifications as well. Nor was this all. A group of characters might be\nused ideographically to express a word the pronunciation of which had\nnothing to do with the sounds of the individual characters of which it\nwas composed. The number of ideographs which had to be learned was thus\nincreased fivefold. And, unlike the hieroglyphs of Egypt, the forms of\nthese ideographs gave no assistance to the memory. They had long since\nlost all resemblance to the pictures out of which they had originally\nbeen developed, and consisted simply of various combinations of wedges\nor lines. It was difficult enough for the Babylonian or Assyrian to\nlearn the syllabary; for a foreigner the task was almost herculean.\n\nThat it should have been undertaken implies the existence of libraries\nand schools. One of the distinguishing features of Babylonian culture\nwere the libraries which existed in the great towns, and wherever\nBabylonian culture was carried this feature of it must have gone too.\nHence in the libraries of Western Asia clay books inscribed with\ncuneiform characters must have been stored up, while beside them must\nhave been the schools, where the pupils bent over their exercises and\nthe teachers instructed them in the language and script of the\nforeigner. The world into which Moses was born was a world as literary\nas our own.\n\nIf Western Asia were the home of a long-established literary culture,\nEgypt was even more so. From time immemorial the land of the Pharaohs\nhad been a land of writers and readers. At a very early period the\nhieroglyphic system of writing had been modified into a cursive hand,\nthe so-called hieratic; and as far back as the days of the third and\nfifth dynasties famous books had been written, and the author of one of\nthem, Ptah-hotep, already deplores the degeneracy and literary decay of\nhis own time. The traveller up the Nile, who examines the cliffs that\nline the river, cannot but be struck by the multitudinous names that are\nscratched upon them. He is at times inclined to believe that every\nEgyptian in ancient times knew how to write, and had little else to do\nthan to scribble a record of himself on the rocks. The impression is the\nsame that we derive from the small objects which are disinterred in such\nthousands from the sites of the old cities. Wherever it is possible, an\ninscription has been put upon them, which, it seems taken for granted,\ncould be read by all. Even the walls of the temples and tombs were\ncovered with written texts; wherever the Egyptian turned, or whatever\nmight be the object he used, it was difficult for him to avoid the sight\nof the written word. Whoever was born in the land of Egypt was perforce\nfamiliarised with the art of writing from the very days of his infancy.\n\nEvidence is accumulating that the same literary culture which thus\nprevailed in Egypt and Western Asia had extended also to the peninsula\nof Arabia. Dr. Glaser and Professor Hommel, two of the foremost\nauthorities on the subject, believe that some of the inscriptions of\nSouthern Arabia go back to the age of the eighteenth and nineteenth\nEgyptian dynasties; and if they are right, as they seem to be, in\nholding that the kingdom of Ma\u2019n or the Min\u00e6ans preceded that of Saba or\nSheba, the antiquity of writing in Arabia must be great.[133] The fact\nthat the Babylonian dynasty to which Amraphel belonged was of South\nArabian origin supports the belief in the existence of Arabian culture\nat an early period, as do also the latest researches into the source of\nthe so-called Ph\u0153nician alphabet. We now know that in the Mosaic age it\nwas the cuneiform syllabary, and not the Ph\u0153nician alphabet, that was\nused in Canaan, while the oldest inscription in Ph\u0153nician letters yet\nfound is later than the reign of Solomon. On the other hand, the South\nArabian form of the alphabet contains letters which denote sounds once\npossessed by all the Semitic languages, but lost by the language of\nCanaan; and though some of these letters may be derived from other\nletters of the alphabet, there are some which have an independent\norigin. The caravan-road along which the spices of the South were\ncarried to Syria and Egypt passed through the territory of Edom;\ninscriptions of the kings of Ma\u2019n have already been discovered near\nTeima, not far from the frontiers of Midian; and it may be that we shall\nyet find records among the ranges of Mount Seir which will form a link\nbetween the early texts of Southern Arabia and the oldest text that has\ncome from Ph\u0153nician soil.\n\nThe Exodus from Egypt, then, took place during a highly literary period,\nand the people who took part in it passed from a country where the art\nof writing literally stared them in the face to another country which\nhad been the centre of the Tel el-Amarna correspondence and the home of\nBabylonian literary culture for unnumbered centuries. Is it conceivable\nthat their leader and reputed lawgiver should not have been able to\nwrite, that he should not have been educated \u2018in the wisdom of Egypt,\u2019\nor that the upper classes of his nation should not have been able to\nread? Let it be granted that the Israelites were but a Bed\u00e2win tribe\nwhich had been reduced by the Pharaohs to the condition of public\nslaves; still, they necessarily had leaders and overseers among them,\nwho, according to the State regulations of Egypt, were responsible to\nthe Government for the rest of their countrymen, and some at least of\nthese leaders and overseers would have been educated men. Moses could\nhave written the Pentateuch, even if he did not do so.\n\nMoreover, the clay tablets on which the past history of Canaan could be\nread were preserved in the libraries and archive-chambers of the\nCanaanitish cities down to the time when the latter were destroyed. If\nany doubt had existed on the subject after the revelations of the Tel\nel-Amarna tablets, it has been set at rest by the discovery of a similar\ntablet on the site of Lachish. In some cases the cities were not\ndestroyed, so far as we know, until the period when it is allowed that\nthe Israelites had ceased to be illiterate. Gezer, for example, which\nplays a leading part in the Tel el-Amarna correspondence, does not seem\nto have fallen into the hands of an enemy until it was captured by the\nEgyptian Pharaoh and handed over to his son-in-law Solomon. As long as a\nknowledge of the cuneiform script continued, the early records of Canaan\nwere thus accessible to the historian, many of them being\ncontemporaneous with the events to which they referred.\n\nA single arch\u00e6ological discovery has thus destroyed the base of\noperations from which a one-sided criticism of Old Testament history had\nstarted. The really strong point in favour of it was the assumption that\nthe Mosaic age was illiterate. Just as Wolf founded his criticism and\nanalysis of the Homeric Hymns on the belief that the use of writing for\nliterary purposes was of late date in Greece, so the belief that the\nIsraelites of the time of Moses could not read or write was the ultimate\nfoundation on which the modern theory of the composition of the\nHexateuch has been based. Whether avowed or not, it was the true\nstarting-point of critical scepticism, the one solid foundation on which\nit seemed to rest. The destruction of the foundation endangers the\nstructure which has been built upon it.\n\nIn fact, it wholly alters the position of the modern critical theory.\nThe _onus probandi_ no longer lies on the shoulders of the defenders of\ntraditional views. Instead of being called upon to prove that Moses\ncould have written a book, it is they who have to call on the disciples\nof the modern theory to show reason why he should not have done so. And\nit is always difficult to prove a negative.\n\nIt may be said that the positive arguments of the modern hypothesis\nremain as they were. That is possible, but their background is gone. And\nhow conscious the Hexateuchal analysts were of the importance of this\nbackground, before the discovery of the Tel el-Amarna tablets, may be\nseen from their desperate efforts to rid themselves of the counter\nevidence afforded by the Song of Deborah. \u2018Out of Machir,\u2019 it is there\nsaid (Judg. v. 14), \u2018came down lawgivers, and out of Zebulun they that\nhandle the stylus of the scribe.\u2019 In defiance of philology, the latter\nwords were translated \u2018the baton of the marshal\u2019! But _sopher_ is\n\u2018scribe\u2019 here, as elsewhere in Hebrew; and his _shebhet_, or \u2018stylus,\u2019\nis often depicted on the Egyptian monuments. In the Blessing of Jacob,\nwhich is allowed to be of early date, like the Song of Deborah, the\n_shebhet_ is associated with the _m\u2019khoq\u00eaq_ or \u2018lawgiver\u2019 (Gen. xlix.\n10). The word _m\u2019khoq\u00eaq_, however, meant literally an \u2018engraver,\u2019 one\nwho did not write his laws on papyrus or parchment, as the scribe would\nhave done, but caused them to be engraved on stone, or metal, or\nclay.[134] In either case they were written down; and written documents\nare thus implied not only in the expression \u2018the stylus of the scribe,\u2019\nbut in the word \u2018lawgiver\u2019 as well. The Song of Deborah, by general\nconsent, belongs to the oldest period of the Hebrew settlement in\nPalestine; it belongs also to an age of anarchy and national depression;\nand, nevertheless, it is already acquainted with Israelitish lawgivers\nand scribes, with engravers of the laws and handlers of the pen. It is\nlittle wonder that its evidence was explained away in accordance with a\nmethod which is neither scientific nor historical.\n\nAs historians, we are bound to admit the antiquity of writing in Israel.\nThe scribe goes back to the Mosaic age, like the lawgiver, and in this\nrespect, therefore, the Israelites formed no exception to the nations\namong whom they lived. They were no islet of illiterate barbarism in the\nmidst of a great sea of literary culture and activity, nor were they\nobstinately asleep while all about them were writing and reading.\n\nBut even the analysis of the Hexateuchal critics fails to stand the test\nof arch\u00e6ological discovery. Nowhere does there seem to be clearer\nevidence of the documentary hypothesis than in the story of the Deluge.\nHere the combination of a Yahvistic and an Elohistic narrative seems to\nforce itself upon the attention of the reader, and the advocates of the\ndisintegration theory have triumphantly pointed to the internal\ncontradictions and inconsistencies of the story in support of their\nviews. If anywhere, here, at any rate, the external testimony of\narch\u00e6eology ought to be given on the side of modern criticism.\n\nAnd yet it is not. It so happens that among the fragments of ancient\nBabylonian epic and legend which have come down to us is a long poem in\ntwelve books, composed in the age of Abraham, or earlier, by a certain\nSin-liqi-unnini, and recounting the adventures of the Chald\u00e6an hero\nGilgames. It is based on older materials, and is, in fact, the last note\nand final summing-up of Chald\u00e6an epic song. Older poems have been\nincorporated into it, and the epic itself has been artificially moulded\nupon an astronomical plan. Its twelve books, in each of which a new\nadventure of its hero is recorded, correspond with the twelve signs of\nthe zodiac, and the months of the year that were named after them. The\neleventh month was presided over by Aquarius, and was the month of \u2018the\nCurse of Rain\u2019; into the eleventh book of the poem, accordingly, there\nhas been introduced the episode of the Deluge.\n\nThe story of the Deluge had been the subject of many poems. Fragments of\nsome of them we possess, and the details of the story were not always\nthe same. But the version preserved in the epic of Gilgames became what\nwe may term the standard one; the very fact that it was embodied in the\nmost famous of the epics made it widely known. When it was discovered by\nMr. George Smith in 1872, its striking resemblance to the story of the\nFlood in Genesis was at once apparent to every one. In details as well\nas in general outline the two accounts agreed; even in the moral cause\nassigned to the Deluge\u2014the sin of man\u2014the Babylonian story alone among\ntraditions of a Deluge was at one with the Biblical narrative.\n\nA comparison of the Chald\u00e6an and Biblical accounts leads to the\nfollowing results. The resemblances between them extend equally to the\nElohistic and the Yahvistic portions of the Hebrew narrative. Like the\nElohist, the epic ascribes the Deluge to the sins of mankind, and the\npreservation of Xisuthros, the Chald\u00e6an Noah, and his family to the\npiety of the hero; all living things, moreover, are involved in the\ncalamity, except such as are preserved in the ark; its approach is\nrevealed to Xisuthros by the god Ea, who instructs him how to build \u2018the\nship\u2019; Ea also, like Elohim, prescribes the dimensions of the ark, which\nis divided into rooms and stories, and pitched within and without; \u2018the\nseed of life of all kinds\u2019 is taken into it, together with the family of\nXisuthros; the waters of the Flood are said to cover \u2018all the high\nmountains,\u2019 and to destroy all living creatures except those that were\nin the ark; this latter, too, had a window; and when the Deluge had\nsubsided and Xisuthros had offered a sacrifice on the peak of the\nmountain, Bel blessed him and declared that he would never again destroy\nthe world by a flood while Istar \u2018lifted up\u2019 the rainbow, which an old\nBabylonian hymn calls \u2018the bow of the Deluge.\u2019[135]\n\nLike the Yahvist, on the other hand, the Babylonian poet sees in the\nFlood a punishment for sin, and makes it destroy all living things\nexcept those that were in the ark. He also states that Xisuthros sent\nforth three birds, one after the other, in order to discover whether the\nwaters were subsiding, two of them being a dove and a raven, and that\nwhile the dove turned back to the ark, the raven flew away. After the\ndescent from the ark, moreover, Xisuthros, we are told, built an altar\nand offered sacrifice on the summit of the mountain whereon it had\nrested, and there \u2018the gods smelled the sweet savour\u2019 of the offering.\nIn certain cases the epic even explains what is doubtful or obscure in\nthe Hebrew text. Thus it shows that in the account of the sending forth\nof the birds one of the birds has been omitted; and that consequently,\nin order to complete the number of times the birds were despatched from\nthe ark, the dove is sent forth twice, while the raven, instead of being\nthe last to leave the ark, has been made the first to do so. In the\nBabylonian story the order is natural. First, the dove flies forth, then\nthe swallow or \u2018bird of destiny,\u2019 and lastly the raven who feeds on the\ncorpses that float upon the water, and accordingly does not return. But\nthe \u2018bird of destiny\u2019 carried with it heathen and mythological\nassociations. It has therefore been omitted by the Biblical writer, the\nresult being to throw the narrative into confusion.[136]\n\nThe Babylonian origin of the Flood, again, alone explains the statement\nthat it was partly caused by \u2018the fountains of the great deep\u2019 being\nbroken up. The \u2018great deep,\u2019 called Tiamat in Babylonian mythology, had\nbeen placed under guard at the Creation, according to Chald\u00e6an belief,\nand so prevented from gushing forth and destroying mankind. The whole\nconception takes us back to the alluvial plain of Babylonia, liable at\nany time to be inundated by the waters of the Persian Gulf, and is\nwholly inapplicable to a mountainous country like Palestine, where rain\nonly could have produced a flood.[137]\n\nThere are even indications that in the Biblical narrative the\nmythological ideas and polytheistic phraseology of the Babylonian story\nhave been intentionally contradicted or suppressed. Thus, not only is\nthe whole colouring of the narrative sternly monotheistic, but God\nHimself is made to reveal the approach of the Deluge to Noah, in\ncontrast with the Babylonian version, according to which the god Ea\nannounced the coming catastrophe to the Chald\u00e6an Noah without the\nknowledge of the supreme god Bel. And when the Flood was past, Bel was\nenraged that any should have escaped living from it, and the other\ndeities had to intercede before he could be pacified. So, too, whereas\nthe Babylonian poet tells us that the Chald\u00e6an Noah closed the door of\nhis ship, in the book of Genesis it is Yahveh Himself who does so. In\nthe view of the Biblical writer, nothing was to be allowed to lessen the\nomnipotence of the God of Israel.\n\nIt will be noticed that the coincidences between the Babylonian and\nHebrew narratives are quite as much in details as in general outlines,\nand these coincidences cover the Hebrew narrative as a whole. It is not\nwith the Elohist or with the Yahvist alone that the Babylonian poet\nagrees, but with the supposed combination of their two documents as we\nnow find it in the book of Genesis. If the documentary hypothesis were\nright, there would be only two ways of accounting for this fact. Either\nthe Babylonian poet had before him the present \u2018redacted\u2019 text of\nGenesis, or else the Elohist and Yahvist must have copied the Babylonian\nstory upon the mutual understanding that the one should insert what the\nother omitted. There is no third alternative.\n\nAs the Babylonian epic was composed in the age of Khammu-rabi or\nAmraphel, neither of the two alternatives is likely to be accepted by\nthe advocates of the Hexateuchal theory, and the whole theory,\nconsequently, must be ruled out of court. It breaks down in the first\ntest case to which the results of arch\u00e6ological discovery can be\napplied, a case, moreover, in which its plausibility is unusually great.\nHenceforth the historian who pursues a scientific method may safely\ndisregard the whole fabric of Hexateuchal criticism.\n\nThe story of the Deluge itself suggests what may be put in place of it.\nWith all its likeness to the Babylonian story, the Biblical narrative\nhas nevertheless undergone a change. It has been clothed not only in a\nHebrew, but also in a Palestinian dress. The ship of the Chald\u00e6an Noah\nhas become an ark, as was natural in a country where there were no great\nrivers or Persian Gulf; the period of the rainfall has been transferred\nfrom Sebet or January and February, when the winter rains fall in\nBabylonia, to \u2018the second month\u2019 of the Hebrew civil year, our October\nand November, the time of the autumn or \u2018former rains\u2019 in Canaan, while\nthe subsidence of the waters is made to begin in the middle of \u2018the\nseventh month,\u2019 when the \u2018latter rains\u2019 of the Canaanitish spring are\nover; and the dove is said to have brought back in its mouth a leaf of\nthe olive, a tree characteristic of the soil of Palestine. Though the\nBiblical narrative has been borrowed from Babylonia, it has been\nmodified and coloured in the West. Even the hero of the Babylonian poem\nhas become the Noah or Naham of Canaan.\n\nWe have learned from the Tel el-Amarna tablets how this could have come\nabout. There was one period, and, so far as we know, one period only, in\nthe history of Western Asia, when the literature of Babylonia was taught\nand studied there, and when the literary ideas and stories of Chald\u00e6a\nwere made familiar to the people of Canaan. This was the period of\nBabylonian influence which ended with the Mosaic age. With the Hittite\nconquests of the fourteenth century B.C., and the Israelitish invasion\nof Canaan, it all came to an end. The Babylonian story of the Deluge,\nadapted to Palestine as we find it in the Pentateuch, must belong to a\npre-Mosaic epoch. And it is difficult to believe that the identity of\nthe details in the Babylonian and Biblical versions could have remained\nso perfect, or that the Biblical writer could have exhibited such\ndeliberate intention of controverting the polytheistic features of the\noriginal, if he had not still possessed a knowledge of the cuneiform\nscript. It is difficult to believe that he belonged to an age when the\nPh\u0153nician alphabet had taken the place of the syllabary of Babylonia,\nand the older literature of Canaan had become a sealed book.\n\nBut if so, a new light is shed on the sources of the historical\nnarratives contained in the Pentateuch. Some of them at least have come\ndown from the period when the literary culture of Babylonia was still\ndominant on the shores of the Mediterranean. So far from being popular\ntraditions and myths first committed to writing after the disruption of\nSolomon\u2019s kingdom, and amalgamated into their present form by a series\nof \u2018redactors,\u2019 they will have been derived from the pre-Mosaic\nliterature of Palestine. Such of them as are Babylonian in origin will\nhave made their way westwards like the Chald\u00e6an legends found among the\ntablets of Tel el-Amarna, while others will be contemporaneous records\nof the events they describe. We must expect to discover in the\nPentateuch not only Israelitish records, but Babylonian, Canaanitish,\nEgyptian, even Edomite records as well.\n\nThe progress of arch\u00e6ological research has already in part fulfilled\nthis expectation. \u2018Ur of the Chaldees\u2019 has been found at Muqayyar, and\nthe contracts of early Babylonia have shown that Amorites\u2014or, as we\nshould call them, Canaanites\u2014were settled there, and have even brought\nto light such distinctively Hebrew names as Jacob-el, Joseph-el, and\nIshmael.[138] Even the name of Abram, Abi-ramu, appears as the father of\nan \u2018Amorite\u2019 witness to a contract in the third generation before\nAmraphel. And Amraphel himself, along with his contemporaries,\nChedor-laomer or Kudur-Laghghamar of Elam, Arioch of Larsa, and Tid\u2019al\nor Tudghula, has been restored to the history to which he and his\nassociates had been denied a claim. The \u2018nations\u2019 over whom Tid\u2019al ruled\nhave been explained, and the accuracy of the political situation\ndescribed in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis has been fully\nvindicated. Jerusalem, instead of being a name first given to the future\ncapital of Judah after its capture by David, is proved to have been its\nearliest title; and the priest-king Melchizedek finds a parallel in his\nlater successor, the priest-king Ebed-Tob, who, in the Tel el-Amarna\nletters, declares that he had received his royal dignity, not from his\nfather or his mother, but through the arm of \u2018the mighty king.\u2019 If we\nturn to Egypt, the arch\u00e6ological evidence is the same. The history of\nJoseph displays an intimate acquaintance on the part of its writer with\nEgyptian life and manners in the era of the Hyksos, and offers the only\nexplanation yet forthcoming of the revolution that took place in the\ntenure of land during the Hyksos domination. As we have seen, there are\nfeatures in the story which suggest that it has been translated from a\nhieratic papyrus. As for the Exodus, we shall see presently that its\ngeography is that of the nineteenth dynasty, and of no other period in\nthe history of Egypt.\n\nThus, then, directly or indirectly, much of the history contained in the\nPentateuch has been shown by arch\u00e6ology to be authentic. And it must be\nremembered that Oriental arch\u00e6ology is still in its infancy. Few only of\nthe sites of ancient civilisation have as yet been excavated, and there\nare thousands of cuneiform texts in the Museums of Europe and America\nwhich have not as yet been deciphered. It was only in 1887 that the Tel\nel-Amarna tablets, which have had such momentous consequences for\nBiblical criticism, were found, and the disclosures made by the early\ncontracts of Babylonia, even the name of Chedor-laomer itself, are of\nstill more recent discovery. It is therefore remarkable that so much is\nalready in our hands which confirms the antiquity and historical\ngenuineness of the Pentateuchal narratives; and it raises the\npresumption that with the advance of our knowledge will come further\nconfirmations of the Biblical story. At any rate, the historian\u2019s path\nis clear; the Pentateuch has been tested by the comparative method of\nscience, and has stood the test. It contains history, and must be dealt\nwith accordingly like other historical works. The philological theory\nwith its hair-splitting distinctions, its Priestly Code and \u2018redactors,\u2019\nmust be put aside, along with all the historical consequences which it\ninvolves.\n\nBut it does not follow that because the philological theory is\nuntenable, all inquiries into the character and sources of the\nPentateuch are waste of time. The philological theory has failed because\nit has attempted to build up a vast superstructure on very imperfect and\nquestionable materials; because, in short, it has attempted to attain\nhistorical results without the use of the historical method. But no one\ncan study the Pentateuch in the light of other ancient works of a\nsimilar kind without perceiving that it is a compilation, and that its\nauthor\u2014or authors\u2014has made use of a large variety of older materials.\nModern Oriental history has been written in the same manner; a book, for\ninstance, like the Egyptian history of El-Maqr\u00eez\u00ee, though the production\nof a single mind, nevertheless embodies older materials which have been\ncollected from every side. The Egyptian Book of the Dead, or the\nChald\u00e6an Epic of Gilgames, bears the same testimony. The growth of the\nBook of the Dead, the ritual which was needed by the souls of the\nEgyptian dead in their passage to the next world, can actually be\ntraced.[139] It included and combined the doctrines of more than one\nschool of early Egyptian theological thought, and in later days was\nextensively interpolated and modernised. Not only were glosses, once\nintended to explain the obscurities of the archaic phraseology,\nincorporated into the text, but even whole chapters were added to the\nwork. The Epic of Gilgames similarly embodies other poems or portions of\npoems, of which the Episode of the Deluge is an example. Yet no\nAssyriologist would dispute for a moment that from beginning to end it\nis the work of one author.\n\nArch\u00e6ology has already shown us that we are right in believing that the\nPentateuch also has been compiled out of earlier materials. The story of\nthe campaign of Chedor-laomer must have been derived from a cuneiform\ntablet; the story of Joseph seems to have been taken from a hieratic\npapyrus. The account of the Deluge has made its way from Babylonia to\nCanaan in the days when the culture of Chald\u00e6a extended to the\nMediterranean. We thus have narratives which presuppose an acquaintance\nnot only with Babylon and Egypt, but also with Babylonian and Egyptian\ndocuments.\n\nSo, too, the list of Edomite kings contained in the thirty-sixth chapter\nof Genesis must have been extracted from the official annals of Edom. It\nis a proof that such annals existed, that the Edomites, like the rest of\ntheir neighbours, were acquainted with the art of writing, and that\ntheir official records were accessible to a Hebrew scribe.\n\nWe cannot doubt the authenticity of the list, even though the ancient\nterritory of Edom has not yet been explored, and no Edomite inscriptions\nconsequently have as yet been found to verify it. The list, therefore,\ndoes not yet stand in the same fortunate position as the account of\nChedor-laomer and his allies, which has been verified by arch\u00e6ological\ndiscovery. Here even the names of the foreign kings have been preserved\nin the Hebrew text with marvellously little corruption. The whole\naccount must have come from a cuneiform document coeval with the event\nit narrates. That is to say, we can here trace one of the Pentateuchal\nnarratives not only to a written source, but to a written source which\nis at the same time a contemporaneous record.\n\nWe may conclude, then, that the Pentateuch has been compiled from older\ndocuments\u2014some Babylonian, some Egyptian, some Edomite; others, as we\nmay gather from the nature of their contents, Canaanite and Aram\u00e6an\u2014and\nthat many of these documents belong to the periods to which they refer.\nThis, however, is not all. In certain cases we can approximately fix the\nlatest date at which they could have been employed and combined in the\nform in which we now find them. Thus in the geographical chart of\nGenesis (x. 6), Canaan is made the brother of Cush and Mizraim. This\ntakes us back to the time when Canaan was a province of the Egyptian\nempire; when that empire came to an end the description ceased to be\npossible. After the epoch of the nineteenth dynasty and the Hebrew\nExodus, Canaan and Egypt were cut off from one another geographically\nand politically, and Canaan could never again have been called in\nSemitic idiom the brother of Mizraim. It became instead the brother of\nAram and Assur.\n\nHere, therefore, the limit of age prescribed by arch\u00e6ology forbids us to\npass beyond the Mosaic epoch. Moses, in short, is the compiler to whom\nthe arch\u00e6ological evidence indicates that the tenth chapter of Genesis\ngoes back in its original shape. But by the side of this evidence there\nis other evidence also which tells a different tale. Gomer, or the\nKimmerians, as well as Madai, are named among the sons of Japhet, and\nthe Assyrian monuments assure us that neither the one nor the other came\nwithin the geographical horizon of Western Asia before the ninth century\nB.C. It was in the ninth century B.C. that the Assyrian kings first\nbecame acquainted with the Medes, while the Gimirr\u00e2 or Kimmerians did\nnot descend upon Asia from their seats on the Sea of Azof until about\nB.C. 680. The same reasoning which gives us the Mosaic age as that of\nthe geographical chart of Genesis in its primitive shape gives us the\nseventh century B.C. or later for the date of another portion of the\nsame chapter.\n\nThe list of the kings of Edom, again, is introduced by the remark that\n\u2018these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there\nreigned any king over the children of Israel.\u2019 It was not inserted in\nthe book of Genesis, therefore, until after the age of Saul, a\nconclusion which is supported by the fact that the first king named\nseems to be Balaam, the son of Beor, who was a contemporary of Moses.\nIf, accordingly, the Pentateuch was originally compiled in the Mosaic\nage, it must have undergone the fate of the Egyptian Book of the Dead,\nand been enlarged by subsequent additions. Insertions and interpolations\nmust have found their way into it as new editions of it were made.\n\nThat such was the case there is indirect testimony. On the one hand the\ntext of the prophetical books was treated in a similar manner, additions\nand modifications being made in it from time to time by the prophet or\nhis successors in order to adapt it to new political or religious\ncircumstances. Isaiah, for instance, has copied a prophecy directed by\none of his predecessors against Moab; and after breaking it off in the\nmiddle of a sentence, has adapted it to the needs and circumstances of\nhis own time. On the other hand, a long-established Jewish tradition,\nwhich has found its way into the Second Book of Esdras (xiv. 21-26),\nmakes Ezra rewrite or edit the books of Moses. There is no reason to\nquestion the substantial truth of the tradition; Ezra was the restorer\nof the old paths, and the Pentateuch may well have taken its present\nshape from him. If so, we need not be surprised if we find here and\nthere in it echoes of the Babylonish captivity.\n\nSide by side with materials derived from written sources, the book of\nGenesis contains narratives which, at all events in the first instance,\nmust have resembled the traditions and poems orally recited in Arab\nlands, and commemorating the heroes and forefathers of the tribe. Thus\nthere are two Abrahams; the one an Abraham who has been born in one of\nthe centres of Babylonian civilisation, who is the ally of Amorite\nchieftains, whose armed followers overthrow the rearguard of the Elamite\narmy, and whom the Hittites of Hebron address as \u2018a mighty prince\u2019; the\nother is an Abraham of the Bed\u00e2win camp-fire, a nomad whose habits are\nthose of the rude independence of the desert, whose wife kneads the\nbread while he himself kills the calf with which his guests are\nentertained. It is true that in actual Oriental life the simplicity of\nthe desert and the wealth and culture of the town may be found combined\nin the same person; that in modern Egypt Arab sh\u00eakhs may still be met\nwith who thus live like wild Bed\u00e2win during one part of the year, and as\nrich and civilised townsmen during another part of it; while in the last\ncentury a considerable portion of Upper Egypt was governed by Bed\u00e2win\nemirs, who realised in their own persons that curious duality of life\nand manners which to us Westerns appears so strange. But it is also true\nthat the spirit and tone of the narratives in Genesis differ along with\nthe character ascribed in them to the patriarch: we find in them not\nonly the difference between the guest of the Egyptian Pharaoh and the\nentertainer of the angels, but also a difference in the point of view.\nThe one speaks to us of literary culture, the other of the simple circle\nof wandering shepherds to whose limited experience the story-teller has\nto appeal. The story may be founded on fact; it may be substantially\ntrue; but it has been coloured by the surroundings in which it has grown\nup, and arch\u00e6ological proof of its historical character can never be\nforthcoming. At most, it can be shown to be true to the time and place\nin which its scene is laid, and so contains nothing which is\ninconsistent with known facts.\n\nSuch, then, are the main results of the application of the arch\u00e6ological\ntest to the books of the Pentateuch. The philological theory, with its\nminute and mathematically exact analysis, is brushed aside; it is as\nlittle in harmony with arch\u00e6ology as it is with common sense. The\nPentateuch substantially belongs to the Mosaic age, and may therefore be\naccepted as, in the bulk, the work of Moses himself. But it is a\ncomposite work, embodying materials of various kinds. Some of these are\nwritten documents, descriptive of contemporaneous events, or recording\nthe cosmological beliefs of ancient Babylonia; others have been derived\nfrom the unwritten traditions of nomad tribes. The work has passed\nthrough many editions; it is full of interpolations, lengthy and\notherwise; and it has probably received its final shape at the hands of\nEzra. But in order to discover the interpolations, or to determine the\nwritten documents that have been used, we must have recourse to the\nhistorical method and the facts of arch\u00e6ology. Apart from these we\ncannot advance a step in safety. The arch\u00e6ological evidence, however, is\nalready sufficient for the presumption that, where it fails us, the text\nis nevertheless ancient, and the narrative historical\u2014a presumption, it\nwill be noticed, the exact contrary of that in which the Hexateuchal\ntheory has landed its disciples.\n\nBut, these same disciples will urge, what becomes of those three strata\nof legislation which we have so successfully disentangled one from the\nother in the Hexateuch, and have shown to belong to three separate and\nmutually exclusive periods of Israelitish history? Has not literary\ncriticism proved that no reconciliation is possible between the\nenactments and point of view of the Book of the Covenant on the one\nside, and those of the Deuteronomist on the other, or between the\nlegislation of the Deuteronomist and that of the Priestly Code? The\naltar of earth or rough-hewn stones, which may be built on any high\nplace, makes way for the altar of the temple at Jerusalem, and this\nagain for the ideal altar of the tabernacle in the wilderness. One\nsanctuary takes the place of many; the priesthood is confined first to\nthe tribe of Levi, and then more especially to the sons of Aaron; while\nthe simple feasts of harvest rejoicing, which were celebrated by early\nIsrael in common with its neighbours, are replaced by sacrifices for sin\nand solemn festivals like the Day of Atonement.\n\nIt is strange that these inconsistencies were left to European scholars\nof the nineteenth century to discover, and that neither the\ncontemporaries of Ezra, who allowed themselves to be bound to the yoke\nof a law which they believed to be divine, nor the Samaritan rivals of\nthe Jews, should have ever perceived them. The fact seems to the\nhistorian to throw some doubt on their real existence, and he can leave\nthem to the tender mercies of Dr. Baxter, who has met the literary\ncritics on their own ground, and seriously damaged their house of\ncards.[140] The historian can have nothing to do with a theory which not\nonly requires the whole of the historical books of the Old Testament to\nbe rewritten in accordance with it, but also declares at once every\npassage which tells against it to be a gloss and interpolation. History,\nlike science, is not built on subjective judgments.\n\nAt the same time, there is an element of truth in the work of the\n\u2018literary analysis.\u2019 Years of labour on the part of able and learned\nscholars cannot be absolutely without result, even though the labourers\nmay have been led astray by the will-o\u2019-the-wisp of a false theory and\nhave followed a wrong line of research. The minute examination to which\nthey have subjected the text has revealed much that had never before\nbeen suspected; and they have made it clear that the historical books of\nthe Old Testament are compilations, not free, moreover, from later\ninterpolations, even though we cannot share the confidence with which\nthey separate and distinguish the different elements. They have made it\nimpossible ever to return to the old conception of the Hebrew Scriptures\nand the old method of treating Hebrew history. Where they have been\nsuccessful has been on the negative rather than on the reconstructive\nside. For reconstruction, the scientific instrument of comparison was\nwanted, and this the literary analysts did not possess.\n\nThe Old Testament books themselves make no secret of the fact that they\nare compilations. The books of the Kings name the sources from which a\nlarge part of them has been drawn, and the books of Samuel (2 Sam. i.\n18) quote David\u2019s \u2018Song of the Bow\u2019 from the book of Jasher. The same\nwork is referred to in the book of Joshua (x. 13), and in Numbers (xxi.\n14) we have an extract from the lost Book of the Wars of the Lord. Old\npoems are introduced into the text, like the Song of Deborah or the\nBlessing of Jacob; even an Amorite song of triumph is cited in Numbers\nxxi. 27-30. The so-called \u2018Book of the Covenant\u2019 of the literary critics\ntakes its name from a real \u2018book of the covenant\u2019 in which the first\nlegislation promulgated at Sinai was written down by Moses, according to\nExod. xxiv. 4, 7, and read by him \u2018in the audience of the people;\u2019 while\nthe Song of Deborah expressly states that the forces of Zebulun, which\ntook part in the war against Sisera, were accompanied by scribes, like\nthe armies of Egypt or Assyria.\n\nThat Moses could not have written the account of his own death was\ndiscovered even by the Jewish rabbis; and references to the \u2018Book of the\nCovenant\u2019 and the \u2018Book of the Wars of the Lord\u2019 prove that the\nPentateuch in its present form has not come down to us from the Mosaic\nage. The materials may be Mosaic; it may thus be substantially the work\nof the great Hebrew lawgiver, but the actual work itself is of later\ndate.\n\nHow far may we trust the accuracy of the traditional Hebrew text? Modern\ncriticism has been inclined to pronounce the text corrupt, not\nunfrequently because the critic himself cannot understand it, and to\ndeal pretty freely in conjectural emendations. The Greek text of the\nSeptuagint is invoked against it, and undue weight is often given to its\nvariant readings or omissions, as, for instance, in the case of the\nhistory of Saul. Doubtless the Septuagint text is of great value; it\ngoes back to a period centuries older than the oldest Hebrew MS. that\nhas survived to us; but it was made by Jews of Alexandria, whose\nknowledge of the sacred language of their nation was not always complete\nor exact. The recent discovery of the original Hebrew text of\nEcclesiasticus has gone far to shake our confidence in the readings of\nthe Septuagint, as a comparison of it with the Greek translation made\nonly two generations later has shown that passages are omitted in the\nlatter, through simple carelessness, or perhaps inability to understand\nthem. The discovery has also not been in favour of the emendations of\nliterary and philological criticism, not one of the many attempts made\nto restore the lost Hebrew original having turned out to be\ncorrect.[141]\n\nOn the other hand, a comparison of the Hebrew Scriptures with the clay\nbooks of Assyria is on the side of accuracy in the text. The scribes\nemployed in the libraries of Assyria, and presumably, therefore, in the\nolder libraries of Babylonia, were scrupulously exact in their copies of\nearlier texts. Where the tablet which they copied was injured and\ndefective, it was stated to be so, and the scribe made no attempt to\nfill up by conjecture, however obvious, what was missing in the document\nbefore him. He even was careful to note whether the fracture was recent\nor not. Where, again, he was not certain about the Assyrian equivalent\nof a Babylonian character of unusual form, he gave alternative\nrepresentatives of it, or else reproduced the questionable character\nitself. Perhaps the most striking example of the textual honesty of the\nAssyrian and Babylonian scribes is, however, to be found in a\ncompilation known as the _Babylonian Chronicle_\u2014a chronological abstract\nin which the history of Babylonia is given from a strictly Babylonian\npoint of view. Here the author candidly confesses that he does \u2018not\nknow\u2019 the year when the decisive battle of Khalul\u00ea took place, which\nlaid Babylon at the feet of Sennacherib; his materials for settling the\nmatter failed him, and, unlike the modern Hexateuchal critics, he\nabstained from conjecture. We are more fortunate than he was; for, as we\npossess the annals of Sennacherib, in which the Assyrian king gives a\nhighly-coloured account of the battle, we are able to determine its\ndate.\n\nIn the later days of the Jewish monarchy there was a library at\nJerusalem similar to those of Assyria and Babylonia, and we hear of the\nscribes belonging to it in the days of Hezekiah re-editing the Proverbs\nof Solomon (Prov. xxv. 1). There are indications that they were as\ncareful and honest in their work as the scribes of Assyria whose example\nthey probably followed. Thus the names of Chedor-laomer and his allies\nare preserved with singular correctness, as well as the forms of two\ngeographical names which seem to imply translation from a cuneiform\noriginal.[142] So, again, the Aramaic inscriptions of a contemporary of\nTiglath-pileser III. found at Sinjerli, north of the Gulf of Antioch,\nshow that in one case at least the spelling which we find in the books\nof Kings has remained unchanged since the eighth century B.C. As in the\nbooks of Kings, so at Sinjerli, the Assyrian name Tukulti-Pal-Esarra is\nincorrectly written Tiglath-pileser, with _g_ instead of _k_, and even\nthe country over which he ruled is in both cases written _plene_ (with\nthe symbol of the vowel _u_). On the other hand, it cannot be denied\nthat there are many clear and unmistakable corruptions of the text. In\nthe fourteenth chapter of Genesis itself the name of the city Larsa has\nbeen transformed into Ellasar;[143] elsewhere glosses have been received\ninto the text, while there are whole passages which are either\nungrammatical or unmeaning as they now stand. Ancient authors, whether\nHebrew or otherwise, did not write nonsense; and if the natural\nrendering of a passage does not make sense, we may feel quite sure that\nit is corrupt.\n\nThe historian of the Hebrews, then, is bound to treat his authorities as\nthe Greek historian would treat Herodotos or Thucydides or any other\nwriter on behalf of whose character and age there is a long line of\nexternal testimony. The results of the \u2018literary analysis\u2019 may be left\nto the philologist, as well as the conjectures and theories that have\nbeen substituted by scholars of the nineteenth century for early\nIsraelitish history. They have vanished like bubbles wherever they have\nbeen tested by the arch\u00e6ological evidence, which, on the other hand, has\nvindicated the substantial truthfulness of those Old Testament\nstatements which had been scornfully thrown aside.\n\nWhere it is possible, the Biblical narratives must be compared with the\ndiscoveries of arch\u00e6ological research; where this cannot be done, they\nmust be examined from the historical and not from the philological or\nliterary point of view. We are bound to assume their general credibility\nand faithfulness, except where this can be historically disproved, and\nto remember that while on the one hand inconsistencies in detail do not\naffect the general historical trustworthiness of a document, the\nagreement of such details with the facts of arch\u00e6ology or geography\u2014more\nespecially when they are of the kind termed \u2018undesigned coincidences\u2019\u2014is\na powerful argument in its favour. Above all, we must beware of that\nfavourite weapon of literary criticism, the argument from silence, which\nis really merely an argument from the imperfection of our own knowledge,\nand which a single instance to the contrary will overthrow. The literary\ncriticism of the Old Testament is full of examples of the argument that\nhave been demolished by the advance of Oriental arch\u00e6ology.\n\nLet this accordingly be the rule of the historian: to believe all\nthings, to hope all things, but at the same time to test and try all\nthings. And the test must be scientific, not what we assume to be\nprobable or natural, but external testimony in the shape of\narch\u00e6ological or geographical facts. The history of the past is not what\nought to have happened according to the ideas of the critic, but what\nactually did happen.\n\nSuch a manner of treating our authorities does not, of course, exclude\nour recognition of what the literary critics call their several\n\u2018tendencies.\u2019 No history, worthy of the name, can be written without a\n\u2018tendency\u2019 of some sort on the part of the writer, even though it be not\nconsciously felt. We must have some kind of general theory within the\nlines of which our facts may be grouped; and however much we may strive\nto be impartial, our conception of the facts themselves, and our mode of\npresenting them, will be coloured by our beliefs and education. The\nhistorian cannot help writing with an object in view; the necessities of\nthe subject require it.\n\nThat the historical books of the Old Testament should have been written\nwith a \u2018tendency\u2019 is therefore natural. And literary criticism has\nsuccessfully pointed out in the case of one of these books what the\n\u2018tendency\u2019 was. If we compare the books of Chronicles with those of\nSamuel and Kings, the contrast between them strikes the eye at once. The\ninterest of the Chronicler is centred in the history of the Jewish\ntemple and ritual, of its priests and Levites, and the manifold\nrequirements of the Law. His history of Israel accordingly becomes a\nhistory of Israelitish ritual; all else is put aside or treated in the\nbriefest fashion. The incidents of David\u2019s reign narrated in the books\nof Samuel are subordinated to elaborate accounts of his arrangements for\nthe services in the tabernacle or temple; the history of the northern\nkingdom of Israel, which lay outside that of the temple at Jerusalem, is\npassed over in silence; and the Passover held in Hezekiah\u2019s reign, about\nwhich not a word is said in the books of Kings, is dwelt upon to the\nexclusion of almost everything else. Nor, had we only the Chronicler in\nour hands, should we know that the pious Hezekiah had entered into an\nalliance with the Babylonian king and boastfully displayed to his\nambassadors the treasures of the Jewish kingdom, thereby bringing upon\nhimself the rebuke of the prophet Isaiah. All that the Chronicler has to\nsay on the matter is that \u2018in the business of the ambassadors of the\nprince of Babylon, who sent to inquire of the wonder that was done in\nthe land, God left him, to try him, that he might know all that was in\nhis heart\u2019; and even here a theological turn is given to the occurrence\nby the motive assigned for the embassy. As a matter of fact, we know\nfrom the cuneiform inscriptions that the real object of Merodach-baladan\nwas to form a league with the princes of the West against their common\nAssyrian enemy, to which, as the books of Kings inform us, was naturally\nadded a polite inquiry after Hezekiah\u2019s health.\n\n\u2018Tendencies\u2019 there are, therefore, in the historical writings of the Old\nTestament; they would not be human productions if there were not. The\nauthors have had one great object in view, that of showing from the past\nhistory of the people that sin brings punishment with it, while a\nblessing follows upon righteous action. They believed in the Divine\ngovernment of the world, and wrote with that belief clearly before them.\nThey believed also that Israel was the chosen nation in whose history\nthat Divine government had been made manifest to mankind, and that the\nGod of Israel was the one true omnipotent God. In this belief in a\ntheodicy they were theologians, like most other Oriental writers. But\ntheir theological point of view did not prevent them from being\nhistorians as well. It did not interfere with their honestly recording\nthe course of events as it had been handed down to them, or reproducing\ntheir authorities without intentional change. Doubtless they may have\nmade mistakes at times, their judgment may not always have been strictly\ncritical or correct, and want of sufficient materials may now and then\nhave led them into error. But when we find that no attempt is made to\npalliate or conceal the sins and shortcomings of their most cherished\nnational heroes, that even the reverses of the nation are chronicled\nequally with its successes, and that the early period of its history is\nconfessed to have been one of anarchy and crime, and not the golden age\nof which popular (and even historical) imagination loves to dream, we\nare justified in according to them, in spite of their theological\n\u2018tendencies,\u2019 a considerable measure of confidence.\n\nIt will have been noticed that chronology\u2014the skeleton, as it were, on\nwhich the flesh of history is laid\u2014has been alluded to in the previous\nchapter only in the vaguest possible manner. \u2018The age of Abraham,\u2019 \u2018the\nage of the Exodus,\u2019 \u2018the Mosaic age,\u2019 are the phrases that have been\nused in referring to Old Testament events. Israelitish chronology in the\ntrue sense of the word does not begin till the reign of David, and even\nthen we have to deal with probabilities rather than with facts. Like\nEgyptian history, which has to be measured by dynasties instead of dates\nbefore the rise of the eighteenth dynasty, the early history of the\nHebrews has no chronological record. Before we can attach dates to the\nevents of the patriarchal period or the Exodus, it is necessary to find\nsynchronisms between them and the dated history of other peoples.\n\nIt is a commonplace of Biblical students that numbers are peculiarly\nliable to corruption, and that consequently little dependence can be\nplaced on the numbers given in the text of the Old Testament. But the\nconclusion does not follow from the premiss. The later dates of\nIsraelitish history are for the most part reliable, and it would be\nstrange if the causes of corruption were fatal only to the dates of an\nearlier period. Moreover, the numbers fit into a self-consistent system,\nthe several fractions of which agree with the whole summation. Such a\nself-consistent system would perhaps demand acceptance were it not that\nthere are three such systems, rivals one of the other, and mutually\nincompatible. One is that of the Massoretic Hebrew text, which makes the\nperiod from the Creation to the call of Abraham exactly 2000 solar years\n(or, 2056 lunar years), 1600 of which extend from the Creation to the\nDeluge, and the remaining 400 from the Deluge to the call of Abraham. A\nsecond is that of the Septuagint, according to which the period from the\nCreation to the Flood is 2200 solar years (or, 2262 lunar years), 1600\nof these elapsing between the Creation and the birth of Noah, and 600\nfrom that event to the Flood, while 1200 are counted from the Flood to\nthe call of the patriarch. The third is that of the Samaritan text which\ndivides the period into two halves of 1200 years each; the first 1200\ncomprising the time from the Creation to the birth of the sons of Noah,\nand the second 1200 the rest of the period.\n\nIt is obvious that all these systems are like the similar chronological\nsystems of the Egyptians, the Babylonians, or the Hindus, mere\nartificial schemes of an astronomical character, and differing from the\nlatter only in their more modest computation of time. For historical\npurposes they are worthless, and indicate merely that materials for a\nchronology were entirely wanting. The ages assigned to the patriarchs\nbefore the Flood, for example, stand on a level with the reigns of the\nten antediluvian kings of Chald\u00e6a which are extended over 120 sari, or\n432,000 years. The post-diluvian patriarchs are in no better position;\nindeed, one of them, Arphaxad, is a geographical title, and the\nSeptuagint interpolates after him a certain Kainan, of whom neither the\nHebrew nor the Samaritan text knows anything.\n\nEven after the call of Abraham, Hebrew chronology is equally uncertain.\nThe length of life assigned to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is surprising,\nthough not quite impossible, but the dates connected with it do not\nalways agree together. How, for example, can Abraham have had six\nchildren after the death of Sarah (Gen. xxv. 1, 2), when the birth of\nIsaac nearly forty years before had been regarded as extraordinary on\naccount of the patriarch\u2019s age? Or, again, to quote the words of\nProfessor Driver[144]: \u2018Do we all realise that according to the\nchronology of the Book of Genesis (xxv. 26, xxvi. 34, xxxv. 28) [Isaac]\nmust have been lying upon his deathbed for _eighty years_? Yet we can\nonly diminish this period by extending proportionately the interval\nbetween Esau\u2019s marrying his Hittite wives (Gen. xxvi. 34), and Rebekah\u2019s\nsuggestion to Isaac to send Jacob away, lest he should follow his\nbrother\u2019s example (xxvii. 46), which from the nature of the case will\nnot admit of any but a slight extension. Keil, however, does so extend\nit, reducing the period of Isaac\u2019s final illness to forty-three years,\nand is conscious of no incongruity in supposing that Rebekah,\n_thirty-seven_ years after Esau has taken his Hittite wives, should\nexpress her fear that Jacob, then aged seventy-seven, will do the same!\u2019\n\nThe length of the period during which the Israelites were in Egypt has\nbeen the subject of endless controversy. The Old Testament statements in\nregard to it are clear enough. Abraham is told (Gen. xv. 13) that his\ndescendants shall \u2018serve\u2019 the Egyptians and be \u2018afflicted\u2019 by them for\n400 years. As a generation was counted at thirty years, this implies\nthat the whole period spent in Egypt was 430 years, though the statement\nis not quite exact, since Joseph lived more than thirty years after the\nsettlement of his brethren in the land of Goshen, and their servitude\nand affliction did not begin till after his death. In Exodus (xii. 40)\nwe are informed explicitly that \u2018the sojourning of the children of\nIsrael, who dwelt in Egypt, was 430 years.\u2019 Four hundred and thirty\nyears, therefore, must have been the length of time during which Israel\nwas officially regarded as having lived in Goshen.\n\nBut it is difficult to reconcile it with another statement in Gen. xv.\n16, where it is said that \u2018in the fourth generation\u2019 the children of\nIsrael should return to Canaan. As the words were spoken to Abraham, the\nfourth generation would be that of Joseph himself. Since this seems out\nof the question, they are usually interpreted to refer to Moses and\nAaron, who are placed in the fourth generation from Levi. Moses and\nAaron, however, did not \u2018come again\u2019 to Palestine, and the genealogy of\nthe daughters of Zelophehad (Num. xxvii. 1) makes the generation that\ndid so the seventh from Joseph. Time, in fact, cannot be reckoned by\ngenerations; we do not know how many links in the chain may have been\ndropped, \u2018son\u2019 in Semitic idiom being frequently equivalent to\n\u2018descendant,\u2019 while the names are often merely geographical, like Gilead\nand Machir in the genealogy of Zelophehad, and therefore have no\nchronological value. It was, however, the mention of \u2018the fourth.\ngeneration\u2019 which produced the rabbinical gloss, alluded to by S. Paul\n(Gal. iii. 17), according to which the four hundred and thirty years of\nGen. xv. 13 did not mean the time during which the Israelites were\n\u2018afflicted\u2019 in Egypt, but\u2014in spite of the definite assertion to the\ncontrary\u2014a period which included the lives of the patriarchs as well as\nthe government of Joseph.\n\nIf the statements in regard to the period of the Israelitish settlement\nin Egypt are contradictory, the statements in regard to the lapse of\ntime from the conquest of Canaan to the building of Solomon\u2019s temple are\nstill more so. In 1 Kings vi. 1 we read that the foundations of the\ntemple were laid in the fourth year of Solomon\u2019s reign, and four hundred\nand eighty years after the Exodus from Egypt. If we add together the\nnumbers given in the book of Judges, they amount to four hundred and ten\nyears, thus leaving only seventy years for the wanderings in the desert,\nthe judgeships of Eli and Samuel, the reigns of Saul and David, and the\nfirst four years of Solomon! The endeavours that have been made to get\nover the difficulty have all been fruitless. Wellhausen and others, for\ninstance, have conjectured that the four hundred and eighty years are\nintended to represent twelve generations, each being reckoned at forty\nyears, and the seventy years assigned to the five \u2018lesser judges\u2019 being\noverlooked. But the conjecture is destitute of support, and is contrary\nto such notices as we have of the number of generations which covered\nthe period of the judges. Moreover, the five lesser judges do not\nconstitute a group by themselves.\n\nThe period of four hundred and eighty years cannot be reconciled with\nthe genealogies any better than with the apparent chronology of the book\nof Judges. Between Nahshon, who was a contemporary of Moses, and\nSolomon, only five generations are given (Ruth iv. 20-22); and between\nPhinehas and Zadok, whom Solomon removed from the priesthood, there were\nonly seven generations of priests (1 Chron. vi. 4-8). Doubtless some of\nthe links in the ancestry of David have been dropped, but that can\nhardly be the case as regards the priests. Seven generations would give,\nat the most, not more than two hundred and ten years.\n\nThat the number four hundred and eighty, however, has really been based\non the number forty seems probable. Forty years in Hebrew idiom merely\nsignified an indeterminate and unknown period of time, and the Moabite\nStone shows that the same idiom existed also in the Moabite\nlanguage.[145] Thus Absalom is said, in 2 Sam. xv. 7, to have asked\npermission to leave Jerusalem \u2018after forty years,\u2019 although the length\nof time was really little more than two years (2 Sam. xiv. 28 _sqq._),\nand Jewish tradition has supplied the lost record of the length of\nSaul\u2019s reign with a date of forty years. The period of forty years,\nwhich meets us again and again in the book of Judges, is simply the\nequivalent of an unknown length of time; it denotes the want of\nmaterials, and the consequent ignorance of the writer. Twenty, the half\nof forty, is equally an expression of ignorance; and the only dates\navailable for chronology are those which represent a definite space of\ntime, like the eight years of Chushan-rishathaim\u2019s oppression of Israel,\nor the six years of Jephthah\u2019s judgeship.\n\nWe can learn nothing, accordingly, from the books of the Old Testament\nabout the chronology of Israel down to the time of David. For David\u2019s\nreign we have the seven years of his rule at Hebron, followed by the\nthirty-three years of his sway over the whole of Israel. For the reign\nof Solomon we have again the indeterminate \u2018forty years\u2019; but since\nRezon of Damascus, like Hadad of Edom, was \u2018an adversary to Israel all\nthe days of Solomon,\u2019 it is probable that the reign did not actually\nlast more than thirty years at the most. Even the chronology of the\ndivided kingdom after the death of Solomon, in spite of the synchronisms\nthe compiler of the books of Kings has endeavoured to establish between\nthe kings of Judah and those of Israel, has been the despair of\nhistorians, and scheme after scheme has been proposed in order to make\nit self-consistent. The Assyrian monuments, however, have now come to\nour help, and shown that between the time of Ahab and that of Hezekiah\nit is forty years in excess.\n\nFor Hebrew chronology, therefore, we must look outside the Bible itself.\nAt certain points Hebrew history comes into touch with the monumental\nrecords of Egypt, Babylonia, and Assyria; and if we are to date the\nevents it records, it must be by their aid. Egypt can assist us only\nafter the rise of the eighteenth dynasty; before that period it is as\nmuch without a chronology as the Israelites themselves. But the case is\ndifferent as regards Babylonia and Assyria. In Babylonia time was dated\nby the reigns of the kings and the events of the several years of each\nreign. The extensive commercial relations of the country, and the\ncontracts that were constantly being drawn up, made accurate dating a\nmatter of necessity. The Assyrians were even more exact than the\nBabylonians; they were distinguished among Oriental nations by their\nstrong historical sense, and at an early epoch had devised an accurate\nsystem of chronology. The years were reckoned by a succession of\nofficers called _limmi_, each of whom held office for a year and gave\nhis name to it, the king himself, during the earlier period of Assyrian\nhistory, taking the office in the first year of his reign. Lists of the\n_limmi_ were kept, and a reference to them would show at once the exact\nage of a document dated by the name of a particular _limmu_. None of the\nlists hitherto discovered are, unfortunately, older than the tenth\ncentury B.C.; but, thanks to those that have been found, from B.C. 909\nto 666 we have a continuous and accurate register of time.\n\nAbraham was the contemporary of Chedor-laomer and Amraphel, and the\nposition of Amraphel among the Babylonian kings has been given us by the\nnative annalists. He was the sixth king of the first dynasty of Babylon,\nand reigned fifty-five years. Unfortunately, the only copy we possess at\npresent of the native Babylonian list of dynasties is broken, and owing\nto the fracture of the tablet, a doubt hangs over his precise date. The\nmost probable restoration of the text would make it about B.C.\n2300.[146] Between this and the Exodus there would be an interval of\nmore than a thousand years.\n\nDr. Mahler has attempted to fix astronomically the dates of the two\nleading Pharaohs of the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties, Thothmes\nIII. and Ramses II., and his dates have been accepted by Brugsch and\nother Egyptologists. If his calculations are correct, Thothmes III. will\nhave reigned from the 20th of March B.C. 1503 to the 14th of February\nB.C. 1449;[147] and Ramses II., the Pharaoh of the oppression, from B.C.\n1348 to 1281. The eighteenth dynasty, accordingly, would have commenced\nabout B.C. 1600, and the Exodus would have taken place subsequently to\nB.C. 1280.\n\nIf Apophis II. was the Hyksos king under whom Joseph governed Egypt, he\nwould have lived four generations before Ahmes, the founder of the\neighteenth dynasty.[148] The \u2018four hundred years,\u2019 therefore, during\nwhich Israel was evil-entreated in Egypt (Acts vii. 6) will correspond\nwith the era of four hundred years mentioned on a stela discovered by\nMariette at San, the ancient Zoan.[149] The stela commemorates a visit\npaid to Zoan in the reign of Ramses II. by Seti, the governor of the\nfrontier, on the fourth day of the month Mesori, and \u2018the four hundredth\nyear of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Set-\u00e2a-pehti, the son of the\nSun, who loved him, also named Set-Nubti, beloved of Harmakhis.\u2019 Since\nSet or Sutekh was the Hyksos god, and Zoan the Hyksos capital, it is\nclear that we have here a Hyksos era, the four hundredth anniversary of\nwhich fell in the reign of Ramses II. It seems probable that it marked\nthe accession of the third and last Hyksos dynasty. According to\nManetho, as reported by Africanus, this lasted for one hundred and\nfifty-one years, which would take us to about B.C. 1720, and the same\ndate is obtained if we calculate the four hundred years of the stela of\nS\u00e2n, back from the thirtieth year of Ramses II. One generation more\u2014the\nthirty additional years given in Exod. xii. 40\u2014will bring us to the\nperiod of the Exodus, which, as we shall see hereafter, must have taken\nplace under Meneptah, the son and successor of Ramses II.\n\nThe precise connection between the Hyksos and Hebrew eras must be left\nto the future to discover. At present, the only reference found to the\nfirst is that on the stela of S\u00e2n. Some connection, however, there must\nbe between them, like the connection between Zoan and Hebron indicated\nin Numb. xiii. 22, where it is said that \u2018Hebron was built seven years\nbefore Zoan in Egypt.\u2019 The Hyksos were invaders from Asia, and between\nthem and the Hebrews there may have been a closer relationship than we\nnow suspect.\n\nTwo approximate dates have accordingly been found for early Hebrew\nhistory. One results from the synchronism between Abraham and Amraphel,\nand may be set down as about 2300 B.C.; the other is the synchronism\nwith Egyptian history, which gives us about B.C. 1720 for the settlement\nof the Hebrew tribes in Goshen. We must now see what light can be thrown\nby the Egyptian monuments on the date of the Exodus.\n\nVarious reasons had led an increasing majority of Egyptologists to\nregard Ramses II., the most prominent figure in the nineteenth dynasty,\nif not in the whole history of the Pharaohs, as the Pharaoh of the\nOppression, and the question was finally settled by Dr. Naville\u2019s\nexcavations at Tel el-Maskh\u00fbta on behalf of the Egypt Exploration\nFund.[150] Tel el-Maskh\u00fbta proved to be the site of Pi-Tum, the Biblical\nPithom, and to have had the civil name of Thuku or Thukut from the nome\nof the district in which it was situated. Brugsch had already pointed\nout that Thukut is the Succoth of the Old Testament, the Egyptian _th_\ncorresponding to the Hebrew _\u2019s_, and Succoth was the first stage in the\nflight of the Israelites after their departure from Raamses (Exod. xii.\n37). Pi-Tum was the sacred name of the city, which was dedicated to Tum,\nthe setting Sun.\n\nThe monuments found on the spot showed that the founder of the city was\nRamses II.; and since the Pharaoh of the Oppression was also the builder\nof Pithom (Exod. i. 11), those who attach any credit to the historical\ncharacter of the Biblical statement must necessarily see in him the\ngreat Pharaoh of the nineteenth dynasty. The conclusion is further\nsupported by the name of \u2018Raamses,\u2019 or Ramses, the second of the two\ncities which it is said the Hebrews were employed in building. Ramses\nI., the founder of the nineteenth dynasty, and the grandfather of Ramses\nII., was the first king of Egypt who bore that name; and the shortness\nof his reign, which does not seem to have exceeded two years, as well as\nthe disturbed condition of the country, would have prevented him from\nundertaking any architectural works. Ramses II., however, was\nessentially a building Pharaoh; he covered Egypt from one end to the\nother with his constructions; he founded cities, erected or restored\nmonuments, and not unfrequently usurped them. There was more than one\ncity or temple of Ramses which owed its existence to his architectural\nzeal and was called after his name. As the date of the third Ramses of\nthe twentieth dynasty is too late to fit in with any theory of the\nExodus, there remains only Ramses II. for \u2018the treasure-city\u2019 mentioned\nin Exodus. Ramses II. restored Zoan, and made it a seat of residence;\nthis will explain why, in Gen. xlvii. 11, Goshen is proleptically said\nto have been situated in \u2018the land of Rameses.\u2019 Brugsch has made it\nprobable that \u2018the city of Ramses\u2019 referred to in an Egyptian papyrus\nwas Zoan itself.[151]\n\nIf Ramses II. was the Pharaoh of the Oppression, the Pharaoh of the\nExodus will have been one of his immediate successors. The choice lies\nbetween Meneptah II., who succeeded him, his grandson, the feeble Seti\nII., and the usurper Si-Ptah, with whom the dynasty came to an\ninglorious end. The Egyptian legend of the Exodus given by Manetho\nplaces it in the reign of Meneptah; and a stela discovered at Thebes in\n1896 by Professor Petrie makes any other dating difficult. Here the\n\u2018Israelites\u2019 are spoken of as having been brought low, \u2018so that no seed\nshould be left to them\u2019; and since their name alone is without the\ndeterminative of locality which is added to the names of all the other\nconquered populations associated with them, we may conclude that they\nhad already been lost in the desert, and, so far at any rate as was\nknown to the Egyptian scribe, had no fixed local habitation.[152] As\nthis was in the fifth year of Meneptah\u2019s reign, B.C. 1276, according to\nDr. Mahler\u2019s chronology, the Exodus from Egypt may be approximately\nassigned to B.C. 1277. The period of oppression, according to the\ncalculation in Gen. xv. 13, would consequently have commenced in B.C.\n1677, or nearly a hundred years before the expulsion of the Hyksos.\n\nIt must be remembered, however, that the date is more precise in\nappearance than in reality. It depends partly on the accuracy of Dr.\nMahler\u2019s calculations, which is disputed by Professors Eisenlohr and\nMaspero, partly on our regarding the round number 400 as representing an\nexact period of time. If we knew in what year of Ramses II.\u2019s long reign\nof sixty-seven years the stela of S\u00e2n was inscribed, we should be better\nable to check the reckoning. As it is, we have to be grateful for what\nwe have already learned from the excavated monuments of the past, and to\nlook forward with confidence to more light and certainty in the future.\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n  This, however, is beginning to be doubtful, in view of the discoveries\n  made by Messrs. de Morgan and Am\u00e9lineau in 1886-87.\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n  For the logical goal of the \u2018Higher Criticism,\u2019 see Bateson Wright,\n  _Was Israel ever in Egypt?_ (1895.)\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n  The theory of Jean Astruc, the French Protestant physician, was set\n  forth in his _Conjectures sur la Gen\u00e8se_ published anonymously at\n  Paris in 1753. In this he assumes that Moses wrote the book of Genesis\n  in four parallel columns like a Harmony of the Gospels which were\n  afterwards mixed together by the ignorance of copyists. Astruc\n  intended his work to be an answer to those who, like Spinoza, asserted\n  that Genesis was written without order or plan. It is interesting to\n  note that Dr. Briggs in his able defence of the \u2018critical\u2019 hypothesis\n  (_The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch_, pp. 138-141) quotes with\n  approval Professor Moore\u2019s appeal to Tatian\u2019s _Diatessaron_\u2014a mere\n  \u2018patchwork\u2019 of the Gospels\u2014in support of the literary analysis of the\n  Pentateuch.\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n  See Bissell, Introduction to _Genesis printed in Colours_ (1892), pp.\n  xi-xiii; also p. vii, where he says: \u2018The argument from language\n  outside the divine names requires extreme care for obvious reasons. It\n  is admitted to be relatively weak, and can never have more than a\n  subordinate and supplementary value. There is no visible cleavage line\n  among the supposed sources.\u2019 Professor Bissell\u2019s work is an attempt to\n  represent by different colours the text of Genesis as it has been\n  analysed and disintegrated by the \u2018higher critics,\u2019 and the result at\n  which he arrives in his Introduction is that the analytical theory is\n  a house built upon sand. As regards the account of the Flood, in which\n  \u2018it is claimed\u2019 that two distinct narratives can be distinguished from\n  each other, he remarks: \u2018Two flood-stories, originating, according to\n  the theory, hundreds of years apart, and literally swarming with\n  differences and contradictions ... are found to fit one another like\n  so many serrated blocks, and to form, united, a consecutive history\n  whose unity, with constant use for millenniums, has been undisputed\n  till our day. Is this coincidence, or is it miracle? But let us take a\n  closer look. We shall find no loosely joined, independent sections,\n  but mutually dependent parts of one whole. An occasional overlapping\n  of ideas, a repetition for emphasis, or enlargement, in complete\n  harmony with Hebrew style, there undoubtedly is. But there is also a\n  marked interdependence and sequence of thought wholly inconsistent\n  with the theory proposed. Let the reader test what J\u2019s story would be\n  alone. Beginning it has none; no preliminary announcement of the\n  catastrophe; no command to make preparations; no report of Noah\u2019s\n  attitude.... And so P\u2019s story, taken by itself, would be equally\n  incomplete.... As to the alleged discrepancies in other respects, they\n  appear, as we have seen, to be true in other cases, only after the\n  text is rent asunder. The lighting system of the one does not exclude\n  the one window of the other; nor the covering for the roof, the door\n  in the side. Without the door, for which one document alone is\n  responsible, how is it supposed that the occupants of the ark got in\n  and out of it? If objects are thrown out of their due perspective, as\n  in a mirage, it need surprise no one if they appear distorted and\n  grotesque.... It is particularly in the matter of language and style\n  that resort is taken to this illogical and dangerous means of\n  text-mutilation. There are certain stylistic peculiarities of one or\n  the other document, it is claimed, which are fixed from the usage of\n  previous chapters. But unfortunately for the scheme, they appear not\n  unfrequently in the wrong place. For instance, the expression \u201cmale\n  and female\u201d is held to be characteristic of P, J using another for it.\n  In vii. 3, 9, J uses this expression twice, and our critics must make\n  the redactor deny it. The oft-recurring formula, \u201cboth man, beast, and\n  creeping thing and fowl of the air,\u201d is found in the first chapter of\n  Genesis, and so is said to be characteristic of P. Here J has it in\n  vi. 7 and vii. 23, and the redactor is called in to square the\n  document to the theory.... In all these changes we are supposed to\n  have the work of a redactor. How is it possible? What motive could a\n  redactor have had for it? It is claimed by our critics that he has\n  left the principal points of contrast between the two great documents\n  from which he compiled in their original ruggedness. The principal\n  changes made, with rare exceptions, are of single words, detached\n  phrases, verses or parts of verses,\u2014every one of them changes in what\n  was originally homogeneous matter to what is now heterogeneous, from\n  what was once true, from the point of view of the document, to what is\n  now false!\u2019\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n  Cf. the plates in Flinders Petrie\u2019s _Tel el-Amarna_ (Methuen and Co.,\n  1894).\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n  Literally, \u2018Aten-Ra! the Record Office.\u2019 Many of the bricks with the\n  inscription upon them still lay on the spot when I visited it in 1888.\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n  See my _Patriarchal Palestine_, p. 222.\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n  Hommel, _Aufs\u00e4tze und Abhandlungen zur Kunde der Sprachen, Literaturen\n  und der Geschichte des vorderen Orients_, pp. 2 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n  See my _Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_, pp. 56\n  _sq._\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n  The Elohist and the Chald\u00e6an story further agree in making the hero of\n  the Deluge the tenth in descent from the first man.\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n  See my _Arch\u00e6ological Commentary on Genesis_, in the _Expository\n  Times_, July and August, 1896.\n\nFootnote 137:\n\n  Cf. Gunkel, _Sch\u00f6pfung und Chaos_, p. 114.\n\nFootnote 138:\n\n  See above, p. 13.\n\nFootnote 139:\n\n  Naville, _Das aegyptische Todtenbuch der XVIII. bis XX. Dynastie_,\n  Einleitung; Maspero, _\u00c9tudes de Mythologie et d\u2019 Arch\u00e9ologie\n  \u00e9gyptiennes_, i. pp. 325-387.\n\nFootnote 140:\n\n  _Sanctuary and Sacrifice_, by W. L. Baxter (Eyre and Spottiswoode,\n  1895).\n\nFootnote 141:\n\n  Cowley and Neubauer, _The Original Hebrew of a Portion of\n  Ecclesiasticus_, p. xviii.\n\nFootnote 142:\n\n  Ham for Am or Ammon, and Zuzim for Zamzummim (Gen. xiv. 5); see my\n  _Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_, pp. 160, 161.\n\nFootnote 143:\n\n  This probably stands for the Babylonian al-Larsa, \u2018the city of Larsa.\u2019\n\nFootnote 144:\n\n  _Contemporary Review_, February 1890, p. 221.\n\nFootnote 145:\n\n  Mesha says in the inscription (l. 8): \u2018Omri took the land of Medeba,\n  and [Israel] dwelt in it during his days and half the days of his son,\n  altogether forty years.\u2019 The real length of time was not more than\n  fifteen years.\n\nFootnote 146:\n\n  Oppert dates the reign B.C. 2394 to 2339; Sayce, B.C. 2336-2281;\n  Delitzsch, B.C. 2287-2232; Winckler, 2264-2210; and Peiser, 2139-2084;\n  while Hommel suggests that the compiler of the list of dynasties has\n  reversed the true order of the first two dynasties in it, and\n  accordingly brings down the date of Khammu-rabi or Amraphel three\n  hundred and sixty-eight years. This would better suit the Biblical\n  data, but so far nothing has been found on the monuments in support of\n  the suggestion. Dr. Hales\u2019s date for the birth of Abraham was B.C.\n  2153.\n\nFootnote 147:\n\n  _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Aegyptische Sprache_, 1889, pp. 97-105.\n\nFootnote 148:\n\n  The \u2018prince\u2019 of Thebes who revolted against Apophis was Skenen-Ra Taa\n  I., whose fourth successor was Ahmes.\n\nFootnote 149:\n\n  _Revue Arch\u00e9ologique_, March 1865.\n\nFootnote 150:\n\n  E. Naville, _The Store-city of Pithom and the Route of the Exodus_\n  (1885).\n\nFootnote 151:\n\n  _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Aegyptische Sprache_, 1872, p. 18; see also J. de\n  Roug\u00e9, _G\u00e9ographie ancienne de la Basse-\u00c9gypte_, pp. 93-95.\n\nFootnote 152:\n\n  Cf. the articles of Sayce and Hommel in the _Expository Times_ for\n  August, October, and November 1896, pp. 521, 18, and 89.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III\n                        THE EXODUS OUT OF EGYPT\n\n\n    Goshen\u2014The Pharaohs of the Oppression and Exodus\u2014The Heretic\n    King at Tel el-Amarna\u2014Causes of the Exodus\u2014The Stela of\n    Meneptah\u2014Moses\u2014Flight to Midian\u2014The Ten Plagues\u2014The\n    Exodus\u2014Egyptian Version of it\u2014Origin of the Passover\u2014Geography\n    of the Exodus\u2014Position of Sinai\u2014-Promulgation of the\n    Law\u2014Babylonian Analogies\u2014The Tabernacle\u2014The Levitical Law\u2014The\n    Feasts\u2014Number of the Israelites\u2014Kadesh-barnea\u2014Failure to conquer\n    Canaan\u2014The High-priest and the Levites\u2014Edom\u2014Conquests on the\n    East of the Jordan\u2014Balaam\u2014Destruction of the Midianites\u2014Cities\n    of Refuge and of the Levites\u2014The Deuteronomic Law\u2014Death of\n    Moses.\n\n\n\u2018There arose up a new king over Egypt which knew not Joseph.\u2019\nCommentators on the passage have often imagined that this event followed\nalmost immediately upon the death of Joseph and his generation. So, too,\nit was supposed before the decipherment of the Assyrian inscriptions\nthat the murder of Sennacherib took place immediately after his return\nfrom Palestine. In both cases the student had been misled by the brevity\nof the Hebrew narrative, and that foreshortening of the past which\ncauses events to be grouped together even though they may have been\nseparated by an interval of many years. In the present instance,\nhowever, the Biblical writer has done his best to indicate that the\ninterval was a long one. Before the rise of \u2018the new king which knew not\nJoseph,\u2019 the children of Israel had had time to \u2018increase abundantly,\u2019\nto \u2018multiply\u2019 so that \u2018the land was filled with them.\u2019 The family of\nJacob had become a tribe, or rather a collection of tribes. They had\nbecome dangerous to their rulers; the Pharaoh is even made to say that\nthey were \u2018more and mightier than\u2019 the Egyptians themselves. In case of\ninvasion, they might assist the enemy and expose Egypt to another\nAsiatic conquest.\n\nHence came the determination to transform them into public serfs, and\neven to destroy the males altogether. The free Bed\u00e2win-like settlers in\nGoshen, who had kept apart from their Egyptian neighbours, and had been\nunwilling to perform even agricultural work, were made the slaves of the\nState. They were taken from their herds and sheep, from their\nindependent life on the outskirts of the Delta, and compelled to toil\nunder the lash of the Egyptian taskmaster and build for the Pharaoh his\n\u2018treasure-cities\u2019 of Pithom and Raamses.\n\nEgypt is the most conservative of countries, and the children of Israel\nstill have their representatives in it. The Bed\u00e2win still feed their\nflocks and enjoy an independent existence on the outskirts of the\ncultivated land, and in that very district of Goshen where the\ndescendants of Jacob once dwelt. Even when they adopt a settled\nagriculturist life, like the villagers of Gizeh, they still claim\nimmunity from the burdens of their fellahin neighbours on the ground of\ntheir Bed\u00e2win descent. They are exempt from the conscription and the\n_corv\u00e9e_, the modern equivalents of the forced brickmaking of the Mosaic\nage. The attempt to interfere with these privileges has actually led to\nan exodus in our own time.[153] The Wadi Tumil\u00e2t, the Goshen of old\ndays, was colonised with Arabs from the Nejd and Babylonia by Mohammed\nAli, who wished to employ them in the culture of the silkworm. Here they\nlived with their flocks and cattle, protected by the Government, and\nexempt from taxation, from military service, and the _corv\u00e9e_. Mohammed\nAli died, however, and an attempt was then made to force them into the\narmy, and lay upon them the ordinary burdens of taxation. Thereupon, in\na single night, the whole population silently departed with all their\npossessions, leaving behind them nothing but the hearths of their\nforsaken homes. They made their way back to their kinsfolk eastward of\nEgypt, and the Wadi remained deserted until M. de Lesseps carried\nthrough it the Freshwater Canal.\n\nWe owe to Dr. Naville the recovery of Goshen. In 1884 he excavated at\nSaft el-Henna an ancient mound close to the line of railway between\nZagazig and Tel el-Keb\u00eer. The monuments he found there showed that the\nmound represents the ancient Qosem or Qos, called Pha-kussa by the Greek\ngeographers, which was the capital of the Arabian nome. The Septuagint,\nwith its Gesem instead of Goshen, implies that the site of Goshen was\nstill remembered in Alexandrine times.[154]\n\nThe Arabian nome took its name not only from its proximity to Arabia,\nbut also from the fact that its inhabitants were mainly of the Arab\nrace. But the name did not come into existence until after the age of\nthe nineteenth dynasty. When Ramses II. was Pharaoh, the whole region\nfrom the neighbourhood of Cairo to the Suez Canal was included in the\nnome of On or Heliopolis. It was only at a subsequent date that the\nnomes of Arabia and of Bubastis were carved out of that of On.\n\nPreviously to this, Qosem was the name of a district as well as of its\nchief city. It comprised not only the fertile fields immediately\nsurrounding Saft el-Henna, and stretching from the mounds of Bubastis,\nclose to Zagazig, on the west to Tel el-Keb\u00eer on the east, but also the\nWadi Tumil\u00e2t, through which the railway now runs eastward as far as\nIsmailiya. Belbeis, south of Zagazig, was also included within its\nlimits. At the eastern extremity of the Wadi was Pithom, now marked by\nthe ruins of Tel el-Maskh\u00fbta.\n\nMeneptah II., the Pharaoh of the Exodus, thus refers at Karnak to the\narable land about Pi-Bailos, the modern Belbeis. \u2018The country around\nit,\u2019 he says, \u2018is not cultivated, but left as pasture for cattle because\nof the foreigners. It has been abandoned (to them) since ancient times.\u2019\nThey had settled with their herds in the neighbouring-valley of Tumil\u00e2t,\nand the richer land which adjoined the valley was also assigned to them.\nHere they were in the nome of Heliopolis, the daughter of whose\nhigh-priest was married by Joseph, as well as in the near neighbourhood\nof Bubastis, where Dr. Naville has found Hyksos remains.\n\nWhen the great inscription of Meneptah II. was engraved on the walls of\nKarnak the Exodus would have already taken place. The \u2018foreigners,\u2019\ntherefore, to whom he alludes must have been the Israelites, who had now\ndeserted the spot. The district accordingly would once more have needed\ninhabitants, and the Pharaoh had the power of handing it over to the\nfirst Bed\u00e2win tribe who begged for pasturage in the Delta. He had not\nlong to wait. Among the papyri in the British Museum there is a letter\ndated in the eighth year of Meneptah\u2019s reign, and addressed to the king.\nIn this the scribe writes as follows:\u2014\u2018Another matter for the\nconsideration of my master\u2019s heart. We have allowed the tribes of the\nShasu from the land of Edom to pass the fortress of Meneptah in the land\nof Thukut (Succoth), (and go) to the lakes of Pithom of Meneptah in the\nland of Thukut, in order to feed themselves, and to feed their herds on\nthe great estate of Pharaoh, the beneficent sun of all countries. In the\nyear 8.\u2019[155]\n\nThe W\u00e2di Tumil\u00e2t was accordingly regarded as crown-land, as indeed it is\nto-day, and it was handed over to the Edomites by officers of the\nPharaoh, just as it had been to the Israelites several centuries before.\nBut now the Israelites had fled from it, and disappeared into the\nwilderness, and it was necessary to fill their place.\n\nThe Biblical writer distinguishes the Pharaoh of the Oppression from the\nPharaoh of the Exodus (Exod. ii. 23). It was after the death of the\ngreat royal builder of Egypt that the Hebrews were delivered from their\nbondage. The Pharaoh of the Oppression and not the Pharaoh of the Exodus\nwas \u2018the new king which knew not Joseph.\u2019\n\nThe full meaning of the phrase has been explained to us by the tablets\nof Tel el-Amarna. They have made it clear that towards the end of the\neighteenth dynasty the Egyptian court became semi-Asiatic. The Pharaohs\nmarried Asiatic wives; and eventually Amenophis IV., under the influence\nof his mother Teie, publicly abandoned the religion of which he was the\nofficial head, and avowed himself a convert to an Asiatic form of faith.\nAmon, the god of Thebes, was dethroned by a new deity, Aten-Ra, \u2018the\nSolar Disk.\u2019 The Solar Disk, however, was but the visible manifestation\nof the one Supreme God, who was diffused throughout nature, and\ncorresponded in many respects with the Semitic Baal. The Egyptians\naccordingly identified him with Ra, the ancient Sun-god of Heliopolis,\nwho in earlier times had similarly been identified with the Hyksos Baal.\n\nAmenophis, the cast of whose face taken immediately after death displays\nthe features and expression of a philosopher and enthusiast,[156]\nendeavoured to force the new faith upon his unwilling subjects. The very\nname of Amon was proscribed and was erased wherever it occurred, the\nfollowers of the old religion of Egypt were persecuted, and the Pharaoh\nchanged his own name to that of Khu-n-Aten, \u2018the radiance of the Solar\nDisk.\u2019 A violent struggle ensued with the powerful hierarchy of Thebes.\nKhu-n-Aten was finally compelled to leave the capital of his fathers,\nand build himself a new city further north, where its site is now marked\nby the mounds of Tel el-Amarna. He carried with him the State-archives,\nconsisting mainly of foreign correspondence in the Babylonian language\nand cuneiform script, and these were deposited in one of the public\nbuildings adjoining the palace, every brick of which was stamped with\nthe words, \u2018Aten-Ra! the Record-Office.\u2019[157]\n\nThe palace itself was a marvel of art. Its walls and columns were\nencrusted with precious stones, with gold and with bronze, and it was\nadorned with painting and statuary, some of which reminds us of Greek\nart in its best period. Even the floors were frescoed with pictures of\nbirds and animals, of flowers and trees. The new religion was\naccompanied by a new form of art, which cast aside the traditions of\nEgypt, and looked rather to Asiatic models. It strove after a realism\nwhich was sometimes exaggerated, and was always in strange contrast to\nthe conventionalism of Egyptian art. Hard by the gardens of the palace\nrose the temple of Aten-Ra in the centre of the city. Like the palace,\nit was gorgeous with ornament. But it contained no image of the deity to\nwhom it was consecrated. His symbol, the Disk, was alone permitted to\nappear. The pantheistic monotheism of the Pharaoh thus anticipated the\npuritanism of the Israelitish Law.\n\nWe learn from the inscriptions that Khu-n-Aten was not contented with\nmaking himself the high-priest of the new faith. Daily in the morning he\ngave instruction in it, expounding its mysteries to those who would\nlisten to him. Acceptance of its doctrines was naturally a passport to\nthe offices of State. Many of these had long been held by Asiatics, more\nespecially by Syrians and Canaanites, and under Khu-n-Aten these foreign\nimmigrants more and more usurped the highest functions of the\nGovernment. The native Egyptians saw themselves excluded from the posts\nwhich had brought them not only dignity, but wealth. Naturally,\ntherefore, the bitter feelings engendered by the war waged against the\nold religion of Egypt were increased by this promotion of the stranger\nto the offices of State which they had regarded as their own. The Canaan\nthey had conquered had revenged itself by conquering their king. Not\nonly religion, but self-interest also, urged the native Egyptian to put\nan end to the reforming schemes of the Pharaoh, and to religious\nanimosity was added race hatred as well.\n\nThe storm broke shortly before Khu-n-Aten\u2019s death. His mummy indeed was\nlaid in the magnificent grave he had excavated in the recesses of a\ndesolate mountain-valley, but the granite sarcophagus in which it was\ndeposited was never placed in the niche prepared for it, but was hacked\nto pieces by his enemies as it lay in the columned hall of the tomb,\nwhile the body within it was torn to shreds. Nor was his mother Teie\never laid by his side. Even the bodies of his dead daughters were\nmaltreated and despoiled.\n\nKhu-n-Aten was followed by one or two short-lived Pharaohs in the city\nhe had built. Then the end came. The city was destroyed, the stones of\nits temple were transported elsewhere to furnish materials for the\nsanctuaries of the victorious Amon, and such of the adherents of the new\nfaith as could not escape from the country either apostatised or were\nslain. A new king arose who represented the national party and the\nworship of the national god, and the Semitic strangers who had governed\nEgypt as European strangers govern it to-day disappeared for a time from\nthe land. Their kinsfolk who remained, like the Israelites in Goshen,\nwere reduced to the condition of public slaves.\n\nHere, then, is the explanation of the rise of that \u2018new king which knew\nnot Joseph.\u2019 We must see in him, not the founder of the eighteenth\ndynasty who expelled the Hyksos, but Ramses I., the founder of the\nnineteenth dynasty, with whom all danger of Asiatic domination in Egypt\ncame finally to an end. The nineteenth dynasty represented the national\nreaction against the Asiatic faith of Khu-n-Aten and the government of\nthe country by Asiatic officials. It meant Egypt as against Asia. And\nthe policy of the new rulers of Egypt was not long in declaring itself.\nRamses I. indeed reigned too short a time to do more than establish his\nfamily firmly on the throne; but his son and successor, Seti Meneptah\nI., once more overran Syria and made Palestine an Egyptian province;\nwhile Ramses II., who followed him, took measures to prevent such of the\nAsiatics as were still in Egypt from ever again becoming formidable to\nthe native population.\n\nThe causes that led to the enslavement of the Israelites and to the\nExodus out of Egypt were the same as those which in our own day led to\nthe rebellion of Arabi. Religious and race hatreds were mingled\ntogether, and the \u2018national party\u2019 which grudged to the foreigner his\nshare in the spoils of government aimed at destroying both him and his\nreligion. Ramses I., however, was more fortunate than Arabi. No foreign\npower came to the help of the Syrian settlers on the Nile, and the\nleader of the Egyptian patriots became the favourite of the Theban\npriesthood and the sovereign of Egypt. From this time forward we hear no\nmore of the use of the Babylonian language and script in the public\ncorrespondence of the Egyptians.\n\nThe oppression of the Israelites, then, is a natural and necessary part\nof the political history of the nineteenth dynasty. It fits in with the\npolicy which the dynasty was placed on the throne to carry out. And an\ninscription discovered by Professor Flinders Petrie in 1896 supplements\nthe story in an unexpected way. It was engraved by order of Meneptah\nII., the son and successor of Ramses II., on a large slab of granite,\nand placed in a temple he built at Thebes, on the western bank of the\nNile. Its twenty-eight lines contain a song of triumph over the defeat\nof the Libyans and their allies from the Greek seas which took place in\nthe fifth year of the king\u2019s reign. Towards the end the poet sums up all\nthe glorious deeds of the Pharaoh. \u2018The chiefs,\u2019 he says, \u2018are\noverthrown and speak only of peace. None of the Barbarians (literally,\nthe Nine Bows) lifts up his head. Wasted (?) is the land of the Libyans;\nthe land of the Hittites is tranquillised; captive is the land of Canaan\nand utterly miserable; carried away is the land of Ashkelon; overpowered\nis the land of Gezer; the land of Innuam (in Central Syria) is brought\nto nought. The Israelites are spoiled so that they have no seed, the\nland of Khar (Southern Palestine) is become like the widows of Egypt.\u2019\n\nHere the Israelites alone are described as without local habitation.\nThey alone had no \u2018land\u2019 in which they dwelt, and which was called after\ntheir name. It would seem, therefore, that when the song was composed\nthey had already fled from Egypt and been lost in the unknown recesses\nof the eastern desert. But the poet knew that they were of Canaanitish\norigin; that they were, in fact, the kinsmen of the Horites of Southern\nPalestine. Their misfortunes, consequently, were equally the misfortunes\nof \u2018Khar,\u2019 whose women had been made as widows since the male seed of\nIsrael had been cut off.[158]\n\nAfter the fashion of court-poets, the author of the hymn of victory is\nnot careful about ascribing to his royal master such successes as he\ncould himself really claim. He has skilfully combined the victories of\nMeneptah with those of his father, and given him the credit of conquests\nwhich he had not made. The Hittites had been \u2018tranquillised\u2019 by Ramses\nII., not by Meneptah, and Canaan had been the conquest of Ramses and his\nfather Seti. We may accordingly conclude that in the case of the\nIsraelites also Meneptah is made to claim what does not properly belong\nto him. According to the book of Exodus, it was the Pharaoh of the\nOppression rather than the Pharaoh of the Exodus who ordered that \u2018every\nson\u2019 should be \u2018cast into the river,\u2019 and only the daughters saved\nalive.\n\nThe agreement, however, between the Biblical narrative and the\nexpression used on the stela of Meneptah is very remarkable. It is\nalmost as if the writer of Exodus had had the inscription before him. In\nboth it is the male seed which we are told was destroyed: the women were\nleft as widows, for all \u2018the men children\u2019 were cut off. The victory\nover the Israelites, of which the poet boasts, was a victory obtained by\nslaying, like Herod, all the children who were males.\n\nNevertheless, \u2018the people multiplied.\u2019 It was impossible to carry out\nliterally the order of the Pharaoh, and there must have been many\nchildren who were saved from death. Among these was Moses, the future\nlegislator of his race. The story of his preservation is familiar to\nevery one. We are told how his mother made \u2018an ark of bulrushes, and\ndaubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and laid\nit in the flags by the river\u2019s brink.\u2019 Then the daughter of the Pharaoh\ncame to bathe, and taking compassion on the child, brought him up as her\nown son.\n\nA similar story had been told centuries before of Sargon of Akkad, the\ngreat Babylonian conqueror and lawgiver. He, too, it was said, had been\nplaced by his mother \u2018in an ark of reeds, the mouth whereof she closed\nwith pitch,\u2019 and then launched it on the waters of the Euphrates. The\nchild was carried to Akki the irrigator, who adopted him as his son, and\nbrought him up until the day came when, through the help of the goddess\nIstar, the true origin and birth of the hero were made known, and he\nbecame one of the mightiest of the Babylonian kings.\n\nA like destiny seemed in store for Moses. He was introduced into the\nfamily of the Pharaoh, and took his place at court among the royal\nprinces. A punning etymology makes the princess who adopted him speak\nHebrew and give him the name of Mosheh or Moses, from the Hebrew\n_m\u00e2shah_, \u2018to draw out.\u2019 Mosheh, however, is really the Egyptian\n_messu_, \u2018son,\u2019 a very appropriate name for an adopted child. The name\nwas not uncommon in Egypt; and in the time of Meneptah, the contemporary\nof Moses, it was actually borne by a \u2018Prince of Kush,\u2019 that is to say,\nthe Egyptian governor of Ethiopia.[159] The coincidence doubtless was\nthe origin of that Jewish tradition of the successful campaign of Moses\nin Ethiopia as general of the Egyptian army, which is recorded in full\nby Josephus.\n\nConjecture, both ancient and modern, has played freely round the person\nof Pharaoh\u2019s daughter. Modern writers have pointed to the fact that the\nfavourite daughter of Ramses II. bore the Canaanitish name of Bint-Anat,\nand had been born of a Syrian mother. That she should have adopted a\nHebrew child would have been nothing strange. Her own sympathies would\nnaturally have been on the side of her Semitic ancestry. Moses himself\nbelonged to the tribe of Levi, and future generations remembered that\nhis father was Amram and his mother Jochebed. He had a brother Aaron,\nthree years older than himself, and a sister Miriam. The names of all\nthree were never forgotten in Israel.[160]\n\nNor did Moses, when he came to man\u2019s estate, forget his own people. One\nday, when he was of that unknown age which the Hebrew writers expressed\nby the term of forty years, he saw one of his Israelitish brethren\nill-treated by the Egyptian taskmaster; and with the unrestrained\nlicence of a young Oriental prince, he forthwith remedied the injustice\nby slaying the Egyptian with his own hand. The act was soon known and\ndiscussed among the Hebrew slaves; and when he endeavoured to reconcile\ntwo of them who were quarrelling with each other, he was told that\nthough he might be \u2018a prince\u2019 in the eyes of the Egyptians, he had no\nauthority over the Hebrew tribes. The suspicions of the Pharaoh had\nalready been aroused against him, and he now fled from Egypt in fear of\nhis life. An Egyptian papyrus, written in the time of the twelfth\ndynasty, tells the story of a similar fugitive from the Pharaoh\u2019s wrath.\nThis was Sinuhit, who seems to have been accused of conspiring against\nthe government, and who fled, accordingly, like Moses, alone and on\nfoot. He made his way to the eastern boundary of Egypt; and there, when\nfainting from thirst, was rescued by the Bed\u00e2win of the desert, and\nfinally reached in safety the land of the Kadmonites among the mountains\nof Seir. The sh\u00eakh received him kindly, and Sinuhit in course of time\nmarried the daughter of the Bed\u00e2wi chieftain, and became one of the\nprinces of the tribe. Children were born to him, and he possessed herds\nand flocks in abundance. But his heart still yearned for his native\nland; and when in his old age a new Pharaoh sent messengers to say that\nhis political offences were forgiven, and that he might return to Egypt,\nSinuhit left his Arab wife and children and went back once more to his\nown country.[161]\n\nLike Sinuhit, Moses also fled to the eastern desert, beyond the reach of\nthe Egyptian power. He did not feel himself safe till he found himself\nin Midian. The Sinaitic Peninsula\u2014Mafkat, as it was called\u2014was an\nEgyptian province, and the mines of malachite and copper on its western\nside were garrisoned by Egyptian troops. The \u2018salt\u2019 desert of Melukhkha,\nmoreover, which lay between Egypt and Palestine, was equally under\nEgyptian control; and, as we learn from the Tel el-Amarna tablets,\nsupplied contingents to the Pharaoh\u2019s army.[162] But in Midian Moses was\nsafe from pursuit; and the \u2018priest of Midian,\u2019 like the sh\u00eakh of Kedem\nwith whom Sinuhit had to do, gave him a kindly welcome, and married him\nto Zipporah, one of his daughters.\n\nGovernment by a priest was a peculiarly Semitic institution. Assur, the\nprimitive capital of Assyria, had been governed by high-priests before\nit had been governed by kings, and so too had Saba or Sheba in the south\nof Arabia. There, as we learn from inscriptions, the Mak\u00e2rib, or\nHigh-priests, had preceded the kings.\n\nTradition has handed down more than one name for the high-priest of\nMidian. In one part of the narrative in Exodus he is called Reuel, in\nanother part Jethro. Jethro is a distinctively north Arabian name, for\nwhich there is monumental evidence, and it is probably more correct than\nReuel.[163] Whatever may have been his name, however, Moses remained\nwith him for some time; but instead of being treated like a prince, as\nSinuhit had been among the Kadmonites, he was set to keep the flocks of\nhis father-in-law.\n\nIt was while thus shepherding the flocks of Jethro that Moses came one\nday to Horeb, \u2018the mountain of God,\u2019 which rose into the sky at the back\nof the desert. Here he beheld a _seneh_ or \u2018thorn-bush,\u2019 lighted up with\nfire, which nevertheless did not consume it.[164] Approaching nearer, he\nheard a voice which he believed was that of God Himself, and which told\nhim that the mountain whereon he stood was holy ground. Moses was then\nordered to return to Egypt, and there in the name of the God of Israel\nto command Pharaoh to let His people go. Wonders and signs were to be\nperformed before consent would be wrung from the obdurate heart of the\nEgyptian king, and ten sore plagues were to be sent upon the inhabitants\nof the Delta who had joined with the Pharaoh in his oppression of the\nIsraelites. At the same time, God revealed Himself under a new name,\nwhich was henceforth to be that of the national God of Israel. On the\nslopes of Horeb the name of Yahveh was first made known to man.[165]\n\nMoses was met by Aaron \u2018in the Mount of God,\u2019 and the two brothers\nreturned to Egypt together, determined to deliver Israel from its\nbondage, and to lead it to that sacred mountain whereon the name of its\nnational God had been revealed. Unlike Sinuhit, Moses took with him his\nMidianitish wife and the children she had borne him. At this point in\nthe narrative there has been inserted the fragment of a story which\nharmonises but ill with it, or with the general spirit of Old Testament\nhistory. The anthropomorphising legend that \u2018the Lord\u2019 met Moses and\nwould have killed him had not Zipporah appeased the wrathful Deity by\ncircumcising her son, belongs to the folklore of a people still in a\nstate of crude barbarism, and is part of a story which enforced the\nnecessity of circumcision among the Hebrew worshippers of Yahveh. An\nover-minute criticism might find a contradiction between the statement\nthat Zipporah had but one son to circumcise, and the fact that it was\nthe \u2018sons\u2019 of Moses who accompanied him to Egypt (Exod. iv. 20). Such\nverbal criticism, however, is needless; it is sufficient for the\nhistorian that the story is a mere fragment, almost unintelligible as it\nstands, and in complete disaccord with the historical setting in which\nit is placed.\n\nMoses and Aaron made their way to the court of the Pharaoh, and there\nrequested that the Israelites might be allowed to journey three days\ninto the desert, and hold a feast to their God. The gods of the Asiatic\nnomads on the outskirts of the Delta were gods of the wilderness, whom\nthe Egyptians identified with Set, the enemy of Horus, the deity of the\ncultivated land.[166] The Pharaoh refused the request. Once lost in the\ndesert, the royal slaves would be lost for ever, and would never turn\nback to the line of fortifications which guarded the eastern frontier of\nEgypt, and, at the same time, prevented the escape of those who dwelt\nwithin them. The God of the Hebrews was no god whom the Pharaoh\u2014himself\nthe offspring and incarnation of the Sun-god\u2014could recognise; they were\nthe servants of the Egyptian king, and of none else.\n\nThe embassy of the representatives of Israel was followed by severer\nmeasures of repression. It indicated a rising spirit of rebellion, a\ndesire to return to the old free life of the desert, and to be quit for\never of Egyptian burdens. Strikes were not unknown among the free\nworkmen of Thebes; but a strike among the royal slaves was a more\nserious matter, and seemed to prove that the Bed\u00e2wi spirit of\nindependence and insubordination was still active among the settlers in\nGoshen.[167] The Israelites were still employed in building cities and\nfortresses, and they were now bidden to find for themselves the _tibn_\nor chopped straw, which they mixed with the clay of the bricks, and, at\nthe same time, to deliver the same number of bricks as before. The\n_tibn_ was employed, as it still is, for binding the clay more closely\ntogether, but it is not essential, and many of the ancient bricks of\nEgypt, more especially those used in Upper Egypt, are made without it.\nIn the Delta, however, with its damper climate, the _tibn_ was more\nnecessary, and the Egyptian taskmasters, accordingly, required it, or\nelse some substitute for it.[168] The condition of the Israelites thus\nbecame intolerable; they were scattered over the land, seeking for\n\u2018stubble instead of straw,\u2019 and beaten mercilessly in traditional\nEgyptian fashion if the full tale of bricks was not delivered. The\n\u2018stubble\u2019 corresponded with the dry stalks of the durra, which are still\nsometimes used for a similar purpose, and was obtained from the beds of\ndry reeds which lined the marshes in the Eastern Delta.\n\nOnce more Moses and Aaron appeared before the Pharaoh, this time\nprepared to enforce their petition by signs and wonders. That they\nshould have had such ready access to the sovereign may seem strange to\nthe Western mind. But it is in full accordance with the traditions of\nthe Egyptian court, which have been maintained down to the reign of the\nlate Khedive. The ruler of the country was accessible to all who had a\ncomplaint to make before him, or a petition to offer. _Bakshish_ might\nbe needful before the charmed circle of officials by which he was\nsurrounded could be broken through; but once it was broken, he was bound\nto give audience to whosoever came to him. Moses and Aaron, moreover,\nwere the delegates and representatives of their people, and as such had\na right to be heard. The system they represented is still in full force\nin modern Egypt. Each class of the community, each religion, each trade,\neach nationality, has its recognised representative or \u2018sh\u00eakh,\u2019 who\nstands between it and the government, and acts on its behalf in all\npolitical and legal matters. He is as much its representative as an\nambassador or consul is the representative of the nation which has\naccredited him, and the rights and privileges which belong to an\nambassador belong also to the \u2018sh\u00eakh.\u2019 The Pharaoh could not exclude\nMoses and Aaron from his presence, even though the people they\nrepresented were public slaves.\n\nThe Hebrew wonder-workers were confronted by the magicians of Egypt.\nAmon-Ra could not yield without a struggle to the God of the \u2018impure\u2019\nstranger. The miracles performed by the representatives of the\nIsraelitish people were not beyond the powers of his servants, and the\nmagical powers of the Egyptian priests had been famous from the\nbeginning of time. The Egyptian had an intense belief in magic\u2014a belief\nwhich still survives in the modern Egypt of to-day. Books had been\ncompiled which reduced this magic to a science, and enabled those who\nwould learn its formul\u00e6 and methods to reverse the order of nature and\nwork whatsoever wonder they desired.[169] To transform a rod into a\nserpent, or a serpent into a rod, was a comparatively easy feat, and one\nwhich the jugglers of Cairo can still perform. Equally easy was it to\nturn the water of the river into blood, or even to multiply the frogs on\nthe wet land. It was only when the plague of lice touched themselves\nthat the power of the magicians failed, and that they confessed\nthemselves overcome by a stronger deity than those they owned. Their\nmagic could not remove the plague which had fallen upon them; their own\ngarments were defiled in spite of their charms and amulets, and they had\nbecome more unclean than the \u2018unclean\u2019 foreigner himself.\n\nThe account of the ten plagues of Egypt betrays an intimate acquaintance\nwith the characteristics and peculiarities of the valley of the Nile.\nThey are all plagues which still recur there; some of them indeed may be\nsaid never to have left the country. Still, each year, the water of the\nriver becomes like blood at the time of the inundation. When the Nile\nfirst begins to rise, towards the end of June, the red marl brought from\nthe mountains of Abyssinia stains it to a dark colour, which glistens\nlike blood in the light of the setting sun.[170] Each year, too, the\ninundation brings with it myriads of frogs, which swarm along the banks\nof the river and canals, and fill the night air with continuous\ncroakings. The lice, again, are an ever-present plague among the poorer\nnatives, while every spring the flies still swarm in the houses and open\nair, and irritate the visitor to Egypt almost beyond endurance. Flies\nand lice, frogs and blood-red water, are all as much a part of modern\nEgypt as they were of the Egypt of the Mosaic age. Natives and strangers\nalike suffered from them, and that the plague of flies did not reach to\nGoshen must have seemed to the Egyptians a miracle of miracles.\n\nThose who have had experience of the flies of Egypt can sympathise with\nthe Pharaoh when he hastily summoned the leaders of Israel and bade them\noffer sacrifice to the God who had thus shown himself a veritable \u2018Lord\nof Flies.\u2019 The plague which followed\u2014the murrain upon the cattle[171]\u2014is\nof rarer occurrence, though from time to time it still decimates the\ncattle and horses of Egypt. A strict quarantine upon animals, however,\nis now enforced at the Asiatic frontier, and some years, therefore, have\nelapsed since the last outbreak of the cattle-plague. But the plague of\nboils and blains is still endemic, and residents in the country seldom\nwholly escape it. The plague of the thunder and hail is also not\nunfrequent; as recently as the spring of 1895 a violent storm of the\nkind swept along the valley of the Nile and destroyed three thousand\nacres of cultivated land. The locusts, too, now and again, are carried\nby the south-east wind from the shores of the Red Sea to devour the\nrising crops, while the darkness that might be felt was but a heightened\nform of the darkness occasioned by the _khamasin_ winds and sand-storms\nof the spring. Even the death of the firstborn has its parallel in the\nepidemic of cholera. In the space of a single year (1895-1896) the Egypt\nof our own days has experienced most of the plagues of which we read in\nthe book of Exodus. Blood-red water, frogs and lice, flies and boils,\nhailstorms and darkness, the scourge of cholera, have all visited the\nland.\n\nThere was nothing, consequently, in the plagues themselves that was\neither supernatural or contra-natural. They were all characteristic of\nEgypt, and of Egypt alone. They were signs and wonders, not because they\nintroduced new and unknown forces into the life of the Egyptians, but\nbecause the diseases and plagues already known to the country were\nintensified in action and crowded into a short space of time. The\nmagicians beheld in them \u2018the finger\u2019 of the God of the Hebrews, since\nthey came and went at the command of the Hebrew leader, and all the\nmagic of Egypt was powerless before them. Amon-Ra had found a mightier\nthan himself; and the books of Thoth contained no spells or mystical\nincantations which could avail against the scourges that afflicted\npriest and layman alike. The reluctant Pharaoh could no longer resist\nthe cries of his people. Egypt was perishing, and his own son had died\nof the plague. It was better that his cities should remain unfinished\nthan that there should be none to fill them when they were built. In the\nplagues that had descended on them, his subjects saw the hand of the\nwrathful Hebrew Deity, eager for the sacrifices which His people had\nbeen prevented from offering to Him in the desert, and the sceptical\nPharaoh himself at last became a convert to their belief. In fear lest a\nworse evil might befall him, he gave the order that the Israelites\nshould be allowed to pass the fortresses that separated Goshen from the\nwilderness beyond, and the royal slaves were free to depart.\n\nFor how long a time Egypt had thus been stricken by plague after plague\nis hard to determine. The impression left by the narrative is that they\nfollowed quickly one upon the other, and that consequently the period\nwas of no great length. It is true that the Nile turns \u2018red\u2019 in July,\nand that the wheat ripens in the spring; but, on the other hand, the\nlocusts, we are told, eat \u2018all that the hail had left.\u2019 At any rate, it\nis clear that the Hebrew writer intended us to believe that less than a\nyear elapsed between the first visit of the Israelitish representatives\nto the Pharaoh and the flight into the wilderness. All was over before\nthe end of March\u2014\u2018the first month\u2019 of the Hebrew year.\n\nThe Egyptian monuments have given us a different version of the causes\nwhich obliged Meneptah to consent to the exodus of his Asiatic serfs. In\nthe light of the stela discovered by Professor Petrie at Thebes, we can\nnow understand the mutilated inscription in which the Pharaoh records on\nthe walls of Karnak his victory over the barbarians in the fifth year of\nhis reign. Lower Egypt and its civilisation were never nearer to\ndestruction. The Libyans of Northern Africa had combined with the\npopulations of the Greek Seas, and the barbarians had overrun the Delta,\ndestroying its cities, massacring its population, and carrying away its\nspoil. While Maraiu, the Libyan king, devastated the eastern banks of\nthe Nile, his northern allies\u2014the Sardinians and Ach\u00e6ans, the Lycians\nand Siculians\u2014landed on the coasts of the Delta, and marched southward\nuntil they joined him.\n\nIt would seem that they found allies in Egypt itself. Meneptah tells us\nthat he endeavoured to save what was left of his dominions by throwing\nup fortifications in front of Memphis and Heliopolis, \u2018the city of Tum.\u2019\nFor Egypt was threatened not only on the west and on the north. Eastward\nalso, in the land of Goshen, there were enemies, pastoral nomads from\nAsia, who had been allowed to live there for many generations. Their\n\u2018tents,\u2019 the Pharaoh declares, had been pitched \u2018in front of the city of\nPi-Bailos,\u2019 the modern Belbeis, at the western extremity of the region\nin which the Israelites were settled. \u2018The kings of Lower Egypt\u2019 found\nthemselves shut up and isolated in their fortified cities, \u2018cut off from\neverything by the foe, with no mercenaries whom they could oppose to\nthem.\u2019[172]\n\nBut Meneptah had been \u2018crowned to preserve the life\u2019 of his subjects. In\nthe month of Epiphi, our July, the great battle was fought which\nannihilated the hordes of the invaders and saved the inhabitants of\nEgypt. Six thousand three hundred and sixty-five Libyan slain were\ncounted on the field of battle, and 2370 of the northern barbarians,\nwhile 9376 prisoners fell into the hands of the conqueror. It was little\nwonder that the Egyptian poets composed p\u00e6ans in honour of the victory,\nor that one of these hymns of triumph should have been engraved on a\nstela of the temple which Meneptah raised at Thebes to Amon-Ra.\n\nIt is in this latter hymn, as has been already said, that the name of\nthe \u2018Israelites\u2019 has been found. They are included among the enemies\nover whom the Pharaoh had triumphed; but, unlike his other enemies, they\npossessed no land which they could call their own. They had no fixed\nhabitation, there was no locality which was called after their name. But\nthe Egyptian poet knew that they had come originally from Southern\nPalestine; the destruction of their male \u2018seed\u2019 had widowed the women of\n\u2018Khar.\u2019\n\nIt was the pressure of the Libyan invasion, therefore, which had placed\nMeneptah at the mercy of his Israelitish slaves. With the Libyans and\ntheir allies in the east and north, and a hostile population in the land\nof Goshen, he had been forced to fortify Memphis and Heliopolis, and to\nyield to those demands for freedom which he was not strong enough to\nresist. To the ten plagues of which we have the record in the book of\nExodus there was added the more terrible plague of the Libyan invasion.\nIn his inscription Meneptah speaks not only of the barbarian enemy who\nharassed the frontier and devastated the seaports, but also of the\n\u2018rebels\u2019 who were destroying the country from within, and in these\nrebels whose tents were pitched \u2018in front of Pi-Bailos\u2019 we must see the\nIsraelites of the Old Testament. Crushed and unwarlike though they may\nhave been, they were nevertheless a source of danger, and, like Mohammed\nAli in the presence of the Bed\u00e2win, the Pharaoh found it necessary to\nagree to their demands.\n\nMeneptah\u2019s victory was gained in the middle of the summer. It was in the\nspring that the Exodus of the Israelites had taken place. Along with the\ndescendants of Jacob had gone \u2018a mixed multitude,\u2019 fragments, it may be,\nof that wave of Libyan invasion which was rolling over the Delta. At any\nrate, it was not the Israelites only who had made their way towards\nAsia. There were other royal slaves also, like the \u2018Apuriu who were\nemployed in drawing the stone that was quarried on the eastern bank of\nthe Nile. The resemblance between their name and that of the Hebrews may\nhave led to a confusion between the brickmakers of Pharaoh and the\ntransporters of his stone.\n\nThere was an Egyptian legend of the Israelitish Exodus which was\nembodied in the history of Manetho, from whom it has been quoted by\nJosephus.[173] The Pharaoh Amen\u00f4phis, it was said, desired to see the\ngods, as his predecessor Oros (or Khu-n-Aten) had done. On the advice of\nthe seer, Amen\u00f4phis the son of Paapis, he accordingly cleared the land\nof the leprous and \u2018impure,\u2019 separating them from the rest of the\nEgyptians, to the number of eighty thousand, and condemning them to\nwork, like the \u2019Apuriu of the monuments, in the quarries on the eastern\nside of the Nile. But among them were some priests who were under the\nspecial protection of the gods. When the seer heard of the sacrilege\nthat had been committed against their persons, he prophesied that the\nimpure people would find allies, and with their help rule over Egypt for\nthirteen years. Not daring to tell the king of his prophecy, he\ncommitted it to writing, and then destroyed himself. After a while the\nworkers in the quarries begged the Pharaoh to send them to Avaris, the\nold fortress of the Hyksos, which lay on the Asiatic frontier of Egypt,\nempty and uninhabited. The request was granted; but no sooner were they\nsettled in their new abode than they rose in rebellion, and chose as\ntheir leader Osarsiph, a priest of On. He gave them new laws, forbidding\nthem, among other things, to revere the sacred animals, and set them to\nrebuild the walls of Avaris. He also sent to the Hyksos at Jerusalem\nasking them for their help. A force of two hundred thousand men was\naccordingly despatched to Avaris, and this was followed by the invasion\nof Egypt. Amen\u00f4phis fled to Ethiopia, with the bull Apis and other holy\nanimals, after ordering the images of the gods to be concealed. His son\nSethos, who was also called Ramesses, after his grandfather Ramesses the\nGreat, and who was at the time only five years of age, was placed in\ncharge of a friend. Amen\u00f4phis remained in Ethiopia for thirteen years,\nwhile Osarsiph, who had assumed the name of Moses, and his Hyksos allies\ncommitted innumerable atrocities. Temples and towns were destroyed, and\nthe priests and sacred animals were killed. But at last the fated term\nof years was over; Amen\u00f4phis returned at the head of an army, and the\nenemy was utterly overthrown and pursued to the borders of Syria.\n\nIn this legend truth and fiction have been mingled together. The\nforeigner, and more especially the Asiatic foreigner, was stigmatised as\n\u2018impure\u2019 by the Egyptians, and in the leprous people who were confined\nin the quarries of the eastern desert we must, therefore, see simply a\nstranger race. Osarsiph derives his name from Joseph, the latter name\nbeing regarded (as in Psalm lxxxi. 6) as a compound of Yo or Yahveh,\nwhich is identified with the Egyptian Osiris. Amen\u00f4phis,[174] the son of\nPaapis, is Amen\u00f4phis (or rather, Amen\u00f4thes), the son of Hapi who erected\nthe colossal statues of \u2018Memnon\u2019 and its companion at Thebes during the\nreign of Amen\u00f4phis III., and the Pharaoh Amen\u00f4phis, the son of Ramesses,\nand father of Sethos, is Meneptah, the son of Ramses II., and father of\nSeti II.\n\nThe return of Amen\u00f4phis from Ethiopia was derived from a sort of\nMessianic prophecy found already in a papyrus of the age of Thothmes\nIII. Here we read that \u2018a king will come from the South, Ameni the\ntruth-declaring by name. He will be the son of a woman of Nubia, and\nwill be born in.... He will assume the crown of Upper Egypt, and will\nlift up the red crown of Lower Egypt. He will unite the double crown....\nThe people of the age of the son of man will rejoice and establish his\nname for all eternity. They will be far from evil, and the wicked will\nhumble their mouths for fear of him. The Asiatics will fall before his\nblows, and the Libyans before his flame. The wicked will wait on his\njudgments, the rebels on his power. The royal serpent on his brow will\npacify the revolted. A wall shall be built, even that of the prince, so\nthat the Asiatics may no more enter into Egypt.\u2019[175]\n\nWith this prince of ancient prophecy who should save Egypt from its\nAsiatic and Libyan foes, it was easy for popular tradition to identify\nthe Meneptah who had annihilated both Libyans and Asiatics, and to\ncombine his name with that of Ameni into the compound Amen\u00f4phis. At any\nrate, the Egyptian legend bears witness to the fact that Meneptah was\nthe Pharaoh of the Exodus, and that the flight of the Israelites was\nconnected with the Libyan invasion of the valley of the Nile.[176]\n\nThe Israelites themselves connected the flight with the institution of\nthe feast of the Passover. But the feast of the Passover seems to have\nbeen a combination of two older festivals. One of these was commemorated\nby eating for seven days unleavened bread; the other by the sacrifice of\na lamb, the blood of which was smeared on the doorposts and lintel of\nthe house, the lamb itself being roasted and eaten at midnight with\nbitter herbs. The feast of unleavened bread followed immediately upon\nthe feast of the Passover, which lasted from the tenth to the fourteenth\nday of the first month of the Hebrew sacred year.\n\nDr. Clay Trumbull has shown that the Passover was but an adaptation of\nthe old rite which he terms the \u2018Threshold Covenant.\u2019[177] It was a rite\nwhich went back to the earliest age of mankind, and of which we find\ntraces in many parts of the world. Even in the Egypt of to-day the\nbuilding of a new house or boat is not complete without the slaughter of\na sheep, the blood of which is allowed to fall on the threshold of the\nhouse or the deck and side of a vessel. The blood was the mark of the\nsacrifice by which the master of the house entered into covenant with\nthe stranger, or even with his god. Where it appeared the avenging deity\npassed by, mindful of the covenant, and remembering that the house\ncontained a friend and not an enemy. The threshold became an altar, and\nthose who passed over it were made members of the family, and shared\nwith them their rights and their religion. When once the bride had\ncrossed the threshold of her new home, she left behind her all her old\nties and relations, and became a member of a new family.\n\nTo quote the words of Dr. Clay Trumbull, \u2018Long before\u2019 the night of the\nExodus, \u2018a covenant welcome was given to a guest who was to become as\none of the family, or to a bride or bridegroom in marriage, by the\noutpouring of blood on the threshold of the door, and by staining the\ndoorway itself with the blood of the covenant. And now,\u2019 on the eve of\nthe flight from Goshen, \u2018Jehovah announced that He was to visit Egypt on\na designated night, and that those who would welcome Him should prepare\na threshold covenant, or a passover sacrifice, as a proof of that\nwelcome; for where no such welcome was made ready for Him by the family,\nHe must count the threshold as His enemy.\u2019[178]\n\nThe belief that sacrifice alone could secure the house from the wrath of\nHeaven has been spread widely over the world. Numberless traces of it\nare to be found in the folklore of Europe. Popular legend knows of\nbridges and castles which refused to stand until the human victim had\nbeen buried beneath their foundations, and even S. Columba was held to\nhave been unable to build his cathedral at Iona until his companion Oran\nhad been immured alive beneath its foundation-stones. We learn from the\nOld Testament that the belief was strong among the Israelites also. When\nHiel of Beth-el rebuilt the ruined Jericho, we are told that \u2018he laid\nthe foundation thereof in Abiram his firstborn, and set up the gates\nthereof in his youngest son Segub\u2019 (1 Kings xvi. 34). The Deity had a\nright to the firstborn; and if this right were not recognised by the\nsacrifice either of the firstborn himself or of a substitute, there\ncould be no covenant between the family and its gods. A new building\nimplied a new local habitation for the family and the gods it\nworshipped; and where there was no covenant between them, the gods would\ncome as foes and not as friends.\n\nThe Passover feast was therefore nothing new. The rite connected with it\nand the ideas associated with the rite must have long been familiar to\nthe Israelites. What was new was the adaptation of the rite to the new\ncovenant that Yahveh was about to enter into with His people. It became\n\u2018the Lord\u2019s Passover,\u2019 commemorating the deliverance from Egypt when\nYahveh smote the Egyptian firstborn, but \u2018passed over the houses of the\nchildren of Israel.\u2019 Like the old springtide feast of unleavened bread,\nit was given a new signification, and made a memorial of the first event\nin the national life of Israel. A similar significance was given to a\nchange that was made in the calendar. The Hebrew year had begun in the\nautumn with the month of September; but side by side with this\nWest-Semitic calendar there had also been in use in Palestine another\ncalendar, that of Babylonia, according to which the year began with\nNisan or March. It was this Babylonian calendar which was now introduced\nfor ritual purposes. While the civil year still began in the autumn, it\nwas ordained that the sacred year should begin in the spring. The sacred\nyear was determined by the annual festivals, and the first of the\nfestivals was henceforth to be the Passover. The beginning of the new\nyear was henceforth fixed by the Passover moon.\n\nIt was at midnight that the angel of death passed over the land of\nEgypt. The plague spared neither rich nor poor. The firstborn of Pharaoh\ndied like the firstborn of the captive in prison. Vain attempts have\nbeen made to discover which among the sons of Meneptah this may have\nbeen. But Meneptah lived many years after the overthrow of the Libyans,\nand consequently after the Exodus of the Israelites, and it may not have\nbeen till late in his reign that his successor, Seti II., became\ncrown-prince. More than one elder brother may have died meanwhile.\nMoreover, none but the son of a princess of the royal solar race could\nsit on the throne of the Pharaohs. The reigning king might have elder\nsons born to him by foreign princesses, but his successor could not be\nchosen from among them. He only who could trace his descent to the\nSun-god, who was, in short, a direct descendant of the Pharaohs, had any\nright to the throne.\n\nAmid the terrors of the plague, and under cover of the darkness, the\nIsraelites and their companions, the \u2018mixed multitude,\u2019 departed from\nthe land of Goshen. They took with them their flocks and herds; they\ntook also such precious plunder as they could easily carry away from the\nhouses of their terrified masters. They \u2018borrowed,\u2019 according to the\neuphemistic expression of the chronicler, \u2018jewels of silver and jewels\nof gold, and raiment,\u2019 \u2018and they spoiled the Egyptians.\u2019 It was little\nwonder that the Pharaoh subsequently determined to pursue the retreating\nhordes.\n\nThey first made their way from \u2018Rameses to Succoth.\u2019 Succoth is the\nThukut of the Egyptian texts, the district in which Pithom was situated,\nand which extended from the land of Goshen to the line of fortifications\nthat enclosed Egypt on the East. It is mentioned in the letter sent to\nMeneptah three years after the Israelitish Exodus, which we have already\nhad occasion to quote.[179] The flight of the Israelites had left the\ndistrict uninhabited, and it was not very long before it was again\nhanded over to some of their Edomite kinsmen, who wanted pasture for\ntheir herds.\n\nThe site of the town of Rameses is still uncertain. It is called\nPi-Ramses, \u2018the House of Ramses,\u2019 in the hieroglyphic texts, and, like\nZoan, it lay near the canal of Pa-shet-Hor. A long description is given\nof it by the scribe Paebpasa, who was stationed at Zaru, on the eastern\nfrontier of Egypt, during the early part of Meneptah\u2019s reign. He tells\nus (according to Brugsch\u2019s translation)[180] how he had \u2018arrived at the\ncity of Ramses and found it excellent, for nothing can compare with it\non the Theban land and soil.... Its canals are rich in fish, its lakes\nswarm with birds, its meadows are green with vegetables, there is no end\nof the lentils; melons with a taste like honey grow in the irrigated\nfields. Its barns are full of wheat and durra, and reach as high as\nheaven.... The canal, Pa-shet-Hor, produces salt, the lake-region of\nPa-Hirnatron. Their sea-ships enter the harbour, plenty and abundance is\nabundant in it.\u2019 And then the scribe goes on to describe the annual\nfestivities of its inhabitants in honour of their founder Ramses II.\n\nIn Thukut or Succoth were fortresses which protected the Delta from\nAsiatic incursions, and at the same time prevented those who were in\nEgypt from escaping out of it without the permission of the Government.\nOne of them was called \u2018the Khetem,\u2019 or \u2018Fortress, of Thukut\u2019; another\nthe Khetem of Ramses II. Both seem to be mentioned in a report sent to\nMeneptah\u2019s successor, Seti II. Here we read: \u2018I set out from the hall of\nthe royal palace (in Zoan) on the 9th day of the month Epiphi, in the\nevening, after the two (fugitive) slaves. I arrived at the Khetem of\nThukut on the 10th of Epiphi. I was informed that the men had resolved\nto take their way towards the south. On the 12th I reached the Khetem.\nThere I was informed that grooms who had come from the neighbourhood\n[had reported] that the fugitives had already passed the Wall to the\nnorth of the Migdol of king Seti Meneptah.\u2019[181]\n\nThe runaway slaves must have taken the same road as that which had been\ntaken by the Israelites before them. The Israelites had avoided the\nnearest and more usual road to Palestine, which ran along the edge of\nthe Mediterranean and passed through Gaza. The Philistines were already\nthreatening the southern coast of Canaan, and Gaza was garrisoned by\nEgyptian troops. The undisciplined and unwarlike multitude which\nfollowed Moses would have been cut to pieces had they ventured to force\ntheir way through them, or else would have returned to Egypt. They\nturned therefore southward towards the desert and \u2018the way of the\nwilderness of the Y\u00e2m S\u00fbph.\u2019\n\nFrom Succoth, we are told, they marched to Etham \u2018in the edge of the\nwilderness.\u2019 Brugsch was the first to see that in Etham we have a Hebrew\ntranscription of the Egyptian Khetem. The only question is, which of the\nmany Khetemu or \u2018Fortresses\u2019 which protected the Asiatic frontier of\nEgypt this particular Etham may have been. We hear of \u2018the Khetem of\nRamses II., which is in the district of Zaru,\u2019 at the very point where\none of the roads to Asia passed through the great line of fortification,\nand the report quoted above tells us of another Khetem, that of Thukut.\nIt was, however, the second Khetem mentioned in the report which is\nreferred to in the Old Testament narrative. This second Khetem lay\nbetween Succoth and the lines of fortification, and might therefore be\ndescribed as \u2018in the edge of the wilderness,\u2019 which began on the eastern\nside of the Shur or fortified wall. It was, in fact, the fortress which\nguarded one of the roads out of Egypt at the point where it intersected\nthe lines. To the south of it came the Migdol or Tower of King Meneptah.\n\nIt is possible that this may be the Migdol which is stated in the book\nof Exodus to have been near the next camping-place of the Israelites.\nFrom the fortress of Etham they had turned to the \u2018sea,\u2019 and had there\npitched their tents \u2018before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea,\nover against Baal-zephon.\u2019 In Baal-zephon, \u2018Baal of the North,\u2019 we have\nthe name of a Ph\u0153nician temple, which is alluded to in an Egyptian\npapyrus;[182] and in place of Pi-hahiroth, the Septuagint and Coptic\nversions read \u2018the farmstead,\u2019 reminding us of the _ahu_ or \u2018estate\u2019 of\nPharaoh in the district of Thukut, on which the Edomite herdsmen were\nafterwards allowed to settle.\n\nBut what is \u2018the sea,\u2019 by the side of which the Israelites encamped? Its\nidentification has been the subject of much controversy\u2014a fact, however,\nwhich ceases to astonish us when we find that the Hebrew writers\nthemselves were uncertain about it. While in the narrative of the Exodus\n\u2018the sea\u2019 crossed by the Israelites is carefully distinguished from the\n\u2018Y\u00e2m S\u00fbph\u2019 or \u2018Reedy Sea,\u2019 at which they subsequently arrived, there are\nother passages in the Old Testament, more especially of a poetical\nnature, in which the two seas are confounded together. Two\nirreconcileable systems of geography are thus presented to us which have\nhitherto made the geography of the Exodus an insoluble problem.\n\nIn the narrative, however, all is clear and exact. The children of\nIsrael, it was determined, instead of following the northern road to\nPalestine, should march along that which led to \u2018the wilderness of the\nY\u00e2m S\u00fbph.\u2019 But between them and this wilderness lay the Egyptian wall of\nfortification, which extended from the marshes in the north to the Gulf\nof Suez, or its prolongation, in the south. It was only when they had\nturned the southern end of the wall by crossing \u2018the sea\u2019 that they\nentered \u2018the wilderness of the wall,\u2019 where they wandered for three days\nwithout finding water (Exod. xv. 22). Later they came to the palm-grove\nof Elim, and then after that to the Y\u00e2m S\u00fbph (Numb. xxxiii. 10).\n\nThe Y\u00e2m S\u00fbph was well known to Hebrew geography, and corresponded with\nthe modern Gulf of Aqaba. It was upon the Y\u00e2m S\u00fbph, at Elath and\nEzion-geber, \u2018in the land of Edom,\u2019 that Solomon built his ships (1\nKings ix. 26); and after the capture of Arad, in the extreme south of\nCanaan, the Israelites marched \u2018from mount Hor by the way of Y\u00e2m S\u00fbph,\nin order to compass the land of Edom\u2019 (Numb. xxi. 4). Elim is but\nanother form of Elath, the ruins of which lie close to Aqaba, while the\ntown of S\u00fbph lay \u2018over against\u2019 the wilderness in the plains of Moab\n(Deut. i. 1). The Y\u00e2m S\u00fbph, in fact, so erroneously rendered \u2018the Red\nSea\u2019 in the Authorised Version, was the Gulf of Aqaba. The sister Gulf\nof Suez was called by the Hebrews \u2018the Egyptian Sea\u2019 (Isa. xi. 15), a\nvery appropriate name, since it was enclosed on either side by Egyptian\nterritory. From the days of the third dynasty to those of the Ptolemies,\nMafkat, the Sinaitic peninsula, was included among the provinces of\nEgypt.\n\nIn the list of the Israelitish stations given in Numb. xxxiii. a careful\ndistinction is made between the Y\u00e2m S\u00fbph (ver. 10) and \u2018the sea,\u2019\nthrough the midst of which the fugitives from Pharaoh passed safely into\nthe wilderness. This \u2018sea\u2019 washed the southern extremity of the Shur or\n\u2018Wall\u2019 of fortification, the line of which was approximately that of the\nSuez Canal. If Dr. Naville is right, in the days of the Exodus it would\nhave extended much further to the north than is at present the case; the\nBitter Lakes, in fact, marking its northern boundary. But there are\nserious difficulties in the way of this hypothesis. The canal which, in\nthe time of Seti I., already united the Pelusiac arm of the Nile with\nthe Gulf of Suez, ran southward as far as the modern town of Suez, where\nits mouth can still be traced. Only five miles north of Suez, moreover,\nthe fragments of a stela can still be seen, on which Darius commemorated\nhis reopening of the old canal of the Pharaohs. Had the gulf really\nextended so far north as Ismail\u00eeya and the Bitter Lakes, this southern\nprolongation of the canal would be hard to understand.\n\nHowever this may be, the poets and later writers of the Old Testament\ncame to forget what was meant by \u2018the sea.\u2019 It was confounded with the\nY\u00e2m S\u00fbph, and the scene of the Exodus was accordingly transferred from\nthe Gulf of Suez to the Gulf of Aqaba. Dr. Winckler has recently\nendeavoured to show that besides Muzri or Egypt, the Assyrian\ninscriptions know of another Muzri or \u2018borderland\u2019 in the north-west of\nArabia. If so, this second Muzri or Egypt might help to explain the\nconfusion between the two seas.\n\nIt is in the song of triumph over the destruction of the Egyptians that\nthe confusion first makes its appearance. Here (Exod. xv. 4) \u2018the sea\u2019\nand \u2018the Y\u00e2m S\u00fbph\u2019 are used as equivalents, and the contents of the song\nare summed up at the end in the statement that \u2018Moses brought Israel\nfrom the Y\u00e2m S\u00fbph.\u2019 But elsewhere in the Pentateuch the geography is\naccurate, and it is not until we come to the speeches in the book of\nJoshua that the two seas are once more confused together.[183] The same\ngeographical error is repeated in two of the later Psalms, as well as in\na passage of the book of Nehemiah.[184] The older Hebrew geography had\nby this time been forgotten; with the loss of Edom and its seaports an\nexact knowledge of the two arms of the Red Sea had faded from the\nmemories of the Jews. But in the historical narrative of the Pentateuch\nall is still distinct and clear.\n\nHardly had the Israelites left Goshen before the Pharaoh repented of his\npermission for their departure. The retreating multitude, encumbered\nwith women and children, with flocks and herds, and with the booty that\nhad been carried off from the Egyptians, was still encamped within the\nlines of fortification, near the southernmost Migdol or \u2018Tower,\u2019 and on\nthe shores of \u2018the sea.\u2019 Southward was a waterless desert; behind were\nthe hostile forces of Egypt. The situation seemed hopeless; \u2018the\nwilderness,\u2019 as the Pharaoh said, had \u2018shut them in,\u2019 and there seemed\nno escape from the Egyptian troops which had now been sent in pursuit of\nthem.\n\nBut Israel was saved, as it were, by miracle. All night long the sky was\nblack with clouds, while a strong east wind drove the shallow waters of\n\u2018the sea\u2019 before it towards the western bank. The fugitives marched in\nhaste through its dried-up bed, and before morning dawned they had\nreached the eastern shore. The Egyptian forces pursued, but it was too\nlate. The wheels of the chariots sank into the soft sand, and before\nthey could advance far the wind dropped and the waters returned upon\nthem. The chariots and host of Pharaoh were overwhelmed by the flowing\ntide.\n\nClassical history knew of similar events. Diodoros (xvi. 46) tells us\nthat when Artaxerxes of Persia led his forces against Egypt, part of his\narmy perished, swallowed up in the \u2018gulfs\u2019 of the Sirbonian Lake on the\nMediterranean Sea. Alexander\u2019s troops, moreover, narrowly escaped being\nswallowed up by the waters of the Pamphylian Gulf, through which they\npassed during the winter, and their escape was magnified by later\nwriters into a miracle.[185]\n\nThe Pharaoh was not himself among the six hundred chariots which had\npursued the flying Israelites into \u2018the sea.\u2019[186] As in the great\nbattle against the Libyans, Meneptah, while taking the field in person,\nnevertheless took care to avoid actual danger and to delegate his\nauthority to others when there was a prospect of fighting. He lived\nseveral years after the Libyan victory, and therefore after the\nIsraelitish Exodus; and though his tomb in the Bib\u00e2n el-Mol\u00fbk at Thebes\nwas never finished, he was buried in it at a ripe old age. A dirge,[187]\nprobably composed at the time of his death, speaks of the king as dying\nat an advanced period of life.\n\nWith the waters of \u2018the sea\u2019 between themselves and Egypt, the\nIsraelites felt that they were at last free men. The fortified wall of\nEgypt was behind them; they were already in the desert-home of their\nAsiatic kinsmen, free to move whithersoever they desired. But there was\none road which they could not take. If the fear of \u2018seeing war\u2019 had kept\nthem back from the northern road to Palestine, it would still more keep\nthem from the road which led into the Egyptian province of Mafkat. Here\non the western side of the Sinaitic peninsula were the mines of copper\nand malachite worked by Egyptian convicts, and strongly garrisoned by\nEgyptian troops. To venture near them would have been to court again the\ndanger from which the fugitives had just escaped.[188]\n\nThe road was well known. For centuries it had been trodden by Egyptian\ntroops and miners, by civil officials and the convicts of whom they had\ncharge. There was no difficulty, therefore, in avoiding it, and in\nplunging instead into the desert which led to their kinsfolk in Edom and\nthat land of Canaan which was their ultimate goal.\n\nOld errors die hard, and the belief that the Sinaitic peninsula was the\nscene of the wanderings of the Israelites still prevails among students\nof the Old Testament. It originated in the wish of the early Christian\nanchorites in the Sinaitic peninsula to find the localities of the\nPentateuch in their own neighbourhood, and has been fostered by the\ngeographical confusion between \u2018the sea\u2019 crossed by the Israelites and\nthe Y\u00e2m S\u00fbph. But the belief is not only irreconcileable with the facts\nof Egyptian history, it is also irreconcileable with the narrative of\nthe Pentateuch itself. It transports the Amalekites or Bed\u00e2win of the\ndesert south of Judah to the western side of the Sinaitic peninsula, and\nperforms the same feat for the wilderness of Paran.[189] It makes\nJethro, the high-priest of Midian, cross the Gulf of Aqaba and make his\nway through barren gorges and hostile tribes in order to visit his\nson-in-law, and sets at defiance the express testimony of Hebrew\nliterature that Mount Sinai was among the mountains of Seir.[190]\n\nThe wilderness into which the Israelites emerged is called indifferently\nthat of Shur and Etham. Shur was the Semitic equivalent of the Egyptian\nAnbu or \u2018Wall\u2019 of fortification, while Etham took its name from one of\nthe Khetemu or \u2018Fortresses\u2019 which guarded the approach to the valley of\nthe Nile. It was a wilderness which stretched away to the shores of the\nGulf of Aqaba, and the Hebrew tribes accordingly marched along it. They\ntook, we are told, \u2018the way of the wilderness of the Y\u00e2m S\u00fbph,\u2019\nfollowing the Haj road, which is still traversed by the pilgrims from\nEgypt to Mecca. But the caravan moved slowly, and for three days they\ncould find no water. Had they turned southward into the Sinaitic\npeninsula, a few hours would have brought them to the Wells of Moses\u2014now\na place of picnic for the visitors to Suez,\u2014while the road to the\nEgyptian mines was provided with cisterns and wells. But to have done so\nwould have been merely to exchange Egypt for one of its\nstrongly-garrisoned provinces.\n\nHow long the wanderers were in crossing the desert we do not know; nor\ndo we know where Marah was, whose \u2018bitter\u2019 waters refreshed them after\nthree days of scarcity. But at last they reached the oasis of Elim,\nwhich the itinerary in the book of Numbers (xxxiii. 10) couples with the\nY\u00e2m S\u00fbph. Elim, in fact, is but a variant form of Elath,[191] and Elath\nis the Aila of classical geography, of which Aqaba is the modern\nsuccessor. When the Israelites left Elim a whole month had elapsed since\ntheir departure from Egypt (Exod. xvi. 1).\n\nBetween Elim or the Y\u00e2m S\u00fbph[192] and Mount Sinai lay the Wilderness of\nSin. Sinai and Sin alike derived their names from Sin, the moon-god of\nBabylonia, whose worship had long since been brought by Babylonian\nconquest to the West. More than two thousand years before the Exodus the\nBabylonian conqueror, Naram-Sin, \u2018the beloved of Sin,\u2019 had carried his\narms as far as the Sinaitic peninsula, and the inscriptions of Southern\nArabia show that there also the Babylonian deity was adored.[193] It\nwould seem probable that a temple dedicated to his service stood on the\nslopes of Mount Sinai.\n\nNumerous attempts have been made to identify the mountain which the\nIsraelites regarded as the scene of the first pronouncement of their\nLaw. Most of these attempts are based on the belief that it is to be\nsought in the Sinaitic peninsula. The rival claims of Jebel el-\u2019Ejmeh,\nJebel Umm \u2019Alaw\u00ee, Jebel Zeb\u00eer-Katar\u00eena, Jebel Serb\u00e2l, and Jebel M\u00fbsa\nhave all been eagerly discussed. Jebel M\u00fbsa alone can claim the support\nof tradition, though this does not go back further than the third or\nfourth century A.D., when the Christian hermits first settled in its\nneighbourhood. The Sinai of S. Paul and Josephus was still in the Arabia\nof Roman geography, the kingdom of which Petra was the capital.\n\nIn the geography of the Old Testament, however, Mount Sinai was in Edom.\nThis is expressly stated in the Song of Deborah, one of the oldest\nproducts of Hebrew literature. Here we read (Judg. v. 4, 5), \u2018Lord, when\nThou wentest out of Seir, when Thou marchedst out of the field of Edom,\nthe earth trembled, and the heavens dropped, the clouds also dropped\nwater. The mountains melted from before the Lord, even that Sinai from\nbefore the Lord God of Israel.\u2019 Similar testimony is borne by the\nblessing of Moses (Deut. xxxiii. 2), \u2018The Lord came from Sinai, and rose\nup from Seir unto them; He shined forth from the Mount of Paran,\u2019 an\nexpression which appears in another form in Habakkuk (iii. 3), \u2018God came\nfrom Teman, and the Holy One from the Mount of Paran.\u2019 Teman denoted\nSouthern Edom, and Paran was the desert which adjoined Edom on the west\nand Judah on the south, and in whose midst was the sanctuary of\nKadesh-barnea.[194] In the Blessing of Moses the parallelism of Hebrew\npoetry requires that Sinai and Seir should be equivalent terms.\n\nWe must, then, look to the frontiers of Edom and the desert of Paran for\nthe real Sinai of Hebrew history. But it is useless to seek for a more\nexact localisation until the mountains of Seir and the old kingdom of\nEdom have been explored. Then, if ever, the Sinai of the Pentateuch may\nbe discovered. It would seem that it formed part of a range that was\nknown as \u2018Horeb,\u2019 the \u2018desert\u2019 mountains, and as late as the age of\nElijah it was still reverenced as \u2018the Mount of God\u2019 (1 Kings xix.\n8).[195]\n\nBefore the Israelites actually reached the sacred mountain, they had to\nmake more than one encampment in \u2018the Wilderness of Sin.\u2019 The itinerary\nin the book of Numbers gives the names of three\u2014Dophkah, Alush, and\nRephidim\u2014the narrative mentions only the last. Rephidim, the\n\u2018Encampments,\u2019 was the scene of the first conflict the Israelites were\ncalled upon to face. Here they were attacked by the Amalekites, the\nBed\u00e2win tribes who still consider the desert as their own, and whose\nhand is against all that pass through it. The attack was repulsed, but\nnot without loss, and the remembrance of it never faded from the minds\nof the Hebrew people. There was henceforth to be war between Amalek and\nIsrael \u2018from generation to generation,\u2019 until the Bed\u00e2win marauders of\nthe desert should be destroyed. The Song of Deborah (Judg. v. 14) tells\nus how the struggle was continued after the settlement in Canaan, and\nthe first Israelitish king did his utmost to root out these pests of the\nHebrew borderland. Saul smote them, it is said, from Havilah to Shur (1\nSam. xv. 7), from the \u2018sandy\u2019 desert of Arabia Petr\u00e6a to the great Wall\nof Egypt. And the Hebrew writer expressly adds that these were the same\nAmalekites as those who had lain in wait for Israel \u2018in the way when he\ncame up from Egypt.\u2019 There were no Amalekites in the Sinaitic peninsula;\nthe desert in which they ranged was that which adjoined Edom, and was\nknown to the ancient Babylonians as the \u2018land of Melukhkha.\u2019 Hence it\nwas that Edomites and Amalekites were mingled together, and that Amalek\nwas counted by the genealogists a grandson of Esau.\n\nThe battle at Rephidim was followed by the visit of the father-in-law of\nMoses, Jethro, \u2018the priest of Midian.\u2019 The visit was natural, for the\nreal Sinai lay on the frontier of Midian. It was while Moses was feeding\nthe flock of Jethro that he had first come to it and received his\ncommission from Yahveh. Here, therefore, at \u2018the Mount of God,\u2019 he was\nwithin hail of his old home.\n\nJethro\u2019s visit marked the first step in the organisation of Israel.\nUnder his guidance and counsel judges of various grades were appointed\nbefore whom minor cases could be brought, and each of whom was invested\nwith a certain amount of power. The functions of the \u2018judge\u2019 were\nadministrative and executive as well as legal; what was meant by the\nterm we may learn from the book of Judges as well as from the Shophetim\nor judges who at one time took the place of the kings at Tyre. They\ncorresponded closely with the higher officials in the Turkish provinces,\nwho possess an undefined and in some respects absolute authority,\nsubject only to the official who is immediately above them. The \u2018judges\u2019\nestablished by Moses on Jethro\u2019s advice derived their titles from the\nnumerical extent of their jurisdiction. They were judges \u2018of thousands,\u2019\n\u2018of hundreds,\u2019 \u2018of fifties,\u2019 and \u2018of tens.\u2019 The community was divided\ninto ideal units, of larger and smaller size, the basis of the\narrangement being the decimal system. The whole arrangement may have\nbeen of Midianite origin; at all events, in the Assyrian texts we hear\nalso of a \u2018captain of fifty\u2019 and a \u2018captain of ten.\u2019[196]\n\nMoses remained the supreme \u2018judge\u2019 and lawgiver of his people. To him\nalone all \u2018great matters\u2019 were referred, and from him came all the laws\nand ordinances, the rules and regulations which they were called upon to\nobey. The leader who had brought them safely out of \u2018the house of\nbondage\u2019 now became their recognised head and legislator. Moses \u2018was\nking in Jeshurun,\u2019 exercising all the authority in Israel which in later\ntimes belonged to the king.\n\nHardly was the political organisation of the new community completed\nbefore the Israelitish tribes reached the venerated sanctuary of Sinai,\nand encamped before \u2018the Mount of God.\u2019 The first object of their\njourney was accomplished, and the promise of Yahveh was fulfilled that\nthey should \u2018serve God\u2019 on the mountain where He had appeared to their\nleader. Here at Sinai the earlier portion of the Mosaic legislation was\npromulgated. It was subsequently supplemented by the legislation at\nKadesh-Barnea, that second resting-place of the tribes, where by the\nside of En-Mishpat, \u2018the Spring of Judgment,\u2019 they prepared themselves\nin the security of the heart of the desert for the future invasion of\nCanaan.\n\nIt was amid the terrors of a thunderstorm that Yahveh declared His laws\nto the people of Israel. While darkness rested on the summit of the\nmountain, broken only by the flashes of the lightning and the voice of\nthe thunder, \u2018the Ten Words\u2019 were delivered to man. In their forefront\nstood that stern, uncompromising declaration of monotheism which\nhenceforth marked the religion of Israel. They began with the\ncommandment that Israel should have \u2018no other gods before\u2019 the Lord.\nYahveh had brought them forth from Egypt, and Yahveh only must they\ntherefore serve. The commands which followed were partly general, partly\napplicable to the Israelites alone. The prohibition to make \u2018the\nlikeness of any thing in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in\nthe water under the earth,\u2019 defined the character of the God before whom\nno other was to be worshipped. He had no form or attributes which could\nbe represented by art; it was the gods of the Gentiles only of whom\nimages or pictures could be made. Egypt had been a land of idols, and in\nleaving Egypt Yahveh required that the idols also should be left behind.\nIn the simple life of the desert there was no place for art: here man\nwas alone with his Creator, who revealed Himself in the light of the\nburning bush or the thunderings of the storm, not under the forms of the\ncreatures He had made. The second commandment was part of the teaching\nwhich the wanderings in the desert were intended to enforce; and if\nIsrael was to remain a \u2018peculiar people,\u2019 dedicated to the service of\nYahveh, and secure from absorption into the nations that surrounded it,\nit was necessary that it should be fenced about with a law of\npuritanical strictness, which forbade the introduction of art under any\nshape. Art in the world of the Exodus was too closely interwoven with\nthe religions of Egypt and Canaan and Babylonia to be other than a\nforbidden thing. The subsequent history of Israel proved how wise and\nneedful had been the prohibition. The art which adorned the temple and\npalace of Solomon was followed by the erection of altars to the\ndivinities of the heathen, and even in the wilderness the golden calf\nwas worshipped in sight of Sinai itself.\n\nThe third and fourth commandments were, like the second, Israelitish\nrather than general in character. The third forbade taking in vain the\nname of Yahveh; the name of the national God of Israel which had been so\nspecially revealed was too sacred to be lightly spoken of. The \u2018name\u2019 of\nYahveh, in fact, was equivalent to Yahveh Himself, and to deal lightly\nwith the name was to deal lightly with One of whose essence it was. The\nobligation to keep the Sabbath was part of the culture which Western\nAsia had received from Babylonia. Among the Babylonians the Sabbath had\nbeen observed from early times, and the institution seems to have gone\nback to a pre-Semitic period. At all events, it was denoted in Sumerian\nby a term which a cuneiform tablet explains as \u2018a day of rest for the\nheart,\u2019 and its Assyrian name of Sabattu or \u2018Sabbath\u2019 was even derived\nby the native etymologists from the two Sumerian words _sa_, \u2018a heart,\u2019\nand _bat_, \u2018to rest.\u2019[197] In Babylonia and Assyria, as in Israel, the\nSabbath was observed every seventh day, perhaps in accordance with the\nastronomical system which dedicated the seven days of the week to the\nseven planets of Babylonian science. These seven-day weeks, however,\nwere based on the lunar months of the Babylonian year, the Sabbath or\nrest-day being on the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th of each month. There\nwas, moreover, another Sabbath on the 19th of the month, that being the\nend of the seventh week from the first day of the preceding month. On\nthese Sabbath days work of all kinds was forbidden to be performed. The\nking, it was laid down, \u2018must not eat flesh that has been cooked over\nthe coals or in the smoke, must not change the garments of his body,\nmust not wear white clothing, must not offer sacrifices, must not ride\nin a chariot, must not issue royal decrees.\u2019 Even the diviner was not\nallowed to \u2018mutter incantations in a secret place.\u2019 Nor was it permitted\nto take medicine.\n\nWith the other elements of Babylonian culture the institution of the\nSabbath had made its way to the West. But at Sinai it was given a new\nand special application. Not only was it to be observed each seventh day\nof the week, irrespective of the beginning of the month, it became also\na sign and mark of the covenant between Israel and its national God. In\nthe book of Exodus, it is true, the reason given for keeping it is that\nYahveh had rested on the seventh day from His work of creation\u2014a reason\nwhich will hardly be accepted by the geologist\u2014but in Deuteronomy (v.\n15) it is more fittingly brought into direct connection with the\ndeliverance from Egypt: \u2018Remember that thou wast a servant in the land\nof Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a\nmighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God\ncommanded thee to keep the Sabbath day.\u2019\n\nThe sanction of the fifth commandment is also one which applied to\nIsrael alone: children were enjoined to honour their parents that their\ndays might be long in the land which Yahveh had promised to give them.\nBut the last five commandments are of general application, and\naccordingly no reason is given for keeping them derived from the\naccidents of Hebrew history. They apply to all mankind, at all times and\nin all parts of the world. Murder, adultery, theft, false witness, and\ncovetousness are all crimes forbidden everywhere by the legal or moral\ncode. But it is strange that lying and deceit are not included among\nthem; in this respect the so-called negative confession, which the soul\nof the dead Egyptian was called upon to make in the next world, was more\ncomplete.[198] The lie, however, which does not involve false witness is\napt to be condoned among the nations of the East.\n\nThe ten commandments were followed by a series of other laws, many of\nwhich were probably re-enactments of laws or regulations already in\nforce. The law of retaliation, for instance (Exod. xxi. 23-25), is as\nold as human society; so also is the law that murder should be punished\nby death (xxi. 12). The law which punished the master for the murder of\na slave if he died on the spot, but allowed him to go scot-free if the\nslave lingered for a day or two (xxi. 20, 21), had its parallel in\nancient Babylonia, and the death-penalty exacted from the ox which had\ngored a man (xxi. 28-32) is a survival from the days when dumb animals\nand even inanimate objects were regarded as responsible for the injuries\nthey had caused.[199] The regulations in regard to \u2018a field or\nvineyard,\u2019 or \u2018the standing corn\u2019 of a field (xxii. 5, 6), belonged to\nthe land of Goshen or to Canaan, not to the life in the wilderness, and\nthe dedication of the firstborn to God (xxii. 29, 30) was one of the\nmost ancient articles of Semitic faith.\n\nEqually applicable to Egypt or Canaan only are the injunctions to let\nthe land lie fallow every seventh year (xxiii. 11), and to celebrate the\nthree great feasts of the year (xxiii. 14-19). They were all feasts of\nthe agriculturist rather than of the pastoral nomad. The year was\nushered in with the spring festival of unleavened bread; then in the\nsummer came the feast of harvest, and finally in the autumn\u2014\u2018the end\u2019 of\nthe old civil year\u2014the feast of the ingathering of the fruits.\n\nSuch were some of the laws promulgated under the shadow of the sacred\nmountain, when Israel first encamped before Mount Sinai. They concluded\nwith an exhortation to march against Canaan. Yahveh declared that He\nwould send His Angel before His people to guide them in their way, like\nthe _sukkalli_ or \u2018angels\u2019 of the Babylonian gods. Yahveh would fight\nfor them, and they should drive out the older inhabitants of the land\nand take their place. They were in no wise to mingle with them or\nworship their gods; like the idolaters themselves, the idols they adored\nwere to be destroyed. \u2018From the Y\u00e2m S\u00fbph to the sea of the Philistines\nand from the desert to the river\u2019 were to be the bounds of their new\nhome, a promise which was fulfilled in the kingdom of David.[200] That,\ntoo, extended to \u2018the river\u2019 Euphrates, and included the land of Edom\nwith its two ports on the Y\u00e2m S\u00fbph. \u2018The sea of the Philistines\u2019 is a\nnew name for the Mediterranean, and bears testimony to the maritime fame\nthose pirates from the north had already acquired.[201]\n\nThe laws thus promulgated at Sinai became the first code of Israel. They\nrested on the covenant that had been made between Yahveh and His people,\nof which the first clause was that they should worship none other gods\nbut Him. The book in which they were written by Moses was accordingly\ncalled the Book of the Covenant, and its words were read aloud to the\nassembled multitude (Exod. xxiv. 7). The audience, it must be\nremembered, included not the Israelites only, but the \u2018mixed multitude\u2019\nas well (Numb. xi. 4).\n\nOnce more Moses ascended the sacred mountain, to learn the \u2018pattern\u2019 of\nthe tabernacle in which Yahveh was henceforth to be worshipped. It was\nto be a tent, moving along with the people, and containing all the\nobjects of Israelitish veneration. Chief among these was the ark of the\nCovenant, surmounted by the mercy-seat and its two cherubim, between\nwhich Yahveh sat enthroned when He revealed Himself to His worshippers.\nBabylonia also had its arks, its mercy-seats, and its cherubim, and\nNebuchadrezzar speaks of \u2018the seat of the oracles\u2019 in the great temple\nof Babylon \u2018whereon at the festival of Zagmuku, the beginning of the\nyear, on the 8th and 11th days, Bel, the god, seats himself, while the\ngods of heaven and earth reverently regard him, standing before him with\nbowed heads.\u2019[202] The cherubim, indeed, were of Babylonian origin, and\ntheir presence in the tabernacle seems somewhat inconsistent with the\nprohibition to make a carven image. But the Israelites were the heirs of\nthe ancient culture of Western Asia, and the tabernacle and its\nfurniture embodied familiar forms of architecture and older religious\nconceptions.\n\nIn Egypt, too, the gods had their shrines, though these were usually\nboats which on the days of festival floated over the sacred lakes. Arks,\nhowever, were not unknown, and, as in Babylonia, contained the images of\nthe gods. Sometimes, however, in Babylonia and Assyria, the ark, like\nthat of Israel, had no image within it: the stone coffer, for instance,\nfound by Mr. Hormuzd Rassam in the inner sanctuary of the little temple\nof Balaw\u00e2t contained two tables of alabaster on which the annals of king\nAssur-nazir-pal were engraved. The native workmen who discovered them\nnaturally saw in them the two tables of stone which had been similarly\nplaced by Moses in the ark (Deut. x. 5).[203]\n\nThe parallelism between the temples and ritual of Israel and of\nBabylonia is indeed close. The temple itself was of the same square or\nrectangular form. Outwardly it presented the appearance of a huge box.\nWithin were the forecourt and court, while at the back came the Holy of\nHolies, with its altar and ark. There was, however, one distinguishing\nfeature in the Babylonian temple which was lacking in the Hebrew\ntabernacle. That was the great tower which mounted up towards heaven,\nand the topmost stage of which seemed to approach the gods. In the\nabsence of a tower the Hebrew tabernacle agreed with the temples of\nCanaan.\n\nThe Israelitish altars found their counterpart in Babylonia. So, too,\ndid the table of shewbread, which similarly stood in the sanctuaries of\nthe Chald\u00e6an deities. The sacrifices and offerings were also similar.\nBabylonia had its daily sacrifice. its \u2018meal-offering,\u2019 and its\nofferings for sin; the same animals that were sacrificed to Yahveh were\nsacrificed also to Bel; and the Babylonian worshipper sought the favour\nof his gods with the same birds and the same fruits of the field. Oil,\nmoreover, was used for purposes of anointing, and herein the ritual of\nBabylonia and Israel differed from that of Egypt, where oil was not\nemployed.[204]\n\nThe contrast between Egypt and Israel, indeed, in the details of\nreligious service was as great as the agreement in this respect between\nIsrael and Babylonia. The children of Israel had never forgotten their\nAsiatic origin; throughout their long sojourn in Goshen they had\npreserved their old culture and habits of thought as tenaciously as they\nhad preserved their language. Between them and the Egyptians, on the\ncontrary, there had been antagonism from the outset. And this antagonism\nwas accentuated by their lawgiver, who was naturally anxious to turn\ntheir thoughts from \u2018the fleshpots of Egypt,\u2019 and to prevent them from\nlapsing into Egyptian idolatries. Even the Egyptian legend of the Exodus\nbears witness to this fact.\n\nIn one detail, however, we find an analogy in Egypt. Professor\nHommel[205] has pointed out that the breastplate of the high-priest, the\nmysterious Urim and Thummim, with its twelve engraved stones, is\npictured on the breast of an Egyptian priest. Thus Seker-Kh\u00e2bau, a\nhigh-priest of Memphis in the age of the nineteenth dynasty, wears upon\nhis breast a sort of double network with four rows of precious stones\nset in it, each row consisting of three stones, alternately in the form\nof crosses and disks.[206] The Hebrew breastplate was used as an oracle,\nlike the linen ephod which was worn under it, though how the future was\ndivined from it we do not know. But in moments of danger it was usual to\nconsult it; and the fact that \u2018when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord\nanswered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets,\u2019 is\nbrought forward as a proof that he had been forsaken by his God (1 Sam.\nxxviii. 6). Like the lawgiver himself, it was the mouthpiece of Yahveh,\nand as such it bore the name of \u2018the breastplate of judgment.\u2019\n\nThe architects of the tabernacle and its adornment in precious metals\nwere Bezaleel of Judah and Aholiab of Dan.[207] Modern criticism would\nhold them to be part of an elaborate fiction, of which the tabernacle\nwas the subject. But the fiction would be too elaborate, too detailed,\nto be conceivable. Moreover, we have references to the tabernacle or\n\u2018tent of meeting\u2019 in the later history of Israel; and to declare these\nto be interpolations or the products of the same pen as that which\ninvented the tabernacle itself may be an easy way of saving a theory,\nbut it is not scientific. How far the description of the tabernacle is\nexact, how far it has not been coloured by the conceptions of a later\nage, is, of course, a question that may be asked. Those who maintain\nthat the Pentateuch goes back in substance to the Mosaic age must\nnevertheless allow that it has undergone many changes and modifications\nbefore assuming its present shape. But, except in rare instances, it is\nimpossible to indicate these changes with the assurance that the\nhistorian demands, and we must therefore be content with the probability\nthat in the description of the tabernacle we have the revised version of\nan old story.\n\nIt has been asked how the materials used in the construction of the\ntabernacle could have been obtained in the desert, from whence came the\nsilver and gold, the bronze and precious stones, the rich embroideries\nand cloths stained with Tyrian dye? Those who ask such questions have\nforgotten that the Israelites were not wild Bed\u00e2win, and that they were\nladen with the spoils of Egypt. Like the invading hosts who attacked\nEgypt in the reign of Ramses III., they carried with them in their\nretreat the treasures of their late masters. And we are specially told\nthat the gold was obtained from the bracelets and earrings and rings\nwhich were offered by the people and melted down.\n\nIt was during the second absence of Moses, when the conception and form\nof the tabernacle were being revealed to his mental vision, that his\nfollowers showed how little they understood the spirit and character of\nthe legislation he was endeavouring to give them. They believed he had\ndeserted them, and with his departure his religious teaching departed\nalso. Israelitish religion was no slow growth: like Zoroastrianism or\nBuddhism or Christianity itself, it implies an individual founder who\ngave it the impress of his own individuality. Modern theories which\nattempt to explain it as a process of evolution start with a false\nassumption, and arrive consequently at false conclusions. None of the\ngreat religions of the world has been a product of evolution except in\nan indirect sense; they are all stamped with individualism, and owe\ntheir existence to the genius or inspiration of an individual. The\nreligions of Babylonia and Egypt, as far as we know, were the results of\na slow development; but Mosaism and Zoroastrianism, Buddhism and\nChristianity derived not only their names, but their essence also from\nthe individual founders who created them. We cannot understand the\nreligion of Israel without the Law in its background, and we cannot\nunderstand the Law without the personality of its lawgiver.\n\nThe declaration that Israel should serve no other gods before Yahveh\nstood or fell with Moses, to whom Yahveh had revealed Himself. And Moses\nseemed to have vanished among the clouds that enveloped the summit of\nthe sacred mountain. Their leader and his God had deserted them, and the\npeople required another. Aaron the priest was ready to take the place of\nthe lost lawgiver, and to provide them with a new deity and a new faith.\nAnd, after all, it was but an ancient faith, the faith of the kindred\nnations that surrounded them, their own faith, moreover, in the days\nbefore the Exodus. A calf was fashioned out of their golden earrings,\nand in it both priest and people beheld the god who had brought them out\nof Egypt. Aaron proclaimed a feast in honour of the divinity whose\nworship was celebrated with the same shameless rites as those which\ncharacterised the cult of the Semitic populations of Babylonia, of\nCanaan, and of Arabia.\n\nBut in the midst of the festival Moses suddenly reappeared. The sons of\nLevi rallied round their tribesman, and fell with him upon the rebels\nagainst his laws. Some of the latter were slain, the rest were\nterrorised, and the golden calf was ground to powder.[208] Aaron was\nforgiven, perhaps because he too had gone over to the side of Moses,\nperhaps because he was too powerful or too necessary to be removed.[209]\nBut in his wrath at the defection of his people Moses had dashed to the\nground the two stone tables on which the words of God had been written,\nand it was needful that they should be replaced. Once more, therefore,\nMoses left the camp and sought solitary communion with Yahveh on the\nsummit of Sinai. Two fresh tables of stone were hewn, and with these he\nascended the mountain.\n\nWe must not picture to ourselves heavy stel\u00e6 of stone such as the kings\nand princes of Egypt delighted to set up in their tombs and temples, or\nthe \u2018great slab\u2019 which Isaiah was bidden to engrave (Isa. viii. 1). They\nwere rather like the small alabaster slabs found in the ark of the\nAssyrian temple at Balaw\u00e2t, which measure only twelve and a half inches\nin length by eight in width and two and a half inches in thickness, and\nnevertheless contain a long and valuable text. They were, in fact, stone\ntablets cut in imitation of the clay tablets which served as books in\nthe Asiatic world of the Exodus, and, like the latter, were probably\ninscribed with cuneiform characters. That these characters were used for\n\u2018the language of Canaan\u2019 we know from the existence of two seals of the\nage of the Tel el-Amarna correspondence, now in the possession of M. de\nClercq, which record the names of two Sidonians.[210] It is probable\nthat the first draft of the Ten Commandments was also in the cuneiform\nscript.\n\nThe book of Exodus ends fitly with the conclusion of the legislation\nwhich was promulgated from Mount Sinai and with the building of the\ntabernacle. Henceforward Yahveh was to reveal Himself to His people, not\namid the clouds of a mountain in the wilderness, but in the sanctuary\nwhich they had raised in His honour. The first stage in the education of\nIsrael had been completed; the Israelites had become a nation with a\nnational God and a national sanctuary. Henceforth the sanctuary was to\nbe the centre of their religious faith, the place where the law and\njudgment of God were to be declared, and to which the tribes were to\nresort that they might ask counsel from Him. The tabernacle, nomad\nthough it still was, like the tribes themselves, had taken the place of\n\u2018the mount of God,\u2019 and with the legislation of Leviticus a new book of\nthe Pentateuch begins.\n\nWe are not to suppose that this legislation has descended to us from the\nage of Moses without addition and change. Such a belief would be\ncontrary to the history of other religious law-books, or indeed to\nhistorical probability. As the utterances of the Hebrew prophets were\nmodified or enlarged according to the circumstances of the successive\nages to which they were applied, so too the Mosaic legislation must have\nundergone revision and enlargement. Laws and regulations which suited\nthe life in the desert needed adaptation to the changed conditions of\nlife in Canaan; tribes fresh from their servitude in Egypt required\ndifferent guidance from that required by a nation of conquerors; and the\ndetails of a legislation which was adapted to the period of Moses would\nhave been wholly unsuited to the period of the Judges, and still more to\nthe period of the Kings. So far as the change and modifications are\nconcerned, which all institutions in this world must necessarily\nundergo, the Mosaic legislation was a matter of growth. But it was the\nform and details that changed, not the substance of the legislation. The\nspirit and conceptions of the legislator had imprinted themselves too\nindelibly upon it ever to be obliterated. The reiteration of the same\nlaw in various forms, and the confused arrangement of many of them, may\nindeed show that later hands have been at work, but in essence and\norigin they remain his. The book of Leviticus, modernised though it may\nbe, nevertheless goes back to the age of Moses.\n\nEven in the age of Moses many of its regulations were not new. We find\ntheir parallels in Babylonia and Canaan, and they had doubtless long\nbeen among the unwritten institutions of Israel. But Moses gave them a\nnew sanction and a new adaptation. The Israelites must have had priests\nlike the nations round about them; but it was Moses who defined the\npriestly character of the sons of Aaron, and consecrated his own tribe\nto the service of Yahveh. If Yahveh was the national God of Israel, He\nwas also in a special way the tribal God of Levi.\n\nWe still know too little about the details of Babylonian ritual to be\nable to compare it with the religious institutions of Israel. We know,\nhowever, that the peace-offerings and trespass-offerings of the Mosaic\nLaw were represented in it, that even the heave-offerings found in it\ntheir counterpart, and that solemn fasts and days of atonement were\nobserved in Babylonia and Assyria as well as among the Israelites. In\nBabylonia, too, a distinction was made between clean and unclean\nanimals, and, as in Israel (Lev. xxi. 17-23), none who was maimed or\ndiseased was allowed to minister to the gods. Purification with water,\nmoreover, played much the same part in Babylonian ritual that it played\nin the ritual of the Israelites, and tithes were exacted for the support\nof the service in the temples.\n\nSimilar regulations prevailed in Canaan, as we may learn from the\nPh\u0153nician sacrificial tariffs found at Carthage and Marseilles. Both are\nmutilated, but the missing portions of the one can to a large extent be\nsupplied from the other. The text thus obtained is as follows:\u2014\n\n\u2018In the temple of Baal the following tariff of offerings shall be\nobserved which was prescribed in the time of the judge ...-Baal, the son\nof Bod-Tanit, the son of Bod-Ashmun, and in the time of Halzi-Baal, the\njudge, the son of Bod-Ashmun the son of Halzi-Baal, and their comrades.\nFor an ox as a full-offering, whether it be a prayer-offering or a full\nthank-offering, the priests shall receive ten shekels of silver for each\nbeast, and if it be a full-offering, the priests shall receive besides\nthis three hundred shekels\u2019 weight of flesh. And for a prayer-offering\nthey shall receive besides the small joints (?) and the roast (?), but\nthe skin and the haunches and the feet and the rest of the flesh shall\nbelong to the offerer. For a bullock which has horns, but is not yet\nbroken in and made to serve, or for a ram, as a full-offering, whether\nit be a prayer-offering or a full thank-offering, the priests shall\nreceive five shekels of silver for each beast, and if it be a\nfull-offering they shall receive besides this one hundred and fifty\nshekels\u2019 weight of flesh; and for a prayer-offering the small joints (?)\nand the roast, but the skin and the haunches and the feet and the rest\nof the flesh shall belong to the offerer. For a sheep or a goat as a\nfull-offering, whether it be a prayer-offering or a full thank-offering,\nthe priests shall receive one shekel of silver and two _zar_ for each\nbeast; and in the case of a prayer-offering they shall have besides this\nthe small joints (?) and the roast (?), but the skin and the haunches\nand the feet and the rest of the flesh shall belong to the offerer. For\na lamb or a kid or a fawn as a full-offering, whether it be a\nprayer-offering or a full thank-offering, the priests shall receive\nthree-fourths of a shekel of silver and two _zar_ for each beast; and in\nthe case of a prayer-offering they shall have besides this the small\njoints (?) and the roast (?), but the skin and the haunches and the feet\nand the rest of the flesh shall belong to the offerer. For a bird,\nwhether wild or tame, as a full-offering, whether it be _shetseph_ or\n_khazuth_, the priests shall receive three-fourths of a shekel of silver\nand two _zar_ for each bird, and [a certain amount of flesh besides].\nFor a bird, or for the offering of the firstborn of an animal, or for a\nmeal-offering, or for an offering with oil, the priests shall receive\nten pieces of gold for each.... In the case of every prayer-offering\nwhich is offered to the gods, the priests shall receive the small joints\n(?) and the roast (?); and the prayer-offering ... for a cake and for\nmilk and for fat, and for every offering which is offered without\nblood.... For every offering which is brought by a poor man in cattle or\nbirds, the priests shall receive nothing.... Anything leprous or scabby\nor lean is forbidden, and no one as regards that which he offers shall\ntaste of the blood of the dead. The tariff for each offering shall be\naccording to that which is prescribed in this publication.... As for\nevery offering which is not prescribed in this table, and which is not\nmade according to the regulations which have been published in the time\nof ...-Baal the son of Bod-Tanit, and of Bod-Ashmun the son of\nHalzi-Baal, and of their comrades, every priest who accepts the offering\nwhich is not included in that which is prescribed in this table shall be\npunished.... As for the property of the offerer who does not discharge\nhis debt for his offering [it shall be taken from him].\u2019[211]\n\nThe general resemblances between these regulations and those of the\nLevitical law are obvious. In both we have the same kind of sacrifices\nand offerings\u2014the ox, the sheep and the goat, the lamb and kid, birds\nand cakes, meal and oil. Silver shekels were to be paid to the priests,\nlike the silver shekels of the sanctuary exacted in certain cases from\nthe Israelite (Lev. v. 15, xxvii. 25), and the blood and the fat were to\nbe offered to the gods. The necessities of the poor man were remembered\nas they were in the Levitical law (Lev. v. 7, xii. 8, xiv. 21), and\nwhatever was \u2018leprous or scabby or lean\u2019 was forbidden to be brought to\nthe altar. The firstborn could be claimed by Baal as they were claimed\nby Yahveh, and the offerer was not permitted to taste of the blood of\nthe slain beast (compare Lev. vii. 26, 27). The \u2018full-offerings\u2019 of the\nPh\u0153nician tariffs mean that the whole of the victim had been given to\nthe gods, and so correspond with the burnt sacrifices of the Mosaic\nCode. It is unfortunate that we cannot fix with certainty the exact\nsignification of the words denoting the parts of the animal which were\nthe due of the priests, and consequently cannot be sure whether or not\nthey answer to the breast and shoulder of the peace-offering, which\nunder the Levitical legislation were assigned to the sons of Aaron (Lev.\nvii. 33, 34).\n\nIt is true that the tariffs of Carthage and Marseilles belong to a late\nperiod. But they embody regulations and usages which were common to the\nSemitic world of Western Asia, as we may gather from a comparison of\nthem with the ritual of Babylonia, and which therefore must have been\u2014at\nleast in substance\u2014of great antiquity. Two conclusions result from this\nfact. On the one hand the Levitical legislation cannot have been the\ninvention of the Exilic age, as some adventurous critics have believed;\non the other hand, it is based on customs and ideas which must have been\nprevalent in Israel long before the birth of Moses. The Hebrew\nlegislator did but develop, modify, and define existing rites; the\nLevitical Code is not a new creation, but a body of religious and ritual\nlaws which has been formed deliberately and with individual effort out\nof older customs and habits of thought. Doubtless there are laws and\nregulations which were the immediate creation of the lawgiver; from time\nto time new cases arose for which special legislation was needed, and of\nwhich the cases of Nadab and Abihu (Lev. x. 1-3), of the son of\nShelomith and the Egyptian (Lev. xxiv. 10-16), and of the daughters of\nZelophehad (Numb. xxvii. 1-11) are examples. To assume that such cases\noriginated in the laws which they illustrated, and not the reverse, is a\ngratuitous supposition which is contradicted by the history of modern\nEuropean law.[212]\n\nWhether the Day of Atonement, the Feast of Trumpets on the first of each\nseventh month and the Year of Jubilee were also new creations of the\nlawgiver, may be questioned. The special legislation connected with\nthem, as well as their association with the Exodus out of Egypt, was\ncertainly peculiar to the Levitical code, but the same is true of the\nthree older feasts of the Semitic calendar. These too were made to\nillustrate the events of Israelitish history, and new regulations were\nlaid down for their observance. The Day of Atonement, however, had its\ncounterpart in Babylonia and Assyria. There also in periods of danger or\ndistress, days of humiliation and fasting were prescribed, and prayers\nand offerings were made to the gods that they might forgive the sins of\nthe people. When at the beginning of Esar-haddon\u2019s reign Assyria was\nthreatened by the Kimmerian invasion, \u2018religious ordinances and holy\ndays\u2019 were proclaimed by the priests for \u2018a hundred days and a hundred\nnights,\u2019 and the sun-god was besought to remove the sin of his\nworshippers.[213] So, again, after the suppression of the Babylonian\nrevolt, Assur-bani-pal tells us that \u2018by the command of the prophets I\npurified their sanctuaries and cleaned their streets which had been\ndefiled. Their wrathful gods and angry goddesses I tranquillised with\nprayers and penitential hymns. Their daily sacrifice, which had been\ndiscontinued, I restored in peace and established again as it had been\nbefore.\u2019 The Feast of Trumpets reminds us that in Babylonia the first\nday of each month was kept as a Sabbath, and the Babylonian analogy is\nstill more manifest in the case of the Feast of Pentecost, on \u2018the\nmorrow after the seventh Sabbath,\u2019 after the offering of the\nfirstfruits. This \u2018seventh Sabbath\u2019 is the Babylonian Sabbath, on the\n19th of the month, forty-nine days after the first Sabbath of the\npreceding month. The Year of Jubilee was a Babylonian institution of\nexceeding antiquity. We learn from classical writers[214] that once each\nyear in the month of July the feast of Sakea was held at Babylon, when\nthe slave changed places with his master, and for five days lived and\nwas clothed as a free man. We can now carry the history of the\ninstitution back to the age of the third dynasty of Ur. Gudea, the\nhigh-priest of Lagas, B.C. 2700, states in his inscriptions that after\nhe had finished building the temple of E-ninnu, he celebrated a\nfestival; and \u2018for seven days no obedience was exacted; the female slave\nbecame the equal of her mistress, and the male slave the equal of his\nmaster; the subject became the equal of the chief; and all that was evil\nwas removed from the temple.\u2019[215]\n\nThe Year of Jubilee, it is clear, was but an adaptation and improvement\nof one of the oldest institutions of Babylonian culture. To assert that,\ntogether with the other holy days of the Levitical Code, it was borrowed\nfrom Babylonia in the age of the Exile, is to assert what not only\ncannot be proved, but is in the highest degree improbable. In the age of\nthe Exile, Babylonia had become a second Egypt to the Jews, and the\nreligious party among them regarded with abhorrence all that was\nspecifically Babylonian. The feasts consecrated to \u2018Bel and Nebo,\u2019 the\nrites associated with the worship of the Babylonian gods, were the last\nthings that would be adopted or adapted by a pious Jew. Moreover, we now\nknow that the culture which had been carried from Chald\u00e6a to the west\nlong before the period of the Exodus included the gods and sacred rites\nof the Babylonians. So distinctive a characteristic of it as \u2018the feast\nof Sakea,\u2019 or days of prayer and humiliation for \u2018the removal of sin,\u2019\nwould not be forgotten when Anu and Moloch and Ashtoreth and Nin-ip made\ntheir way to Canaan.\n\nThere are passages in the Levitical Code which look back very distinctly\nto Egypt. Thus marriage with a sister, whether a full sister or a\nhalf-sister, is forbidden (Lev. xviii. 9). This was one of \u2018the doings\nof the land of Egypt\u2019 (Lev. xviii. 3) which had been consecrated there\nboth by the civil and by the religious law, and continued in force down\nto the time of the Roman conquest. So, too, tattooing the flesh, and\nshaving the head or lacerating the flesh for the dead, were prohibited\n(Lev. xix. 27, 28, xxi. 5), all of them practices which are still common\nin the valley of the Nile. But, on the whole, it is remarkable how\nentirely Egypt is ignored. The Mosaic legislation seems intentionally to\nclose its eyes to all things Egyptian, and, wherever it is possible, to\nmake enactments which tacitly contradict or set aside the beliefs and\ncustoms of Egypt. Even the doctrine of the resurrection, as Bishop\nWarburton long ago observed, is carefully dropped out of sight. There is\nno reference to it, no sign that obedience to the laws of Yahveh will\nbenefit the Israelite in any other world than this. On any theory of the\nage and authorship of the Levitical law such a silence is remarkable.\nIndeed, if the law is as late as the epoch of the Babylonish exile the\nsilence would be more than remarkable, since the doctrine of a future\nlife and of the power of the god Merodach to raise the dead to life had\nbeen firmly established for centuries among the Babylonians. A belief in\nthe resurrection, or at all events, in a life beyond the grave, could\nnot but have betrayed itself in the atmosphere of the Exile. For those,\nhowever, who had the Egyptian house of bondage immediately behind them,\nand who feared lest the tribes in the desert might again lust after the\nflesh-pots and green pastures of the Delta, the silence is intelligible.\nThe doctrine was closely associated with Egyptian idolatry, with Osiris\nand Anubis, with the assessors of the dead, and with the pictured\npolytheism of the Egyptian monuments.\n\nThe Levitical legislation was accompanied by a census of the people.\nWhat credit we are to attach to the numbers which have been handed down\nis a question that has been much debated. On the one hand it has been\nshown that the vast multitude presupposed by them could not have moved\nabout in the desert, as it is represented to have done, and that many of\nthe regulations in the Levitical Code could not have been carried out\nwith a nomad population of over two millions.[216] On the other hand,\nthe 600,000 men above twenty years of age who were \u2018able to go forth to\nwar\u2019 are specified again and again, and the same number is implied in\nall the calculations that are made of the numerical strength of Israel.\nIt is also the sum of the numbers assigned to the fighting men of the\nindividual tribes. Throughout the history the ciphers are consistent\nwith one another. If the number is exaggerated, it it is an exaggeration\nwhich has been consistently adhered to. We must either accept it, or\nbelieve that it belongs to an artificial system which has been framed\nwith deliberate intention. But the same may be said of the chronology of\nthe early patriarchs as well as of the chronology of the kings of Israel\nand Judah, and in both instances we know that the system is wrong. In\nthe case of the chronology of the early patriarchs, indeed, there are at\nleast three rival systems, all equally complete and self-coherent, while\nthe chronology of the kings involves such hopeless anachronisms as have\nlong since caused it to be rejected by the historian. The difficulties\npresented by the census of the Israelites in the wilderness are similar\nin character to the anachronisms presented by the chronology of the\nkings, and the same reasons which lead us to reject the one ought\nequally to induce us to reject the other.\n\nNevertheless, the chronology of the kings is not wholly incorrect. The\nlength of reign assigned to the several kings is usually right. It is\nonly the system into which it has been fitted that is at fault. And\nprobably this is also the case as regards the numbering of the tribes of\nIsrael. It may be that the 8580 Levites and the 22,273 firstborn males\nare authentic, and that the increase of the population by 3550 (Exod.\nxxxviii. 26; Numb. i. 46) a few months after the flight from Egypt, and\nits decrease by 1820 at the end of the wanderings (Numb. xxvi. 51), rest\non a foundation of fact. Even the traditional number of 600,000 may have\nbetter support than its being a multiple of the Babylonian _soss_ and\n_ner_.[217] Perhaps it originally represented the whole body of\nfugitives from Egypt.\n\nAt all events, some light may be thrown on the matter by a comparison of\nthe numbers given in the Pentateuch with those of the Libyans and their\nallies as recorded in the inscription of Meneptah. Of the Libyans, 6365\nmen were slain and 230 (including 12 women) were captured; of their\nallies, 2370 fell on the field of battle, and 9146 were taken prisoners,\nwhile no less than 9111 bronze swords were taken from the Maxyes. We\ngather from the history of the battle that few, if any, of the enemy\nescaped. The whole force of fighting men, therefore, would not have\namounted to very much over 25,000. And yet this was one of the most\nformidable hosts that had invaded Egypt; and its male population had not\nbeen decimated by the tyranny of an Egyptian king. On the other hand, a\npopulation of 2,000,000 in the land of Goshen is inconceivable, and\nthere would hardly have been room in the eastern Delta for 600,000\nable-bodied brickmakers. The Sweet-water Canal was dug by only 25,000\nfellahin, though 250,000 worked at the Mahmud\u00eeya Canal, and for some\nyears 20,000 fresh labourers were sent monthly to excavate the Suez\nCanal. Even in the desert, moreover, the Egyptians required a\nconsiderable number of troops to guard the serfs or convicts who worked\nfor them. At Hammam\u00e2t, for example, in the reign of Ramses IV., the 2000\nbondservants of the temples who effected the transport of the stone were\nattended by 5000 soldiers, 800 mercenaries, and 200 officers; and\nprovisions for this large body of men were carried across the desert in\nten waggons, each drawn by six pairs of oxen, and laden with bread,\nmeat, and cakes.[218] For 600,000 Israelites the whole Egyptian army\nwould not have sufficed. According to Manetho, the Hyksos, when driven\nfrom Egypt, did not number more than 240,000 in all.\n\nWe cannot, then, look upon the numbers that have come down to us as\nexact. The occupants of the Israelitish camp, continually under the\npersonal supervision of Moses, and constantly required to assemble\nbefore the tabernacle, could not have been a very large body of men. Had\nthe fighting population amounted to anything like the number recorded,\nthere would have been no need of avoiding \u2018the way of the land of the\nPhilistines,\u2019 lest the people should \u2018see war,\u2019 or of doubting the issue\nof the combat at Rephidim with the Bed\u00e2win tribes.\n\nThe year after the flight from Egypt, Sinai, \u2018the mount of God,\u2019 was\nleft behind. The service that Yahveh required had been performed, the\nlegislation revealed there had been completed, and the tabernacle and\nark had been made. Israel had henceforth another religious centre than\nthe sacred mountain of the desert, which had now fulfilled its part in\nthe religious training of the tribes. Canaan, and not the wilderness,\nwas the destined home of the descendants of Jacob, and to Canaan the ark\nand the tabernacle were to accompany them.\n\nThe guiding column of cloud moved accordingly from the wilderness of\nSinai to that of Paran (Numb. x. 12). This is in harmony with the rest\nof Old Testament geography. In the blessing of Moses (Deut. xxxiii. 2)\nit is said that when God came from Sinai, \u2018He shined forth from the\nmount of Paran,\u2019 and in Habakkuk (iii. 3) the mount of Paran takes the\nplace of Sinai itself. Paran, in fact, was the desert which formed not\nonly the southern boundary of Canaan, but also the western frontier of\nEdom. The real Mount Sinai of Hebrew geography, therefore, was upon the\nEdomite border; and since Paran was the home of Ishmael (Gen. xxi. 21),\nit is not surprising that Esau should have taken one of Ishmael\u2019s\ndaughters to wife (Gen. xxxvi. 3).\n\nBefore Sinai was left, however, Hobab the Midianite, the brother-in-law\nof Moses, proposed to return to his own land. Sinai adjoined Midian, if\nindeed it was not included in Midianitish territory, and here,\ntherefore, if at all, it was needful for the Midianite chief to quit the\nIsraelitish camp. But his knowledge of the district was too valuable to\nbe lost, and Moses persuaded him to remain with the Israelitish tribes\nand guide them to the places where they should encamp. The Kenites in\nlater days traced their descent to him (Judg. i. 16, iv. 11), and the\nrocky nest of the Kenites was visible from the heights of Moab, perhaps\nin Petra itself (Numb. xxiv. 21).\n\nThe geographical details which follow are confused. In the itinerary\n(Numb. xxxiii. 15, 16) the camp is transported at once from the\nwilderness of Sinai to Kibroth-hattaavah. In the narrative, however, we\nare told that the people first went \u2018three days\u2019 journey,\u2019 and then\nrested at Taberah, which seems to be identified with Kibroth-hattaavah;\nfrom thence they travelled to Hazeroth, and then pitched their tents \u2018in\nthe wilderness of Paran.\u2019 On the other hand, the book of Deuteronomy\n(ix. 22) distinguishes between Taberah and Kibroth-hattaavah, and\ninterpolates Massah between them, which, according to Exod. xvii. 7, was\nvisited before Sinai. If we follow the official record, we must suppose\nthat the incident connected with Taberah has been inserted in the wrong\nplace, or else that Taberah and Kibroth-hattaavah are, like Massah and\nMeribah, one and the same. At all events, all these encampments must\nhave lain on the outskirts of the desert of Paran. Hazeroth, \u2018the\nenclosures,\u2019 was a common name for the Bed\u00e2win encampments in the desert\nsouth of Judah, and the Hazeroth mentioned here is doubtless that of\nwhich we read in Deut. i. 1. It lay near Paran on the borders of the\nplains of Moab.\n\nTaberah, it was said, derived its name from the fire which had here\nconsumed some of the people, while Kibroth-hattaavah marked the \u2018graves\u2019\nof the murmurers who had died from a surfeit of quails. Similar flights\nof quails still visit the Egyptian Delta in the early spring, when the\nsky is sometimes overshadowed by myriads of birds. Hazeroth was\nremembered for the rebellion of Aaron and Miriam against their brother\nMoses, and the punishment that Miriam the prophetess had in consequence\nto endure. The authority of Moses was disputed because he had married an\nEthiopian wife. It is the only passage in the Pentateuch where this\n\u2018Cushite\u2019 wife is alluded to; elsewhere we hear only of Zipporah the\nMidianitess. But it points to a traditional recollection of the days\nwhen Moses was still Messu, the Egyptian prince, and when, like that\nother Messu, his contemporary, he might have been the Egyptian governor\nof Ethiopia.[219] The objection to the Ethiopian wife came but ill from\nAaron, whose grandson bore the Egyptian name of Phinehas, Pi-nehasi,\n\u2018the negro.\u2019 But Yahveh declared that the Cushite affinities of Moses\nwere no bar to his being a true servant of the God of Israel and the\ndivinely-appointed leader of the tribes. To him Yahveh had revealed His\nwill openly, and as it were face to face; not, as to other prophets, in\nwaking visions and dreams.\n\nIn the heart of the wilderness of Paran was the venerable sanctuary of\nKadesh-barnea. Centuries before, the army of Chedor-laomer had swept\nthrough it, slaughtering its Amalekite inhabitants, and drinking the\nwater of En-Mishpat, \u2018the Spring of Judgment,\u2019 where the sh\u00eakhs of the\ndesert had given laws to their people. Its site has been found again in\nour own days by Dr. John Rowlands and Dr. Clay Trumbull.[220] The spring\nof clear water which fills the oasis with life and verdure is still\ncalled \u2019Ain Qad\u00ees, the \u2018Spring of Kadesh.\u2019 It rises at the foot of a\nlimestone cliff, in which a two-chambered tomb has been cut in early\ntimes, in the hollow of an amphitheatre of hills. The hills form a block\nof mountains which occupy the central part of the desert, midway between\nEl-Ar\u00eesh and Mount Hor, and more than forty miles to the south of\nSebaita, the supposed site of Hormah.\n\nKadesh, the \u2018Sanctuary,\u2019 was destined to be the second resting-place and\nscene of Israelitish legislation. The work which had been left\nunfinished at Sinai was completed here. The will of Yahveh, which had\nfirst been declared on the summit of the mountain, was now to be more\nfully unfolded among the soft surroundings of the oasis in the valley.\nSinai and Kadesh-barnea were the two schools of the desert in which\nIsrael was trained.\n\nBut Kadesh-barnea had other advantages as well. It was on the high-road\nfrom the desert to Canaan, it commanded the approach to the latter\ncountry, and nevertheless within its rocky barriers the Israelites were\nsafe from attack. Here, therefore, at Kadesh-barnea, the first\npreparations were made for the invasion of Palestine. Twelve scouts were\nsent, in Egyptian fashion, to explore the land, and bring back a report\nof its capabilities for defence. They made their way as far as\nHebron,[221] where a popular etymology derived the name of the valley of\nEshcol from the cluster of grapes they had cut there.[222] But the\nreport with which they returned was discouraging. The Amorites were tall\nand strong; by their side the children of Israel appeared but as\ngrasshoppers; while the cities in which they dwelt were \u2018very great,\u2019\nand walled, as it were, to heaven. It was folly for the desert tribes to\ndream of assaulting them; that would need the disciplined army of a\nPharaoh, with its chariots and horses and machines for scaling the\nwalls. \u2018We be not able to go up against the people,\u2019 they declared, \u2018for\nthey are stronger than we.\u2019\n\nHere, then, was an end to all the promises of Moses. The Promised Land\nwas in sight, and they were excluded from it for ever. \u2018Let us make\nanother captain,\u2019 they cried, \u2018and return to Egypt.\u2019 The leader who had\nbrought them thus far had failed on the very threshold of their goal.\nThe Hyksos, when they forsook Egypt, had found a refuge in Canaan; but\nthe barren wastes of the wilderness were all that the Israelites could\nexpect. It was little wonder that a rebellion broke out in the\nIsraelitish camp, and that the supporters of Moses were threatened with\nstoning.\n\nBut experience soon showed that the Israelitish tribes were as yet no\nmatch for the people whose possessions they desired to seize. Despite\nthe report of the spies, they climbed the cliff which formed the\nnorthern boundary of the oasis, and attempted to force their way beyond\nthe frontiers of Canaan. But their enemies proved the stronger. When\nSeti I. had attacked the frontier fortress of Canaan, not far from\nHebron, he had found it defended by Shasu or Bed\u00e2win, and so, too, the\nIsraelites now found themselves confronted not by the Canaanites only,\nbut also by their Amalekite or Bed\u00e2win allies. The assailants were\nutterly defeated and \u2018discomfited even unto Hormah.\u2019\n\nHormah was more usually known as Zephath (Judg. i. 17), and its site\nmust be looked for south of Tell \u2019Arad. It was one of the cities of\nPalestine which Thothmes III. claims to have captured, and it lay\ntowards the southern end of the Dead Sea, on the road to Hazezon Tamar\n(Gen. xiv. 7). The mention of it makes it clear that the Israelitish\ninvasion of Canaan had been a serious attempt. The invaders had marched\nalong the same military road as that followed by Chedor-laomer, and had\npenetrated as far as the hill country of what was afterwards Judah. But\nthey did not succeed in getting further, and their shattered relics must\nhave made their way with difficulty back to the fastness of Kadesh. The\nfirst attempt to conquer Palestine had failed.[223]\n\nThe disaster was never forgotten. It was some years before the\nIsraelites again attempted to cross the Canaanitish boundary, and when\nthey did so it was from a different quarter. A new generation had to\ngrow up before they were strong enough to renew the attack; indeed, it\nis probable that most of the fighting men had been lost in the earlier\nexpedition. When at last Israel felt able once more to march against\nCanaan, it was already in possession of land on the east of the Jordan,\nbut its great \u2018captain\u2019 and lawgiver was dead. Israelitish history found\nits leader to the conquest of Palestine not in Moses, but in Joshua.\n\nThe history of the period that followed the disaster left little that\nwas worth recording. The chief incidents of the life in the desert had\nbeen crowded into the first few months of the wanderings. But it was\nduring this later period that trouble arose with Moses\u2019 own tribesmen,\nthe Levites. It was again a question of authority. The democratic spirit\nof the Israelites resented claims to superior power; and just as Aaron\nand Miriam had disputed the authority of Moses, so now the Levites\ndisputed that of Aaron. It was a dispute which, if we are to believe\nmodern criticism, was continued into later Jewish history, when it\nended, as it did in the desert, in the triumph of the high-priest.\n\nAaron and his sons, like Moses, were at the outset Levites, and as such\ndoubtless had no claim to superior sanctity and power. But circumstances\nhad placed them at the head of their tribe; and when that tribe became\nthe ministers of the sanctuary, Aaron and his descendants necessarily\noccupied the foremost place in its services. They were in a special\nsense the guardians of the ark, and thus alone privileged to enter the\nHoly of Holies, where Yahveh revealed Himself above the cherubim. As\nlong as there was but one sanctuary, it was easy to maintain the\ndistinction between the priest of the house of Aaron and the ordinary\nLevite. But with the conquest of Canaan all this was changed.\nSanctuaries were multiplied all over the land; the old high-places\nbecame seats of the worship of Yahveh, and there were rival centres of\nreligious authority, like that of Baal-berith at Shechem, or that of the\ngraven image at Dan (Judg. xviii. 14, etc.). Local temples or\ntabernacles took the place of the one that was hallowed by the presence\nof the ark, and the line of Aaron fell into the background. In the age\nof national trouble and disintegration which preceded the accession of\nSaul, the character of the high-priestly family itself had much to do\nwith the loss of its power and influence. Eli, its representative at\nShiloh, was old and feeble, and his sons set at defiance the Mosaic law,\nwhich required that Yahveh\u2019s portion of the sacrifice should be burned\non the altar before the priests received their share, and so they made\n\u2018the offering of the Lord\u2019 to be \u2018abhorred.\u2019 The capture of the ark by\nthe Philistines and the massacre of the priests at Nob by order of Saul\ncompleted the dissolution of the high-priestly authority; and when the\ntemple at Jerusalem was built under Solomon, a new branch of the family\nof Aaron was appointed to minister in it, and his descendants became\nlittle more than hereditary court-chaplains. It has even been doubted\nwhether there was any high-priest, properly so called, under the kings;\nif there were, he had been divested of the power and position which had\nbeen given him by the Levitical law.\n\nTo conclude, however, as has sometimes been done by modern criticism,\nthat because the priests of Solomon\u2019s temple were no longer the\nhigh-priests of the Pentateuchal law, therefore there had been no such\nhigh-priests at all, is contrary to the evidence of arch\u00e6ology.\nMonumental discovery has disclosed the fact that among the Semitic\nkinsmen of the Israelites as well as in Chald\u00e6a the high-priest preceded\nthe king. Not to speak of the _patesis_ or high-priests of the\nBabylonian cities who exercised royal sway within the limits of their\nterritories, like the Popes within the limits of the Romagna, the\nearliest rulers both of Assyria and of Saba or Sheba in Southern Arabia\nwere high-priests. The Assyrian kings followed the high-priests of the\ngod Assur, and the Mak\u00e2rib or \u2018high-priests\u2019 of Saba came before the\nkings. Israel also had the same experience. The Israelitish kings\nappeared at a comparatively late period on the scene of Hebrew history,\nand Saul was preceded by the high-priest Eli.\n\nIn the book of Deuteronomy, it is true, we do not find the distinction\nbetween \u2018the priests, the sons of Aaron,\u2019 and the rest of the Levites\nthat is made in the Levitical law. Here the priests are all alike called\nLevites; it is not \u2018the priests, the sons of Aaron,\u2019 but \u2018the priests\nthe Levites\u2019 who are appointed to perform the highest offices of the\nsanctuary. How far the phraseology is due to a different conception of\nthe Mosaic law, or how far it testifies to an older usage of language,\nis a question which need not concern us; what is important to observe is\nthat the difference of expression is linguistic and not historical.\nHistorically all the priests were Levites, though from the outset some\nof them must have been assigned higher positions than others, and have\nbeen invested with more sacred functions. The Levitical law draws the\ndistinction which the book of Deuteronomy is not so careful to do. In\nfact, there was not the same necessity for doing so in the case of the\nDeuteronomic retrospect.\n\nThe tabernacle had been constructed, its services arranged, and the\ngrades and duties of its ministers appointed. Now, therefore,\ndisappointed in their hope of invading Canaan from the south, the\nIsraelites settled themselves tranquilly at Kadesh, in the heart of the\nwilderness of Zin, and slowly developed into a strong and united\ncommunity. Here it was, by the waters of En-Mishpat, that the\nlegislation of Moses was completed, and the undisciplined horde of\nfugitive serfs from Egypt was moulded into a formidable band of warriors\nknit together by a common religion and worship, and continually\ngathering increased confidence in its own strength.[224]\n\nHow long the Israelites remained in their desert fastness we do not\nknow. A time came when they once more resumed their wanderings, or at\nall events a portion of them must have done so. The Itinerary in Numb.\nxxxiii. gives a long list of their encampments before they again found\nthemselves in the oasis of Kadesh. One of the places at which they\nrested was Mount Shapher, another was Moseroth, of which we hear in the\nbook of Deuteronomy (x. 6). Moseroth was in the territory of the Horite\ntribe of Beni-Yaakan,[225] and it was from the Beeroth or \u2018Wells\u2019 of the\nBeni-Yaakan\u2014Hashmonah, as it is called in the Itinerary\u2014that they had\nmade their way to it.\n\nAt Mosera or Moseroth, according to Deuteronomy, Aaron died, and was\nsucceeded in his office by his son Eleazar. The statement, however, is\nnot easily reconcileable with what we are told in the book of Numbers.\nThere it is said that the death of the high-priest took place on the\nsummit of Mount Hor after the departure from Kadesh.[226] The fact that\nGudgodah was also called Hor-hagidgad, \u2018the mountain of clefts,\u2019 may\nhave been the cause of the transference.\n\nBut it must be remembered that Kadesh was merely the headquarters of\nIsrael during its weary years of waiting in the wilderness. The scanty\nnotice of the unsuccessful invasion of Southern Palestine shows that it\nwas only the camp as a whole which remained fixed there. Like the\nBed\u00e2win of to-day, portions of the tribes made distant expeditions, and\nthe Itinerary may relate rather to their encampments than to that of the\nstationary part of the people. Kadesh was a sort of centre from which\nfragments of the main body could be sent forth to scour the frontiers of\nSeir and Edom, or to encamp at the foot of Ezion-geber on the Y\u00e2m S\u00fbph.\n\nIn the book of Numbers (xxi. 14, 15) there is a quotation from \u2018the Book\nof the Wars of the Lord,\u2019 one of the old documents on which the history\nof Israel in the wilderness is based. The introductory words are\nunintelligible as they stand, thus testifying to the antiquity of the\npassage; all that can be made out of them is that they relate not only\nto the struggle between Israel and the Amorites at \u2018the brooks of\nArnon,\u2019 but also to a previous war carried on by the Israelites \u2018in\nSuphah,\u2019 near the gulf of Aqaba.[227] Here the Israelites would have\nbeen on the borders of Edom, if indeed they were not in Edom itself; and\nit is therefore noticeable that the Egyptian Pharaoh, Ramses III., whose\nreign coincided with the period of the wanderings of the Israelites in\nthe desert, declares that he had \u2018smitten the Shasu (or Bed\u00e2win) tribes\nof Seir and plundered their tents\u2019 (_oh\u00e9lu_). Ramses III. was the only\nPharaoh of Egypt who had ventured to attack the Edomite Bed\u00e2win in their\nmountain strongholds; while Canaan and the plateau east of the Jordan\nhad been Egyptian provinces the inhabitants of Mount Seir had retained\ntheir independence. The synchronism, therefore, of this Egyptian\nexpedition against, not the Edomites only, but \u2018the Bed\u00e2win of Seir\u2019 and\nthe war in which Israel was engaged \u2018in Suphah,\u2019 is, at least, worthy of\nnotice. It may be that part of the training undergone by the Israelites\nin the desert for their future conquest of Canaan was the help they had\nrendered their kinsfolk of Edom in their contest with the old\ntaskmasters of the Hebrew tribes.\n\nHowever this may be, of the three leaders who had brought Israel out of\nthe house of bondage, Moses alone survived the long sojourn at Kadesh.\nMiriam had died there; the death of Aaron also, if we may trust\nDeuteronomy, had taken place before the final departure from the great\ndesert sanctuary. In any case, it had happened in sight of Kadesh, and\nbefore the march had commenced which was to lead the Israelitish tribes\nto the Promised Land. The time had now arrived when Israel felt strong\nenough once more to attempt its conquest; not, this time, by the road\nthrough the mountains of the south along which Chedor-laomer had marched\nto Kadesh, but from the plateau eastward of the Jordan where the kindred\nnations of Moab and Ammon had already established themselves. Here, too,\nthe Israelites made their first permanent settlements in the land which\nthey had marked out for their own.\n\nThe Canaanite population east of the Jordan was sparse and weak compared\nwith that to the west. It had been further weakened by foreign conquest.\nBetween the fall of the Egyptian empire and the Israelitish invasion the\nAmorites under Sihon had formed a kingdom and occupied the territory of\nMoab as far south as the Arnon. As in the age of the eighteenth dynasty,\nso too under the kings of the nineteenth dynasty, Egyptian rule extended\nover what is called in one of the Tel el-Amarna tablets \u2018the field of\nBashan.\u2019 The so-called Sakhret Eyy\u00fbb, or \u2018Stone of Job,\u2019 a little to the\nnorth of Tell \u2019Ashtereh, eastward of the Jordan, has been discovered by\nDr. Schumacher to be a monument of Ramses II.[228] The figure of the\nPharaoh is engraved upon it, with his name beside him, as well as the\nfigure of a deity who wears the crown of Osiris, and is represented with\na full face, while his Canaanitish name is written in hieroglyphs.[229]\nAt Luxor[230] Ramses claims Moab among his conquests, and we may\ntherefore gather that up to the time of the Exodus the authority of\nEgypt had been restored throughout the country east of the Jordan. But\nthe Libyan invasion shattered the strength of Egypt, and long before the\nclose of the nineteenth dynasty its possessions in Palestine passed from\nit forever. This is precisely the period to which the Pentateuch refers\nthe kingdom of Og in Bashan and the conquests of Sihon in Moab, and the\nBiblical and monumental evidence thus stand in complete agreement.\n\nMoses had requested permission from the Edomite king to pass through his\ndominions. The Song of Moses (Exod. xv. 15) still speaks of the\n_al\u00fbphim_, or \u2018dukes,\u2019 of Edom, who had originally governed the country;\nbut while the Israelites had been lingering in the desert, the \u2018dukes\u2019\nhad made way for an elective monarchy. The dissolution of the Egyptian\npower may have had something to do with this; possibly the invasion of\nMount Seir by Ramses III. had produced the same result in Edom that the\nPhilistine invasion produced among the Israelites, and had obliged them\nto elect a king. At all events, the first king of Edom, we read, was\n\u2018Bela, the son of Beor.\u2019 Bela, however, is merely a contracted form of\nBalaam, and in the first Edomite king we must therefore see Balaam, the\nson of Beor. What relation he bore to the seer from Pethor will have to\nbe considered later on.[231]\n\nIt is not surprising that the Edomite king refused the request that had\nbeen made to him. To have admitted within his frontiers a large body of\nemigrants like the Israelites, many of whom were armed, might have been\nas dangerous as the passage of the Crusaders through the Eastern Empire\nproved to Constantinople. The Israelites were not strong enough to force\ntheir way through a hostile country, and very reluctantly, therefore,\nthey once more turned southward to the Gulf of Aqaba, and from thence\nmarched northward again to the east of Edom. Their route brought them to\nthe southeastern part of Moab.\n\nThe people, we are told, bitterly complained of the length of \u2018the way.\u2019\nIt was not strange. The Promised Land, so constantly in sight, seemed\nalways to recede as soon as it was approached. They had vainly attempted\nto enter it from the south; the Philistines kept garrison in the cities\non the Mediterranean coast; and now, when a third and last mode of\napproach was undertaken, their brethren of Edom closed the path. The\nroad, too, which they were thus forced to adopt led them through a\ndesert, which the Assyrian king Esar-haddon describes as a land of\ndrought, inhabited only by \u2018snakes and scorpions, which filled the\nground like locusts.\u2019[232] These were the \u2018fiery serpents\u2019 that bit the\nIsraelites and increased their miseries. A memorial of their sufferings\nlasted down to the age of Hezekiah. The brazen \u2018seraph\u2019 or \u2018fiery\nserpent\u2019 which had been wrought by order of Moses, and planted on the\ntop of a pole, was religiously preserved in the chief sanctuary of the\nnation. Incense was burned before it, for it had been the means of\npreserving the people from the fiery poison of the snakes. But the\nidolatry of which it was the object brought about its destruction. The\nrelic, which had been spared by the earlier kings and priests of Judah,\nwas destroyed by Hezekiah, who realised at last that it was but \u2018a piece\nof brass.\u2019 It is true that doubts have been cast upon its having\nactually been a monument of the life in the wilderness; but it is\ndifficult for the historian to understand how a modern critic can be\nbetter informed on such a point than the contemporaries of\nHezekiah.[233]\n\nZalmonah, Punon, and Oboth were the next stages on the journey after\nMount Hor. Then came Iye-ha-Ab\u00e2rim, \u2018the Ruins of the Hebrews\u2019\u2014a name,\nit may be, which contained a reminiscence of the settlement of the\nIsraelites in the country.[234] Iye-ha-Ab\u00e2rim was in the plain east of\nMoab, under the shadow of the mountain-range of Abarim. Then the stream\nof the Zered was crossed, and the emigrants found themselves in Moab.\nThe banks of the Arnon were the next resting-place.\n\nThe nation retained but little recollection of the dreary years that had\nbeen passed in the wilderness. A few incidents alone were recorded which\nhad broken the monotony of their desert life. But here, on the verge of\nCanaan and of conquest, the national consciousness awakened into new\nlife. The song was handed down which had been sung when at some station\nin the desert the ground had been pierced and water found. \u2018Spring up, O\nwell!\u2019 it said; \u2018sing ye unto it. O well that hast been dug by princes,\nthat hast been pierced by the nobles of the people, by (the direction\nof) the lawgiver, with their staves!\u2019 Similar songs, according to\nProfessor Goldziher, were sung in old days by the Arab kinsmen of the\nIsraelites when they too dug wells in the desert and the refreshing\nwater bubbled up from below.[235]\n\nArnon was now the boundary between Moab and the new kingdom of Sihon the\nAmorite. Sihon refused permission to the Israelites to pass through his\nterritories, along the \u2018royal highway,\u2019 and endeavoured to stop their\nadvance. But the tribes were no longer the undisciplined rabble who had\nfled from the Canaanites of Zephath, and the result of the struggle was\nthe complete overthrow of the Amorite forces. The district between the\nArnon and the Jabbok, which had been taken by Sihon from \u2018the former\nking of Moab,\u2019 was occupied by the Israelites, who accordingly\nestablished themselves midway between Moab and Ammon. It is on the\noccasion of this conquest that the Hebrew historian has preserved the\nfragment of an Amorite song of triumph which had celebrated the capture\nof Ar, the Moabite capital, and which was now embodied by the Israelites\nin a similar song of triumph for their own victory over Sihon.\n\nAmmon was too strong to be attacked (Numb. xxi. 24), but \u2018Moses sent to\nspy out Jaazer,\u2019 not far from Rabbah, the future capital of the\nAmmonites, and the fall of the Amorite city of Jaazer brought with it\nthe conquest of Gilead. The tribes of Reuben and Gad were settled in the\nnewly-acquired districts, on condition, however, that they should\nacknowledge their relationship to the rest of the tribes, and help the\nlatter in case of necessity (Numb. xxxii. 29-32; Judg. v. 15-17). Gilead\nhad been conquered by Machir, a branch of the tribe of Manasseh (Numb.\nxxxii. 39; Deut. iii. 15; Judg. v. 14), and the conquest was\nsubsequently extended further by armed bands under chieftains, like Jair\nand Nobah, who occupied outlying districts on their own account.[236]\n\nThe Havoth-Jair, or \u2018Villages of Jair,\u2019 were in the \u2018stony\u2019 region of\nArgob, the Trachonitis of Greek geography, which extended northward to\nthe Aramaic kingdoms of Geshur and Maachah. It formed part of the \u2018Field\nof Bashan,\u2019 which in the Mosaic age was ruled by Og \u2018of the remnant of\nthe Rephaim.\u2019 Like Sihon, he is called an Amorite, and his two capitals\nwere at Edrei and Ashtaroth-Karnaim.[237] His rule was acknowledged from\nthe Haur\u00e2n in the south to Mount Hermon in the north, and he must thus\nhave been one of the native princes who arose out of the ruins of the\nEgyptian empire. But his power was shortlived. He was unable to\nwithstand the shock of the invaders from the desert, and his dominions\nbecame Israelitish territory. It would seem that what was afterwards the\neastern side of Ammon was included in his kingdom, since in after ages a\nhuge sarcophagus of black basalt, which was preserved in Rabbah of\nAmmon, was pointed out as his \u2018iron bed\u2019 (Deut. iii. 11).\n\nThese conquests of the Israelites doubtless occupied a considerable\nspace of time. Some of them, indeed, were made after the Mosaic age, and\nwere merely extensions of the conquests made at that time. But the\noverthrow of Og must have followed quickly on that of Sihon. A year or\ntwo would have sufficed to allow the Israelitish bands to overrun the\ndistricts to the north-east of the Arnon.\n\nIt is not wonderful that the Moabites should have wished to rid\nthemselves of such dangerous neighbours. But their king, Balak the son\nof Zippor,[238] was uncertain how to act. The Moabite forces were no\nmatch for the fierce desert-tribes who had overthrown Sihon and burnt\nhis towns. An embassy was accordingly sent to the seer, Balaam the son\nof Beor, who lived at Pethor on the Euphrates, in \u2018the land of the\nchildren of Ammo.\u2019 The site of Pethor has been recovered from the\nAssyrian monuments. It lay on the west bank of the Euphrates, a little\nto the north of its junction with the Sajur, and consequently only a few\nmiles south of the Hittite capital Carchemish, now Jerabl\u00fbs. The\nBeni-Ammo must have claimed the same ancestry as the Beni-Ammi or\nAmmonites, and the name is probably to be found in that of the country\nof Ammiya or Ammi, which is mentioned in the Tel el-Amarna tablets.[239]\n\nThe fame of Balaam must have been widespread. But it is permissible to\nask whether the only object of the embassy was that the seer should\n\u2018curse\u2019 the descendants of Jacob. A curse usually meant something more\nsubstantial than a form of words; and, as we have already seen, the\nfirst Edomite king given in the extract from the chronicles of Edom\nbears the same name and has the same father as Balaam. Did Balaam end by\nbecoming elected king of Edom, and finally falling in battle against the\nIsraelites, along with his allies the Midianitish chiefs?[240] The\nmaterials for an answer are not yet before us.\n\nThe story of Balaam seems to form an episode by itself. The narrative\nand the prophecies constitute a single whole, which cannot be torn\napart. It is the first example in the Old Testament of a written\nprophecy, and that the prophet should have been a Gentile diviner is of\nitself significant. Nothing can be more vivid and lifelike than the\npicture that is presented to us. We see the ambassadors of Balak\npersuading the half-reluctant seer to accompany them; we read of the\nstrange miracles that accompanied the journey, and of the altars that\nwere reared, and the sacrifices that were offered in the hope that his\nenchantments might prevail over those of Israel. He was taken from\nhigh-place to high-place, whence he could look down upon the distant\nhosts of the enemy, and upon each, in Babylonian fashion, seven altars\nwere erected. But all was unavailing. The God of Jacob refused to be\nturned from His purpose by the bullocks and the rams that were offered\nHim, and the curses of the Aram\u00e6an seer were turned into blessings. When\nBalaam fell into the prophetic trance, seeing \u2018the vision of the\nAlmighty, but having his eyes open,\u2019 the words which were put into his\nmouth were words which predicted the future glories of Israel. \u2018A star\nshould come out of Jacob, and a sceptre should arise out of Israel,\nwhich should smite the corners of Moab and destroy all the children of\nSheth.\u2019[241] Edom, too, should at last become the possession of his\nyounger brother, and the Amalekites of the desert should perish for\never.\n\nThe age of the episode has been often disputed. Much depends on the\nquestion whether the references in the last prophecy to the Kenites and\nothers belong to the original document, or are later insertions. The\nAssyrians did not penetrate into the desert south of Judah, where the\nKenites lived, until the time of Tiglath-pileser III. and Sargon in the\neighth century B.C. The Amalekites were destroyed by Saul; Moab and Edom\nwere conquered by David. But the concluding verse of the prophecy is at\npresent difficult to explain. When was it that ships came from Cyprus\nand \u2018afflicted\u2019 Assyria and the Hebrews, so that they too perished for\never? In the age of the Exodus, the pirates of the Greek seas joined\ntheir forces with those of the Libyans in the invasion of Egypt, and the\nPhilistines and their allies sailed from Krete and other islands of the\nMediterranean, and established themselves on the coast of Palestine. Was\nit here that the Hebrews lived who were to perish for ever? It is, at\nany rate, worthy of note that it was the Philistines more especially\namong whom the Israelites were known as the \u2018Hebrews.\u2019 In the time of\nthe Tel el-Amarna tablets we already hear of Assyrian intrigues in the\nfar West. The Babylonian king asks the Pharaoh why the Assyrians, his\n\u2018vassals,\u2019 have been allowed to come to Canaan and enter into relations\nwith the Egyptian court.[242] At a later period, while Israel was ruled\nby judges, more than one Assyrian monarch actually made his way to the\nMediterranean coast.[243]\n\nAs the historical chapters of the book of Isaiah, including the\nprophecies contained in them, have been embodied in the book of Kings,\nso, too, the history of Balaam and Balak has been embodied in the book\nof Numbers. There is no reason for denying its substantial authenticity.\nWritten prophecies were already known both in Egypt and in\nBabylonia,[244] and it is almost inconceivable that a Jewish fabricator\nof prophecies would have made a Gentile diviner the mouthpiece of\nYahveh. Moreover, there is nothing in the narrative or the prophecies\nthemselves which is inconsistent with the date to which they profess to\nbelong, unless indeed it is maintained that the conquest of Moab and\nEdom by the Israelites could not have been predicted at the time. But,\napart from theological considerations which lie outside the province of\nthe historian, it did not require much political foresight to conclude\nthat a people which had begun by destroying the power of Sihon was\nlikely to end by conquering the nations surrounding them. In fact, it\nwould seem from the enumeration of the cities occupied by Reuben and Gad\n(Numb. xxxii. 34-38) that at one time little, if any, territory was left\nto the Moabite king.\n\nIn the embassy to Balaam \u2018the elders of Midian\u2019 are united with those of\nMoab. In fact, it is to the \u2018elders of Midian,\u2019 and not to those of\nMoab, that Balak first addresses himself (Numb. xxii. 4). It is the\nMidianites, moreover, and not the Moabites, who tempted Israel to sin\n\u2018in the matter of Baal-Peor,\u2019 and who were accordingly massacred in the\nwar that followed, although \u2018the people had begun to commit whoredom\u2019\nwith \u2018the daughters of Moab\u2019 (Numb. xxv. 1). It is clear, therefore,\nthat Moab was at the time occupied by the Midianites, just as the\neastern portion of Israelitish territory was occupied by them in later\ndays before it was freed by Gideon. Then they had swarmed up from the\nsouth along with the Amalekite Bed\u00e2win and the Kadm\u00f4nim of the\nsouth-east, and under their five sh\u00eakhs had overrun the land of Israel.\nMoab had now undergone the same fate, perhaps in consequence of its\nweakened condition after the unsuccessful war against Sihon. At any\nrate, it is probable that the Moabites had eventually to thank their\nEdomite neighbours for their deliverance from the invaders, since in the\nlist of the Edomite kings we are told that the fourth of them, Hadad,\nthe son of Bedad, \u2018smote Midian in the field of Moab\u2019 (Gen. xxxvi. 35).\nThe age of Hadad and that of Gideon could not have been far apart, and\nGideon\u2019s success may therefore have been one of the results that\nfollowed upon the Midianite defeat in Moab. The losses sustained by the\nMidianites, however, in their struggle with the invading Israelites,\nmust have weakened their hold upon the territories of the Moabite king.\nThe storm-cloud which had terrified Balak passed over him to his\nMidianite foes.\n\nThe conquest of the Moabite cities brought with it intermarriages\nbetween the Israelites and their inhabitants as well as an adoption of\nthe native forms of faith. Yahveh was deserted for Baal-Peor, the\nMoabite Baal of Mount Peor, but it was not long before He avenged\nHimself. Pestilence broke out in the camp, and the people saw in it the\nfinger of God. By command of Moses \u2018all the heads of the people\u2019 were\n\u2018hanged before the Lord in face of the sun\u2019; while Phinehas, the son of\nthe high-priest, jealous of the rights of Yahveh, stabbed to the death\nan Israelite and his Midianitish wife who had dared to show themselves\nbefore the sanctuary of the Lord. The time had passed when Moses was\njustified in marrying a wife of Midianitish race; Israel had now become\na peculiar people, dedicated to Yahveh, who would allow \u2018no other god\u2019\nto share His place. The Midianitish wife was a sign and evidence that\nYahveh of Israel had been forsaken for a Midianitish Baal.\n\nThus far, it would seem, Israel and Midian had mixed together on\nfriendly terms. Both were desert tribes, both were connected together by\nold traditions and intercourse, and claimed descent from a common\nancestor. But it was now a question of rival deities and forms of faith.\nThe very existence of the Law that had been promulgated from Sinai and\nKadesh was at stake; and if Israel and its religion were not to be\nabsorbed into the world of heathenism around them, it was time for the\ntribe of Levi\u2014the keepers of the sanctuary\u2014to awake. Moses and Phinehas\nsaw the danger, and swift punishment descended on the backsliders within\nIsrael itself. How formidable, however, the danger had been may be\ngathered from the statement that \u2018all the heads of the people\u2019 were put\nto death.\n\nThe turn of Midian came next. The Midianite tribes were overthrown, and\ntheir five sh\u00eakhs slain, one of whom, Rekem, gave his name to the city\nwhich is better known as Petra. \u2018Balaam also, the son of Beor, they slew\nwith the sword.\u2019 The Midianite villages and forts were burned to the\nground, and the captives and spoil were brought to the Israelitish camp.\nHere they were divided among the people, Yahveh and His priests\nreceiving their share. Out of a total of 16,000 captives, thirty-two\nslaves were given to the Lord. Henceforth it became the rule that the\nspoil taken in war should be divided into two equal parts, one-half for\nthe fighting men, the rest for the people as a whole; and that while the\nfighting men had to deliver up only one share in five hundred to the\nLevites, the priestly tribute levied on the rest of the \u2018congregation\u2019\nwas as much as one in fifty. The regulation was reinforced by David\nafter his defeat of the Amalekites when his companions clamoured for the\nwhole of the spoil (1 Sam. xxx. 24, 25), at all events in so far as the\nequal division of it was concerned between the combatants and those who\nremained at home.\n\nThe Midianites were driven from Moab and its frontiers. Their overthrow\nmeant the triumph of the priestly tribe in Israel. The war had been\nwaged not against Midian only, but against the allies and kinsmen of\nMidian in Israel itself. The old relationship between Israel and Midian\nhad been severed on the confines of the Promised Land; the supremacy of\nYahveh in Israel had been once more asserted, and Israel had become more\nthan ever His peculiar people. Before they entered Canaan, it was\nneedful that the last links that bound them to the wild tribes of the\ndesert should be cut in two.\n\nThe work of Moses was completed. He had led Israel from the house of\nbondage, had given it laws and made it a nation in the wilderness, and\nhad fitted it for the conquest of Canaan. The land flowing with milk and\nhoney, which the Semitic settlers in Egypt seem always to have regarded\nas a home of refuge to which they should ultimately return, was now\nwithin their grasp. Egyptian troops no longer garrisoned it, and its\npopulation was weakened by intestine troubles, by the long war between\nEgypt and the Hittites, and, above all, by the invasion of the\nPhilistines and other pirates from the Greek seas. A large portion of\nthe cultivated territory on the east side of the Jordan was already in\nIsraelite hands; all that was needed was to cross the river and take\npossession of \u2018the land of promise.\u2019 Israel never forgot that it was\nfrom hence that its ancestors had come, and tradition recorded that the\nbodies of the patriarchs still lay in the rock-tomb of Machpelah. Even\nnow the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh carried with them the mummy of\nJoseph, from whom they claimed their origin, ready to deposit it\nwherever they could gain a permanent foothold and build for themselves a\ncentral sanctuary.\n\nThe scene of the last legislation of Moses is laid in the plains of\nMoab, in the newly-won territory of Israel, and almost within sight of\nthe mountains of Canaan. The additional laws and regulations which\nneeded to be made were not many. Reuben and Gad were settled in the\ndistricts which subsequently bore their names, the Reubenites pasturing\ntheir flocks like nomad Bed\u00e2win among the northern wadis of Moab, while\nGad occupied the greater portion of the Amorite kingdom of Sihon. Part\nof the tribe of Manasseh also made its home in the districts of Gilead\nand Bashan, which it had won by the sword.\n\nThe institution of the six cities of refuge, moreover, as well as of the\nforty-eight cities of the Levites, is assigned to the same period.\nModern criticism, however, has shown itself unwilling to accept its\nMosaic authorship. But sacred cities, to which the homicide could flee\nfor refuge, were an ancient institution in both Syria and Asia Minor. We\nfind them also in the region of the Hittites. Such _asyla_, as the\nGreeks called them, lasted down to the classical period, and played a\nconsiderable part in the local history of Asia Minor. Wherever we find a\nKadesh or a Hierapolis, there we may expect to find also an asylum in\nwhich the gods and their ministers would protect the unintentional\nshedder of blood from the vengeance of man. It was a means of checking\nthe _vendetta_ or blood feud, which was in full harmony with primitive\nlaw.[245]\n\nIn establishing the cities of refuge, therefore, the Israelites did but\ncarry on the traditions of the past. And two at least of the cities,\nwhich were subsequently set apart for the purpose, were sanctuaries, and\nconsequently \u2018asyla,\u2019 long before the children of Jacob entered\nPalestine. These were Kadesh in Galilee and Hebron (Josh. xx. 7). The\nname of Kadesh declares its sacred character, and the sanctuary of\nHebron had been famous for centuries.\n\nThe institution of the Levitical cities, again, was a result of the new\nposition assigned to the tribe of Levi as the priests and\nrepresentatives of the national God. The overthrow of the Midianites and\ntheir Israelitish allies had definitely settled the place of the tribe\nin Israel. Yahveh had prevailed over all other gods, and those who\nworshipped another god had been put to the sword. It had been the work\nof Levi, of those who had been chosen to be the ministers of Yahveh or\nhad voluntarily devoted themselves to the service of the sanctuary. On\nthe day that the spoil of Midian was divided it was recognised that Levi\nwas not a tribe in the sense that the other tribes were so; it\nrepresented the priests and ministers of Yahveh, whoever and wheresoever\nthey might be. And as, in the division of the spoil, due care was taken\nof Yahveh and His priests, so, too, in the division of the land, it was\nneedful that similar care should be taken for them. The priests of Egypt\nhad their lands, out of the revenues of which the temples were\nsupported, and Egypt was not the only country of the Oriental world in\nwhich the same practice prevailed. Indeed, while Canaan was an Egyptian\nprovince temples had been built in it by the Pharaohs, and doubtless\nendowed in the same way as the temples of Egypt itself. The revenues of\nSyrian towns, moreover, had been given to Egyptian temples; Thothmes\nIII., for example, immediately after the conquest of Syria, settled\nthree of its towns (Anaugas, Innuam, and Harankal) upon Amon of\nThebes.[246] The custom lingered on into late times; the Persian king\nassigned the three cities of Magnesia, Myos, and Lampsacus for the\nmaintenance of Themistokl\u00eas,[247] and the taxes of the Fayy\u00fbm in Egypt\nformed the \u2018pin-money\u2019 of Queen Arsino\u00ea Philadelphos.[248]\n\nLater ages misunderstood the regulations that related to the Levitical\ncities, and, misled by the belief that the tribe of Levi was constituted\nlike the other tribes of Israel, imagined that they were intended to be\nplaces where the Levites should dwell and none else. This misconception\nhas coloured the existing text of Numb. xxxv. 2-8, but we have only to\nturn to the list of the cities given in Josh. xxi. to see how unfounded\nit is. In fact, the Levites, as ministers of the national God, lived\nwherever there was a sanctuary of Yahveh to be served; in the days of\nthe Judges we find a Levite even in the private house of Micah, on Mount\nEphraim, from whence he is taken by the Danite raiders along with the\nimage of his God (Judg. xviii.). There was no intention of shutting up\nthe Levites in certain cities apart from the rest of the people; on the\ncontrary, they were to be \u2018scattered\u2019 throughout Israel, the priests and\nrepresentatives everywhere of the national God.\n\nThe book of Deuteronomy is the testament of Moses. Even the most\nsceptical criticism admits that such was already the belief in the age\nof Josiah, so far, at any rate, as regards the main portion of the book.\nAt the same time, the stoutest advocates of the Mosaic authorship of the\nPentateuch also admit that it cannot all have come from his hand. The\naccount of his death, which forms the close of the book, cannot have\nbeen written by the great legislator himself. Here, as elsewhere, it is\nfor the historian to decide where the narrative may belong to the Mosaic\nage, and where it transports us to the atmosphere of a later period.\n\nThe original Deuteronomy of philological criticism begins with the\ntwelfth chapter, without introduction or even explanation. The\nDeuteronomy of Hebrew tradition is the fitting conclusion of the\nPentateuch. Moses, worn out with years and labour, addresses his people\nfor the last time. They are about to cross the Jordan and enter Canaan;\nhere on the threshold of the Promised Land his task is done, and he must\nleave the work of conquest to other and younger hands. He has been the\nlegislator of Israel, Joshua must be its general.\n\nWe have, first, a recapitulation of the chief events of the wanderings\nin the wilderness from the day that the Covenant was made in Horeb, the\nmount of God.[249] They are intermingled with antiquarian notes, which\nmay, or may not, be of the Mosaic age, as well as with exhortations to\nobedience to the Law. Then follows a series of enactments which\nconstitute the Deuteronomic Law itself. The enactments necessarily go\nover some of the ground already traversed by the previous legislation;\nin some points they even seem to contradict it. But the contradictions\nare more apparent than real, like the reason assigned for observing the\nSabbath. Sometimes they are supplementary to the Levitical laws,\nsometimes are supplemented by the latter; at other times the same\nregulation is repeated from a different point of view.[250]\n\nA special characteristic of the Deuteronomic Law is its tenderness and\ncare for animals as well as for the poor, \u2018the stranger, the fatherless,\nand the widow.\u2019[251] Even the Egyptian is not to be \u2018abhorred\u2019 (Deut.\nxxiii. 7), and all Hebrew slaves are to be released every seventh year.\nAlong with this, however, we find the ferocity which distinguished the\nSemites in time of war. If the enemy lived afar off, all the males of a\nvanquished city were to be mercilessly slain, and the children and women\nspared, only to become the slaves and concubines of the conquerors. But\neven this amount of mercy was forbidden in the case of the Canaanitish\ncities; here the massacre was to be universal, lest the Israelites\nshould take wives from the conquered population and fall away from the\nworship of Yahveh. A similar spirit of ferocity breathes through the\nAssyrian inscriptions, where the kings boast of the multitudes of the\nvanquished whom they had tortured and slain in honour of their god\nAssur. Alone of the ancient nations of the East the Egyptians seem to\nhave understood what we mean by humanity in war.\n\nLike the poor, the Levite is commended to the care and support of the\npeople. He has no land or property of his own\u2014much less a \u2018Levitical\ncity,\u2019\u2014the Lord alone \u2018is his inheritance,\u2019 and consequently those who\nremember the Levite remember at the same time the Lord whom he serves.\nThe portion of the offering is defined which is to be the due of the\nLevites, and tithe is to be paid to them upon all the produce of the\nland. No distinction is drawn in the book of Deuteronomy between the\nLevites and the priests, \u2018the sons of Aaron,\u2019 and therefore the laws\nrelating to the Levites apply to all the priests alike.\n\nAnother characteristic of the Deuteronomic Law is its insistence on a\ncentral sanctuary. It was to this central sanctuary that the God-fearing\nIsraelite was commanded to \u2018go up\u2019 three times in the year at each of\nthe great feasts, and there offer his firstlings and sacrifices to the\nLord. This central sanctuary, however, did not exclude the existence of\nlocal altars or shrines. The Levite is described as living in the\nfamilies of the other tribes throughout the land (xii. 19, xiv. 27), and\nas deciding cases at law, wherever they might occur, along with the\njudges (xvi. 18, xvii. 9, xix. 17, xxi. 6). Nor was it necessary when an\nanimal was slaughtered, and its life-blood poured out before Yahveh,\nthat this should be done in the one chief temple of the nation. It was\nonly such offerings as had been specially vowed to the national God that\nwere required to be brought there. They had been dedicated to Yahveh as\nGod of the whole nation, and it was therefore to that sanctuary in which\nYahveh was worshipped by the nation as a whole that they had to be\ntaken. In his individual or local capacity the Israelite was free to\noffer his sacrifices where he would. For, it must be remembered, the\nvery fact that the life-blood was shed made the death of the animal a\nsacrifice to the Lord, and the feast on its flesh which followed was a\nfeast eaten in the presence of the Lord.\n\nThe insistence on the central sanctuary implied an equal insistence on\nthe absolute supremacy of Yahveh in Israel. Idolaters and enticers to\nidolatry were to be cut off without pity; even the prophet who spoke in\nthe name of another god, and whose words came to pass, was to be stoned\nto death. The fulfilment of a prediction guaranteed its truth only if\nthe prophet was the messenger of Yahveh. Yahveh would suffer no other\ngods to be worshipped at His side, and the Deuteronomic Law accordingly\nforbids all such practices as were connected with the heathenism of the\nneighbouring peoples. The Israelites were forbidden to tattoo themselves\nlike the Syrian worshippers of Hadad, to scarify their flesh like the\nEgyptians in mourning for the dead, far less like the Canaanites around\nthem to sacrifice their firstborn by fire. Every effort was made to\npreserve them from contact with their neighbours; their king was\nforbidden to \u2018multiply\u2019 horses and wives; for the one would lead to\nintercourse with Egypt, the other would introduce into Israel the\nworship and the images of foreign deities. The sacred trees which from\ntime immemorial had been planted near the altars of the gods, some of\nthem by the patriarchs themselves, were to be destroyed like the conical\npillar of the goddess Asherah and the upright column which symbolised\nthe sun-god.\n\nFew aspects of Hebrew life are left untouched by the enactments of\nDeuteronomy. Marriage and divorce, murder and other crimes, the\ninstitution of the cities of refuge, the observance of the great feasts,\nthe election and duty of a king, sanitary laws including the distinction\nbetween clean and unclean meats, slavery, commerce, and usury, are all\nalike subjects of the Deuteronomic legislation. And the whole\nlegislation is marked by a spirit of compassion for the poor and\nsuffering, at all events if they belong to the house of Israel, or have\nbeen allowed to share some of its privileges. The creditor is enjoined\nto give back to the poor man before nightfall the raiment he had taken\nin pledge, and the master is bidden to pay at the close of the day the\nwages of \u2018the hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy\nbrethren or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates.\u2019\nEven the curious prohibition to mix like and unlike together, as in the\ncase of a garment of wool and linen (xxii. 11), seems to be a reduction\nfrom the principle which forbade the yoking together of the ox and ass.\n\nThe legislation relating to the king is perhaps somewhat striking,\nespecially when we bear in mind the protest raised by Samuel against the\nelection of one (1 Sam. vii. 6-18). Samuel, however, was not altogether\ndisinterested in the matter; and it was obvious that as soon as the\nconquest of Canaan was completed, there could be no national unity\nwithout a monarch who could represent the people and lead them in war.\nBefore the time of Samuel, Abimelech had established a kingdom in\nCentral Palestine, and tradition spoke of Moses also as \u2018king in\nJeshurun\u2019 (Deut. xxxiii. 5). The Israelites, if ever they were to form a\nnation, were destined to follow the example of their neighbours; even in\nthe wild fastnesses of Mount Seir the \u2018dukes\u2019 of Edom had been succeeded\nby kings. The idea of kingship was so familiar to the Mosaic age, that\nit is difficult to conceive of any legislation which did not contemplate\nit. Whether the legislation would have taken precisely the same form as\nthat which we find in Deuteronomy is another question.\n\nThe commandments enjoined by Moses were ordered to be written on the\nstuccoed face of \u2018great stones.\u2019 Whether the whole of the Deuteronomic\nlegislation is meant is more than doubtful. But that the chief\nenactments of the code should be thus placed before the eyes of the\npeople was in accordance with the customs of the age. The acts and\nevents of the reign of Augustus engraved on the marble slabs of Ancyra\nare a late example of the same usage; and the great inscription of\nDarius on the cliff of Behistun has similarly preserved to us the\nhistory of the foundation of the Persian empire. To cover stone or rock\nwith stucco, which was then painted white and written upon, was a common\npractice in Egypt. It seems to imply, however, that the writing could be\npainted with the brush, and thus to exclude the use of cuneiform\ncharacters. At the same time, these characters could be cut in stucco as\nwell as in stone, and it is possible that the stucco was intended to be\na substitute for clay, where a large surface had to be covered. However\nthis may be, the monument was ordered to be erected on Mount Ebal, by\nthe side of an altar of unwrought stones.\n\nOn Ebal, moreover, and the opposite height of Gerizim, it was prescribed\nthat a strange ceremony should be performed. While half the tribes stood\non the one mountain, and the other half on the other mountain, the\nLevites were to curse from Ebal all those who disobeyed the law, and to\nbless from Gerizim those who obeyed it.[252] Unfortunately, as might\nhave been expected, the curses much predominated over the blessings. We\nhear afterwards in the book of Joshua that the ceremony was duly\nperformed, excepting only that Joshua read the words of cursing and\nbenediction in place of \u2018the priests the Levites.\u2019 Critics have doubted\nthe historical character of the occurrence, but it is inconsistent with\nno known fact, and it is difficult to find a reason for its gratuitous\ninvention.\n\nThe latter part of the book of Deuteronomy brings the life of Moses to\nan end. It includes the final covenant made between himself on behalf of\nYahveh and the people of Israel, to which are attached the various\ncalamities that would await the breaking of it. It also tells us that\nthe law contained in Deuteronomy was really written by the legislator,\nand delivered to the priests the sons of Levi with an injunction that it\nshould be read every seventh year (xxxi. 9-11). Like the \u2018witness\u2019 to S.\nJohn\u2019s Gospel, therefore, the compiler of the Pentateuch in its present\nform wishes to add his testimony to the belief that the Mosaic law was\nwritten by Moses himself.\n\nTwo songs, attributed to Moses, are also incorporated in the book. They\nseem to be a reflection of the curses and blessings pronounced\nrespectively on Ebal and Gerizim. The one paints the sufferings which\nforgetfulness of Yahveh was to bring upon Israel; the other describes\nthe future happiness and glory of the several tribes. Chiefest among\nthem are Levi and the house of Joseph; \u2018the precious things\u2019 of the\nPromised Land are reserved for Ephraim and Manasseh, whose warriors\nshall drive the enemies of Yahveh to the ends of the earth. Levi shall\nbe the lawgiver and instructor of Israel, while Benjamin shall be the\n\u2018beloved of the Lord,\u2019 who shall \u2018dwell between his shoulders\u2019 at\nShiloh. Judah, on the other hand, stands in the background; little is\nsaid of him except a prayer that he should be delivered from his\nenemies. And Simeon is passed over altogether. It is plain that this\nsecond song or \u2018blessing\u2019 must be of early date. It cannot be later than\nthe early days of the conquest of Canaan, when Ephraim and Manasseh were\nstill the most powerful of the tribes, and when the tabernacle of Yahveh\nwas erected at Shiloh. The tribes were still united among themselves;\nthey still recognised a common God and a common worship, and had not as\nyet fallen upon the evil days depicted in the book of Judges. The tone\nof the song throughout is that of triumph and success; the Israelites\nmust have still been in their first flush of victory, and the house of\nJoseph have still been their leader in war. But history knows of only\ntwo periods when such was the case; the one period that which followed\nthe conquest of the Amorite kingdoms east of the Jordan, the other\nperiod that which saw Joshua the Ephraimite at the head of the armies of\nIsrael. Hebrew antiquity decided that it was to the first period that\nthe song belonged.[253]\n\nThe death of Moses was placed on the summit of one of the mountains of\nAbarim\u2014the mountains of the \u2018Hebrews\u2019\u2014in the land of Moab over against\nthe temple of Baal-Peor. On the one side he looked down upon the scene\nof his last victory over the opponents of his law, on the place where\nthe Midianites and their Israelitish sympathisers had been slain; on the\nother side lay the Land of Promise, to the borders of which he had led\nhis people. The peak of Pisgah on which he stood had been dedicated in\nold days to the worship of Nebo, the Babylonian god of prophecy and\nliterature, the interpreter of the will of Merodach, the supreme\ndivinity of Babylon. It was no accident that the prophet and legislator\nof Israel, the interpreter of the will of Yahveh, should die on the same\nmountain-peak.\n\nThe high-places which the kindred Semitic nations dedicated to the gods\nbecome in the history of Israel the scenes of the death of its great\nmen. Aaron dies on the summit of Mount Hor, and even to-day the tomb of\nthe prophet Samuel is pointed out on the lofty top of Mizpah. But no\ntomb marked the spot where Moses died; alone among the heroes of Hebrew\nhistory he was buried in a foreign land, and the place where he was\nburied was unknown. The legislator of Israel, he who had made Israel a\nnation, and with whom Israelitish history began, vanished utterly out of\nsight. The fact is a strange one, whatever be the explanation we attempt\nto give of it. Can it be that Moab had been more completely conquered by\nIsrael than the narrative in the Pentateuch would lead us to suppose,\nbut that with the death of Moses the dominion of Israel passed\naway?[254] In that case Moab would have had little interest in\npreserving a memory of the last resting-place of its conqueror, and the\ntime would soon have come when its site was forgotten.\n\nFootnote 153:\n\n  See Sayce, _The Higher Criticism and the Monuments_, p. 249.\n\nFootnote 154:\n\n  E. Naville, _Goshen and the Shrine of Saft el-Hennah_, Fourth Memoir\n  of the Egypt Exploration Fund (1887).\n\nFootnote 155:\n\n  Brugsch, _Egypt under the Pharaohs_ (Eng. tr.), second edit., ii. p.\n  133.\n\nFootnote 156:\n\n  Flinders Petrie, _Tel el-Amarna_, pp. 40-42.\n\nFootnote 157:\n\n  See above, p. 115.\n\nFootnote 158:\n\n  For Khar, the Horites of the Old Testament, see Maspero, _Struggle of\n  the Nations_, p. 121.\n\nFootnote 159:\n\n  On the road from Assuan to Shell\u00e2l, \u2018Messui, the royal son of Kush,\n  the fan-bearer on the right of the king, the royal scribe,\u2019 has left\n  his name and titles on a granite rock (Petrie, _A Season in Egypt_,\n  No. 70). Below the inscription is Meneptah in a chariot, with Messui\n  holding the fan and bowing before him.\n\nFootnote 160:\n\n  For Dr. Neubauer\u2019s suggestion that the name of Aaron, otherwise so\n  inexplicable, is the Arabic \u00c2ron or \u00c2ran written in the Min\u00e6an\n  fashion, see above, p. 34, note 1. If the suggestion is right, it was\n  specially appropriate that Aaron should have met Moses in \u2018the Mount\n  of God,\u2019 on the frontiers of Midian (Exod. iv. 27).\n\nFootnote 161:\n\n  A translation of the papyrus has been given by Professor Maspero in\n  _The Records of the Past_, new series, ii. pp. 11-36.\n\nFootnote 162:\n\n  See Preface to Maspero\u2019s _Dawn of Civilisation_, p. v.\n\nFootnote 163:\n\n  Reuel, \u2018Shepherd of God,\u2019 was a son of Esau, according to Gen. xxxvi.\n  4. It may have been a title of the high-priest, since _r\u00eau_,\n  \u2018shepherd,\u2019 is one of the titles given to the kings and high-priests\n  of early Babylonia. The high-priest Gudea, for instance, calls himself\n  \u2018the shepherd of the god Nin-girsu.\u2019 On the other hand, Hommel (_The\n  Ancient Hebrew Tradition_, p. 278) compares the name Reuel-Jethro with\n  the Min\u00e6an Ridsvu-il Vitr\u00e2n.\n\nFootnote 164:\n\n  In the word _seneh_ a popular etymology seems to have been found for\n  the name of Mount Sinai. Hence it is that in Deut. xxxiii. 16, Yahveh\n  is described as \u2018him that dwelt in the _seneh_.\u2019 The _seneh_ was\n  probably the small prickly _acacia nilotica_.\n\nFootnote 165:\n\n  No satisfactory etymology of the name Yahveh has yet been found. This,\n  however, is not strange, considering that the etymology was unknown to\n  the Hebrews themselves, as is shown by the explanation of the name in\n  Exod. iii. 14, where it is derived from the Aramaic _hew\u00e2_, the Hebrew\n  equivalent being _h\u00e2y\u00e2h_, with _y_ instead of _w_ (or _v_). The\n  Babylonians were also ignorant of the original meaning of the word,\n  since one of the lexical cuneiform tablets gives _Yahu_ or Yahveh as\n  meaning \u2018god\u2019 (in Israelitish), and identifies it with the Assyrian\n  word _yahu_, \u2018myself\u2019 (83, 1-18, 1332 _Obv._; Col. ii. 1). No certain\n  traces of the name have been found except among the Israelites. It is\n  a verbal formation like _Jacob_, _Joseph_, etc.\n\nFootnote 166:\n\n  Maspero, _Dawn of Civilisation_, pp. 132-134.\n\nFootnote 167:\n\n  For \u2018strikes\u2019 among the Egyptian artisans, see Spiegelberg, _Arbeiter\n  und Arbeiterbewegung im Pharaonreich unter den Ramessiden_ (1895).\n\nFootnote 168:\n\n  At Tel el-Maskhuta, or Pithom, however, the bricks were not mixed with\n  straw.\n\nFootnote 169:\n\n  See Wiedemann, _Religion der alten Aegypter_, pp. 142 _sq._\n\nFootnote 170:\n\n  Exod. vii. 19 contains an exaggeration which could easily be omitted\n  without any injury to the sense of the narrative. The change of water\n  in the river would affect the canals and such pools and ponds as were\n  fed from the Nile, but nothing else. The river-water is not considered\n  fit for drinking in the early days of the inundation. The green and\n  slimy vegetation brought from the Equatorial regions renders it quite\n  poisonous, and it is not until some days after it has become \u2018red\u2019\n  that it is again fit to drink.\n\nFootnote 171:\n\n  The \u2018camels\u2019 mentioned along with the cattle in Exod. ix. 3 have been\n  inserted from an Israelitish point of view. The Egyptians had no\n  camels; and though the Bed\u00e2win doubtless used them from an early\n  period, none were employed by the Egyptians themselves until the Roman\n  or Arab age.\n\nFootnote 172:\n\n  The passage is, unfortunately, mutilated. What remains reads thus:\n  \u2018... the tents in front of the city of Pi-Bailos, on the canal of\n  Shakana; ... [the adjoining land] was not cultivated, but had been\n  left as pasture for cattle for the sake of the foreigners. It had been\n  abandoned since the time of (our) ancestors. All the kings of Upper\n  Egypt sat within their entrenchments ... and the kings of Lower Egypt\n  found themselves in the midst of their cities, surrounded with\n  earthworks, cut off from everything by the (hostile) warriors, for\n  they had no mercenaries to oppose to them. Thus had it been [until\n  Meneptah] ascended the throne of Horus. He was crowned to preserve the\n  life of mankind.\u2019 The word translated \u2018tents\u2019 is _ahilu_, the Hebrew\n  _\u00f4h\u00eal_, which is used by Ramses III. of the \u2018tents\u2019 of the Shasu or\n  Edomites of Mount Seir. For translations of the text, see E. de Roug\u00e9,\n  _Extrait d\u2019un M\u00e9moire sur les Attaques dirig\u00e9es contre l\u2019\u00c9gypte_, pp.\n  6-13 (1867); Chabas, _Recherches pour servir \u00e0 l\u2019histoire de la\n  ^{xix}e Dynastie_, pp. 84-92 (1873); Brugsch, _Egypt under the\n  Pharaohs_, Eng. tr. (2nd edit.), ii. pp. 116-123; Maspero, _The\n  Struggle of the Nations_, pp. 433-436.\n\nFootnote 173:\n\n  _Cont. Apion._ i. 26.\n\nFootnote 174:\n\n  This name, however, varied in different versions of the legend.\n  Ch\u00e6r\u00eam\u00f4n makes it Phritiphantes, which may represent Zaphnath-paaneah,\n  the dental (_t_) taking the place of _z_, and _pa-Ra_, \u2018the sun-god\u2019\n  of _pa-Ankhu_, \u2018the living one.\u2019\n\nFootnote 175:\n\n  The papyrus is in the Hermitage at St. Petersburg (Gol\u00e9nischeff,\n  _Recueil de Travaux relatifs \u00e0 la Philologie et \u00e0 l\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie\n  \u00e9gyptiennes et assyriennes_, xv. pp. 88, 89).\n\nFootnote 176:\n\n  Dr. Wilcken has pointed out (_Zur Aegyptisch-hellenistischen\n  Literatur_ in the _Festschrift f\u00fcr Georg Ebers_, 1897, pp. 146-152)\n  that two fragments of a Greek papyrus published by Wessely in the\n  _Denkschriften der Wiener Akademie_, 42, 1893, pp. 3 _sqq._, contain a\n  legend which closely resembles that of the Egyptian version of the\n  Exodus. In this, however, a potter takes the place of the seer\n  Amen\u00f4phis, the desire of the king to see the gods is explained by his\n  wish to know the future, the \u2018impure people\u2019 are called the\n  \u2018girdle-wearers,\u2019 and the beginning of a Sothic cycle is apparently\n  combined with the story. Moreover, it would seem that the papyrus does\n  not yet know of the identification of the \u2018impure people\u2019 with the\n  Jews.\n\nFootnote 177:\n\n  _The Threshold Covenant or the Beginning of Religious Rites_ (New\n  York, 1896).\n\nFootnote 178:\n\n  _The Threshold Covenant_, pp. 203, 204.\n\nFootnote 179:\n\n  See above, p. 155.\n\nFootnote 180:\n\n  _Egypt under the Pharaohs_ (Eng. tr.), second edit., ii. pp. 96-98.\n\nFootnote 181:\n\n  _Anastasi_, v. 19. For the translation, see Brugsch, _Egypt under the\n  Pharaohs_ (Eng. tr.), second edit., ii. p. 132.\n\nFootnote 182:\n\n  First pointed out by Goodwin in the Sallier Papyrus, iv. 1, 6.\n\nFootnote 183:\n\n  Josh. ii. 10; iv. 23; xxiv. 6-8.\n\nFootnote 184:\n\n  Ps. cvi. 7-9, 22; cxxxvi. 13-15; Neh. ix. 9; see also Acts vii. 36.\n\nFootnote 185:\n\n  The event was first recorded by Kallisthenes, and Plutarch (_Alex._\n  17) states that \u2018many historians\u2019 had described it. Arrian (i. 27)\n  alludes to it, and Menander introduced a scoffing reference to the\n  miracle in one of his plays. The actual facts are given by Strabo\n  (_Geog._ xiv. 3, 9), who says that near Phas\u00ealis Mount Klimax juts out\n  into the sea, but that in calm weather a road runs round its base on\n  the seaward side. If the wind rises, however, the road is submerged by\n  the waves. Alexander ventured to march along it while still covered by\n  the sea, and though the water was up to the waists of the soldiers,\n  passed safely through it, the wind not being very strong. His success\n  came to be regarded as a miracle, and the miraculous passage of the\n  sea by his army is narrated with many embellishments in the fragment\n  of an unknown historian in a lexicon discovered by Papadopoulos in\n  1892.\n\nFootnote 186:\n\n  The narrative is careful to indicate that this was the case (Exod.\n  xiv. 23, 28). It is only in the Song of Moses (Exod. xv. 19) that\n  \u2018Pharaoh\u2019s horses\u2019 are changed into \u2018the horse of Pharaoh,\u2019 a change\n  which, like the confusion between \u2018the sea\u2019 and the Y\u00e2m S\u00fbph, shows\n  either that the Song is of later date or that its language has been\n  modified and interpolated.\n\nFootnote 187:\n\n  _Pap. Anastasi_, iv. A translation of it by Dr. Birch will be found in\n  _Records of the Past_, first series, vol. iv. pp. 49-52. The poet says\n  of the king: \u2018Amon gave thy heart pleasure, he gave thee a good old\n  age.\u2019 The name of the king, however, is not given, and it is therefore\n  possible that Seti II. rather than Meneptah is referred to.\n\nFootnote 188:\n\n  The last Pharaoh whose monuments have been found in the Sinaitic\n  peninsula is Ramses VI. of the twentieth dynasty (De Morgan,\n  _Recherches sur les Origines de l\u2019\u00c9gypte_, p. 237).\n\nFootnote 189:\n\n  The Amalekites adjoined Edom (Gen. xxxvi. 12) and southern Israel\n  (Judg. v. 14), and extended from Shur, or the Wall of Egypt, to\n  Havilah, the \u2018sandy\u2019 desert of Northern Arabia (1 Sam. xv. 7; see Gen.\n  xiv. 7). That these Amalekites were the same as those conquered by\n  Moses is expressly stated in 1 Sam. xv. 2 (cf. Exod. xvii. 16). The\n  latter, therefore, lived miles to the north of the Sinaitic peninsula.\n  The wilderness of Paran lay on the southern side of Moab (Deut. i. 1)\n  and Judah (Gen. xxi. 14, 20, 21). Kadesh, now \u2019Ain Qad\u00ees, was situated\n  in it (Numb. xiii. 26). The geography of the Exodus is treated with\n  great ability and logical skill in Baker Greene\u2019s _Hebrew Migration\n  from Egypt_ (1879).\n\nFootnote 190:\n\n  Judg. v. 4, 5; Deut. xxxiii. 2; Hab. iii. 3.\n\nFootnote 191:\n\n  First pointed out by Baker Greene, _The Hebrew Migration from Egypt_,\n  p. 170; Elim is the masculine, and Elath the feminine plural. Compare\n  El-Paran, perhaps \u2018El(im) of Paran,\u2019 in Gen. xiv. 6, as well as Elah\n  in Gen. xxxvi. 41.\n\nFootnote 192:\n\n  Exod. xvi. 1 compared with Numb. xxxiii. 11.\n\nFootnote 193:\n\n  The name is found in an inscription of Hadramaut (Osiander,\n  _Inscriptions in the Himyaritic Character_, p. 29), where the god is\n  called the son of Atthar or Istar instead of her brother, as in\n  Babylonia, as well as in a Sab\u00e6an text from Sirwa\u1e25.\n\nFootnote 194:\n\n  Numb. xiii. 26. The sanctuary had originally been Amalekite (Gen. xiv.\n  7).\n\nFootnote 195:\n\n  Unfortunately, no calculation of distance can be made from the\n  statement that Elijah was \u2018forty days and forty nights\u2019 on his way\n  from Jezreel to Horeb, since \u2018forty\u2019 merely denotes an unknown number.\n\nFootnote 196:\n\n  In the early days of the monarchy the armies of both the Israelites\n  and the Philistines were similarly divided into companies of a hundred\n  and a thousand (1 Sam. xxii. 7; xxix. 2; 2 Sam. xviii. 1). The system\n  could not have been derived from Babylonia, where sixty was the unit\n  of notation.\n\nFootnote 197:\n\n  See my _Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_, pp. 74-77,\n  and Hibbert Lectures on the _Religion of the Ancient Babylonians_, pp.\n  70-77.\n\nFootnote 198:\n\n  The text of this is given in the 125th chapter of the Book of the\n  Dead. A translation of it will be found in Wiedemann\u2019s _Religion der\n  alten Aegypter_, pp. 132, 133.\n\nFootnote 199:\n\n  The conceptions which underlay this were embodied in the medi\u00e6val\n  jurisprudence of Europe, and curious reports exist of the trials of\n  cocks, rats, flies, dogs, and even ants, which lasted down to the\n  eighteenth century (see Baring-Gould, _Curiosities of Olden Times_,\n  second edit., pp. 57-73).\n\nFootnote 200:\n\n  The exhortation, together with some of the laws, is given again in a\n  somewhat changed form in Exod. xxxiv. 10-26.\n\nFootnote 201:\n\n  The name belongs to the period when the Philistines were infesting the\n  sea, before they had settled on the coast of Palestine, and indicates\n  the early date of the passage in which it occurs. Perhaps the Greek\n  tradition of the command of the sea by the Kretan Minos is a\n  reminiscence of the same period.\n\nFootnote 202:\n\n  W. A. I. i. 54, Col. ii. 54 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 203:\n\n  _Transactions_ of the Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology, vii. 1, pp. 53,\n  54.\n\nFootnote 204:\n\n  A contract-tablet dated in the 32nd year of Nebuchadrezzar, and\n  published by Dr. Strassmaier (_Inschriften von Nabuchodonoser_, No.\n  217), gives us an insight into the details of Babylonian sacrifices,\n  though, unfortunately, the signification of many of the technical\n  words employed in it is doubtful or unknown. The tablet begins as\n  follows: \u2018Izkur-Merodach the son of Imbiya the son of Ilei-Merodach of\n  his own free will has given for the future to Nebo-bal\u00e1su-ikbi the son\n  of Kuddinu the son of Ilei-Merodach the slaughterers of the oxen and\n  sheep for the sacrifices of the king, the prescribed offerings, the\n  peace-offerings (?) of the whole year, viz., the caul round the heart,\n  the chine, the covering of the ribs, the ..., the mouth of the\n  stomach, and the ..., as well as during the year 7000 sin-offerings\n  and 100 sheep before Iskhara who dwells in the temple of Sa-turra in\n  Babylon (not excepting the soft parts of the flesh, the trotters (?),\n  the juicy meat and the salted (?) flesh), and also the slaughterers of\n  the oxen, sheep, birds, and lambs due on the 8th day of Nisan, (and)\n  the heave-offering of an ox and a sheep before Pap-sukal of\n  Bit-Kidur-Kani, the temple of Nin-ip and the temple of Anu on the\n  further bank of the New Town in Babylon.\u2019\n\nFootnote 205:\n\n  _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition_, pp. 282-284.\n\nFootnote 206:\n\n  See the illustration in Erman\u2019s _Life in Ancient Egypt_ (Eng. tr.), p.\n  298.\n\nFootnote 207:\n\n  Mr. G. Buchanan Gray (_Studies in Hebrew Proper Names_, p. 246, note\n  1) suggests that Aholiab is a foreign name. At all events, while we\n  find names compounded with _ohel_, \u2018tabernacle,\u2019 in Min\u00e6an and\n  Ph\u0153nician inscriptions, no other name of the kind is found among the\n  Israelites.\n\nFootnote 208:\n\n  Sir Thomas Browne, in his _Religio Medici_ (Part i.), remarks on this:\n  \u2018I would gladly know how Moses, with an actual fire, calcined or burnt\n  the golden calf into powder; for that mystical metal of gold, whose\n  solary and celestial nature I admire, exposed unto the violence of\n  fire, grows only hot and liquefies, but consumeth not.\u2019\n\nFootnote 209:\n\n  An interpolation (Exod. xxxiii. 1-5) makes the worship of the golden\n  calf account for the fact that, as declared in Exod. xxiii. 20, an\n  angel should lead Israel into Canaan, and not Yahveh Himself. But it\n  ignores the further fact that Yahveh was really present in the Holy of\n  Holies as well as in the pillar of fire and cloud.\n\nFootnote 210:\n\n  Hadad-sum and his son Anniy (see my _Patriarchal Palestine_, p. 250).\n  Small stone tablets like those of Balaw\u00e2t, engraved with cuneiform\n  characters, are in the museums of Europe.\n\nFootnote 211:\n\n  Sayce, _Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments_, pp. 79-83.\n\nFootnote 212:\n\n  The contrast between such cases, where the names and details are as\n  circumstantially stated as in the legal tablets of early Babylonia,\n  and cases which rest merely upon the memory of tradition, will be\n  clear at once from a reference to Numb. xv. 32-36. Here we have to do\n  with tradition only, and accordingly no name is given, and the story\n  is introduced with the vague statement that it happened at some time\n  or other when the Israelites \u2018were in the wilderness.\u2019 The whole of\n  the chapter is an interpolation which is singularly out of place in\n  the narrative, and seems to have been substituted for a description of\n  the disasters which followed on the abortive attempt of the Israelites\n  to invade Canaan.\n\nFootnote 213:\n\n  Sayce, _Babylonian Literature_, pp. 79, 80; Knudtzon, _Assyrische\n  Gebete an den Sonnengott_, pp. 73 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 214:\n\n  Athen\u00e6us, _Deipn._ xiv. 639 c.\n\nFootnote 215:\n\n  Amiaud\u2019s translation of the Inscriptions of Telloh in the _Records of\n  the Past_, new ser., ii. pp. 83, 84.\n\nFootnote 216:\n\n  This was clearly shown by Colenso, _The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua\n  critically examined_, Pt. i.\n\nFootnote 217:\n\n  The _soss_ was 60, the _ner_ 600.\n\nFootnote 218:\n\n  Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_ (Eng. tr.), p. 475.\n\nFootnote 219:\n\n  So in Josephus, _Antiq._ ii. 10.\n\nFootnote 220:\n\n  Trumbull, _Kadesh-barnea_ (1884).\n\nFootnote 221:\n\n  Numb. xiii. 21 seems to be a later exaggeration when compared with the\n  following verse. No argument, however, can be drawn from the statement\n  that the spies were absent only \u2018forty days,\u2019 since here, as\n  elsewhere, \u2018forty\u2019 merely means an unknown length of time.\n\nFootnote 222:\n\n  Eshcol, however, was already the name of an Amorite chieftain of Mamre\n  in the time of Abraham (Gen. xiv. 13).\n\nFootnote 223:\n\n  Numb. xxi. 1-3 is a combination of this abortive attempt and the\n  subsequent conquest of Arad and Zephath by Judah and Simeon (Judg. i.\n  16, 17), and is intended to resume the thread of the history which had\n  been broken by the insertion of chapter xv.\n\nFootnote 224:\n\n  In Numb. xx. 1-13 a tradition about the waters of Meribah takes the\n  place of a history of the long period that elapsed between the first\n  and the second arrival at Kadesh, during which the numerous series of\n  stations mentioned in Numb. xxxiii. 19-36 was passed. A comparison\n  with Exod. xvii. 1-7 and Deut. xxxiii. 8 seems to show that the story\n  of \u2018the water of Meribah\u2019 has been transferred from Rephidim to\n  Kadesh. At Kadesh, indeed, there would have been no want of water (see\n  Gen. xiv. 7), and it may be that the meaning of the word Meribah,\n  \u2018contention,\u2019 has been the cause of the transference. En-Mishpat, \u2018the\n  Spring of Judgment,\u2019 where contentions were decided, had been for\n  centuries the name of the spring at Kadesh-barnea. As for the name of\n  Zin, it possibly signifies \u2018the dry place.\u2019\n\nFootnote 225:\n\n  Gen. xxxvi. 27; 1 Chron. i. 42.\n\nFootnote 226:\n\n  In Deut. x. 6, 7 (which has been interpolated in the middle of the\n  narrative of the legislation at Mount Sinai), the order of events is:\n  (1) Departure from Beeroth of Beni-Yaakan to Mosera, (2) death of\n  Aaron at Mosera, (3) departure to Gudgodah, (4) departure to Yotbath.\n  In Numb. xx., xxxiii. 30-39 it is, on the contrary: (1) Departure from\n  Hashmonah to Moseroth, (2) departure to Beni-Yaakan, (3) departure to\n  Hor-hagidgad, the Gudgodah of Deuteronomy, (4) departure to Yotbathah,\n  (5) departure to Ebronah, (6) departure to Ezion-geber, (7) departure\n  to Kadesh, (8) departure to Mount Hor, (9) death of Aaron on Mount\n  Hor.\n\nFootnote 227:\n\n  The passage was already corrupt in the time of the Septuagint\n  translators. But instead of _eth-w\u00e2hab_, their text reads _eth-z\u00e2h\u00e2b_.\n  If this was correct, the reference would probably be to Dhi-Zahab,\n  \u2018(the mines) of gold\u2019 which, according to Deut. i. 1, was not far from\n  S\u00fbph.\n\nFootnote 228:\n\n  _Zeitschrift des Pal\u00e4stina Vereins_, xiv. pp. 142 _sq._ Tell \u2019Ashtereh\n  is the Ashteroth-Karnaim of Gen. xiv. 5.\n\nFootnote 229:\n\n  Professor Erman reads them Akna-Zapn, perhaps Yakin-Zephon, \u2018Jachin of\n  the North.\u2019 Above the figures is the winged solar disk (Erman, _Der\n  Hiobstein_ in the _Zeitschrift des Pal\u00e4stina Vereins_, xiv. pp. 210,\n  211).\n\nFootnote 230:\n\n  On the left side of the base of the second statue in front of the\n  pylon, where it follows the name of Assar, the Asshurim of Gen. xxv.\n  3; see Daressy, _Notice explicative des Ruines du Temple de Louxor_,\n  p. 19.\n\nFootnote 231:\n\n  Bela\u2019s city is stated to have been Dinhabah (Gen. xxxvi. 32), which\n  Dr. Neubauer has identified with Dunip, now Tennib, north-west of\n  Aleppo, which played an important part in the history of Western Asia\n  during the fifteenth century B.C.\n\nFootnote 232:\n\n  W. A. I. i. 46; Col. iii. 29, 30. In another passage Esar-haddon\n  describes them as \u2018serpents with two heads\u2019 (Budge, _History of\n  Esar-haddon_, p. 120).\n\nFootnote 233:\n\n  Bronze serpents were regarded in Babylonia as divine protectors of a\n  building, and were accordingly \u2018set up\u2019 at its entrance. Thus\n  Nebuchadrezzar says of the walls of Babylon, \u2018On the thresholds of the\n  gates I set up mighty bulls of bronze and huge serpents that stood\n  erect\u2019 (W. A. I. i. 65, i. 19-21).\n\nFootnote 234:\n\n  It is called simply Iy\u00eem in the official itinerary (Numb. xxxiii. 45).\n  Punon is the Pinon of Gen. xxxvi. 41, where it is coupled with Elah,\n  the El-Paran of Gen. xiv. 6.\n\nFootnote 235:\n\n  Those who wish to see what can be done by ingenious philological\n  conjectures which satisfy none but their authors may turn to a paper\n  by Professor Budde in the _Actes du Dixi\u00e8me Congr\u00e8s Internationale des\n  Orientalistes_, iii. pp. 13-18, where they will find a \u2018revised\u2019\n  version of Numb. xxi. 17, 18. The two last lines are changed into\n  \u2018With the sceptre, with their staves: From the desert a gift!\u2019\n\nFootnote 236:\n\n  Numb. xxxii. 41, 42; Deut. iii. 14. We learn from Judg. x. 3, 4, that\n  Jair was one of the judges, so that the conquest of Havoth-Jair must\n  have taken place long after the death of Moses.\n\nFootnote 237:\n\n  Now Dar\u2019at (pronounced Azr\u2019\u00e2t by the Bed\u00e2win) and Tell-Ashtereh.\n\nFootnote 238:\n\n  Zippor of Gaza was the name of the father of a certain Baal- ... whose\n  servant carried letters in the third year of Meneptah II. from Egypt\n  to Khai, the Egyptian governor of the fellahin or Perizzites of\n  Palestine, and the king of Tyre (Brugsch, _Egypt under the Pharaohs_,\n  Eng. tr., second edit., ii., p. 126).\n\nFootnote 239:\n\n  Ammiya is said to have been seized by Ebed-Asherah the Amorite (_The\n  Tel el-Amarna Tablets in the British Museum_, 12. 25., 15. 27). It is\n  also called Amma (_ib._ 17. 7., 37. 58, where it is associated with\n  Ubi, the Aup of the Egyptian inscriptions) and Ammi (W. and A. 89.\n  13).\n\nFootnote 240:\n\n  If the two Balaams, \u2018son of Beor,\u2019 are really the same person, Edomite\n  and Israelitish history will have handed down two different\n  conceptions of him. The Israelitish chronology, moreover, would make\n  it impossible for him to have been the _first_ Edomite king (see Numb.\n  xx. 14).\n\nFootnote 241:\n\n  Sheth are the Sutu of the Assyrian inscriptions, the Sittiu or\n  \u2018Archers\u2019 of the Egyptian hieroglyphs, the Bed\u00e2win of modern\n  geography. The Beni-Sheth will be the Midianite Bed\u00e2win who are\n  associated with the Moabites in the Pentateuch (Numb. xxii. 4, 7; xxv.\n  1-18; xxxi. 8).\n\nFootnote 242:\n\n  _Records of the Past_, new ser., iii. pp. 61-65.\n\nFootnote 243:\n\n  Tiglath-pileser I. (B.C. 1100) boasts of having sailed upon the\n  Mediterranean in a ship of Arvad, and of there killing a dolphin,\n  while his son, Assur-bil-kala, erected statues in the cities of \u2018the\n  land of the Amorites\u2019 (W. A. I. i. 6, No. vi.). A little later\n  Assur-irbi carved an image of himself on Mount Amanus, near the Gulf\n  of Antioch, but the capture by the king of Aram of Mutkina, which\n  guarded the ford over the Euphrates, subsequently cut him off from the\n  west. Palestine is already called Ebir-n\u00e2ri, \u2018the land beyond the\n  river,\u2019 in an Assyrian inscription which Professor Hommel would refer\n  to the age of Assur-bil-kala, the son of Tiglath-pileser I. (_The\n  Ancient Hebrew Tradition_, p. 196). Professor D. H. M\u00fcller (_Die\n  Propheten_, p. 215) conjecturally emends the Hebrew text of Numb.\n  xxiii. 23, 24, and sees in it a reference to the kingdom of Samalla,\n  to the north-east of the Gulf of Antioch. The two verses become in his\n  translation, \u2018[And he saw Samalla], and began his speech, and said,\n  Alas, who will survive of Samalla? And ships [shall come] from the\n  coast of Chittim, and Asshur shall oppress him, and Eber shall oppress\n  him, and he himself is destined to destruction.\u2019 Samalla, however, was\n  only the Assyrian name of a district called by natives of Northern\n  Syria Ya\u2019di and Gurgum; nor is it easy to understand how Balaam could\n  have \u2018seen\u2019 the north of Syria from Moab. Professor Hommel is more\n  probably right in his view that Asshur here does not signify the\n  Assyrians, but the Asshurim to the south of Palestine (Gen. xxv. 3,\n  18).\n\nFootnote 244:\n\n  For the Messianic prophecy of Ameni, see above, p. 175.\n\nFootnote 245:\n\n  Similar cities of refuge, called _puhonua_, existed in Hawaii. \u2018A\n  thief or a murderer might be pursued to the very gateway of one of\n  those cities; but as soon as he crossed the threshold of that gate,\n  even though the gate were open and no barrier hindered pursuit, he was\n  safe as at the city altar. When once within the sacred city, the\n  fugitive\u2019s first duty was to present himself before the idol and\n  return thanks for his protection\u2019 (Trumbull, _The Threshold Covenant_,\n  p. 151, quoting Ellis, _Through Hawaii_, pp. 155 _sq._, and Bird, _Six\n  Months in the Sandwich Islands_, pp. 135 _sq._). For the _asyla_ of\n  Asia Minor see Barth, _De Asylis Gr\u00e6cis_ (1888); Daremberg et Saglio,\n  _Dictionnaire des Antiquit\u00e9s, Grecques et Romaines_, i. pp. 505\n  _sqq._; Pauly\u2019s _Real-Encyclop\u00e4die_ (ed. Wissowa), iv. pp. 1884-5.\n\nFootnote 246:\n\n  Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_ (Eng. tr.), p. 299.\n\nFootnote 247:\n\n  Cornelius Nepos, _Them._ ii. 10.\n\nFootnote 248:\n\n  Mahaffy, _The Empire of the Ptolemies_, pp. 144, 156-158. For the\n  _hiera_ or priestly cities of Asia Minor, see Ramsay, _The Cities and\n  Bishoprics of Phrygia_, pp. 101 _sqq._; their constitution resembled\n  very closely that of the Levitical cities in Israel. Examples of such\n  cities in the history of Israel are Nob in the time of Saul and\n  Anathoth in the age of Jeremiah.\n\nFootnote 249:\n\n  The order of events is in many places confused, which probably points\n  to later insertions in the text. See, for example, Deut. x. 6-9, which\n  interrupts the context, and has nothing to do either with what\n  precedes or with what follows.\n\nFootnote 250:\n\n  _E.g._ Deut. xiv. 21, compared with Lev. xvii. 14-16.\n\nFootnote 251:\n\n  In this respect it resembles the \u2018Negative Confession\u2019 of the Egyptian\n  Book of the Dead, which the soul of the dead man was required to make\n  before the judges of the other world (Wiedemann, _Religion der alten\n  Aegypter_, pp. 132, 133).\n\nFootnote 252:\n\n  Levi is included among the six tribes which stood on Mount Gerizim to\n  bless. This is an inadvertency, as the Levites were placed on both\n  mountains, it being their duty to utter the curses as well as the\n  blessings.\n\nFootnote 253:\n\n  If it did so, xxxiii. 4 can hardly be original. Perhaps Yahveh rather\n  than Moses was described as \u2018king in Jeshurun\u2019 (cf. _v._ 26). A very\n  ingenious attempt has been made by Dr. Hayman to explain the\n  corruptions of the text in the song by the theory that it was\n  originally written on a clay tablet, a fracture of which has caused\n  some of the words at the ends of the lines to be lost.\n\nFootnote 254:\n\n  Cf. 1 Chron. iv. 22.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IV\n                         THE CONQUEST OF CANAAN\n\n\n    Joshua not the Conqueror of Canaan\u2014The Conquest gradual\u2014The Passage\n    of the Jordan\u2014Jericho, Ai and the Gibeonites\u2014Battle of\n    Makkedah\u2014Lachish and Hazor\u2014The Kenizzites at Hebron and\n    Kirjath-Sepher\u2014Shechem\u2014Death of Joshua.\n\n\nHebrew tradition ascribed the conquest of Canaan to Joshua the son of\nNun. But when we come to examine the book of Joshua or the book of\nJudges, we find that the extent of his work has been greatly magnified\nin the imagination of later ages. The Ephraimitish chieftain\nsuccessfully established Israel on the western side of the Jordan,\ngained permanent possession of Mount Ephraim, and defeated the\nCanaanitish princes to the south and north. But the conquest of Canaan\nwas a longer work, which was not completed till the days of David and\nSolomon.\n\nThe first chapter of Judges tells us in outline what the map of\nPalestine was like after the settlement of the Israelitish tribes. In\nthe south the mountainous country was held by the Edomite tribe of Caleb\nas well as by the more strictly Israelitish tribe of Judah. But it was\nonly \u2018the mountain\u2019 that was thus held. Though \u2018the Lord was with\nJudah,\u2019 he \u2018could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because\nthey had chariots of iron.\u2019 Further south, however, Judah and Simeon in\ncombination succeeded in making themselves masters of the Negeb or\ndesert plain as far as Zephath, where a mixed population, partly\nIsraelitish, partly Edomite, and partly Kenite, took the place of the\nolder inhabitants.\n\nJerusalem remained in the hands of the Jebusites until it was captured\nby David. It is true, we read (Judg. i. 8) that \u2018the children of Judah\nhad fought against Jerusalem, and had taken it and smitten it with the\nedge of the sword.\u2019 But if so, it must soon have been again fortified by\nits former possessors, since we are expressly told (Judg. i. 21) that\nthe children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited\nJerusalem; but the Jebusites \u2018dwell with the children of Judah in\nJerusalem unto this day.\u2019[255] Modern critics have been in the habit of\ndismissing the alleged capture of the city as unhistorical, but it is\nquite possible that Jerusalem really suffered momentarily from a sudden\nraid. The capture of the city is not ascribed to Joshua\u2014indeed, though\nhe defeated its king and his allies, he seems to have made no effort to\nreduce the city itself\u2014and it is said to have been effected by Judah\nafter Joshua\u2019s death. This may have been at any time during the period\nof the Judges. The Tel el-Amarna tablets show us how easily the cities\nof Canaan could be taken and retaken in the course of local quarrels,\nand the fact that Jerusalem was for a while in Jewish hands seems to\nform an integral part of the story of the conquest of Bezek.\n\nEven the great sanctuary of Beth-el, destined to be the possession of\nBenjamin as well as of Ephraim,[256] had not fallen into the hands of\n\u2018the house of Joseph\u2019 when Joshua died, though the \u2018ruined heap\u2019 of Ai\nwhich lay near it was one of the first of the Israelitish conquests. All\nthe chief towns in the territory of Manasseh\u2014Megiddo and Taanach, Dor\nand Beth-Shean\u2014remained Canaanite, the utmost that Israel could do in\nthe days of its strength being to exact tribute from them. Gezer defied\nthe power of Ephraim down to the time when it was given to Solomon by\nthe Egyptian Pharaoh; while the great cities of Zebulon and Naphtali,\nlike those of Manasseh, never became Israelitish, but paid tribute to\nthe Hebrews whenever the latter were \u2018strong.\u2019 Asher failed to secure\nthe territory that had been assigned to him, where Moses in his song had\npromised that his foot should be dipped in oil and his sandals should be\nof iron and bronze. The Ph\u0153nicians continued to hold the coast long\nafter the Israelitish tribes had been carried into Assyrian captivity,\nand even in the mountains that overlooked the shore the Asherites were\nforced to live and be lost among the older Canaanites (Judg. i. 32).\n\u2018The children of Dan\u2019 were in even worse case; the Amorites drove them\ninto the mountains and \u2018would not suffer them to come down to the\nvalley.\u2019 When at last their enemies were made tributary by \u2018the house of\nJoseph,\u2019 it was too late; the tribe of Dan was merged into that of\nJudah, or had found a refuge in the city of Laish in the extreme north.\n\nJoshua, therefore, was not the conqueror of Canaan in any exact sense of\nthe term. The districts east of the Jordan had been occupied by the\nIsraelites before the death of Moses, and north of Moab the occupation\nhad been fairly complete. In Canaan itself the amount of territory won\nby Joshua was practically confined to the passage over the Jordan and\nthe mountainous region of the centre. Few of the Canaanitish cities were\ncaptured by him; and with the exception of Jericho and Lachish, and\nperhaps Hazor, none of them was of primary importance. But he succeeded\nin doing what had been attempted in vain in earlier days; he led his\npeople into Palestine, and planted them there so firmly that the future\nconquest of the whole country became merely a matter of time.\n\nIt was at Jericho, \u2018the city of palms,\u2019 that the passage into Canaan was\nforced. The army of Israel crossed the Jordan dry-shod, for \u2018the waters\nwhich came down from above stood and rose up upon an heap very far from\nthe city Adam, that is beside Zaretan; and those which came down towards\nthe sea of the plain, even the Salt Sea, failed, and were cut off.\u2019 A\nsimilar phenomenon is recorded as having occurred in the Middle Ages. M.\nClermont-Ganneau has pointed out a passage in the Arabic historian\nNowairi, in which an account is given of the construction in A.D. 1266\nof a bridge across the Jordan by the Sultan Beybars I. of Egypt, when in\nconsequence of a landslip the bed of the river was for a time left dry.\nThe bridge was built on five arches between the stream of the Qurawa and\nTel Damieh, perhaps the Adam of the Old Testament. But no sooner was it\ncompleted than \u2018part of the piers gave way. The Sultan was greatly\nvexed, and blamed the builders, and sent them back to repair the damage.\nThey found the task very difficult, owing to the rise of the waters and\nthe strength of the current. But in the night preceding the dawn of the\n17th of the month Rabi the First of the year of the Hijra 666 (_i.e._\nthe 8th of December, A.D. 1267) the water of the river ceased to flow so\nthat none remained in its bed. The people hurried and kindled numerous\nfires and cressets, and seized the opportunity offered by the\noccurrence. They remedied the defects in the piers, and strengthened\nthem, and effected repairs which would otherwise have been impossible.\nThey then despatched mounted men to ascertain the nature of the event\nthat had occurred. The riders urged their horses, and found that a lofty\nmound (_Kab\u00e2r_) which overlooked the river on the west had fallen into\nit and dammed it up. A _Kab\u00e2r_ resembles a hill, but is not actually a\nhill, for water will quickly disintegrate it into mud. The water was\nheld up, and had spread itself over the valley above the dam. The\nmessengers returned with this explanation, and the water was arrested\nfrom midnight until the 4th hour of the day. Then the water prevailed\nupon the dam and broke it up. The water flowed down in a body equal in\ndepth to the length of a lance, but made no impression upon the building\nowing to the strength given to it.\u2019[257]\n\nThe megalithic \u2018circle\u2019 of Gilgal commemorated the passage of the\nJordan. The camp was fixed there, and a popular etymology explained the\nname by the circumcision that had \u2018rolled away the reproach of\nEgypt.\u2019[258] Jericho, the city of the \u2018Moon-god\u2019 Y\u00e2r\u00eaakh, was next\ninvested and captured in spite of its strong walls. All its inhabitants\nwere put to the sword, Rahab only being spared to become the founder of\na family in Israel because she had sheltered the Israelitish spies. The\ncity was razed to the ground, and was not again rebuilt till the reign\nof Ahab.\n\nWe can still trace the site of Jericho in the hollow of the deep valley\nthrough which the Jordan flows into the Dead Sea. Its ruins lie round\nabout the \u2019Ain es-Sult\u00e2n, a spring of warm water which gushes into an\nancient basin, overgrown with reeds and brushwood, among which the birds\nflutter and watch the fish in the water below. Above towers the huge\nmass of Mount Qarantel, while the black soil which forms the floor of\nthe hollow is covered with small artificial mounds of earth, and is\nthick with the decayed relics of a tropical vegetation. In the coldest\nweather it is still warm at Jericho; in summer the damp heat is\nstifling, and the mosquitoes are innumerable. Now it is given over to\nidle Bed\u00e2win, but in the old days when the country was filled with an\nindustrious population, it was as \u2018the garden of the Lord.\u2019 No place in\nPalestine was more fertile, and it commanded the ford that led across\nthe Jordan from the east.\n\nThe destruction of Jericho opened to Joshua the way into Canaan. Laden\nwith its spoil, the Israelites matched westward, up into the mountains\nand through the pass of Michmash towards Beth-el. Beth-el itself was too\nstrong to be attacked. But a neighbouring town, whose later name of Ai,\n\u2018the ruined heap,\u2019 was a lasting record of its fate, was not so\nfortunate. The Israelites took it by means of an ambuscade, and the same\nmerciless treatment was dealt out to it that had been dealt to Jericho.\nThe inhabitants were all massacred, \u2018only the cattle and the spoil\nIsrael took for a prey unto themselves.\u2019\n\nThe conquest of Ai, however, had not been easy. The Canaanites had made\na brave defence, and the invaders had at first suffered a check. The\ncause was discovered in the Israelitish camp. A Jew, Achan or Achar, had\nhidden under his tent some of the booty of Jericho which ought to have\nbeen either destroyed or dedicated to Yahveh. \u2018A goodly Babylonish\ngarment,\u2019 two hundred shekels of silver, and a tongue-like wedge of gold\nfifty shekels in weight, were the objects which he had coveted and\nconcealed. But the order had been issued that all objects of metal\nshould be given to the tabernacle, and that all things else should be\nburned with fire. Achan accordingly was condemned to be stoned to death,\nand along with him the rest of his family as well as his oxen, his\nasses, and his sheep. Then the bodies were burnt, and a heap of stones\npiled over them in memory of the event.\n\nThe mention of the \u2018goodly Babylonish garment\u2019 takes us back to the time\nwhen Assyria had not as yet supplanted Babylonia in the west. For\ncenturies Babylonia had been the home of weavers and embroiderers whose\nfabrics were famous all over the east. The cuneiform tablets contain\nlong lists of articles of clothing, each of which had its own name; and,\nas we learn from the Tel el-Amarna correspondence, the merchants of\nBabylonia found a ready market for their goods in the cities of Canaan.\nThe age of the Exodus marks the period when the old peaceful intercourse\nwith Babylonia was coming to an end; alien peoples had barred the road\nacross the Euphrates, and Babylon itself was about to fall into the\nhands of an Assyrian conqueror. Henceforth it was Assyria, and not\nBabylonia, whose name was known or feared in Palestine, and the writer\nof a later day would have spoken of the wares of Assyria rather than\nthose of the Babylonians.[259]\n\nThe destruction of Ai gave Joshua a foothold in the mountain of Ephraim.\nThen came the league with the Gibeonites, secured, so we are told, by\ncraft. Modern criticism, with needless scepticism, has seen in the\nnarrative merely a popular legend to account for the fact that the four\ncities which formed the western half of the future territory of Benjamin\nwere laid under tribute, and not destroyed. But the extermination of the\nCanaanites was relative, not absolute; their utter destruction, like\nthat of the Britons by the Saxon invaders, was the dream of a later day.\nAs we have seen, the Hebrew occupation of Canaan was a slow and gradual\nprocess, and in the more important cities the older population remained\nto the end. Even the temple of Solomon was built on the threshing-floor\nof a Jebusite, and the heads of the prisoners which surmount the names\nof the places captured by Shishak in the south of Palestine are Amorite\nrather than Jewish. The Amorite population was still predominant there;\nand the fellahin of to-day, as has been pointed out by M.\nClermont-Ganneau, are the lineal descendants of the old races.[260]\n\nGibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjath-jearim are not the only cities\nof which we hear as having been made tributary. This was also the case\nwith Megiddo and Taanach, Beth-shean, Dor, and Ibleam (Judg. i. 27), as\nwell as with the chief cities in the territories of Zebulon and Naphtali\n(Judg. i. 30, 33); while, on the other hand, the tribe of Issachar\nbecame tributary to its Canaanitish neighbours (Gen. xlix. 15).[261] It\nis more profitable to exact tribute from a wealthy and industrious\npopulation than to exterminate it, as Mohammed found; and the near\nneighbourhood of the central sanctuaries of Israel, first at Shiloh,\nthen at Jerusalem and Beth-el, afforded a special reason why the\nGibeonites should be made \u2018hewers of wood and drawers of water for the\nhouse of God.\u2019\n\nThe greater part of the future territory of Benjamin was now in\nIsraelitish hands. The destruction of Jericho had secured the ford\nacross the Jordan and communication with the Israelitish settlers on the\neast side of the river. But it must be remembered that the tribe of\nBenjamin as distinct from that of Ephraim did not as yet exist. Its\nterritory formed the southern part of Mount Ephraim, and for military\nand political purposes the two tribes constituted a single whole. This\nwas still the case as late as the age of Deborah and Barak, when the\npower of Ephraim, \u2018behind\u2019 Benjamin, is said to extend as far as the\ndesert of the Amalekites to the south of Judah (Judg. v. 14). The name\nof Benjamin, in fact, means \u2018the southerner\u2019; the tribe lay southward of\nEphraim; and the second name by which it was known\u2014that of Ben-Oni, \u2018the\nOnite\u2019\u2014indicated that it was settled round the great sanctuary of\nBeth-On. And such indeed was the case when the tribe had vindicated its\nindividual existence and been definitely separated from Ephraim. Beth-On\nor Beth-el was then included within its boundaries (Josh. xviii. 22).\nOriginally, however, Beth-el belonged to Ephraim, and had been an\nEphraimitish conquest (Judg. i. 22-26).\n\nThe conquest of Beth-el did not take place until after Joshua\u2019s death,\nand as long as it remained independent it must have been a constant\nmenace to the Israelitish settlers in Mount Ephraim. With its capture\nall danger passed away, and Mount Ephraim\u2014the heart of Palestine\u2014became\nat last the secure possession of the \u2018house of Joseph.\u2019 From hence, as\nfrom an impregnable fortress, they were able to make descents upon the\nfertile lands to the west and attack the cities which stood there. The\npowerful city of Gezer was eventually compelled to pay them tribute\n(Josh. xvi. 10), and the territory which had been assigned to Dan became\ntributary to \u2018the house of Joseph\u2019 (Judg. i. 35).\n\nBut all this was after Joshua had passed away. Besides crossing the\nJordan and securing a footing in Mount Ephraim, Joshua had made a\nsuccessful raid into those mountains in the \u2018Negeb\u2019 of Judah which had\nbeen so fatal to the first Israelitish invaders of Canaan. The\ndestruction of Ai had excited the fears of Adoni-zedek of Jerusalem, and\nin the league that had been made between Gibeon and the invaders he saw\ndanger to his own state. Gibeon lay only a few miles to the north of\nJerusalem, and the Tel el-Amarna tablets have shown us that the\nneighbourhood of two Canaanitish cities was a quite sufficient cause of\nwar between them. When the tablets were written, Ebed-Tob was king of\nJerusalem, and his letters to the Pharaoh are filled with imploring\nappeals for help against his enemies. These were partly the neighbouring\n\u2018governors,\u2019 partly the Khabiri or \u2018Confederates,\u2019 who seem to have been\nof foreign origin, and who had already captured some of his cities. The\nsituation, therefore, was very much like what it was in the later days\nof Adoni-zedek, the place of the Egyptian \u2018governors\u2019 being taken by\nGibeon, while the Khabiri were represented by the Israelites. But\nAdoni-zedek had no suzerain lord in Egypt to whom he could apply for\naid. He was therefore forced to turn to the Canaanitish princes around\nhim and form a league with them against the invading hordes from the\ndesert. Hoham of Hebron, Piram of Jarmuth, Yaphia of Lachish, and Debir\nof Eglon rallied to his summons, and the combined forces marched against\nGibeon and besieged the town.[262] The Gibeonites at once sent\nmessengers to Joshua, who accordingly left the camp at Gilgal and fell\nsuddenly on the besieging army. The Canaanites were utterly routed, and\nfled towards Beth-horon and Makkedah, a hailstorm adding to their\ndiscomfiture. The five kings were discovered hiding in a cave at\nMakkedah, and dragged before Joshua, who pitilessly put them all to\ndeath. The bodies were buried in the cave and great stones laid upon its\nmouth, which, the compiler of the book of Joshua states, remained there\nunto his day (Josh. x. 27).\n\nThe defeat of the Canaanite army was followed by the capture of Makkedah\nand Libnah, which opened the road to Lachish. The site of Lachish was\nrediscovered by Professor Flinders Petrie in 1890 at Tell el-Hesy,\nsixteen miles eastward of Gaza. The great mound that covers its ruins\nhas been excavated partly by him, partly by Dr. Bliss, and the huge wall\nthat surrounded it in the days of the Amorites, and before which the\nIsraelites encamped, has been explored and measured.[263]\n\nThe city stood on a natural eminence some forty feet in height. Close to\nit rises the only good spring of water in the district, which when\nswollen by the winter rains becomes the torrent of the Hesy. The stream\nran past the eastern side of the city, and has eaten away part of the\nremains of the successive cities which rose upon the site, one above the\nruins of the other. Fragments of the pottery used by the Amorite\ndefenders of the city in the days of Joshua can now be seen in the rooms\nof the Palestine Exploration Fund.\n\nThe walls of Lachish, like those of the cities of Egypt, were built of\ncrude brick, and were nearly thirty feet in thickness. It had, in fact,\nlong been one of the principal fortresses of Southern Palestine. Among\nthe Tel el-Amarna tablets are letters from two of its governors Zimrida\nand Yabniel, the first of whom was murdered, and who is mentioned on\nanother tablet found by Dr. Bliss among the ruins of Lachish itself. Its\ncapture, therefore, by the Israelites was a serious blow to the\nCanaanites in the southern part of the country. But, though Horam king\nof Gezer came to its assistance, all was no avail; the strong fortress\nfell at last before the invaders, and \u2018all the souls\u2019 that were in it\nwere massacred.[264] For at least a century its site lay desolate and\nuninhabited; and the explorers found in the soil that accumulated above\nthe ruins of the Amorite city nothing but the ashes of the camp-fires of\nBed\u00e2win nomads.\n\nEglon, now probably Tell Ejl\u00e2n, close to Tell el-Hesy, naturally shared\nthe fate of the neighbouring city. According to the compiler of the book\nof Joshua, the fall of Hebron and Debir followed immediately after that\nof Eglon. But this cannot be correct. Debir, as we afterwards learn, was\ntaken at a later date by Othniel (Josh. xv. 16, 17; Judg. i. 12, 13),\nnot by Joshua, and the error seems to have been due to the fact that\nDebir was the name of the king of Eglon. It was the king and not the\ntown of that name who fell before the arms of Joshua.\n\nIt is, moreover, difficult to reconcile the statement that Hebron was\ncaptured by Joshua after the defeat of the five kings with the narrative\nof its capture by Caleb, which is given in detail elsewhere (Josh. xv.\n13, 14; Judg. i. 9, 10). Here, as in other parts of the book of Joshua,\nwe find a tendency to ascribe the gradual occupation of Canaan to a\nsingle point of time, and to assign all the successive conquests made in\nit by the Israelites to the general who first led them across the\nJordan. The individual hero has absorbed all the victories gained by his\npeople, and the past has been foreshortened in the retrospect of the\nlater historian. As in the books of Kings the murder of Sennacherib is\nmade to follow immediately after his flight from Judah twenty years\nbefore, so in the book of Joshua, the conquest of Canaan is all placed\nin one age, the lifetime of the hero himself. As Moses was the lawgiver\nof Israel and its deliverer from the house of bondage, posterity saw in\nhis successor the conqueror of Canaan.\n\nIt is noticeable, however, that neither Jerusalem nor Gezer is said to\nhave been taken after the battle of Makkedah. Both cities were doubtless\ntoo strong to be attacked; and though Gezer was subsequently forced to\nbecome the vassal of Ephraim, Jerusalem was destined to fall before a\nJewish and not an Ephraimitish leader.\n\nThe battle of Makkedah became the subject of a national song. It was\nembodied, like David\u2019s dirge over Saul and Jonathan, in the book of\nJashar, a fragment of which is quoted by the compiler of the book of\nJoshua. \u2018Sun, be thou still upon Gibeon, and thou, moon, in the valley\nof Ajalon!\u2019 cried Joshua, \u2018in the sight of Israel,\u2019 \u2018when the Lord\ndelivered up the Amorites\u2019 before them: \u2018and the sun was still, and the\nmoon stayed until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies.\u2019\nSo ran the words of the poem, and the prose historian seems to have\ntaken them literally.\n\nThe alliance with Gibeon and the destruction of Lachish opened the way\nto the south. Westward, the sea-coast was in the hands of the\nPhilistines, whom the Israelites would have found more formidable\nenemies than the disunited and effeminate Canaanites. The five\nPhilistine cities, accordingly, which had been but recently wrested from\nEgyptian hands, were left untouched, and the Israelitish raiders made\ntheir way into the Negeb towards the south-east, where they succeeded in\npenetrating as far as Arad and Zephath. They had thus reached the very\nspot where the first attempt to invade Canaan had failed, and from which\nthe disappointed tribes had been driven back again into the wilderness.\nZephath was not far distant from Kadesh-barnea, so that it is with a\npardonable exaggeration that the Jewish historian describes Joshua as\nsmiting his enemies \u2018from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza\u2019 (Josh. x. 41).\n\nIt is true that his victories in this part of Canaan have been\nquestioned. No detailed account is given of them, and it is only in the\nlist of the \u2018kings\u2019 who were overthrown by \u2018Joshua and the children of\nIsrael\u2019 on the western side of the Jordan that the names of Arad and\nZephath, or Hormah, appear (Josh. xii. 14). Moreover, we are told in the\nbook of Judges (i. 17) that Zephath was destroyed by Judah and Simeon\nafter the death of the Ephraimitish leader (_v._ 1), a memorial of the\ndestruction being preserved in the change of name to Hormah. But it must\nbe noted that it is only the \u2018kings\u2019 of Arad and Zephath who are said to\nhave been \u2018smitten\u2019 by Joshua, not the cities over which they ruled. The\nexpedition to the Negeb was merely a raid, such as the possession of\nLachish and the mountainous country to the north-west of it enabled the\nIsraelitish chieftain to make with impunity. Indeed, such raids into the\nfertile land to the south would have been natural, if not inevitable.\n\nNo detailed account was preserved of them, since they were connected\nwith no striking and important event, like the capture and destruction\nof a Canaanitish city. The four military deeds with which history\nassociated the name of Joshua centered each of them round the overthrow\nof a Canaanitish stronghold and gave the Israelites the command of the\nsurrounding country. They were campaigns which led to the permanent\npossession of territory, not mere raids or barren victories. The capture\nof Jericho secured the passage across the Jordan, that of Ai planted\nEphraim and Benjamin in the mountains of central Palestine, the\ndestruction of Lachish opened up communication with that desert of the\nsouth in which the Israelites had received the legislation of\nKadesh-barnea, while the overthrow of the king of Hazor gave them a\nfoothold in the north. The alliance with the Gibeonites was of equal\nimportance, for it secured friends and allies in the very heart of the\nenemy\u2019s country, and its firstfruits were the victory at Makkedah and\nthe destruction of Lachish. Jericho, Ai, Lachish, Hazor, and\nGibeon,\u2014these were the names which guaranteed to Joshua his claim to\nhave been the conqueror of Canaan.\n\nThe victory at Hazor seems to have been his last. Hazor stood near\nKadesh of Galilee, now represented by the ruins of Qedes, to the north\nof Safed, and on the western side of the marshes of H\u00fbleh, the Lake\nMerom of the Old Testament.[265] In the age of the Tel el-Amarna letters\nit was still governed by its native kings, and in one of them an\nEgyptian officer complains that the king had joined with Sidon in\nintriguing with the Bed\u00e2win.[266] When the Israelites entered Palestine\nit was the leading city of the northern part of the country. While\nMegiddo was the capital of the centre of the country, Hazor was the\ncapital of the north. Its king, Jabin, now put himself at the head of a\ngreat confederacy which extended from Sidon to Dor on the sea-coast, and\nfrom the slopes of Hermon to the Sea of Galilee in the inland region.\nAmong the confederates history remembered the names of Jobab, the king\nof Madon, and the kings of Shimron and Achshaph. Achshaph is the\nPh\u0153nician Ekdippa, now Z\u00eeb, on the sea-coast, which is called Aksap by\nThothmes III. But Madon is written Mar\u00f4n in the Septuagint, though the\nreading of the Hebrew text seems to be confirmed by the modern name of\nKhurbet Mad\u00een, \u2018the ruins of Mad\u00een.\u2019 Shimron, moreover, is Symo\u00f4n in the\nSeptuagint, and this form of the name finds support in the Sim\u00f4nias of\nJosephus, Simonia in the Talmud, now Sem\u00fbnieh, sixteen miles from\nKhurbet Mad\u00een. Mr. Tomkins would identify it with the Shm\u00e2nau of\nThothmes III.[267]\n\nBut, again, the reading of the Hebrew text is probably the more correct.\nIn what may be termed the official list of Joshua\u2019s victories (Josh.\nxii. 20), the name appears as Shimronmeron, and this reminds us of\nSamsi-muruna (\u2018the Sun-god is lord\u2019), which is given by the Assyrian\ninscriptions as the name of a town in this very neighbourhood. It was\nfrom \u2018Menahem, king of Samsi-muruna,\u2019 that Sennacherib received tribute\nduring his campaign against Hezekiah, and it is possible that Shimron\nmay be a contracted form of Shem[esh-me]ron or Sam[si-mu]runa.\n\nOnce more criticism has raised doubts as to the truth of the narrative.\nWe hear of another Jabin of Hazor, at a later date, in the time of\nDeborah and Barak, and we hear also of another great victory gained by\nIsrael over Jabin\u2019s troops. It is urged that if Hazor had been burnt to\nthe ground by Joshua, and all its inhabitants put to the sword, it could\nhardly have risen so soon again from its ashes and have assumed a\nleading position in the north. Had Joshua\u2019s conquest been as complete as\nit is represented to have been, the country would have been Israelitish,\nand not Canaanite.\n\nBut it does not follow that because there was one king of Hazor called\nJabin, there should not have been another of the same name. Such\nrepetitions of name have been common in other countries of the world,\nand it is difficult to see why the rulers of Hazor should not be allowed\na similar privilege. That a city should rise from its ruins and recover\nits former power is again no unique event. Much depends upon its\nposition and the character of its inhabitants. We gather from the\nEgyptian annals that the towns of Canaan were accustomed to capture and\ntemporary destruction. But they soon recovered themselves, the old\npopulation flocked back, and their ruined walls were again repaired.\n\nIt is true that the conquest of the country by Joshua could not have\nbeen as thorough as the narrative describes. But that we already knew\nfrom the first chapter of Judges (vv. 30-33). Oriental expressions and\nmodes of thought are not to be measured by the precise terminology of\nthe modern West, and an Eastern writer speaks absolutely where we should\nspeak relatively. When it is said that \u2018all the earth sought to Solomon,\nto hear his wisdom\u2019 (1 Kings x. 24), the universality of the statement\nmust be very considerably limited, and so too when it is said that\n\u2018Joshua took all that land\u2019 (Josh. xi. 16), the expression admits of a\nsimilarly liberal discount. In fact, the narrative itself contains its\nown corrective. The words, \u2018All the cities of those kings ... did Joshua\ntake, and smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed\nthem\u2019 (ver. 12), are followed immediately by the conditioning clause,\n\u2018Only the cities which were built upon _tels_, Israel burned none of\nthem: Hazor alone did Joshua burn.\u2019\n\nBetween the story of Joshua\u2019s campaign and that of the rising under\nBarak there is no resemblance whatever. In the time of the Hebrew judge\nthe army of Jabin was commanded by Sisera, not by Jabin himself. The\ndecisive battle took place on the banks of the Kishon, not on the shores\nof Lake H\u00fbleh, miles away to the north, and the city of Hazor was\nneither captured nor destroyed. Kadesh of Galilee and other districts\nwere already in the hands of the Israelites, and must therefore have\nbeen occupied by them at some earlier period. The account in the book of\nJoshua, brief as it is, tells us when the occupation took place.\n\nJabin had summoned his allies and vassals to oppose the northward march\nof the Israelites. The Canaanites stood upon the defensive, and the\nIsraelites therefore must have been the attacking party. That they did\nnot cross the Jordan from the plains of Bashan we may gather from the\nlist of the kings vanquished by Joshua.[268] Among them we find the\nkings of Taanach and Megiddo, Kadesh of Naphtali and Jokneam, Dor,\nGilgal, and Tirzah.[269] Tirzah would have been the first stage\nnorthward of Shechem; the fortress of Megiddo commanded the plain of\nJezreel. A common danger would thus have forced the kings of the centre\nand the north of Canaan to fight together, and the confederacy would\nhave covered much the same extent of territory as that which confronted\nBarak on the banks of the Kishon. But instead of advancing upon the\nenemy from the north, as was the case with Barak, Joshua would have\nmoved up from the south.\n\nIt was on the shore of Lake Merom that the Israelites fell suddenly upon\nthe Canaanitish encampment. The Canaanites were taken by surprise and\nfled in all directions. Some made their way across the narrow gorge of\nthe Jordan towards Mizpeh of Gilead;[270] the larger body was pursued as\nfar as Sidon, where they at last found a shelter behind the strong walls\nof the city. The chariots of their cavalry, useless to mountaineers,\nwere burned, and their horses were maimed. The flight of the army had\nleft Hazor undefended; the Israelites accordingly turned back from the\npursuit, and took the city by assault. Its houses were burned, its spoil\ncarried away, and \u2018every man\u2019 was smitten with the edge of the sword,\n\u2018neither left they any to breathe.\u2019 The merciless ferocity of Joshua\nfinds a close parallel in that of the Assyrian kings.\n\nThe life of Joshua was drawing to an end. He was an old man; it was said\nhe was 110 years of age at his death, the length of time the Egyptian\nwished his friends to live. He had brought his people into the Promised\nLand, had shown them how to take cities and defeat their adversaries,\nand had planted Israel firmly in the mountainous part of Canaan. Before\nhis death the tribes were provisionally established in the territories\nsubsequently called after their names. We are not bound to believe that\nthe division of the land was made with the mathematical precision which\nhad become possible in the days of the compiler of the book of Joshua,\nbut to deny that it was made at all is merely an abuse of criticism. In\nthe period of the Judges we find most of the tribes actually settled in\nthe very districts which we are told were given to them, and the fact\nthat in one or two instances\u2014Dan and Simeon, for example\u2014the tribe never\ngained possession of the larger part of the territory said to have been\nassigned to it, shows that the story of the division could not have been\nbased on the later geographical position of the tribes. The doctrine of\ndevelopment may have no limitations in the domain of organic nature, but\nhistory has to take account of individual action and the arbitrary\nenactments of great men. To suppose that the tribal division of\nPalestine was the result of a process of development has little in\nsupport of it, and fails to explain the geographical position\ntraditionally assigned to a tribe like Dan.\n\nThere was one tribe, however, to whose history the theory of development\nis to some extent applicable. This was the tribe of Judah. The tribe was\nonly partly of Israelitish descent. Its most important family, that of\nCaleb and Othniel, belonged to the Edomite tribe of Kenaz; while another\nEdomite tribe, that of Jerahmeel, occupied the southern part of the\nJewish territory (1 Chron. ii. 25-33, 42). Even \u2018the families of the\nscribes which dwelt at Jabez\u2019 were Kenites from Midian (1 Chron. ii.\n55).[271] Down to the time of the kings the Israelitish members of the\ntribe of Judah mixed freely with their neighbours; David himself was\ndescended from Ruth the Moabitess, and Bath-sheba, the mother of his\nsuccessor, had been the wife of a Hittite. As has been already noticed,\nthe prisoners whose figures surmount the names of Shishak\u2019s conquests in\nJudah have the features of the Amorite and not of the Jew. In the Song\nof Deborah the tribe of Judah, like those of Dan and Simeon, is unknown.\nIt is Ephraim and Benjamin who form the Israelitish vanguard against the\nAmalekites of the southern desert. And the deliverers of southern Israel\nfrom its two first oppressors were Othniel the Kenizzite and Ehud the\nBenjamite.\n\nThe tribe of Judah as a compact and definite whole first makes its\nappearance at a later period, and, unlike the other tribes of Israel,\nrepresents a geographical rather than an ethnographical unity.[272] Jews\nwere commingled in it with Edomites, as well as with other tribes\u2014Dan,\nSimeon, and Levi. Its cities were only partly Israelitish; even the\nfuture capital, Jerusalem, retained its Jebusite population, and the\ntemple was built on land that had been bought from a Gentile owner.\n\nNevertheless, the fact that both tribe and territory bore to the last\nthe name of Judah indicates that in this mixture of nationalities the\nHebrew element remained the stronger and more predominant. It is true\nthat Hebron, the first centre and capital of Judah, had been conquered,\nnot by a Jew, but by the Kenizzite Caleb, and that his brother Othniel\nwas the first \u2018Judge\u2019; but it is also true that the settlement of the\ncountry was in the main due to an amalgamation of Hebrew and Edomite\nelements. Gedor, Socho, Zanoah, Keilah, and Eshtemoa traced their second\nfoundation to a Kenizzite father and a Jewish mother (1 Chron. iii. 18,\n19), and Hebron itself soon ceased to be distinctively Kenizzite and\nbecame Jewish.\n\nCaleb the Kenizzite had been one of the spies sent out from\nKadesh-barnea when the Israelites made their first, and unsuccessful,\nattempt to invade Canaan. He consequently belonged to the generation\nwhich had escaped from the bondage of Egypt, of which he and Joshua were\nsaid to have been the only survivors at the time of the passage of the\nJordan. Hebron had been the chief point and goal of exploration on the\npart of the spies, and it was from its neighbourhood that the grapes\nwere brought which testified to the fertility of the land. It was\nnatural, therefore, that Hebron should again be the object of Caleb\u2019s\naim, and that while the Ephraimitish general was establishing himself in\nthe north Caleb should lead his followers to its assault. The\ndestruction of Lachish had opened the way; and the steep path which led\nup the limestone hills from Lachish to Hebron was left undefended.\n\nModern writers have seen in the name of Caleb a mere tribal designation\ndenoting the \u2018Calebites\u2019 or \u2018Dog-men.\u2019 But the cuneiform inscriptions\nshow us that Caleb or \u2018Dog\u2019 was the name of an individual, and they also\nexplain how it came to be so. In the Tel el-Amarna tablets, as well as\nin later Assyrian letters, the word _Kalbu_ or \u2018Dog\u2019 is used in the\nsense of \u2018officer\u2019 or \u2018messenger\u2019; the king\u2019s officer was his \u2018faithful\ndog,\u2019 and the term was an honourable one.[273] It conveyed none of those\nideas of contempt or abuse with which it was afterwards associated in\nthe Semitic mind, and which may have had their origin in Arabia. It is\npossible that Caleb had been an \u2018officer\u2019 of the Pharaoh before he\nbecame a Hebrew spy.\n\nThe capture of Hebron is said to have taken place five years after the\npassage of the Jordan (Josh. xiv. 10). At any rate, it was before the\ndeath of Joshua (notwithstanding Judg. i. 1, 10). It was after that\nevent, however, that the further conquests of the Kenizzites were made.\n\nSomewhere near Hebron, but higher in \u2018the mountains,\u2019 was the\nCanaanitish city of Debir. Debir signified the \u2018Sanctuary\u2019; and it was\nhere, as in Babylonia and Assyria, that a great library of books was\nstored in one of the chambers of the temple. Like the Babylonian cities,\nmoreover, Debir had more than one name. It was also called\nKirjath-Sannah, \u2018the city of Instruction,\u2019 from the schools which\ngathered round its library,[274] and in the Old Testament it is further\nknown as Kirjath-Sepher or \u2018Booktown.\u2019 In _The Travels of the Mohar_,\nhowever, a satirical account of a tourist\u2019s adventures in Palestine,\nwhich was written by an Egyptian in the reign of Ramses II., it is\ntermed Beth-Sopher, \u2018the house of the scribe,\u2019 and is coupled with\nKirjath-Anab. It is plain, therefore, that the Massoretic punctuation\nSepher \u2018book\u2019 is erroneous, and must be corrected to Sopher or \u2018scribe.\u2019\nWhether Kirjath, \u2018city,\u2019 should also be corrected into Beth, \u2018house\u2019 or\n\u2018temple,\u2019 is more doubtful. _Beth_ would be the more appropriate term in\nthe case of a town which possessed a sanctuary, and it may be that the\nword Kirjath has been derived from the neighbouring town of [Kirjath-]\nAnab, which is called simply Anab in Josh. xv. 50. But it is also\npossible that the Egyptian writer has made a mistake, and has\ninterchanged the words \u2018city\u2019 and \u2018house,\u2019 the true names of the two\ncities having been Kirjath-Sopher and Beth-Anab.[275]\n\nHowever this may be, Caleb promised his daughter Achsah as a reward to\nthe conqueror of Debir. The prize was won by his \u2018younger brother\u2019\nOthniel, and the Canaanitish city was so completely destroyed that its\nvery site is still unknown. Its library perished in the ruins, though\nthe clay tablets with which it was doubtless filled must still be lying\nbeneath the soil, awaiting the discoverer who shall with their aid\nreconstruct the ancient history of southern Canaan. Hebron was more\nfortunate. The city was spared after its capture, and became the chief\nseat of the Kenizzites, and subsequently, when the Kenizzites were\nmerged in Judah, the capital of Judah itself.\n\nThe Hebrew tribe of Judah was slow in following the example of its\nEdomite comrades. The \u2018children of Judah,\u2019 it is said, had at first been\ncontent to live with the Midianitish Kenites in the neighbourhood of\nJericho, and when the Kenites returned to the desert of Kadesh-barnea to\nsettle there along with them (Judg. i. 16). But there were other Jews\nwho remained behind in Canaan, and there carved out a patrimony for\nthemselves. Judah and Simeon, we are told, \u2018went up\u2019 together into the\ncountry which had been allotted to them, and eventually succeeded in\noccupying the greater part of it. The expression is a curious one, and\nseems to imply that the invaders started from the desert of\nKadesh-barnea, though Lachish and its neighbourhood may be meant. At all\nevents, Adoni-bezek, \u2018the lord of Bezek,\u2019 was defeated and captured, and\nhis thumbs and great toes cut off, like those of the seventy vassal\nprinces who had \u2018picked up their meat\u2019 under his own table. It is added\nthat he was brought to Jerusalem, where he died.\n\nThat he was brought there by the Hebrews is not certain. However, the\ncompiler of the book of Judges seems to have thought so, as he goes on\nto say, \u2018And the children of Judah fought[276] against Jerusalem, and\ntook it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on\nfire.\u2019 It is difficult to reconcile this with the very definite\nstatement in the book of Joshua (xv. 63), \u2018As for the Jebusites, the\ninhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them\nout: but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem\nunto this day\u2019; or with the equally explicit statement in the first\nchapter of Judges itself (verse 21), \u2018The children of Benjamin did not\ndrive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites\ndwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day.\u2019[277]\nThe latter passage belongs to the period when Judah had not yet become a\ncorporate whole, and when, therefore, as in the Song of Deborah,\nBenjamin was still regarded as forming the southern boundary of the\ntribes of Israel; but the first passage takes us down to the time when\nBenjamin had been supplanted by Judah, and Israel was being prepared to\nreceive a king. It was during the earlier period that the Levite of\nMount Ephraim, when returning from Beth-lehem, would not lodge in\n\u2018Jebus\u2019 because it was a \u2018city of the Jebusites\u2019 (Judg. xix. 10, 11);\nthe later period extended to the time when Jerusalem was taken by David,\nand when the Jewish king, so far from massacring its inhabitants and\nsetting it on fire, allowed the Jebusites in it to retain their property\n(2 Sam. xxiv. 18-24), and made it the capital of his empire. Doubtless\nJerusalem might have been captured by the \u2018children of Judah,\u2019 and\nnevertheless have continued to exist. We may gather from the Tel\nel-Amarna tablets that such an occurrence actually took place at the\nclose of the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty, and one of the cities of\nsouthern Canaan taken by Ramses II. was Shalama or Salem. But if so,\nthere could have been no massacre of the population and burning of the\ntown; the passages of the Old Testament which describe the Jebusites as\nliving uninterruptedly in their city are too clear and definite to admit\nof such a supposition. On the contrary, the Jebusites lived in peace and\nharmony along with both Jews and Benjamites; and were it not for the\nwords of the Levite (Judg. xix. 11), that Jerusalem was still \u2018the city\nof a stranger,\u2019 we could well believe that the fate which overtook it in\nthe time of David had been anticipated in an earlier century. But\nneither Benjamin nor Judah could \u2018drive out the Jebusites that\ninhabited\u2019 the great fortress-city of Southern Palestine.\n\nThe rise of Judah dated from the overthrow of Adoni-bezek, \u2018Afterwards,\u2019\nwe read, \u2018the children of Judah went down to fight against the\nCanaanites that dwelt in the mountain, and in the Negeb of the south,\nand in the plain.\u2019 It was all long subsequent to the death both of\nJoshua and of Caleb. The last survivors of the first attempt to\npenetrate into that part of Canaan had passed away before it at last\nfell\u2014if only partially\u2014into Israelitish hands. The first dreams of\nconquest had long since made way for a sober and disappointing reality.\nCanaan had proved for Israel a more difficult prize to secure than\nBritain proved for the Saxons. It was only in the mountains and a few\nisolated cities that the invaders succeeded in holding their own.\nElsewhere the walls and chariots of the Canaanites kept them at bay,\nwhile the strongholds of the Philistines and Ph\u0153nicians barred them from\nthe coast. The children of Israel were compelled to dwell \u2018among the\nCanaanites, Hittites, and Amorites, and Perizzites, and Hivites, and\nJebusites,\u2019 and there was little cause for wonder that \u2018they took their\ndaughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons, and\nserved their gods\u2019 (Judg. iii. 5, 6).\n\nBefore Joshua died the tabernacle was set up at Shiloh, on the slopes of\nMount Ephraim, in the heart of the newly-conquered land. That the\ncentral sanctuary should thus be under the protection of Ephraim was a\ntoken that \u2018the house of Joseph\u2019 was paramount among the tribes of\nIsrael. A further token was the burial of the mummy of Joseph at\nShechem. Here, too, at Shechem were the two mountains Ebal and Gerizim,\non which the curses and the blessings of the Law had been ordered to be\npronounced. History has left no record of the conquest of the place, and\nthe name of the king of Shechem is not even found in the list of the\nkings vanquished by Joshua. But the city must have fallen during the\nearly period of the invasion, and the narrative in Josh. viii. 33 would\nimply that its capture followed closely upon the destruction of Ai.\n\nWe may gather from the silence of history that there was neither siege\nnor massacre to make an impression on the memory of posterity. And the\ninference is confirmed by what we know of the subsequent history of\nShechem. In the time of Gideon and Abimelech its population was still\nhalf-Amorite (Judg. ix. 28). As at Jerusalem, the older inhabitants\ncannot have been destroyed or driven out. Like the Gibeonites, they must\nhave made terms with the invaders, or mixed peaceably with them in the\ncourse of years.\n\nAt the outset, however, Shechem would have been the capital of Ephraim.\nHere was the sepulchre of the founder of \u2018the house of Joseph,\u2019 here\nwere the two sacred mountains of the Law, and here, too, it was that\nJoshua gathered the people together to hear his last words. Like Moses\nat Sinai and Kadesh-barnea, \u2018Joshua made a covenant with the people ...\nand set them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem. And Joshua wrote\nthese words in the book of the Law of God, and took a great stone, and\nset it up there under the terebinth that was in the sanctuary of the\nLord.\u2019 Here, therefore, was the local sanctuary of Ephraim, separate\nfrom the central one at Shiloh, and a sacred terebinth stood within its\nprecincts. Criticism finds no reason to doubt that \u2018the great stone\u2019\nspoken of in the text was actually set up, like a \u2018Beth-el,\u2019 under the\nshadow of the tree, and it is hard to see why it should be more\nsceptical towards the further statement that the covenant which the\nstone commemorated was written by Joshua \u2018in the book of the Law of\nGod.\u2019\n\nWhile Shechem was thus the local sanctuary of Ephraim, the tribes east\nof the Jordan had consecrated a \u2018great altar\u2019 of their own on the banks\nof the river. The altar was the occasion of a dispute between the two\nbranches of the house of Israel, which nearly resulted in war. But the\ndanger was averted through the mediation of the priests; and although\nthe tribes east and west of the Jordan necessarily had different\ninterests, it was long ere this led to open hostility, or even to\nforgetfulness of their common ancestry and common God. Deborah\nreproaches Reuben and Gilead for having stood aloof while Zebulon and\nNaphtali were hazarding their lives in the field, and the son of Gideon\nhad his kingdom on the eastern side of the Jordan.\n\nJoshua was buried at Timnath-serah or Timnath-heres[278] in Mount\nEphraim, in a piece of ground which had become the property of himself\nand his family. The Israelites of a later day looked back upon his\nmemory with gratitude and veneration; he had been the hero who had\nsucceeded in doing what Moses had failed to accomplish, and had led his\npeople into the Promised Land. But history judges somewhat differently.\nHe was not a lawgiver or a leader of men like Moses, and even from a\nmilitary point of view the conquest of the Amorite kingdoms of Sihon and\nOg was a greater achievement than securing a foothold in the mountains\nof central Palestine. Joshua was not the conqueror of Canaan, as the\npious imagination of a later age supposed him to be: he merely opened\nthe way to it. He taught the Israelites how to defeat the Canaanites,\nand he succeeded in destroying a few of their cities. But that was all;\nand the wholesale massacres which marked his progress, the wanton\ndestruction of everything which could not be carried away as spoil, and\nthe barbaric extermination of the elements of culture, find their match\nonly in the sanguinary campaigns of some of the Assyrian kings and the\nSaxon invasion of Britain.\n\nFootnote 255:\n\n  This passage must have been written at a time when Judah had not yet\n  come to occupy a definite place among the tribes in Canaan, and when,\n  as in the Song of Deborah, the territory of Benjamin was regarded as a\n  sort of appendage of that of Ephraim, and as extending as far south as\n  the desert of the Amalekites. (See also Josh. xv. 63.)\n\nFootnote 256:\n\n  Josh. xviii. 22.\n\nFootnote 257:\n\n  Colonel Watson in the _Quarterly Statement_ of the Palestine\n  Exploration Fund, July 1895, pp. 253-261; see also Quatrem\u00e8re,\n  _Histoire des Sultans Mamluks_, ii. p. 26; and Mr. Stevenson in the\n  _Quarterly Statement_ October 1895, pp. 334-338.\n\nFootnote 258:\n\n  The play is on the verb _g\u00e2lal_, \u2018to roll.\u2019 Gilgal, however, means the\n  \u2018circle\u2019 of stones, or \u2018cairn.\u2019 Moreover, the Egyptians were\n  circumcised, so that uncircumcision could not correctly be called \u2018the\n  reproach of Egypt.\u2019 Some of the Israelites may have been circumcised\n  at Gilgal, but it is incredible that none of the males born in the\n  desert had been so. This would have been a flagrant violation of the\n  Mosaic law (see Lev. xii. 3; Gen. xvii. 14).\n\nFootnote 259:\n\n  The tongue-like wedge of gold finds its parallel in six tongue-like\n  wedges of silver discovered by Dr. Schliemann in the \u2018Third\n  prehistoric City\u2019 of Hissarlik or Troy, and figured by him in _Ilios_,\n  pp. 470-472. Mr. Barclay V. Head has shown that they each represent\n  the third of a Babylonian maneh.\n\nFootnote 260:\n\n  See my _Races of the Old Testament_, pp. 75-77; _Quarterly Statement_\n  of the Palestine Exploration Fund, July 1876 and July 1877.\n\nFootnote 261:\n\n  Gezer was similarly laid under tribute by Ephraim (Josh. xvi. 10).\n\nFootnote 262:\n\n  The Septuagint has Elam instead of Hoham, from which we may perhaps\n  infer that the older reading of the Hebrew text was Yeho-ham. If so,\n  we should have an example of the use of the name of the national God\n  of Israel among the Hebronites. The substitution of El for Yeho would\n  be parallel to the fact that in the inscriptions of the Assyrian king\n  Sargon the contemporary king of Hamath is called both Yahu-bihdi and\n  Ilu-bihdi. Cf. also Joram and Hado-ram (2 Sam. viii. 10; 1 Chron.\n  xviii. 10). Piram resembles the Egyptian Pi-Romi; the name was also\n  Karian (Sayce, _The Karian Language and Inscriptions_ in the\n  _Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology_, ix. 1, No. ii.\n  3). The Jarmuth of which Piram was king cannot be the same as the\n  Yarimuta of the Tel el-Amarna tablets, as that seems to have been in\n  the north, though Karl Niebuhr makes it the Delta. For Piram the\n  Septuagint has Phid\u00f4n; and it changes Yaphia into Jephthah and Eglon\n  into Adullam.\n\nFootnote 263:\n\n  See Flinders Petrie, _Tell el-Hesy (Lachish)_ (1891) and Bliss, _A\n  Mound of Many Cities_.\n\nFootnote 264:\n\n  For Horam the Septuagint again has Elam. Perhaps the original reading\n  was Yehoram. There is no ground for supposing that Hoham of Hebron and\n  Horam of Gezer are one and the same.\n\nFootnote 265:\n\n  It is called Huzar in the list of the conquests of Thothmes III. at\n  Karnak, where it follows Liusa or Laish, and precedes Pahil,\n  identified with Pella by Mr. Tomkins, and Kinnertu or Chinnereth.\n\nFootnote 266:\n\n  _Records of the Past_, new ser., v. p. 89.\n\nFootnote 267:\n\n  _Records of the Past_, new ser., v. p. 44, No. 18.\n\nFootnote 268:\n\n  See also Josh. xi. 2.\n\nFootnote 269:\n\n  Josh. xii. 21-24. Probably the kings of Tappuah, Hepher, Aphek, and\n  Sharon are to be included in the confederacy (verses 17, 18). We do\n  not know where Tappuah was (though it is usually placed in the Wadi\n  el-Afranj; G. A. Smith, _Hist. Geog. of the Holy Land_, p. 202).\n  Hepher can hardly be the southern Hepher referred to in 1 Kings iv.\n  10, but is probably Gath-Hepher west of the Sea of Galilee. Aphek (1\n  Sam. xxix. 1) was a few miles to the south of it, and the plain of\n  Sharon began at Dor. Cf., however, Beth-Tappuah (in the Wadi\n  el-Afranj) and Aphekah near Hebron, in Judah (Josh. xv. 53).\n\nFootnote 270:\n\n  In Josh. xi. 3, \u2018the land of Mizpeh\u2019 is said to include \u2018the\n  Hittite\u2019\u2014so we should probably read instead of \u2018Hivite\u2019\u2014\u2018under\n  Hermon.\u2019\n\nFootnote 271:\n\n  The main body of the Kenites, however, who, like \u2018the children of\n  Judah,\u2019 had settled in the neighbourhood of Jericho after its capture,\n  moved afterwards into the desert south of Arad (Judg. i. 16; 1 Sam.\n  xv. 6), and lived here along with a portion of the tribe of Judah.\n\nFootnote 272:\n\n  Beth-lehem has been supposed to have been the original headquarters of\n  the tribe, as it is called Beth-lehem-Judah (xix. 1). But this was\n  merely to distinguish it from another Beth-lehem in Zebulon.\n\nFootnote 273:\n\n  Thus, in a despatch sent to one of the later Assyrian kings, the\n  writer says, \u2018I am a dog, a dog of the king his lord\u2019 (Harper,\n  _Assyrian and Babylonian Letters_, iv. p. 460).\n\nFootnote 274:\n\n  Josh. xv. 49. In one of the Tel el-Amarna tablets Ebed-Tob of\n  Jerusalem, when referring to the Khabiri or \u2018Hebronites,\u2019 speaks of\n  Bit-S\u00e2ni, which may be the Kirjath-Sannah of the Old Testament.\n  Winckler (_Tell el-Amarna Letters_, 185) has given a wrong translation\n  of the passage, which is partly based on an incorrect copy of the\n  text. The translation should be, \u2018Behold Gath-Carmel has fallen to\n  Tagi and the men of Gath. He is in Bit-S\u00e2ni, and we will bring it\n  about that they give Labai and the land of the Sut\u00ea (Bed\u00e2win) to the\n  district of the Khabiri.\u2019\n\nFootnote 275:\n\n  The determinative of \u2018writing\u2019 is attached to the word Sopher, showing\n  that the Egyptian scribe was acquainted with its meaning. The name of\n  Beth-Sopher (_Baitha-Thupar_) was first deciphered on the papyrus by\n  Dr. W. Max M\u00fcller, and published in his _Asien und Europa_.\n\nFootnote 276:\n\n  Not the pluperfect, as in the Authorised Version.\n\nFootnote 277:\n\n  See above, p. 247.\n\nFootnote 278:\n\n  The latter reading (Judg. ii. 9) is probably the more correct. The\n  name of Timnath-heres, \u2018the portion of the Sun-god,\u2019 may have been\n  changed to Timnath-serah, \u2018the portion of abundance,\u2019 on account of\n  its idolatrous associations. Perhaps it is the modern Kafr H\u00e2ris, nine\n  miles south of Shechem.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER V\n                         THE AGE OF THE JUDGES\n\n\n    The Condition of Israel\u2014The Destruction of the Benjamites\u2014Story of\n    Micah and the Conquest of Dan\u2014Chushan-rishathaim- and Ramses\n    III.\u2014Office of Judge\u2014Eglon of Moab\u2014The Philistines\u2014Deborah and\n    Barak\u2014Sisera and the Hittites\u2014The Song of Deborah\u2014Gideon\u2014Kingdom of\n    Abimelech\u2014Jephthah\u2014Sacrifice of his Daughter\u2014Defeat and Slaughter of\n    the Ephraimites\u2014Samson\u2014Historical Character of the Book of Judges.\n\n\nIsrael has at last forced its way into the Promised Land. Mount Ephraim\nis in its hands, and it has already planted itself in other parts of\nPalestine. Joshua, the leader who taught it how to cross the Jordan and\ndefeat the princes of Canaan, is dead. The age of wandering is over; the\nage of settlement has begun.\n\nBut the age of settlement was a stormy one. The Canaanites were but\npartially subdued; the Israelites themselves were little better than a\ncollection of raiding bands. They had brought with them, moreover, the\nnomadic habits of the desert, and were but little inclined to rebuild\nthe cities which they had so ruthlessly destroyed. And in almost every\ndirection they were encircled by enemies, better organised, better\narmed, or more numerous than themselves, who from time to time succeeded\nin overrunning their fields and reducing them to subjection. The tribes\nwho had dreamed of conquering Canaan found themselves, instead, the prey\nof others.\n\nIt was a period of anarchy and perpetual war. Without a head, and\nwithout cohesion, it seems strange that they did not perish utterly or\nbecome absorbed by the older population of the land. That the nation\nshould have survived admits of only one explanation. It possessed a\ncommon faith, a common sanctuary, and a common code of sacred laws. As\nin Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire the Church preserved the\nfabric of society, and eventually brought order out of chaos, so, too,\nin ancient Israel, the nation owed its continued existence to the law\nwhich had been given by Moses. Only the iron fetters of a written law,\nwith its organised priesthood and sanctions, and, above all, the\nknowledge that it existed, could have prevented the process of political\nand social disintegration from rapidly running its course. Had the\nreligion of Israel been merely that result of evolution which is dreamed\nof by some modern writers, and the law of Moses the invention of a later\nage, there would have been no Israel in which a religion could have\ndeveloped, or a code of laws have been compiled. The outward unity of\nthe tribes in Egypt and the desert was shattered by the settlement in\nCanaan, and all that remained was the inward and religious unity that\nhad been forced upon them by the genius of an individual legislator. The\nplace of the political head and leader was supplied by the organised\ncult and elaborate code of laws which he had bequeathed to the nation.\nTo all external appearance, indeed, Israel had ceased to be a nation,\nand had been reduced to a scattered and anarchical collection of\nmarauding tribes; but the elements which could again bind them together\nstill existed\u2014the belief in the same national God, the rites with which\nHe was worshipped, and the priesthood and sanctuary where the tradition\nof the law was preserved.\n\nThat this is no imaginary picture is proved by the Song of Deborah. The\nSong is admitted by the most sceptical of critics to belong to the age\nto which it is assigned, and consequently to reflect the ideas of the\nIsraelite shortly after the settlement in Canaan. No composition of the\nExilic period could be more uncompromising in its monotheism, and its\nassertion that Yahveh alone is the God of Israel. And the Song further\nassumes that the tribes of Israel, disunited though they otherwise may\nbe, are nevertheless bound together by a common faith in the one\nnational God. Nor is this all. Israel still possesses, even among its\nnorthern tribes, \u2018legislators\u2019 like Moses, and scribes who handle the\npen (Judg. v. 14). Writing, therefore, is still known and practised even\namong a people so oppressed by their enemies that \u2018the highways were\nunoccupied,\u2019 and the fellahin of the villages had ceased to exist. Laws,\ntoo, were still promulgated in continuation of the laws of Moses, and\nthe people of Israel are \u2018the people of the Lord.\u2019\n\nAnd yet there was another side to the picture. While Zebulon and\nNaphtali were hazarding \u2018their lives unto the death\u2019 \u2018on behalf of\nYahveh,\u2019 there were tribes and cities which forgot their duty to their\nGod and their brethren, and \u2018came not to the help of the Lord.\u2019 Such was\nthe case with the inhabitants of Meroz; such, too, was the conduct of\nReuben and Gilead, of Dan and Asher. The description given by the\ncompiler of the Book of Judges of the condition of the tribes after the\ndeath of Joshua cannot be far from the truth. They were planted in the\nmidst of enemies whom they had found too strong to be destroyed or\ndriven out. On all sides of them were \u2018the Philistines, and all the\nCanaanites, and the Sidonians, and the Hittites that dwelt in Mount\nLebanon from Mount Baal-Hermon unto the entering in of Hamath.\u2019[279]\n\u2018And the children of Israel,\u2019 we are told, dwelt among them, and \u2018took\ntheir daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their\nsons, and served their gods. And the children of Israel did evil in the\nsight of the Lord, and forgot the Lord their God and served the Baals\nand the Ash\u00earahs.\u2019[280] Even more expressive are the words with which\nthe Book of Judges ends: \u2018In those days there was no king in Israel;\nevery man did that which was right in his own eyes.\u2019 It was an age of\nindividual lawlessness; the bands of society were unloosed, and none was\nstrong enough to lead and control. Outside the influence of the\nrepresentatives of the Mosaic law there was neither curb nor order.\n\nTwo incidents have been recorded which throw a lurid light on the\nmanners and character of the age which immediately followed the\nsettlement in Canaan. In one of them we hear of a Levite of Mount\nEphraim \u2018who took to him a concubine out of Beth-lehem in Judah.\u2019\nPhinehas, the grandson of Aaron, had succeeded his father Eleazar as\nhigh-priest at Shiloh (Judg. xx. 28), where \u2018the ark of the covenant\u2019\nhad been placed. The concubine proved unfaithful to the Levite, and\neventually fled to her father\u2019s house in Beth-lehem. Thither the Levite\nfollowed her, and persuaded her to return with him to his home. The\nwoman\u2019s father, however, highly pleased at the reconciliation, continued\nto press his hospitality upon his guest, and it was not until the\nafternoon of the fifth day that the Levite succeeded in getting away.\nThe evening soon fell upon him, and, rejecting the advice of his slave\nthat he should spend the night in Jerusalem, on the ground that it was\n\u2018the city of a stranger,\u2019 he pressed on with his concubine to Gibeah,\nwhich belonged to Benjamin. It had been better for him, however, to have\nsought hospitality from \u2018the stranger\u2019 rather than from his own people;\nfor, in spite of the fact that he had with him food in plenty both for\nhimself and for his asses, he was left to spend the night in the street.\nBut at the last moment an old man, who was not a native of Gibeah, came\nin from his work in the fields, and seeing the Levite in the street,\nasked him and his companions into the house. While they were eating and\ndrinking, the rabble gathered about the house and demanded that the man\nshould be brought out to them that they might \u2018know him.\u2019 It was a\nrepetition of the scene enacted in Sodom when the angels visited the\nhouse of Lot, with the difference that the actors were Israelites\ninstead of Canaanites, whom the Hebrews had been called upon to destroy\nfor their sins. In vain \u2018the master of the house\u2019 intreated his\nfellow-townsmen not to act \u2018so wickedly,\u2019 offering them his own daughter\nas well as his guest\u2019s concubine in place of the guest himself. Finally,\nhowever, they were satisfied with the unfortunate concubine, whom they\n\u2018abused\u2019 all night, and then left dead on the doorstep of the house. The\nfirst thing \u2018her lord\u2019 saw when he opened the door in the morning was\nthe woman\u2019s corpse. This he placed on his ass and carried to his home,\nwhere he divided it into twelve pieces, which he sent \u2018into all the\ncoasts of Israel.\u2019[281] The horror of the deed, or perhaps of the\nvisible proofs with which it was announced, aroused the Israelites, and\nthey demanded the punishment of the guilty. The crime had been committed\nagainst a Levite, whose brethren were to be found wherever the\nIsraelites were settled, and who had on his side the priesthood of the\ncentral sanctuary at Shiloh. He was, too, a Levite of Mount Ephraim, and\nthe sympathy of the powerful tribe of Ephraim was accordingly assured to\nhim. The Benjamites, however, refused to hand over their\nfellow-tribesman to justice, and the result was an inter-fraternal war.\nBefore the tribes had conquered half the country which had been promised\nthem, they were already fighting among themselves.\n\nThe Benjamites at first were successful, and their opponents were\ndefeated with considerable slaughter in two successive battles. Then\nthey fell into an ambuscade: the main body of their troops being drawn\naway after the retreating enemy towards the north, while an ambush rose\nup from \u2018the meadows of Gibeah\u2019 in their rear, and set fire to the city.\nThe retreating foe now turned back; and the Benjamites, enclosed as it\nwere between two fires, were cut to pieces almost to a man. Six hundred\nonly escaped \u2018towards the wilderness unto the rock of Rimmon,\u2019 where\nthey maintained themselves for four months. Meanwhile \u2018the men of\nIsrael\u2019 treated their Benjamite brethren like Canaanitish outcasts,\nsmiting \u2018them with the edge of the sword, from the men of each city even\nunto the beasts and all that was found; and all the cities they came to\ndid they set on fire.\u2019\n\nBenjamin was almost exterminated. A few men alone survived. But at the\noutset of the war they had been placed under the same ban as the\nCanaanites, and a solemn vow had been made that no Israelitish woman\nshould be married to them. When peace was restored with the practical\nannihilation of the guilty tribe, the prohibition was evaded by a\nstratagem, which, however inconsequent it may appear to the European of\nto-day, was fully in keeping with the ideas of the ancient East.\nJabesh-Gilead had refused to take part in the war against Benjamin, and\nthe victors accordingly resolved to take summary vengeance upon it. The\ncity was taken by surprise, and every male in it massacred in cold\nblood, as well as \u2018every woman that had lain by man.\u2019 About four hundred\nunmarried maidens were carried off to Shiloh, and there forcibly married\nto the surviving Benjamites. But even these did not suffice, and the\nBenjamite youths were consequently encouraged to hide in the vineyards\nnear Shiloh, and there capture and make wives of the maidens of the\nplace who came out to dance at the yearly \u2018feast of the Lord.\u2019 The\nplace, we are told, was northward of Beth-el, \u2018on the east side of the\nhighway that goeth up from Beth-el to Shechem, and on the south of\nLebonah.\u2019\n\nRecent critics have seen in this story merely a popular legend intended\nto account for the fact that marriage by capture was practised among the\nBenjamites. We might just as well assert that the story of Gunpowder\nPlot is a legend which has grown out of the customs of the 5th of\nNovember. The critics have not even the justification that marriage by\ncapture was common among the Israelites. In fact, this is the only\ninstance of it which we meet with in the Old Testament history of\nIsrael\u2014an instance so exceptional as to be inexplicable unless it had\noriginated under special circumstances. It was certainly not the\nsurvival of an earlier custom common to the rest of the tribes, nor is\nthere any trace of its having been general in the tribe of Benjamin\nitself. In fact, we look in vain for any other example of it alike among\nIsraelites and Canaanites, or even among the Benjamites in any other\nperiod of their history.\n\nIt is true, however, that the account of the war between Benjamin and\nits brother tribes has passed through the magnifying lenses of later\nhistory. The exaggerated numbers of the combatants and the slain, like\nthe use of the universal \u2018all\u2019 and \u2018every\u2019 where the partial \u2018some\u2019 is\nintended, are in thorough accordance with Oriental habits of expression.\nThe modern resident in the East is only too familiar with such\nexaggerations of language, and in studying Oriental history due\nallowance must always be made for them. In the account of the war,\nmoreover, its real character has been somewhat obscured. Benjamin has\nbeen regarded too much as a separate entity, distinct and cut off from\nthe rest of Israel, rather than as the tribe which had once gathered\nround the sanctuary of Beth-On, and which continued to form the\n\u2018southern\u2019 frontier of the house of Joseph. The war against Benjamin, in\nfact, was like the war against Jabesh-Gilead\u2014a quarrel not with a tribe,\nbut with certain Israelitish cities. It is even possible that in this\nquarrel Jabesh-Gilead was from the beginning associated with Gibeah and\nthe other cities of Benjamin. At all events, we find it so allied in the\nage of Saul. Saul\u2019s first act as king was to rescue Jabesh-Gilead from\nthe Ammonites, and it was the men of Jabesh-Gilead who took down the\nbodies of Saul and Jonathan from the walls of Beth-Shan and gave them\nhonourable burial.[282]\n\nThe second incident, which tells us something of the manners of Israel\nin the years that immediately followed the invasion of Palestine, is\nrecorded in language which has been little, if at all, altered by the\ncompiler of the Book of Judges. The gruesome horror of the story of the\nLevite\u2019s concubine is absent from it, but it equally shows how far from\nthe truth is the idyllic picture sometimes painted of the first\nIsraelitish conquerors of Canaan. It is again a Levite who is the\ncentral personage of the story. An Ephraimite named Micah, we are told,\nstole eleven hundred shekels of silver from his mother, but, terrified\nby her imprecations upon the thief, confessed the deed and restored the\nmoney. His mother thereupon informed him that the treasure had been\ndedicated to Yahveh by her on his behalf, in order that a graven and a\nmolten image might be made out of it for him. Two hundred of the shekels\nwere accordingly taken, and the silver employed to make the images.\nThese were set up in the house of Micah, along with \u2018an ephod and\nteraphim,\u2019 and one of his sons was consecrated as priest. This, however,\nwas recognised as contrary to the law, and when therefore a wandering\nLevite from Beth-lehem, \u2018of the family of Judah,\u2019 came seeking\nemployment, he was welcomed by Micah, who asked him if he would be his\npriest. His wages for undertaking the office were to be ten shekels of\nsilver each year, as well as \u2018a suit of apparel\u2019 and food. The terms\nwere accepted, and \u2018Micah consecrated\u2019 him his priest. The provisions of\nthe Mosaic law had been satisfied, and the Ephraimite complacently\nremarked, \u2018Now know I that the Lord will do me good, seeing I have a\nLevite to my priest.\u2019\n\nHis complacency, however, was of no long duration. The Danites, unable\nto establish themselves in the south of Canaan, sent out five spies from\ntheir camp near Kirjath-jearim[283] who on their way northward were\nhospitably received in Micah\u2019s house. Here they found the Levite, with\nwhom, it would appear, they had been previously acquainted, and asked\nhim to inquire \u2018of God\u2019 whether their journey would be prosperous or\nnot. The priest\u2019s reply was favourable: \u2018before Yahveh is your way\nwherein you go.\u2019\n\nFar away, to the north of the other Hebrew settlements, the spies found\nthe Ph\u0153nician city of Laish, already mentioned in the geographical lists\nof the Egyptian conqueror Thothmes III. Its inhabitants were living in\npeaceful security, \u2018after the manner of the Zidonians,\u2019 with no one to\ninterfere with them, and no enemy of whom they could be afraid. The\nspies saw at once that the city was unprepared for a sudden attack by\narmed men; that, in short, \u2018God had given it into\u2019 their hands. They\nreturned therefore to Mahaneh-Dan, the Camp of Dan, and reported what\nthey had seen. Thereupon the Danites determined to seize an inheritance\nfor themselves in the north, and six hundred men \u2018girded with weapons of\nwar,\u2019 along with their families and cattle, started for Laish.[284] On\nthe road the spies led them to the house of Micah, whom they robbed of\nhis images, ephod and teraphim, as well as of his priest. The latter at\nfirst protested; but on being told that he would be the priest of \u2018a\ntribe,\u2019 his \u2018heart was glad,\u2019 and \u2018he took the ephod and the teraphim\nand the graven image and went into the midst of the people.\u2019 Micah and\nhis friends on discovering the robbery pursued after the Danites, but\nfinding they were too strong for him he judged it prudent to return\nhome.\n\nThe Danites continued their march, and had little difficulty in\ncapturing the unguarded Laish, in massacring its inhabitants, and\nburning the houses with fire. On the ruins they built a new city, the\nDan of future Israelitish history. Here the graven image of Micah was\nerected, and worship carried on \u2018all the time that the house of God was\nin Shiloh.\u2019 The Levite who presided over the sanctuary became the\nancestor of a long line of priests who continued to be \u2018priests to the\ntribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land.\u2019[285] The\ncompiler of the Book of Judges adds that his name was Jonathan, the\ngrandson of Moses, whose name has been changed to Manasseh in the\nmajority of Hebrew manuscripts.[286] The statement fixes the date of the\nconquest of Laish, and shows that, like the war against Benjamin, it\ntook place only two generations after the great legislator\u2019s death.\n\nThe picture presented to us by the narrative stands in sharp contrast to\nthe ideal aimed at in the legislation of the Pentateuch. The golden calf\nhas been revived in an intensified form, and the ordinary Israelite,\nincluding a Levite who was the grandson of Moses, takes it for granted\nthat Yahveh must be adored in the shape of a twofold idol. Nay, more; by\nthe side of the graven and molten images which were meant to represent\nthe God of Israel in defiance of the second commandment, we find also\nthe images of the household gods or teraphim, whose cult forms part of\nthat which was paid to the national deity. The cult, in fact, survived\nto the latest days of the northern kingdom; it was practised in the\nhousehold of David (1 Sam. xix. 13), and is even regarded by a prophet\nof Samaria as an integral portion of the established religion of the\nstate (Hos. iii. 4). The priestly powers of the Levite, however,\nsuffered in no way from the idolatrous nature of the worship over which\nhe presided. Like David in a later age (1 Sam. xxiii. 2, 4, 9, xxx. 8; 2\nSam. v. 19, 23) when the men of Dan inquired through him whether their\njourney would be successful, he was able to answer them in the name of\nthe Lord.\n\nBut this is not all. Micah, the Ephraimite, consecrates his own son as\npriest, while the Levite wanders through the land, seeking employment\nand begging his bread. There is no endowment that is his by right; no\nLevitical city where he can claim a shelter and a field; no central\nsanctuary where his services are required. He is said to be \u2018of the\nfamily of Judah,\u2019 not a descendant of Levi, though the compiler implies\nthat the expression must not be understood in a literal sense. And the\npriesthood which he established at Dan continued to be a rival of that\nof \u2018the sons of Aaron\u2019 through nearly five centuries of Israelitish\nnational life.\n\nCriticism has drawn the conclusion that the Pentateuchal legislation\ncould not have been in existence at the time when the city of Laish was\ntaken by the tribe of Dan. The conclusion, however, by no means follows.\nIt is quite certain that it was not drawn by the compiler of the Book of\nJudges, who has preserved the narrative for us; and, after all, he is\nmore likely to have understood the ideas and feelings of the Israelites\nof an earlier generation than is a European critic of the nineteenth\ncentury. In fact, he has given us an explanation of the contradiction\nbetween the Mosaic law and early Israelitish practice, which not only\nsatisfies all the conditions of the problem, but is on the whole more\nprobable than the rough-and-ready solution of modern criticism. Israel\nin Canaan in the first throes of the invasion was a very different\nIsrael from that which had lived in the desert under the immediate\ncontrol and superintendence of the legislator. It was disorganised, it\nwas lawless, it was broken up into fragments which were surrounded on\nall sides by an alien population whose superior culture and wealth, when\nit could not be seized or destroyed, necessarily exercised a profound\ninfluence over the ruder tribes of marauders from the desert. The\nIsraelites inevitably fell under the spell; they intermarried with the\nnatives, and adopted their gods and religious ideas.\n\nThe proof that this is the true explanation of the disregard or\nforgetfulness of the Mosaic law which characterised the age of the\nJudges is furnished by the fact that this disregard or forgetfulness was\nnot universal. Throughout the age of the Judges Israel possessed a\ncentral sanctuary, little though it seems to have been frequented, and\nin this central sanctuary the worship of Yahveh was conducted by \u2018the\nsons of Aaron,\u2019 who kept alive the memory of the legislation in the\nwilderness. At Shiloh there was no image, whether graven or molten, no\nfigures of the teraphim, no idolatrous rites. Instead of an image there\nwas the ark of the covenant, with nothing within it except the tables of\nthe law.[287] Shiloh was the only place in Israel where the Pentateuchal\nenactments could be observed, and it is only at Shiloh that we find them\nto have been so.\n\nBut the influence of Shiloh did not extend far. It did not even become\nthe central sanctuary of Ephraim. The history of Micah is alone\nsufficient to prove this. Ephraimite as he was, Shiloh and its\npriesthood had no existence for him; his gods and his priests were part\nof his own household. Equally conclusive is the history of Gideon.\n\nThe ephod after which Israel went \u2018a whoring,\u2019 was not dedicated at\nShiloh but at Ophrah, a few miles to the north; and Baal-berith in the\nEphraimitish city of Shechem had more worshippers than Yahveh of Shiloh.\nJust as the spirit of Judaism was kept alive in the age of the Maccabees\namong a small remnant of the people, amid the obscurity of a country\ntown, so in the time of the Judges the spirit of the law was preserved\namong the mountains of Ephraim in the midst of an insignificant body of\npriests.\n\nIt was not only with the Canaanites and with its own internal\ndisorganisation and dissensions that the infant nation of Israel was\ncalled upon to contend. Foreign invasion followed quickly on the\nsettlement in Palestine. We have learnt from the tablets of Tel\nel-Amarna that already before the days of the Exodus the kings of\nMesopotamia had cast longing eyes upon Canaan. To the Semites of the\nwest Mesopotamia was known as Naharaim, or Aram Naharaim, \u2018Aram of the\nTwo Rivers,\u2019 the Euphrates and Tigris, and the name was borrowed by the\nEgyptians under its Aramaic form of Naharain or Nahrina.[288] The\nleading state of Mesopotamia had for some centuries been Mitanni, on the\neastern bank of the Euphrates, not far from Carchemish, and the rulers\nof Mitanni had made themselves masters not only of the district between\nthe Euphrates and the Tigris, but also of the country westward to the\nOrontes. In the age of the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty Mitanni was the\nmost powerful of the Asiatic kingdoms, and the Pharaohs themselves did\nnot disdain to unite their solar blood with that of its royal family.\n\nFrom time to time, the Tel el-Amarna correspondence teaches us, the\nprinces of Mitanni had interfered in the affairs of Palestine.\nRib-Hadad, the governor of Ph\u0153nicia, declares that \u2018from of old\u2019 the\nkings of Mitanni had been hostile to the ancestors of the Pharaoh, and\nhis letters are filled with complaints that the Amorites to the north of\nPalestine had revolted against Egypt with the help of Mitanni and\nBabylonia. Ebed-Tob of Jerusalem, who uses the name Nahrina or Naharain\nlike the writers of the Old Testament, refers to the struggles that had\ntaken place on the waters of the Mediterranean when Nahrina and\nBabylonia held possession of Canaan. \u2018When the ships,\u2019 he says, \u2018were on\nthe sea, the arm of the Mighty King (the god of Jerusalem) overcame\nNahrima and Babylonia; yet now the Khabiri have overcome the cities of\nthe king\u2019 (of Egypt in Southern Palestine).[289]\n\nIt was not the last time that Mitanni and Egypt were ranged on opposite\nsides. Ramses II. claims to have defeated the forces of Mitanni, and the\nname of the same country appears among the conquests of Ramses III. of\nthe twentieth dynasty.[290] It is coupled with Carchemish the Hittite\ncapital among the kingdoms over which the last of the conquering\nPharaohs had gained a victory. In the great struggle which Egypt had to\nface against the Philistines and other piratic hordes from the Greek\nseas, the northern invaders had carried with them in their train\ncontingents from the various peoples of Northern Syria through whose\nlands they had passed. The Hittites and Amorites, the inhabitants of\nCarchemish and Arvad, even the people of Elishah or Cyprus, joined the\ninvaders of Egypt, and among the captured leaders of the enemy recorded\non the walls of Medinet Habu are the kings of the Hittites and Amorites.\nThe king of Mitanni, however, is wanting; enemy though he was of the\nPharaoh, he never ventured into Egypt, and his name therefore does not\nappear among the conquered chiefs. All that the Pharaoh could do was to\ninclude the name of his kingdom among those whose forces he had\noverthrown.[291]\n\nThe reign of Ramses III. brings us to the moment when the Israelites\nunder Joshua were about to enter Canaan. Egypt had annihilated the\nenemies who had invaded it, and had carried a war of vengeance into\nPalestine and Syria. The Israelite had not as yet crossed the Jordan.\nAmong the places in Southern Palestine subdued by Ramses are Beth-Anoth\n(Josh. xv. 59), Carmel of Judah, Hebron, Ir-Shemesh, Hadashah (Josh. xv.\n37), Shalam or Jerusalem, the districts of the Dead Sea and the Jordan,\neven Korkha in the land of Moab.[292] There is as yet no trace of\nIsrael, and Hebron had not as yet become the spoil of the Kenizzite.\n\nThe chronology, however, makes it certain that though the Israelites had\nnot entered Palestine at the time of the Egyptian campaign in that\ncountry, it could not have been very long before they actually did so.\nThe campaign of Ramses III., in fact, prepared the way for the\nIsraelitish invasion by weakening the forces of the Canaanites. In any\ncase, the victory over the northern nations and their allies,\ncommemorated in the temple of Medinet Habu, must have taken place only a\nfew years before the Israelitish conquest of southern Canaan.[293]\n\nThe king of Mitanni was numbered among the enemies of Egypt;\nnevertheless he had not joined the invading hordes in their attack upon\nthe valley of the Nile. Can it have been that he lingered in what had\nonce been an Egyptian province, that land of Canaan which his\nforefathers had coveted before him? The Egyptian Empire had fallen, the\nvery existence of Egypt itself was at stake, and the favourable\nopportunity had come at last when Naharaim might make herself the\nmistress of Western Asia. Babylonia was powerless like Egypt, Assyria\nhad not yet put forth its strength, and the Hittites barred the old road\nwhich had led from Chald\u00e6a to the West.\n\nThe armies of Chushan-rishathaim[294] of Naharaim, accordingly, made\ntheir way through Syria to the southern frontiers of Palestine. They\nwere no longer associated with those of Babylonia, as in the days of\nEbed-Tob; for a short while Naharaim ruled supreme on the eastern coasts\nof the Mediterranean. For eight years both the Canaanites and their\nIsraelite and Kenizzite invaders were forced to submit to its sway. The\nwork of conquest was checked by the stronger hand of the foreign power.\n\nHow soon after the Israelitish settlement in Canaan the invasion of\nChushan-rishathaim must have been is shown by the fact that Othniel, the\nKenizzite, the brother of Caleb, and the conqueror of Kirjath-Sepher,\nwas the hero who \u2018delivered\u2019 Israel from the foreign yoke. How the\ndeliverance was effected we do not know, whether through the death of\nthe king of Naharaim, or through a revolt of the Canaanites and Syrians,\nor whether it was only the Israelitish tribes and not the Canaanitish\ncities to which it came. What is certain is that both the \u2018oppression\u2019\nand the deliverance followed closely on the occupation of Palestine by\nthe Israelites. Caleb belonged to the same generation as Moses and\nJoshua, and though Othniel was his \u2018younger brother,\u2019 he too must be\ncounted in it. Joshua can hardly have been dead before Israel had passed\nunder the yoke of Naharaim.\n\nThe supremacy of Naharaim extended to the southernmost borders of\nPalestine. It was not an Ephraimite who \u2018delivered\u2019 Israel, but the\nEdomite chief at Hebron, where the tribe of Judah had not yet\nestablished itself. The fact is noteworthy: the first of the \u2018Judges\u2019\nwas a Kenizzite of Edomite origin, and the yoke which he shook off was\none which pressed equally upon Israelites and Canaanites. In the very\nact of conquering and exterminating the Canaanites, Israel was forced to\nsympathise and join with them against a common foe.\n\nThe sign which gave Othniel the right to be a _Shoph\u00eat_ or \u2018Judge\u2019 was\ntwofold. \u2018The spirit of Yahveh came upon him,\u2019 and he delivered Israel\nfrom its oppressor. The Shoph\u00eat was thus marked out by Yahveh for his\noffice, and his success in war was a visible token that he had been\ncalled to be the leader of his people. The office was a peculiarly\nCanaanitish institution. When Kingship was abolished at Tyre in the time\nof Nebuchadrezzar, the kings were replaced by \u2018Judges,\u2019 and at Carthage\nthe \u2018Sufetes\u2019 or \u2018Judges\u2019 were the chief magistrates of the state.[295]\nWhether the institution existed elsewhere in the Semitic world we do not\nknow. But it was as it were indigenous to the soil of Canaan, and in\nsubmitting themselves to the rule of the Judges, the Israelites\nsubmitted themselves at the same time to Canaanitish influence. It was a\nstep backward, a step towards absorption into the population around\nthem, and it is therefore not without reason that the period of the\nJudges is a synonym for the period when the religion and manners of\nCanaan were dominant among the Israelitish tribes. The Pentateuch\nrecognised the priest, the lawgiver, and the king; the judge was the\ncreation of an age in which the Baalim seemed to have gained the mastery\nover Yahveh.\n\nThat the first of the Judges should have been of Edomite descent is a\nstriking commentary on what may be termed the catholicity of pre-exilic\nIsrael. It was not race so much as participation in the worship and\nfavour of Yahveh, that gave a right to be included among \u2018the chosen\npeople.\u2019 The ancestress of David was a Moabitess, and the Deuteronomic\nlaw lays down that the children of an Edomite, or even of an Egyptian,\n\u2018shall enter into the congregation of the Lord in their third\ngeneration\u2019 (Deut. xxiii. 7, 8).[296] A \u2018mixed multitude\u2019 accompanied\nthe Israelites in their flight from Egypt, and the Kenites, with whom\nMoses was allied, shared like the Kenizzites in the conquest of Canaan.\nHebron, the future capital of Judah, and a Levitical city, was a\nKenizzite possession, and the Judah of later days was itself a mixture\nof Israelitish and Edomite elements.\n\nHow far the authority of Othniel extended it is difficult to say. But\nthe fact that the enemy, whose yoke he had broken, was an invader from\nthe north makes it probable that his rule was acknowledged in Mount\nEphraim as well as among the northern tribes. That it was also\nacknowledged on the east side of the Jordan there is no proof. Though\nthe Song of Deborah shows that the solidarity of Israel was recognised,\nit also shows that this feeling of a common God and of a common history\nhad but little political effect. The eastern tribes lived apart from\nthose of the west, and the judges whom we hear of as rising among them\nhad purely local powers. Indeed, between Jephthah and the Ephraimites\nthere was internecine war.\n\nThe rule of Othniel could not have lasted long. If he belonged to the\ngeneration which had witnessed the Exodus out of Egypt, he would have\nbeen already an old man at the time of the war with Chushan-rishathaim.\nHardly was he dead before Israel was again under the yoke of an\noppressor. Moab had recovered from its reverses at the hands of the\nAmorites and Israelites, the Reubenites had degenerated into mere\nBed\u00e2win squatters in the wadis of the Arnon,[297] and Eglon, the Moabite\nking, now prepared to possess himself of southern Canaan. Jericho was\nseized, or rather \u2018the city of palm-trees\u2019 which had succeeded to the\nCanaanitish Jericho, and the ford over the Jordan was therefore secure.\nEglon was followed by bands of Amalekite Bed\u00e2win, eager for spoil, like\nthe Sut\u00ea who in the age of the Tel el-Amarna correspondence were hired\nby the rival princes of Canaan in their quarrels with one another. He\nwas also allied with the Ammonites, from which we may infer that the\nIsraelites north of the Arnon, between Moab and Ammon, had been either\nexpelled or brought into subjection.\n\nThe capture of Jericho opened the road to Mount Ephraim to Eglon as it\nhad done a few years previously to Joshua. But the Israelites were\ntreated more mercifully than Joshua had treated the Canaanites. Perhaps\nthey lived in unwalled villages rather than in fortified towns, and\ntheir culture was not high enough to tempt an enemy with the prospect of\na rich booty. At all events we hear of no massacres or burnt cities; the\nIsraelites are laid under tribute, that is all.\n\nFor eighteen years they served Eglon. Then Ehud, the Benjamite, who like\nso many of his tribe was left-handed,[298] was chosen to carry the\nyearly tribute to the conqueror. Eglon was encamped at Gilgal, in the\nvery spot where the Israelitish camp had so long stood, and received the\nenvoys in the upper story of his house, immediately under the roof. When\nthe tribute-bearers had been dismissed, Ehud, who had gone as far as the\nsacred \u2018circle\u2019 of hallowed stones,[299] turned back with the excuse\nthat he had a secret message for the king, which demanded the utmost\nprivacy. Taking advantage of his solitude, Ehud seized his sword with\nhis left hand and plunged it into the body of Eglon, then, locking the\ndoor of the room behind him, he escaped through the columned verandah.\nBefore the murder was discovered he had made his way to Seirath, and\ngathered around him the Israelites of Mount Ephraim. The fords across\nthe Jordan were occupied, and the flying Moabites slain at them to a\nman.\n\nIt would seem that the Moabite \u2018oppression\u2019 did not extend beyond Mount\nEphraim. Ephraim and Benjamin were the tribes who had suffered from it,\nand it was over them accordingly that Ehud was judge. His authority does\nnot appear to have been recognised further to the north or to the south.\n\nIn the south, indeed, there were other enemies to be contended against,\nand there was another hero who had risen up against them. The Edomite\nand Jewish settlers found themselves confronted by those formidable\nsea-robbers who had once dared the whole power of Egypt, and were now\nestablished on the southern coast of Palestine. The Philistines, called\nPulista by the Egyptians, Palast\u00e2 and Pilist\u00e2 by the Assyrians, were\nnew-comers like the Israelites. They had come from Caphtor, which modern\nresearch tends to identify with the island of Krete, and, along with\ntheir kinsfolk the Zakkal, had taken part in the invasion of Egypt by\nthe barbarians of the north at the beginning of the reign of Ramses\nIII.[300] It is the first time that their name is mentioned in the\nEgyptian annals. But the Zakkal, who afterwards settled on the\nCanaanitish coast to the north of them, and whom they resembled in dress\nand features, are mentioned among the invaders against whom Meneptah II.\nhad to contend, and it is therefore possible that the Philistines also\nwere included in the host whose assault upon Egypt seems to have been\nconnected with the Hebrew Exodus. At any rate, at the very moment when\nthe Israelites were making ready to enter Canaan, the Philistines had\nalready possessed themselves of the five cities which guarded its\nsouthern frontier. The date of the conquest can be fixed within a few\nyears. Ramses III. tells us that the barbarians had swept through Syria,\nwhere they had established their camp in the \u2018land of the Amorites\u2019\nnorthward of Canaan. Then they fell upon Egypt partly by land, partly by\nsea. This may be the time when the five cities of Gaza, Ashkelon,\nAshdod, Ekron, and Gath were captured by the Philistines; if so, Gaza\nmust have again become Egyptian after the overthrow of the invading\nhordes, since Ramses III. includes it among the conquests of his\ncampaign in southern Palestine. But it could not have remained long in\nhis hands. The key of Syria, the frontier town which had so long been\ngarrisoned by Egyptian troops, at last ceased to be Egyptian, and became\nPhilistine. Henceforth Egypt was cut off from Asia; \u2018the way of the\nPhilistines\u2019 was guarded by the Philistines themselves.[301]\n\nThe actual occupation of \u2018Philistia\u2019 was doubtless preceded by piratical\ndescents upon the coast. This, in fact, seems to be indicated by the\nstatement in the book of Exodus that the Israelitish fugitives were not\nled by \u2018the way of the Philistines\u2019 lest they should \u2018see war.\u2019 From the\ntime when the northern barbarians first attacked Egypt in the reign of\nMeneptah II. down to the final settlement of the Philistines on the\nSyrian coast after the Asiatic campaign of Ramses III., the conquest of\nthe Canaanitish coast was slowly going on. All the while that the\nIsraelites were in the desert, the Philistines of Caphtor were creating\ntheir new kingdom for themselves. They were one of the \u2018hornets\u2019 which\nYahveh had sent before Israel into the Promised Land. When Judah and\nSimeon eventually took possession of southern Canaan, they found the\nPhilistines too firmly established to be dislodged.[302]\n\nIt was not only from their walled cities in Palestine that the\nPhilistines derived their strength. They were within easy reach of their\nkinsmen in Krete, and fresh supplies of emigrants were doubtless brought\nto them from time to time in Kretan ships. Greek tradition knew of a\ntime when Min\u00f4s, the Kretan king, held command of the sea, and it is\nsaid that the sea between Gaza and Egypt was called \u2018the Ionian.\u2019[303]\nIn the reign of Hezekiah we learn from the Assyrian king Sargon that\nwhen the people of Ashdod deposed their prince the usurper whom they\nplaced on the throne was still a \u2018Greek\u2019 (_Yavani_).\n\nThe features of the Philistine are known to us from the Egyptian\nsculptures. They offer a marked contrast to those of his Semitic\nneighbours. They are, in fact, the features of the typical Greek, with\nstraight nose, high forehead, and thin lips. Like the Zakkal he wears on\nhis head a curious sort of pleated cap, which is fastened round the chin\nby a strap. Besides the cap, and sometimes a cuirass of leather, his\ndress consisted of a kilt, or perhaps a pair of drawers, similar to\nthose depicted on objects of the \u2018Myken\u00e6an\u2019 period, and he was armed\nwith a small round shield with two handles, a spear, and a short but\nbroad sword of bronze. The kilt and arms were the same as those of the\nShardana or Sardinians.[304]\n\nThe Philistines were thus aliens on the soil of Canaan. Their Hebrew\nneighbours stigmatised them as the \u2018uncircumcised,\u2019 and in the\nSeptuagint they are called the Allophyli or \u2018Foreigners.\u2019 But they mixed\nin time with the Avim whom they had displaced.[305] The Amoritish Anakim\nsurvived at Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod (Josh. xi. 22), and Goliath of Gath\nwas reputed one of their descendants. The Philistines borrowed,\nmoreover, numerous words from the Semitic vocabulary, if indeed they did\nnot adopt \u2018the language of Canaan\u2019 altogether. Their five \u2018lords\u2019 took\nthe Semitic title of _seren_, and the supreme god of Gaza was called by\nthe Semitic name of Marna or \u2018Lord.\u2019 Dagon, whose temple stood at Gaza,\nwas a Babylonian god whose name and worship had been brought to the West\nin early days.[306]\n\nThe Israelites soon found that the Philistines were dangerous\nneighbours. From their five strongholds in the south they issued forth\nto plunder and destroy. Judah and Simeon were the first to suffer, while\nsuch parts of the heritage assigned to Dan as had not been annexed to\nEphraim or Benjamin passed into Philistine hands.[307] But the central\nand northern tribes did not escape. We learn from an unpublished\nEgyptian papyrus in the possession of M. Gol\u00e9nischeff that Dor, a little\nto the south of Mount Carmel, had been occupied by the Zakkal, the\nkinsmen of the Philistines, so that the whole coast from Gaza to Carmel\nmay be said to have become Philistine. From hence their raiding parties\npenetrated into the interior, and depopulated the villages of Ephraim\nand Manasseh, of Zebulon and of Naphtali.\n\nSuch at least is the conclusion to be drawn from a comparison of the\nSong of Deborah with the statement that the Shamgar ben Anath, Shamgar\nthe son of Anath, \u2018delivered Israel,\u2019 by slaying six hundred Philistines\nwith an ox-goad. Shamgar, as we gather from the Song, lived but a short\nwhile before Deborah herself, and it was in his days, we further read,\nthat the Israelitish peasantry were almost exterminated by their\nenemies. The Philistine invasion in the time of Samuel was but a\nrepetition of earlier raids.\n\nThe name of Shamgar testifies to the survival of Babylonian influence in\nCanaan. It is the Babylonian Sumgir, while Anath is the Babylonian\ngoddess Anat, the consort of Anu, the god of the sky. In one of the Tel\nel-Amarna tablets two Syrians are referred to, who bear the names of\nBen-Ana and Anat.[308] Does this survival of Babylonian names imply a\nsurvival also of the Babylonian script and language? At all events the\nworship of Babylonian deities still survived, and an Israelite and a\n\u2018judge\u2019 was named after one of them.\n\nDeborah couples with Shamgar the otherwise unknown Jael. The reading is\npossibly corrupt, another name having been assimilated to that of the\nwife of the Kenite. But it is also possible that it is due to a marginal\ngloss which has crept into the text.\n\nHowever this may be, the age of Shamgar overlapped that of the\nprophetess Deborah. \u2018In the days of Shamgar,\u2019 she says, \u2018the highways\nwere unoccupied ... until that I, Deborah, arose\u2014that I arose a mother\nin Israel.\u2019 It was not only from the incursions of the Philistines that\nthe Israelites suffered. In the north the tribes were called upon to\nface a confederacy of the Canaanitish states. It was the last effort of\nCanaan to stem the gradual advance of Israel, and the struggle was\ndecided in the plain of Megiddo, as it had been in the older days of\nEgyptian invasion and conquest.\n\nMegiddo and Taanach were still Canaanitish fortresses; so, too, was\nBeth-shean, in the valley of the Jordan,[309] and the Israelites of\nMount Ephraim were thus cut off from their brethren in the north. Here\nJabin, the king of Hazor, was the dominant Canaanite prince, whose\nstandard was followed by the other \u2018kings of Canaan.\u2019 Twenty years long,\nwe are told, \u2018he mightily oppressed the children of Israel,\u2019 \u2018for he had\nnine hundred chariots of iron.\u2019[310] Two accounts of the \u2018oppression\u2019\nand the war that put an end to it have been handed down, one a prose\nversion, which the compiler of the book of Judges has made part of his\nnarrative, while the other is contained in the song of victory composed\nby Deborah after the overthrow of the foe.\n\nCritics have found discrepancies between the two accounts, and have\nmaintained that where they differ the prose version is unhistorical. In\nthe latter the Canaanitish leader is the king of Hazor, Sisera being his\ngeneral, who \u2018dwelt in Harosheth of the Gentiles,\u2019 whereas in the song\nthere is no mention of Hazor, and Sisera appears as a Canaanitish king.\nMoreover, it is alleged that, according to the Song (v. 12), Barak seems\nto have belonged to the tribe of Issachar, while in the prose narrative\nhe is said to have come from Kadesh of Naphtali, and it is further\nasserted that Hazor had already been taken and destroyed in the time of\nJoshua.\n\nThe author of the book of Judges, however, failed to see the\ndiscrepancies which have been discovered by the modern European critic,\nand he has accordingly set the prose narrative by the side of the Song\nwithout note or comment. As the king of Hazor did not personally take\npart in the battle on the banks of the Kishon, there was no occasion for\nany reference to him in the Song, and that the commander of his army\nshould have been one of his royal allies is surely nothing\nextraordinary. In the Song, Barak is expressly distinguished from \u2018the\nprinces of Issachar,\u2019[311] and the question of the destruction of Hazor\nby Joshua has already been dealt with. It is a gratuitous supposition\nthat the introduction of Jabin into the narrative, and the reference to\nHarosheth, are the inventions of popular legend or interested\nhistorians.\n\nThe prophetess Deborah, the wife of Lapidoth, \u2018judged Israel\u2019 at the\ntime of the war. Her name means \u2018Bee,\u2019 and a connection has been sought\nbetween it and the fact that the priestesses of Apollo at Delphi, of\nD\u00eam\u00eater, of Artemis, and of Kybel\u00ea, were called \u2018bees,\u2019 while the high\npriest of Artemis at Ephesus bore the title of the \u2018king-bee.\u2019[312] We\nmight as well look for a connection between the name of her husband and\nthe \u2018lamps\u2019 of the sanctuary. Deborah \u2018judged Israel\u2019 because she was a\nprophetess, because she was the interpretress of the will of Yahveh,\nwhose spirit breathed within her. The \u2018judgments\u2019 she delivered were\naccordingly the judgments of Yahveh Himself, and the indwelling of His\nspirit was the sign of her claim to the office of \u2018judge.\u2019 We hear of\nother prophetesses in Israel besides Deborah; Huldah, for example, who\nwas consulted by the king and the priests in the reign of Josiah. The\nposition held by the prophetess prevented the Israelitish women from\nsinking into the abject condition of the women among some of the Arab\nand other Semitic tribes. In fact, women have played a leading part in\nHebrew history. It has long ago been noticed that the mother had much to\ndo with the character of the successive kings of Judah, and Athaliah of\nSamaria filled a prominent place in the history of the northern kingdom.\nProphecy was no respecter of persons; it came to rich and poor, to\nlearned and simple, to men and women alike, and upon whomsoever the\nspirit of prophecy fell, it made him fit to be the leader and the\ncounsellor of his people. Deborah had been marked out by Yahveh Himself\nto be the judge of Israel.\n\nShe dwelt, we are told, under the palm-tree of Deborah, between Ramah\nand Beth-el in Mount Ephraim. She was, therefore, presumably of\nEphraimitish descent, though the conclusion does not necessarily follow,\nand the palm-tree which was called after her continued to be a landmark\non the high-road down to the time when the narrative in the book of\nJudges was written. There was another tree, a terebinth, and not a palm,\nwhich stood within the sacred precincts of Beth-el itself, and also bore\nthe name of Deborah, but this Deborah was said to have been Rebekah\u2019s\nnurse, whose tomb was pointed out under the branches of the tree.[313]\nThe writers of the Old Testament have carefully distinguished between\nthe two trees; it has been reserved for modern criticism to confound\nthem.\n\nWith a woman\u2019s insight and enthusiasm, Deborah perceived that the time\nhad come when the highways should no longer be deserted, and when the\nnorthern tribes of Israel should be freed from their bondage to the\nCanaanite, and she also perceived who it was that was destined to lead\nthe Israelitish troops to victory. This was Barak of Kadesh in Naphtali,\nthe near neighbour of Jabin and Sisera. Like the Carthaginian Barcas, he\nbore a name\u2014\u2018the Lightning\u2019\u2014which fitly symbolised the vengeance he was\nborn to take on the enemies of Israel.[314] But Barak shrank from the\nundertaking at first, and it was not until the prophetess had consented\nto go with him to Kadesh that he summoned his countrymen together, and\noccupied the summit of Mount Tabor. Here, protected by the forests which\nclothed its slopes, he trained and multiplied his forces until he felt\nstrong enough to attack the foe. Then he descended into the plain of\nMegiddo, where the Canaanitish host was marching from Harosheth to meet\nhim. It was the old battlefield of Canaan; it was there that in the days\nof the Egyptian conquerors the fate of the country had been decided and\nthe Canaanitish princes under Hittite commanders from Kadesh on the\nOrontes had been utterly overthrown.\n\nIn the camp on the lofty summit of Tabor, Barak had done more than train\nhis men. Time had been given them in which to provide themselves with\narms. Deborah declares that in the days of the oppression a shield or\nspear had not been seen \u2018among forty thousand in Israel.\u2019[315] The\nstatement receives explanation from what we are told of the policy of\nthe Philistines at a later date. When they had laid the Israelites under\ntribute in the time of Samuel, they banished all the smiths from the\nland of Israel, to prevent \u2018the Hebrews\u2019 from making themselves \u2018swords\nand spears\u2019 (1 Sam. xiii. 19). Agricultural implements alone were\nallowed (ver. 20). It would seem that a similar policy had been pursued\nby the Philistines and Canaanites in the earlier age of Deborah, though\nprobably with less success. At all events Heber the Kenite, or itinerant\n\u2018smith,\u2019 still pitched his tent in Israelitish territory, and his wife\nJael sympathised with the Israelites rather than with their Canaanitish\nlords.\n\nWhen Thothmes III. of Egypt met the confederated kings of Canaan in the\nplain of Megiddo, they were led by the Hittite sovereign of Kadesh on\nthe Orontes. It is possible that Barak was called upon to meet a similar\ncombination of forces. Sisera is not a Semitic name, while, as Mr.\nTomkins has pointed out, it finds striking analogies in such Hittite\nnames as Khata-sar, Khilip-sar, and Pi-siri[s]. The Hittite power at\nKadesh on the Orontes had not yet passed away. It still existed in the\ntime of David, when it formed one of the frontiers of the Israelitish\nkingdom.[316] In the age of the Tel el-Amarna letters we find the\nHittites intriguing in Palestine along with Mitanni or Naharaim, and it\nis not likely that they would have been less disposed to resume their\nold influence in that country when Egypt was no longer to be feared.\nSisera may not only have been the commander of the Canaanitish forces,\nbut also a Hittite prince, nominally the ally of Jabin, but in reality\nhis suzerain lord. He dwelt, we are told, in \u2018Harosheth of the\nGentiles,\u2019 an otherwise unknown place. It may have been in \u2018Galilee of\nthe Gentiles\u2019 (Is. ix. 1), but it may also have been further north among\nthe Gentile Hittites of Kadesh.[317]\n\nThe battle took place on the banks of the Kishon, and ended in a\ncomplete victory for the Israelites. The nine hundred iron chariots of\nSisera availed him nothing; \u2018the stars in their courses\u2019 had fought\nagainst him. He escaped on foot to the tent of Heber the Kenite, whose\nwife Jael received him as a guest, and then murdered him by driving a\npeg of the tent through his temples while he lay asleep. When Barak\narrived in pursuit, Jael showed him the corpse of his enemy.\n\nThe p\u00e6an of triumph, \u2018sung by Deborah and Barak\u2019 on the day of the\nvictory, is one of the oldest fragments of Hebrew poetry. To its\nantiquity and the archaic character of its language are due the many\ncorruptions of the text. Some of the passages in it are quite\nunintelligible as they stand, and the conjectural emendations that have\nbeen proposed for them are seldom acceptable except to their\nauthors.[318] But, as a whole, the p\u00e6an is not only a magnificent relic\nof ancient Hebrew song, full of fire and vivid imagery, it is also a\ndocument of the highest value for the historian. It gives us a picture\nof Israelitish life and thought in the age of the Judges, untouched by\nthe hands of compilers and historians, and few have been hardy enough to\nquestion its genuineness. It is a solid proof that the traditional view\nof Israelitish history is more correct than that which modern criticism\nwould substitute for it, and that the \u2018development\u2019 of Israelitish\nreligion, of which we have heard so much, is a mere product of the\nimagination. The belief in Yahveh displayed in the Song is as\nuncompromising as that of later Judaism; Yahveh is the God of Israel,\nwho has fought for His people, and beside Him there is no other god. The\nmonotheism of Deborah is the monotheism of the Pentateuch. Nor is the\nsong less of a witness to the truth of the history which we have in the\nPentateuch and the book of Joshua. It tells us that Yahveh revealed\nHimself to Israel on Mount Sinai, and it distinguishes the tribes one\nfrom the other, and assigns to them the territories which bore their\nnames.\n\nThe Song began with words which, as we see from Deut. xxxiii. 2, Ps.\nlxviii. 7, were a common property of Hebrew poetry.\n\n          \u2018For the avenging of Israel,\n          When the people gave themselves as a freewill offering,\n          Praise ye Yahveh!\n          Hear, O ye kings, give ear, O ye princes,\n          I will sing unto Yahveh, even I,\n          I will make music to Yahveh the God of Israel.\n          O Yahveh, when thou wentest forth from Seir,\n          When thou marchedst out of the field of Edom,\n          The earth trembled, the heavens also dropped water.[319]\n          The mountains melted from the face of Yahveh,\n          Even Sinai itself from before Yahveh the God of Israel.\n          In the days of Shamgar ben-Anath,\n          [In the days of Jael][320] the roads were deserted,\n          And the travellers walked along by-paths.\n          The peasantry failed, in Israel did they fail,\n          Until I, Deborah, arose,\n          I arose a mother in Israel.\n\n    Then was war (in) the gates (?):[321]\n    A shield was not seen, or a spear,\n    Among forty thousand in Israel.\n    My heart (saith) to the lawgivers of Israel,\n    Who gave themselves as a freewill offering among the people:\n    Praise ye Yahveh!\n    Ye that ride on white asses,\n    Ye that sit on cloths,\n    And ye that walk on the road, shout ye!\n    Above the voice of the [noisy ones] at the places of drawing water,\n    There[322] shall they rehearse the righteous acts of Yahveh,\n    Even righteous acts towards his peasants in Israel,\n    (Saying), \u201cThen to the gates descended the people of Yahveh.\u201d\n    Awake, awake, Deborah,\n    Awake, awake, utter a song![323]\n    Arise, Barak,\n    And capture thy capturers,[324]\n      O son of Abinoam!\n    Then to the nobles descended the people of Yahveh (?),[325]\n    They descended unto me among the heroes.\n    Out of Ephraim (came they) whose roots[326] (are) in Amalek,\n    Behind thee, O Benjamin, among thy clans.\n    Out of Machir descended lawgivers,\n    And out of Zebulon they that handle the staff of the scribe.\n    And the princes of Issachar were with Deborah,\n    For Issachar was as Barak;\n    In the valley (of the Kishon) were they sped on the feet,\n    Among the wadis of Reuben great were the searchings of heart.\n    Why didst thou stray among the sheep-folds\n    To hear the bleatings of the flocks?\n    For the wadis of Reuben great were the searchings of heart.\n    Gilead abode beyond the Jordan;\n    And Dan, why does he sojourn in ships?\n    Asher stayed on the sea-shore,\n    And abides in his havens.\n    Zebulon is a people that has jeopardied its life unto the death,\n    And Issachar also on the heights of the plain.\n    Kings came and fought,\n    Then fought the kings of Canaan\n    At Taanach on the waters of Megiddo;\n    They took no spoil of silver.\n    From heaven fought the stars,\n    In their courses they fought against Sisera.[327]\n    The torrent of Kishon swept them away;\n    A torrent of slaughters is the torrent Kishon.\n    Thou hast trodden down the strong ones, O my soul![328]\n    Then did the horse-hoofs strike (the ground)\n    Through the prancings of his steeds.\n    Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of Yahveh,\n    Curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof\n    Because they came not to the help of Yahveh,\n    To the help of Yahveh among the heroes.\n    Blessed above women be Jael,\n    The wife of Heber the Kenite,\n    Above women in the tent may she be blessed!\n    Water he asked, milk she gave,\n    In a lordly dish she brought forth butter:\n    Her hand she put to the tent-pin\n    And her right-hand to the workman\u2019s hammer,\n    And with the hammer she smote Sisera, she shattered his head,\n    And struck and pierced his temples.\n    At her feet he bowed, he fell, he lay down,\n    At her feet he bowed, he fell;\n    Where he bowed, there lay he dead.\n    Behind the window looked and cried\n    The mother of Sisera behind the lattice:\n    \u201cWhy is his chariot so long in coming?\n    Why tarry the wheels of his cars?\u201d\n    The wisest of her waiting-women answered her,\n    Yea, she returned answer to herself:\n    \u201cHave they not found and divided the spoil,\n    A damsel or two to each man,\n    A spoil of many-coloured garments to Sisera,\n    A spoil of garments of many-coloured needlework,\n    Two garments of many-coloured needlework for the neck of the\n       spoiler.\u201d[329]\n    So may all thine enemies perish, O Yahveh;\n    But may those who love him be as the rising of the sun in his\n       might!\u2019\n\nOf Barak and Deborah we hear no more. The next judge and deliverer who\nappears upon the canvas is an Abi-ezrite of Manasseh, who came from the\nnorthern borders of Ephraim between Ophrah and Shechem. His father was\nJoash, the head, it would seem, of the clan. But he himself bears a\ndouble name. It is as Gideon, the \u2018cutter-down\u2019 of his father\u2019s idol,\nthat he is first introduced to us. In later history his name is\nJerubbaal. The latter name is said to have been given him because he had\nthrown down the altar of Baal, and is interpreted to mean \u2018Let Baal\nplead against him.\u2019[330] But the other Old Testament examples we have\nmet with of the interpretation of proper names may well make us hesitate\nabout accepting this. They are all mere plays upon words, mere \u2018popular\netymologies,\u2019 which have no claim to be regarded as history. Whether the\nphilology is that of an ancient Hebrew writer or of a modern critic, its\nconclusions do not belong to the domain of the historian.\n\nJerubbaal signifies \u2018Baal will contend,\u2019 not \u2018Baal will plead against\nhim,\u2019 and therefore really has a meaning exactly the reverse of that\nascribed to it in the narrative. The name seems substantially identical\nwith that of Rib-Hadad, the governor of Ph\u0153nicia in the age of the Tel\nel-Amarna tablets. Joash, the father of Jerubbaal, was a worshipper of\nBaal, and consequently there was nothing strange in his calling his son\nafter his god. It is only as Jerubbaal that the future judge was known\nto the generation that followed him,[331] and his successor in the\nkingdom of Manasseh was called even in his own day \u2018Abimelech the son of\nJerubbaal.\u2019[332] It has been suggested that Jerubbaal and Gideon were\ntwo different personages, whom tradition has amalgamated together,[333]\nbut double names of the kind were not unknown in Oriental antiquity.\nSolomon himself also bore the name of Jedidiah (2 Sam. xii. 25), and\nGideon, \u2018the cutter-down,\u2019 was not an inappropriate epithet for the\nconqueror of the Midianites. There was a good reason why the pious\nIsraelite of a later generation should shrink from admitting that one of\nhis national heroes had borne a name compounded with that of Baal.[334]\n\nThe tribes of the desert, Amalekites, Midianites, and those Ben\u00ea-Qedem\nor \u2018Children of the East,\u2019 whom an Egyptian papyrus of the twelfth\ndynasty places in the neighbourhood of Edom,[335] had fallen upon the\nlands of the settled fellahin, as their Bed\u00e2win descendants still do\nwhenever the Turkish soldiery are insufficient to keep them away. Year\nby year bands of raiders swarmed over the cultivated fields, murdering\nthe peasants and carrying off their crops. At first it was Gilead that\nsuffered, but the Hebrews were weak and divided, and the robbers of the\ndesert were soon emboldened to cross the Jordan, and extend their raids\nas far as the western frontiers of Israel. \u2018They destroyed the increase\nof the earth, till thou come unto Gaza, and left no sustenance for\nIsrael, neither sheep, nor ox, nor ass.\u2019\n\nAt last the Lord sent a prophet to the people and an angel to Gideon the\nAbi-ezrite. Gideon was threshing wheat by the winepress near the sacred\nterebinth of Ophrah. Here, under the shadow of the tree, was an altar of\nBaal, and by the side of it the cone of stone which symbolised the\ngoddess Asherah. The angel summoned Gideon to rise and deliver Israel,\nand as a sign that he was indeed the angel of Yahveh he touched with his\nstaff the offerings of flesh and unleavened cakes that Gideon had made\nto him, so that fire rose out of the rock and consumed them all. On the\nthreshing-floor Gideon built an altar to Yahveh, like that more stately\nsanctuary which David raised in later days on the threshing-floor of\nrock which had belonged to Araunah the Jebusite.\n\nRecent criticism has discovered in the history of Jerubbaal two\ndifferent and mutually inconsistent narratives, which are again\nsubdivided among a variety of writers. To these some critics would add a\nthird version of the story, which is supposed to be referred to in Is.\nx. 26, though others maintain that the reference in the book of Isaiah\nis to the first of the two narratives. It cannot be denied that the\nhistory of the war against the Midianites in its present form is\nconfused, and that it is difficult to construct from it a clear and\nintelligible picture of the course of events. That the compiler of the\nbook of Judges should have made use of more than one narrative, if such\nexisted, is indeed only natural, and what a conscientious historian\nwould be bound to do. But to distinguish minutely the narratives one\nfrom the other, much more to analyse them into still smaller fragments,\nis the work of Sisyphus. It is even more impossible than to distinguish\nbetween Rice and Besant in _The Golden Butterfly_ or _Celia\u2019s Arbour_.\nThe historian must leave all such literary trifling to the collectors of\nlists of words, and content himself with comparing and analysing the\nfacts recorded in the story.[336]\n\nThe altar raised by Gideon was dedicated to Yahveh-shalom, \u2018the Yahveh\nof Peace,\u2019 and it was still standing at Ophrah when the narrative\nrelating to it was written.[337] Its name shows that it could hardly\nhave been built before Gideon had returned in peace from the Midianitish\nwar. There was much that had first to be done.\n\nGideon\u2019s first task was to destroy the symbol of Asherah and the altar\nof Baal. The revelation made to him had been made in the name of Yahveh,\nand it was in the name of Yahveh alone that he was about to lead his\ncountrymen to victory. It is true that between Yahveh and Baal the\nIsraelite villager of the day saw but little difference. Yahveh was\naddressed as Baal or \u2018Lord,\u2019[338] and the local altars that were\ndedicated to Him in most instances did but take the place of the older\naltars of a Canaanitish Baal. Mixture between Israelites and Canaanites,\nmoreover, had brought with it a mixture in religion. Along with the\ntitle, Yahveh had assumed the attributes of a Baal, at all events among\nthe mass of the people. Joash and the villagers, who demanded that\nGideon should be put to death for destroying the altar of Baal,\ndoubtless thought that they were zealous for the God of Israel. It was\nthe symbol of Asherah only which was the token of a foreign cult.\n\nPerhaps the answer made by Joash to the charge against his son has been\ncoloured by the theology of the later historian. It breathes rather the\nspirit of an age when the antagonism between Yahveh and Baal had become\nacute than that of one who was himself a worshipper of Baal and Asherah,\nand whose son in the hour of victory made an idol out of the enemy\u2019s\nspoil. The Baal worshipped by the villagers of Abi-ezer was regarded as\nYahveh himself, and hence it was that the offence committed by Gideon\nagainst him was an offence committed against the national God, and\ntherefore punishable with death. To set him up as another god in\nopposition to the God of Israel carries us down to the age of Elijah,\nwhen the subjects of Ahab were called upon to choose between the Yahveh\nwho had led them out of Egypt and the Ph\u0153nician Baal. It belongs to the\nsame period as the etymological play on the name of Jerubbaal.\n\nThere was a special reason why Jerubbaal should thus have come forward\nto deliver his countrymen from the Midianites. The Bed\u00e2win raiders had\nslain his brothers in a previous struggle at Mount Tabor (viii. 18-21).\nJerubbaal thus had a blood-feud to avenge. He was the last and\npresumably the youngest of his family, and upon him therefore devolved\nthe duty of revenging his brothers\u2019 death. Moreover, it would appear\nfrom the words of the Midianite chiefs that Joash and his sons were not\nonly the heads of their clan, but that they also exercised a sort of\nkingly authority in Ophrah and its neighbourhood. The history of\nAbimelech seems to imply that the family of Abi-ezer had succeeded to\nthe power and even the name of the Canaanitish \u2018kings\u2019 of Shechem, and\nthat the subsequent ingratitude of the inhabitants of Shechem to the\nhouse of Jerubbaal was due to jealousy of the preference displayed by it\nfor Ophrah. Shechem contained a large Canaanitish element which was\nwanting at Ophrah, where the population was more purely Israelitish. If\nJoash were thus king of a mixed population, recognised by Canaanites and\nIsraelites alike, we can understand why by the side of the altar of Baal\nthere stood also the symbol of the Canaanitish goddess. The very fact\nthat the sanctuary of Ophrah belonged to him (vi. 25) indicates that he\npossessed royal prerogatives. Even at Jerusalem the temple of Solomon\nwas as it were the chapel of the kings.[339]\n\nIt has been suggested that the Baal whose altar stood on the land of\nJoash at Ophrah was the Baal-berith or \u2018Baal of the Covenant,\u2019\nworshipped at Shechem,[340] and that the \u2018covenant\u2019 over which the god\npresided was that made between the Canaanites of Shechem and their\nHebrew master. Doubtless the two elements in the population would have\ninterpreted the name in a different way. For the Hebrews the \u2018Baal of\nthe Covenant\u2019 would have been Yahveh; for the Canaanites he would have\nbeen the local sun-god. But there is nothing to prove that the\nattributes of the Baals of Ophrah and Shechem were the same, or that\nthey were adored under the same form. Indeed, the fact that the altar\nerected by Jerubbaal at Ophrah was dedicated to the \u2018Yahveh of Peace\u2019\ntells rather in a contrary direction. Shechem had its Baal-berith, while\nOphrah may have had its Baal-shalom. While the one commemorated the\ncovenant that had been entered into between the two parts of the\npopulation, the other would have commemorated its \u2018peaceful\u2019 settlement.\nFor the Canaanite it was a covenant, for the Hebrew it was peace.\n\nThe struggle at Mount Tabor, in which the brothers of Jerubbaal had\nfallen, laid the fruitful valley of Jezreel at the feet of the Bed\u00e2win\nplunderers. The plain of Megiddo was now in the hands of the Israelites.\nThe battle on the banks of the Kishon had broken for ever the power of\nthe Canaanites and their \u2018chariots of iron,\u2019 and they were now tributary\nto Manasseh.[341] The Canaanite townsman and the Israelitish peasant\nwere now living in peaceful intermixture, and the torrent of raiders\nfrom the desert fell upon both alike. We hear no more of any attempts\nmade by the older population to shake off the Hebrew yoke; it suffers\nfrom the Midianite invasion equally with its Hebrew masters, and the\nfamily of Joash govern it as much as they govern the Israelites\nthemselves. Jerubbaal is the deliverer of the Canaanite as well as of\nthe Israelite.\n\nFrom Ophrah he sends messengers throughout Manasseh, as well as to the\ntribes of Asher, Zebulon, and Naphtali, and their fighting-men gather\ntogether at his summons. He thus acts like a king, and is obeyed like a\nking. Though he may not have actually borne the royal title, he was more\nthan a mere \u2018judge.\u2019 Barak may have assumed the name and prerogatives of\nthe Canaanitish kings he had conquered, and have passed them on to the\nfamily of Ebi-ezer. At any rate the power of Joash must have extended\nbeyond Shechem and Ophrah; all Manasseh obeys the call of his son, and\neven the more distant northern tribes come at his bidding. The\nsubjugation of the Canaanites had demanded a head to the state, and\ntheir union with their conquerors implied an organised community under a\ncommon king.\n\nIt was, however, with three hundred chosen followers that Jerubbaal made\nhis first attack upon the foe. Encouraged by a dream, he fell upon their\ncamp by night, and his followers, breaking the pitchers they carried\nwith them, and waving torches in their left hands, caused such a panic\namong the undisciplined hordes of the desert that they fled in all\ndirections.[342] The rout of the enemy was completed by the rest of the\nIsraelitish army, which pursued the Midianites eastward towards the\nJordan. Part of them under the sh\u00eakhs Oreb and Zeeb made for the ford at\nBeth-barah, where, however, they were intercepted by the Ephraimites,\nand their chiefs slain at \u2018the rock of Oreb\u2019 and the \u2018winepress of\nZeeb.\u2019[343]\n\nMeanwhile Jerubbaal was already on the eastern side of the Jordan,\nfollowing in hot haste a detachment of the Midianites under two other of\ntheir sh\u00eakhs, Zebah and Zalmunna. His road led past Succoth and Penuel,\nbut their Israelitish inhabitants refused all help, and even bread, to\ntheir brethren of Manasseh. It is clear that between Gilead and the\nwestern tribes there was now a diversity of interests and feelings, and\nthat the half-nomad Israelites on the eastern side of the Jordan had\nmore sympathy with the heathen of the desert than with the ruler of the\norganised state on the other side of the river. Perhaps they feared that\nhis arms would next be turned against themselves, and that they too\nwould be forced to become part of a kingdom of Manasseh.\n\nBut if they had hoped that the Midianites would have freed them from all\nfears upon this score they were doomed to disappointment. Once more \u2018the\nsword of Yahveh and of Gideon\u2019 prevailed, and Zebah and Zalmunna were\nslain. The claims of the blood-feud were satisfied, and Jerubbaal now\nreturned to his old home. Condign vengeance was taken on \u2018the elders\u2019 of\nSuccoth and \u2018the men\u2019 of Penuel. The first were scourged with the thorns\nof the wilderness, the others were put to death, and their tower, which\nguarded the approach from the desert, was razed to the ground.\n\nNow, however, Jerubbaal had to meet with more formidable adversaries.\nThe house of Joseph was divided against itself, and the Ephraimites\nresented his conduct in acting independently of the elder tribe.[344] In\nthe earlier days of the occupation of Palestine it had been Ephraim\nwhich took the leading part; Joshua, who first opened the path into\nCanaan, had been an Ephraimite, and Mount Ephraim had been the first\nstronghold of Israel on the western side of the Jordan. In the time of\nBarak Ephraim had still been the dominant tribe, at least such is the\nimpression we gather from the Song of Deborah; but it had begun to live\non its past glories rather than on its present achievements. The\nBenjamites had definitely separated from it, and become a separate\ntribe, and Issachar, Zebulon, and Naphtali had carried on the war\nagainst Jabin and Sisera. Manasseh, however, had not yet appeared on the\npolitical scene; its place was taken by Machir, whose territory lay in\nGilead, not to the west of the Jordan. But between the age of Barak and\nthat of Jerubbaal a change had occurred. The Canaanitish towns, which\nthe victory on the banks of the Kishon had laid at the feet of the\nnorthern tribes, passed into the possession of the younger branch of the\nhouse of Joseph, and Issachar had to be content that Shechem also should\nbecome a part of its territory.[345] Manasseh grew at the expense of its\nneighbours. It is possible that the clan of the Abi-ezrites at Ophrah\nhad, by their conquest of Shechem, paved the way for the rise of\nManasseh; if so, the dominant position they occupied in the tribe would\nbecome intelligible. Ophrah would have been the first home and\ngathering-place of the tribe. The treaty with Shechem, which united that\ncity with Ophrah, may have been the beginning of Manasseh\u2019s rise to\npower.\n\nBut Ephraim could ill brook the growing ascendency of the younger tribe.\nManasseh had become wealthy from the tribute levied on its Canaanitish\nsubjects; it had united itself with the older inhabitants of the land,\nand had borrowed their habits and their culture, and therewith their\nidolatries as well. The mountaineers of Ephraim, on the other hand, had\nretained much of the roughness and the virtues of the first invaders of\nPalestine. They were still warlike and hardy; they held the fortress of\nthe Israelitish possessions in Canaan; and Shiloh, with its Aaronic\npriesthood, its traditions of the Mosaic law, and its purer worship of\nYahveh was in their midst. Jerubbaal was forced to temporise with them.\nHe pointed out that the destruction of the main body of the Midianites\nat the fords of the Jordan was a greater achievement than his own\nsuccessful pursuit of the remaining bands. He had slain Zebah and\nZalmunna in revenge for the death of his brothers; the slaughter of Oreb\nand Zeeb had been for the sake of all Israel. \u2018Is not the gleaning of\nthe grapes of Ephraim better than the vintage of Abi-ezer?\u2019\n\nJerubbaal was fitted to rule, for he possessed statecraft as well as\nmilitary ability. His statecraft was shown not only in his answer to the\nEphraimites, but also in his refusal to accept the title of king. It was\npressed upon him, we are told, by \u2018the men of Israel\u2019\u2014that is to say, by\nthe northern tribes. Whether his father had actually borne the title we\ncannot say, though it would seem from the subsequent history of\nAbimelech, as well as from the words of Zebah and Zalmunna (viii. 18),\nthat he must have done so. But at any rate he had exercised the\nauthority of a king, like his son Jerubbaal, at the outset of the\nMidianite war, and it may be that among the Canaanites of Shechem he had\nalso the name of king. Jerubbaal, however, if we are to regard the\npassage as historical, rejected the crown offered him by the Israelites,\ndeclaring that their king was Yahveh alone.\n\nThat the passage is historical seems to admit of little doubt.\nJerubbaal\u2019s words were in harmony with the feelings of the time among\nthe stricter adherents of Yahveh, as we learn from the language of\nSamuel when the people demanded of him a king. How different were the\nfeelings of the compiler of the book of Judges may be gathered from the\nwords with which it ends. Moreover, Jerubbaal\u2019s refusal of the royal\ntitle was politic. He had already realised that he had powerful enemies\nin Ephraim, who viewed his success and claims to power with suspicion\nand hostility, and he also knew that it was in Ephraim and among the\npriesthood of Shiloh that the belief in the theocratic government of\nIsrael was strongest. As in Assyria, in Midian, and in Sheba, so too in\nIsrael, the high priest preceded the king; it was not until the need for\na single head and a leader in war became too urgent to be resisted that\nthe national God made way for a national king.[346]\n\nPh\u0153nician tradition remembered that Jerubbaal was a priest of Yahveh,\nnot that he was a king.[347] It was as a priest that he exacted from the\npeople the golden earrings they had won from the Midianites in order\nthat he might make with them an image of his God. The Hebrew text has\nsubstituted for the image the ephod which accompanied it.[348] But the\nephod was the linen garment of the priest, which he wore when\nministering, and with the help of which the future was divined.[349] It\nwas not the vestment but the image, in whose service the vestment was\nused, that Jerubbaal set up in Ophrah, and after which \u2018all Israel went\na whoring.\u2019 Like his father, Jerubbaal saw no idolatry where it was\nYahveh of Israel who was represented by the idol. The religious beliefs\nand practices of Canaan had entered deeply into the soul of Israel; at\nShiloh alone was no image of its God.\n\nHigh priest among the Israelites, king among his Canaanitish subjects,\nJerubbaal lived long in his father\u2019s home at Ophrah. He acted like a\nking, even if he did not take the royal title. Like Solomon, he had\n\u2018many wives,\u2019 and like Solomon also, he built a sanctuary attached to\nhis own house.[350] The Bed\u00e2win spoilers came no more: there was now a\nstrong hand ruling over the northern tribes of Israel, checking all\ntendency to disunion, and building up an organised community.\n\nBut the kingdom of Jerubbaal contained within it those seeds of\ndissolution which have brought about the fall of so many Oriental\nmonarchies. They spring up, not among the people, but in the family of\nthe ruler. Polygamy brings with it a curse, and the king is hardly dead\nbefore the children of his numerous wives are murdering and fighting\nwith one another. Even during his lifetime the palace is honeycombed\nwith the intrigues of the har\u00eem, which break out into open war as soon\nas he has passed away. The family of Jerubbaal was no exception to the\nrule. Abimelech, the son of his concubine, a Canaanitess of\nShechem,[351] conspired with his mother\u2019s kinsmen in Shechem, and taking\nseventy shekels of silver from the temple of Baal-berith, hired with\nthem a band of mercenaries, who fell upon the other sons of Jerubbaal at\nOphrah and murdered them all save one. Alone of the \u2018seventy\u2019 brethren\nof Abimelech, Jotham, the youngest, hid himself and escaped. The rest\nwere slaughtered like oxen on a block of stone. Abimelech then returned\nto Shechem, and there under the sacred terebinth, which stood by the\nconsecrated \u2018pillar\u2019 or Beth-el of the city, he was anointed king. The\ngarrison of the Millo, or fortress, of Shechem took part in the\nceremony.\n\nThe report of Abimelech\u2019s usurpation was brought to Jotham. He left his\nplace of concealment, and, standing on the top of Mount Gerizim,\nupbraided the men of Shechem with ingratitude towards Jerubbaal. He\nclothed his words in one of those parables of which the East is the\nhome. \u2018The trees went forth,\u2019 he told them, once on a time, \u2018to anoint a\nking over them; and they said unto the olive-tree, Reign thou over us.\nBut the olive-tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith\nby me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees? And\nthe trees said unto the fig-tree, Come thou and reign over us. But the\nfig-tree said unto them, Should I forsake my sweetness and my good\nfruit, and go to be promoted over the trees? Then said the trees unto\nthe vine, Come thou and reign over us. And the vine said unto them,\nShould I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be\npromoted over the trees? Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come\nthou and reign over us. And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth\nye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow;\nand if not, let fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of\nLebanon.\u2019\n\nThe moral of the parable was so obvious that it did not need Jotham\u2019s\nexplanation to make it clear. He had been bold in venturing near his\nenemies, and as soon as he had finished speaking, he fled to a place of\nsafety. Beer, \u2018the well,\u2019 where he found a refuge, may have been the\nplace of that name in the extreme north of Naphtali.[352] Here at least\nhe would have been secure from pursuit.\n\nThe usurpation of Abimelech was the revolt of the older Canaanitish\npopulation against their Israelitish masters. It marked the successful\nrising of the native element. Ophrah has to make way for Shechem, and\n\u2018the men of Hamor the father of Shechem\u2019 take the place of the children\nof Jacob. Yet the deliverance from the Midianites wrought by Jerubbaal\nhad been achieved as much for the benefit of the Canaanitish part of the\npopulation as for the Israelites themselves. The murder of his sons and\nthe destruction of his family was a poor requital for all that he had\ndone for them. Jotham was justified in prophesying that their own god\nBaal-berith would avenge the broken \u2018covenant,\u2019 and that Abimelech and\nhis Shechemite conspirators would fall by one another\u2019s hand.\n\nBefore three years were ended the prophecy was fulfilled. The \u2018god\u2019 of\nShechem \u2018sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the Shechemites,\u2019 who\nbegan a plot against his rule. Abimelech had withdrawn from the city and\nwas living at the otherwise unknown Arumah, the garrison and government\nof Shechem being placed under the command of a certain Zebul.[353]\nPerhaps the king had already begun to be suspicious of his subjects;\nperhaps his retirement to another town had aroused their jealousy.\nHowever it may have been, the Shechemites openly set at naught his\nauthority. Bands of brigands left the city and infested the neighbouring\nmountains, where they robbed all who passed that way. They were soon\njoined by another band of bandits, under the leadership of Gaal the son\nof Jobaal.[354] Under him the disaffection towards Abimelech came to a\nhead, and Gaal proposed that the citizens should revolt against\nAbimelech and Zebul. Zebul, however, while professing to be upon their\nside, sent messengers to Abimelech and urged him to march against\nShechem before it was too late. Abimelech gave heed to the message, and\nGaal\u2019s forces were defeated outside the city, and driven back within its\ngates. Abimelech then pretended to retire to Arumah, and the citizens\naccordingly once more went out to their work in the fields. But the\nroyal troops were really lying in ambush, divided into three companies,\ntwo of which fell upon the fellahin in the fields and massacred them;\nwhile the third, with Abimelech himself at their head, rushed into the\ncity through the open gate. All day long the battle raged in the\nstreets; then the survivors fled to the \u2018crypt\u2019 of the temple of\nBaal-berith which adjoined the Millo or fort.[355] By the orders of\nAbimelech brushwood was brought from the neighbouring Mount Zalmon,\npiled up over the entrance to the crypt and set on fire. All who were\ninside, men and women, to the number of about a thousand, perished in\nthe flames. Shechem itself was razed to the ground, and its site sown\nwith salt. For a time the old Canaanitish city disappeared from the soil\nof Palestine.\n\nThe destined punishment had now fallen upon Shechem; it was not long\nbefore it fell also upon its destroyer. The town of Thebez had shared in\nthe revolt of Shechem, and Abimelech\u2019s next action was to besiege it.\nThe town itself offered little resistance, but there was a \u2018strong\ntower\u2019 within it, to which its defenders fled for refuge. Abimelech\nagain had recourse to fire. But while the wood was being laid against\nthe gate of the tower, a woman on the parapet above threw a broken\nmillstone upon his head and shattered his skull. The king felt himself\ndying, and besought his armour-bearer to thrust a sword through his\nbody, lest it might be said that he had been slain by the hand of a\nwoman. But the request was made in vain, and future generations\nremembered that the last king of Shechem, the murderer of his brethren,\nhad perished ignominiously by a woman\u2019s hands.[356] With Abimelech the\nsovereignty of the house of Joash seems to have come to an end. We hear\nno more of Jotham, or of any other attempt to found a monarchy among the\nnorthern tribes. The first endeavour to organise Israel into a state had\nbut little success. Once more the old elements of disorder and disunion\nreigned supreme. The tribes stood further and further apart from each\nother, and mutual jealousies led to intestine wars. The influence of\nEphraim and of the sanctuary of Shiloh grew daily less, and the power of\nthe northern tribes waned at the same time. The Israelites on the\neastern side of Jordan began to forget that they had brethren on its\nwestern bank; Reuben is lost among the Bed\u00e2win of Moab, and Gilead and\nEphraim engage in interfraternal war. Meanwhile a new tribe is rising in\nthe south. Judah has absorbed Simeon and the Kenizzites of Hebron; the\nfew relics of Dan which have been left in the neighbourhood of Zorah\nhave become Jews in all but name, and the Kenites and the Jerahmeelites,\nand the other foreign settlers in the Negeb have followed the example of\nthe Kenizzites. A common enemy and a common danger has thus forced them\ntogether.\n\nThe enemy were the Philistines. In the early days of the Hebrew\nsettlement in Canaan the Philistines had already made the raids inland\nwhich had been checked, if not suppressed, by Shamgar ben-Anath. For a\ntime they had remained quiet in their five cities of the coast. But\nfresh immigrants from Krete or other \u00c6gean lands introduced new blood\nand warlike energy. Once more their armed bands marched forth to plunder\nand destroy. This time they are no longer contented with mere raids;\nthey now aim at conquest. Hardly have the Canaanites been subjugated\nafter long generations of struggle, when the Israelites are called upon\nto meet a new foe. It is a foe, moreover, which is not enervated by\ncenturies of luxury and culture, not accustomed to foreign rule or\ndivided within itself, but a hardy nation of pirates whose whole life\nhas been passed in fighting, and in seizing the possessions of others.\n\nThe first brunt of the Philistine attack was borne by Judah. But it was\nnot long before the armies of the Philistines made their way northwards,\nand even penetrated into the fastnesses of Mount Ephraim.[357] Of all\nthis, however, the record has been lost. The compiler of the book of\nJudges failed to find it in the fragmentary annals of the past, and has\nbeen compelled to fill up the interval between the fall of the kingdom\nof Manasseh and the supremacy of the Philistines in Palestine with\nnotices of judges and events whose exact place in Hebrew history was\nuncertain.\n\nIt is here, accordingly, that we have the names of the so-called lesser\nJudges, of whom little more was known than the names. Two of them, Tola\nthe son of Puah, and Elon, belonged to Issachar and Zebulon; and it is\nsomewhat singular that while the book of Numbers makes Tola and Puah the\nheads of families in Issachar, it makes Elon the head of a family in\nZebulon.[358] Of Tola we are told that he lived and died at Shamir in\nMount Ephraim, which at that time therefore must have been in the hands\nof Issachar, and that he judged Israel twenty-three years. The account\nof Elon is equally laconic; he judged Israel ten years, and was buried\nat Aijalon in Zebulon. Another judge in Zebulon was Ibzan of\nBeth-lehem,[359] who was judge for seven years only, but of whom it was\nrecorded that he had thirty sons and thirty. daughters. A similar record\nhas been handed down of another of these minor judges, Abdon the son of\nHillel. He, it is said, had forty sons and thirty grandsons, who rode on\nseventy colts. Abdon was judge for eight years, and \u2018was buried at\nPirathon in the land of Ephraim, in the mount of the Amalekites.\u2019 This\nstatement seems to push back the date of Abdon to an early period when\nBenjamin had not yet separated from the \u2018House of Joseph,\u2019 and \u2018the land\nof Ephraim\u2019 accordingly extended southwards into the Amalekite region.\nIt would be of the same age as that of the Song of Deborah.\n\nGilead also had its judges, though the names of only two of them have\nbeen preserved. One was Jair, who ruled as judge for twenty-two years,\nand who \u2018had thirty sons that rode on thirty ass-colts, and they had\nthirty cities which are called the villages of Jair.\u2019 We hear something\nmore of this Jair in the Pentateuch. He had taken the villages which\nwere called after his name, and must have lived not long after the\nIsraelitish conquest of Bashan.[360] He belongs, therefore, to the\nearliest period of Israelitish history in Canaan, and may have been a\ncontemporary of Joshua himself.\n\nThe second judge left a more famous record behind him. This was\nJephthah, who delivered Gilead from its bondage to the Ammonites. His\nfather\u2019s name was doubtful, his mother was a harlot, and \u2018the elders\u2019 of\nGilead accordingly expelled him from what he claimed to be his father\u2019s\nhouse.[361] He fled to the desert land of Tob,[362] and there gathering\na band of bandits around him, lived on the spoils of brigandage. He soon\nbecame known, like David in later days, for his skill and courage in\ndeeds of arms. For eighteen years the Ammonite domination had lasted,\nand the Gileadites sighed for independence. But it was long before a\nchampion could be found. At last the fame of the bandit captain in Tob\nreached the ears of the Israelitish elders, and they begged him to come\nto their help. Jephthah taunted them with their conduct towards him, but\nfeelings of patriotism finally prevailed, and he agreed to lead his\nfollowers against the national enemy if the Gileadites would promise to\nmake him their \u2018head.\u2019 The representatives of the people had no choice\nbut to agree to his terms, and the struggle for independence began. It\nended in the deliverance of the Israelites; the Ammonites were again\ndriven from the land which had once been theirs, and Gilead was\nfree.[363]\n\nThe rejoicings over the victory, however, were clouded by the rash vow\nof the Israelitish chieftain. Before marching forth to attack the\nAmmonites, Jephthah had vowed to sacrifice as a burnt-offering to Yahveh\nwhatever first came out of his house at Mizpeh to meet him should he\nreturn \u2018in peace.\u2019 It was his own daughter, his only child, who thus\ncame forth to meet him, and to celebrate his victory with timbrels and\ndances. The spirit of the Gileadites was very far removed from that\nwhich had taught Abraham a newer and better way; the Canaanite belief\nwas strong in them that their firstborn could be claimed by their God;\nand none questioned that Yahveh Himself had selected the victim and led\nher forth from the house to welcome the conqueror. The vow had to be\nfulfilled; Yahveh had claimed that which was nearest and dearest to the\nGileadite chief in return for the victory He had given him. All Jephthah\ncould do was to grant his daughter\u2019s request that she might wander for\ntwo months in the mountains with her comrades, bewailing \u2018her\nvirginity,\u2019 before the day of sacrifice arrived.\n\nThe memory of the sacrifice was never forgotten. It became a custom in\nIsrael, we are told, for the Israelitish maidens year by year to\n\u2018lament\u2019 for four whole days the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite. It\nhas been maintained that this custom was the origin of the story, and\nthat the lamentation was not for the daughter of a Hebrew judge, but for\nsome mountain goddess who corresponded with the Ph\u0153nician god Adonis. As\nthe maidens of Ph\u0153nicia once each year mourned the death of Adonis, so\nthe maidens of Gilead bewailed the untimely death of a virgin goddess.\nBut the theory is part of that reconstruction of ancient Israelitish\nhistory, one of the postulates of which is that a custom has never\narisen out of a historical incident. The historian, on the other hand,\nfinds in the story evidences of its truth. There is no trace elsewhere\nof such a goddess as the story demands, or of an anniversary of\nlamentation in her honour, while the account of the vow and its\nfulfilment is in thorough harmony with the beliefs and customs of the\ntime. It is wholly contrary to the spirit of later Israel as well as to\nthe feelings of those who adhered faithfully to the Mosaic Law. If the\nstory were an invention, it must have originated either in the days when\nhuman sacrifice was still practised, or else in the later period when it\nwas regarded with abhorrence. In either case, its invention would be\ninconceivable. In the earlier period there would have been no reason to\ninvent what actually took place; in the later period, the character of a\njudge and deliverer of Israel would never have been needlessly\nblackened. Moreover, the belief that the first thing met with on leaving\nor entering a house is unlucky and devoted to the gods, is a belief\nwhich is probably as old as humanity. It still survives in our own\nfolklore, and testifies to a time when he who first left the protection\nof the hearth and threshold could be claimed by the powers of the other\nworld.\n\nJephthah\u2019s term of office as ruler of Gilead was only six years. He\nseems to have been already advanced in years when he was called upon to\noppose the Ammonites. But his rule was signalised by a war with Ephraim.\nThe ever-increasing dissensions between the tribes on the eastern and\nwestern sides of the Jordan came openly to a head, and the elder and\nyounger branches of the house of Joseph engaged in a struggle to the\ndeath. Ephraim, it seems, still claimed predominance, and asserted its\nright to interfere in the concerns of its eastern brethren. \u2018Ye\nGileadites,\u2019 it was said, \u2018are fugitives of Ephraim among the\nEphraimites and among the Manassites.\u2019 But the \u2018fugitives\u2019 soon proved\nthat they were the stronger of the two. The Ephraimites invaded Gilead,\nbut were compelled to retreat. Before they could reach the Jordan\nJephthah had seized the fords across it, and the retreat of the\nEphraimites was cut off. A terrible massacre took place; whoever said\n_sibboleth_ for _shibboleth_, \u2018river-channel,\u2019 was thereby known to\nbelong to the western bank, and was at once put to death. Altogether\n42,000 men of Ephraim perished, and the power of the tribe was broken.\nJephthah, however, did not follow up his success; that would have\nbrought upon him the hostility of the other western tribes, and he seems\nto have returned to Gilead. There he died and was buried in one of its\ncities, the name of which was not stated in the sources used by the\ncompiler of the book of Judges.[364]\n\nThe date of Jephthah it is impossible to fix. That the author of the\nbook of Judges was ignorant of it would appear from his making Jephthah\nfollow immediately after Jair. But it is clear that he believed it to\nhave been towards the close of the period of the Judges. This, too,\nwould agree with the fact that it corresponded with the fall of the\npower of Ephraim. In the time of Jerubbaal, the Ephraimites were still\nstrong enough to command the respect of the conqueror of the Midianites;\nwhen the light once more breaks upon the history of central Israel we\nfind the Philistines in possession of the passes that led into Mount\nEphraim, and threatening Shiloh itself. The destruction of the\nEphraimite forces at the fords of the Jordan can best explain the\nPhilistine success.\n\nWith the period of the Philistine supremacy the history of the Judges\ncomes to an end. That supremacy forced Israel to the conviction that\nthey must either submit to the organised authority of a king or cease to\nbe a nation at all. The kingdom of Israel was born amid the struggle\nwith the Philistines; and though the first king perished in the\nconflict, his successor succeeded in founding an empire.\n\nThe Philistine wars lasted for many years. They began with raids on the\nIsraelitish territory immediately adjoining that of the Philistines.\nPerhaps the conquest of the plain at the foot of the mountains of Judah\nfirst roused their hostility against Judah; at all events, it brought\nthem into contact with the conquering tribe. A desultory warfare was\ncarried on for some years; then the plans of the Philistines became more\ndefinite, and they aimed at nothing less than the conquest of the whole\nof Canaan. The sea-robbers had been gradually changed into a nation of\nsoldiers.\n\nSamson, the hero of popular tradition, belongs to the earlier part of\nthe Philistine wars. The last relics of the tribe of Dan in the\nneighbourhood of Zorah and Eshtaol have not as yet been absorbed by\nJudah; the Philistines, on the other hand, have gained possession of the\nwhole plain. Between them and the Israelites there is constant\nintercourse, partly friendly, partly hostile; at one time the two\npeoples intermarry, visit, and trade with one another; at another time\nthey carry on a guerilla warfare.\n\nOf late years it has been the fashion to transform Samson into the hero\nof a myth.[365] It is true that his name is derived from _Shemesh_, \u2018the\nsun,\u2019 and it cannot be denied that the stories relating to him have come\nrather from popular tradition than from written records. His hair, in\nwhich his strength lay, reminds us of the face of the sun-god engraved\non the platform of the Ph\u0153nician temple of Rakleh on Mount Hermon, where\nthe flaming rays of the sun take the place of human hair. But it must be\nremembered that Samson is represented as a Nazarite\u2014a purely Israelitish\ninstitution between which and a solar myth there is no connection\u2014and\nthat his strength was dependent on the keeping of the vow which\nconsecrated him to Yahveh as a Nazarite from the day of his birth. With\nthe loss of the hair the vow was broken, the consecration at an end; the\nstrength had been given by Yahveh, and Yahveh took it away. Between this\nand the fiery locks of the sun-god there is but little connection.\n\nThe character of Samson, however, is that of a hero of popular\ntradition. His utter ignoring of moral principles, his hankering after\nforeign women, his riddle, his devices for deceiving and slaying his\nenemies, belong to the tales told by the Easterns at the door of a\n_caf\u00e9_, or around the camp-fire, rather than to sober history. When we\nhear that Ramath-lehi was so called from the \u2018jawbone\u2019 of an ass which\nSamson had \u2018flung away\u2019 after slaying a thousand men with it, or that\n\u00can-hakkor\u00ea received its name from the water which flowed from the bone\nto quench the hero\u2019s thirst, we find ourselves in the presence of those\netymological puns with which the historian has nothing to do.[366]\n\nThe compiler of the book of Judges has turned this hero of popular\nstory, this lover of Philistine women, into a Judge of Israel. He was,\nhowever, merely a Danite champion, the one hero of Danite tradition, of\nwhom indeed the tribe had little reason to be proud. Even in Judah his\nachievements gained him no honour. When the Philistines sought to seize\nhim after he had burnt their corn, \u2018three thousand men of Judah\u2019\nascended to his place of refuge \u2018on the top of the rock Etam\u2019 and handed\nhim over to his enemies. The wiles of a Philistine harlot deprived him\nof his strength and his eyes, and he ended his days as a fettered slave\nat Gaza, grinding wheat for his Philistine lords. The glory of his\ndeath, however, in the eyes of his fellow-tribesmen redeemed the rest of\nhis life. Called to make sport for his masters in the temple of Dagon,\nwhile they feasted in honour of their god, he laid hold of the two\ncentral columns on which the building was supported, and brought it down\non the assembled crowd. Samson and the Philistines alike were buried\nunder its ruins. And \u2018so,\u2019 the chronicler adds, \u2018the dead which he slew\nat his death were more than they which he slew in his life.\u2019\n\nIn the story of Samson we hear for the first and the last time in the\nbook of Judges of \u2018the men of Judah.\u2019 It is the first time that they\nappear in history. Judah produced no Judges, for Othniel was a\nKenizzite, and throughout the epoch of the Judges its history is a\nblank. Nothing can show more clearly how modern a tribe it was as\ncompared with the other tribes of Israel, and how insignificant was the\npower which it possessed. The original Judah had its home at Beth-lehem,\nshut in between the Jebusite Jerusalem and the Edomite Hebron, and it\nwas not until it had absorbed and coalesced with the other occupants of\nits future territory that the Judah of history was born. It is possible\nthat the union was brought about, or at all events completed, by the\nPhilistine wars; at any rate we find no traces of it at an earlier date.\nEven Lachish had been an Ephraimitic conquest, and in the time of\nDeborah it must still have been reckoned among the cities of\nEphraim.[367]\n\nEphraim was yet to have a judge, the last of the race. Though the title\nmust be denied to Samson, it must be given to Samuel the seer. In Samuel\nthe judges and the prophets of Israel met together, and the spirit of\nYahveh which had marked out the judge now passed over into the prophet.\n\nBut the history of Samuel is not contained in the book of Judges. We\nhave to look for it in a new book which records the foundation of the\nIsraelitish kingdom. The books of Samuel take their name from that of\nthe prophet which appears on their first page. They begin, however, with\nthe conjunction \u2018And,\u2019 and thus presuppose an earlier volume. They are,\nin fact, merely the continuation of the book of Judges. Whether or not\nthe same compiler has worked at the two books we cannot tell; that is a\nquestion which must be left to the philological critics who have long\nsince settled his character and date, and determined exactly the limits\nof his work.\n\nThere is one fact, however, connected with the compilation of the book\nof Judges which the historian cannot but notice. The narratives embodied\nin it differ from one another in tone and character. The religious point\nof view of the stories of Jephthah or Micah is wholly different from\nthat of the stories of Barak or Jerubbaal. Between the account of the\noverthrow of the Canaanites on the Kishon and the stories narrated of\nSamson, there is the contrast between written history and folklore. Each\nnarrative preserves its own individuality, its own point of view, its\nown reflection of the age and locality to which it belongs.\n\nHere and there, indeed, the pen of the historian who has collected and\ncombined these fragments of the past history of Israel can be clearly\ntraced. The speeches sometimes remind us of those in Thucydides, and\nexhibit the colouring of a later age. The framework of the narrative,\nmoreover, is the writer\u2019s own; in fact, he shows himself to be more than\na compiler; he is a historian as well. But with all this, the narratives\nhe has collected differ as much in character and tone as they do in the\nevents they record.\n\nWhat more convincing proof can we have of the faithfulness with which he\nhas reproduced his materials? In most cases they have not even passed\nthrough the assimilating medium of his own mind; instead of using his\nprivilege as a historian he has given them to us unchanged and\nunmodified. And yet in many cases they must have shocked both his\nreligious and his patriotic sense. Whatever else he may have been, the\nauthor of the book of Judges possessed a historical restraint and\nhonesty which is rare even among the modern writers of Europe. He has\ngiven us the older records of his country just as he found them.\n\nThey were for the most part written records. The scribes of Zebulon are\nalluded to in the Song of Deborah, and the notices of the \u2018lesser\u2019\nJudges have the same annalistic character as the notices of the early\nkings of Egypt in the fragments of Marretho. The Canaanites of Shechem,\nfrom whom Abimelech was sprung, had been acquainted with the art of\nwriting from untold centuries, and the Canaanitish cities which were\nlaid under tribute by Manasseh and the neighbouring tribes contained\narchive-chambers and libraries where the older literature of the country\nwas stored. It is only in the future territory of Judah that we hear of\na Kirjath-Sepher, \u2018a town of books,\u2019 being destroyed, and it is just\nthis part of the country whose history in the age of the Judges is a\nblank. Between Othniel the destroyer of Kirjath-Sepher and David the\nconqueror and embellisher of Jerusalem, the name of no single Judge or\nhero has been preserved. Samson belonged to the feeble relics of the\ntribe of Dan, and the story of his deeds is the one narrative in the\nbook of Judges which betrays an origin in folklore instead of written\nhistory.\n\nFootnote 279:\n\n  Judg. iii. 3. The \u2018Hivites\u2019 of the Hebrew text should probably be\n  corrected into \u2018Hittites.\u2019 The Sidonians are mentioned to the\n  exclusion of the Tyrians, as in Gen. x. 15-18. This takes us back to\n  the period before that of David, when Tyre was still a place of small\n  importance, and Sidon was the leading city on the Ph\u0153nician coast.\n  Cp., however, 1 Kings xvi. 31.\n\nFootnote 280:\n\n  Judg. iii. 6, 7.\n\nFootnote 281:\n\n  As Israel was theoretically considered to be divided into twelve\n  tribes, there is no reason for doubting the cypher, even though there\n  were not actually twelve tribes at the time in Canaan, and one of\n  tribes, Benjamin, can hardly have had a piece sent to it. The text\n  carefully avoids saying that the pieces were sent to each of the\n  tribes. In chap. xx. 2, the word \u2018all\u2019 is used in that restricted\n  sense to which western students of Oriental history have to accustom\n  themselves, since one at least of the tribes, Benjamin, was absent.\n\nFootnote 282:\n\n  The value of modern philological criticism of the Old Testament may be\n  judged from the fact that Stade pronounces the narrative of the war\n  against Benjamin to be unhistorical, because the first king of Israel\n  was a Benjamite! (_Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, p. 161).\n\nFootnote 283:\n\n  Judg. xviii. 12, 13, where it is said to be \u2018behind\u2019 or west of\n  Kirjath-jearim. In xiii. 25 the Camp of Dan is placed between Zorah\n  and Eshtaol, which were west of Kirjath-jearim. See G. A. Smith,\n  _Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, pp. 220, 221.\n\nFootnote 284:\n\n  We hear on other occasions of a regiment of six hundred men among the\n  Israelites (Judg. xx. 47; 1 Sam. xiii. 15, xxiii. 13), and it would\n  seem, therefore, that in the division of the troops a memory of the\n  culture of Babylonia was preserved. Six hundred men represented the\n  Babylonian _ner_.\n\nFootnote 285:\n\n  Judg. xviii. 30. \u2018The captivity of the land\u2019 is of course that\n  described in 2 Kings xv. 29, and shows that the compilation of the\n  Book of Judges must be subsequent to the conquest of Northern and\n  Eastern Israel by Tiglath-pileser.\n\nFootnote 286:\n\n  Kennicott, _Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum_, i. p. 509. \u2018Moses\u2019 is also\n  the reading of the Vulgate and a few Greek MSS.\n\nFootnote 287:\n\n  See 1 Kings viii. 9. The addition of the pot of manna and Aaron\u2019s rod\n  in the Epistle to the Hebrews (ix. 4) is due to a misunderstanding of\n  Ex. xvi. 33, 34, and Numb. xvii. 10.\n\nFootnote 288:\n\n  The identity of Mitanni and Nahrina is stated in one of the Tel\n  el-Amarna letters (W. and A. 23) from Mitanni, a hieratic docket\n  attached to it stating that it came from Nahrina. In one place,\n  however (W. and A. 79. 13, 14), the Ph\u0153nician governor Rib-Hadad seems\n  to distinguish between \u2018the king of Mittani and the king of Nahrina,\u2019\n  though the passage may also be translated, \u2018the king of Mittani, that\n  is, the king of Nahrina.\u2019 Ilu-rabi-Khur of Gebal (W. and A. 91. 32)\n  writes the name Narima, and says that the king of Narima in alliance\n  with the king of the Hittites was destroying the Egyptian cities of\n  Northern Syria.\n\nFootnote 289:\n\n  W. and A. 104. 32-35. Comp. Numb. xxiv. 24, where Assyria and Eber\n  take the place of Babylonia and Nahrima. The translation given above\n  is from a corrected copy of the cuneiform text.\n\nFootnote 290:\n\n  See _Records of the Past_, new ser., vi. pp. 28, 29, 34, 45.\n\nFootnote 291:\n\n  Brugsch, _Egypt under the Pharaohs_ (Eng. tr.), ii. p. 151; _Records\n  of the Past_, new ser., vi. pp. 31-45.\n\nFootnote 292:\n\n  _Records of the Past_, new ser., vi. pp. 38-41. As only the _qau_ or\n  \u2018district\u2019 of Shalam is mentioned, it is possible that the city itself\n  was not captured by the Egyptian troops. Hebron is written _Khibur_,\n  _i.e._ the city of the \u2018Khabiri.\u2019\n\nFootnote 293:\n\n  Was the campaign of Ramses III. the mysterious \u2018hornet\u2019 sent before\n  the children of Israel to destroy the populations of Canaan (Exod.\n  xxiii. 28, Deut. vii. 20, Josh. xxiv. 12)? At any rate, this is more\n  probable than the suggestion that _tsir\u2019\u00e2h_, rendered \u2018hornet,\u2019 is a\n  variant of _ts\u00e2ra\u2019ath_, \u2018plague.\u2019\n\nFootnote 294:\n\n  The name has been Hebraised, and perhaps corrupted, so that it is\n  difficult to suggest what could have been its Mitannian original. The\n  Khusarsathaim of the Septuagint, however, reminds us of the name of\n  Dusratta or Tuisratta, the Mitannian king who corresponded with the\n  Pharaoh Amenophis IV.\n\nFootnote 295:\n\n  Livy, xxviii. 37, xxx. 7.\n\nFootnote 296:\n\n  The Welsh laws allowed a stranger to acquire proprietary rights in the\n  fourth generation, and to become a tribesman in the ninth (Seebohm, in\n  the _Transactions_ of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, 1895-96,\n  pp. 12 _sqq._).\n\nFootnote 297:\n\n  This is expressly stated in the Song of Deborah: the Reubenites could\n  not come to the help of their brethren, for they had become a body of\n  scattered and nomad shepherds (Judg. v. 15, 16).\n\nFootnote 298:\n\n  See Judg. xx. 16.\n\nFootnote 299:\n\n  _P\u2019s\u00eel\u00eem_, mistranslated \u2018quarries\u2019 in the Authorised Version. They\n  were the sacred stones, believed to be inspired with divinity, which\n  formed the Gilgal or \u2018Circle.\u2019 Modern critics have raised unnecessary\n  difficulties about the geography of the narrative, and conjectured\n  that the name of the capital of Eglon has dropped out of the text in\n  Judg. iii. 15 (see Budde: _Die B\u00fccher Richter und Samuelis_, p. 99).\n  The Biblical writer makes it plain that Eglon was at Gilgal, not at\n  Jericho as his would-be critics assert.\n\nFootnote 300:\n\n  Caphtor is written Kptar in hieroglyphics at Kom-Ombo (on the wall of\n  the southern corridor of the temple), where it heads a list of\n  geographical names, and is followed by those of Persia and Susa\n  (Sayce: _The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_, 3rd\n  edition, p. 173). The name of the Zakkal, formerly read Zakkar or\n  Zakkur, and identified with the Teukrians, has been pointed out by\n  Professor Hommel in a Babylonian inscription of the fifteenth century\n  B.C. (W. A. I. iv. 34, No. 2, ll. 2, 6). Here it is called the city of\n  Zaqqalu, and we may gather from a papyrus in the possession of M.\n  Gol\u00e9nischeff that it was situated on the coast of Canaan not far from\n  Dor.\n\nFootnote 301:\n\n  A reminiscence of the event is probably preserved in Justin, xviii. 3,\n  where we read that in the year before the fall of Troy, \u2018the king of\n  the Ascalonians\u2019 destroyed Sidon, whose inhabitants fled in their\n  ships and founded Tyre. The date would harmonise with that of the\n  reign of Ramses III. Lydian history related that Askalos, the son of\n  Hymen\u00e6os, and brother of Tantalos, had been sent by the Lydian king\n  Akiamos in command of an army to the south of Palestine, and had there\n  founded Askalon (Steph. Byz. _s.v._ \u1f08\u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd), and according to Xanthos\n  the Lydian historian, the goddess Derket\u00f4 was drowned in the lake of\n  Askalon by the Lydian Mopsos (Athen. _Deipn._ viii. 37, p. 346). In\n  these legends we have a tradition of the fact that the Philistines and\n  their allies came from the coast of Asia Minor and the Greek Seas.\n\nFootnote 302:\n\n  Josh. xiii. 2, 3; Judg. iii. 1-3. The statement in Judg. i. 18 was\n  true only theoretically; it was not true in fact until the reign of\n  David.\n\nFootnote 303:\n\n  Stephanus Byzantinus _s.v._ \u1f38\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, where it is also said that Gaza\n  was termed Ion\u00ea. According to Kast\u00f4r the thalassocratia or \u2018sea-rule\u2019\n  of Min\u00f4s lasted until B.C. 1180, when it passed into the hands of the\n  Lydians. By the latter may be meant the expedition sent to the south\n  of Palestine by the Lydian king Akiamos.\n\nFootnote 304:\n\n  Sayce, _Races of the Old Testament_, pp. 126, 127, and pl. i.\n\nFootnote 305:\n\n  Deut. ii. 23. Avim is merely a descriptive title signifying \u2018the\n  people of the ruins.\u2019\n\nFootnote 306:\n\n  See my _Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_, pp.\n  325-327. It is possible that some of the Semitic deities had been\n  adopted by the Philistines before they left Krete, if indeed they came\n  from that island. At all events it has been supposed that certain\n  Canaanitish divinities were adored there, more especially Ashtoreth,\n  under the title of Diktynna. The presence of Semites in the island\n  seems indicated by the name of the river Iardanos or Jordan.\n\nFootnote 307:\n\n  In the age of Deborah, however, it would seem that the seaport of\n  Joppa was still in the possession of the Danites (Judg. v. 17). But\n  cp. Josh. xix. 46.\n\nFootnote 308:\n\n  Winckler and Abel, _Mittheilungen aus den orientalischen Sammlungen_,\n  iii. 143. 37, 43. Anatum or Anat, the son of Sin-abu-su, is also a\n  witness to the sale of some property in a deed dated in the reign of\n  the Babylonian king Samsu-iluna, the son of Khammurabi or Amraphel,\n  and published by Mr. Pinches, _Inscribed Babylonian Tablets in the\n  Collection of Sir H. Peek_, iii. p. 61.\n\nFootnote 309:\n\n  See Judg. i. 27. Beth-shean, the Scythopolis of classical geography,\n  is the modern Beis\u00e2n.\n\nFootnote 310:\n\n  Twenty is half the indeterminate number forty, and merely denotes that\n  the exact number of years, though unknown, was less than a generation.\n\nFootnote 311:\n\n  Judg. v. 15. Literally the words are: \u2018Issachar [is] like Barak.\u2019 The\n  Heb. _k\u00ean_ is the Assyrian _k\u00eami_, \u2018like,\u2019 and is used in the same way\n  as _kida_ in modern Egyptian Arabic. It is criticism run wild to\n  assert with Budde, Wellhausen, and others, that Deborah also is\n  described as belonging to Issachar.\n\nFootnote 312:\n\n  Pindar, _Pyth._ iv. 106; _Lactant._ i. 22; _Etym. Mag._ s.v. \u1f10\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 313:\n\n  Gen. xxxv. 8, where the name of the terebinth, Allon-Bachuth, \u2018the\n  terebinth of weeping,\u2019 is derived from the lamentations over the death\n  of the nurse. A different origin of the name, however, seems to be\n  indicated in Hos. xii. 4.\n\nFootnote 314:\n\n  Rimmon, one of the chief Assyrian gods, was also entitled Barqu, \u2018the\n  lightning,\u2019 and it is possible that the name had migrated westward\n  along with that of Rimmon. Noam, whose name enters into that of\n  Abinoam, the father of Barak, seems to have been a Ph\u0153nician god,\n  whose consort was Naamah.\n\nFootnote 315:\n\n  \u2018Forty thousand\u2019 represents the highest unit, one thousand, in the\n  division of the army, multiplied by the indeterminate number forty.\n\nFootnote 316:\n\n  \u2018The Hittites of Kadesh,\u2019 according to the reading of Lucian\u2019s\n  recension of the Septuagint, 2 Sam. xxiv. 6, in place of the corrupt\n  and unmeaning Tahtim-hodshi of the Massoretic text. See Hitzig, _Z. D.\n  M. G._, ix. pp. 763 _sqq._; Wellhausen, _T. B. S._, p. 221.\n\nFootnote 317:\n\n  It has been generally assumed to have been near the Kishon, on account\n  of Judges iv. 16. But the inference is not certain, partly because we\n  do not know how far the pursuit may have extended, partly because\n  Oriental expressions cannot be interpreted with the mathematical\n  exactitude of western language. The name of Harosheth means probably\n  \u2018[the town of] metal-working,\u2019 or \u2018the smithy.\u2019\n\nFootnote 318:\n\n  Being a poem, it was probably handed down orally at first. This would\n  account for variant readings like \u2018also the clouds dropped,\u2019 by the\n  side of \u2018also the heavens dropped,\u2019 in _v._ 4; or \u2018in the days of\n  Jael,\u2019 by the side of \u2018in the days of Shamgar ben-Anath,\u2019 in _v._ 6.\n  The name of Jael, however, may have been a marginal gloss like\n  _s\u00e2r\u00eed_, \u2018a remnant,\u2019 possibly, in _v._ 13. The song was almost\n  certainly written from the outset in the letters of the so-called\n  Ph\u0153nician alphabet, and not in cuneiform characters. Had it been\n  written in cuneiform there would have been a confusion between\n  _aleph_, _h\u00ea_ and _\u2019ayin_, which cannot be detected in it. At the same\n  time, the use of the preposition _b\u011b_ in _vv._ 2 and 15 (_b\u2019 Isr\u00e2el_,\n  _b\u2019 Issachar_) could be explained from the cuneiform syllabary, in\n  which the character _pi_ (used for _bi_ in the Tel el-Amarna tablets)\n  also has the value of _yi_. The omission of the article, which is a\n  characteristic of the Song, reminds us that in Canaanite or Ph\u0153nician\n  the definite article of Hebrew did not exist.\n\nFootnote 319:\n\n  A variant reading gave \u2018clouds\u2019 instead of \u2018heavens.\u2019\n\nFootnote 320:\n\n  Probably a marginal gloss.\n\nFootnote 321:\n\n  This line also is corrupt, but there is a reference to it again in\n  verse 11, \u2018The people of Yahveh went down to the gates.\u2019\n\nFootnote 322:\n\n  _I.e._ on the road.\n\nFootnote 323:\n\n  _Dabb\u0115r\u00ee sh\u00eer_, with a play on the name of Deborah.\n\nFootnote 324:\n\n  The Massoretic text has \u2018captives.\u2019\n\nFootnote 325:\n\n  The text is here again corrupt. The Septuagint renders it: \u2018Then went\n  down the remnant to the strong.\u2019 But _s\u00e2r\u00eed_, \u2018remnant,\u2019 is possibly a\n  marginal gloss derived from the name of the place Sarid in Zebulon\n  (Josh. xix. 10), the meaning being \u2018Then the people of Yahveh\n  descended to Sarid to the nobles.\u2019 The second member of the verse\n  shows that the \u2018nobles\u2019 are Israelites.\n\nFootnote 326:\n\n  The text cannot be right here, though the general meaning of it is\n  clear.\n\nFootnote 327:\n\n  The idea is the same as that of the sun and the moon standing still\n  while Joshua defeated the kings at Makkedah (Josh. x. 12-14).\n  Babylonian astrology taught that events in this world were dependent\n  on the motions of the heavenly bodies.\n\nFootnote 328:\n\n  Septuagint: \u2018My mighty soul has trodden him down.\u2019 The verse seems to\n  be corrupt. Cheyne translates: \u2018Step on, my soul, with strength!\u2019\n\nFootnote 329:\n\n  The Massoretic punctuation makes it \u2018spoil.\u2019 Ewald conjecturally reads\n  _s\u00e2r\u00e2h_, \u2018princess,\u2019 for _sh\u00e2l\u00e2l_, \u2018spoiling.\u2019 The Septuagint has,\n  equally conjecturally, \u2018spoils for his neck.\u2019 The garment referred to\n  is the white towel worn round the neck as a protection from the sun or\n  wind, and called _shaqqa_ in Upper Egypt, or the parti-coloured\n  _mil\u00e2ya_ used for the same purpose in Lower Egypt. Cheyne translates:\n  \u2018A coloured stuff, two pieces of embroidery, for my neck, has he taken\n  for a prey.\u2019\n\nFootnote 330:\n\n  Judg. vi. 32.\n\nFootnote 331:\n\n  1 Sam. xii. 11, 2 Sam. xi. 21 (where \u2018Baal\u2019 has been changed into\n  \u2018bosheth,\u2019 \u2018shame\u2019).\n\nFootnote 332:\n\n  Judg. ix. 1.\n\nFootnote 333:\n\n  See Kittel, _Geschichte der Hebr\u00e4er_, ii. p. 73.\n\nFootnote 334:\n\n  If a distinction is to be drawn between the names of Gideon and\n  Jerubbaal, it might be conjectured that the first was the name under\n  which the bearer of it was known to the Israelites at Ophrah, the\n  second that whereby he was known to the Canaanites of Shechem.\n  According to Porphyry, Ph\u0153nician annals spoke of a priest of Ieu\u00f4\n  named Hierombalos, which is clearly Jerubbaal. The Canaanitish kings\n  could also be priests, as we learn from the history of Melchizedek.\n  Baethgen makes Jerubbaal practically identical with Meribbaal\n  (_Beitr\u00e4ge zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte_, p. 143).\n\nFootnote 335:\n\n  The Kadmonites of Gen. xv. 19, where they are coupled with the Kenites\n  and Kenizzites of Southern Palestine: see above, p. 162.\n\nFootnote 336:\n\n  Many of the accounts of battles given by Livy are similarly confused,\n  and are doubtless drawn from more than one source, but no one would\n  think of distinguishing the sources, much less of splitting the\n  narrative of the Roman historian into separate documents.\n\nFootnote 337:\n\n  Judg. vi. 24.\n\nFootnote 338:\n\n  The usage lingered even as late as the time of Hosea (Hos. ii. 16).\n\nFootnote 339:\n\n  The name of Abimelech, \u2018my father is king,\u2019 cannot be used as an\n  argument, since the \u2018king\u2019 referred to in it is the divine king or\n  Moloch, not an earthly ruler.\n\nFootnote 340:\n\n  Judg. ix. 4, 46. Cf. viii. 33.\n\nFootnote 341:\n\n  See Judg. i. 28.\n\nFootnote 342:\n\n  The story of the pitchers and torches is pronounced by modern\n  criticism to be a myth, and has been compared with old Egyptian\n  romances like that which described the capture of Joppa in the reign\n  of Thothmes III. by a stratagem similar to that which we read of in\n  the story of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves. But from the point of\n  view of history alone there is no reason for discrediting the\n  narrative. Bed\u00e2win superstition would fully account for the panic and\n  flight if the camp believed that the spirits of the night had attacked\n  them. Indeed similar panics have been known to arise not only among\n  the Bed\u00e2win of the wilderness, but even among disciplined English\n  soldiers.\n\nFootnote 343:\n\n  The names of the chiefs have been said to have been derived from the\n  two places which local tradition associated with their deaths. But\n  though \u2018the rock of the Raven\u2019 is a very possible geographical name in\n  the East\u2014there is indeed more than one \u2018Raven\u2019s Rock\u2019 in modern\n  Egypt\u2014\u2018the winepress of the Wolf\u2019 is quite the reverse. Animal names\n  like raven and wolf, on the other hand, were frequently applied in\n  ancient Arabia to individuals and tribes (see W. Robertson Smith in\n  the _Journal of Philology_, ix. 17, 1880, pp. 79-88).\n\nFootnote 344:\n\n  In the narrative the quarrel with Ephraim comes before the defeat of\n  Zebah and Zalmunna, but Judg. vii. 25 shows that it is misplaced.\n  Certain critics have maintained that two different versions of the\n  same story lie before us, and that the Oreb and Zeeb of the one\n  version are the Zebah and Zalmunna of the other. This, however, is to\n  exhibit a curious ignorance of Bed\u00e2win organisation and modes of\n  warfare: there would have been more than one raiding band, and the\n  different bands would have been under different sh\u00eakhs.\n\nFootnote 345:\n\n  See above, p. 270. Of the cities mentioned in Judg. i. 27, Dor, as we\n  learn from the Gol\u00e9nischeff papyrus, had been occupied by the Zakkal,\n  the kinsfolk of the Philistines, and would not have become Israelitish\n  until after the conquest of the latter people. (Cf. 1 Kings iv. 11.)\n  Dor, however, properly belonged to Asher, and Josh. xvii. 11 expressly\n  states that the Canaanitish cities afterwards possessed by Manasseh\n  were originally included in the territories of Issachar and Asher.\n  Issachar could not have lost them until after the time of Barak.\n\nFootnote 346:\n\n  Even at Tyre, the title of the supreme Baal, Melek-qiryath (Melkarth),\n  \u2018the king of the city,\u2019 shows that at the outset the state had been a\n  theocracy.\n\nFootnote 347:\n\n  See above, p. 306. The priestly character of Jerubbaal has been\n  suppressed in the narrative in accordance with the feelings of a later\n  time, when the priesthood was strictly confined to the tribe of Levi.\n  But at an earlier date the anointed king was regarded as invested by\n  Yahveh with priestly functions. Saul and Solomon offered sacrifice,\n  and David\u2019s sons acted as priests (2 Sam. viii. 18).\n\nFootnote 348:\n\n  See Judg. xvii. 5; Hos. iii. 4.\n\nFootnote 349:\n\n  1 Sam. ii. 18, xxii. 18, xxiii. 9, xxx. 7, 8.\n\nFootnote 350:\n\n  Judg. vi. 24, viii. 27.\n\nFootnote 351:\n\n  See Judg. ix. 1, 28.\n\nFootnote 352:\n\n  2 Sam. xx. 14. The reading of the latter passage, however, is not\n  certain.\n\nFootnote 353:\n\n  See Judg. ix. 41. Verse 31 should be translated, Zebul \u2018sent\n  messengers unto Abimelech to Arumah.\u2019\n\nFootnote 354:\n\n  The name of Jobaal, \u2018Yahveh is Baal,\u2019 has been preserved in the\n  Septuagint. Its signification has caused it to be omitted in the\n  Massoretic text where we have only _ben-\u2019ebed_, \u2018the son of a slave,\u2019\n  corresponding to the expression \u2018son of a nobody,\u2019 which we meet with\n  in the Assyrian inscriptions.\n\nFootnote 355:\n\n  It is here called the _Migdal Shechem_ or \u2018Tower of Shechem,\u2019 but\n  seems to have been the same as the _Millo_ of _v._ 6. The fort would\n  have stood in the same relation to Shechem that the \u2018stronghold of\n  Zion\u2019 taken by David stood to Jerusalem. It was probably built just\n  outside the walls of the town. We may compare also the \u2018Millo\u2019\n  constructed by Solomon to defend his palace and the temple (1 Kings\n  ix. 15).\n\nFootnote 356:\n\n  See 2 Sam. xi. 21.\n\nFootnote 357:\n\n  See Judg. x. 11, 12. All records of the wars with the Zidonians and\n  the Maonites have perished. Perhaps Professor Hommel is right in\n  identifying the Maonites with the people of Ma\u2019\u00e2n in Southern Arabia,\n  whose power waned before the rise of that of Sheba, and extended to\n  the frontiers of Palestine (_Aufs\u00e4tze und Abhandlungen sur Kunde der\n  Sprachen, Literaturen und der Geschichte des vorderen Orients_, pp. 2,\n  47).\n\nFootnote 358:\n\n  Numb. xxvi. 23, 26.\n\nFootnote 359:\n\n  Had the southern Beth-lehem been meant, it would have been called, as\n  elsewhere in the book of Judges, Beth-lehem-Judah.\n\nFootnote 360:\n\n  Numb. xxxii. 41; Deut. iii. 4, 14. In Deut. iii. 4, the \u2018cities\u2019 of\n  Argob are described as sixty in number, which in Josh. xiii. 30 are\n  identified with \u2018the towns of Jair which are in Bashan.\u2019 This,\n  however, is incorrect, as it was thirty villages and not sixty cities\n  that were conquered by Jair.\n\nFootnote 361:\n\n  This must mean that he had claimed a portion of his father\u2019s\n  inheritance from the legitimate sons, and that \u2018the elders\u2019 who tried\n  the case decided it against him. In the narrative he is called merely\n  \u2018the son of Gilead.\u2019\n\nFootnote 362:\n\n  Tubi (No. 22) is one of the places mentioned by Thothmes III. among\n  his conquests in Palestine. It is probably the modern Taiyibeh, the\n  T\u00f4bion of 2 Macc. x. 11, 17.\n\nFootnote 363:\n\n  The argument put into the mouth of the Ammonites (Judg. xi. 13), like\n  the answer made by Jephthah, doubtless expressed the feelings on both\n  sides, but the language is that of the historian, as in the case of\n  the speeches in Thucydides. When it is said (_v._ 26) that the\n  Israelites had occupied the district north of the Arnon for three\n  hundred years, the chronology is that of the compiler. Three hundred\n  years are equivalent to ten generations, and the ten generations are\n  made up by counting the names of the judges given in the book of\n  Judges, down to Jephthah, as representing so many successive\n  generations (1. Moses; 2. Joshua; 3. Othniel; 4. Ehud; 5. Shamgar; 6.\n  Barak; 7. Gideon; 8. Abimelech; 9. Tola; 10. Jair. If Moses and Joshua\n  are reckoned as one generation, the numeration would be carried on to\n  Jephthah).\n\nFootnote 364:\n\n  The name of Jephthah is a shortened form of Jephthah-el, which we find\n  as the name of a valley on the borders of Asher (Josh. xix. 27).\n\nFootnote 365:\n\n  See Steinthal, _The Legend of Samson_, Eng. tr. by Russell Martineau\n  in Goldziher\u2019s _Mythology among the Hebrews_, pp. 392-446.\n\nFootnote 366:\n\n  Ramath-lehi is \u2018the height of Lehi,\u2019 and has nothing to do with\n  _r\u00e2m\u00e2h_, \u2018to throw\u2019; \u2019\u00can-haqqor\u00ea is \u2018the Spring of the Partridge,\u2019 not\n  \u2018of the caller.\u2019\n\nFootnote 367:\n\n  It may be gathered from Judg. i. 16, 17, that Simeon preceded Judah in\n  the occupation of the future Judah. When the expedition against Arad\n  and Zephath was formed, the Jews and Kenites were still encamped\n  together at Jericho. The Kenites seem to have remained behind in the\n  newly-won territory of the Negeb, while the Jews established\n  themselves at Beth-lehem.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER VI\n                   THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MONARCHY\n\n\n    Influence of Shiloh\u2014Samuel and the Philistines\u2014Duplicate Narratives\n    in the Books of Samuel\u2014Prophet and Seer\u2014Dervish Monasteries\u2014Capture\n    of the Ark and Destruction of Shiloh\u2014Saul made King\u2014Quarrels with\n    Samuel\u2014Delivers Israel from the Philistines\u2014Attacks the\n    Amalekites\u2014David\u2014Two Accounts of his Rise to Power\u2014Jealousy of\n    Saul\u2014David\u2019s Flight\u2014Massacre of the Priests at Nob\u2014Wanderings of\n    David\u2014He sells his Services to the King of Gath\u2014Duties of a\n    Mercenary\u2014Battle of Gilboa and David\u2019s Position\u2014He is made King of\n    Judah\u2014War with Esh-Baal\u2014Intrigues with Abner\u2014Murder of\n    Esh-Baal\u2014David revolts from the Philistines and becomes King of\n    Israel\u2014Capture of Jerusalem, which is made the Capital\u2014Results of\n    this\u2014Conquest of the Philistines, of Moab, Ammon, Zobah, and\n    Edom\u2014The Israelitish Empire\u2014Murder of Uriah and Birth of\n    Solomon\u2014Influence of Nathan\u2014Polygamy and its Effects in the Family\n    of David\u2014Revolt of Absalom\u2014Of Sheba\u2014Folly and Ingratitude of\n    David\u2014Saul\u2019s Descendants sacrificed because of a Drought\u2014The Plague\n    and the Purchase of the Site of the Temple\u2014David\u2019s Officers and last\n    Instructions\u2014His Character\u2014Chronology\u2014Solomon puts Joab and Others\n    to Death\u2014His Religious Policy\u2014Queen of Sheba\u2014Trade and\n    Buildings\u2014Hiram of Tyre\u2014Palace and Temple Built\u2014Tadmor\u2014Zoological\n    and Botanical Gardens\u2014Discontent in Israel\u2014Impoverishment of the\n    Country\u2014Jeroboam\u2014Tastes and Character of Solomon.\n\n\nWhen Samuel was born, the Hebrew settlement in Palestine had long been a\nmatter of the past. Little by little Canaan had passed into the\npossession of the Israelitish tribes. The older population had at first\nbeen massacred, then laid under tribute and amalgamated with the\nnewcomers. The tribes themselves had changed much. Some had disappeared,\nothers had grown at their expense. Ephraim, which from the first days of\nthe conquest had been the most powerful among them, was now in a state\nof decadence, and a new force was rising in the south in the shape of\nthe mixed tribe of Judah. A few of the Canaanite cities in the interior\nstill remained independent, like Gezer and Jerusalem, as well as all\nthose on the Ph\u0153nician coast.\n\nThe tribes had suffered from want of cohesion. The attempt to found a\nmonarchy in Manasseh had failed; it was too local and limited, and\nserved only to arouse the jealousy of the tribes which lay outside it.\nIt had done little more than bring to light the dissensions and\ndifferences that existed within Israel itself. The bond that connected\nthe tribes had become continually looser, and the \u2018House of Joseph\u2019 was\ndivided into hostile factions. Benjamin had been decimated by its\nbrother Israelites under the leadership of Ephraim, and Ephraim had\nundergone the same treatment at the hands of its brethren from Gilead.\nThe conquest of Canaan had brought with it the old Canaanitish spirit of\ndisunion and discord; the spectacle which the Tel el-Amarna letters\npresent to us of city arrayed against city is reproduced in the Israel\nof the period of the Judges. The common brotherhood, which was still\nfelt in the age of Deborah, tended to be forgotten. The tribes no longer\ncome to one another\u2019s aid; they fight with one another instead. The\nauthority of the Judges become more and more circumscribed, their\njurisdiction more and more confined. The tribes on the east of the\nJordan begin to lead a separate life, and hardly acknowledge that the\ntribes to the west are kinsmen at all. The incorporation of the\nCanaanite element had weakened the recollection of a common descent, and\nat the same time had introduced into Israel a spirit of selfish\nisolation. The causes which had brought about the conquest of Canaan by\nthe Israelites were now working among its conquerors, and it seemed as\nif the fate of the Canaanites was to be the fate of the Israelites also.\n\nThe sanctuary at Shiloh still existed, but it had lost much of its\ninfluence. It had become little more than the local sanctuary of\nEphraim,[368] and as the power of Ephraim waned the influence of Shiloh\ndeclined as well. Elsewhere rival sanctuaries and rival forms of worship\nhad arisen. The high-places, whereon the Canaanites had adored Baalim\nand Ashtaroth, still continued sacred, and though officially the Baal of\nIsrael was Yahveh, the mass of the people worshipped the local Baal of\nthe place in which they lived. Yahveh was scarcely remembered, even in\nname: His place was taken by the Baalim and Ashtaroth of Canaan.\nManasseh went \u2018a whoring\u2019 after the golden image erected by Jerubbaal in\nOphrah, or after the Canaanitish Baal-berith in Shechem; a rival\npriesthood to that of Shiloh served before the idols of Micah at Dan;\nand Jephthah sacrificed his daughter in accordance with Canaanitish\nbeliefs. The Law of Moses was forgotten; each man did that which was\nright in his own eyes.\n\nModern criticism has asked how it is possible that all this could have\nbeen the case if a written Law actually existed. But the question\nforgets to take account of the circumstances of the time. A knowledge of\nreading and writing was confined to a particular class, that of the\nscribes; Israel was divided; intercommunication was difficult, and a Law\nwhich presupposed a camp of nomads continually under the eye of their\nlegislator, was not adapted to the changed conditions in which the\nIsraelites found themselves. Moreover, it must be remembered that the\nIsraelites were for the most part a peasantry living in scattered\nvillages; the inhabitants of the towns were Canaanites either by race or\nmarriage. The one were too ignorant, the others too alien, to be\naffected by the Mosaic Code.\n\nNevertheless, the Code was preserved at Shiloh. Here there was an\nAaronic priesthood, and the few notices that we possess of the worship\ncarried on there show that it was in accordance with the Mosaic Law.\nOutside Shiloh, among those who still remained true to the faith of\ntheir fathers, the Law was remembered and presumably observed. Of this\nthe Song of Deborah is a witness. The God of Israel, in whose name Barak\nand Deborah went forth against the heathen, is the Yahveh of the\nPentateuch, not the Baal of Canaan. The history of Israel in the age of\nthe Judges is, religiously as well as politically, the history of\ndegeneracy, not of development.\n\nIn fact, religion and politics cannot be separated one from the other in\nthe history of the ancient East, least of all in the history of the\nHebrews. The one presupposes the other, and the political decay of the\nnation is a sure sign of its religious retrogression. The same causes\nwhich broke up its political unity broke up its religious unity as well.\nThe knowledge and worship of Yahveh lingered in Ephraim, because in\nEphraim alone the old ideal and spirit of Israel continued to survive.\nEphraim was, as it were, the heart and core of Israel; it had led the\nattack upon Palestine, and its blood was purer than that of the other\ntribes. It remained more genuinely Israelite, with less admixture of\nforeign blood.\n\nAfter Joshua and Othniel the history of most of the Judges is connected\nwith that of Ephraim. Ehud is a Benjamite\u2014the Ephraimitic \u2018Southerner\u2019;\nShamgar is referred to in the Song of Deborah;[369] Deborah herself\ndwelt near \u2018Beth-el in Mount Ephraim\u2019; between Ephraim and Jerubbaal,\nwho reigned on the Ephraimitic frontier, there was smothered hostility,\nwhich burst into open war in the case of Jephthah; Tola was buried in\n\u2018Shamir in Mount Ephraim\u2019; Abdon was an Ephraimite; while Ibzan and Elon\ncame from adjoining tribes. Jair the Manassite, and Samson from \u2018the\ncamp of Dan,\u2019 are the sole exceptions to the rule. What else can this\nmean except that such annals as survived the stormy age of the Judges\nwere preserved amid the fastnesses of Mount Ephraim? The scribes of\nearly Israel were not confined to Zebulon, and as in Babylonia or Egypt,\nso also in Palestine, the temple was the seat of the library. In the\nsanctuary at Shiloh the written records of the country would have found\na safe harbourage along with the tables of the Law and the other\nmonuments of the Mosaic age.[370]\n\nThe lifetime of Samuel separated the age of the Judges from that of the\nKings. It marked the transition from a period of anarchy and disunion to\none of order and organised unity under a single head. But never had the\nfortunes of Israel seemed so desperate. Disunited, with its former\nleader, Ephraim, disabled and half-exterminated through civil war, it\nhad become the prey of a foreign enemy. The Philistines were no longer\ncontent with raiding expeditions. They now occupied the districts they\noverran, and built forts to secure the passes that led into the very\nheart of the Israelitish territory.[371] Their supremacy extended from\none end of Palestine to another, and so gave a name to the country which\nit never afterwards lost. The tribes were reduced to a condition of\nserfdom; they ceased to be free men who could go forth with arms in\ntheir hands to fight their foes; and were compelled, as in the\nsubsequent days of Chald\u00e6an domination, to confine themselves to tilling\nthe soil. The wandering smiths, the Kenite gypsies, were driven from the\nland; the Israelite was deprived of all warlike weapons, and was forced\nto go to the nearest Philistine post if he wished merely to sharpen his\nimplements of agriculture. The sons of Jacob had almost ceased to be a\nnation.\n\nIt was while Samuel was still young that the chief Philistine victories\nwere gained, and as he grew older the Philistine yoke became heavier and\nmore severe. In the general wreck, his was the one prominent figure in\nIsrael. To him the people looked for counsel and help, and saw in him a\nprophet of Yahveh. But Samuel was a man of peace, not of war. He could\nnot lead his people to battle, or check the rising tide of Philistine\nsuccess. Other men were wanted for the work, and these were not\nforthcoming. Perhaps a time came when Samuel himself was unwilling they\nshould be found, and that the authority he had possessed should pass to\nanother. Such, at least, is the impression we derive from his opposition\nto the demand of the people that they should have a king.\n\nSamuel possessed, moreover, something more than personal influence. He\nwas the last representative of the ancient sanctuary at Shiloh. He had\nbeen dedicated to it even before he was born; he had grown up in it\namong the last descendants of the earlier high-priests; he had seen the\nark taken from it to fall into the hands of the Philistines; he had also\nwitnessed, probably, the destruction of the temple itself. All the older\ntraditions of Mosaic worship gathered about him; he was the living link\nin the chain which bound the religious past of Israel with its present.\nIn his person the doctrines and practices which had been preserved at\nShiloh were handed on to the newer age of the kings.\n\nThe Hebrew historian who put together the books of Samuel was no longer\nembarrassed, like the compiler of the book of Judges, by a want of\nmaterials. His embarrassment arose from a contrary cause. The documents\nbefore him relating to the history of the seer, to the rise of the\nmonarchy and the adventures of David, were numerous, and the same event\nwas sometimes recorded in different forms. He was called upon to\nharmonise and combine them together, and he doubtless experienced the\nsame difficulty in doing so that the Assyriologists at present\nexperience in reconciling the various accounts they have of the history\nof Babylonia in the thirteenth century B.C. That the latter can be\nreconciled, if only we knew a little more, we cannot doubt; but for the\npresent the chronological inconsistencies seem irreconcilable. All that\ncan be done is to set them side by side.\n\nThe compiler of the books of Samuel treated his materials in the same\nway. The result is that the picture of the Hebrew prophet which is\npresented to us is not always uniform in its colours. Sometimes he is a\npriest, sometimes the judge of all Israel, sometimes a mere local seer\nwhose very name appears to be unknown to Saul.[372] Throughout the\ngreater part of the narrative the Philistines are represented as the\nirresistible masters of the country; once, however, we hear that the\ncities they had captured were restored to Israel.[373] But it does not\nfollow that because the colours of the picture are not uniform, a fuller\nknowledge of the history would not show that they are in harmony with\none another. European critics are apt to forget that in the East, and\nmore especially in the ancient East, conditions of life and society\nwhich are incompatible in Europe may exist side by side. John, the\nhermit of Lykopolis in Upper Egypt, was nevertheless on more than one\noccasion the arbiter of the destinies of the Roman Empire. And in the\nborder warfare of Canaan cities passed backwards and forwards from one\nside to the other with a rapidity which it is difficult for the modern\nhistorian to realise.\n\nWhether Samuel was a Levite or an Ephraimite by descent has been\ndisputed. His father came from the village of Ramathaim-zophim in Mount\nEphraim, and was descended from a certain Zuph, who is called \u2018an\nEphrathite.\u2019[374] \u2018Ephrathite\u2019 signifies \u2018a man of Ephraim\u2019 (as in 1\nKings xi. 26). But it also signifies a native of Ephratah or Bethlehem\nin Judah (Ruth i. 2, 1 Sam. xvii. 12), and could therefore signify any\nother place of the same name. That there were other places of the name,\nthe very name of Ephraim, \u2018the two Ephras,\u2019 is a witness,[375] and we\nmight therefore see in the \u2018Ephrathite\u2019 merely a native of one of them.\nThe Chronicler (1 Chron. vi. 26, 27, 33-38) definitely makes Samuel a\nLevite, and traces his genealogy back to Kohath. It is true that in the\nage of Samuel the priests, in spite of the Mosaic law, were not always\nof the family of Levi\u2014the fact that David\u2019s sons were \u2018priests\u2019 is a\nsufficient proof of this,[376]\u2014but it seems hard to believe that such an\ninfringement of the Levitical tradition would have been permitted at\nShiloh. Nor is it likely that the genealogy given by the Chronicler was\nan invention. Samuel had been in a special manner the gift of Yahveh.\nHis mother Hannah had borne no children to her husband Elkanah, and was\naccordingly exposed to the taunts of a second and more fortunate wife.\nOnce each year did the whole family \u2018go up\u2019 to Shiloh, \u2018to worship and\nto sacrifice unto the Lord of Hosts.\u2019 On one of these occasions Hannah\nbesought Yahveh with tears that He would grant her a son, promising to\ndedicate him to the service of the sanctuary should he be born. A\nBabylonian tablet, dated in the fifth year of Kambyses, records a\nsimilar dedication by a Babylonian mother of her three sons to the\nservice of the sun-god at Sippara.[377] In this case, however, the sons\ndid not leave their mother\u2019s house until they were grown up, when they\nentered the temple, where part of their duty was to attend the daily\nservice.\n\nHannah\u2019s prayer was granted, and a son was born. The name which he\nreceived has no relation to the circumstances of his birth, in spite of\nthe etymology suggested for it in 1 Sam. i. 20, so long as we look only\nto its Hebrew spelling. But if this spelling has been derived from a\ncuneiform original all becomes clear. Sam\u00fb-il in Assyrian would mean\n\u2018God hears,\u2019 and there would thus be a fitting connection between the\nname and the story of the prophet\u2019s birth. The fact is noteworthy, as it\nsuggests that the history of Samuel was first written in the cuneiform\ncharacters of Babylonia; and that the cuneiform syllabary was used in\nIsrael up to the time of the fall of Shiloh.[378]\n\nAs soon as the child was weaned he was brought to the sanctuary along\nwith other gifts. These consisted of meal and wine, and three bullocks,\none of which was slain at the time of the dedication. \u2018The priest\u2019 who\npresided over the services of the temple was old and infirm, and the\nmanagement of the sanctuary was really in the hands of his two sons,\nHophni and Phinehas. His own name was Eli. But he comes before us\nwithout introduction; we know nothing of his parentage and descent, and\neven the Chronicler found no record of his genealogy. That he was a\nlineal descendant of Aaron, however, admits of no doubt. This, indeed,\nis plainly stated not only in the prediction of the destruction that\nshould overtake Eli\u2019s house (1 Sam. iii. 14), but also in the opening\nwords of the prophecy of \u2018the man of God\u2019 (1 Sam. ii. 27, 28).[379] The\nvery name of Phinehas, given to Eli\u2019s son, connects him with the line of\nAaron and the long bondage of the Israelites in Egypt. Phinehas is not\nHebrew, but the Egyptian Pi-Nehasi \u2018the Negro,\u2019 and could have no sense\nor meaning in the Israel of the age of Samuel except as an old family\nname.\n\nSamuel was clad in the linen ephod, the sacred vestment and symbol of\nthe priest, and \u2018ministered unto Yahveh before Eli.\u2019 One night, before\n\u2018the lamp of God\u2019 had gone out which burned before the ark of the\ncovenant,[380] \u2018the word of the Lord\u2019 came to the boy in his sleep.\nThree times did it call to him, and then came the revelation of the\npunishment which Yahveh was about to bring on the house of the high\npriest.[381] His sons had been unfaithful to their office; not only had\nthey lain \u2018with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle\nof the congregation,\u2019 they had made men abhor the offering of the Lord,\nand the weak old man had restrained them not. The law had ordained that\nthe fat of the sacrifice belonged to Yahveh, and that before it was\nburned upon the altar neither priest nor offerer could receive anything\nof the victim. Unless the law was complied with, the sacrifice was\nuseless; Yahveh had been robbed of His portion, and no blessing could\nfollow upon the offering. But the sons of Eli persistently set at naught\nthe strict injunctions of the law. Before the fat was burned, their\nservant came and struck his three-pronged fork into the flesh that had\nbeen placed in the caldron, demanding that it should be given to him\nraw. God\u2019s priests thus mutilated the sacrifices that were made to Him,\nand compelled His worshippers to defraud Him of His due. The Israelites\nbegan to shrink from bringing their yearly offerings to Shiloh, and the\ndownward course of the religion of Israel was hastened by the cynical\ngreed of its priests.[382]\n\nEli had already been warned by \u2018a man of God\u2019 of the coming vengeance of\nYahveh. The prophet destined to play so important a part in the history\nof Israel now appears almost for the first time upon the scene. Deborah,\nindeed, had been a prophetess, and a prophet had denounced the idolatry\nof his countrymen during the period of Midianitish oppression; but the\nspirit of Yahveh, which, in later days, revealed itself in the form of\nprophecy, had hitherto rather inspired those upon whom it had fallen to\nbecome leaders in war and \u2018judges\u2019 of their people. Now it assumed a new\nshape. Out of the misery and confusion produced by the Philistine raids\nsprang the first great outburst of Hebrew prophecy. Those who still\nbelieved Israel was the chosen people of Yahveh, and that He alone was\nGod over all the earth, were profoundly stirred by the triumph of the\nuncircumcised. There was an outbreak of that religious enthusiasm,\ndegenerating at times into fanaticism, which has occurred again and\nagain in the East. The \u2018seer\u2019 took the place of the \u2018judge.\u2019 The waking\nvisions which he beheld revealed the future, and declared to him and the\npeople the will of Yahveh. The arms of flesh had failed; all that was\nleft was the \u2018open vision,\u2019 where the events of the future were pictured\nbeforehand, and men learned how to escape disaster.\n\nAround the seer there gathered bands of disciples, closely resembling\nthe dervishes of to-day. They, too, received a part of the prophetic\nspirit, and at times, under the influence of strong emotions, passed, as\nit were, out of the body into an ecstatic state. Like the modern\ndervishes, however, they were completely under the control of the seer.\nAt a word from him their ecstasy would cease, and they would once more\nbecome ordinary citizens of the world. But the spirit that moved in them\nwas easily communicated to religious or excitable natures. The\nmessengers sent by Saul to arrest David at Ramah were themselves\narrested by the spirit of prophecy which permeated the home of Samuel,\nand when Saul himself followed in his wrath, he, too, was suddenly\novercome by the same divine influence. \u2018The spirit of God was upon him\nalso; and he went on and prophesied, until he came to Naioth (the\nconvent) in Ramah. And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied\nbefore Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that night.\u2019\n\nBut this ecstatic excitement was not of the essence of Hebrew prophecy,\nand the latter soon divested itself of it. The dervish element, indeed,\nremained almost to the last; Elijah is a proof of it, and even Hosea and\nIsaiah still recur at times to symbolic action. But it became\nsubordinate and purely symbolical, while the seer himself became a\nprophet. The conception that gathered round him was no longer that of a\nseer of visions, a revealer of the future, but of an interpreter of the\nwill of God to man. Prediction there might be in his prophecies; but it\nwas accidental only, and dependent on conditions which were clearly\nexpressed. If the people repented of their sins, God\u2019s anger would be\nturned away from them; if, on the contrary, they persisted in their evil\nways, disaster and destruction would fall upon them. The message of\nYahveh was conditional; it did not contain the revelation of an\ninevitable future.\n\nIn this respect the Hebrew prophet was unique. His name _n\u00e2b\u00ee_ is found\nin Babylonian, where it takes the form of _nabium_ or _nabu_, \u2018the\nspeaker.\u2019 It was the name of the prophet-god of Babylon, Nebo, the\ninterpreter of the will of Bel-Merodach, the supreme deity of the city.\nNebo declared to mankind the wishes and commands of Merodach; he was,\ntoo, the patron of literature, the inventor, it may be, of writing\nitself. The name of the mountain whereon Moses died is a testimony that\nthe worship of Nebo had been carried to the West in the old days of\nBabylonian dominion in Canaan, and we need not wonder that the word\n_n\u00e2b\u00ee_, with all that it implied, had been carried to the West at the\nsame time. But it was not until after the age of Samuel that it made its\nway successfully into the Hebrew language. Samuel was still the _roeh_\nor \u2018Seer,\u2019[383] though the Babylonian word in the form of a verb\n(_hithnabb\u00ea_) was already applied to his ecstatic companions who\nprophesied around him.[384] But the word answered to a need. As the\nHebrew prophet ceased more and more to be a seer, it became necessary to\nfind some new title for him which should express more accurately his\ntrue nature, and the word _n\u00e2b\u00ee_ was already at hand. The \u2018seer,\u2019\naccordingly, fell into the background; the \u2018prophet\u2019 occupied his place.\n\nWe can trace the beginning of this great religious movement in the age\nof Samuel. Samuel has often been called \u2018the founder of the prophetic\nschools,\u2019 and, to a certain extent, this is true. But they were not\nschools in the sense of establishments where his contemporaries could be\neducated in the older literature of their country, and be trained to\ntake upon them the prophetic office. Schools of this kind were to come\nlater in the history of Israel. They did not even resemble the early\nChristian monasteries of Egypt, where bodies of monks lived together\nunder a head, sometimes in a single building, sometimes in a collection\nof separate cells. The earlier disciples of Samuel were wandering bands\nof enthusiasts, over whose religious ecstasies he exercised an exciting\nand a controlling influence. They were men, to use a Biblical\nexpression, who were \u2018drunk with the spirit\u2019 of God.[385]\n\nThe loss of the ark and the destruction of Shiloh must have quickened\nthe movement which the Philistine troubles had begun. And it should be\nremembered that the \u2018prophets\u2019 among whom Saul was numbered were not all\nof them of the Dervish type. Among them must have been men like Samuel\nhimself, the true predecessors of the prophets of later Hebrew history.\nIn the generation which followed, we find men like Gad and Nathan, who\nhave ceased to be seers and have become the preachers of Israel, the\nconscience-keepers of the king himself, and the chroniclers of his\nreign.[386] The literary traditions of Shiloh passed to them through the\nhands of Samuel.\n\nThe prophetic movement did something more than keep alive a belief in\nYahveh as the God of Israel. It preserved at the same time the feeling\nof national unity. The \u2018prophets\u2019 who surrounded Samuel were drawn from\nall classes and from all parts of the Israelitish territory. That Samuel\nwas \u2018established to be a prophet of Yahveh\u2019 was, we are told, known to\n\u2018all Israel,\u2019 \u2018from Dan to Beer-sheba.\u2019 That the statement is not too\ngeneral is shown by the history of Saul. All Israel demanded a king, and\nit was over all the Israelitish tribes that he ruled. As he owed his\npower to Samuel, it is clear that the influence of Samuel also must have\nextended from one extremity of the Israelitish tribes to another.\nWherever the Philistine supremacy allowed it, the authority of the seer\nwas recognised and reverenced.[387]\n\nBut it follows from this that the veneration in which the temple at\nShiloh had been held was equally widespread. Theoretically, at least,\nthe Israelite acknowledged a central sanctuary, where the sons of Aaron\nserved before Yahveh, and the prescriptions of the Mosaic law were\nobserved. In practice, it is true, the old Canaanitish high places, with\ntheir local Baalim and Ashtaroth, had usurped the place of Shiloh;\nprivate chapels had been set up in the houses of individuals, and\npriests ministered in the sacred ephod before a graven image. But all\nthis was the natural fruit of an \u2018age of ignorance,\u2019 and later\ngenerations recognised that such was the case. The purer worship of\nYahveh was no \u2018development\u2019 out of an earlier polytheism; it was simply\na return to an ideal, the memory of which was kept alive at Shiloh.\n\nAnd yet a time came when it seemed as if Yahveh had forgotten the\nsanctuary wherein He had set His \u2018name at the first.\u2019 The punishment\ndenounced upon the house of Eli was not slow in coming. Judah was\nalready in Philistine hands, and the enemy were now attacking the\nIsraelitish stronghold in Mount Ephraim. The Philistine camp was pitched\nat Aphek, not far from Ramah, the birthplace of Samuel.[388] The last\nrelics of the Hebrew army were encamped opposite them in a spot\nsubsequently named Eben-ezer, \u2018the Stone of Help.\u2019 But it proved no help\nto them on this occasion. The Israelites were defeated with a loss of\nabout four thousand men, and in their despair \u2018the elders\u2019 advised that\nthe ark of the covenant should be brought to the camp. Yahveh, it was\nbelieved, enthroned Himself above it between the wings of the cherubim,\nlike the Babylonian Bel-Merodach, who on the feast of the New Year\nsimilarly enthroned himself above the \u2018mercy-seat\u2019 in his temple at\nBabylon.[389] He would therefore be actually among them, visibly, as it\nwere, leading their troops to victory and blessing them with His\npresence. In the old days of the conquest of Canaan, the ark had been\ncarried before the camp of Israel; the visible presence of \u2018Yahveh of\nhosts\u2019 had gone with it, and the foe had been scattered before Him like\nchaff before the wind.\n\nThe ark was accordingly fetched from its resting-place at Shiloh, and\nfor the first time since the days of Moses and Joshua the safeguard of\nIsrael was seen by the common eye. Despite the fears and reluctance of\nEli[390] his two sons bore it on their shoulders to the Israelitish\ncamp. Its arrival was greeted by a shout of joy which resounded across\nthe valley to the camp of the foe. Thereby the Philistines knew that the\nGod of the Hebrews had come in person to help his people against their\nenemies as he had helped them in old days against the Egyptians. But the\nold days were not to come again. The ark had been carried out of its\nresting-place by the command of the elders, not of Yahveh. Its sanctity\nhad been profaned, the mystery that surrounded it rudely stripped away.\nIt was only when it stood in its appointed place in the Holy of Holies\nthat the glory of the Lord rested upon it, and Yahveh enthroned Himself\nbetween the wings of its golden cherubim. The tabernacle and the ark\nwere inseparable like the casket and the treasure within it; either\nwithout the other was forsaken of the Lord.\n\nThe presence of the ark in the Israelitish camp availed nothing. The\nIsraelites fought with desperation, but without a leader they were no\nmatch for the well-armed and well-trained Philistine troops. Their army\nwas cut to pieces; it was said that thirty thousand of them were left\ndead on the field. Worst of all, the two sons of Eli were among the\nslain; the ark of Yahveh was captured by the heathen, and the way lay\nopen to Shiloh.\n\nA Benjamite fled from the slaughter to carry the evil tidings to the\nhigh priest. Eli was ninety-eight[391] years old; his eyes were blind,\nand he was sitting on a bench at the entrance to the temple, full of\nanxiety for the fate of the ark. The shock of the news was more than he\ncould bear; when he heard that it had been taken by the Philistines he\nfell backwards, and his neck was broken. A single day had deprived\nIsrael of its ark and of its priests.\n\nHardly was Eli dead when his daughter-in-law, the wife of Phinehas, was\nprematurely delivered of a child. He was born on an evil day, a day when\nthe light of Israel seemed extinguished for ever. Throughout his life he\nbore a name which prevented the terrible circumstances of his birth from\nbeing forgotten. His mother called him I-chabod, \u2018the glory is\ndeparted,\u2019 \u2018for the ark of God was taken.\u2019[392]\n\nI-chabod had an elder brother, Ahitub, born in happier times.[393]\nThrough him the line of Shilonite priests was continued, and the high\npriesthood still remained in Eli\u2019s house. It was Ahitub\u2019s grandson,\nAbiathar, who, after being the faithful servant of David in his\ntroubles, was banished and deprived of the priesthood on Solomon\u2019s\naccession.[394] But Ahitub must still have been young when the\nPhilistines gained the victory which laid all Palestine at their feet.\n\nThe destruction of the temple at Shiloh must have been one of the first\nresults of the victory. The Israelites had no longer an army, and the\nPhilistine conquerors could march in safety through the passes of Mount\nEphraim. A fort was built by them to command the pass at Michmash, and\nthe old sanctuary of Israel was levelled to the ground. No record of its\ndestruction, indeed, was known to the compiler of the books of Samuel;\nit would have been strange, if in that hour of distress and national\ndisaster, when the storehouse of Hebrew literature was itself destroyed,\na chronicler should have been found to describe the event. But the\nmemory of it was never forgotten, and it is alluded to both by the\nprophet Jeremiah and by the Psalmist (Jer. vii. 12, xxvi. 6; Ps.\nlxxviii. 60).\n\nSuch of the priests of Shiloh as survived the catastrophe were scattered\nthrough Israel. In the time of Saul we find eighty-five of them at Nob,\nwhich is accordingly called \u2018the city of the priests.\u2019 Samuel himself\nfled to the home of his fathers at Ramah. There as a seer and prophet,\nas the representative of the fallen sanctuary of Israel, and as one of\nthe few literary men of the age, he became the centre of all that was\nleft of patriotism and national feeling in Israel. Gradually his\ninfluence grew. Ahitub, the grandson of Eli, was young like himself, and\nthe destruction of Shiloh had deprived him of such authority as his\nservice before the ark of the covenant would have conferred.\n\nThe ark itself was once more within the confines of Israel. It had been\ncarried to Ashdod, and there placed in triumph in the temple of Dagon.\nBut the triumph was short-lived. In the night, the image of Dagon twice\nfell from its pedestal and lay on its face before the ark of the\nmightier God. On the second occasion, it was broken in pieces by its\nfall; when the priests entered the sanctuary in the morning, they found\nthe head and hands of their god rolled upon the threshold. \u2018Therefore,\u2019\nwe are told, \u2018neither the priests of Dagon nor any that come into\nDagon\u2019s house tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod unto this\nday.\u2019[395]\n\nDagon has been supposed to have had the shape partly of a man, partly of\na fish. But the supposition has arisen from a false etymology of the\nname, which connects it with the Hebrew _d\u00e2g_, \u2018a fish.\u2019 We now know\nfrom the cuneiform inscriptions that Dagon was really one of the\nprimitive deities of Babylonia adored there in days when as yet the\nSemite had not become master of the land. Dagon was coupled with Anu,\nthe god of the sky, and when the name and worship of Anu were carried to\nthe West, the name and worship of Dagon were carried there too. Sargon\n\u2018inscribed the laws\u2019 of Harran \u2018according to the wish of the gods Anu\nand Dagon,\u2019 and a Ph\u0153nician seal in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford has\nupon it the name of Baal-Dagon as well as representations of an ear of\ncorn, a winged solar disk, a gazelle, and several stars. The ear of corn\nsymbolises the fact that among the Ph\u0153nicians Dagon, the brother of El\nand Beth-el, was the god of agriculture and the inventor of bread-corn\nand the plough.[396] But this was because in the language of Canaan\n_dagan_ signified \u2018corn.\u2019 In passing to the West the god thus assumed\nnew attributes, and became an agricultural deity who watched over the\ngrowing crops.[397]\n\nThe power of the God of Israel was not shown only in the humiliation of\nthe Philistine god. The plague broke out in Ashdod, accompanied by its\nusual symptom, h\u00e6morrhoidal swellings. The inhabitants of the city were\nnot slow in recognising in it the wrathful hand of Yahveh, and the ark\nwas accordingly sent to their neighbours in Gath. But here, too, the\nplague followed it, and Ekron, to which it was sent next, fared no\nbetter. For seven months the sacred palladium of Israel remained in the\nhands of its captors. Then \u2018the priests and the diviners\u2019 advised that\nit should be sent back to the people of Yahveh along with offerings to\nmitigate the anger of the offended God. Five mice and five h\u00e6morrhoids\nof gold were made and placed in a coffer by the side of the ark. They\nrepresented the five Philistine cities, and the mice were symbols of the\nwrathful Yahveh, the God of hosts and of battle, who had wreaked his\nvengeance on the worshippers of the peaceful god of agriculture. The\nmice which devoured the corn were the natural foes of Dagon.\n\nThe ark and the coffer were placed on a cart, and two milch-kine were\nyoked to draw it. A doubt still lingered in the minds of the Philistines\nwhether the God who had allowed his people to be conquered and his\ndwelling-place to be captured could really, after all, have been the\nauthor of the plague, and they watched, therefore, to see whether the\nkine took the road towards Israelitish territory or back to their own\nyoung. But all doubt vanished when the kine marched straight eastward\ntowards Beth-shemesh, lowing as they went. The villagers were in the\nfields reaping when they saw the cart coming towards them, laden with\nits precious freight. The kine stood still at last by the side of a\ngreat stone\u2014the stone of Abel \u2018in the field of Joshua the Beth-shemite.\u2019\nThen the Levites came and took the ark and the offerings from the cart\nand laid them on the stone, which thus became a sanctuary and an altar.\nThe wood of the cart was broken into firewood, and the kine were repaid\nfor the gift they had brought by being sacrificed to the Lord.\n\nBut the plague followed the ark even upon Israelitish soil. The men of\nBeth-shemesh believed that it was because they had looked into the\nsacred shrine of Yahveh, to see, possibly, whether its original contents\nwere still within it, and in their terror they begged the inhabitants of\nKirjath-jearim to come and carry it away. To Kirjath-jearim accordingly\nit was removed and placed in the house of Abinadab, whose son Eleazar\nwas consecrated to look after it. That it was not carried to Shiloh is a\nsign that the destruction of Shiloh had already taken place.\n\nWith the removal of the ark to Kirjath-jearim darkness falls on the\nhistory of Israel. There was little for the patriotic historian to\nrecord. The people were in servitude to the Philistines, the national\nsanctuary had been destroyed, the ark itself was hidden away in a\nprivate house. When the curtain is again lifted, it is to chronicle a\nlocal success over the Philistine foe. Samuel is at Mizpeh, \u2018the\nwatch-tower,\u2019 which must have adjoined Ramah, if indeed it was not the\nname of one of its two quarters.[398] Here was the last refuge of the\nfew Israelites who still refused to acknowledge the Philistine rule, and\nthe surrounding mountains afforded a home and shelter to the bands of\noutlaws who still carried on a guerilla warfare with the foreigner. One\nof the incidents of this warfare was long remembered. While Samuel was\nsacrificing a lamb as a burnt-offering to Yahveh, the Philistines fell\nupon the assembled people. But a sudden thunderstorm dismayed the\nassailants, who fled down the valley towards Beth-car pursued by the\ninhabitants of Mizpeh. It was in memory of the victory that Eben-ezer,\n\u2018the stone of help,\u2019 was set up by the seer between Mizpeh and\nShen.[399]\n\nIt would seem that no further attack was made upon Mizpeh and its\nneighbourhood during the lifetime of Samuel. At least such appears to be\nthe conclusion we must draw from the generalising and optimistic\nlanguage of the Hebrew historian.[400] For a time, indeed, the whole\ndistrict was freed from the presence of the foreigner. The villages\neastward of Ekron and Gath ceased to pay tribute to the conqueror,\nthough their independence could not have lasted long.[401] Samuel\u2019s\n\u2018circuit\u2019 did not extend beyond Mizpeh, Gilgal and Beth-el, and his sons\njudged cases in Beer-sheba.\n\nAhitub, the high-priest, was doubtless at Nob with the rest of the\nLevites of Shiloh, almost within sight of Mizpeh. What had been saved\nout of the wreck of the temple at Shiloh must have been there with him.\nWe know that at Nob the sword of Goliath was subsequently laid up before\nYahveh, and at Nob too was probably preserved the brazen serpent that\nhad been set up by Moses in the wilderness.[402] According to the\nChronicler,[403] however, the tabernacle and the brazen altar which had\nbeen made by Bezaleel were at Gibeon; how this came to be the case he\ndoes not say.[404] At any rate, if the brazen serpent were preserved,\nthere is no reason why other things should not have been preserved as\nwell. And the books of the Law would have been among the first objects\nto be carried with them by the fugitive priests. We are told that when\nthe ark was brought into the temple of Solomon it still contained the\ntables of stone which had been placed in it by Moses (1 Kings viii. 9);\nif these had been removed from it when it was taken to the Israelitish\ncamp, they too must have formed part of the temple furniture which was\nsaved by the priests.\n\nHere, therefore, in a small district of the tribe of Benjamin, a portion\nof which was inhabited by the old Gibeonite natives of the land, all\nthat remained of Israelitish independence, whether religious or\npolitical, found its last refuge. Here the national spirit of Israel\nstill lingered among the priests and Levites who had fled from Shiloh,\nor who lived in the mountains of Ephraim. It is not without significance\nthat here, too, was the home of the Gibeonite serfs of the\nsanctuary;[405] priests, Levites, and Nethinim were gathered together,\nas it were, in one spot. Though the temple had fallen, the Mosaic Law\nand ritual were enshrined in the hearts of those who had served in it.\n\nThe destruction of Shiloh had restored to Beth-el its old\npre-Israelitish renown. Once more its high-place became thronged with\nworshippers, and those who had formerly carried their gifts and\nsacrifices to Yahveh at Shiloh, now brought them instead \u2018to God at\nBeth-el.\u2019[406] At Beth-el, accordingly, once each year Samuel offered\nsacrifice and adjudged the cases that were brought before him, or\npredicted the future to those who consulted him as a seer. It was at a\nsimilar gathering at Mizpeh that the Israelites had been attacked by the\nPhilistines, and that the victory of Eben-ezer had been gained.\n\nBut the results of the victory were local and momentary, and the\ncondition of the Israelites had become intolerable. Samuel, moreover,\nwas growing old; his sons Joel and Abiah were corrupt,[407] and his own\ninfluence was that of the seer rather than that of the leader in war or\nthe administrator in peace. The only hope for Israel lay in its finding\na chieftain who could mould its shattered fragments into unity, could\norganise its forces, and break the Philistine yoke. A new Jerubbaal or\nJephthah was required, but one who would lead to victory not a few only\nof the tribes, but the whole of Israel.\n\nThe people demanded a king. Their instinct was right; in no other way\ncould the Israelitish nation be saved. Democracy had been tried, and had\nfailed: the end of the era of the Judges was internal anarchy and decay,\nthe destruction of the central sanctuary, and servitude to the\nforeigner. Naturally Samuel was reluctant to hand such powers as he\nstill possessed to another. His sons, doubtless, were more reluctant\nstill. Moreover, he had been brought up in the school of the past. His\nboyhood had been spent at Shiloh under the influence of ideas which saw\nin a theocracy the divinely-appointed government of Israel.[408] At\nfirst he resisted the demand of the people. But it was in vain that he\nprotested against their rejection of Yahveh and himself, or pointed out\nto them that the establishment of a kingdom meant the loss of their\npersonal independence. The logic of events was too strong for the seer,\nand he was compelled to yield. The time had come when the choice lay\nbetween a king or national extinction, and a king accordingly had to be\nfound.\n\nSamuel yielded apparently with a good grace. In such a matter the word\nof the chief seer and prophet of Israel was law, and he knew that the\nselection was in his own hands. And he made it wisely and patriotically.\nSaul, the son of Kish, the first king of united Israel, justified his\nelection to the crown. He saved Israel from destruction, and for a time\nsucceeded in rolling back the wave of Philistine domination. His\nmilitary capacities were unquestionable, as well as his courage and\ndevotion to his people.[409]\n\nBut there was another side to his character, which perhaps commended\nitself to Samuel quite as much as his military abilities. A vein of deep\nreligious fervour ran through his whole nature, which at times\ndegenerated into the gloomy despondency of the fanatic. Rightly handled,\nhe was capable of high religious enthusiasm, and of following his\nreligious guide with the simplicity of a child. But he could not brook\nopposition; and, like all men of strong emotions, his hate was as\nintense as his love. He was born to be the leader of his countrymen,\nwhether as a king or as a dervish the future had to decide.\n\nNaturally he was a Benjamite, from that little corner of Palestine which\nstill remained true to the best traditions of Israel. At first it seemed\nas if he was going to be the obedient disciple of Samuel, a crowned\naddition to the group of dervish-like prophets who surrounded the seer.\nMore than one account of his accession to the throne of Israel has been\nhanded down, and it is not always easy to reconcile them. One thing,\nhowever, is clear: Saul did not seek election, and it came upon him as a\nsurprise.\n\nBut the tallness of his stature had marked him out from among his\ncompanions; it was the outward token of superiority which Yahveh had set\nupon him. His first meeting with Samuel was accidental. He had been sent\nby his father[410] to seek some asses that had strayed or been stolen,\nand, while vainly engaged on his quest, was advised by his slave to\nconsult a seer who lived in the neighbouring town. The town proved to be\nRamah, and the seer to be Samuel, who was that day offering a solemn\nsacrifice on the high place.[411] Samuel invited him to the feast which\nfollowed the sacrifice, and assigned to him the chiefest position among\nhis guests; then before his departure he secretly anointed his head with\noil, and declared that he was chosen to be \u2018captain over Yahveh\u2019s\ninheritance.\u2019 Next the seer told him where the asses were that he\nsought, and bid him make his way to the sacred circle of stones at\nGilgal, and there remain seven days until the prophet himself should\ncome.\n\nHardly had Saul quitted the presence of Samuel than he was met by \u2018a\ncompany of prophets\u2019 coming down with music and wild cries from the\nhigh-place of Gibeah.[412] Saul had not yet recovered from the\nexcitement of the strange and unexpected scene in which he had just been\nan actor, and was in no mood to resist the infection of the religious\necstasy which now seized upon him. He, too, like the spectators at a\nmodern _z\u00edkr_ in the East, joined the band of enthusiasts, and added his\nvoice to theirs. It was not until he reached the high-place that his\noutburst of religious frenzy had spent itself.\n\nSuch is one of the versions of the history of the foundation of the\nIsraelitish monarchy. Saul is anointed secretly by Samuel, and at once\nenrols himself in one of the \u2018prophesying\u2019 bands of which Samuel was the\nspiritual director. According to another version, his election as king\ntook place in public at a great assembly convened by Samuel at Mizpeh.\nHere the lot fell upon Saul, who had hidden himself \u2018among the stuff,\u2019\nand Samuel thereupon presented him to the people, who shouted \u2018Long live\nthe king!\u2019 Then the seer \u2018wrote in a book\u2019 such regulations regarding\nthe election and duties of a. king as we find in the book of Deuteronomy\n(xvii. 14-20), \u2018and laid it up before the Lord.\u2019 As soon as the assembly\nwas dismissed Saul returned \u2018to his house at Gibeah.\u2019[413]\n\nHis election, however, was not accepted unanimously, consecrated though\nit had been by Yahveh. There were some who failed to see in the tall\nenthusiast anything more than the son of a yeoman at Gibeah. But a\nsufficient number of his own tribesmen were ready to gather around him\nas soon as he should summon them to battle. And the occasion was not\nlong in coming. Jabesh-Gilead, the old ally of Benjamin, was beleaguered\nby Nahash, the Ammonite king. The city was too weak to resist, and its\ninhabitants, offered to surrender. But with Semitic ferocity Nahash\nanswered that he would spare their lives only on condition that the\nright eye of each should be torn out. Seven days were granted them in\nwhich to determine whether they should accept his terms or fight to the\ndeath, and during the period of respite the elders of the city sent to\nBenjamin to beg for help. Saul was ploughing when the messengers\narrived, and, fired with indignation, he cut his oxen into pieces, which\nhe sent throughout Israel with the words: \u2018Whosoever cometh not forth\nafter Saul and after Samuel, so shall it be done unto his oxen.\u2019[414]\nThe summons still ran in the name of the old seer.\n\nMen came in from all sides, and Saul found himself at the head of a\nsmall army. It is said that when he numbered his troops at Bezek, \u2018the\nchildren of Israel were three hundred thousand, and the men of Judah\nthirty thousand.\u2019 Such may have been the full fighting force of Israel\nbefore Saul\u2019s reign was ended; it cannot have represented the number of\nthose who were able to flock to his standard during the few days that\nstill remained for the relief of Jabesh. As elsewhere in the Old\nTestament, the ciphers are largely exaggerated. Indeed when we consider\nthe size of the Assyrian army, as recorded in the inscriptions, at a\ntime when it was the most formidable engine of destruction in Western\nAsia, it becomes clear that the number of fighting men in the Hebrew\narmy can never have been very great. The three hundred and thirty\nthousand men in Saul\u2019s army are but an instance of that Oriental\nexaggeration of numbers and inability to realise what they actually\nmean, which is as common in the East to-day as it was in the age of\nSamuel.[415]\n\nJabesh was rescued, and the Ammonites were scattered in flight. The\nvictory was a proof of Saul\u2019s military capacity, and justified his\nchoice as king. The news of it rang from one end of Israel to the other,\nand the victorious soldiers demanded the death of those who had\nquestioned their leader\u2019s right to reign. But Saul refused the demand;\nno bloodshed was to mar the glory of the day; from henceforth all true\nIsraelites were to be united in recognising their king. Yahveh had\nchosen him at Mizpeh; it was now needful that he should go to the sacred\nenclosure of Gilgal, the first camping-ground of the Israelites in\nCanaan, and there be solemnly acclaimed by the assembled multitude. As\nJoshua the Ephraimite had started from Gilgal to conquer Canaan, so Saul\nthe Benjamite, the new \u2018captain of the Lord\u2019s inheritance,\u2019 set forth\nalso from Gilgal to restore its fallen fortunes.\n\nA year had to pass before Saul felt himself strong enough to attack the\nPhilistine garrisons. By that time he had collected three thousand\nIsraelites about him, all of them prepared to fight and willing to obey\ntheir leader. But they were armed only with implements of agriculture,\nor such other makeshifts for weapons as they could find. The Philistines\nhad forbidden the wandering blacksmiths to enter Israelitish territory,\nand Saul and his son Jonathan, we are told, alone possessed sword and\nspear. Out of the three thousand, one thousand were with Jonathan at\nGibeah; the rest were with Saul watching the road that led over the\nmountains from Michmash to Beth-el. There was a Philistine fort on the\nhill above Gibeah, in the very heart of Saul\u2019s own country; another fort\ncommanded the pass of Michmash and the approaches to Ephraim.\n\nThe Philistines seemed to have made a rising among the Israelites\nimpossible. Their forts and garrisons commanded the roads, like the\nFrench garrisons in Algeria, and the conquered population was forbidden\nthe use of arms. Saul, nominally the king of Israel, was in reality\nmerely the chief of a band of outlaws, desperately holding their own in\nthe fastnesses of the mountains, and protected by the sympathy of the\npriests and the peasantry. The victory over Nahash had confirmed Saul\u2019s\ntitle to lead them among his own countrymen; it had done nothing towards\nreleasing them from the domination of the Philistines.\n\nNow, however, Jonathan ventured to assail the Philistine outpost at\nGibeah. The attack was successful; the fortress was taken and its\ndefenders put to the sword.[416] It was open revolt against the\nPhilistine supremacy, and the news of it quickly spread. Saul sent\nmessengers throughout Israel, claiming the success for himself and the\nmonarchy, and formed a camp at Gilgal. Meanwhile the Philistine army was\non the march to suppress the revolt. The Hebrew chronicler describes it\nas consisting of \u2018thirty thousand chariots and six thousand horsemen,\nand people as the sand which is on the seashore for multitude,\u2019[417] and\nit pitched its camp at Michmash, a little to the north of Gibeah. Here\nit cut Saul off from all communication with the north, and threatened\nhis rear. He therefore left Gilgal and joined his son at Gibeah. Only\nsix hundred men remained with him; the rest had fled at the approach of\nthe enemy, who sent out three bands of raiders from their camp, one of\nwhich marched in a south-eastward direction towards the Dead Sea, while\nthe other two turned, the one to the north-west, and the other to the\nnorth-east.\n\nThe mountainous district from which Saul drew his forces was\npanic-stricken. The peasantry fled from their devastated fields, and the\nwhole country was given up to fire and sword. Pure-blooded Israelites\nand Hebrews of mixed descent were united in the common disaster. The one\nhid themselves in the caves and forests, even in cisterns and\ngrain-pits, while the others took refuge in Gad and Gilead, on the\neastern side of the Jordan.[418]\n\nIt was again Jonathan who brought deliverance to Israel. Between the\nIsraelites at Gibeah, and the Philistines at Michmash, lay a deep gorge,\nusually identified with the Wadi Suwein\u00eet.[419] On either side rose a\nprecipitous crag of rock which effectually cut off the hostile forces\none from the other. Across this gorge Jonathan determined to make his\nway, accompanied only by his armour-bearer, and trusting in the help of\nYahveh of Israel. In broad daylight the two heroes climbed the opposite\ncliff, in the face of the Philistines, who believed they were deserters\nfrom the Israelitish camp. But once arrived in the Philistine\nstronghold, they fell suddenly on its unprepared defenders and slew\nabout twenty of them \u2018within as it were half a furrow of an acre of\nland.\u2019 The Hebrew camp followers of the Philistines thereupon turned\nupon their companions, and the camp of the Philistines became a scene of\nconfusion and dismay. Jonathan had said nothing to his father of his\nintended exploit, but Saul soon observed that fighting was going on in\nthe enemy\u2019s camp.\n\nAmong the Israelitish fugitives with Saul was the high-priest\nAhimelech,[420] the great-grandson of Eli, who had joined the king with\nthe sacred ephod. The ark, too, had been carried for safety into the\nIsraelitish camp, and was once more accompanying the army of Israel\nagainst its foes. When, therefore, Saul had numbered his men and found\nthat Jonathan was absent, he called for the priest and bade him inquire\nof Yahveh whether they should go to his help or not. But before the\nquestion could be answered the tumult on the opposite side of the valley\nmade hesitation impossible. It was clear that the moment had come for\nstriking a blow at the supremacy of the foreigner. The gorge accordingly\nwas quickly traversed, and the Israelitish king with his six hundred\nfollowers threw himself on the enemy\u2019s rear. The Philistines resisted no\nlonger. Attacked in front by the peasants who had followed them, and in\nthe rear by the soldiers of the king, they fled precipitately up the\npass to Beth-el.[421] The victory was complete, and the Philistine\nforces would have been annihilated had Saul\u2019s religious convictions been\nless fervent. But when the instinct of the general overcame the zealot,\nand he had stayed the priest in the very act of consulting Yahveh, he\nsalved his conscience by a vow. None should eat or drink until he had\noverthrown his enemies, and whoever broke the royal vow should be\ndevoted to death.\n\nThe vow was rash and untimely, but it was registered in heaven. The\nPhilistines were pursued as far as Aijalon. The Israelites were too weak\nfrom want of food to follow them further. Jonathan alone, who had not\nbeen in the Israelitish camp when the vow was made, ate a little honey\nwhich he saw dropping from a tree. His companions looked at it with\nlonging eyes, but dared not follow his example. All the more fiercely,\ntherefore, did they fall upon the spoil which they afterwards found in\nthe Philistine camp. The sheep and oxen and calves were slaughtered as\nthey stood upon the ground, \u2018and the people did eat them with the\nblood.\u2019 The news of this violation of one of the primary laws of\nIsraelitish religion struck Saul with horror. He caused a great stone to\nbe rolled towards him, and on this improvised altar the animals were\nslain. It was \u2018the first altar,\u2019 we are told, that Saul \u2018built unto the\nLord.\u2019\n\nBut worse was yet to come. Saul proposed to pursue the Philistines in\nthe night, and accordingly the oracle of Yahveh was again appealed to.\nNo answer, however, was returned to the questioners. Neither priest nor\nephod availed anything, and it became clear that sin had been committed\nin Israel. When the lots were cast, they fell upon Jonathan, who then\nconfessed that he had, in ignorance of his father\u2019s vow, eaten a little\nhoney. The religious fanatic was stronger in Saul than the father, and\nhe pronounced sentence that Jonathan must die. Jonathan, in fact, was\nthe firstborn whose sacrifice was demanded by Yahveh as the price of the\nvictory. Fortunately the religious convictions of the Hebrew soldiers\nwere less intense than those of their king. It was Jonathan to whom the\nvictory was due, and in the hour of his triumph they refused to allow\nhim to die. Saul yielded, perhaps willingly; but the Philistines were\npermitted to disperse to their own homes.[422]\n\nWas the sacrifice of Jonathan urged by Ahimelech and the priests? They\nat any rate did not interfere to prevent it, and the lots were cast\nunder their supervision. What is certain is that from this time forward\nthere was an increasing estrangement between Saul and the priesthood,\nwhich ended in the secret anointing of David as king of Israel, and in\nthe massacre of the priests at Nob. We hear no more of Ahimelech and the\nark in the camp of Saul.\n\nSamuel, the aged and venerated representative of the Shilonite\npriesthood, had much to do with this growing estrangement. From the\nfirst he had looked upon Saul as a rival who had robbed him of his\nformer power. Even after Saul had proved his fitness to rule by the\nrescue of Jabesh, and had been publicly acclaimed king by the people at\nGilgal, he could not conceal his mortification and hostility. Were not\nhe and his sons still with them? he asked the assembled Israelites; why\nthen had they added this \u2018wickedness\u2019 unto \u2018all their sins,\u2019 to demand a\nking? In the thunder which rolled overhead he bade them recognise the\nanger of Yahveh at their thus rejecting His representative, and he ended\nwith the threat that both they and their king should be \u2018consumed.\u2019[423]\n\nSamuel was not long in embodying his hostility in deeds. According to\none of the authorities used by the compiler of the books of Samuel,\nseven days only had elapsed after Saul\u2019s election when the seer\nupbraided him in the presence of his army and told him that Yahveh had\nchosen another king in his place.[424] Here, however, two occurrences\nhave been confused together\u2014Saul\u2019s confirmation as king by the people at\nGilgal, and his subsequent encampment at the same place in the second\nyear of his reign. By this time the breach had grown and widened between\nthe old Judge and the new \u2018Captain\u2019 of Israel. Saul, in spite of his\nreligious convictions and excitability, had not shown himself the\nobedient disciple and tool of Samuel that might have been expected; he\nproved to have a strong and violent will of his own, which he was fully\nready to exercise when not under the influence of religious excitement.\nIt was only temporarily that Saul was \u2018among the prophets.\u2019 Nor did he\npossess that tact and pliability which would have enabled David under\nthe same circumstances to avoid an open quarrel with the aged seer. Saul\nwas too earnest, too convinced that what he believed was the truth, to\nunderstand a compromise, much less a course of duplicity.\n\nThat the incident at Gilgal is historical, there can be no doubt. It is\nonly the time of its occurrence that is misplaced. It belonged to those\ndays of danger and difficulty when the Philistines seemed to have\ntriumphed finally, and the hope of Israel lay in the six hundred\ndesperate men who still followed Saul. Saul had waited vainly for the\ncoming of Samuel, and at length, tired of waiting, had offered the\nburnt-offering for the safety and success of the army which Samuel had\nagreed to present. Hardly had it been offered when the seer appeared.\nThen it was that the king of Israel was told that he had been rejected\nby the Lord, and that another had been selected in his place. The\noccasion was indeed well chosen; the Israelites were already\nsufficiently discouraged and inclined to believe that their king had\nbeen even less successful against the Philistines than Samuel and his\nsons. Under the rule of Samuel, at all events, the territory of Benjamin\nhad not been devastated, and its inhabitants compelled to hide\nthemselves in the holes of the earth.\n\nSamuel returned from Gilgal to \u2018Gibeah of Benjamin.\u2019 The victory at\nMichmash, which disappointed his predictions,[425] changed the aspect of\naffairs, and Saul\u2019s throne seemed now to be firmly established. Once\nmore, however, Samuel made an effort to shake it, and it was again at\nGilgal that the event took place. Saul\u2019s power rested on his soldiery,\nand the surest way, therefore, of striking at it was through the\nsoldiery in the camp of Gilgal.\n\nIt was after an expedition against the Amalekites. The Israelites had\nmarched towards El-Ar\u00eesh and smitten the Bed\u00e2win of the desert \u2018from\nHavilah\u2019 in Northern Arabia to the great Wall of Egypt.[426] They had\nbrought back with them a vast amount of spoil, as well as Agag, the\nBed\u00e2win chief, \u2018everything that was vile and refuse,\u2019 including the mass\nof the people, having been \u2018destroyed utterly.\u2019 But this was not enough.\nThe Amalekites were to be treated as the Canaanites had been by Joshua;\nthey and all that belonged to them had been laid under the ban and\ncondemned to extermination.[427] Samuel, therefore, went in haste to the\nIsraelitish camp, and there charged Saul with disobedience to the\ncommands of Yahveh. Saul\u2019s plea that the cattle and herds had been saved\nby \u2018the people\u2019 in order that they might be sacrificed to the Lord, was\nnot accepted, and the fierce old seer himself \u2018hewed Agag in pieces\nbefore Yahveh.\u2019 At the same time, he told the Israelitish king that the\nkingdom had been rent from him and given to a neighbour that was better\nthan he. It was the last time that the king and the seer met. Samuel\nwent back to his home at Ramah and Saul returned to Gibeah. Between Saul\nand the priesthood there was open war.\n\nThe attack upon the Amalekites implies that the Philistines had for a\ntime ceased to be formidable. The extract from the state chronicles\ngiven in 1 Sam. xiv. 47-52 makes it follow the other wars of Saul. Among\nthese wars we hear of one against Moab, of another against Edom (or\nrather Geshur), and of a third against \u2018the kings of Zobah.\u2019[428] The\nAram\u00e6ans of Zobah, called Tsubit\u00ea in the Assyrian texts, and placed\nnorthward of the Haur\u00e2n, were beginning to be powerful, and as we learn\nfrom the history of David, were about to establish a kingdom under\nHadadezer which extended to the Euphrates and included Damascus. But at\npresent they were still governed by more than one chief.[429]\n\nThe campaign against Zobah makes it clear that Saul\u2019s authority was\nacknowledged in Gilead as well as on the western side of the Jordan. It\nis not surprising, therefore, that after his death his son should have\nresided there, well out of the reach of the Philistines, or that\nEshbaal\u2019s kingdom should have comprised all the northern tribes. Little\nby little, in spite of the opposition of Samuel, Saul worked his way to\ngeneral acknowledgment and power. The Israelites, for the first time,\nwere welded into a homogeneous state, and their enemies were kept at\nbay. The organisation of the kingdom went hand in hand with the military\nsuccesses of its king. Israel at last was not only feared abroad, but at\npeace and unity within.\n\nWith all this, Saul preserved the old simplicity of his life and\nmanners. He never yielded to the usual temptations of the Oriental\ndespot; he had no har\u00eem like David or Solomon, no palaces, no gardens,\nno trains of cooks and idle servants.[430] The people were not taxed to\nsupply him with luxuries, nor dragged from their homes for his buildings\nand wars. In some of these royal pleasures doubtless he could not\nindulge: the conditions under which he reigned prevented it. But it was\nonly by his own free choice that he remained faithful to one\nwife\u2014Ahinoam, the daughter of Ahimaaz,\u2014and that he held court at Gibeah\nunder the shade of a tamarisk instead of a palace, with a spear in his\nhand in place of a sceptre.[431]\n\nSaul was a born soldier, and he had a soldier\u2019s eye for detecting those\nwho could best serve him in war. He added to his bodyguard all who were\ndistinguished by strength or courage, and the border warfare with the\nPhilistines kept them in constant employment. Among the young recruits\nwas David, the youngest of the eight sons of Jesse, a Jew of Beth-lehem.\nTwo different accounts have been preserved of the way in which David was\nfirst introduced to the king. It is difficult to reconcile them; the\ncompiler of the books of Samuel was content to set them side by side\nwithout attempting to do so, while the Septuagint translators have cut\nthe Gordian knot by omitting large portions of one of them. The\ndifficulty is increased by the fact that the second account makes David\nthe conqueror of Goliath of Gath, who elsewhere (2 Sam. xxi. 19) is said\nto have been slain during David\u2019s reign by El-hanan the\nBeth-lehemite.[432]\n\nAccording to this second story, the Philistines had invaded Judah and\npitched their camp on a mountain-slope between Socoh and Azekah. Saul\nwas encamped on the hill opposite, and between the two armies was the\nvalley of Elah at the bottom of which was the dry bed of a mountain\nstream. The three elder brothers of David were in the Hebrew army, David\nhimself having been left at home to look after his father\u2019s sheep. From\ntime to time, however, he was sent with loaves of home-made bread to his\nbrothers and a present of milk-cheeses to \u2018the captain of their\nthousand.\u2019 On one of these occasions a Philistine giant, Goliath by\nname, came forth from the camp of the enemy to challenge the Israelites\nto single combat. He had done so day by day, but none of Saul\u2019s\nfollowers had ventured to accept the challenge. For Goliath of Gath was\na descendant of the ancient Anakim, and of gigantic stature. His height,\nit was said, was six cubits and a span, or nearly ten feet,[433] and the\nstaff of his spear was like a weaver\u2019s beam, while its head weighed six\nhundred shekels of iron. Like the Greeks, he wore not only a bronze\nhelmet and coat of mail, but also greaves on his legs; a bronze shield\nwas hung between his shoulders and a broad-sword at his side.\n\nDavid offered to accept the challenge of the uncircumcised giant, and in\nspite of his brothers\u2019 ridicule his words were repeated to Saul. As a\nshepherd he had already proved his strength and daring by slaying both a\nlion and a bear; he was now ready to face the Philistine and redeem the\nhonour of Israel. At first the Israelitish king insisted that he should\nbe armed, and he was accordingly equipped in the usual Hebrew fashion\nwith helmet, cuirass, and sword. But the young shepherd felt restricted\nand awkward in these unaccustomed accoutrements; nor did he know how to\nmanage the sword. He therefore stripped them from him, and boldly\napproached the Philistine champion with his shepherd\u2019s sling and five\n\u2018smooth stones.\u2019 These he knew how to wield, and with such effect that\none of the stones penetrated the forehead of the Philistine, who fell\ndead to the ground. Then his conqueror dissevered his head with his own\nsword, while the Israelites shouted and pursued the panic-stricken enemy\nto the gates of Ekron.[434] Saul had inquired in vain through Abner, the\ncommander-in-chief of the army, whose son the young champion of Israel\nwas; and it was not until David had presented himself before the king,\nwith the head of the Philistine in his hand, that he learned from his\nown lips that he was the son of his \u2018servant Jesse the Beth-lehemite.\u2019\n\nDavid\u2019s fortune was made; Saul at once incorporated him in his\nbodyguard, and a warm friendship began between him and Jonathan, a\nfriendship that ceased only with Jonathan\u2019s death. David was fresh and\nhandsome, with a charm of manner and a ready tact which won the hearts\nof those he was with. It was not long, therefore, before he became first\nthe favourite, then the general, and eventually the son-in-law of the\nIsraelitish king.\n\nThe other account of David\u2019s introduction to Saul brings Samuel once\nmore upon the stage. The \u2018neighbour\u2019 better than Saul proves to be\nDavid, whom Samuel is accordingly sent to Beth-lehem to anoint secretly.\nHe goes there under the pretence of wishing to offer a sacrifice, to\nwhich he invites Jesse and his sons. The elders of the city receive him\nwith fear and trembling, and ask if he has come in peace. He is known to\nbe the enemy of the king, and his arrival in a city of Judah bodes\nnothing good. The sons of Jesse are passed in review before him; none of\nthem, however, is approved, and the seer asks if there is still no\nother. Thereupon Jesse tells him that there is yet the youngest, who is\nin the fields tending the sheep. Samuel bids him be sent for, and in\nspite of his terror of Saul and the secrecy of his mission, anoints the\nyouth \u2018in the midst of his brethren.\u2019 Then the spirit of Yahveh comes\nupon David, and an evil spirit from Yahveh takes possession of Saul.\nSaul still reigns, indeed, but the mystic power conferred by the\nconsecration, which had given him the right to do so, has henceforth\npassed to another.\n\nThe \u2018evil spirit\u2019 shows itself in fits of moody depression, which at\ntimes become insanity. Saul\u2019s mind, always excitable, loses its balance;\nhe is oppressed by a settled melancholy, which is now and again broken\nby outbursts of ungovernable rage. His servants determine that the evil\nspirit can be charmed away only by music, and one of them recommends\nDavid, the Beth-lehemite shepherd, who is not only a valiant \u2018man of\nwar,\u2019 but also a skilful player upon the harp. David is hereupon\nsummoned to the court, where his harping cures the king, who makes him\nhis armour-bearer.\n\nSuch are the two narratives of David\u2019s introduction to Saul. It is plain\nthat they exclude one another. The king\u2019s handsome armour-bearer, who\nsoothes his mind and banishes his melancholy by music, cannot be the\nshepherd-lad who brings the loaves of home-made bread to his brothers,\nand whose very name and parentage are unknown to Saul and Abner. And yet\nthere are points in each narrative which seem to be historical. It is\ntrue that in a later passage the death of Goliath is ascribed to a\ncertain El-hanan; but the passage is corrupt, and though the Chronicler\nmust have had an equally corrupt text before him,[435] it is possible he\nmay be right in making the Philistine slain by El-hanan the brother of\nGoliath. At all events, the fact that the sword of the giant of Gath was\npreserved at Nob and was there handed over to David on his flight from\nSaul, shows that the death of Goliath must have happened while Saul was\nreigning and that David had been the hero of the deed. The priest\nexpressly says that it was \u2018the sword of Goliath the Philistine whom\nthou slewest in the valley of Elah.\u2019 On the other hand, David was famous\nas a musician, and was even said to have invented instruments of music\n(Am. vi. 5), while Saul\u2019s fits of depression were also historical; and\nthe description given of David\u2019s appearance (1 Sam. xvi. 12) is that of\none who had seen him. Perhaps the harp-playing before the king followed\nDavid\u2019s enrolment in Saul\u2019s bodyguard, and was one of the means whereby\nhe gained the heart of his royal master.\n\nAre we to accept the anointing by Samuel as a historical incident, or\nare the modern critics right in asserting that the story is an\ninvention, the object of which was to claim for the founder of the\nJud\u00e6an monarchy the same consecration at the hands of the great Hebrew\nseer as that which had been bestowed upon Saul? That David was actually\nanointed by a messenger of Yahveh admits of little doubt. Apart from\nPsalm lxxxix. 20, the date of which is questionable, and which may refer\nto the coronation in Hebron, it is clear from incidental notices in the\nhistorical books of the Old Testament that such consecration by a\nprophet or seer was felt to be a necessary prelude to the usurpation of\na throne. It was thus that both Jehu and Hazael were incited to seize\nthe crowns of Samaria and Damascus.[436] The use of oil in religious\nritual went back to the days when Babylonian culture was predominant in\nWestern Asia, and the religious texts of Babylonia contain many\nreferences to it. That the prophet was anointed for his office, we know\nfrom the history of Elisha.\n\nOn the other hand, it is difficult to conceive that David\u2019s brother\nwould have treated him with the contempt to which he gave utterance in\nthe valley of Elah (1 Sam. xvii. 28) had he really been a witness to his\nconsecration as king, and David\u2019s future friendship with Jonathan, the\nheir-apparent to the throne, would have been more than hypocritical.\nPossibly the period of the consecration has been transferred from a time\nwhen David had become the son-in-law of Saul and the friend and guest of\nSamuel (1 Sam. xix. 18-22) to an earlier time in David\u2019s life to which\nit is inappropriate.[437]\n\nAbner, the cousin of Saul, remained the commander-in-chief of the\nIsraelitish army, the Turtannu or Tartan, as the Assyrians would have\ncalled him. David, however, was made a general\u2014\u2018the captain of a\nthousand\u2019 was the exact title. The desultory war with the Philistines\nstill continued, and the new general soon justified his appointment. But\nhis successes and his popularity with the army aroused the jealousy of\nthe king. Saul began to plot against his life and to hope that he might\nfall in one of the skirmishes with the enemy. Merab, Saul\u2019s elder\ndaughter, had been promised to him in marriage, but she was given to\nanother, and though her younger sister Michal was offered in her place,\nSaul stipulated that David should bring him instead of a dowry a hundred\nforeskins of the Philistines. It was the Egyptian mode of counting the\nslain, which is still practised in Abyssinia; when Meneptah II. defeated\nthe Libyans and their northern allies, the number of the enemy who had\nfallen was determined partly by the hands, partly by the foreskins cut\noff from the slain. The hundred foreskins demanded by Saul were doubled\nby David, who thereupon received Michal as his wife.\n\nSaul had already, in one of his fits of frenzy, made an attempt on\nDavid\u2019s life. The day before he had heard the women welcoming David as\nhe returned from \u2018the slaughter of the Philistine\u2019[438] with sounds of\nmusic and the refrain: \u2018Saul hath slain his thousands and David his ten\nthousands.\u2019 The king brooded over the words, until in his moments of\ninsanity they overpowered all prudence and restraint. When he recovered\nthey still sounded in his ears, and his feigned friendship towards his\nson-in-law concealed murder in his heart.\n\nAt last he openly avowed his desire to be rid of his supposed enemy; and\nthough in his saner hours he still shrank from murdering him with his\nown hand, he suggested both to Jonathan and to his retainers that they\nshould do so. David, in truth, was becoming a formidable rival. He was\nidolised by the army, was popular among the people, and was a member by\nmarriage of the royal house. He was, moreover, a Jew; and the tribe of\nJudah was now beginning to rise into importance and to realise its own\nstrength. Above all, Samuel and the priests were at bitter feud with\nSaul, and favourably disposed to David.\n\nJonathan betrayed his father\u2019s secret to his unsuspecting friend, and\nbade him await the issue of an appeal to the better nature of Saul. The\nappeal was successful, and for a time Saul laid aside his suspicions and\nthere was apparent, if not real, harmony once more between him and his\nson-in-law. But another success against the Philistines revived the evil\npassions of the king. Again the old depression and gloom came upon him,\nand David\u2019s harp, instead of dissipating it, transformed it into\nmadness. Suddenly he flung his spear at the player, who slipped aside\nand fled. The time for mediation and forgiveness was passed. David could\nno longer be safe in the presence of a madman who was bent on taking his\nlife. Royal guards were even sent to watch David\u2019s house, and he escaped\nonly with the help of his wife. In the night she let him down through\nthe window of his room, and laid on the bed in his place the image of\nthe household god covered with a sheet. When the king\u2019s guards arrived\nto take him she pretended that he was sick, and it was not until they\nhad come a second time that they discovered they had been deceived. Saul\nreproached his daughter for abetting her husband\u2019s escape; but it was\ntoo late, and David had made his way to the house of Samuel at Ramah.\nHere, however, he was not yet safe from pursuit, and he and the seer\naccordingly took refuge in the sacred enclosure of the Naioth or\nmonastery. There, surrounded by the prophet-dervishes, they felt that\neven the king in the madness of disappointed fury would not venture to\nviolate their sanctuary.\n\nThat Samuel also should have been compelled to shelter himself from\nSaul\u2019s anger, and that David on escaping from Gibeah should at once have\ngone to him, makes it evident that the king at least believed in the\ncomplicity of the seer in the plot against his throne. It also raises\nthe presumption that Saul\u2019s belief was justified, and that Samuel had\nplayed the same part towards David that Ahijah subsequently played\ntowards Jeroboam, and Elijah towards Jehu. That David and Samuel were\nacquainted with one another seems clear; indeed, Gibeah and Ramah were\nso close to each other that it would have been strange if the politic\nDavid had not visited the old seer. Had it been on the occasion of one\nof these visits that the rising rival of Saul was anointed with the\nconsecrated oil?\n\nDavid remained safe in sanctuary. The messengers sent by Saul to fetch\nhim from it fell under the influence of the place, and joined the\ndervishes in their ecstatic exercises; and when Saul himself followed\nthem, he too was infected by the religious excitement around him. One of\nthe sources used by the compiler of the books of Samuel ascribes to this\noccasion the origin of the saying: \u2018Is Saul also among the\nprophets?\u2019[439]\n\nBut as in the case of the introduction of David to Saul, there is again\na double account of his escape. The two narratives are equally worthy of\ncredit from a historical point of view, yet it is difficult to reconcile\nthem together. The compiler has endeavoured to do so by supposing that\nDavid \u2018fled\u2019 from the monastery of Ramah to Jonathan after Saul\u2019s return\nto Gibeah. But this only makes the difficulty of harmonising the two\naccounts the greater. If we accept them both, the only way of\nreconciling them is to suppose that a considerable interval of time\nelapsed between the events recorded in them, that in the monastery of\nRamah peace was once more established between David and his\nfather-in-law, and that David consequently returned to his accustomed\nplace at court. In this case, the statement of the compiler that the\nsecond narrative follows immediately upon the first would be a mistaken\ninference.[440]\n\nAccording to the second account, David came to Jonathan and assured him\nthat Saul was determined to take away his life. Jonathan protested that\nthis was impossible, although he had himself previously warned his\nfriend that such was the case,[441] on the ground that his father\nconcealed nothing from him. It was then agreed that Jonathan should\ndiscover Saul\u2019s intentions and reveal them three days later to David,\nwho should meanwhile hide himself in the fields. Jonathan was to shoot\nthree arrows, and send a boy to gather them up. If he told the boy they\nwere on the hither side of David\u2019s hiding-place, it meant that all was\nwell; if, on the contrary, he said they were beyond it, David would know\nthat his life was in danger. The day following was the feast of the New\nMoon, when David ought to have dined with the king. But his place was\nempty; only Abner sat by the side of Saul, whose seat was, as usual, \u2018by\nthe wall.\u2019 Saul said nothing, thinking that David was absent for\nceremonial reasons; but when on the next day the place was again empty,\nhe asked Jonathan what had become of him. Jonathan replied, as had been\nagreed upon, that he had given David permission to go to Beth-lehem to\ntake part in an annual sacrifice of the family. But the answer did not\ndeceive his father. Saul broke forth into reproaches, accusing Jonathan\nof rebellion and folly in preferring friendship to self-interest, and in\nsaving the life of one who would use it to deprive him of the crown.\nJonathan replied; and the king, mad with rage, flung his spear at his\nown son, who left the table and made his way to the place where David\nwas concealed. There he gave the signal by which David knew that he must\nflee for his life, and while the lad was picking up the arrows the two\nfriends embraced and parted, perhaps for the last time.\n\nDavid fled to Nob. The priests of Shiloh had settled in it, and he\nbelieved therefore that he would find a shelter there. But Ahimelech was\nafraid of Saul; he knew that the king bore no goodwill to his\nson-in-law, and it was strange that David should be alone. David,\nhowever, had a ready answer to the question why \u2018no man\u2019 was with him.\nSaul had sent him out in haste on a secret mission, and his servants\naccordingly had been ordered to wait for him ahead. The haste indeed was\nsuch that he had brought with him neither food nor weapons. The priest\nhad only the shewbread to offer, and at first hesitated about giving it\nto those who were not Levites. But David overcame his scruples, assuring\nhim that his companions had \u2018kept themselves from women\u2019 for the past\nthree days, and that the vessels they carried with them were clean. At\nthe same time he took Goliath\u2019s sword which had been dedicated to\nYahveh, and lay behind the ephod wrapped in a cloth. Then he continued\nhis flight, and did not rest until he found himself at the court of the\nold enemy of Israel, Achish the son of Maoch, king of Gath.[442]\n\nRecent criticism has maintained that this first visit to Achish of Gath\nis but a duplicate version of David\u2019s second visit to the same prince,\nlike the duplicate accounts of his introduction to Saul and flight from\nthe Israelitish court. The two visits, however, clearly belong to\ndifferent periods of time, and the different treatment experienced by\nthe fugitive at the hands of the king of Gath was due to the wholly\ndifferent circumstances under which he arrived there on the two\noccasions. The solitary and defenceless exile, flying for his life from\nhis own countrymen, was a very different person from the leader of a\nnumerous band of reckless and well-armed adventurers who came to offer\ntheir services as mercenaries in war. A more serious difficulty is the\nfact that Achish, the son of Maoch or Maachah, was still reigning over\nGath in the third year of Solomon (1 Kings ii. 39). But the long reign\nof about fifty years, which this presupposes, is no impossibility;\nRamses II. of Egypt, for example, was sixty-seven years on the throne.\n\nDavid did not remain long in Gath. The Philistines could not forget that\nhe had been one of their most formidable adversaries, and there must\nhave been some among them who had blood-feuds to avenge upon him. The\nfugitive servant of Saul was no longer to be feared, but there were many\nvoices crying for his life. For a while Achish was inclined to protect\nhim in the hope of using him against his countrymen, but how long this\nprotection would last was doubtful. David accordingly feigned himself\nmad, he scrabbled on the gates, and let the spittle fall on his unshorn\nbeard. The Philistine king gave up all hope of making him his tool, and\nallowed him to quit the court. David thereupon made his way to the home\nof his boyhood, and took refuge in the limestone caves of Adullam, a few\nmiles to the south-west of Beth-lehem.\n\nHere at last he was safe. He was among his own tribesmen, in a district\nwell known to him, and in a place of refuge where the outlaw could defy\nhis pursuers. Moreover, the home of his family was not far distant, and\nit was not long, accordingly, before his brothers and other relatives\njoined him in his mountain stronghold. The band of outlaws increased\nrapidly, and soon amounted to four hundred men. David\u2019s abilities as a\nmilitary leader were known throughout Israel, and all the outlaws and\nadventurers of Judah flocked to his standard; among them was the prophet\nGad.\n\nDavid once more found himself at the head of a considerable force. The\nquarrel between him and the king was assuming the character of a civil\nwar. It was Judah against Israel, the first revolt of the new power that\nwas rising in the south against the domination of the north. But the\npower was still in its infancy. Against the trained veterans of the\nroyal army, with the prestige of legal authority and resources behind\nthem, the bandits of the Jud\u00e6an mountains could hold their own only so\nlong as they remained among the limestone fastnesses of their own land.\nIt was like a struggle between Sicilian brigands and the regular troops;\nthe sympathies of the peasantry were with the brigands, and as long as\nthey acted on the defensive, their lives were safe.\n\nBut the mountains of Judah were barren, and it was needful for David and\nhis men to descend at times into the valleys and plains below, and there\nlevy contributions of food. These were the moments of danger. The\ntownsmen and owners of land could not be trusted like the peasantry;\nthey looked with no favourable eyes on the armed outlaws who seized what\nwas not freely given to them, and were ready enough to betray them to\nSaul. In the towns and plains the king\u2019s troops had the advantage;\nwhile, on the other side, it was always possible to fall in with a body\nof Philistines to whom every Israelite was a foe.\n\nBut while David was hidden in the cave of Adullam, Saul committed a deed\nwhich shattered his kingdom and transferred the allegiance of the\npriesthood to his Jud\u00e6an rival. This was the massacre of the priests at\nNob. In reading the story of it we seem to have before us the words of\nan eye-witness. Saul was seated under the tamarisk on the hill at\nGibeah, with his spear in his right hand, and his officers standing\naround him. Suddenly he broke out into reproaches against them and\nagainst his son. \u2018Hear now, ye Benjamites; will the son of Jesse give\nevery one of you fields and vineyards, and make you all captains of\nthousands and captains of hundreds; that all of you have conspired\nagainst me, and there is none that sheweth me that my son hath made a\nleague with the son of Jesse, and there is none of you that is sorry for\nme, or sheweth unto me that my son hath stirred up my servant against\nme, to lie in wait, as at this day?\u2019 Then the heathen foreigner, \u2018Doeg\nthe Edomite which was set over the servants of Saul,\u2019 answered and said\nthat he had seen David come to Ahimelech the priest at Nob, and that\nthere the priest had consulted Yahveh for him, had given him food and\nGoliath\u2019s sword. At once the infuriated king sent for Ahimelech and his\nbrother priests, and demanded of him why he had conspired with the\nrebel. Ahimelech\u2019s answer only increased his anger. David, said the\npriest, was the son-in-law of the king, and his most faithful servant;\nhow then could he have refrained from helping him on his road?\nThereupon, Saul ordered the priests to be put to death, but no Israelite\ncould be found to perpetrate such an act of sacrilegious atrocity. The\nEdomite, however, had no scruples; he fell with a will upon the\ndefenceless priests, and eighty-five of them were massacred. Saul then\ndescended upon Nob, \u2018the city of the priests,\u2019 and treated it like a\ncity of the Amalekites, smiting it with the edge of the sword, \u2018both men\nand women, children and sucklings, and oxen and asses and sheep.\u2019 Only\nAbiathar, the son of Ahimelech, escaped, and fled to David, carrying\nwith him the ephod and the oracles of God. The prophecy of the\ndestruction of Eli\u2019s house was fulfilled, but in fulfilling it Saul\ndestroyed his own. The breach between the king and the priests was\ncomplete; he had compelled them, and all who reverenced them, to take\nthe side of his rival.\n\nIt was now that David determined to send his father and mother to the\nprotection of the Moabite court. His great-grandmother had been a\nMoabitess, and it is possible that the war between Saul and Moab,\nreferred to in 1 Sam. xiv. 47, was continuing at this very time. In this\ncase, the Moabite king would have given a ready welcome to the parents\nof his enemy\u2019s enemy. They would be hostages for David himself, and\nDavid was a person whom it was desirable to attach to the Moabite cause.\nNot only was he the son-in-law of Saul, and an able general, but he was\nnow at the head of a devoted body of men who were waging war on the\nIsraelitish king. If war was actually going on at the time between\nIsrael and Moab, alliance with David would divert and weaken the\nIsraelitish attack. Moreover, as long as David\u2019s parents were in his\npower, the king of Moab could compel the Jewish chieftain to serve and,\nif need be, to fight for him.\n\nDavid\u2019s followers had increased to six hundred men, and he now felt\nhimself strong enough to occupy one of the Jud\u00e6an cities, and make it a\ncentre for his war against Saul. A pretext for doing so was soon found.\nKeilah was threatened by Philistine raiders, and patriotism demanded its\nrescue. The city is mentioned in the Tel el-Amarna letters under the\nname of Kelt\u00ea; it was already a place of military importance, and was\nsurrounded by walls. David\u2019s followers, however, were reluctant to leave\ntheir retreat in the mountains and venture into a town. But the\nrepresentative of the high priests of Shiloh was now with them, and the\noracles of Yahveh, which he consulted through the ephod, admitted of no\ncontradiction. Keilah was accordingly occupied by David, and its\nPhilistine invaders repulsed. The citizens, however, showed little\ngratitude towards their preservers. Perhaps they thought it was merely\nan exchange of masters, and that Philistine pillage would not have been\nworse than the exactions of the outlaws. Perhaps they feared the fate of\nNob for harbouring the enemy of Saul. However it might be, they sent\nword to Saul that David and his men were in the town. The king marched\nto Keilah without delay; had not God delivered David into his hand by\nbringing him into a city that had \u2018gates and bars\u2019? But once more the\nephod was consulted, and the answer was clear. The people of Keilah were\ntraitors, and David\u2019s band must seek a shelter elsewhere. This time they\nfled to the wooded slopes above the wilderness of Ziph, on the eastern\nside of the Dead Sea. Here David and Jonathan met once more[443] under\nthe shadow of the forest. But the Ziphites betrayed the hiding-place of\nthe outlaws, and offered to help the king to capture his foe. For a time\nthe hunted fugitives evaded their pursuers; spies brought David\nintelligence of Saul\u2019s movements, and the desolate wadis of Ziph and\nMaon, with their deep defiles and precipitous rocks, enabled him to slip\nout of the toils. But at last the game became desperate; the outlaws\nwere encircled on all sides, and the difficulty of procuring food must\nhave been great. At that moment the Philistines came to their help; a\nmessenger arrived in haste at the royal camp, urging the king to march\nwestward at once, for a Philistine army had invaded the land. David was\nsaved, and he now settled himself in the caves and fastnesses of the\nmountains about En-gedi.\n\nFrom the peaks where only the wild goats trod,[444] David could look\nacross the Dead Sea to the purple hills of Moab. Here, therefore, he was\nin touch with the Moabites, while his inaccessible position rendered him\nsafe from attack. Below him was the comparatively fertile valley of\nCarmel of Judah, where large flocks of sheep fed on the scanty grass. It\nwas the northern portion of the wilderness of Paran, and the outlaws\nexacted from it their supplies of food. The supplies were usually\nyielded with a good grace, and in return the shepherds and their flocks\nwere protected from the Bed\u00e2win and the wild beasts. But on one occasion\nthe request for food met with a refusal. Nabal, a wealthy farmer at\nMaon, was shearing his sheep, and refused to give any of them to the\nmessengers of David. Perhaps Saul was still in the neighbourhood, and he\nwas thus emboldened to play the part of the churl. But he was soon\ntaught that David was strong enough to take without asking. Four hundred\nof the outlaws marched down upon Maon, bent upon making him and his\nfamily pay with their lives for the niggardly refusal. The tact of a\nwoman, however, saved them, and averted the anger of David. Abigail, the\nwife of Nabal, met the angry chieftain on the road with presents and\nhoneyed words, and her fair looks and speeches induced him to turn back.\nThat night Nabal was holding a shearing feast in fancied security, but\nwhen, the next day, his wife told him of his narrow escape, and of the\nband of outlaws that was still in the neighbourhood, his heart failed\nhim, and \u2018he became as a stone.\u2019 The shock was too great for his\nstrength; a few days later he died. Then Abigail, like a prudent woman,\nbecame the wife of the outlaw, and the wealth of Nabal passed into his\nhands. It was a welcome addition to David\u2019s resources, and made him\nbetter able to control his men. Abigail, too, proved a devoted wife,\nfollowing her husband in his wanderings, and sharing his wild life. She\nwas not his only wife, however, though Michal had been given by her\nfather to a Benjamite named Phaltiel. David, it would seem, had already\nmarried a certain Ahinoam of Jezreel.\n\nIt was probably before the marriage of Abigail, and while Saul was still\nchasing the outlaws through the wilderness of Ziph,[445] that an\nincident occurred, two versions of which had reached the compiler of the\nbooks of Samuel. Saul had with him a force of three thousand men, more\nthan sufficient gradually to close in upon David and cut off all his\nchances of escape. Abner, the commander-in-chief, was with him, and the\nking was obstinate in his determination to track his enemy to the death.\nAccording to the one version of the story, Saul was alone in a cave;\naccording to the other, he was asleep at night in his camp among the\nrocky crevices of Mount Hachilah. While he slept, David, with his two\ncompanions, Ahimelech the Hittite and Abishai the brother of Joab, crept\nstealthily towards him, and soon reached the unconscious king. Abishai\nwould have slain him with his spear, but David forbade his touching \u2018the\nLord\u2019s anointed,\u2019 and contented himself with carrying away the spear and\ncruse of water which stood at his head, or, according to the other\nversion, with cutting off the skirt of the royal robe. Then, standing on\nthe opposite side of the gorge, David reproached Abner for his careless\nwatch over the king. Saul recognised David\u2019s voice, and demanded if it\nwere not he, whereupon David made an appeal to the king\u2019s better nature,\nasked why he was thus driving him from his country and his God, and\npointed to the trophies he had just carried off in proof of his\ninnocence. If he were really aiming at the throne, would he have spared\nthe king when Yahveh had delivered him into his hands? The impulsive\nSaul yielded for the moment to the voice and words of his former\nfavourite, but they produced no further effect upon him. David could not\nventure to send back the spear by one of his own men; it had to be\nfetched by a servant of the king. David had given Saul a lesson in\ngenerosity, but the only result of it was that he had to return to his\nold hiding-place. Saul remained resolutely bent on taking his life.\n\nMeanwhile Samuel had died, and there seemed no longer any power left in\nIsrael to contend against the will of the king. David began to perceive\nthat his cause was hopeless; he had become a mere chief of brigands, and\nagainst him were arrayed all the forces of order and authority in the\ncountry. It was useless to continue the struggle, and he determined,\ntherefore, to sell the services of himself and his followers to the\nhereditary enemies of his people. Accordingly he passed over to Achish\nof Gath, and entered the service of the Philistine.\n\nThe use of mercenary soldiers was no new thing. Egypt had long since set\nthe example, and in the age of the nineteenth dynasty the larger part of\nthe Egyptian army already consisted of foreigners. Many of these were\nkinsfolk of the Philistines from the Greek seas. Such soldiers of\nfortune were acceptable to the kings who employed them for more reasons\nthan one. Their lives were devoted to fighting, and therefore they were\nbetter trained and more amenable to discipline than the native recruits,\nwho were levied only as occasion required. Moreover, they had everything\nto gain and nothing to lose from war, unlike the peasantry, whose fields\nmight be ravaged while they themselves were away in the camp. Above all,\nthe mercenaries were faithful to their employer so long as he supplied\nthem with plunder or pay. They had no party feuds to avenge, no loss of\nliberty to chafe at, no spirit of independence to cherish. Their swords\nwere at the disposal of the king, and of none else; the tyranny which\ncrushed his subjects found in them a willing instrument. David never\nforgot the lesson which his service with Achish had taught him. When at\nlast he became the king of Israel, he also surrounded himself with a\nbodyguard of foreign mercenaries, drawn from much the same countries as\nthose of the Pharaoh.\n\nIt was not as a bodyguard, however, that Achish needed the Jews. It was\nrather as an auxiliary force in future contests with their countrymen.\nConsequently they were allowed to settle in the country, at some\ndistance from Gath, and Ziklag was given them as a residence. The\noutlaws had ceased to be brigands, and had become part of the regular\narmy of a foreign prince.\n\nFor a year and four months the Hebrew corps dwelt at Ziklag. But they\nwere not idle all the time. Once David led them on a raiding expedition\nagainst the Bed\u00e2win Amalekites of the south. Men, women, and children\nwere alike put to the sword, so that none might live to tell the tale.\nWhen the Jews returned with their booty, David professed to Achish that\nthe raid had been directed against the Hebrews of Judah and their allies\nthe Kenites and Jerahmeelites. The deception was successful, and the\nPhilistine king rejoiced in the thought that the captain of his\nmercenaries had thus for ever rendered himself hateful to his\ncountrymen. David had succeeded in disarming the suspicions of his\nhosts, in providing his retainers with the spoil they coveted, and yet\nat the same time in not alienating from himself the affections of his\nown people.\n\nBut a further trial was in store for the wily exile. The quarrel between\nSaul and his son-in-law had allowed the Philistines to assert once more\ntheir old supremacy in Israel. In David the Israelites had lost one of\ntheir chiefest generals, and the troops which should have been employed\nagainst the common foe were occupied in hunting him through the wilds of\nthe Jud\u00e6an mountains. The watchful enemy took speedy advantage of the\nfact. Israel was again invaded; the Philistines swept the lowlands of\nJudah, and prepared to march northward. Saul returned from his pursuit\nof David among the trackless rocks on the shore of the Dead Sea only\njust in time to prevent their penetrating again into the heart of Mount\nEphraim. The territory of Benjamin was saved for a time, and the\nforeigner did not succeed in reaching the royal residence at Gibeah.\n\nBut the respite was not for long. A year and a quarter later the united\nforces of the Philistine cities marched northward, along the highroad on\nthe coast of the Mediterranean, which had been trodden so often by the\nformer conquerors of Western Asia. They passed Dor, the modern Tant\u00fbra,\nthen occupied by their kinsfolk the Zakkal, and, turning the point of\nMount Carmel, proceeded eastward through the valley of the Kishon\ntowards the plain of Megiddo. It was the old fighting ground of\nPalestine; its possession gave the conqueror the command of the whole\ncountry west of the Jordan, and cut off the Israelitish king in his\nrear. With the enemy established at Megiddo, Benjamin and Ephraim would\nbe effectually severed from the northern tribes.\n\nSaul lost no time in proceeding against his foe. The Philistine camp had\nbeen pitched, first at Shunem, then at Aphek, on the southern slope of\nMount Gilboa;[446] the Israelites now took up their station at a\nfountain near Jezreel, a few miles to the north-west. But the sight of\nthe huge Philistine army, recruited, doubtless, as it had been by the\nZakkal, filled Saul with despair. His own forces were miserably\ninsufficient to meet it; he had lost his old confidence in Yahveh and\nhimself, and the priests and prophets had become his enemies. In vain he\nsought counsel of Yahveh; such priests as still remained near him\nrefused their help, and \u2018Yahveh answered him not, neither by dreams, nor\nby Urim, nor by prophets.\u2019 Abiathar and Gad were with David; the\nprophets who had gathered round Samuel were now the bitter foes of the\nIsraelitish king.\n\nIn his despair he turned to the powers of witchcraft and necromancy. In\nyounger and happier days, before the massacre at Nob, when he was still\nthe favourite of the servants of Yahveh, still enthusiastic for the\nreligion of Israel, Saul had driven from his dominions all those who\nprofessed to traffic with the powers of the unseen world. The wizards\nand fortune-tellers, the enchanters and the possessed had been expelled\nfrom the land. The fact is a proof of the influence of the Mosaic code\nand religion in the priestly and royal circle.[447] Elsewhere in Western\nAsia the necromancers\u2019 trade was flourishing; Babylonia, which was the\nhome of the culture of Western Asia, was the home also of the arts of\nmagic. Here the magician was held in high honour, and the literature of\nmagic and omens occupied a large place in the libraries of the country.\nWe cannot suppose that beliefs which were held by the most cultivated\nclasses of Babylonia were not also shared by the mass of the population\nin Canaan and Israel. And it must be remembered that outside the\nLevitical law there was no suspicion or idea that those who practised\nmagic had dealings with spirits of evil. Heathendom drew no distinction\nbetween spirits of good and spirits of evil; the gods themselves were\ndestructive as well as beneficent. The Mosaic condemnation of witchcraft\nwas utterly opposed to the popular belief, and Saul\u2019s expulsion of those\nwho practised it proves not only the existence of the Law, but also its\nrecognition as the law of the state by the representatives of the\nreligion of Yahveh. It was a reform analogous to those of Hezekiah and\nof Isaiah in later days; an attempt to conform to the Law of Yahveh,\ncontrary though it was to the prejudices and the practices of the time.\n\nBut the king was now forsaken by the Law and its ministers, and as a\nlast resource he turned to the forbidden arts. In disguise he went by\nnight to a witch at Endor, and begged her to raise the shade of Samuel\nfrom the dead. And Samuel came in visible presence to the witch, though\nhis voice only was heard by the king. But it was a voice that pronounced\njudgment. God had indeed departed from Saul and given his kingdom to\nanother, and the doom was about to be fulfilled. Before the morrow\u2019s sun\nwas set, where Samuel was there should Saul and his sons be also, and\nthe host of Israel should be delivered into the hand of the Philistines.\nSaul fell to the earth in a swoon; he had fasted all the previous day,\nand brain and body were alike worn out.\n\nIt was an ill-omened beginning for the day of battle which followed.\nLike the army of Israel, that of the Philistines was divided into\ncompanies of a thousand men each, which were further subdivided into\ncompanies of a hundred. Along with the native Philistines and their\nallies, the band of Hebrew mercenaries marched past the five generals.\nBut hardly had they passed when a discussion arose as to their\ntrustworthiness. Achish, indeed, declared his full confidence in the\nfidelity of David and his followers, but the other Philistine \u2018lords\u2019\ndistrusted them. The risk of employing them against their own countrymen\nwas too great. How could they be trusted not to desert at a critical\nmoment of the battle, and so make their peace with Saul by the sacrifice\nof the uncircumcised foreigner? The wishes of Achish were overruled, and\nDavid was sent back to Ziklag.\n\nWhat would David have done had the result of the council been otherwise?\nIt has generally been assumed that the fears of the Philistine lords\nwere justified, and that he would have betrayed his new masters by going\nover to his old one. But in that case it is probable that he would have\nfound some excuse for not leaving Ziklag and accompanying Achish on his\nmarch. That he followed the Philistine army as far as the field of\nbattle implies that in selling his services to the king of Gath, he\naccepted all the recognised consequences of the act. As he had told\nSaul, it was not only from his country that he was driven out, but from\nthe God of his country as well. In leaving Judah for Gath he had\ntransferred his duties from Israel to Philistia, from Saul to Achish,\nfrom Yahveh to Dagon. It was the first step that mattered: all else was\ncontained in it. The duties of the mercenary were well understood: he\nceased to have a country of his own, and became, as it were, the\nproperty of the prince to whom his services were given. In after days,\nDavid would have had no scruple in employing his Philistine bodyguard in\nsubjugating their kinsmen, any more than the Egyptians had in employing\ntheir Sardinian or Libyan mercenaries in their wars against Libya and\nthe peoples of the Greek seas.\n\nDavid, indeed, would not have lifted up his hand personally to attack\n\u2018the anointed of Yahveh.\u2019 But there was a good deal of difference\nbetween a hand-to-hand fight between himself and Saul and assisting his\nnew masters in overthrowing the power of the northern tribes of Israel.\nBetween the Jews and these northern tribes there was always a certain\namount of smothered hostility, which broke out into actual war in the\nearly part of David\u2019s reign, and eventually led to the revolt of the Ten\nTribes. It was not the Israelitish king, but the Israelitish kingdom\nwhich David and his followers were helping to destroy.\n\nWe need not question his sincerity, therefore, when he offered his sword\nto the lords of the Philistines and protested against their mistrust of\nhimself. Nor would the fact that he had been on the side of the\nPhilistine enemy have been prejudicial to his future interests, if he\nalready cherished the hope of being the successor of Saul. It was in\nJudah, among his own tribesmen, and not in Northern Israel, that the\nfoundations of his kingdom were to be laid; it was only the Jews,\nconsequently, whose good-will it was needful for him to secure. If he\nalready aimed at extending his power over all Israel, a defeated and\nbroken Israel would be more easily won over to him than an Israel proud\nof its independence and strength, and attached to the house of a\nsovereign who had led them to victory.[448] David\u2019s loyalty to Achish,\nhowever, was never put to the test. He and his mercenaries were sent\nback to Ziklag, and their dismissal from the field of battle was in\nitself an insult which would serve as a pretext for a quarrel with the\nPhilistines should the need or opportunity for one ever arise. But when\nthey reached their homes, they found there only desolation and ruins.\nThe Bed\u00e2win Amalekites had made a raid upon the undefended town, had\nburned its buildings and carried away the women and the spoil. There was\nno longer any Saul to repress their attacks, or to exact vengeance for\ntheir incursions.\n\nMutiny broke out among the mercenaries. They accused David of having\ntorn them from their families, thus leaving Ziklag to the mercy of the\nfoe. He was the cause of the disaster, and they began to talk of stoning\nhim to death. The priest Abiathar came, however, to his rescue, and\nannounced through the ephod the word of Yahveh that the robbers should\nbe overtaken and the spoil recovered. At once, therefore, the pursuit\ncommenced. The Bed\u00e2win tracks were followed in such haste that when the\ndesert was reached, only four hundred out of the whole band of six\nhundred had strength enough to proceed. Then an Egyptian was found who\nhad been a slave among the Amalekites, and having fallen ill on their\nretreat from Palestine had been left to die upon the road. The departure\nof the Philistine army had exposed the Negeb to the attack of the\nBed\u00e2win, and they had not been slow to take advantage of it.[449] Only\nthree days had elapsed since they had passed the spot where the slave\nwas found, and he offered himself a willing guide to the Hebrews in\ntheir quest of his former masters. The Amalekite tents were soon\nreached, and the nomads were found feasting on the abundant plunder they\nhad gained and dancing in fancied security. Suddenly at twilight the\nHebrews fell upon them, and an indiscriminate slaughter took place. The\nmassacre went on for twenty-four hours, and none of the Amalekites\nescaped except about four hundred young men, who succeeded in mounting\ntheir camels and flying beyond pursuit. All the spoil they had carried\noff fell into the hands of their conquerors, including the two wives of\nDavid himself. The flocks and herds were given to David: the rest of the\nplunder was divided among his followers, the two hundred men who had\nbeen left on the road being allowed, after some dispute, to share it\nequally with their fellows.[450]\n\nDavid, with characteristic foresight, sent portions of the spoil that\nhad been allotted to him as a \u2018present\u2019 to \u2018the elders of Judah\u2019 in the\nchief towns of the tribe. The Jerahmeelites and Kenites were not\nforgotten, nor the Calebites of Hebron. Some of the plunder was sent as\nfar south as Hormah and Zephath, as well as to Aroer and Ramoth of the\nsouth. Reuben and Simeon had now ceased to exist as separate tribes,\nSimeon having been absorbed into Judah while such cities of Reuben as\nstill remained Israelite had been occupied by \u2018the elders of\nJudah.\u2019[451]\n\nDavid\u2019s object in sending the presents was cloaked under the pretext\nthat they were made to those who had befriended him in the days of his\nwandering. But the pretext was more than transparent. His wanderings had\nnever extended to Hormah or Aroer, or even to \u2018the cities of the\nJerahmeelites.\u2019 A crown was already within measurable distance of the\nJewish chieftain: his soldier\u2019s eye had seen that the Israelitish army\nwas no match for that of the Philistines, and the priests who were with\nhim were assured that Yahveh had forsaken Saul, and would work no\nmiracle in his favour. The Philistines were once more dominant in the\nsouth, and a victory at Gilboa would make that domination secure. David\npossessed the confidence of Achish, and as the vassal of the Philistines\nhe could count on their support were he to make himself the king of\nJudah. All that was needed was the good-will of the Jewish elders, and\nthis his victory over the Amalekites gave him the means of purchasing.\n\nOn the other hand, were the Philistines to be defeated, and the Hebrew\narmy, contrary to all probability, to be victorious, David\u2019s position\nwould be in nowise affected. He would still be safe among the\nPhilistines, out of reach of Saul, and at the head of a formidable band\nof mercenary troops. The pretext for sending the presents could be urged\nwith some show of reason: they were merely a return to the friends who\nhad aided him in the time of his necessity. Now, as ever, David could\nindignantly disclaim any intention of plotting against the \u2018anointed of\nthe Lord.\u2019\n\nWhile David was thus looking after his own interests, events were\nfighting for him in the north. The Israelites at Gilboa were utterly\ndefeated, and all Israel lay helpless at the feet of the heathen. Saul\nwas slain along with his three elder sons; only a minor, Esh-Baal, was\nleft, who was carried for safety to the eastern side of the Jordan.\nIsrael was without either a king or a leader; even its army was lost.\nFor a time the mercenaries of David were the only armed force that still\nremained among the tribes of Israel.\n\nSaul had fallen on his own sword. Wounded by an arrow, he had prayed his\narmour-bearer to slay him lest he should fall still living into the\nhands of his foes. But his armour-bearer refused to commit the act of\nsacrilege, and the king slew himself. His body, like those of his sons,\nwas stripped and hung in derision from the walls of Beth-shan. But the\ninhabitants of Jabesh of Gilead could not forget that Saul had once\nsaved them from the Ammonite, and they went by night and carried away\nthe ghastly trophies of Philistine victory; the bodies were first burnt,\nthen the ashes were buried under a tree at Jabesh, and a fast of seven\ndays was held for the dead.\n\nThe Philistines do not seem to have crossed the Jordan. They contented\nthemselves with occupying the country west of it, and garrisoning the\ncities from which the Israelites had fled. The monarchy had fallen, and\nthe house of Israel appeared to have fallen with it. From Dan to\nBeersheba the Philistine was supreme.\n\nDeliverance came from the south, from the latest born of the Israelitish\ntribes. The mixed Israelite, Edomite, and Kenite population, which had\nthere been slowly forming into a united community, now found a common\nhead and leader in the son of Jesse. David, too, was of mixed descent.\nHis great-grandmother had been the Moabitess Ruth, and on his father\u2019s\nside he was partly of Calebite origin.[452] Mixed races have always\nshown themselves the most vigorous and the most fitted to rule, and the\nhistory of the Israelitish monarchy is no exception to the general law.\nA purely Israelitish dynasty had failed, as it was destined to do again\nafter the revolt of the Ten Tribes; it needed the genius and tact of the\nJewish David to establish the monarchy on a lasting basis and defend it\nagainst all enemies.\n\nThe news of the death of the king of Israel was brought to David by an\nAmalekite. He had robbed the corpse of its crown and golden bracelets\nwhich he laid at the feet of the Jewish chief. In the hope of a reward\nhe had come in hot haste and pretended that he had dealt the final blow\nwhich delivered David from his enemy, and opened to him the way to a\nthrone.[453] But he met with an unexpected reception. The story of the\ndisaster aroused in David his slumbering patriotism, his affection for\nJonathan, and his old reverence for Saul. Now that he had nothing any\nlonger to fear from the Hebrew king, and everything to gain by his\ndeath, he could allow his impulse and emotions to have free play. He\nturned in anger upon the messenger, demanding of him how he\u2014a stranger\nand an Amalekite\u2014had dared to lift up his hand against the anointed of\nYahveh. Then he ordered his followers to cut down the luckless Bed\u00e2wi,\nwhose blood, as he told him, was upon his own head. After their recent\nexperience the nomad thief was likely to have but a short shrift at the\nhands of the mercenaries.\n\nIn this act of vengeance there was that mixture of policy and impulse\nwhich is the key to so many of David\u2019s actions. On the one hand, David\nfreed himself from all responsibility for the death of Saul. The blood\nof the king could not be required at his hand either in the form of a\nblood-feud with the family of Saul, or in that of the nemesis which\nwaited on the shedder of blood. On the other hand, it could not be said\nthat he had gained the crown through the murder of the legitimate king.\nSaul indeed had been slain, and David had reaped the advantage of his\ndeath, but he had in no way connived at it. In the eyes of God and man\nalike he was innocent of the deed.\n\nDavid found an outlet for his feelings in a dirge which is one of the\ngems of early Hebrew poetry. Future generations knew it as the Song of\nthe Bow; such was the name under which it was incorporated in the\ncollection of early Hebrew poems called the book of Jasher, and under\nwhich David ordered that it should be learned in the schools.\n\n    \u2018Thy glory, O Israel, is slain upon thy high places!\n    How are the mighty fallen!\n    Tell it not in Gath,\n    Publish it not in the streets of Askelon;\n    Lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice,\n    Lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph.\n    Ye mountains of Gilboa,\n    Let there be no dew nor rain upon you, neither fields of offerings;\n    For there the shield of the mighty ones was cast away,\n    The shield of Saul, as of one unanointed with oil.\n    From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty,\n    The bow of Jonathan turned not back,\n    And the sword of Saul returned not empty.\n    Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives,\n    And in their death they were not divided;\n    They were swifter than eagles,\n    They were stronger than lions.\n    Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul,\n    Who clothed you in scarlet delicately,\n    Who put ornaments of gold upon your apparel.\n    How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle\n    Jonathan is slain upon thy high places.\n    I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan;\n    Very pleasant hast thou been unto me:\n    Thy love to me was wonderful,\n    Passing the love of women.\n    How are the mighty fallen,\n    And the weapons of war perished!\u2019[454]\n\nDavid, however, was too practical to spend his time in useless laments.\nHe had relieved his feelings in a burst of lyric poetry; it was now time\nto seize the opportunity which the overthrow and death of Saul had given\nhim. The oracle of Yahveh was consulted, and the answer was favourable;\nlet David march to Hebron and there offer himself as king of Judah. The\nway had already been prepared: he had secured the good-will of the\nJewish elders; he was the son-in-law of the late king, and a hero of\nwhom his tribesmen were proud. Above all, he had behind him a body of\narmed veterans and devoted adherents, the only armed force now left in\nthe country.\n\nHebron was the natural capital of Judah. It is true it had been a\nCalebite settlement, but Calebites and Jews were now one. Its ancient\nsanctuary had been a gathering-place for the population of the south\nfrom time immemorial, and there was no other city which could rival its\nclaims to pre-eminence. Here, therefore, the representatives of Judah\nassembled, and here they anointed David to be their king. The goal of so\nmany years of struggle and hardship, of patient waiting and politic\ntact, was at length reached. David was king of Judah; it could not be\nlong before he became king of Israel also.\n\nThe Philistines offered no difficulties. David was their vassal; he had\nshown himself loyal to them, and they were well content that he should\nrule over his countrymen, and collect the tribute due from them year by\nyear. The territory of Judah, moreover, was small; it adjoined the\ncities of the Philistines, and in case of revolt could easily be overrun\nand reduced to subjection. That a rival prince should reign in the\nnorth, thus separating the northern tribes from Judah and putting an end\nto all joint action, was a further guarantee for Philistine supremacy.\nThe old Egyptian province of Canaan had become Palestine, the land of\nthe Philistines.\n\nFor seven and a half years David reigned in Hebron. Meanwhile, the\nrelics of the Israelitish army had found a refuge on the eastern side of\nthe Jordan. Here, under their old commander-in-chief Abner, the son of\nNer, they once more formed themselves into a disciplined body, and made\nEsh-Baal, the surviving son of Saul, their king.[455] Esh-Baal, we are\ntold, reigned two years. His position was a difficult one. His rule was\ntitular only; all the real power of the State was in the hands of his\nuncle Abner. Judah refused to acknowledge his authority, and had raised\nitself into a separate kingdom under a rebel chief; the northern tribes\non the west side of the Jordan were in subjection to the heathen\nconqueror who held possession of the highroad from Asia into Egypt, and\ntherewith of the trade and wealth that passed along it. Cut off from\nMount Ephraim, the subjects of Esh-Baal saw David, the Jewish vassal of\nthe Philistines, extending his sway over Benjamin, the ancestral\nterritory of the house of Saul, while they themselves maintained a\nprecarious struggle against their foes behind the fortified walls of\nMahanaim. Here they would have been under the protection of the\nAmmonites, who were threatened by the same enemy as themselves.[456]\n\nThe Philistines found the task of forcing the fords of the Jordan too\ndangerous or too unprofitable. Terms were made with the Israelites;\nEsh-Baal became their vassal, and his nominal rule was allowed to extend\nover Western Israel as far south as the frontiers of Judah. Here the two\nvassal kingdoms came into collision with one another, and Israel and\nJudah were engaged in perpetual war. It was a repetition of what had\nbeen the state of Canaan in the closing days of the Egyptian empire when\nthe Tel el-Amarna letters passed to and fro.\n\nEsh-Baal was merely the shadow of a king. Whether he was a minor or an\nimbecile it is impossible to say with certainty; most probably he was\nbut a child.[457] Abner, the master of the army, was also the real\nmaster of the kingdom. David\u2019s rise to power must have been as\ndistasteful to him as it would have been to Saul, and he seized the\nfirst opportunity of endeavouring to overthrow it. The brigand-chief had\nbecome a king, and the outlaws who had gathered round him in the cave of\nAdullam had been rewarded with posts of honour. Joab, the nephew of\nDavid,[458] was made the commander-in-chief of the Jewish army, and the\nchoice was justified by the results. David owed most of his future\nsuccesses in war to the military skill and generalship of his\ncommander-in-chief. He himself ceased more and more to take part in\nactive warfare; Joab more than supplied his place, and the safety of the\nking was too important to the army and its general to allow of his\nrisking his person in battle. David ruled at home while Joab gained\nvictories for him in the field.\n\nJoab proved a faithful and a loyal servant. No suspicion was ever\nbreathed against him that he sought to steal the hearts of his soldiers\naway from their master, and to supplant David as David had supplanted\nSaul. In the evil days of rebellion and disaster that were to overtake\nDavid, Joab never deserted him, and his restoration to the throne was\nthe work of his faithful general. The services, however, rendered by\nJoab had their drawback. He became indispensable to the king; nay more,\nhe became the master of the king. As David grew old, he began to fret\nunder the irksome yoke; gratitude and self-interest alike forbade him to\nremove his too powerful servant by those Oriental means which had given\nhim a wife, and up to the day of his death Joab\u2019s power was checked only\nby the influence or the intrigues of Bath-sheba.\n\nEven in the early days when David still reigned at Hebron, there was\nill-feeling between the uncle and the nephew. The masterful nature of\nJoab had asserted itself, and David was made to feel that his throne\ndepended on \u2018the sons of Zeruiah.\u2019 War had broken out between Esh-Baal\nand David. The Jews, it would seem, had advanced northward into the\nterritory of Benjamin, where they were met at Gibeon by the Israelite\nforces under Abner from Mahanaim. A fierce battle ensued which ended in\nthe defeat of the Israelite troops. Abner fled across the Jordan, the\nnorth of Israel being in the hands of the Philistines, and the authority\nof David was acknowledged as far as Mount Ephraim. The Benjamites were\nforced to transfer their allegiance from the house of Saul to that of\nJesse. Nineteen Jews only had fallen in the fight, while 360 of the\nenemy were left dead on the field of battle. But among the Jews was\nAsahel, the younger brother of Joab, who had been slain by Abner during\nhis flight. It was the beginning of a blood-feud which could be\nextinguished only by Abner\u2019s death.\n\nAbner\u2019s military genius was no match for that of Joab, and the long war\nwhich followed between David and Esh-Baal saw the power of the Jewish\nking steadily increase. David began to assume the manners and privileges\nof an Oriental despot, to multiply his wives, and to marry into the\nfamilies of the neighbouring kinglets. Four more wives were added to his\nhar\u00eem, one of whom was the daughter of Talmai, the Aramaitish king of\nGeshur. The alliance with Talmai had a political object; Geshur lay on\nthe northern frontier of Esh-Baal\u2019s kingdom, and in Esh-Baal, therefore,\nDavid and Talmai had a common enemy.[459] Absalom was the offspring of\nthe marriage with the Aramaitish princess.[460]\n\nEnclosed between Geshur and Judah, with Benjamin lost and the north of\nIsrael garrisoned by the Philistines, the dynasty of Saul grew\ncontinually weaker. The Ammonites made common cause with David (2 Sam.\nxi. 2), and in the neighbouring Aram\u00e6ans found further allies. Abner was\nnot slow in perceiving that his fortunes were linked with those of a\nlost cause, and he determined to betray his nephew and his master. A\npretext was quickly found; he entered the royal har\u00eem and spent a night\nwith Rizpah, the concubine of Saul. The act was equivalent to claiming\nthe throne, and Esh-Baal naturally ventured to protest. The protest gave\nAbner the opportunity he wanted. He fell with angry words on the\nhelpless king, told him that his throne depended on his general\u2019s\nloyalty, and that that loyalty was at an end. Henceforth Abner\u2019s sword\nwas at the service of David to transfer to him the kingdom from the\nhouse of Saul, and to establish the rule of the Jewish prince from Dan\nto Beer-sheba.\n\nThe Israelite general now sent secret messengers to David to arrange the\ndetails of the betrayal. Abner undertook to \u2018bring over\u2019 all Israel to\nDavid, in return for which he was to supplant Joab as the commander of\nDavid\u2019s army. The terms were agreed to by the Jewish king, David only\nstipulating in addition that Michal should be restored to him. We are\nnot told what it was proposed to do with Esh-Baal; Abner\u2019s treason,\nhowever, involved putting him out of the way. As long as he lived there\nwould have been a claimant to the Israelite throne.\n\nThe plot prospered at first. Abner tampered successfully with the elders\nof Israel, reminding them that they had once wanted David as their\nking,[461] and that Yahveh had declared that through him alone the yoke\nof the Philistines should be broken. The Benjamites also allowed\nthemselves to be persuaded by one of their own princes, who was at the\nsame time the most prominent member of the house of Saul, and Abner\naccordingly went to Hebron with a troop of twenty men to announce to\nDavid that his part of the compact had been fulfilled. But the secret\nhad already oozed out. Abner had timed his visit so that Joab should be\nabsent on a raid when he had his audience with David. Joab, however,\nreturned sooner than was expected, and, pretending to be ignorant of the\nreal object of Abner\u2019s coming, expostulated with the king for allowing\nan enemy to penetrate to the court and spy out the weak places of the\nland. Meanwhile he had sent a messenger who brought Abner back to\nHebron, where he and his brother Abishai murdered the unsuspecting\nIsraelite, and thus avenged the blood of Asahel.\n\nThe blow was felt keenly by David, who saw in it the destruction of his\nhopes. The acquisition of Israel seemed further off than ever, for the\nIsraelites were not likely to forgive or forget the murder of their\nchief. Worst of all, perhaps, his chances of getting rid of Joab were at\nan end. It was clear that the Jewish general had discovered the\ntreachery that had been meditated towards him, and though he was too\npolitic to reproach the king, it gave him a firmer hold upon David than\nbefore. From the point of view of the monarchy, indeed, this was\nfortunate, as Joab had proved himself a better and more loyal general\nthan Abner, and it is probable that had Abner been thrust into his\nplace, the future conquests of David would never have been made.\n\nAll that David could do was to disavow the murder of Abner, to protest\nthat though he had been anointed king he had not the power to punish the\nperpetrators of it, and ostentatiously to abstain from food at the\npublic dinner of the court. Abner, moreover, received a sumptuous burial\nin Hebron, at which the king was chief mourner. Joab must have\nrecognised the policy of the king\u2019s action, since he seems to have\naccepted it without a word of protest. He had gained his point; his\nrival was removed from his path, and his position in the kingdom was\nmore unquestioned than ever.\n\nThe death of Abner reduced the adherents of Esh-Baal to despair. The\nseeds of disaffection which he had sown also began to grow up. If Israel\nwas to be delivered from the Philistines, it was evident that the throne\nof Esh-Baal must be occupied by another. Time was on the side of David,\nand it was not long before the end came.\n\nEsh-Baal was murdered by two of his own tribesmen. Baanah and Rechab,\nthe sons of Rimmon, penetrated into his bed-chamber one summer afternoon\nwhile he was taking his _siesta_, and there murdered the sleeping king.\nThen they beheaded the corpse, and, taking the head with them, hurried\nto David at Hebron without once resting on the road.[462] But David was\ntoo prudent to countenance the deed. While securing all the advantages\nof it, he ordered summary punishment to be inflicted on its\nperpetrators, and thus cleared himself and his house from the stain of\nblood. Like the Amalekite who claimed to have killed Saul, the murderers\nof Esh-Baal were put to death, and the divine law, which exacted blood\nfor blood, was satisfied. The Jewish king could enjoy with an easy\nconscience the fruits of a murder of which he was innocent. No other\nrival stood in his path, for Merib-Baal, the son of Jonathan, was a\nhopeless cripple, with his spine injured by a fall in his childhood.\nWhen he was still but five years of age the fatal battle of Gilboa had\ntaken place, and his nurse in the hurry of flight had dropped the child\nfrom her arms.[463]\n\nThe death of Esh-Baal made David king of what was left of Northern\nIsrael. Those who had gathered round the son of Saul at Mahanaim now\nflocked to Hebron, and there anointed the king of Judah king also of\nIsrael. They reminded him that they, too, were of his \u2018bone and flesh,\u2019\nsprung from a common ancestor and acknowledging the same God, that he\nhad once been their leader against the Philistines, and that it had been\npredicted of him that he should again be the captain of Israel.[464]\n\nHis coronation as king of Israel led to war with the Philistines. From\nthe vassal prince who reigned at Hebron, and whose title was not\nacknowledged by the majority of his countrymen, there was nothing to\nfear; it was different when he had become the king of a united Israel,\nand could once more summon the forces around him with which he had\ngained the victories of his earlier years. In accepting the crown of\nIsrael, moreover, without the permission of the Philistines, David had\nbeen guilty of revolt. The Philistines claimed dominion over the whole\nof Northern Israel west of the Jordan; if they had condoned his\nannexation of the territory of Benjamin, it was because he was still\ntheir tributary vassal, and the annexation meant war between him and the\nrival kingdom of Israel. The heathen lords of Palestine were well\ncontent that Judah and Israel should waste their strength in contending\nwith one another. But the union of the two kingdoms turned that strength\nagainst themselves. The union had been effected without their consent;\nit was \u2018the men of Israel\u2019 who had anointed David without consulting the\nsuzerain power.\n\nAt first the war went against the newly crowned king. He was taken by\nsurprise, and the Philistine army had invaded his territories before he\nhad time to gather his forces together. Beth-lehem, the seat of David\u2019s\nforefathers, was seized by the enemy, and made the base of their attack.\nThus cut off from help from the northern and eastern tribes, or even\nfrom Benjamin, David was forced to retire from Hebron, and once more to\ntake refuge in the \u2018hold\u2019 of Adullam.[465] It was a country well known\nto him; it had already saved him from the pursuit of Saul, and the\nforeign foe did not dare to penetrate into its dark caves and narrow\ngorges. Here for a time he carried on a guerilla warfare with the\nPhilistines until he felt himself strong enough to venture out into the\nopen field. It was while he was thus keeping the enemy at bay that three\nof his followers performed a deed which placed them among the thirty\n_gibb\u00f4r\u00eem_, or \u2018mighty men,\u2019 in immediate attendance on the king.[466]\nDavid had a sudden longing for the water of the well at the gate of\nBeth-lehem, of which he had doubtless often drunk in his boyish days.\nHis wish was overheard by Joshebbasshebeth,[467] Eleazar, and Shammah,\nwho broke through the host of the Philistines, and succeeded in bringing\nthe water to their leader. David, however, refused to drink it. It was,\nas it were, the price of blood; the three heroes had risked their lives\nto bring it, and the king accordingly poured it out as a libation to the\nLord.\n\nHow long this guerilla warfare lasted we do not know. Only a meagre\nabstract is given us of the wars and conquests of David, and it seems\nprobable that a detailed history of them has been intentionally omitted\nby the compiler of the books of Samuel. A separate work dealing with the\nhistory was doubtless in existence at the time he wrote, and there was\nno room for another by the side of it. It was the lesser known portion\nof David\u2019s history which he aimed at compiling out of the records of the\npast. The story, therefore, of the conquest of the Philistines and then\nof the creation of an Israelitish empire has been lost to us; we know\nthe results, but little more.\n\nWhen David at length ventured to descend from his mountain fortress, the\nPhilistines were encamped in the plain of Rephaim, or the \u2018Giants,\u2019\nwhich stretched to the south-east of Jerusalem.[468] He was thus cut off\nfrom the north, the road being further barred by the Jebusite stronghold\nof Jerusalem, which appears to have peacefully submitted to the\nPhilistine domination. For a while the two hostile forces watched one\nanother, neither daring to attack the other. Heroes and champions on\neither side performed individual deeds of valour like that which had\nfirst won recognition for David on the part of Saul, but no general\nengagement took place.[469] The Philistines were too numerous, the\nIsraelites too securely posted to be assailed.\n\nAt last, however, David judged that his opportunity had come. The oracle\nof Yahveh was consulted; the answer was favourable; and the Israelites\ndescended suddenly on their enemies at a place called Baal-perazim. The\nPhilistines fled precipitately, leaving behind them the images of their\ngods, which fell into the hands of the conquering army. The defeat at\nGilboa was in part avenged.\n\nBut the strength of the Philistines was by no means broken, and they\nstill held possession of the country north of Judah. Once more they\npoured through the valley of Rephaim, and once more they were driven\nback towards the coast. David had fallen upon them in the rear, the\nsound of the approaching footsteps of the Israelites being drowned in\nthe rustling made by the wind in a grove of mulberry-trees. This time\nthe invaders were utterly shattered; they retreated from the territory\nof Benjamin, and fled to Gezer, which was still in Canaanite hands. The\nwar was now carried into the country of the enemy. Gath, the most inland\nof the Philistine cities, was the primary object of attack; but a long\nand desultory war was needed before either it or its sister cities could\nbe forced to yield. Again opportunities occurred for the display of\nindividual deeds of prowess, and for winning the rewards of valour from\nthe Israelitish king. The three brothers of Goliath were slain by three\nof the champions of Israel, Jonathan the nephew of David being the\nvictor in one combat, Abishai the brother of Joab in another. Abishai\u2019s\nvictory was gained at Gob, where David narrowly escaped death at the\nhands of the giant Ishbi-benob.[470] The narrowness of the escape\nterrified his subjects, and they determined that he should not again\nexpose his life in the field. The memory of Saul\u2019s death and its\ndisastrous results was too recent to be forgotten. Henceforward, except\non rare occasions, David governed his people from the city or the\npalace; his armies were led by Joab, and the king became to them a name\nrather than an inspiring presence. The personal affection he had once\nexcited was confined to his bodyguard, and when the evil days of\nrebellion came upon him, it was the bodyguard alone which remained\nfaithful to their king.\n\nBefore the war with the Philistines was finished, an event occurred\nwhich had a momentous influence on the future history of Judah. This was\nthe capture of Jerusalem. The Jebusite city had severed Judah from the\nnorthern tribes, and the struggle with the Philistines had shown what\nadvantage that gave to an enemy. A united Israel was impossible so long\nas the Israelitish territory was thus cut in two by a belt of hostile\ncountry. While Jerusalem remained in the hands of the foreigner, Israel\ncould never be secure from Philistine attacks, or its king be able to\nhurl against the enemy the full force of his dominions. If the\nPhilistine war was to be brought to a decisive and satisfactory end, if\nthe king of Judah was also to be king of Israel, it was needful that\nJerusalem should be his. We have learned from the tablets of Tel\nel-Amarna how important Jerusalem already was in the days when the\nIsraelites had not as yet quitted Egypt, and when Canaan formed part of\nthe Egyptian empire. Its position made it one of the strongest of\nCanaanitish fortresses. It was the capital of a larger territory than\nusually belonged to the cities of Canaan, and it was already venerable\nfor its antiquity. Its ruler was also a priest, \u2018without father and\nwithout mother,\u2019 and appointed to his office by \u2018the Mighty King,\u2019 \u2018the\nMost High God\u2019 of the book of Genesis. Its name testified to the worship\nof a god of peace: Urusalim, as it is written in the cuneiform\ncharacters, signified \u2018the City of Salim,\u2019 the god of peace.\n\nThe city stood on a hill to which in after days was given the name of\nMoriah. A low depression, first recognised in our own days by Dr. Guthe,\nseparated it from another hill, which sloped southward till it ended in\na point. On one side was the deep limestone valley through which the\ntorrent of the Kidron had forced its way; on the other side, to the\nwest, was another valley known in later times as that of the sons of\nHinnom. On the southern hill was a fort which protected the approach to\nthe upper town to the north.[471]\n\nIts Jebusite defenders believed it to be impregnable. Even the lame and\nthe blind, they said, could repel the assault of an enemy. But they were\nsoon undeceived. The Israelites climbed up the cliff through a drain or\naqueduct that had been cut in the rock, and the Jebusite fortress was\ntaken. It may be that its capture was due to treachery, and that the way\nhad been shown to the besiegers by one of the garrison; at all events\nthe inhabitants of the city were spared, and henceforward shared it with\nsettlers from Judah and Benjamin. The latter would seem to have been\nchiefly planted in the new city which David built on the southern hill\nof Zion where the Jebusite fortress had stood. In contradistinction to\nJerusalem it came to be known as the City of David; a strong wall of\nfortification was built around it, a Millo or citadel was erected on the\nsite of the Jebusite fort, and the king\u2019s palace was founded in its\nmidst. The palace seems to have stood on the western side of the hill,\nwith a flight of steps cut in the rock leading down from it to the\nvalley below, traces of which have apparently been discovered by Dr.\nBliss in his recent excavations.[472]\n\nIt was built by Ph\u0153nician artificers from Tyre. War and foreign\noppression had destroyed most of the culture the Israelites had once\npossessed, and they no longer had among them skilled artisans like\nBezaleel, who could undertake the construction or adornment of buildings\nwhich might vie with the palaces of the Philistine or Canaanite cities.\nCarpenters and stone-masons had to be fetched from Tyre like the beams\nof cedar that were cut on the slopes of the Lebanon. Jaffa, the port of\nJerusalem, must already have fallen by war or treaty into David\u2019s hand.\n\nWe are told that the cedar and the workmen were sent by Hiram, the\nTyrian king. But if the Israelitish palace had been built in the early\npart of David\u2019s reign, this can hardly have been the case. Josephus,\nquoting from the Ph\u0153nician historian Menander, tells us that Hiram I.,\nthe son of Abibal, reigned thirty-four years (B.C. 969-936),[473] and\nsince he was still alive in the twentieth year of Solomon\u2019s reign (1\nKings ix. 10), it would have been Abibal rather than Hiram who first\nentered into commercial alliance with David.[474] Abibal seems, like\nDavid, to have been the founder of a dynasty, and his son and successor\nwas the Solomon of Tyre. He constructed the two harbours of the city,\nrestored the temples, and built for himself a sumptuous palace, while\nhis ships traded to the Straits of Gibraltar in the west and to the\nPersian Gulf in the east.\n\nJerusalem became the capital of the Israelitish king, and the choice was\na sign of his usual sagacity. It was an ideal centre for a kingdom such\nas his. It lay midway between Judah and the northern tribes, and thus,\nas it were, bound them together. At the same time it belonged to\nneither; its associations were Canaanite, not Hebrew, and its choice as\na royal residence could excite no jealousies. Moreover, this absence of\npast associations with the history of Israel enabled David to do with it\nas he liked; it contained nothing the destruction or alteration of which\nwould offend the prejudices of his countrymen. Situated as it was on the\nborders of both Judah and Benjamin, it served to unite the houses of\nSaul and Jesse, and the mixed population which soon filled it\u2014partly\nJebusite, partly Jewish, and partly Benjaminite\u2014was a symbol and visible\ntoken of that unification of races and interests in Palestine which it\nwas the work of David\u2019s reign to effect. In addition to all this,\nJerusalem was a natural fortress, difficult to capture, easy to defend;\nit had behind it the traditions of a venerable past, and had once been\nthe seat of a priest-king.\n\nThe spoils of foreign conquest allowed David to fortify and embellish\nit. Israel as yet had no trade of its own. The struggle with the\nPhilistines had effectually prevented it from engaging in the commerce\nwhich had made the name of \u2018Canaanite\u2019 synonymous with that of\n\u2018merchant.\u2019 The Philistines had held possession of the highroads that\nran through Palestine as well as of the southern line of coast; the\ncoasts and harbours to the north were occupied by the Ph\u0153nicians. The\ncapture of Joppa from the Zakkal first opened to Israel and Judah a way\nto the sea.\n\nThe fortifications of Jerusalem were completed and the royal palace\nbuilt. But the God of Israel to whom David owed his power and his\nvictories had no habitation there. Jerusalem had become the capital of\nthe Israelitish monarchy, yet it was still under the protection of a\nCanaanitish god. The time had come when Yahveh should take his place and\nassume the protection of David\u2019s capital and David\u2019s throne.\n\nIn Egypt, in Babylonia, in the cities of Canaan itself, the palace of\nthe king and the temple of the deity stood side by side. It was on the\ntemple rather than on the palace that the wealth of the nation was\nlavished: while the palace might be built of brick and stucco, the\ntemple was constructed of hewn stone. David naturally desired that\nYahveh also should have a fitting habitation in the city He had given to\nHis worshippers. But the prophet Nathan, who had at first shared in the\nplans of David, was commissioned to arrest the design. David had been a\nman of war who had \u2018shed much blood upon the earth\u2019;[475] until the wars\nwere finished \u2018which were about him on every side\u2019[476] Yahveh would not\npermit him to build Him a house. All he might do was to prepare the\nmaterial for his happier and more peaceful son. Jerusalem was \u2018the city\nof the god of peace,\u2019 and it was as a god of peace and not of war that\nYahveh would consent to dwell within it.\n\nNevertheless, though the building of a temple was forbidden, the new\ncapital of the kingdom was not deprived of the presence of Yahveh. The\nark of the covenant was brought from the Gibeah or \u2018Hill\u2019 of\nKirjath-jearim,[477] where it had lain so long. Placed in \u2018a new cart,\u2019\nit was led along by oxen, while David and the Israelites accompanied it\nwith music and singing. On the road, the oxen stumbled and shook the\nsacred palladium of Israel; Uzzah, one of the two drivers, put forth his\nhand to steady it, and immediately afterwards fell back dead. His death\nwas regarded as the punishment of one who, though not a Levite, had\nventured to touch the shrine of Yahveh, and David in terror and dismay\nbroke up the festal procession, and left the ark in the nearest house,\nwhich happened to belong to a Philistine of Gath named Obed-Edom.[478]\nHere it remained three months. Then, David finding that the household of\nthe Philistine had been blessed and not cursed by its presence, caused\nit to be again removed and taken to Jerusalem. Sacrifices were offered\nas it passed along, music once more accompanied it, and David, as\nanointed king, clad in the priestly ephod, danced sacred dances before\nit. But his wife, Michal, who had seen him from a window thus acting\nlike one of the inferior priests, \u2018despised him in her heart,\u2019 and on\nhis return to the palace upbraided him with his unseemly conduct. David\nanswered taunt with taunt; the king could not degrade himself by any\nservice, however mean, that he might perform in honour of his God, but\nMichal herself should be degraded by living the rest of her life a\nchildless wife. Meanwhile the assembled multitude was feasted with\nbread, meat, and wine, and the ark was reverently placed in \u2018the tent\u2019\nset up for the purpose in the midst of Jerusalem. Was this the famous\n\u2018tabernacle of the congregation\u2019 which had accompanied the Israelites in\ntheir wanderings in the desert, and had afterwards formed part of the\ntemple-buildings at Shiloh? The fact that it is called \u2018the tent\u2019 would\nseem to imply that such was the case. On the other hand, the Chronicler\nevidently thought otherwise,[479] and we are not told that \u2018the tent\u2019\nhad been brought from elsewhere.\n\nIt would seem that the war with the Philistines was over when the ark\nwas brought to Jerusalem. During its continuance it is not probable that\na native of Gath would be living peaceably in Israelitish territory, or\ngiving hospitality to the sacred safeguard of Israel. The Philistines\nmust have already been incorporated into David\u2019s kingdom, like the\nJebusites of Jerusalem or the Kenites of the south, and his bodyguard\nhave been recruited from among them. Unfortunately we do not know how\nlong the war had lasted. A time came, however, when they acknowledged\nthemselves the servants of the Israelitish king, and became the vassals\nof Judah. They never again were formidable to their neighbours, nor did\nthey ever seriously dispute the suzerainty of Judah. It is true that\nthey might now and then take advantage of a foreign invasion, like that\nof the Assyrians, to shake off the yoke of their suzerain, but their\nindependence never lasted long, and the five cities did not always take\nthe same side. Even when the very existence of Jerusalem was threatened\nby Sennacherib, we find Ekron faithfully supporting Hezekiah against the\nAssyrian conqueror. David broke the spirit as well as the power of the\nPhilistines, and took for ever the supremacy they had wielded out of\ntheir hands.[480]\n\nThe \u2018lords\u2019 or kings of the five Philistine cities were left\nundisturbed. But their position towards David was reversed. Instead of\nhis being their vassal, they became vassals to him, paying him tribute,\nand providing him with military service when it was required. David was\nwell acquainted with the excellence of the Philistines as soldiers in\nwar. Accordingly he followed the example of the Egyptian Pharaohs who\nhad transformed their Libyan and Sardinian enemies into mercenary\ntroops, and of the king of Gath in his own case. He surrounded himself\nwith a bodyguard of Philistines and Kretans, to whom were afterwards\nadded Karian adventurers from the south-western coast of Asia Minor.\nAlready in the age of the Tel el-Amarna tablets Lycians from the same\npart of the world had served as mercenaries in Syria, and in the time of\nRamses II. the Hittite army contained troops from Lycia, from Ionia, and\nfrom the Troad. Not only could the foreigners be used against David\u2019s\nown countrymen in case of disaffection or rebellion; their employment\nabout the king\u2019s person in an office of trust made them feel that they\nwere as much his subjects as the Israelites themselves, and forget also\nthat they had been conquered. It was a means of cementing together the\nmonarchy which the Israelitish king had created.\n\nThe war with the Philistines was followed by one with Moab. Here, too,\nDavid was successful. The Moabites were vanquished, and the captives\nmassacred in accordance with the cruel fashion of the day. Forced to lie\nalong the ground, two-thirds of the row were measured off with a line\nand pitilessly put to death. The result was the almost complete\ndestruction of the fighting force of the country; and a century had to\npass before Moab recovered its strength, and once more regained its\nindependence. It was during the war with Moab that Benaiah, the son of\nJehoiada, who was sprung from the mixed Jewish and Edomite population of\nKabzeel, first came into notice, and was rewarded with a place among the\nthirty \u2018heroes.\u2019 He slew, we are told, two _ariels_ of Moab.[481] The\nword seems to have specially belonged to the language of the Moabites.\nMesha, on the Moabite Stone, states that after the conquest of Ataroth\nand Nebo, he took from them the _arels_ (or _ariels_) of Dodah and\nYahveh, and tore them in pieces before Chemosh,[482] and in the Egyptian\n_Travels of the Mohar_ the same word is found, having been borrowed from\nthe Canaanites in the sense of a \u2018hero.\u2019[483] The _ariels_ slain by\nBenaiah must therefore have been Moabite champions like the Philistine\nGoliath of Gath.\n\nTheir overthrow was not the only achievement of Benaiah which qualified\nhim for a place among the _gibb\u00f4r\u00eem_. He had found a lion at the bottom\nof a cistern in the winter-time when the ground was covered with snow,\nand had boldly descended into the pit and killed it. He had, moreover,\nslain an Egyptian in single combat, though armed only with a staff,\nwhile his opponent wielded a spear. These and similar deeds raised him\nto the rank of captain of the foreign mercenaries, an office which he\nretained throughout the reign of David. Between him and Joab, the\ncommander of the native army, feelings of rivalry and ill-will grew up,\nas perhaps was natural. The native troops naturally looked askance at\nthe mercenaries, who formed, as it were, a check upon themselves, and\nwere favoured by the king with a confidence which they did not\nthemselves enjoy. The feelings of the troops they commanded were\nreflected back upon the two generals, whose jealousies and counter\nintrigues ended, finally, in the destruction of one of them. Benaiah\nsurvived, while Joab perished at the foot of the altar.\n\nMoab was conquered; it was now the turn of Ammon. The Ammonites had\nlooked on while their neighbours on the eastern side of the Jordan were\nbeing annexed to the kingdom of Israel. Nahash, however, the Ammonite\nking, had long been the ally of David. A common hostility to Esh-Baal\nhad brought them together, and the league against the son of Saul had\nincluded Ammon, Judah, and the Aram\u00e6ans. It was this alliance which had\nlargely contributed to the success of David in his war against the\nnorthern tribes; left to himself it is doubtful whether the Jewish\nprince would have succeeded in overcoming his rival.\n\nWhile Nahash lived, the old friendship continued between him and the\nking of Israel. But with his death came a change. The ambassadors sent\nby David to congratulate his son Khanun on his accession were grossly\ninsulted, and driven back across the Jordan with their beards half-shorn\nand their robes cut off in the middle. Khanun, it was clear, was bent\nupon provoking war. He had the Aram\u00e6ans at his back to support him; the\nfate of Moab had alarmed him, and he determined, while he still\npossessed allies, to anticipate the war which he foresaw.\n\nThe challenge was promptly taken up. Joab and his brother Abishai\nmarched across the Jordan at the head of a large army of veterans. A\nbattle took place before \u2018the City of Waters,\u2019 Rabbath-Ammon, \u2018the\ncapital of Ammon.\u2019 The Aram\u00e6an forces had already come to the help of\ntheir confederates. Hadad-ezer of Zobah had furnished 20,000 men; 12,000\nhad come from the land of Tob, and 1000 from Maacah.[484] Joab found\nhimself enclosed between the Aram\u00e6ans on one side and the Ammonites on\nthe other. But the Israelitish general was equal to the danger. Leaving\nAbishai to resist the Ammonite attack, he put himself at the head of a\npicked body of troops and fell upon the Syrians, whom he succeeded in\nutterly routing. The Ammonites, seeing the flight of their allies,\nretreated behind the walls of their city, and Joab remained master of\nthe field.\n\nBut the battle had been sharply contested, and the Hebrew army had\nsuffered too severely to be able to pursue its advantage. Joab retired\nto Jerusalem, there to recruit his army and prepare for another\ncampaign. Meantime, the enemy also had not been idle. Hadad-ezer\nsummoned the vassal princes of Syria from either side of the Euphrates,\nand placed the army under the command of a general named Shobach. The\nstruggle had passed from a mere war with Ammon to a contest for the\nsupremacy in Western Asia. The time had come for David himself once more\nto take the field; the issue at stake was too important to be decided by\nan inferior commander, however able and experienced.\n\nThe two great powers on the Euphrates and the Nile, which had controlled\nthe destinies of the Oriental world in earlier days, were now in a state\nof decadence. Egypt was the shadow of its former self. Its empire in\nAsia had long since fallen, and it was now divided into two hostile and\nequally impotent kingdoms. The Tanite Pharaohs reigned in the north, and\nthough their supremacy was theoretically acknowledged as far as the\nFirst Cataract, Upper Egypt was really governed by the high priests of\nAmmon at Thebes, who had blocked the navigation of the Nile by a strong\nfortress at El-H\u00eeba, near Feshn, which successfully prevented the rulers\nof the Delta from advancing to the south.[485] Babylonia was similarly\npowerless. A younger rival had grown up in Assyria, and about B.C. 1290\nthe Assyrian king Tiglath-Ninip had even captured Babylon and held\npossession of it for seven years. Like Egypt, Babylonia had renounced\nits claim to rule in Western Asia, not to renew it till the age of\nNebuchadrezzar.\n\nThe kingdom of Mitanni or Aram-Naharaim, moreover, had passed away; when\nTiglath-pileser I. of Assyria swept over Western Asia, in B.C. 1100, it\nhad already become a thing of the past. Perhaps its overthrow was due to\nthe irruption of the Hittites from the mountains of Cappadocia, but if\nso it was soon avenged, for the Hittites too had ceased to be\nformidable. Their empire had dissolved into a number of small states:\none of these was Carchemish, which commanded the chief ford across the\nEuphrates; another was Kadesh, on the Orontes, which had once more sunk\ninto obscurity.\n\nIn place of Mitanni and the Hittites the Semitic Aram\u00e6ans of Syria had\nrisen into prominence. They had been the older inhabitants of the\ncountry, and the decay of the intrusive powers of Mitanni and the\nHittites had enabled them to shake off the foreign yoke, and establish\nkingdoms of their own. Among these, Zobah, called Zubit\u00ea in the Assyrian\ninscriptions, acquired the leading place.\n\nIn the closing days of the Assyrian empire, the capital of Zobah lay to\nthe north-east of Moab\u2014perhaps, as Professor Friedrich Delitzsch thinks,\nin the neighbourhood of the modern Homs.[486] It was essentially an Arab\nstate, but had been founded by those Ishmaelite Arabs of Northern\nArabia, who, like the Nabatheans, had by intercourse with a Canaanite\npopulation developed a dialect which we term Aramaic. Saul, as we have\nseen, had been already brought into hostile collision with them. At that\ntime the tribes of Zobah were still disunited, and it was with the\n\u2018kings\u2019 or chieftains of Zobah that the war of the Israelitish ruler had\nbeen carried on. As in Israel, however, so in Zobah, the necessity of\ndefending themselves against the enemy had led to union, and when David\nreigned at Jerusalem they were under the sway of a single sovereign,\nHadad-ezer, \u2018the son of Rehob.\u2019 Rehob had given his name to a district a\nlittle to the north of Palestine, of which Hadad-ezer must have been the\nhereditary prince.[487]\n\nHadad-ezer had attempted to establish his empire on the ruins of that of\nthe Hittites. He had not only unified Zobah, but had reduced the\nneighbouring Aram\u00e6an princes to subjection. All northern Syria was\ntributary to him except the kingdom of Hamath, and Hamath also was\nthreatened by the rising power. He had erected a stela commemorating his\nvictories on the banks of the Euphrates, in imitation of the ancient\nPharaohs of Egypt, and his alliance was courted by the Aram\u00e6ans on the\neastern side of the river.\n\nHis career of conquest was suddenly arrested. The Ammonites, threatened\nby David, sought his assistance, and in return for his help offered to\nacknowledge his suzerainty. The offer was accepted, and the Syrian king\nfound himself face to face with the upstart power of Israel. The war\nwhich followed must have been a long one, but it ended in the complete\nvictory of David. In the brief annalistic summary of David\u2019s reign given\nin 2 Sam. viii., we hear only of one or two of the later incidents in\nthe campaign. David, it is said, smote Hadad-ezer \u2018as he was marching to\nrestore his stela on the banks of the river\u2019 Euphrates (_v._ 3). This\nimplies that the memorial of former conquests had been destroyed either\nby the Israelitish king or by the revolted subjects of Hadad-ezer\nhimself.\n\nThe account of the war against Ammon (2 Sam. x.) shows that the\nIsraelitish victory must have been subsequent to the overthrow of the\nAmmonites. The defeat of Hadad-ezer was complete. The Israelites\ncaptured 1000 chariots, 7000 horsemen,[488] and 20,000 foot-soldiers,\nbesides a large number of horses. The Syrian power, however, was not yet\nbroken. Damascus rose in defence of its suzerain, and David found\nhimself once more confronted by a formidable enemy. But fortune again\nsmiled on the veterans of Israel, and 22,000 Syrians from Damascus were\nleft dead on the field. Israelitish garrisons were placed in Damascus\nand the neighbouring cities, and the rule of David was acknowledged as\nfar as the frontiers of Hamath.[489] Nevertheless, Hadad-ezer was still\nunsubdued. His communications with Mesopotamia were still open across\nthe desert, and it would seem that the last scene in the war was enacted\nas far north as Aleppo.\n\nA final effort to save Hadad-ezer was made by the Aram\u00e6an states on the\neastern side of the Euphrates, who were either his vassals or his\nallies. Troops poured across the river, under the command of Shobach,\ncalled Shophach by the Chronicler. Once more David made a levy of the\nIsraelitish forces and led them in person against the foe. He crossed\nthe Jordan to the south of Mount Hermon, traversed the territories of\nDamascus and Homs, and after leaving Hamath on the left found himself at\nHelam, where the Aram\u00e6an host had pitched their camp. Josephus in his\naccount of the campaign transforms Helam, which he reads Khalaman, into\nthe name of the Aram\u00e6an king beyond the Euphrates; we may accept his\nreading without following him in changing a place into a man. Khalaman\nwould correspond exactly with Khalman, the Assyrian name of Aleppo,\nwhich lay on the high road from the fords of the Euphrates to the west.\nIt seems probable, therefore, that in Helam or Khalaman, we must see\nAleppo.\n\nAccording to Josephus, who appears to have derived his account from some\nMidrash or Commentary on the books of Samuel, the army of Shobach\nconsisted of 80,000 infantry and 1000 horse. At all events, in the\nbattle which followed, and which resulted in the complete victory of the\nIsraelites, 7000 of the Syrian cavalry and 40,000 of their foot-soldiers\nare said to have been slain.[490] The power of Zobah was utterly\ndestroyed. All Syria on the western side of the Euphrates hastened to\nmake peace with the conqueror, and to offer him homage or alliance. The\nstates on the eastern bank were separated from their Aram\u00e6an kinsfolk to\nthe west, and as long as David lived took good care not again to cross\nthe river. The old dream of the Israelitish patriot was fulfilled, and\nthe dominion of Israel extended northwards to the borders of Hamath.\nEven the desert tribes to the east of Hamath, who had owned obedience to\nHadad-ezer, passed under the sway of David, and for a time at all events\nthe Jewish king could boast that his rule was acknowledged as far as the\nEuphrates.[491]\n\nThe immediate result of the victory was a sudden influx of wealth into\nthe Jewish capital. Not only were the golden shields carried by the\nbodyguard of Hadad-ezer brought to Jerusalem, to be borne on state\noccasions by the foreign guards of the conqueror, but immense stores of\nbronze were found in two of the cities of northern Syria, Tibhath and\nBerothai.[492] It was out of this bronze that the fittings of the temple\nwere afterwards made by Solomon.[493]\n\nAnother result of the war was an embassy from Toi or Tou of Hamath. The\npowerful Hebrew prince who had so unexpectedly appeared on the horizon\nof northern Syria was a neighbour whose goodwill it was necessary to\npurchase at all costs. The embassy sent by Toi to David was accordingly\nheaded by the Hamathite king\u2019s own son. This was Hadoram, whose name was\nchanged into the corresponding Hebrew Joram. The change of name was a\ndelicate way of acknowledging the supremacy of the God of Israel and the\nsovereign who worshipped Him, and of declaring that henceforth Hadad of\nSyria was to become Yahveh of Israel. As the Assyrian kings professed to\nmake war in order that they might spread the name and worship of Assur,\nso it might be presumed that the campaigns of David were carried on in\norder to glorify Yahveh, who had given him the victory.[494]\n\nThe ambassadors brought with them various costly gifts, which\nIsraelitish vanity might, if it chose, interpret as tribute, and which\nwould certainly have been so interpreted by an Egyptian or Assyrian\nscribe. Vessels of gold, silver, and bronze were laid at the feet of\nDavid, and a treaty of alliance formed between him and the ruler of\nHamath. That Hadad-ezer had been the common enemy of both was a\nsufficient pretext both for the embassy and for the alliance. The memory\nof the alliance lasted down to a late date. Even when Azariah reigned\nover Judah in the time of the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III., Hamath\ncould still look to Jerusalem for help; and in the age of Sargon,\nYahu-bihdi, whose name contains that of the national God of Israel, led\nthe people of Hamath to revolt.\n\nAll this while the siege of \u2018the City of Waters,\u2019 the Rabbah or\n\u2018Capital\u2019 of Ammon, still dragged on. Joab was encamped before it, while\nDavid was leading a life of ease and luxury in his palace at Jerusalem.\nThis neglect of his kingly duties finds little favour in the eyes of the\nHebrew historian. At the season of the year when David sent Joab and\n\u2018his servants\u2019 to do his work, other \u2018kings\u2019 were accustomed to \u2018go\nforth to battle,\u2019 and special emphasis is laid upon the words of Uriah:\n\u2018The ark and Israel and Judah abide in tents; and my lord Joab and the\nservants of my lord are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go\ninto mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife?\u2019 With a\nking who had thus delegated his proper work to others, and had already\nforgotten that the very reason for his existence was that he should lead\nthe people of Yahveh against their enemies, a catastrophe could not be\nfar distant. First came the act of adultery with Bath-sheba, the wife of\nUriah the Hittite, next the treacherous murder of a faithful guardsman\nand brave officer. Uriah was made to carry to Joab the letter which\ncontained his own death-warrant, as well as that of other servants of\nDavid, equally innocent and equally valorous. A special messenger\nbrought the king the news of his death, and Bath-sheba was at once added\nto the royal har\u00eem. One man only could be found with courage enough to\nprotest against the deed; this was Nathan the prophet, a successor of\nthe Samuel who had placed the crown on David\u2019s head. The king professed\nhis penitence, though he did not offer to put away Bath-sheba, and the\ndeath of the child he had had by her was accepted in expiation of his\nguilt. It was an example of that vicarious punishment, that substitution\nof \u2018the fruit of the body for the sin of the soul,\u2019 a belief in which\nwas as strong among the Canaanites as it was in Babylonia. The second\nson borne by Bath-sheba received the double name of Jedidiah from\nNathan, and Shelomoh or Solomon from his father. Shelomoh, \u2018the\npeaceful,\u2019 was, in fact, the Hebrew equivalent of Salamanu or Solomon,\nthe name of a king of Moab in the days of Tiglath-pileser III.[495]\n\nDavid\u2019s submission gave him a claim upon Nathan which the prophet never\nforgot. The death of the first-born of Bath-sheba, moreover, seemed to\nindicate that Yahveh had accepted the sacrifice of the child that had\nbeen, as it were, offered for the sin of the father, and that the guilt\nof the Israelitish monarch had been atoned. Henceforward Nathan took a\npeculiar interest in the new queen and her offspring. One of the four\nsons of Bath-sheba was named after him (1 Chron. iii. 5), and it was to\nhim that Solomon owed in part his succession to the throne. It may be\nthat Solomon\u2019s training was intrusted to the prophet; such at any rate\nmay be the significance of the words in 2 Sam. xii. 25.\n\nIt was after the birth of Solomon that Rabbah was at length starved into\na surrender. Joab, ever jealous of his master\u2019s fame, sent to tell David\nof the fact, and to bid him come at once and occupy the city lest the\nglory of its capture should be credited to the general who had besieged\nit rather than to the king who had remained at home. David accordingly\nproceeded to the camp, and entered the Ammonite capital at the head of\nhis troops. The crown of gold, inlaid with gems, which had adorned the\nimage of Malcham, the Ammonite god, was placed over the head of his\nhuman conqueror; the city itself was sacked, and its population treated\nwith merciless rigour. In the euphemistic language of the historian they\nwere put \u2018under saws and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron,\nand made to pass through the brickkiln.\u2019[496]\n\nThe war with Ammon was followed by one with Edom. The Amalekites or\nBed\u00e2win had already been taught that a strong power had arisen in\nPalestine, thoroughly able to protect its inhabitants from the raids of\nthe desert robbers (2 Sam. viii. 12); the turn of the Edomites was to\ncome next. David himself seems to have led the Israelitish army,[497]\nand in a decisive battle in a wadi south of the Dead Sea, utterly\ncrushed the forces of Edom.[498] Eighteen thousand of the enemy were\nslain, and all further resistance on the part of disciplined troops was\nat an end. For six months longer the inhabitants of Mount Seir carried\non a guerilla warfare with Joab; they were, however, mercilessly hunted\nout and massacred, hardly a male being left alive (1 Kings xi. 15). The\nchild Hadad, the son, it may be, of the last Edomite king Hadar, was\ncarried by \u2018his father\u2019s servants\u2019 to Egypt, where they found shelter in\nthe court of the Pharaohs, and David took possession of the depopulated\ncountry. Its possession opened up for Israel a new era of wealth and\ncommercial prosperity. The high road along which the spices of southern\nArabia were carried ran through it, and at its southern extremity were\nthe two ports of Elath and Ezion-geber on the Sea of Suph, which\nconnected Western Asia with the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. David now\ncommanded the caravan-trade from the north of Syria to the Gulf of\nAqaba; on the one side he was in contact with Mesopotamia and Asia\nMinor, on the other with Egypt and Arabia. Apart from the trade which\npassed through Palestine, leaving riches on its way, the tolls levied on\nmerchandise must have brought a goodly income to the royal exchequer.\nDavid, indeed, had too much in him of the peasant and the warrior to\nrealise the full extent of his good fortune; it needed a Solomon to\nperceive all the advantages of his position, to fit out merchant vessels\nin the Gulf of Aqaba, and to secure a monopoly of the carrying trade.\nFor the present, David was occupied in fortifying the conquests he had\nmade. Aram\u00e6ans from Ammon and Zobah were drafted into his\nbodyguard,[499] and Edom was so effectively garrisoned as to make revolt\nimpossible for more than a century. A firm hold was kept upon the\nkinglets of the small Aram\u00e6an states to the north who had formerly owned\nHadad-ezer as their suzerain; the king of Geshur was already connected\nby marriage with the royal house of Israel. A new and formidable power\nhad grown up at the entrance to Egypt, effectually cutting off the\nmonarchy of the Nile from Western Asia, and the commander-in-chief of\nthe Israelitish army had proved himself the ablest and most irresistible\ngeneral of his time.\n\nDavid appeared to be securely fixed not only on the throne of Israel,\nbut also on that of an Israelitish empire. But his power after all was\nwanting in stability. It depended in great measure upon Joab; Joab alone\ncommanded the confidence of the veteran soldiery, and was dreaded by the\nforeign foe.[500] Moreover, there was as yet but little real adhesion\nbetween the Israelitish tribes. Ephraim could not forget its old\nposition of pre-eminence, or cease to resent the domination of the\nnew-born and half-foreign tribe of Judah. The blood-tax demanded by the\nwars of David added to the discontent. The wars were wars of aggression\nrather than of defence, and were to the advantage of a Jewish dynasty,\nnot of the people as a whole. Military service became as unpopular in\nIsrael as it has been of recent years in Egypt: when David proposed to\nnumber his subjects and thereby ascertain what fighting force he\npossessed, Joab vainly endeavoured to dissuade him from his intention,\nand the people subsequently saw in the plague that followed the\npunishment of a royal crime. The bodyguard of Philistines and Kretans,\nwith its officers of various nationalities and creeds, protected the\nperson of the king and prevented any open signs of disaffection; but\ndiscontent smouldered beneath the surface, ready to break into flame\nwhenever a favourable opportunity occurred. The Israelites had too\nrecently submitted themselves to the rule of a single sovereign to be as\nyet amenable to discipline, or to have lost the democratic instincts of\nthe armed peasant and his guerilla methods of carrying on war.\n\nThere was yet another, and a still more potent cause for the instability\nof David\u2019s throne. This was to be found in the royal family itself.\nPolygamy has been the fatal cancer which has eaten away the strength and\nprosperity of the most powerful dynasties of the Oriental world; and the\nhistory of the Israelitish empire proved no exception to the rule. David\nhad none of the stern and ascetic fanaticism which distinguished Saul;\nhe enjoyed life to the fullest, and when success came, policy alone set\nbounds to his enjoyment of it. Self-indulgent as most other Oriental\ndespots, he multiplied to himself wives and children, not shrinking even\nfrom the murder of the trustiest of his followers in his determination\nto add yet another beauty to his well-stocked har\u00eem. Polygamy brought\nwith it its usual curse. In the dull and idle seclusion of the palace,\nthe wives of the king quarrelled one with another for his favour and\nlove, and the quarrel of the mother was adopted by her children.\nMaachah, the daughter of the king of Geshur, claimed precedence for\nherself and her son Absalom in virtue of their royal blood; Amnon, as\nthe first-born of his father, regarded himself as rightful heir to the\nthrone, and as therefore placed above the ordinary laws of men; while\nBath-sheba, whose unscrupulous ambition had betrayed a husband to\ndestruction, never ceased intriguing in the interests of Solomon whom\nshe had destined from the outset for the crown.\n\nThe latter years of David\u2019s life were clouded with the crimes and\nrebellions of his family. Amnon outraged his half-sister Tamar, and was\nmurdered by her brother Absalom, and Absalom, his father\u2019s favourite,\nfled to Talmai, king of Geshur. Thanks to Joab, the blood-feud was\neventually appeased, and after an exile of three years Absalom was\nallowed to return to Jerusalem. Two years later, David consented to\nforget the past. Absalom was again received at court, and his beauty and\ngrace of manner resumed their former sway over the hearts of both king\nand people.\n\nBut David was growing old; discontent was gathering even among his own\ntribesmen, and Absalom was impatient to seize the crown which he\nconceived to be his by right. He obtained leave to go to Hebron, there\nto offer sacrifice in the ancient sanctuary and capital of Judah. The\nplace was well chosen: the religious traditions of a venerable past were\nassociated with the city, and its inhabitants could have looked with\nlittle favour on the rise of Jerusalem. They gave ready ear to the\nprince who promised to restore Hebron to its ancient importance, and\nmake it once more a capital. The cry of Hebron and Judah as against\nJerusalem and a dynastic empire was eagerly responded to.\n\nDavid was taken by surprise. Even Joab does not seem to have been aware\nof the conspiracy which was being formed. There were no troops in\nJerusalem sufficient to defend it against attack, even if its defenders\ncould be trusted, and of this David was no longer sure. He seemed\ndeserted by all the world, and his only safety lay in flight. Even his\ncounsellor Ahitophel had gone over to the rebel son.\n\nThe royal household and har\u00eem fled eastwards across the Jordan to those\noutlying districts of Israelitish territory in which Esh-Baal had so\nlong maintained himself. David was accompanied by his bodyguard: the\npriests who wished to accompany him with the ark were sent back. So,\ntoo, was Hushai, the fellow-councillor of Ahitophel, in the hope that he\nmight counteract the schemes of Absalom\u2019s adviser.\n\nThe revolt showed David that he had been living in merely fancied\nsecurity. His tribesmen had fallen away from him at the first summons of\nhis more popular son; his old comrades, indeed, still stood by him, and\nhe could count on the swords and fidelity of his foreign bodyguard. But\nwhat were they against a revolted nation? Even in the days of outlawry,\nwhen he was hunted from cave to cave by Saul, he could reckon on popular\nsympathy and help; now the popular sympathy was transferred to another,\nand the flood-gates of disaffection and hatred were opened upon him. In\nspite of his guards, Shimei of the house of Saul ventured to stone him\nas he passed along, and to call him the man of blood who had\nunrighteously seized the crown. It was a sign that the fall of Saul\u2019s\ndynasty had not been forgotten, and that there were still those in\nBenjamin who submitted with reluctance to the rule of his supplanter.\n\nDavid was saved by the loyalty of Joab. Had that invincible general gone\nover to the enemy a new king would have sat on the throne of Israel. The\ncommander-in-chief would have taken his veterans with him and led them,\nas ever, to victory. Fortunately for David, his old friend refused to\nforsake the fortunes of the fallen king. Perhaps family jealousies may\nhave had some influence on his resolution. Absalom conferred the office\nof commander-in-chief on Amasa, the son of Joab\u2019s cousin, who had\nmarried a man of Israel.[501] The appointment may indeed have been made\nbecause Joab had already thrown in his lot with that of the king; more\nprobably it had been promised to Amasa before the beginning of the\nrevolt.\n\nBut the priests and prophets remained faithful to the king of their\nchoice. Zadok and Abiathar, the chief priests, had returned to Jerusalem\nwith the sacred symbol of Yahveh\u2019s presence in Israel, but their sons\nAhimaaz and Johanan undertook to keep David informed of the plans of his\nenemies in the capital. Fortunately for him, the advice of Ahitophel was\nonly partially acted upon. Absalom possessed himself of his father\u2019s\nconcubines, and thereby, in accordance with Hebrew ideas, published to\nthe world his usurpation of the throne, but the further advice of the\nwily counsellor was disregarded. Instead of despatching a body of twelve\nthousand men, who should fall upon the fugitives before they could reach\nthe fords of the Jordan, Absalom and his youthful friends preferred the\ncounsel of Hushai, and determined first to raise a levy of all Israel.\nThe idea of marching in person at the head of a great army appealed to\nthe vanity of the young usurper; and to the inexperience of youth the\npossibility of David and his guards hiding in ambush, and thence\ndescending upon their unwary pursuers, seemed a very real danger.\nAhitophel, the single representative of age and experience among the\nconspirators, knew only too well what the rejection of his advice must\nmean. The rebellion was self-condemned; it was doomed to failure, and\nthe return of David would be the destruction of himself. Even at the\ncouncil-board of Absalom his rival Hushai had been preferred to himself;\nall that was left him was to crawl back to his home in bitter\ndisappointment, and there hang himself. The conspiracy had lost the\nbrain which alone could have conducted it to success.\n\nThe news of Ahitophel\u2019s advice was brought to David by the young\npriests. They had escaped with difficulty from their hiding-place at the\nFuller\u2019s Spring below the southern extremity of the wall of Jerusalem,\nand subsequently owed their preservation to a woman\u2019s wit. The priests\nwere known to be hostile to the new movement; they had therefore been\nwatched and closely pursued. They reached David while he was still on\nthe western side of the Jordan, and no time was lost in putting the\nriver between himself and his enemies. The fugitives, however, did not\nconsider themselves safe until they found themselves at Mahanaim, where\nthey were in the midst of a friendly population. Ammonites as well as\nGileadites hastened to do honour to David, and to furnish him with\neverything that he and his companions required.[502]\n\nHe was soon joined by Joab and his brother Abishai, with the veteran\ntroops under their command. A third division of the army was placed\nunder Ittai of Gath, a captain in the royal bodyguard, and the approach\nof the rebel army was awaited without anxiety. Amasa made the fatal\nmistake of attacking the royal troops in their own territory, on ground\nthey had chosen for themselves. Not only was it on the further side of\nthe Jordan, it was also among the trees and dense undergrowth of the\nforest of Ephraim.[503] The issue could not be doubtful. David, indeed,\nhad not been allowed by his followers to enter the field himself. He was\nnow too old for active service, and his death would involve all the\nhorrors of a disputed succession and civil war. That Absalom, however,\nwould be defeated seems to have been taken for granted, and David\naccordingly impressed upon his generals that they should spare his son\u2019s\nlife.\n\nBut Joab judged more wisely than the king. He knew that as long as\nAbsalom lived there would be constant trouble and insecurity, and that\nfor those who had fought against him on his father\u2019s side there would be\nbut short shrift. As Absalom, therefore, hung suspended by his hair from\nthe branches of a tree which had caught him in his flight, he pierced\nhim with three darts, while his ten armour-bearers despoiled the corpse.\nTwenty thousand of the enemy were said to have been slain, partly by the\nsword, partly from the nature of the place in which the battle was\nfought, and the slaughter would have been greater had not Joab recalled\nhis men from their pursuit of the foe as soon as Absalom was dead. With\nthe fall of the usurper all further danger was at an end.\n\nAhimaaz, the Levite, famous for his fleetness of foot, ran with news of\nthe victory to the king. But Joab knew how fondly David had doted on his\nhandsome and selfish son; he knew also that he was weakened in both mind\nand body, and that the day was past when his emotions could be kept\nunder control. Joab, therefore, refused to let Ahimaaz carry the tidings\nof his son\u2019s death to the king, and an \u2018Ethiopian\u2019 slave was sent with\nthe news instead. In the end, however, Ahimaaz outran the Ethiopian, and\nannounced at Mahanaim the victory that had been won. Then came the\nforeigner with the message that Absalom was dead.\n\nThe conduct of David which followed on the message was indefensible. He\nforgot that he was a king, that he had duties towards his people and\nthose who had risked their lives on his behalf, that the prince who had\nfallen in open fight had been the murderer of his brother, a rebel\nagainst his father, and a would-be parricide. All was forgotten and\nabsorbed in a father\u2019s grief for his dead son. David allowed the passion\nof his emotion to sweep him away, and he wept as a woman and not as a\nman. It was an outburst of Oriental exaggeration of feeling,\nunrestrained and untempered by the reason or the will.\n\nHis followers regarded the spectacle with amazement and dismay. Had it\nbeen worth their while to fight for such a king? One by one they slunk\naway, and it seemed as if he would soon be left alone to the company of\nhimself and his har\u00eem. But once more Joab came to the rescue of his old\nmaster and companion in arms. It was indeed with the rough speech of the\nsoldier, but plain speech was needed even though it was rough and rude.\n\u2018Thou hast shamed this day,\u2019 he said, \u2018the faces of all thy servants,\nwhich this day have saved thy life, and the lives of thy sons and of thy\ndaughters, and the lives of thy wives, and the lives of thy concubines;\nin that thou lovest thine enemies, and hatest thy friends. For thou\nregardest neither princes nor servants: for this day I perceive, that if\nAbsalom had lived, and all we had died this day, then it had pleased\nthee well. Now therefore arise, go forth, and speak comfortably unto thy\nservants: for I swear by the Lord, if thou go not forth, there will not\ntarry one with thee this night: and that will be worse unto thee than\nall the evil that befell thee from thy youth until now.\u2019\n\nDavid was roused from his selfish and unworthy grief; weak and\nself-indulgent as he had become, the words of Joab nevertheless forced\nhim to recognise the dangers he had provoked. But he never forgave his\nmonitor. He soon found an opportunity of punishing Joab for his loyalty,\nand his dying orders to his successor were to put his grey-haired\nservant to death.\n\nSecret word was sent to the priests at Jerusalem that they should shame\nthe elders of Judah into demanding the return of the king, seeing that\nhe was their own tribesman, and that the rest of Israel had already\nacknowledged his sovereignty. At the same time Amasa was appointed\ncommander-in-chief in place of Joab. David thus revenged himself upon\nhis too outspoken general, and also made a bid for popularity among the\nJewish forces who had followed Amasa.\n\nThe act was as foolish as it was unjust, and it soon brought its penalty\nwith it. The elders of Judah indeed begged the king to return, and he\nwas led across the Jordan in a sort of triumphal procession by the\ndelegates of that tribe. But the other tribes resented this\nappropriation of the royal person. It was the Jews rather than the rest\nof Israel who had revolted and made Absalom their king, while the\nveterans of Joab who had remained loyal represented the whole nation.\nFor the first time since the death of Esh-Baal, the men of Israel and of\nJudah stood over against one another with antagonistic interests and\nangry rivalry; Israel claimed to have ten parts in the king, whereas\nJudah had but one, and yet David\u2019s action had implied that Judah alone\nwas his rightful heritage. Hardly was he again in Jerusalem before a new\nand more dangerous revolt broke out against his rule. Sheba, a\nBenjamite, raised the standard of rebellion, and his cry, \u2018We have no\npart in David,\u2019 found an echo in the hearts of the northern tribes.\n\u2018Every man of Israel,\u2019 we are told, deserted \u2018the son of Jesse\u2019; Judah\nalone adhered to him. But the strong arm and able brain that had so long\nfought for David were no longer there to help him; Joab had been\nsuperseded by Amasa; and the raw levies of Judah who had escaped from\nthe forest of Ephraim were but a poor substitute for the disciplined\nforces which had created an empire. David at last awoke to the fact that\nin a moment of weak passion he had done his best to throw away a crown;\nAbishai was summoned in haste and sent with the bodyguard and \u2018Joab\u2019s\nmen\u2019 against the new foe.\n\nIt would seem that Sheba\u2019s camp had been at Gibeon, not far to the north\nof Jerusalem. On the advance of the Jewish army he retreated northward.\nJoab had accompanied his brother, and at \u2018the great stone\u2019 of Gibeon the\nJewish forces were overtaken by their new commander-in-chief. Amasa\nplaced himself at the head of them, clad in the robe of office which\nJoab had worn for so many years. The provocation was great, and the\nmurder of Abner with which Joab had begun his career was repeated in the\nmurder of Amasa at the close of it. Abner, however, had been a general\nof considerable ability and influence; and Joab had not yet accumulated\nso many claims upon the gratitude of the king. The army took Joab\u2019s side\nin the matter: Amasa\u2019s body was thrown into a field with a common cloth\nabove it, and the Jewish soldiers hurried on along the high-road in\npursuit of the foe. They would have no other commander but Joab, and his\ndegradation by the king was tacitly set aside.\n\nWith Joab once more at their head, the insurrection soon came to an end.\nSheba fled to the northern extremity of Israelitish territory and flung\nhimself into the city of Abel of Beth-Maachah.[504] Here he was closely\nbesieged until \u2018a wise woman\u2019 persuaded her fellow-citizens to cut off\nhis head and throw it to Joab. The rebellion was over, and Joab returned\nin triumph to Jerusalem.\n\nThe last ten years of David\u2019s life were passed in tranquillity. His\nbodily and mental powers grew enfeebled, and he sank slowly into the\ngrave. The hardships of his youth and the self-indulgence and polygamy\nof his later years had weakened his constitution prematurely. While his\nearly companions Joab and Abiathar still retained their vigour, the king\nbecame old and worn-out. The intrigues of the har\u00eem, it is true, still\ncontinued, but there was no Absalom to steal away the hearts of the\npeople by his beauty and winsomeness of manner; no Amnon to assert in\ndeeds the rights of a crown-prince.\n\nIsrael was at peace with her neighbours. Edom and Zobah had been utterly\ncrushed; Moab and Ammon feared to move while Joab was alive. The petty\nkings of Northern Syria paid intermittently their tribute; Tyre and\nSidon courted their powerful neighbour, whose friendship was preferable\nto his hostility. Egypt was divided against herself; more than one\ndynasty ruled in the country, and the Tanite sovereigns of the Delta had\nneither wealth nor men. Like Egypt, Babylonia had fallen into decay, and\nthe defeat of the Assyrian king Assur-irbi by the Aram\u00e6ans had cut off\nAssyria from the nations of the West. The Philistines had been compelled\nto become the servants of David; and the pirate-hordes who had flocked\nto their aid from Krete and the \u00c6gean now passed into the service of the\nIsraelitish king, or else transferred their attention to other parts of\nthe Mediterranean Sea. According to Greek legend, Thrace, Rhodes, and\nPhrygia occupied the waters of which they had once been the masters.\nPh\u0153nician trading-ships could at last sail peaceably across them, and\nTyre accordingly, under Abibal and Hiram, became a centre of maritime\ntrade.\n\nIn the north, the Hittite empire had long since passed away. Kadesh, on\nthe Orontes, had become the capital of a small district, formidable to\nno one, and on good terms with its Israelitish neighbours.[505] Hamath,\nalso, was in alliance with the Israelitish king. Among the wadis of the\nLebanon, near Damascus, Rezon, indeed, led the life of a bandit-chief,\nand robbed the caravans which passed his way; but it was not until after\nDavid\u2019s death that he succeeded in establishing himself at Damascus, and\nthere founding a dynasty of kings.\n\nAt home, however, though outwardly all seemed calm, the seeds of\ndisunion and discontent were lying thick below the surface. The\nrebellion of Absalom in Judah, of Sheba in Northern Israel, had shown\nhow fragile were the bonds of union that bound the tribes to one another\nand to their king. The affections of Judah were not yet entwined around\nthe house of David; the feeling that they were a single nation had not\nyet penetrated very deeply into the hearts of the other tribes. The\nDavidic dynasty itself was not yet secure. It depended for its support\nrather on the sword than on the loyalty of the people. The fallen\ndynasty still had its followers and secret supporters, and now and then\nan event occurred which showed how dangerous they might become. Shimei\nthe Benjamite doubtless represented the feeling of his tribe when he\ncursed David in the hour of his humiliation; and David\u2019s conduct after\nhis restoration to the throne shows that he could not trust even\nMerib-Baal or Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, whom he had treated as\nhis own son.[506] An incident which had happened in an earlier part of\nhis reign is another proof of his readiness to root out as far as\npossible the family of Saul. Three years in succession Palestine had\nsuffered from want of rain and consequent famine, and the oracle of\nYahveh declared that the cause of the visitation was Saul\u2019s slaughter of\nthe Gibeonites. The massacre of the priests at Nob had indeed been\navenged by the death of the Israelitish king and his sons, and by the\nfall of his throne, but other temple-servants besides the priests had\nsuffered from Saul\u2019s outburst of mad anger, and their blood was still\ncrying out for revenge. Blood demanded blood, and the sacrifice of\nSaul\u2019s descendants could alone atone for the guilt of their forefather.\n\nMephibosheth was spared, partly because of his father Jonathan\u2019s\nfriendship towards David, whose life he had once saved, partly because\nlittle was to be feared from a lame man. But the five sons of Michal (?)\nby Adriel of Meholah were handed over to the executioner.[507] They\nstood too near the throne; apart from Mephibosheth they were, in fact,\nthe only direct descendants of the late king, and David was doubtless\nglad of the opportunity of removing them from his path. His dying\ninjunctions to Solomon proved how merciless he could be when the safety\nof his dynasty was at stake.\n\nTwo other descendants of Saul still remained, who might possibly be a\nsource of trouble. These were the sons of his concubine Rizpah, and they\nalso were condemned to die. The sacred number of seven victims was thus\nmade up, and David satisfied at once the religious scruples of the\nGibeonites and the political exigencies of his own position. Shimei had\nsome reason for calling him a \u2018man of blood\u2019 who had shed \u2018the blood of\nthe house of Saul.\u2019\n\nThe human victims were hanged on the sacred hill of Gibeah \u2018before the\nLord,\u2019 and none was allowed to take the bodies down until at last the\nrain fell. Then they were buried solemnly in the ancestral tomb of\nSaul\u2019s family at Zelah, along with the ashes of Saul and Jonathan, which\nDavid had brought from Jabesh-gilead. The great atonement had been made\nand accepted by Yahveh, and at the same time David had cleared himself\nfrom all charges of impiety towards the dead. The fallen dynasty had\nceased to be formidable.\n\nHence it was that when the northern tribes under Sheba broke away from\nthe house of David, they could find no representative of the family of\nSaul to lead them. Sheba, it is true, was a Benjamite, but he came from\nMount Ephraim, and was not related to Saul. He was rather one of those\nmilitary generals who in after days played so large a part in the\nhistory of the northern kingdom in dethroning and founding dynasties.\n\nNevertheless, the yoke of the royal supremacy was borne with impatience.\nIn spite of the support of the priesthood and the swords of Joab and the\nforeign bodyguard, David\u2019s reign was troubled by rebellion. As long,\nindeed, as it was signalised by victories over a foreign foe, by the\nconquest of neighbouring states, by the influx of captive slaves and the\nacquisition of spoil, his subjects were well content with their\nsuccessful leader in war. His influence over those who were brought into\npersonal contact with him had always been great, and there were few who\ncould resist his charm of manner. But when the era of conquests was\npast, when David had delegated his military duties to others, and had\nretired more and more into the privacy of an Oriental palace, the seeds\nof discontent began to grow and spread. Even in Judah there were\ncomplaints that justice was neglected (2 Sam. xiv. 2-6); further off the\ncomplaints must have been loud and deep. The unpopularity of the\nconscription by which the ranks of the army were filled was patent even\nto Joab (2 Sam. xxiv. 3), and the census on which it depended was\nregarded as hateful to God as well as to man.\n\nEven David himself half repented of his determination to number the\npeople (2 Sam. xxiv. 10), and the general feeling was expressed by the\nseer Gad when he declared that the punishment of heaven would be visited\nfor the deed, not indeed upon the guilty king, but upon his innocent\nsubjects (2 Sam. xxiv. 13, 17). In the plague that devastated Palestine\nthey saw the anger of Yahveh, and the conscience-stricken king at once\nassented to the common view.\n\nThe cessation of the plague was connected with the foundation of the\ntemple. At the very spot where David had seen the angel of death\nstanding with his sword unsheathed, the altar was built and the\nsacrifice offered which appeased the wrath of the Lord. It was the\nthreshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite, on the level summit of Mount\nMoriah, where the old Jebusite population of Jerusalem still dwelt. It\nmay even be that Araunah was the last Jebusite king whose life and\nfreedom were spared when Jerusalem was surrendered to David.[508]\n\nThe threshing-floor was bought by David, and became the great\n\u2018high-place\u2019 of the new capital of the kingdom. Everything marked it out\nas the site of that temple which in the Eastern world was a necessary\nsupplement of the royal palace. It was the highest part of the city; it\nwas, moreover, a smooth and sunny rock, and the place which it occupied\nwas open and unconfined. It had been the scene of a special revelation\nof Yahveh to the king, and the altar erected on it had been the means of\npreserving the people of Israel from death. It is possible, too, that\nthe spot was already sacred. In the Tel el-Amarna tablets, Ebed-Tob,\nking of Jerusalem, speaks of the Temple of Nin-ip as standing on \u2018the\nmountain of Uru-salim,\u2019 and of all the mountains of Jerusalem the future\ntemple-mount was the most prominent and commanding.\n\nWe do not know when the pestilence occurred which thus had such\nmomentous consequences for the later religion of Judah. The empire of\nDavid already extended as far as \u2018Kadesh of the Hittites,\u2019[509] but Edom\ndoes not as yet seem to have become a province of Israel. The census was\ntaken in order to ascertain the number of fighting men in Israel, not\nwith a view to the levying of taxes. In the latter case the conquered\nprovinces would have been included in the registration. We may gather,\ntherefore, that the event happened about the middle of David\u2019s reign,\nprobably at the time when the struggle with Zobah was still going on.\n\nIt was at a later period, when \u2018the Lord had given him rest round about\nfrom all his enemies\u2019 (2 Sam. vii. 1), that he announced to Nathan his\npurpose of building a temple. Nathan had taken Gad\u2019s place as the seer\nand confidant of the king, and the palace of David had already been\nerected. But Yahveh would not allow him to carry out his plan. His hands\nwere stained too deeply with blood; the work was destined for the son\nwhose name signified \u2018the peaceful one,\u2019 and in whose birth and training\nthe seer had taken so profound an interest.[510] All that David could do\nwas to prepare the way for his successor, to collect the materials for\nthe work, and to determine the place whereon the temple of God should\nstand.\n\nTwo lists have come down to us of David\u2019s chief officers, extracted from\nthe State annals. The first list is given at the end of the annalistic\nsummary of the events of his reign (2 Sam. viii. 16-18), and belongs to\nthe earlier portion of it; the second must have been drawn up not long\nbefore his death. From the outset, it is clear, the kingdom was as\nthoroughly organised as that of the surrounding states. There was the\n\u2018recorder\u2019 or \u2018chronicler\u2019 whose duty it was to hand down the memory of\nall that happened to future generations; the scribe or chief secretary\nwho wrote and answered official letters, and superintended the copying\nand re-editing of older documents in the record office; the\ncommander-in-chief of the army, who corresponded to the _turtannu_ or\ntartan of the Assyrians, and the commander of the foreign troops. The\nadministration, in fact, seems to have closely resembled that of\nAssyria, excepting only that there was no Vizier or Prime Minister who\nacted as the representative of the king. It presupposes a\nlong-established use of writing and all the machinery of a civilised\nOriental state. The scribe and the chronicler make their appearance in\nIsrael simultaneously with the establishment of an organised government.\nA knowledge of the art of writing could have been no new thing.\n\nJehoshaphat, the son of Ahilud, we are told, was the recorder, Seraiah\nwas the secretary,[511] Benaiah the commander of the Kretan and\nPhilistine bodyguard. By the side of the civil functionaries were the\ntwo high priests Zadok and Abiathar, while the office of royal chaplains\nwas filled by the sons of David himself. Their duties were probably to\noffer such sacrifices as were not public in the absence or in place of\ntheir father. That there should have been two high priests is difficult\nto explain. Zadok was the son of Ahitub, whom the Chronicler makes the\nson of Amariah, and a descendant of Phinehas the son of Eleazar (1\nChron. vi. 7), while Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech or Ahiah, the\ngrandson of Ahitub, and great-grandson of Phinehas the son of Eli.[512]\nAbiathar appears to have represented the family of Ithamar the younger\nbrother of Eleazar the son of Aaron; at any rate, it was to his family\nthat the safe keeping of the ark had been intrusted as well as the high\npriesthood at the sanctuary of Shiloh. The destruction of Shiloh dealt a\nblow at its influence and _prestige_, the massacre of the priests at Nob\nalmost annihilated it. Room was thus given for another line of priests\nwho claimed descent from the elder branch of Aaron\u2019s family, and who had\nprobably preserved the Mosaic tradition in another part of Israel. Is it\npossible that Zadok had followed the fortunes of Esh-Baal, while\nAbiathar attached himself to David? At all events, the unification of\nthe kingdom brought with it the unification of the high-priestly\nfamilies; throughout the greater part of David\u2019s reign the ark at\nJerusalem was served by both Zadok and Abiathar, with numerous Levites\nunder them (2 Sam. xv. 24-29). That Zadok is always named first, though\nAbiathar had been the early friend and priest of David, implies that his\nclaim to represent the elder branch of the high priest\u2019s family was\nrecognised.\n\nWhen the second list of David\u2019s officials was compiled certain important\nchanges had taken place. Seraiah, the secretary, had been succeeded by\nSheva or Shisha (2 Sam. xx. 25; 1 Kings iv. 3); \u2018Ira, the Jairite,\u2019 had\nbecome the chaplain of David, and the growth of the empire had\nnecessitated the creation of a new office. This was the imperial\ntreasurership which was held by a certain Hadoram, who seems to have\nbeen of Syrian origin, and whose duty it was to collect the tribute of\nthe conquered provinces.[513] Possibly he had already gained experience\nof the office under one of the Syrian kings.\n\nOther officers of David are enumerated by the Chronicler (1 Chron.\nxxvii. 25-34). They had their analogues in Assyria and Egypt, and show\nhow thoroughly the court of Israel was modelled after those of the\nneighbouring states. Among them we read of Azmaveth, the son of Adiel,\nwho presided over the exchequer; of Jonathan, the son of Uzziah, who\nsuperintended the public granaries, which must therefore have been\nestablished in imitation of those of Egypt and Babylonia;[514] of Ezri,\nthe superintendent of the peasants who worked on the crown lands; of\nShimei and Zabdi, who had charge of the royal vineyards and\nwine-cellars; of Baal-hanan and Joash, to whom were intrusted the olive\nplantations and storehouses of oil; of Obil, the Ishmaelite, the chief\nof the camel-drivers; of Jehdeiah, the head of the ass-drivers; and of\nJaziz, the Hagarene, who superintended the shepherds of the king.[515]\n\nDavid sank slowly into the grave, old in mind as well as in years. A\nyoung maiden, Abishag the Shunammite, was brought to lie beside the\nking, and so keep up the warmth of his body. But it was all in vain, and\nit became clear that he could not last long. The bed of the dying king\nwas surrounded by intrigue. Adonijah, the eldest of his surviving sons,\nnaturally looked upon himself as the rightful heir. He could count upon\ntwo powerful supporters. One was the priest Abiathar, who had first\ngiven David\u2019s title to the crown a religious sanction; the other was\nJoab, who had created his empire. But Bath-sheba had long since\ndetermined that she should be queen-mother, and that her son Solomon\nshould wear the crown. Behind her stood Nathan, the spiritual director\nboth of herself and of her son. The adhesion of Abiathar and Joab to\nAdonijah, moreover, drove their rivals Zadok and Benaiah into the\nopposite camp, and Benaiah took with him the foreign bodyguard of which\nhe was commander, and which, as in other countries, thus showed itself\nready from the outset to make and unmake kings. Above all, Bath-sheba\nstill exercised her old influence over the half-conscious monarch, and\nit did not need the incitements of Nathan to induce her to exert it once\nmore on behalf of Solomon. Backed as she was by the prophet, the issue\nwas not doubtful, and David did as he was bid. Bath-sheba reminded him\nof his old promise to herself, Nathan craftily represented that Adonijah\nwas already seizing the crown before his father\u2019s life was extinct.\n\nZadok and Benaiah were accordingly summoned, and ordered to escort the\nyoung prince on David\u2019s own mule to the spring of Gihon, and there, just\noutside the eastern wall of Jerusalem, where the Spring of the Virgin\nnow gushes from the ground, to anoint him with the oil of consecration,\nand proclaim his accession by the sound of trumpet. The presence of the\npriests and the bodyguard was a visible sign that the kingship and the\npower had been transferred from David to Solomon.\n\nMeanwhile Adonijah was holding a feast at the stone of Zoheleth, near\nEn-Rogel, the Fuller\u2019s Spring, the modern Well of Job south of the Pool\nof Siloam. Abiathar and Joab were with him; so also were his brothers,\nwho seem to have had but little affection for the favourite of Nathan,\nas well as those representatives of Judah who had been the mainstay of\nAbsalom\u2019s rebellion. Solomon appears to have been regarded as tainted by\nforeign blood; at all events, Judah followed Adonijah as it had followed\nAbsalom.[516] But Nathan and Bath-sheba had taken their measures in\ntime. In the midst of the feast news was brought to the conspirators by\nJohanan, the son of Abiathar, that Solomon had been proclaimed king, and\nthat his person was already protected by the royal bodyguard. The guests\nfled in dismay, and Adonijah took refuge at the altar. There the\nsovereign-elect promised him that he would spare his life.\n\nSolomon next received the last commands of the dying king. David\u2019s last\nthought was for the maintenance of the kingdom and the dynasty. Solomon\nwas to follow in the footsteps of his father, to obey the law of Yahveh\nand His priests. More especially he was to seek an early opportunity of\nridding himself of possible rivals or antagonists whom the weakness or\npolicy of David himself had hitherto spared. Joab was to be put to\ndeath; he was too powerful a subject to be allowed to live, aged though\nhe now was, and his complicity with Adonijah made him dangerous to the\nnew king. Shimei, too, was to be slain; as long as he lived the fallen\ndynasty had a leader around whom the disaffected might rally. On the\nother hand, the kindness of Barzillai, the Gileadite, was not to be\nforgotten; favour to him would win the hearts of the men of Gilead.[517]\n\nDavid died, leaving behind him a name which his countrymen never forgot.\nHe became the ideal of a patriot king. He had founded a dynasty and an\nempire; and though the empire soon fell to pieces, the dynasty survived\nand exercised a momentous influence upon the religious history of the\nworld. He had established once for all the principle of monarchy in\nIsrael; never again could the Israelites return to the anarchic days of\nthe Judges, or forget the lessons of unity which they had been taught.\n\nIn character he was generous and kind-hearted, though in his later years\nhis kindheartedness degenerated into weakness. He was, moreover, brave\nand skilful, with a personal charm of manner and readiness of speech\nwhich those about him found it impossible to withstand. Alone of his\nsons, Absalom seems to have inherited these gifts of his father, which\nmay perhaps account for the blind love David had for him. But along with\nthese gifts went a rich fund of Oriental selfishness, which made him\nnever lose an opportunity of securing his own advantage or promotion. It\nwas a selfishness so deep as to be wholly unconscious; whatever made for\nhis interests was necessarily right. It was combined with clearness of\nhead and definiteness of aim, which ensured success in whatever he\nundertook. A good judge of men, he first attached them to himself by his\ngifts of manner, and then knew how to trust and employ them.\n\nWith the strong and healthy mind of the peasant there was, however,\ncombined a depth of passionate emotion which doubtless had much to do\nwith the influence he possessed over others. David was a man of strong\nimpulses, and we cannot understand his character unless we remember the\nfact. The impulses, it is true, were controlled and regulated by the\ncool judgment and politic self-restraint which distinguished more\nespecially his earlier life; but they swayed him to the end, sometimes\nfor good, sometimes for evil. Above all, he was a religious man, deeply\nattached to the faith into which he had been born, full of trust in\npriests and prophets and oracles, and convinced that Yahveh would\nprotect and befriend him as long as he obeyed the divine law. But there\nwas neither asceticism nor fanaticism in his religion; it was the firm\nfaith and religious conviction of a healthy mind.\n\nDavid was not cruel by nature; if he showed himself merciless at times,\nit was either for reasons of policy, or because the action was in\naccordance with the public opinion of the age. The Assyrian kings gloat\nover the barbarities they practised towards their conquered enemies, and\nthe Hebrew Semite similarly prayed that Yahveh might dip His foot in the\nblood of His foes. David might indeed be a man of blood, but by the side\nof the rulers of Nineveh he was mercy itself; and the very fact that the\nblood he had shed prevented him from building a temple to his God shows\nhow different the conception of Yahveh must have been from that which\nprevailed among the neighbouring nations of their own deities.\n\nSuch, then, was David\u2019s character, with all its apparent anomalies.\nBrave and active, clear-headed and politic, generous and kind-hearted,\nhe was at the same time selfish and impulsive, at times unforgiving and\nmerciless. He had nevertheless a genuine and fervid trust in Yahveh, and\na fixed belief that Yahveh demanded an upright life and \u2018clean hands.\u2019\nUp to the last he remained at heart the Oriental peasant, who takes a\nhealthy view of life, whose shrewdness is crossed and chequered by the\nimpulses of the moment, and whose religion is deep and unquestioning.\nBut, like the peasant, he failed to be proof against success and\nprosperity. The bold and hardy warrior degenerated into the\nself-indulgent and even sensual despot. It is true that he repented of\nthe crimes to which his self-indulgence had led, and which to most other\nOriental despots would have soon become a second nature; the\nself-indulgence, however, remained, and a weak will and infirmity of\npurpose marred the latter years of his life.\n\nFuture generations saw in him the \u2018sweet psalmist of Israel.\u2019 As far\nback as we can trace it, tradition averred that a large part of the\npsalter owed its origin to him. It has been left for the nineteenth\ncentury to be wiser than the past, and to deny to David the authorship\nof even a single psalm. But there are some of them which seem to bear\ntheir Davidic authorship on their face,[518] and if there are many which\nbelong to a later date, while others are pieced together from earlier\nfragments,[519] this is only what we should expect when once the nucleus\nof a collection had been formed, and the psalms embodied in it employed\nliturgically. Assyrian discovery has shown that penitential psalms,\nsimilar in spirit and form to those of David, had been composed in\nBabylonia centuries before his time, and there collected together for\nliturgical purposes.[520] In Egypt, what we should call \u2018Messianic\npsalms\u2019 had been written before the age of the Exodus.[521] There is,\ntherefore, no reason why a part of the Hebrew psalter should not belong\nto the Davidic period, and be the work of David himself. There is\nnothing in it inconsistent with the character of David or the ideas of\nhis time. It is only the false theory of \u2018the development of Hebrew\nreligion\u2019 which finds in it the religious conceptions of a later era.\nThose indeed who maintain that in the age of David the law of Moses was\nas yet unknown, and that faith in Yahveh was hardly to be distinguished\nfrom that in Baal or Chemosh, may be compelled to deny that any of the\npsalms, with their high spiritual level, can belong to the king who was\n\u2018after God\u2019s own heart\u2019; but history cannot take note of theories which\nare built upon assumptions and not facts. Even in the northern kingdom\nof Israel, where the memory of the founder of the Davidic dynasty was\nnaturally held in little esteem, tradition was obliged to confess that\nhe had been the inventor of \u2018instruments of music\u2019 (Am. vi. 5).\n\nThe exact date of David\u2019s death is doubtful. The chronology of the books\nof Kings, so long the despair of chronologists, has at length been\ncorrected by the synchronisms that have been established between the\nhistory of Israel and Judah and that of Assyria. Thanks to the so-called\nLists of Eponyms or Officers from whom the years of the state calendar\ntook their name, we now possess an exact chronology of Assyria from B.C.\n911. In B.C. 854 Ahab took part in the battle of Qarqar, which was\nfought by the princes of the west against their Assyrian invaders, and\nhis death, therefore, could not have happened till after that date. In\nB.C. 842 Jehu offered homage to the Assyrian monarch, and Hazael of\nDamascus was defeated in a battle on Mount Shenir. Four years previously\nthe Syrian opponent of the Assyrians was Hadad-idri or Ben-Hadad.\nLastly, Menahem of Israel paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser III. in B.C.\n738, Pekah and Rezin were overthrown in B.C. 734, and Damascus was taken\nand destroyed by the Assyrian king in B.C. 732. It is only after the\ncapture of Samaria by Sargon in B.C. 722, when the kingdom of Judah\nstands alone, that the Biblical dates harmonise with the Assyrian\nevidence, or indeed with one another. It is evident, therefore, that the\nBiblical chronology is more than forty years in excess. Ahab, instead of\ndying in B.C. 898, as Archbishop Usher\u2019s chronology makes him do, cannot\nhave died till some forty-five years later. We have no means of checking\nthe earlier chronology of the divided kingdom, but assuming its\ncorrectness, the revolt of the Ten Tribes would have taken place about\nB.C. 930.\n\nSolomon, like Saul, is said to have reigned forty years. But this merely\nmeans that the precise length of his reign was unknown to the compiler.\nIt could not have exceeded thirty years. Hadoram, who was \u2018over the\ntribute\u2019 in the latter part of David\u2019s life (2 Sam. xx. 24), still\noccupied the same office in the first year of Rehoboam\u2019s reign (1 Kings\nxii. 18), and Rezon, who had fled from Zobah when David conquered the\ncountry, was \u2018an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon\u2019 (1 Kings\nxi. 24, 25). No clue is given by the statement of Rehoboam\u2019s age in 1\nKings xiv. 21, since when it is said that he was \u2018forty and one years\u2019\nat the time of his accession this is merely equivalent to \u2018_x_ + 1.\u2019\n\nThe length of David\u2019s reign is more accurately fixed. Seven years and a\nhalf did he reign in Hebron, and thirty-three years over Israel and\nJudah (2 Sam. iv. 5), or forty and a half years in all. Approximately,\ntherefore, we may date his reign from B.C. 1000 to 960. Saul\u2019s accession\nmay have been ten or fifteen years earlier.\n\nDavid\u2019s palace at Jerusalem, it is stated in 2 Sam. v. 11, was built by\nthe artisans of Hiram of Tyre, who also furnished him with cedar wood.\nThe fragment of Tyrian annals quoted by Josephus from Menander[522]\nthrows some light on the chronology of the time. Hiram, we are told, was\nthe son of Abibal, and the names of his successors are recorded one\nafter the other, together with the length of their reigns. But\nunfortunately the sum of the reigns does not agree with their total as\ntwice given by Josephus, nor indeed are our authorities agreed among\nthemselves in regard to the length of certain of them. The fact,\nhowever, that Josephus twice gives the same total raises a presumption\nin its favour, more especially when we find that it is possible by a\nlittle manipulation to make the sum of the several reigns harmonise with\nit.[523] This total is one hundred and forty-three years and eight\nmonths, which, it is said, elapsed from the building of Solomon\u2019s temple\nin the twelfth year of Hiram down to the foundation of Carthage in the\nseventh year of Pygmalion. But the date of the foundation of Carthage is\nitself not a wholly certain quantity, though B.C. 826 is probably that\nwhich was assigned to it by the native historians.[524] A hundred and\nforty-three years and eight months reckoned back from 826 would bring us\nto B.C. 969 or 970. As the temple was begun in the fourth year of\nSolomon\u2019s reign (1 Kings vi. 1), this would give B.C. 973 for the\naccession of Solomon, and B.C. 1013 for that of David. The palace\nconstructed for David at Jerusalem by the workmen of Hiram must have\nbeen erected at the very end of David\u2019s life, after the suppression of\nthe revolt of Absalom, unless, indeed, the author of the books of Samuel\nhas mistaken the name of the Tyrian king, and written Hiram instead of\nAbibal.\n\nThere is yet another synchronism between Hebrew and profane history\nwhich must not be overlooked. Jerusalem was captured in the fifth year\nof Rehoboam by Shishak I., the founder of the twenty-second Egyptian\ndynasty. But Egyptian chronology is more disputable even than that of\nIsrael, and we do not know in what year of the Pharaoh\u2019s reign the\ninvasion of Palestine took place. Boeckh, on the authority of Manetho,\nplaces the commencement of his reign in B.C. 934; Unger, on the same\nauthority, in B.C. 930; while Lepsius pushes it back to B.C. 961.\n\nOn the whole, then, we must be content with approximate dates for the\nfounders of the Hebrew monarchy. The revolt of the Ten Tribes will have\ntaken place somewhere between B.C. 940 and 930; the accession of David\nsomewhere between B.C. 1010 and 1000. It coincided with the period when\nthe older kingdoms of the Oriental world\u2014Babylonia, Assyria, and\nEgypt\u2014were in their lowest stage of weakness and decay.\n\nSolomon succeeded to a brilliant heritage. The nations which surrounded\nhim had been conquered or forced into alliance with Israel; there was\nnone among them adventurous or strong enough to attack the newly risen\npower. The caravan-roads which brought the merchandise of both north and\nsouth to the wealthy states of Western Asia passed through Israelitish\nterritory; Edom, which communicated with the Red Sea and Indian Ocean,\nwas in Jewish hands, as well as Zobah, which commanded the road to the\nEuphrates. The tolls levied on the trade which thus passed through the\nempire filled the treasury at Jerusalem with abundant riches, while the\nproducts and luxuries of the whole eastern world flowed into the Hebrew\nmarket. The alliance with the Tyrians gave Solomon a port in the\nMediterranean; the possession of Edom gave him ports of his own in the\nGulf of Aqaba. In return for the use of the Edomite harbours by the\nships of Ph\u0153nicia, he was allowed to send forth merchantmen of his own\nfrom the havens of Hiram on the Ph\u0153nician coast. The ships themselves\nwere manned with Ph\u0153nician sailors; like the Assyrian kings in later\ndays he had to turn to the experienced mariners of Ph\u0153nicia to work his\nfleet.\n\nAt home the kingdom had been fully organised. There were an army of\nveterans, a foreign bodyguard, who had no interests beyond those of the\nmaster who paid them, a well-selected capital, and a fiscal\nadministration. The revolts which had disturbed the later years of David\nhad been suppressed with a heavy hand, and such murmurs as may have been\nraised against the enfeebled government and neglected justice of the\nlate reign were hushed in presence of a young and well-educated prince,\nthe _prot\u00e9g\u00e9_ of priests and prophets, whose very name promised his\npeople the blessings of peace. The wars of David, with their tax of\nblood and treasure, were at an end. Those who had conspired against the\nelevation of Solomon to the throne had been put to death at the outset\nof his reign: the grey hairs of Joab were stained with his own blood as\nhe clung to the unavailing altar; Adonijah was executed on the ground\nthat he had asked to have Abishag for a wife, and it was not long before\na pretext was found for removing Shimei out of the way. Benjamin and\nJudah had alike lost their leaders, and Solomon henceforth did his\nutmost to win them to himself.\n\nAbiathar was banished to the priests\u2019 city of Anathoth, and the glory of\nthe high priesthood was left to Zadok and his descendants alone. They\nalone were allowed to serve before the ark of the covenant, and the doom\npronounced upon the house of Eli was thus fulfilled. The act placed the\nreligion of Israel for many generations to come under the domination of\nthe king. Solomon declared by it his supremacy in the church as well as\nin the state. It meant that the king claimed the power and the right to\nappoint and dismiss the ministers of the Mosaic law. The central\nsanctuary became the royal chapel rather than the temple of the national\nGod, and its priests were the paid officials of the sovereign rather\nthan the administrators and interpreters to the people of the divine\nlaw. The democratic element passed out of Hebrew religion, and the king\nmore than the high priest came to stand at the head of it. The erection\nof the temple completed the work which the deposition of Abiathar had\nbegun; sanctuary, services, and priesthood were all alike under the\nroyal control. The family of Eli had preserved the tradition of the days\nwhen the priests of Shiloh exercised independent authority, and\ninterpreted the law which all were called upon to obey. With the\nbanishment of Abiathar came a break with the past; no venerable memories\nwere connected with the rival house of Zadok, no recollection of a time\nwhen the word of the priest of Shiloh had been a teacher in Israel.\nUnder Zadok and his successors the old meaning of the high priesthood\ngradually faded out of sight; as in Assyria or Southern Arabia the\npriests of an earlier age were supplanted by kings, so too in Israel the\nplace and influence of the high priest were absorbed by the Davidic\ndynasty. Even a Jeroboam could assert his right to establish sanctuaries\nand appoint the priests who should serve them.\n\nSolomon had been brought up under the eye and instruction of Nathan, and\nto Nathan, therefore, we must probably trace his religious policy. There\nwas much to be said in favour of it. It prevented friction between the\npriesthood and the monarchy; it guaranteed the stability of the dynasty\nof David by extending to it the sanction of religion; above all, it\nsecured the maintenance of the religion itself. It gave it as it were a\nlocal habitation in a costly sanctuary built and endowed out of the\nroyal revenues, and attached to the royal palace. The ark ceased to be\nnational, and became instead the sacred treasure of the chapel of the\nking. While the monarchy lasted, the religion of the monarchy would last\nalso, and Nathan and Zadok might be pardoned if they believed that the\nDavidic monarchy would last for ever.\n\nThe administration of the country next claimed the attention of the new\nking. It was organised on an Assyrian model, Palestine being divided\ninto districts, each of which was placed under a governor who was\nresponsible for the taxes as well as for the civil and judicial\ngovernment of it. Hitherto, it would appear, the old system of tribal\ngovernment had been preserved, the tribes owning allegiance to\nhereditary chieftains or \u2018princes,\u2019 who, like the chieftains of a\nHighland clan, represented the tribe, and led its members to war. David\nseems to have modified this system for military purposes, if we may\njudge from the list of \u2018captains\u2019 given in 1 Chron. xxvii., but no\nattempt was made to carry out a general system of taxation, or appoint\ngovernors with fiscal powers. The conquered provinces alone were\nrequired to furnish an annual tribute to the treasury, and for this a\nsingle officer, Hadoram, was found sufficient.\n\nThe territory of the Israelites themselves was now formed into fiscal\ndistricts. Twelve officers were appointed, who were required to provide\nin turn for the necessary expenses of the royal household during the\ntwelve months of the year. A list of them, extracted from some official\ndocument, is given in 1 Kings iv. 8-19. In the earlier part of the list\nthe names of the officers have been lost, those only of their fathers\nhaving been preserved. Two of them were married to daughters of Solomon,\nindicating that the list must have been drawn up towards the end of\nSolomon\u2019s life. One of the king\u2019s sons-in-law was the governor of\nNaphtali; the other presided over the Ph\u0153nician coast-land south of\nTyre. Here, at Dor, in a country occupied by the Zakkal kinsmen of the\nPhilistines, and in proximity to Tyre, it was needful that the prefect\nshould be connected with the king by closer ties than those of\nofficialism. The direction of the Mediterranean trade was mainly in his\nhands, and the resources which were thus at his disposal, as well as the\nneighbourhood of Hiram, might have tried the loyalty of any but a\nrelative of the king. The plateau of Bashan was under the jurisdiction\nof one governor who had his residence at Ramoth-gilead; Gilead was under\na second, while a third governor had Mahanaim. We may, therefore, gather\nthat Ammon and Moab, as well as Geshur, had been absorbed into\nIsraelitish territory. This may in part explain why at the revolt of the\nTen Tribes Moab went with Israel rather than with Judah.\n\nIt is noticeable that there was no governor in Judah. Here, in fact, the\nking himself ruled in person. It would seem that Judah was exempt from\nthe taxes levied on the rest of Palestine. This was in accordance with\nthe policy which made Solomon court the goodwill of his father\u2019s tribe,\nand identify with its interests those of himself and his house. So far\nas the continuance of the Davidic dynasty was concerned, the policy\nsucceeded. Judah identified itself with the house of David, and rallied\nfaithfully round its king. There was no longer any talk of rebellion, or\nof transporting the capital to Hebron; from henceforth Judah and its\nkings were one. But the fact only made the breach between Judah and the\nrest of Israel wider and more visible, and alienated the other tribes\nfrom the reigning house. They were treated like the conquered Gentiles;\nthe place of their old hereditary princes and leaders was taken by\ngovernors appointed by the crown, and fixed taxes were rigorously\nexacted from them for the support of the royal treasury. They derived no\nbenefit, however, from the royal expenditure; it was lavished upon\nJerusalem and the Jewish towns which lay near to it. They were too far\noff to see even a reflection of that royal glory of which they may have\nheard, and for which they certainly had to pay. The same causes which\nstrengthened the ties of allegiance of Judah to the reigning dynasty\nweakened those of Israel.\n\nThroughout the reign of Solomon, Hadoram remained \u2018over the tribute,\u2019\nand his duties were enlarged by the supervision of the home taxation and\n_corv\u00e9e_ being added to that of the foreign tribute.[525] Jehoshaphat\nstill continued \u2018recorder,\u2019 but the secretary Shisha had been succeeded\nby his two sons. The literary correspondence of the empire was\nincreasing, and one chief secretary was no longer sufficient for it. The\nfamily of Nathan, as might have been expected, was well provided for.\nOne son was made Vizier; the other became the royal chaplain as well as\n\u2018the king\u2019s friend.\u2019 The latter title, which had been given to Hushai in\nthe time of David (1 Chron. xxvii. 33), had been borrowed from Egypt;\nthe title of the Vizier, or \u2018head of the officers,\u2019 corresponded with\nthe Assyrian Rab-saki or Rabshakeh, \u2018the chief of the princes.\u2019 Another\noffice which may have been borrowed from Assyria was that of royal\nsteward, which was held by Ahishar; along with him the Septuagint\nassociates a second steward Eliak, and a captain of the bodyguard called\nEliab, the son of Saph or Shaphat.[526] Like the list of governors, the\nlist of officials must have been drawn up at the end of Solomon\u2019s reign,\nsince Azariah has already taken the place of his grandfather Zadok as\nhigh priest (see 1 Chron. vi. 9, 10, where a confusion has been made\nbetween Ahimaaz the son of Zadok and Johanan or Jonathan the son of\nAbiathar). It is significant that the list begins with the \u2018priest,\u2019 not\nwith the general of the army as in the warlike days of David.\n\nThe fame of Solomon\u2019s wealth and magnificence was spread through the\nOriental world. Foreign sovereigns sought his alliance or courted his\nfavour. Even the Queen of Sheba came to visit him. Modern criticism has\nlong since banished the Queen to the realm of fiction, but arch\u00e6ological\ndiscovery has again restored her to history. Sheba or Saba was already a\nflourishing kingdom in the time of the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser\nIII.; its territories extended from the spice-bearing coasts of Southern\nArabia to the borders of Babylonia and Palestine. If Glaser and Hommel\nare right in their interpretation of the south Arabian inscriptions, it\nhad entered on the older heritage of the kingdom of Ma\u2019\u00e2n. The Min\u00e6an\nkings of Ma\u2019\u00e2n had ruled not only in the south but in the north as well;\ntheir records are found near Teima, and they had command of the great\nhighroad of commerce which led from the Indian Ocean to Egypt and Gaza.\nEgypt and Gaza, indeed, are mentioned in Min\u00e6an inscriptions.[527] From\nan early period the kingdoms of Southern Arabia had been in commercial\ncontact with Canaan.\n\nThe conquest of Edom by David and the Hebrew fleets which sailed from\nthe Gulf of Aqaba must soon have acquainted the merchant princes of\nMa\u2019\u00e2n and Saba with the fact that a new power had risen in Western Asia,\nand a new market been opened for their goods. The road to Palestine was\nwell-known and frequently travelled, and Min\u00e6an or Sab\u00e6an settlements\nexisted upon it almost as far as the frontiers of Edom. What more\nnatural, therefore, than that a Sab\u00e6an queen should visit her wealthy\nneighbour whose patronage had become important for Sab\u00e6an trade? That\nqueens might rule in the Arabian peninsula we know from the annals of\nTiglath-pileser III., which refer to Zabib\u00ea and her successor Sams\u00ea,\neach of whom is called a \u2018queen of the land of the Arabs.\u2019\n\nEven the Pharaoh of Egypt condescended to mingle the blood of the solar\nrace with that of the grandson of a Hebrew _fellah_. Solomon married the\ndaughter of the Egyptian monarch. But it was a monarch of the\ntwenty-first dynasty, who, though acknowledged as the sole legitimate\nrepresentative of the line of the Sun-god Ra, had nevertheless been\nsadly shorn of his ancient rights and authority. His power was confined\nto the Delta, where he held his court in the old Hyksos capital of Tanis\nor Zoan, close to the Asiatic frontier, and as far removed as possible\nfrom the rival dynasty which ruled in Upper Egypt. He was doubtless glad\nto secure a son-in-law who could defend him from his enemies at home in\ncase of need, and whose friendship was preferable to his hostility.\n\nThe Egyptian princess had brought with her as dowry the Canaanitish city\nof Gezer. That it should have been in the power of the Pharaoh to give\nit is at first sight surprising. It shows that Egypt had never\nrelinquished in theory her old claims to be mistress of Canaan. Like the\ntitle of \u2018king of France,\u2019 which so long lingered in the royal style of\nEngland, they were never abandoned, but were ready to be revived\nwhenever an opportunity occurred. Towards the close of the period of the\nJudges, but before the Philistines had become formidable, Assyria and\nEgypt had met on friendly terms on the coast of Palestine. The Assyrian\nconqueror, Tiglath-pileser I. (in B.C. 1100), had found his way to the\nPh\u0153nician city of Arvad, and there received from the Egyptian Pharaoh\nvarious presents which included a crocodile and a hippopotamus. The\ncampaign of the Assyrian king had brought him to the edge of the\nterritory which the Egyptian rulers of the twenty-first dynasty still\nregarded as their own, and they hastened accordingly to propitiate the\ninvader, and thus to stay his further advance. The embassy and gifts\nfurther show that the occupation of the coast by the Philistines did not\nprevent the Egyptians from maintaining their old relations with\nPh\u0153nicia, though they may have done so by sea rather than by land. At\nall events an expedition sent to Gebal by Hir-Hor, the high priest of\nThebes, at the beginning of the twenty-first dynasty, was despatched in\nships.[528] Had the coast-road been free from danger, the Egyptians\nwould doubtless have asserted their right to march along it. They seized\nthe first occasion to do so, when the Philistines had been conquered by\nDavid, and the successor of David was the Pharaoh\u2019s ally.\n\nSolomon engaged in no wars of his own. He was no general himself, and it\nmay be that he feared to intrust a subject with an army. Joab had taught\nhim how easily the commander-in-chief might defy his master, Abner how\nreadily he might betray him. In the list of officials given in the\nHebrew text, Benaiah indeed is stated to have been \u2018over the host\u2019 (1\nKings iv. 4), but Benaiah was actually the commander of the bodyguard,\nso that his command of the army must have been merely nominal.\nPractically the army which had played so large a part in the history of\nDavid had ceased to exist. Hence it was that Rezon was able to establish\nan independent kingdom in Damascus, and that when the Ten Tribes\nrevolted there was no army at hand with which to suppress the rebellion.\nHence, too, the curious fact that just as Solomon sought the help of\nHiram in fitting out his merchant fleet in the Gulf of Aqaba, so also he\nsought the help of the Egyptian king in subduing the one Canaanitish\ncity of importance which still preserved its freedom. Gezer had\nmaintained its Canaanitish continuity from the days when as yet the\nIsraelites had not entered Canaan, and the mounds of Tel Jezer which\nmark its site must still conceal beneath them the records of its early\nhistory. Doubtless the Egyptian court was gratified at the arrangement\nwith the Hebrew king. It admitted the Egyptian claim of suzerainty over\nPalestine, and admitted the right of its armies to march along its\nroads. But the substantial advantages remained with Solomon. He gained\nGezer without either expense or trouble, and at the same time he allied\nhimself by marriage with the oldest and most exclusive royal race in the\nOriental world. Like the kings of Mitanni in the age of the eighteenth\ndynasty, the son-in-law of the Pharaoh was on a footing of equality with\nthe proudest princes of Asia.\n\nThe alliance with Hiram was no less advantageous. Hiram had done for\nTyre what Solomon was doing for Jerusalem. It has been conjectured that\nhis father Abibal, or Abi-Baal, was the founder of a dynasty; at all\nevents the accession of Hiram ushered in a new era for the Tyrian state.\nHe succeeded to the throne at the age of nineteen years, and during his\nlong reign of thirty-four years he raised Tyre to an unprecedented\nheight of prosperity and power, and rebuilt the city itself. The ancient\n\u2018rock\u2019 from which it had derived its name was connected by an embankment\nwith another rocky islet close to it, and a new and splendid city was\nerected upon the space thus won from the sea. Excellent harbours were\nconstructed, massive walls built round the city, and the venerable\ntemple of Melkarth restored from its foundations, and decorated with all\nthe sumptuous splendour of Ph\u0153nician art.\n\nTyre had always been famous for its sailors and its ships, and its\nwealth is celebrated even in the letters of Tel el-Amarna. But under\nHiram its maritime trade underwent an enormous development. The conquest\nof the Philistines by David, and the consequent disappearance of piracy\nfrom the eastern basin of the Mediterranean, were the immediate causes\nof this. Tyrian ships could now venture into the bays and havens of the\nGreek seas in quest of slaves, or the precious purple-fish, and their\nmerchants could make voyages in safety as far as Tarshish. Riches poured\ninto \u2018the merchant-city,\u2019 and Hiram had resources in abundance for his\npublic works.\n\nThe Hebrew king was eager to follow the example of his Tyrian neighbour.\nIt was true that his subjects were neither sailors nor traders; it was\ntrue, also, that the harbours on the Mediterranean coast which the\nconquest of the Philistines had added to his dominions were few and\npoor. But the conquest of Edom had given him the entrance to the\nspice-lands of Southern Arabia, and the gold-mines which recent\ndiscovery has found in Central Africa.[529] An agreement was therefore\ncome to with Hiram which was to the profit of both. Hiram gave Solomon\nsailors and boat-builders, as well as the use of his Mediterranean\nports; in return he received from Solomon the right of using the\nharbours of the Red Sea. While the products of Europe made their way to\nSolomon through Tyre, the products of the south passed to Hiram from the\nEdomite havens of Elath and Ezion-geber.\n\nHiram was useful to Solomon in yet another way. The age of\nempire-building was over; the time had come to create a capital which\nshould be worthy of the empire. Like Ramses II. of Egypt, Solomon made\nhimself an imperishable name as a builder. Jerusalem was strongly\nfortified; royal palaces were erected; above all, a temple was raised to\nYahveh that vied in splendour with those of Ph\u0153nicia and the Nile. But\nthe architects and artisans had to be brought from the dominions of the\nTyrian king; the Israelites had been too much barbarised by the long\nstruggle for existence they had had to wage for another Bezaleel to be\nborn among them, as in the days when they had but just quitted the\ncultured land of the Delta. It is true that the master-artificer in\nbronze, who designed the bronze-work of the temple, was a Hebrew on his\nmother\u2019s side, but he bore the Tyrian name of Hiram, and his father was\n\u2018a man of Tyre.\u2019 Even for his carpenters and masons Solomon was indebted\nto his Tyrian ally; it was only the gangs of labourers driven to their\nforced work among the forests and quarries of Lebanon that were levied\nby Hadoram out of \u2018Israel.\u2019 The Israelites had become hewers of wood and\ndrawers of water for their king, and, as in the old days of Egyptian\nbondage, 3300 taskmasters were employed in keeping them to their\nwork.[530] Like the architects, the skilled artificers were lent by\nHiram; from Hiram came also the logs of cedar and fir that were needed\nfor the buildings at Jerusalem.\n\nIn return Solomon provided his ally with wheat and oil. The island-city\nwas dependent on others for its corn; on the rock of Tyre and on the\nbarren crags of the opposite mainland no wheat could be grown. Twenty\ncities of Galilee, moreover, were ceded to Hiram. But for these Hiram\nhad to pay one hundred and twenty talents of gold; and in the end, the\nwily Hebrew, like his forefather Jacob, had the best of the bargain.\nWhen the Tyrian king came to inspect his new territory, it \u2018pleased him\nnot.\u2019 Solomon, in fact, had given him what it was not worth his own\nwhile to keep.\n\nThe royal palace was thirteen years in building. Attached to it was the\narmoury, or House of the Forest of Lebanon as it was called from the\ncedar used in its construction. Here the three hundred shields and two\nhundred targets of gold were stored, which were made for the bodyguard,\nand served also as a reserve fund in case of need. The architecture of\nthe palace itself culminated, as in Persia, in the audience-chamber with\nits throne of ivory overlaid with gold, and approached by six steps\nwhich were guarded on either side by the images of lions. Another palace\nwas erected for the Egyptian queen; like the palace of the king it was\nin the Upper City, close to the spot on which the temple was destined to\nstand.\n\nThe old palace of David, in the lower town or \u2018City of David,\u2019 was\ndeserted; as soon as the new buildings were completed on Moriah, the\nking moved to them with his har\u00eem and court. The palace which had\nsatisfied the simple tastes of the father was no longer sufficient for\nthe luxury and display of the more cultured son. The \u2018City of David\u2019 was\nleft to the Jews and Benjamites; the court and the priesthood settled\nabove them by the side of the old Jebusite population, which had been\nreduced to serfdom (1 Kings ix. 20). None but slaves and serfs might\ndwell where the monarch lived surrounded by his armed bodyguard; the\nfree Israelite was confined to another quarter of the town.\n\nThe palace was protected by a huge fortress called the Millo, which was\nconnected with the new walls of Jerusalem, and begun as soon as the\npalace of the Egyptian princess had been finished. Whether it stood on\nthe eastern or western side of the city is doubtful; the topography of\npre-exilic Jerusalem is unfortunately still involved in obscurity. The\npool of Siloam, and the identification of the Upper Gihon or \u2018Spring\u2019\nwith the Virgin\u2019s Fountain, the only natural spring of water in the\nimmediate neighbourhood of the city, are almost the only two points\nwhich can be fixed with certainty. If the subterranean tunnel which\nconveys the water of the Virgin\u2019s Fountain to the pool of Siloam is the\nconduit made by Hezekiah when he \u2018stopped the upper water-course of\nGihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of\nDavid\u2019 (2 Chron. xxxii. 30), the west side will be that which overlooks\nthe Tyrop\u0153on valley, where the tunnel ends. In this case the city of\nDavid, which is stated in 2 Sam. v. 7 to have been on Mount Zion, will\nbe the so-called southern hill or \u2018Ophel,\u2019 which lies south of the\nMosque of Omar, and the Tyrop\u0153on valley will be the Valley of the Sons\nof Hinnom so often referred to in the Old Testament. The Jerusalem of\nthe kings will thus have been, like most of the cities of the ancient\nOriental world, of no great size according to our modern conceptions;\nits population will have been as closely packed together as it is to-day\nin the native quarters of Cairo, and the fortifications which surrounded\nit would not have occupied too wide a circumference for a Jewish army to\ndefend. The Tyrop\u0153on valley is choked with the rubbish of ancient\nJerusalem to a depth of more than seventy feet; but under it must lie\nthe tombs of the kings of Judah. The recent excavations of Dr. Bliss\nhave thrown but little light on the question, since the walls he has\nfound seem mostly of a late date; but if the rock-cut steps he has\ndiscovered north of the pool of Siloam are really \u2018the stairs that go\ndown from the city of David\u2019 (Neh. iii. 16), a striking verification\nwill have been given of the theory which sees in the southern hill the\nZion of Scripture, and in the valley of \u2018the Cheesemakers\u2019 the gorge of\nthe sons of Hinnom.[531]\n\nThe crown of all the building activity of Solomon was the temple, even\nthough it did not take so long to construct as his own palace. Materials\nfor it had already been accumulated by David, and the architects and\nworkmen came from Tyre. It was built of large blocks of square stone,\nthe edges of which were probably bevelled as in early Ph\u0153nician work,\nand the walls inside were covered with panels of cedar. Walls and doors\nalike were profusely decorated with the designs of Ph\u0153nician art.\nCherubs and palms, lotus flowers and pomegranates were depicted on them\nin the forms that have been made familiar to us by the relics of ancient\nPh\u0153nician workmanship. The temple itself was of rectangular shape, not\nunlike the chapel of King\u2019s College at Cambridge, and in front of it\nwere two large courts, one of which\u2014the \u2018inner\u2019 or \u2018upper\u2019 court\u2014stood\non a higher level than the other. The whole design, in fact, was purely\nPh\u0153nician; in form and ornamentation the building exactly resembled the\ntemples of Ph\u0153nicia. Like them, it must have looked externally like a\nhuge rectangular box, which was further disfigured by chambers, in sets\nof three, being built one over the other against the walls. The great\ntemple of Melkarth, which Hiram had just completed at Tyre, probably\nserved as the model for the temple of Jerusalem.\n\nThe entrance was approached by steps, and consisted of a porch, on\neither side of which were two lofty columns of bronze, called Jachin and\nBoaz.[532] Similar columns were planted before the entrance of a\nPh\u0153nician temple where they symbolised the fertilising power of the\nSun-god, and Herodotos (ii. 44) states that the two which stood in front\nof the temple at Tyre were made of gold and emerald glass. Two similar\ncolumns of stone, though of small size, have been found in the Temple of\nthe Giants in the island of Gozo, one of which still remains in its\noriginal place. In the outer court was a bronze \u2018sea\u2019 or basin, thirty\ncubits in circumference, and supported on twelve oxen. The \u2018sea\u2019 had\nbeen imported into the West from Babylonia, where it similarly stood in\nthe court of a temple, and represented the _apsu_ or \u2018watery abyss,\u2019 out\nof which Chald\u00e6an philosophy taught that all things had been evolved. A\nBabylonian hymn which describes the casting of a copper \u2018sea\u2019 for the\ntemple of Chaos tells us that, like the \u2018sea\u2019 at Jerusalem, it rested on\nthe heads of twelve bulls.[533] Along with the \u2018sea\u2019 bronze lavers and\nbasins were provided for the ablutions of the priests and the vessels of\nthe sanctuary.\n\nThe temple was but a shell for enclosing the innermost shrine or Holy of\nHolies where, as in a casket, the ark of the covenant was placed under\nthe protecting wings of two gilded cherubim. What they were like we may\ngather from the Assyrian sculptures, in which the two winged cherubs are\ndepicted on either side of the sacred tree.[534] The over-shadowing\nwings formed a \u2018mercy-seat,\u2019 the _parakku_ of the Babylonian texts,\nwhereon, according to Nebuchadrezzar, Bel seated himself on the festival\nof the new year, while the other gods humbly ranged themselves around\nhim bowing to the ground.[535] At Babylon, moreover, the table of\nshewbread which stood before Bel was of solid gold, like the table which\nSolomon made for the service of Yahveh.[536] Indeed, the description of\nthe lavish use of gold in the temple of Jerusalem finds its echo in the\ndescription given by Nebuchadrezzar of the temples he reared in Babylon.\nThe altar of Yahveh, it is said, was of gold, so too were the\ncandlesticks and lamps and vessels; even the hinges of the doors that\nopened into the Holy of Holies were of the same precious metal, while\nthe cedar work was richly gilded, and the floor itself was overlaid with\ngolden plates. In similar terms Nebuchadrezzar describes his decoration\nof \u00ca-Sagila, the temple of Bel, at Babylon. Here too, the beams and\npanels of cedar were overlaid with gold, the gates were gilded, and the\nvessels for the service of the sanctuary were of solid gold.[537] There\nwas one point, however, in which the temples of Jerusalem and Babylon\ndiffered from one another; in the shrine of \u00ca-Sagila was the image of\nBel: the Hebrew shrine contained no likeness of a god. The only graven\nfigures within it were the cherubim whose wings overshadowed the ark.\n\nThe temple was finished in seven (or more exactly seven and a half)\nyears. Perhaps an effort was made to restrict the years of building to\nthe sacred number. At all events, it was in the seventh month of the\nHebrew year, the Ethanim of the Ph\u0153nicians, that the feast of the\ndedication was kept.[538] It coincided with the ancient festival of the\nIngathering of the Harvest, a fitting season for commemorating the\ncompletion of the work.\n\nThe dedication of Solomon\u2019s temple is the beginning of a new chapter in\nthe history of the Jewish state and of Hebrew religion. It became the\nvisible centre round which the elements of the Israelitish faith\ngathered and cohered together until the terrible day came when the enemy\nstormed the walls of the capital and laid its temple in the dust. But it\nhad already exercised a profound influence upon the history of Judah. It\nhad helped to unify the kingdom; to bind the population of southern\nPalestine, mixed in blood though it were, into a single whole. Unlike\nthe northern tribes with their two great sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel,\nJudah and Benjamin had a common centre in the one sanctuary of\nJerusalem. Around it, moreover, were grouped all the traditions and\nmemories of a venerable past. It alone was connected with the traditions\nof the Mosaic Law and the priesthood of Shiloh, with the rites and\nceremonies that had come down from the primeval days of the Israelitish\npeople, and with the foundation of the monarchy itself. It was the\ndwelling-place on earth of Yahveh of Israel; here was the sacred ark of\nthe covenant which had once been carried before the invaders of Canaan,\nand was still the outward sign and symbol of God\u2019s presence among His\npeople. With the preservation of the temple the preservation of the\nJewish religion itself seemed to be bound up, as well as of the Jewish\nstate.\n\nBut the temple did something more than help to unify the southern\nmonarchy and preserve the traditions of the Mosaic law. It served also\nto strengthen and perpetuate the Davidic dynasty, and to keep alive in\nthe hearts of the people their allegiance to the line of Solomon. The\ntemple, as we have seen, was not only a national sanctuary, it was also\na royal chapel. It formed, as it were, part of the royal palace, in\nwhich the king overshadowed the high priest himself. The halo of\nveneration which surrounded the temple was thus communicated to the\nroyal line. The temple and the descendants of David became parts of the\nsame national conception; the one necessarily implied the other. When\nthe throne of David fell, the temple also fell with it. While the temple\nlasted, Judah remained a homogeneous state, yielding willing obedience\nto its theocratic monarchy, and gradually gaining a clearer idea of the\nmeaning and practice of the Mosaic Law. The temple of Solomon made\nJewish religion conservative, but it was a conservatism which, as time\nwent on, evolved the consequences of its own principles, and sought how\nbest to carry them out in ritual and practice.\n\nJerusalem had become one of the great capitals of the world. Its public\nbuildings were worthy of the empire which had been created by David, of\nthe wealth that had poured into the coffers of Solomon from the trade of\nthe whole Orient, of the culture and art which the young king had done\nhis best to introduce. But the necessities of defence were not\nforgotten. The fortifications of the city were pushed on\u2014though, it\nwould seem, not with sufficient rapidity to allow them to be finished\nbefore the king\u2019s death\u2014and horses and chariots were imported from Egypt\nand the land of the Hittites in the north. With these Solomon equipped a\nstanding force of 1400 chariots and 12,000 horsemen, who served as\ngarrisons in Jerusalem and the other fortresses of the country.\n\nNor were the other cities of the empire neglected in favour of\nJerusalem. Gezer was rebuilt and fortified; so too were \u2018Beth-horon the\nnether and Baalath\u2019 in Judah, and \u2018Tadmor in the wilderness,\u2019 the\nPalmyra of later days.[539] It is true that modern criticism would see\nin Tadmor the Tamar of the southern desert of Judah which is referred to\nby Ezekiel (xlvii. 19, xlviii. 28) as a future border of the Holy Land.\nBut, though the Keth\u00eebh or text of the Hebrew Scriptures has Tamar, the\nreading is corrupt, and has been corrected by the Massoretic scribes\nthemselves.[540] The Chronicler (2 Chron. viii. 4) shows that Tadmor was\nthe reading of the text in his time, and he shows further that it was\nknown to be the desert-city which afterwards became the seat of empire\nof the merchant prince Odenathus and his queen, Zenobia. We learn from\nhim that Solomon had put down a rising in that part of Zobah which\nadjoined Hamath, that he had founded \u2018store-cities\u2019 in Hamath, and had\nbuilt Tadmor in the wilderness beyond. It is strange only that no\nallusion is made to building operations in Israel: perhaps Solomon was\ndisinclined to establish fortresses among the northern tribes which\nmight be used against his own authority, perhaps David had already put\nthe cities of northern Israel in a thorough state of defence. At all\nevents, little danger from abroad was to be apprehended in this part of\nthe Israelitish dominions; Solomon was in alliance with Tyre, and\npresumably also with Hamath, and Zobah was included in his empire.\n\nWe gather from the Assyrian inscriptions that Zobah extended from the\nneighbourhood of Hamath and Damascus eastward across the desert towards\nthe Euphrates. Midway stood Palmyra, approached by roads from both\nDamascus and Homs, which there united and then led to the ford across\nthe Euphrates at Thapsacus or Tiphsakh. It was the shortest route from\nPalestine to Mesopotamia, and avoided the tolls and possible hostility\nof the Hittites in their strong fortress of Carchemish. The conquest of\nZobah would necessarily have laid Palmyra and the roads that passed\nthrough it at the feet of David, and the importance of the place for\ncommercial purposes could not have failed to strike the mind of Solomon\never ready to discover fresh channels of trade. Its fortification would\nnaturally have been one of his first cares; even if there had been no\nmention of the fact in the Old Testament, the historian would have been\nalmost compelled to assume it. It opened to him the merchandise of\nMesopotamia, of Babylonia, and Assyria, and brought him into touch with\nthe old monarchies of the Asiatic world. For the trade of the east,\nPalmyra was to Solomon what the ports of Edom were for the trade of the\nsouth.\n\nTo the north his dominions touched on those of the Hittites, who were\nstill settled in Kadesh on the Orontes, even if Hamath had long since\npassed out of their possession. Lenormant was the first to point out\nthat in 1 Kings x. 28 there is an allusion to the importation of horses\ninto Judah, not only from Egypt, but also from the Hittite regions on\nthe Gulf of Antioch. Here lived the Qu\u00ea of the Assyrian monuments, who\nare named in the Hebrew text, though it needed the revelations of\nOriental arch\u00e6ology to discover the fact. Solomon, it is there said,\n\u2018had horses brought out of Egypt and out of Qu\u00ea; the royal merchants\nreceived it from Qu\u00ea at a price.\u2019 In the later days of the Assyrian\nempire Nineveh obtained its supply of horses and stallions from the same\npart of the world, and there are numerous letters to the king which\nrelate to their importation. The chariots came from Egypt, the value of\neach being as much as 600 shekels of silver, or \u00a390; it was only the\nhorses that were brought from \u2018the kings of the Hittites\u2019 and \u2018the kings\nof Aram.\u2019 The trade in both horses and chariots was a monopoly which\nSolomon kept jealously in his own hands; the merchants were those \u2018of\nthe king,\u2019 and none of his subjects was allowed to import materials of\nwar which might be employed against himself.\n\nIt was the trade with the south which introduced into Jerusalem the\ngreatest novelties and the most costly articles of luxury. In imitation\nof the kings of Egypt and Assyria, Solomon established zoological and\nbotanical gardens where the strange animals and plants that had been\nbrought from abroad were kept. Such collections had been made by\nThothmes III. at Thebes, and on the foundations of a ruined chamber in\nhis temple at Karnak we may still see pictures of the trees and plants\nand birds which he sent home from his campaigns in Syria and the Soudan.\nIn Assyria a botanical garden had been similarly planted by\nTiglath-pileser I. (B.C. 1100), and stocked with foreign plants.[541]\nSolomon\u2019s collections were therefore no new thing in the Oriental world,\nthough they were a novelty in Palestine; and his subjects went to gaze\nand wonder, like the Cairenes of to-day, at the apes which had come from\nthe far south, or the peacocks whose name (_thuk\u00eey\u00eem_) betrayed their\nIndian origin. It is even said that he composed books on the animal and\nvegetable collections he had made.[542]\n\nGold and silver and ivory were also brought, with the apes and peacocks,\nby the merchant vessels whose voyages of three years\u2019 duration carried\nthem along the Somali coast, and even, it may be, to the mouths of the\nIndus. The gold probably came, for the most part, from the mines of the\nZambesi region, where foreign mining settlements are now known to have\nbeen established at an early date, and where objects have been found,\nsuch as birds carved out of stone, which remind us of the civilisation\nof southern Arabia. But the greater part of the silver, which we are\ntold became as plentiful as \u2018stones,\u2019 must have been derived from Asia\nMinor. Here were the mines from which the Hittites extracted the metal\nfor which they seem to have had a special fancy, and it was through them\nthat it probably made its way to Jerusalem. Copper would have come from\nCyprus, and been brought in the ships which trafficked in the\nMediterranean. It was the Mediterranean trade, moreover, which supplied\nthe tin needed for the vast quantities of bronze that was used in the\nSolomonic age. We know of no source of it equal to such a demand except\nthe peninsula of Cornwall; but if it really was Cornish tin that found\nits way to the eastern basin of the Mediterranean during the Bronze Age\nit must have travelled like amber across Europe until it reached the\nAdriatic or the Gulf of Lyons. The amber found by Dr. Schliemann in the\nprehistoric tombs of Myken\u00e6 is of Baltic origin, and amber beads have\nbeen discovered by Dr. Bliss at Lachish, belonging to the century before\nthe Exodus; if amber could travel thus far from northern Europe, the tin\nmight have done the same.\n\nFuture generations looked back upon the reign of Solomon as the golden\nage of Israel. But there was a reverse side to the picture. The\ncombination of culture and arbitrary power produced in him the selfish\nluxury of an Oriental despot, which is bent on satisfying its own\nsensuous desires at the expense of all around it. Solomon\u2019s extravagance\nwas like that of the Khedive Ismail in our own day, and it led to the\nsame amount of misery and impoverishment in the nation. He found on his\naccession a treasury well filled by the thrifty government of his\nfather; and his trading monopolies and alliances brought him an\napparently inexhaustible supply of wealth. But a time came when even\nthis supply began to fail, and to cease to suffice for his reckless\nexpenditure. Heavier taxes were laid on the subject populations; the\nfree men of Israel were compelled to work as unpaid serfs under the lash\nof the taskmaster, and the older population of the land, who were still\nnumerous, were turned into veritable bond-slaves. To the Gibeonites, who\nhad long been the serfs of the Levitical sanctuary, were now added the\nNethinim, a part of whom went under the name of \u2018Solomon\u2019s slaves\u2019 (Ezra\nii. 55, 58). The building of the temple had cost the people dear: the\nIsraelites had been robbed of their freedom to provide for it stone and\nwood; the Canaanites had been given to it as actual slaves.\n\nDoubtless the policy of Solomon was partly determined by the same\nconsiderations as those which had moved the Pharaoh of the Oppression.\nHe mistrusted the Canaanites, he was afraid of the northern tribes. In\neither case he endeavoured to break their spirit, and render them\npowerless to revolt. But in the case of the Hebrew tribesmen he did not\nsucceed. Discontent was smothered for awhile, but it was none the less\ndangerous on that account. And towards the end of Solomon\u2019s life an\nincident occurred which led eventually to the division of the kingdom.\nJeroboam the son of Nebat\u2014in whom Dr. Neubauer has seen the name of a\n\u2018Nabathean\u2019\u2014and whose mother belonged to the tribe of Ephraim, had\ndistinguished himself by his activity and abilities. Solomon had\nfinished the Millo or Fort, and was now at work on the other\nfortifications of Jerusalem. His notice was drawn to Jeroboam, and he\nmade the young man the \u2018taskmaster\u2019 or overseer of the _corv\u00e9e_ of\nEphraimites employed upon the walls. Like Moses in old days, Jeroboam\u2019s\nsympathy was aroused by the sufferings of his fellow-tribesmen, which\nfound a mouthpiece in Ahijah the prophet of Shiloh. Ahijah was himself\none of the dispossessed. The glory of Shiloh had passed away from it;\nJerusalem had taken its place. The tabernacle of Shiloh had been\nrejected in favour of the temple of the Jewish king. The centre of\nHebrew religion and power had departed from the house of Joseph, and\nbeen transferred to the mixed parvenus of Judah.\n\nIn Jeroboam the prophet recognised the leader who should restore the\nlost fortunes of Ephraim and revenge its injuries. Jeroboam listened to\nthe counsels of revolt, but the time for making use of them had not yet\ncome. His plans and plotting became known to Solomon, and, once more\nlike Moses, he had to fly for his life. He made his way to the Egyptian\ncourt, where a ready welcome awaited him.\n\nA new dynasty had arisen there. The Libyan mercenaries had dethroned\ntheir feeble masters, and seated Shishak or Sheshanq, their general,\nupon the throne of the Pharaohs. The Tanitic dynasty which ruled the\nDelta was swept away; so also was the rival dynasty of high-priests who\nreigned at Thebes and held possession of Upper Egypt. With the rise of\nthe twenty-second dynasty at Bubastis, a new and unaccustomed vigour was\ninfused into the government of Egypt. Shishak proved himself an able and\nenergetic king. His earlier years were occupied in putting down\nopposition at home, and restoring order and unity throughout the\ncountry. When once the task was accomplished, he began to turn his\nattention elsewhere. Egypt had never relinquished its theoretical claims\nto sovereignty in Canaan; and the new power that had arisen there\nmenaced the safety of the Asiatic frontier. Solomon, it is true, had\nallied himself by marriage with the Pharaohs; but it was with a Pharaoh\nof the fallen dynasty, and this in itself made him all the more\ndangerous a neighbour. At present Israel was too powerful to be\nattacked; but a time might come when the Egyptian monarch might venture\nto march again along the roads that had once conducted the armies of\nEgypt to the conquest of Syria. Meanwhile Shishak could stir up\ndisaffection and rebellion in the Israelitish empire, and could harbour\npretenders to the throne who might hereafter undermine the very\nexistence of the new power.\n\nAs long as Solomon lived Jeroboam did not dare to stir. But he was not\nthe only \u2018adversary\u2019 of the Jewish king. Hadad, the representative of\nthe old kings of Edom, had also found a refuge in the Egyptian court,\nand had there married the sister-in-law of the Pharaoh. In spite of the\nPharaoh\u2019s remonstrances he had returned to the mountains of Edom when\nDavid and Joab were dead, and had there carried on a guerilla warfare\nwith the Israelitish garrisons. Throughout the lifetime of Solomon he\nhad maintained himself in the fastnesses of Seir, and had been, as it\nwere, a thorn in the side of the conquerors of his country. But he never\nsucceeded in seriously injuring the caravan trade that passed through\nEdom, or in shaking off the Israelitish yoke. The male population of\nEdom had been too mercilessly exterminated for this to be possible, and\nall that he could do was to molest the trade with the Red Sea. But even\nin this he does not seem to have been successful.\n\nA more formidable opponent of Israel was Rezon of Zobah. He, it would\nseem, had established himself at Damascus even before the death of\nDavid, and all the efforts to dislodge him were of no avail. It is\npossible that the insurrection in Zobah, which led to the construction\nof fortified posts on the borders of Hamath (2 Chron. viii. 3), was\nconnected with his revolt. At any rate, Rezon founded a kingdom and a\ndynasty in the old Syrian capital, which in years to come was to shake\nthe monarchy of northern Israel to its base. \u2018He abhorred Israel,\u2019 we\nare told, \u2018and reigned over Aram.\u2019\n\nThe Jewish historian traces the misfortunes of Solomon to the religious\nindifferentism of his later years. His wives were many, his concubines\ninnumerable. They had been added to his har\u00eem from all parts of the\nknown world; and they brought with them the worship of their native\ndeities. Solomon had none of that intense belief in the national God\nwhich had distinguished Saul and David, or which made the Assyrian kings\nconquer and slay the unbelievers who would not acknowledge the supremacy\nof Assur.[543] He was a cultured and selfish epicure, catholic in his\ntastes and sympathies, and doubtless inclined to stigmatise as\nnarrow-minded fanaticism the objections of those who would have\nforbidden him to indulge his wives in their religious beliefs. On the\nhill opposite Jerusalem they were allowed to worship in the chapels of\ntheir own divinities, and the king himself did not refuse to bow himself\nwith them in the house of Rimmon. Shrines were erected and altars blazed\nto Ashtoreth of the Sidonians, to Milcom of Ammon, and to Chemosh of\nMoab.\n\nModern criticism has averred that all this was only in accordance with\nthe general ideas and practice of the time, and that not Solomon alone\nbut the rest of his people saw little or no difference between Yahveh\nand Baal. The Song of Deborah, which reflects the feelings of so much\nearlier an epoch, is a sufficient answer to such an assertion. The whole\nhistory of Saul and David points unmistakably to the contrary, and the\ntemple bears witness that there was a time when Solomon also shared the\nbelief that Yahveh alone was God in Israel, and that He would brook the\npresence of no other god beside Himself. The character of Solomon, his\nhabits and alliances,\u2014above all, the seductions of the har\u00eem, are quite\nenough to account for a gradual change in his views. It is probable,\nmoreover, that the death of his old guide and instructor Nathan may have\nhad much to do with what an undogmatic theology might call emancipation\nfrom the narrow and exclusive circle of Hebrew religious ideas; we know\nthat such was the case with Jehoash after the death of Jehoiada the\npriest. The king who began by sending to Ph\u0153nicia for the architects and\nbuilders of the temple, ended not unnaturally with the erection of\nsanctuaries to a Ph\u0153nician goddess.\n\nIn fact, the artistic tastes of Solomon ran counter to the puritanical\ntendencies and restrictions of the Mosaic Law. It had been made for the\nwanderers in the desert, for hardy warriors intent on the conquest of a\nforeign land, for the simple peasantry of Palestine. It was directed\nagainst the cultured vices and artistic idolatries of Egypt and Canaan:\non its forefront was the command: \u2018Thou shalt not make the likeness of\nanything that is in the heaven above, in the earth beneath, or in the\nwater that is under the earth.\u2019 The temple at Jerusalem, with its costly\ndecoration and graven images, was in itself a violation of the letter of\nthe Law. Solomon was called indeed to be king over Israel, but his heart\nand his sympathies were with Ph\u0153nicia.\n\nHe had been carefully educated, and, like our own Henry VIII., was a\nlearned as well as a cultivated prince. His wisdom was celebrated above\nthat of the wisest men of his day (1 Kings iv. 30, 31), and he left\nbehind him a large collection of proverbs. Some of these were re-edited\nby the scribes of Hezekiah\u2019s library (Prov. xxv. 1), the foundation of\nwhich may possibly go back to him. Indeed, he showed himself so anxious\nto imitate the civilised monarchs of his day that it is hard to believe\nhe established no library at Jerusalem. The library had been for untold\ncenturies as essential to the royal dignity in Western Asia or Egypt as\nthe temple or palace, and the annals of Menander imply that one existed\nat Tyre in the age of Hiram. Arch\u00e6ology has vindicated the authenticity\nof the letters that passed between Solomon and the Tyrian king (2 Chron.\nii. 3, 11); similar letters were written in Babylonia in the age of\nAbraham, and the tablets of Tel el-Amarna have demonstrated how frequent\nthey were in the ancient East. As in Babylonia and Assyria, so, too, in\nPalestine, they would have been preserved among the archives of the\nroyal library.\n\nHiram was nineteen years old when he ascended the throne, and he died at\nthe age of fifty-three. Solomon was probably of about the same age as\nhis friend both at his accession and at his death. He died, worn out by\nexcessive self-indulgence, leaving behind him an impoverished treasury,\na discontented people, and a tottering empire. But he had achieved one\ngreat result. Jerusalem had become the capital of a united Judah and\nBenjamin, Hebrew religion had obtained a local habitation round which\nhenceforward it could live and grow, and the dynasty of David was\nplanted firmly on the Jewish throne. When the disruption of the kingdom\ncame after Solomon\u2019s death, it did no more than give outward form to the\nestrangement that had so long been maturing between Judah and the\nnorthern tribes; the temple, the line of David, and the fortress-capital\nof Jerusalem remained unshaken. The work of David and Solomon was\naccomplished, though in a way of which they had not dreamed; and a\nnation was called into existence whom neither defeat nor exile,\npersecution nor contempt, has ever been able to destroy.\n\nFootnote 368:\n\n  We hear only of citizens of Mount Ephraim going up yearly to sacrifice\n  at Shiloh (1 Sam. i. 1-3).\n\nFootnote 369:\n\n  It must be remembered that at this time, before the rise of Judah,\n  Ephraim was the nearest neighbour of the Philistines as well as of the\n  Amalekites.\n\nFootnote 370:\n\n  It cannot be supposed, of course, that an Ephraimite would have\n  recorded the defeat and slaughter of his tribe at the hands of\n  Jephthah. But such a momentous disaster could not fail to become known\n  throughout Canaan, and some notice of it must have been taken by the\n  chroniclers of Ephraim themselves. Where and by whom, however, the\n  present account was composed it is vain to inquire, and the question\n  may be left for discussion to the philological critics. That Samuel,\n  who was brought up at Shiloh, could write we are assured in 1 Sam. x.\n  25.\n\nFootnote 371:\n\n  1 Sam. ix. 5; xiv. 1.\n\nFootnote 372:\n\n  1 Sam. ix. 18, 19. The disintegrating critics have assumed this\n  narrative to be primitive and contemporary because it presents us with\n  a picture of Samuel which seems to degrade him into an obscure local\n  soothsayer, and on the strength of it have disputed the antiquity of\n  such narratives as assign to him national influence. They might just\n  as well maintain that the only primitive and contemporary account of\n  King Alfred that we possess is the story of the burnt cakes at\n  Athelney.\n\nFootnote 373:\n\n  1 Sam. vii. 14.\n\nFootnote 374:\n\n  Zuph gave his name to \u2018the district of Zuph\u2019 (1 Sam. ix. 5), which has\n  the plural form in Ramathaim-zophim.\n\nFootnote 375:\n\n  Ephraim, however, may be, like Jerusalem, the older form of which has\n  been recovered from the cuneiform inscriptions, a later Massoretic\n  mispronunciation of an original plural Ephrim. The Massoretes have\n  erroneously introduced a dual form into the pronunciation of the name\n  Chushan-rishathaim, and probably also into that of Naharaim when\n  compared with the Egyptian Naharin and the Nahrima of the Tel\n  el-Amarna tablets. Perhaps the dual form Ephraim originated in the\n  existence of the two Ophrahs (with _\u2019ayin_), which are already\n  mentioned in the geographical lists of Thothmes III.\n\nFootnote 376:\n\n  2 Sam. viii. 18; see also 2 Sam. xx. 26. The Authorised Version\n  mistranslates the word in both passages.\n\nFootnote 377:\n\n  Translated by me in the _Records of the Past_, new ser., IV., pp.\n  109-113.\n\nFootnote 378:\n\n  See above, p. 244. The Hebrew Samuel could also represent a Babylonian\n  Sumu-il, \u2018Sumu is God\u2019 or \u2018the name of God,\u2019 which we actually find in\n  early Babylonian contracts.\n\nFootnote 379:\n\n  So, too, the Chronicler states that he was descended from Ithamar the\n  younger son of Aaron (1 Chron. xxiv. 3).\n\nFootnote 380:\n\n  It would seem from 1 Sam. iii. 3, as compared with Exod. xxvii. 21,\n  and Lev. xxiv. 3, that there was no veil at the time in \u2018the temple of\n  the Lord, where the ark of God was.\u2019\n\nFootnote 381:\n\n  \u2018The priest\u2019 of the narrative is equivalent to \u2018high priest\u2019: see\n  above, p. 219. Eli\u2019s two sons were naturally not on a level of\n  equality with himself. It has been gravely maintained that there were\n  only three priests at Shiloh at the time, because nothing is said\n  about any others; had the narrative not required the mention of Hophni\n  and Phinehas we should have been told there was only one. Such\n  trifling with historical documents is unfortunately only too\n  characteristic of the so-called \u2018literary criticism.\u2019\n\nFootnote 382:\n\n  It has been assumed that \u2018the women that assembled at the door of the\n  tabernacle of the congregation\u2019 (Exod. xxxviii. 8, 1 Sam. ii. 22) were\n  religious prostitutes like the _qedashoth_ in the Ph\u0153nician temples\n  (see Deut. xxiii. 17, 18). But the fact that the intercourse of the\n  sons of Eli with them was a sin in the eyes of both Yahveh and the\n  people proves the contrary. Here, as in other cases, an old\n  institution of Semitic religion was retained among the adherents of\n  the Mosaic law, but it was deprived of its pagan and immoral\n  characteristics.\n\nFootnote 383:\n\n  1 Sam. ix. 9.\n\nFootnote 384:\n\n  1 Sam. xix. 23. _N\u00e2b\u00ee_ is not of Arabic derivation as is often\n  supposed, as, for example, by Professor Cornill, _The Prophets of\n  Israel_, pp. 8-10, where it is erroneously stated that the Babylonian\n  _nab\u00fb_ does not mean \u2018to pronounce\u2019 or \u2018proclaim.\u2019 The name of Nebo\n  shows to what antiquity the Babylonian _nabium_ in its special sense\n  of \u2018prophet\u2019 reaches back. The modern Arabic _nebi_ is borrowed from\n  the Hebrew _n\u00e2b\u00ee_. _N\u00e2b\u00ee_ corresponds with the Greek \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n  \u2018forth-speaker,\u2019 as distinguished from \u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 or \u2018diviner,\u2019 the\n  Babylonian _asipu_. In Babylonia the _asipu_ performed the offices\n  which the Hebrew _roeh_ had once fulfilled; he determined whether an\n  army should move or not, whether victory would be on its side, whether\n  an undertaking would be prosperous or the reverse. While, therefore,\n  the _asipu_ and the _nabiu_ continued to exist side by side,\n  performing the functions which had been combined in the Hebrew _roeh_,\n  and at the outset in the Hebrew _n\u00e2b\u00ee_, among the Israelites the\n  _roeh_ disappeared, and the _n\u00e2b\u00ee_ alone remained with purely\n  prophetical attributes.\n\nFootnote 385:\n\n  Towards the end of Samuel\u2019s life, however, a Naioth or \u2018monastery\u2019\n  grew up around him at Ramah, which must have closely resembled the\n  Dervish colleges of the modern Mohammedan world; see 1 Sam. xix. 23.\n  This monastery will have taken the place of Shiloh, and become a\n  veritable \u2018school\u2019 of prophetical training and instruction.\n\nFootnote 386:\n\n  Gad, however, still retained the title of \u2018seer\u2019 (1 Chron. xxix. 29),\n  and one of the histories of the reign of Solomon was contained \u2018in the\n  visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam\u2019 (2 Chron. ix. 29). Even\n  Isaiah\u2019s history of Hezekiah was called \u2018the vision of Isaiah the\n  prophet\u2019 (2 Chron. xxxii. 32). But the title was merely a survival.\n\nFootnote 387:\n\n  We must, however, distinguish between Samuel\u2019s authority as a seer,\n  which did not excite the jealousy of his Philistine masters, and his\n  authority as a dispenser of justice. That was confined to a small area\n  in the heart of Mount Ephraim. Each year, we are told (1 Sam. vii. 16)\n  he went on circuit like a Babylonian judge, \u2018to Beth-el and Gilgal and\n  Mizpeh.\u2019 This is the Mizpeh of Benjamin.\n\nFootnote 388:\n\n  Ramah, \u2018the height,\u2019 is identified in 1 Sam. ii. 11 with Ramathaim,\n  \u2018the two heights.\u2019 The village evidently stood on two hills. For the\n  possible site of Aphek, see G. A. Smith, _The Historical Geography of\n  the Holy Land_, p. 224. Eben-ezer is identified with the great stone\n  at Beth-shemesh (1 Sam. vi. 14, 18) by M. Clermont-Ganneau (_Quarterly\n  Statement_ of the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1874, p. 279; 1877, pp.\n  154 _sqq._), but this is questionable.\n\nFootnote 389:\n\n  See my _Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_, p. 154;\n  and above, p. 196.\n\nFootnote 390:\n\n  1 Sam. iv. 13.\n\nFootnote 391:\n\n  The Septuagint text omits the \u2018eight.\u2019\n\nFootnote 392:\n\n  The Septuagint reads Ouai-bar-khab\u00f4th, \u2018Woe to the son of glory,\u2019 with\n  the insertion of the Aramaic _bar_, \u2018son.\u2019\n\nFootnote 393:\n\n  1 Sam. xiv. 3.\n\nFootnote 394:\n\n  As Abiathar was the contemporary of David, and his father Ahimelech or\n  Ahiah of Saul, Ahitub will have been the contemporary of Samuel. If\n  Solomon came to the throne about B.C. 965, and Saul was about forty\n  years of age at the time of his death, we should have about B.C. 1045\n  for the date of Saul\u2019s birth. Samuel was an old man when he died; if\n  he lived ten years after Saul\u2019s accession, and was ten years old when\n  the ark was taken, we may place his birth about B.C. 1090. This would\n  give about B.C. 1180 for the birth of Eli, or very shortly after the\n  Israelitish invasion of Canaan. The life of Eli would thus cover\n  almost the whole period of the Judges, and form a single link between\n  the Mosaic age and that of Samuel. In such a case it is not\n  astonishing that the records and traditions of the Mosaic age were\n  preserved at Shiloh. The ark was only seven months among the\n  Philistines (1 Sam. vi. 1), and it was removed from \u2018the house of\n  Abinadab\u2019 at Kirjath-jearim some time after the seventh year of David\n  (see, however, 1 Sam. xiv. 18). \u2018The sons of Abinadab,\u2019 in 2 Sam. vi.\n  4, must mean, as is so frequently the case, the descendants of\n  Abinadab.\n\nFootnote 395:\n\n  In Zeph. i. 9 there is an allusion to the practice of the Philistine\n  priests of \u2018leaping\u2019 over the threshold. For the origin and reason of\n  this sacredness of the threshold see Trumbull, _The Threshold\n  Covenant_, pp. 10-13, 116-126, 143. \u2018In Finland it is regarded as\n  unlucky if a clergyman steps on the threshold when he comes to preach\n  at a church.... In the Lapp tales the same idea appears.\u2019 (Jones and\n  Kropf, _Folk-Tales of the Magyars_, p. 410.)\n\nFootnote 396:\n\n  Philo Byblius according to Euseb., _Pr\u00e6p. Evangel._ i. 6.\n\nFootnote 397:\n\n  That Dagon was worshipped in Canaan before he was adopted by the\n  Philistine emigrants we know, not only from the evidence of\n  geographical names, but also from the fact that one of the Tel\n  el-Amarna correspondents in Palestine was called Dagan-takala.\n\nFootnote 398:\n\n  It is noticeable that Zophim in Ramathaim-zophim means \u2018Watchmen.\u2019\n  Poels (_Le Sanctuaire de Kirjath-jearim_, Louvain, 1894) has,\n  moreover, made it probable that Kirjath-jearim, Mizpeh, Gibeah, Geba,\n  and Gibeon all represent the same place.\n\nFootnote 399:\n\n  According to 1 Sam. vii. 2, the victory at Eben-ezer took place\n  \u2018twenty years\u2019 after the ark had been removed to Kirjath-jearim. But\n  this is merely the half of an unknown period, and means that the\n  interval of time was not long.\n\nFootnote 400:\n\n  1 Sam. vii. 13, 14. The area of independence, however, must have been\n  very confined, since there was a garrison of the Philistines in \u2018the\n  hill of God\u2019 at Gibeah (1 Sam. ix. 5), as well as one at Michmash (1\n  Sam. xiv. 1).\n\nFootnote 401:\n\n  There is no reason for doubting the very explicit statement made in 1\n  Sam. vii. 14, which explains and limits the preceding verse. Its\n  antiquity is vouched for by the concluding words: \u2018And there was peace\n  between Israel and the Amorites.\u2019 The term \u2018Amorite\u2019 instead of\n  \u2018Canaanite\u2019 points to an early date, and the sentence reads like an\n  extract from a contemporary chronicle. The peace was an enforced one,\n  as both Israelites and Canaanites alike were under the yoke of the\n  Philistines.\n\nFootnote 402:\n\n  See 2 Kings xviii. 4.\n\nFootnote 403:\n\n  1 Chron. xvi. 39, xxi. 293; 2 Chron. i. 3, 5.\n\nFootnote 404:\n\n  Is it an inference from 1 Kings iii. 4? That the Chronicler sometimes\n  drew erroneous inferences from his materials, I have shown in _The\n  Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_, p. 463. It is\n  difficult to understand how \u2018fixtures\u2019 like the tabernacle and the\n  altar escaped destruction when the temple at Shiloh was ruined.\n\nFootnote 405:\n\n  Kirjath-jearim was a Gibeonite town (Josh. ix. 17).\n\nFootnote 406:\n\n  1 Sam. ix. 3.\n\nFootnote 407:\n\n  1 Sam. viii. 2. Joel is called Vashni in 1 Chron. vi. 28, where the\n  Septuagint reads Sani.\n\nFootnote 408:\n\n  As has been noticed above (p. 315, note 1), the title of the supreme\n  god of Tyre is evidence that there, too, the state had been originally\n  regarded as a theocracy.\n\nFootnote 409:\n\n  The name of Saul corresponds with the Babylonian Savul, a title of the\n  Sun-god, though it might also be explained as a Hebrew word meaning\n  \u2018asked for.\u2019 But one of the Edomite kings was also named Saul, and he\n  is stated to have come from \u2018Rehoboth (Assyrian R\u00eabit) by the river\u2019\n  Euphrates (Gen. xxxvi. 37). This points to a Babylonian origin of the\n  name. Kish, Saul\u2019s father, has also the same name as the Edomite god\n  Qos (in Assyrian Qaus), of which the Canaanitish Kishon is a\n  derivative. As Saul\u2019s successors in Edom were Baal-hanan and Hadad,\n  while Hadad was a contemporary of Solomon, and El-hanan is said in 2\n  Sam. xxi. 19 to have been the slayer of Goliath, I have proposed (_The\n  Modern Review_, v. 17, 1884) to see in the Saul and Baal-hanan of Edom\n  the Saul and David of Israel. Saul is said to have fought against Edom\n  (1 Sam. xiv. 47), and Doeg the Edomite was his henchman. But the\n  proposal is excluded by two facts. The kings of Edom recorded in Gen.\n  xxxvi. 31-39 reigned \u2018before there was any king over the children of\n  Israel,\u2019 and Saul the son of Kish did not come from the Euphrates.\n\nFootnote 410:\n\n  1 Sam. ix. 3. In 1 Sam. x. 14-16, Saul\u2019s uncle takes the place of his\n  father.\n\nFootnote 411:\n\n  Much has been made of the supposed fact that Saul had never heard of\n  Samuel, and did not know that he was a seer. But the narrative only\n  says that Saul\u2019s slave informed him that a seer was in the town,\n  without mentioning his name; and if Saul had never previously seen\n  Samuel, he would naturally not recognise him in the crowd.\n\nFootnote 412:\n\n  That the prophets were at Gibeah is shown by the fact that \u2018the hill\n  of God,\u2019 where they met Saul, was also where \u2018the garrison of the\n  Philistines\u2019 was (1 Sam. x. 5, xiii. 2, 3).\n\nFootnote 413:\n\n  It has been usually supposed from this verse that \u2018Gibeah of Saul\u2019 was\n  the original home of Saul\u2019s family. But as the family burial-place was\n  at Zelah (2 Sam. xxi. 14), this can hardly have been the case. Gibeah\n  was the scene of Jonathan\u2019s first success against the Philistines, and\n  it was here that Saul fixed his residence during the latter years of\n  his life.\n\nFootnote 414:\n\n  Cp. Judg. xix. 29, where the Levite similarly cuts up his concubine\n  and sends the pieces to the several tribes of Israel.\n\nFootnote 415:\n\n  See my _Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_, pp. 463-4.\n  When Ahab came to the help of the Syrians against the Assyrian king\n  Shalmaneser, his whole force consisted of only ten thousand men and\n  two thousand chariots, and \u2018Assur-natsir-pal thinks it a subject of\n  boasting that he had slain fifty or one hundred and seventy-two of the\n  enemy in battle.\u2019 The whole of the country population of Judah carried\n  into captivity by Sennacherib was only two hundred thousand one\n  hundred and fifty, which would give at most an army of fifty thousand\n  men. The Egyptian armies, with which the victories of the eighteenth\n  and nineteenth dynasties were gained, were of small size. One of them,\n  in the time of the nineteenth dynasty, contained only three thousand\n  one hundred foreign mercenaries and one thousand nine hundred native\n  troops (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, Eng. tr., p. 542). At the same\n  time, we must not forget that if there were fifty thousand available\n  fighting men in Judah in the time of Hezekiah, there would have been\n  about three hundred and fifty thousand among the other seven tribes a\n  few generations earlier. Consequently the calculation given in the\n  text of 1 Sam. xi. 8 is approximately correct as a mere calculation.\n  Between available and actual fighting men there was, of course, a\n  great difference. In the second year of Saul\u2019s reign, when his\n  authority was established, he was not able to muster more than three\n  thousand fighting men (1 Sam. xiii. 2). A larger body, indeed, had\n  flocked to him, but they were an undisciplined, unarmed multitude, who\n  had to be dismissed to their homes.\n\nFootnote 416:\n\n  As the Hebrew _nets\u00eeb_ signifies a \u2018governor\u2019 as well as a \u2018fortified\n  post\u2019 or \u2018garrison,\u2019 many writers have maintained that the _nets\u00eeb_ in\n  \u2018the Hill of God\u2019 at Gibeah was the Philistine official. But Jonathan\n  would not have required a thousand men in order to destroy a single\n  official and the few soldiers who might have been with him.\n\nFootnote 417:\n\n  The Hebrews had, of course, no means of ascertaining the exact numbers\n  of the enemy. The number of chariots is quite impossible, and they\n  would have been useless in the mountainous country. In the great\n  battle in which Meneptah saved Egypt from the combined armies of the\n  Libyans and their northern allies, nine thousand three hundred and\n  seventy-six prisoners in all were taken, while the slain amounted to\n  six thousand three hundred and sixty-five Libyans and two thousand\n  three hundred and seventy of their Mediterranean confederates. To\n  these must be added nine thousand one hundred and eleven Maxyes. And\n  yet it does not seem that any of the invaders escaped from the battle.\n\nFootnote 418:\n\n  1 Sam. xiii. 6, 7. For the distinction that is here drawn between \u2018the\n  men of Israel\u2019 and \u2018the Hebrews,\u2019 see above, p. 6.\n\nFootnote 419:\n\n  The identification is uncertain, as it depends on the position to be\n  assigned to Gibeah.\n\nFootnote 420:\n\n  Ahimelech (1 Sam. xxii. 9, 11, 20) is here called Ahiah, perhaps out\n  of reluctance to apply the term Melech, \u2018King,\u2019 with its heathen\n  associations, to Yahveh.\n\nFootnote 421:\n\n  Here called by its old name of Beth-On, which the Massoretic\n  punctuation has transformed into Beth-Aven.\n\nFootnote 422:\n\n  Some of the literary critics have started the gratuitous supposition\n  that a prisoner was substituted for Jonathan, though the fact was\n  suppressed by the later Hebrew historian. It is perhaps natural that\n  those who re-write history should have a poor opinion of the\n  trustworthiness of their predecessors.\n\nFootnote 423:\n\n  1 Sam. xii.\n\nFootnote 424:\n\n  1 Sam. x. 8, compared with xiii. 8-15.\n\nFootnote 425:\n\n  1 Sam. xiii. 14. Though Saul\u2019s kingdom did \u2018not continue,\u2019 it\n  nevertheless lasted some time, and was not overthrown at Michmash, as\n  those who heard Samuel\u2019s words must have expected. As David was not\n  anointed until some years later, he cannot be \u2018the man\u2019 after Yahveh\u2019s\n  \u2018heart,\u2019 whom the seer had in his mind at the time.\n\nFootnote 426:\n\n  The _nakhal_ (A.V. \u2018valley\u2019) is probably the Wadi el-Ar\u00eesh, which lay\n  on the way to the Shur or line of fortifications that protected the\n  eastern side of the Delta. Havilah, the \u2018sandy\u2019 desert, corresponds\n  with the Melukhkha or \u2018Salt\u2019 desert of the Babylonian inscriptions.\n  The \u2018city of Amalek\u2019 may have been El-Ar\u00eesh, if this were not in\n  Egyptian hands at the time.\n\nFootnote 427:\n\n  The Israelites had been stirred to vengeance by the murderous raids of\n  the Bed\u00e2win at a time when the Philistine invasion had made them too\n  weak to defend themselves (1 Sam. xv. 33).\n\nFootnote 428:\n\n  For \u2018Edom\u2019 we should probably read \u2018Aram,\u2019 as is demanded by the\n  geographical order of the list of countries which runs from south to\n  north. In 2 Sam. viii. 13, \u2018Aram\u2019 has been substituted for \u2018Edom,\u2019\n  which was still read by the Chronicler (1 Chron. xviii. 12), and the\n  marriage of David with the daughter of the king of Aram-Geshur (2 Sam.\n  iii. 3) implies hostility between Saul and the Geshurites.\n\nFootnote 429:\n\n  The \u2018critics\u2019 have decided that the list of Saul\u2019s wars has been\n  \u2018borrowed\u2019 from the history of David. In this case, however, we should\n  have heard of \u2018the king\u2019 of Zobah, not of \u2018the kings.\u2019 We happen to\n  know that Saul fought against Ammon. Had the fact not been mentioned,\n  the \u2018critics\u2019 would have maintained, as in the case of Moab and Zobah,\n  that such a war never took place. The argument from silence may\n  simplify the process of reconstructing history, but from a historical\n  point of view it is worthless.\n\nFootnote 430:\n\n  Saul showed himself in other cases such a scrupulous observer of the\n  Law that we can well understand his obeying the precept of Deuteronomy\n  that the king should not \u2018multiply\u2019 horses or wives (Deut. xviii. 16,\n  17).\n\nFootnote 431:\n\n  1 Sam. xxii. 6.\n\nFootnote 432:\n\n  It is clear, however, from 1 Sam. xxi. 9, that there must be some\n  mistake here, since the sword of Goliath was laid up at Nob while Saul\n  was king.\n\nFootnote 433:\n\n  This must be an exaggeration, since David, who was not above the\n  ordinary size, afterwards used his sword (1 Sam. xxi. 9).\n\nFootnote 434:\n\n  The narrative goes on to say that \u2018David took the head of the\n  Philistine and brought it to Jerusalem; but he put his armour in his\n  tent.\u2019 This verse is given in the Septuagint, though the next nine\n  verses are omitted. But the statement cannot be right. Jerusalem was\n  not captured by David until many years after the battle in the valley\n  of Elah, and the shepherd lad had no tent of his own at the time.\n\nFootnote 435:\n\n  1 Chron. xx. 5. \u2018Beth-lehemite\u2019 is turned into \u2018Lahmi,\u2019 the name of\n  the \u2018brother\u2019 of Goliath, and the unintelligible _Yaare-oregim_\n  becomes _Yair_. _Oregim_, \u2018weavers,\u2019 however, has crept in from the\n  end of the verse, and the original reading of 1 Sam. xxi. 19 must have\n  been, \u2018El-hanan, the son of Yaari (the forester) the Beth-lehemite,\n  slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver\u2019s\n  beam.\u2019\n\nFootnote 436:\n\n  1 Kings xix. 15, 16; 2 Kings ix. 2, 3. Ahijah, however, did not anoint\n  Jeroboam when he suggested to him that he should head a revolt of the\n  ten tribes against the house of David. When David was made king at\n  Hebron he was anointed by \u2018the men of Judah,\u2019 not by a prophet (2 Sam.\n  ii. 4), and no mention is made of a prophet or priest when he was\n  anointed \u2018king over Israel\u2019 (2 Sam. v. 3).\n\nFootnote 437:\n\n  We must remember that in any case the act of anointing would have been\n  a secret, and that consequently an erroneous account of it might\n  easily have been set on foot.\n\nFootnote 438:\n\n  1 Sam. xviii. 6. The singular \u2018Philistine\u2019 has to be noted, as if\n  there was a reference in it to the overthrow of Goliath. Cf. xix. 5.\n\nFootnote 439:\n\n  See above, p. 342.\n\nFootnote 440:\n\n  It is also possible that chapter xx. ought to precede chapter xix.\n\nFootnote 441:\n\n  1 Sam. xix. 2.\n\nFootnote 442:\n\n  Hitzig identified the name of Achish with that of the Homeric\n  Ankhis\u00eas. Whether this is so or not, Dr. W. Max M\u00fcller is probably\n  right in seeing the same name in that of a native of Keft, or the\n  northern coast of Syria, mentioned in an Egyptian papyrus where it is\n  written Akashau (Spiegelberg in the _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie_,\n  viii. p. 384).\n\nFootnote 443:\n\n  Unless, indeed, 1 Sam. xxiii. 16-18 is an interpolation.\n\nFootnote 444:\n\n  1 Sam. xxiv. 2. Compare the expression used by Sennacherib when\n  describing his campaign against the Cilicians: \u2018Like a wild goat I\n  climbed to the high peaks against them\u2019 (W. A. I., i. 39, 77).\n\nFootnote 445:\n\n  The name is preserved in the modern Tell Zif.\n\nFootnote 446:\n\n  Shunem was a fortified city, already mentioned in the Tel el-Amarna\n  tablets, Aphek a mere village. Shunem had evidently been captured, and\n  the Philistine camp subsequently formed outside its walls a little to\n  the west.\n\nFootnote 447:\n\n  See Exod. xxii. 18; Lev. xx. 27; Deut. xviii. 10, 11.\n\nFootnote 448:\n\n  We are told in 1 Chron. xii. 19 that even while he was in the\n  Philistine camp at Aphek, and again when he was on the march back to\n  Ziklag, \u2018some of Manasseh\u2019 deserted to him.\n\nFootnote 449:\n\n  The Negeb or \u2018South\u2019 was divided at the time into the Negeb of the\n  Cherethites or Philistines, of the Jews, and of the Calebites (1 Sam.\n  xxx. 14, 16.) Up to the end of Saul\u2019s reign, therefore, Caleb and\n  Judah had not been as yet amalgamated into a single tribe.\n\nFootnote 450:\n\n  See above, p. 234.\n\nFootnote 451:\n\n  Aroer had belonged to Reuben (Josh. xiii. 16), Hormah, Ziklag,\n  Chor-ashan, and Ramoth of the south to Simeon (Josh. xix. 4-8.) It is\n  curious that no mention should be made of Beth-lehem, and it is\n  therefore possible that \u2018Beth-lehem\u2019 should be read in place of\n  \u2018Beth-el\u2019 in 1 Sam. xxx. 27. The Septuagint has Baith-Sour.\n\nFootnote 452:\n\n  Boaz, the grandfather of Jesse, is said to have been the son of Salmon\n  or Salma, who, according to 1 Chron. ii. 50, 51, was the founder of\n  Bethlehem, and the son of Caleb.\n\nFootnote 453:\n\n  Criticism has seen in the story told by the Amalekite a second version\n  of the death of Saul inconsistent with that which precedes it. The\n  inconsistency certainly exists, but that is because the Amalekite\u2019s\n  story was a fabrication, the object of which was to gain a reward from\n  David. There was this much truth in it, that Saul had been wounded and\n  had desired death; the Amalekite could easily have learned this from\n  those who had witnessed the last scene of Saul\u2019s life. But the fact\n  that he had robbed Saul\u2019s corpse shows that he must have come to the\n  ground after the flight of the Israelitish soldiers; he was, in fact,\n  one of those Bed\u00e2win thieves who, in Oriental warfare, still hang on\n  the skirts of the battle in the hope of murdering the wounded and\n  plundering the dead when it is over and the victors are pursuing the\n  vanquished.\n\nFootnote 454:\n\n  The translation is that of the Revised Version, with a slight change\n  in the 21st verse. The contrast between the preservation of the text\n  in this Song and in that of the Song of Deborah is great, no passage\n  in it being corrupt, and points to the more archaic character of the\n  latter, as well as to a confirmation of the fact that the Song of the\n  Bow was learnt in the schools from the time of its composition.\n\nFootnote 455:\n\n  Ish-Baal or Esh-Baal, \u2018the man of Baal,\u2019 is called Ishui in 1 Sam.\n  xiv. 49 (where the name of Abinadab is omitted; see 1 Chron. viii.\n  33). Later writers changed Baal into Bosheth, \u2018Shame,\u2019 in accordance\n  with the custom which grew up when the title of Baal came to signify\n  the god of Ph\u0153nicia, rather than Yahveh of Israel.\n\nFootnote 456:\n\n  That the reign of David \u2018in Hebron\u2019 continued for five years after the\n  death of Esh-Baal seems the most probable way of explaining the\n  statement in 2 Sam. ii. 10, that the reign of Saul\u2019s son lasted only\n  two years. It is certainly preferable to the usual supposition that\n  \u2018two\u2019 is a mistake for \u2018seven.\u2019\n\nFootnote 457:\n\n  The author of the books of Samuel did not know his age (2 Sam. ii.\n  10). In 1 Sam. xiv. 49 Ishui is named before Melchi-shua, but in 1\n  Chron. viii. 33 Esh-Baal is the youngest of Saul\u2019s children. That\n  Esh-Baal did not take part in the battle of Gilboa would suit equally\n  well with either hypothesis. Abner, the son of Ner, the son of Abiel,\n  was the great-uncle of Esh-Baal (1 Sam. xiv. 50, 51). As he was still\n  in the prime of life when he was murdered, it is reasonable to suppose\n  that his great-nephew was very young.\n\nFootnote 458:\n\n  1 Chron. ii. 16.\n\nFootnote 459:\n\n  If, as is probable, we should read \u2018Geshurites\u2019 for \u2018Ashurites\u2019 in 2\n  Sam. ii. 9, Esh-Baal would have claimed rule over Geshur, and\n  consequently would have been as much involved in war with the king of\n  that country as he was with David. We subsequently find the Aram\u00e6ans\n  in alliance with the Ammonites (2 Sam. x. 6, etc.), and the king of\n  Ammon was the ally of David against Esh-Baal (2 Sam. xi. 2). It is\n  probable that in 1 Sam. xiv. 47, \u2018Aram\u2019 must be read for \u2018Edom,\u2019 the\n  geographical position of which was not between Ammon and Zobah (see\n  above, p. 368); if so, Esh-Baal, in asserting his authority over\n  Geshur, would only have succeeded to his father\u2019s conquests.\n\nFootnote 460:\n\n  Absalom, as the son of a princess, would claim precedence of his two\n  elder brothers, who, although born after David\u2019s coronation, were\n  nevertheless not of royal descent on their mother\u2019s side. The name of\n  the eldest, the son of Ahinoam, was Amnon, that of the second, the son\n  of Abigail, is given as Chileab in the Hebrew text of Samuel, Daniel\n  in that of 1 Chron. iii. 1, the Septuagint reading Daluia (Dalbia) and\n  Damni\u00eal in the two passages. He seems to have died young. The fourth\n  son of David was Adonijah, the son of Haggith, who, by the death of\n  his three elder brothers, became the eldest son before his father\u2019s\n  death, while the fifth and sixth sons were Shephatiah, the son of\n  Abital, and Ithream, the son of Eglah. All were born in Hebron.\n\nFootnote 461:\n\n  2 Sam. iii. 17. This goes to show that Saul\u2019s suspicions of David were\n  founded on fact.\n\nFootnote 462:\n\n  The name of the Babylonian god Rimmon or Ramman implies that the\n  family of the murderers were idolaters. They are said to have been\n  originally from Beeroth, the inhabitants of which had fled to Gittaim\n  (2 Sam. iv. 3). If the flight had been due to Saul, the hostility of\n  the sons of Rimmon to the son of Saul would be explained. Beeroth was\n  one of the cities of the Gibeonites (Josh. ix. 17), and Saul, we learn\n  from 2 Sam. xxi. 1, had slain the Gibeonites.\n\nFootnote 463:\n\n  The name Merib-Baal, given by the Chronicler (1 Chron. viii. 34, ix.\n  40), is doubtless correct. In the books of Samuel Baal has, as usual,\n  been changed into Bosheth, and Merib corrupted into the senseless\n  Mephi.\n\nFootnote 464:\n\n  See 1 Chron. xi. 2, and xii. 38-40, where it is added that the\n  coronation-feast lasted for three days.\n\nFootnote 465:\n\n  See 2 Sam. xiii. 13-17.\n\nFootnote 466:\n\n  It is difficult to say whether the number of the _gibb\u00f4r\u00eem_ or\n  \u2018heroes\u2019 was actually restricted to thirty, or whether thirty was an\n  ideal number which was elastic in practice. In 2 Sam. xxiii.\n  thirty-seven \u2018heroes\u2019 are named, but some of these may have been\n  appointed to supply the place of others who had died or fallen in war.\n  To be included among the thirty was equivalent to receiving a Victoria\n  Cross.\n\nFootnote 467:\n\n  2 Sam. xxiii. 8, but the text is corrupt, and reads literally: \u2018He\n  that sitteth on the seat, a Takmonite, chief of the third (?); he is\n  Adino the Eznite, over eight hundred slain at one time.\u2019 The\n  Septuagint has: \u2018Yebosthe the Canaanite is chief of the third; Adino\n  the As\u00f4n\u00e6an is he who drew his sword against eight hundred warriors at\n  once\u2019; while the Chronicler (1 Chron. xi. 11) omitted the name of\n  Adino, and read: \u2018Jashobeam, a Khakmonite, chief of the captains; he\n  lifted up his spear against three hundred slain at one time.\u2019 For\n  Jashobeam the Septuagint gives Yesebada. Adino seems to be the Adnah\n  of 1 Chron. xii. 20, a Manassite who deserted to David when he was at\n  Ziklag. Jashobeam is the most probable form of the name, and there\n  must be some confusion between Jashobeam, who brandished his spear\n  over three hundred enemies, and an unknown Adino, who did the same\n  over eight hundred enemies.\n\nFootnote 468:\n\n  G. A. Smith, _The Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, p. 218.\n\nFootnote 469:\n\n  See 2 Sam. xxi. 15-22, xxiii. 8-17.\n\nFootnote 470:\n\n  If the name of Ishbi-benob, \u2018my seat is in Nob,\u2019 is correct, \u2018Gob\u2019\n  must be corrected into \u2018Nob.\u2019 But perhaps it is the name of the giant\n  which needs correction.\n\nFootnote 471:\n\n  See the map given by Stade, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, p. 268,\n  and my \u2018Topography of Pr\u00e6-exilic Jerusalem\u2019 in the _Quarterly\n  Statement_ of the Palestine Exploration Fund, Oct. 1883, pp. 215\n  _sqq._\n\nFootnote 472:\n\n  Bliss, \u2018Excavations at Jerusalem\u2019 in the _Quarterly Statement_ of the\n  Palestine Exploration Fund, Oct. 1896 and Jan. 1897.\n\nFootnote 473:\n\n  _Antiq._ viii. 5, 3; _C. Ap._ i. 18.\n\nFootnote 474:\n\n  It is, of course, possible that Abibal had been preceded by an earlier\n  Hiram of whom we otherwise know nothing, and who is meant in 2 Sam. v.\n  11. It is also possible that the use of Hiram\u2019s name in this passage\n  is proleptic, derived from the fact that it was he who subsequently\n  sent materials to David for the construction of the temple.\n\nFootnote 475:\n\n  1 Chron. xxii. 8.\n\nFootnote 476:\n\n  1 Kings v. 3.\n\nFootnote 477:\n\n  2 Sam. vi. 3. In Josh. xviii. 18 \u2018Gibeah of Kirjath\u2019 is given as one\n  of the cities of Benjamin. Like most of the Egyptian and Babylonian\n  cities it had a second and sacred name, Baal\u00ea-Judah, the city of \u2018Baal\n  of Judah\u2019 (2 Sam. vi. 2).\n\nFootnote 478:\n\n  The name of Obed-Edom, \u2018the servant of Edom,\u2019 shows that Edom was the\n  name of a deity as well as of a country, like Ammi, the patron-god of\n  Ammon, and it is met with in the monuments of Egypt. A papyrus (_Pap.\n  Leydens._ i. 343. 7) states that Atum or Edom was the wife of the\n  Canaanitish fire-god Reshpu, and one of the places in Palestine\n  captured by Thothmes III. was Shemesh-Edom (No. 51), \u2018the Sun-god is\n  Edom\u2019 (_Records of the Past_, new ser., v. p. 47).\n\nFootnote 479:\n\n  2 Chron. i. 3. See above, p. 353.\n\nFootnote 480:\n\n  This must be the general signification of the Hebrew expression\n  _Metheg-ammah_ in 2 Sam. viii. i., which the Septuagint translates \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n  \u1f00\u03c6\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, \u2018the tribute.\u2019 The Chronicler read Gath for Metheg (1\n  Chron. xviii. 1), and consequently understood _ammah_ in the sense of\n  \u2018mother-city.\u2019 My own belief is that we have in the phrase a Hebrew\n  transcription of a Babylonian expression which has been derived from a\n  cuneiform document. The Babylonian _m\u00eat\u00eag ammati_ (for _m\u00eat\u00eaq ammati_)\n  would signify \u2018the highroad of the mainland\u2019 of Palestine, and would\n  refer to the command of the highroad of trade which passed through\n  Canaan from Asia to Egypt and Arabia. _Ammati_ is the Semitic\n  equivalent of the Sumerian Sarsar (W. A. I. v. 18, 32 _c._), which was\n  an early Babylonian name of the land of the Amorites or Syria (W. A.\n  I. ii. 51, 19; see _Records of the Past_, new ser., v. p. 107); and\n  _m\u00eat\u00eaq_ is given as a rendering of _kharran_, \u2018a highroad\u2019 (W. A. I.\n  ii. 38, 26).\n\nFootnote 481:\n\n  2 Sam. xxiii. 20.\n\nFootnote 482:\n\n  See my _Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_, p. 367.\n\nFootnote 483:\n\n  _Ibid._ pp. 349, 350.\n\nFootnote 484:\n\n  The Septuagint has misread \u2018Amalek\u2019 for \u2018Maacah.\u2019\n\nFootnote 485:\n\n  El-H\u00eeba probably stands on the site of the Egyptian town of H\u00e2-Bennu,\n  the Greek Hipponon, the capital of the eighteenth nome of Upper Egypt,\n  and its fortifications were built by the high priest Men-kheper-Ra and\n  his wife Isis-em-Kheb. The Tanite Pharaohs formed the twenty-first\n  dynasty.\n\nFootnote 486:\n\n  See Delitzsch, _Wo lag das Paradies_, pp. 279-280. Assur-bani-pal\n  states that he sent his troops against the cities of Azar-el, the\n  Khirat\u00e2qazians, Edom, Yabrudu, Bit-Ammani or Ammon, \u2018the district of\n  the city of the Haur\u00e2n\u2019 (_Khaurina_), Moab, Sakharri, Kharg\u00ea, and \u2018the\n  district of the city of Tsubit\u00ea, or Zobah.\u2019 Delitzsch identifies\n  Yabrudu with the Yabruda of Ptolemy, the modern Yabr\u00fbd, north-east of\n  Damascus. In the tribute-lists of the Second Assyrian Empire, Tsubit\u00ea\n  or Tsubutu comes between D\u00fbru (_Tant\u00fbra_) and Hamath, Samalla\n  (_Sinjerli_) and Khatarikka or Hadrach (Zech. ix. 1.), and Zemar\n  (_Sumra_), and the Qu\u00ea on the coast of the Gulf of Antioch.\n\nFootnote 487:\n\n  The fact that the Assyrian king Shalmaneser II. calls Baasha, the\n  contemporary king of Ammon, \u2018the son of Rukhubi\u2019 or Rehob, just as he\n  calls Jehu \u2018the son of Omri,\u2019 shows that Rehob was a personal name.\n  The Biblical Beth-Rehob is parallel to Bit-Omri, a designation of\n  Samaria in the Assyrian texts. Beth-Rehob is placed near Dan in Judg.\n  xviii. 28. In 1 Chron. xix. 6, Aram-Naharaim is apparently substituted\n  for Aram-Beth-Rehob, though, as the dominions of Hadad-ezer extended\n  to the Euphrates, soldiers may have come to the help of the Ammonites\n  from Mesopotamia, as well as from Beth-Rehob. The name of Hadad-ezer\n  is incorrectly given as Hadar-ezer in 2 Sam. x. 16. It appears as\n  Hadad-idri in the Assyrian inscriptions (with the Aramaic change of\n  _z_ to _d_), where it is the name of the king of Damascus, called\n  Ben-Hadad II. in the Old Testament.\n\nFootnote 488:\n\n  So, according to the Septuagint and 1 Chron. xviii. 4. The Hebrew text\n  of 2 Sam. viii. 4 has \u2018700 horsemen.\u2019 But it is possible that we ought\n  to read \u20181700 horsemen.\u2019\n\nFootnote 489:\n\n  Nicolaus Damascenus, as quoted by Josephus, makes Hadad the king of\n  Damascus, who thus vainly endeavoured to check the torrent of\n  Israelitish success. Hadad, however, must be merely Hadad-ezer in an\n  abbreviated form, Perhaps we may gather from 1 Kings xi. 23, that the\n  ruling prince in Damascus at the time of David\u2019s conquests was Rezon,\n  the son of Eliadah.\n\nFootnote 490:\n\n  1 Chron. xix. 18. In 2 Sam. x. 18, the numbers are 700 charioteers and\n  40,000 horsemen, which are clearly wrong.\n\nFootnote 491:\n\n  The account of the war with Zobah given above is the most probable\n  that can be gleaned from the scanty and fragmentary notices that have\n  been preserved to us. But it must be remembered that it is probable\n  only. It is not even certain that \u2018the Syrians that were beyond the\n  river\u2019 (2 Sam. x. 16) were not the Aram\u00e6ans of Damascus rather than\n  those of Mesopotamia, since, as Professor Hommel has shown (_Ancient\n  Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, pp. 195 _sqq._) the\n  term _Ebir N\u00e2ri_, \u2018Beyond the river,\u2019 is already used in an Assyrian\n  poem (K. 3500, l. 9) of the age of David, in the Assyro-Babylonian\n  sense of the country westward of the Euphrates. Indeed, Professor\n  Hommel suggests that it already denoted the country westward of the\n  Jordan. This, however, is inconsistent with 2 Sam. x. 17; and west of\n  the Jordan, moreover, there were no Aram\u00e6an kingdoms.\n\nFootnote 492:\n\n  The Chronicler (1 Chron. xviii. 8) has preserved the true form of the\n  name of Tibhath, which has been corrupted into Betah in 2 Sam. viii.\n  8. It is the Tubikhi of the Tel el-Amarna tablets, the Dbkhu of the\n  geographical list of Thothmes III. (No. 6). Instead of Berothai the\n  Chronicler has Chun.\n\nFootnote 493:\n\n  1 Chron. xviii. 8.\n\nFootnote 494:\n\n  Hadoram, the older form of the name, is found only in 1 Chron. xviii.\n  10. The text of the books of Samuel has the Hebraised Joram.\n\nFootnote 495:\n\n  Salamanu appears as Shalman in Hos. x. 14, as Sulmanu in\n  Assyro-Babylonian. Sulmanu was the god of Peace, like Selaman\u00eas in a\n  Greek inscription from Sh\u00eakh Barak\u00e2t in northern Syria, whose name is\n  also found in a Ph\u0153nician inscription from Sidon (Clermont-Ganneau,\n  _Biblioth\u00e8que de l\u2019\u00c9cole des Hautes \u00c9tudes_ CXIII., vol. ii. pp. 40,\n  48).\n\nFootnote 496:\n\n  This is usually supposed to mean that they were tortured in various\n  ways, but more probably it means only that they were made public\n  slaves and compelled to cut and saw wood, harrow the ground, and make\n  bricks. At all events, if tortures are referred to, no parallel to\n  them can be found elsewhere. As the crown is said to have weighed \u2018a\n  talent\u2019 it can hardly have been worn by an earthly king.\n\nFootnote 497:\n\n  2 Sam. viii. 13. In 1 Chron. xviii. 12, however, the victory is\n  ascribed to Abishai, the brother of Joab.\n\nFootnote 498:\n\n  2 Sam. viii. 13, where the mention of \u2018the valley of salt\u2019 shows that\n  we must read \u2018Edom\u2019 instead of \u2018Aram,\u2019 as indeed is done by the\n  Chronicler as well as in the superscription of Ps. lx. and in the\n  Septuagint. The \u2018valley of salt\u2019 was part of the Melukhkha or\n  \u2018Saltland\u2019 of the cuneiform inscriptions.\n\nFootnote 499:\n\n  2 Sam. xxiii. 37, 36, 34.\n\nFootnote 500:\n\n  1 Kings xi. 21.\n\nFootnote 501:\n\n  This was Ithra who \u2018went in\u2019 to Abigail, the daughter of Nahash, the\n  sister of Zeruiah, Joab\u2019s mother (2 Sam. xvii. 25). The form of\n  expression may imply that Abigail was seduced. If so, the hostility of\n  Joab would be easily accounted for.\n\nFootnote 502:\n\n  It is probable that \u2018Shobi the son of Nahash of Rabbah of the children\n  of Ammon\u2019 (2 Sam. xvii. 27) was a brother of the last king of Ammon,\n  and it is even possible that he may have been the cause of the\n  Ammonite war. If he had been a rival of his brother Khanun, and had\n  received shelter and protection from David, we should have an\n  explanation of the otherwise gratuitous insult offered by Khanun to\n  the ambassadors of the Israelitish king.\n\nFootnote 503:\n\n  That the forest was on the eastern bank of the Jordan is plain from\n  Josh. xvii. 15-18 and 2 Sam. xix. 31.\n\nFootnote 504:\n\n  It is called Abel-Maim, \u2018Abel of the Waters,\u2019 in 2 Chron. xvi. 4,\n  compared with 1 Kings xv. 20. In 2 Sam. xx. 14, we should perhaps\n  read, \u2018And all the young warriors\u2019 (_bakh\u00fbr\u00eem_ for _b\u00ear\u00eem_) \u2018were\n  gathered together,\u2019 as the Septuagint has \u2018all in Kharri,\u2019 and the\n  Vulgate \u2018viri electi.\u2019\n\nFootnote 505:\n\n  2 Sam. xxiv. 6, according to Lucian\u2019s recension of the Greek\n  translation (\u2018Khettieim Kad\u00eas\u2019). See Field, _Origenis Hexaplorum qu\u00e6\n  supersunt_, i. p. 587.\n\nFootnote 506:\n\n  2 Sam. xix. 29. Ziba, the steward of Mephibosheth, who was lame, had\n  accused his master of aiming at the kingdom, and David had accordingly\n  given him all Mephibosheth\u2019s property. David not only had believed the\n  accusation, but in spite of Mephibosheth\u2019s protests and excuses, must\n  have continued to do so, since Ziba, so far from being punished, was\n  allowed to retain half his master\u2019s possessions. The Jewish historian\n  evidently takes a different view from that of David, and regards the\n  accusation as false. Mephibosheth is more correctly written Merib-Baal\n  in 1 Chron. viii. 34; ix. 40.\n\nFootnote 507:\n\n  \u2018Adriel, the son of Barzillai the Meholathite\u2019 (2 Sam. xxi. 8), cannot\n  be the same as Phaltiel or \u2018Phalti the son of Laish of Gallim\u2019 (1 Sam.\n  xxv. 44), to whom Saul had given Michal after David\u2019s flight, and from\n  whom David afterwards took her (2 Sam. iii. 16). As Michal never seems\n  to have subsequently left the har\u00eem of David (2 Sam. vi. 23), it would\n  appear that the name of Michal in 2 Sam. xxi. 8 must be a mistake for\n  that of some other daughter of Saul.\n\nFootnote 508:\n\n  See 2 Sam. xxiv. 23, where the Septuagint has \u2018Orna(n) the king.\u2019 The\n  various spellings of the name Araunah, Araniah (2 Sam. xxiv. 18), and\n  Ornan (1 Chron. xxi. 15) show that it was a foreign word, the\n  pronunciation of which was not clear to the Israelites. Araniah is an\n  assimilation to a Hebrew name.\n\nFootnote 509:\n\n  2 Sam. xxiv. 6.\n\nFootnote 510:\n\n  In 1 Kings v. 3, 4, the reason why David could not build the temple is\n  given a little differently. It is there stated to have been because of\n  the constant wars in which he was engaged which prevented him from\n  securing the needful leisure for the work. This reason, however, does\n  not apply to the latter part of David\u2019s reign.\n\nFootnote 511:\n\n  The Chronicler (1 Chron. xviii. 16) reads Shavsha, apparently through\n  a confusion with the later Sheva (2 Sam. xx. 25). However, the\n  Septuagint has Sasa in 2 Sam. viii. 17, and the two scribes of Solomon\n  at the beginning of his reign were the sons of Shisha (1 Kings iv. 3).\n\nFootnote 512:\n\n  The genealogy of the high priests is involved in a confusion which\n  with our present materials it is hopeless to unravel. In 1 Sam. xiv.\n  3, Ahimelech is called Ahiah, and in 2 Sam. viii. 17, as well as in\n  the document used in 1 Chron. xxiv. (verses 3, 6, and 31), he is made\n  the son of Abiathar instead of his father. In 1 Chron. xviii. 16, the\n  name is transformed into Abimelech, and in 1 Chron. xxiv. Ahimelech\n  and Abiathar are stated to have been descended from Ithamar the son of\n  Aaron, and not from his brother Eleazar. That the genealogy in 1\n  Chron. vi. 4 _sqq._ is corrupt is evident not only from the repetition\n  of the triplet Amariah, Ahitub, and Zadok in verses 7, 8, and 11, 12,\n  but also from the statement that Azariah four generations after Zadok\n  \u2018executed the priest\u2019s office\u2019 in Solomon\u2019s temple. In 1 Chron. ix.\n  11; Neh. xi. 11, again, the order is \u2018Zadok the son of Meraioth the\n  son of Ahitub,\u2019 whereas in 1 Chron. vi. 7, 8, and 52, 53, it is Zadok\n  the son of Ahitub the son of Amariah the son of Meraioth.\n\nFootnote 513:\n\n  Hadoram (2 Chron. x. 18) is written Adoram in 2 Sam. xx. 24, and\n  Adoniram in 1 Kings iv. 6. Adoni-ram is a Hebraised form of the\n  original name Addu-ramu, \u2018Hadad is exalted.\u2019 His father\u2019s name, Abda,\n  has an Aramaic termination. An early Babylonian seal-cylinder in the\n  collection of M. de Clercq has upon it the name of Abdu-ramu.\n\nFootnote 514:\n\n  See above, p. 92.\n\nFootnote 515:\n\n  1 Chron. xxvii. 25-32.\n\nFootnote 516:\n\n  The Jewish historian includes among those who refused to go with\n  Adonijah the otherwise unknown Shimei and Rei (1 Kings i. 8). They are\n  referred to as well-known personages, implying that the writer must\n  have had before him a large collection of documents relating to the\n  history of the time, most of which have now perished.\n\nFootnote 517:\n\n  As Barzillai was already eighty years of age at the time of David\u2019s\n  flight (2 Sam. xix. 35), the death of David could not have happened\n  very long after that event. That Joab and Abiathar were still vigorous\n  implies the same thing. As for the authenticity of David\u2019s dying\n  instructions, there is no reason to question it. A later writer is not\n  likely to have gratuitously credited them to David; and inconsistent\n  though they may seem to us with David\u2019s piety, they were in full\n  keeping with his character as well as with that of other Israelites of\n  his age. If they had been falsely ascribed to David by Solomon\u2019s\n  admirers after the murder of Joab and Shimei, Adonijah also would have\n  been included among the victims.\n\nFootnote 518:\n\n  _E.g._ Ps. lx.\n\nFootnote 519:\n\n  _E.g._ Ps. cviii.\n\nFootnote 520:\n\n  See my Hibbert Lectures on the _Religion of the Ancient Babylonians_,\n  pp. 348-356. Thus we read:\u2014\n\n      \u2018O lord, my sins are many, my transgressions are great!\n      O my goddess, my sins are many, my transgressions are great!\n\n      The sin that I sinned I knew not.\n      The transgression I committed I knew not.\n      The cursed thing that I ate I knew not.\n      The cursed thing that I trampled on I knew not.\n      The lord in the wrath of his heart has regarded me;\n      God in the fierceness of his heart has revealed himself to me.\n\n      I sought for help and none took my hand;\n      I wept and none stood at my side;\n      I cried aloud and there was none that heard me.\n      I am in trouble and hiding; I dare not look up.\n      To my god, the merciful one, I turn myself, I utter my prayer;\n\n      O my god, seven times seven are my transgressions; forgive my\n         sins!\n      O my goddess, seven times seven are my transgressions; forgive my\n         sins!\u2019\n\nFootnote 521:\n\n  See above, p. 175.\n\nFootnote 522:\n\n  _Cont. Ap._ i. 17, 18.\n\nFootnote 523:\n\n  The single reigns are:\u2014(1) Hiram for thirty-four years; (2) Baleazor\n  for seven years according to the Armenian version of Eusebius and the\n  Synkellos, seventeen years according to Niese\u2019s text of Josephus; (3)\n  Abdastartos nine years; (4) Methuastartos twelve years; (5) Astarymos\n  nine years; (6) Phelles eight months; (7) Eithobalos or Eth-Baal\n  thirty-two years (forty-eight years according to Theophilus _ad\n  Autolyc._ III.); (8) Balezor six years (seven years according to\n  Theoph., eight years according to Euseb. and the Synk.); (9) Matgenos\n  twenty-nine years (twenty-five years according to the Arm. Vers. of\n  Euseb.); (10) Pygmalion forty-seven years.\n\nFootnote 524:\n\n  _I.e._ seventy-two years after the foundation of Rome; Trogus Pompeius\n  _ap._ Justin. xviii. 7; Oros. iv. 6. Velleius Paterculus (i. 6) makes\n  it seven years later.\n\nFootnote 525:\n\n  See 1 Kings xii. 18. For the forced labour or _corv\u00e9e_ see 1 Kings v.\n  13, 14.\n\nFootnote 526:\n\n  The Vatican manuscript of the Septuagint has a wholly different list\n  from that of the Hebrew text, Baasha the son of Ahithalam taking the\n  place of Azariah as Vizier, Abi the son of Joab being\n  commander-in-chief, and Ahira the son of Edrei tax-master, while\n  Benaiah remains commander of the bodyguard as in David\u2019s reign. The\n  list is perhaps derived from a document that belonged to the early\n  part of Solomon\u2019s reign. The Syriac reads Zakkur for Zabud, the royal\n  chaplain; but Zabud is supported by the Vatican Septuagint, which\n  makes him the chief councillor. For the reading \u2018army\u2019 or \u2018bodyguard\u2019\n  instead of the senseless \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2 in iv. 6, see Field, _Origenis\n  Hexaplorum qu\u00e6 supersunt_, i. p. 598.\n\nFootnote 527:\n\n  See Hommel, _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition_, pp. 252 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 528:\n\n  The papyrus in which the history of the expedition is recorded is\n  preserved in the Hermitage at St. Petersburg, and has not yet been\n  published. Mr. Gol\u00e9nischeff, its discoverer, however, has given me a\n  verbal account of it.\n\nFootnote 529:\n\n  There is no gold in Southern Arabia, and consequently Ophir must have\n  been an emporium to which the gold was brought for transhipment from\n  elsewhere. The mines were probably at Zimbabwe and the neighbourhood,\n  where Mr. Theodore Bent made important excavations. For the site of\n  Ophir, which may have been near Gerrha in the Persian Gulf, see Sayce\n  in the _Proceedings_ of the Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology, June 1896,\n  p. 174.\n\nFootnote 530:\n\n  1 Kings v. 16. These taskmasters must be distinguished from the 550\n  (or 250 according to 2 Chron. viii. 10) who superintended the work in\n  Jerusalem itself (ix. 23), on which no Israelites were employed, but\n  only native Canaanites (ix. 21, 22). The Chronicler makes the\n  overseers of the preparatory work 3600 in number (2 Chron. ii. 18),\n  the _corv\u00e9e_ itself consisting of 150,000 men.\n\nFootnote 531:\n\n  See my article in the _Quarterly Statement_ of the Palestine\n  Exploration Fund, 1883, pp. 215-223, where I have staked the\n  justification of my views on the discovery of the \u2018stairs\u2019 near the\n  spot where the rock-cut steps have been found by Dr. Bliss (_Ibid._\n  1896-97). Dr. Guthe first noticed that a shallow valley once existed\n  between the Temple-hill and the so-called \u2018Ophel.\u2019\n\nFootnote 532:\n\n  The columns were 18 cubits high (1 Kings vii. 15), though the\n  Chronicler (2 Chron. iii. 15) makes them 35 cubits or 52-1/2 feet. The\n  _khamm\u00e2n\u00eem_ or \u2018Sun-pillars,\u2019 dedicated to the Sun and associated with\n  the worship of Asherah and Baal, are often referred to in the Old\n  Testament (2 Chron. xxxiv. 4; Is. xvii. 8, etc.), and are mentioned in\n  a Palmyrene inscription.\n\nFootnote 533:\n\n  A translation of the hymn is given in my Hibbert Lectures on the\n  _Religion of the Ancient Babylonians_, pp. 495, 496; see also p. 63.\n\nFootnote 534:\n\n  Layard, _Monuments of Nineveh_, i. plate 7A.\n\nFootnote 535:\n\n  See above, p. 196.\n\nFootnote 536:\n\n  Herod. i. 181.\n\nFootnote 537:\n\n  See Ball, _The India House Inscription of Nebuchadrezzar_ in the\n  _Records of the Past_, new ser., iii. pp. 104-123.\n\nFootnote 538:\n\n  1 Kings viii. 2. In vi. 38, however, it is said that the work was not\n  completed until the eighth month of the year, the Ph\u0153nician Bul.\n\nFootnote 539:\n\n  To these the Chronicler adds \u2018Beth-horon the Upper\u2019 (2 Chron. viii.\n  5). Possibly the two Beth-horons were fortified in connection with the\n  reservoirs which Solomon is supposed to have constructed in order to\n  supply Jerusalem with water. Baalath was, strictly speaking, in Dan\n  (Josh. xix. 44). The Latin form Palmyra comes from Tadmor by\n  assimilation to _palma_, \u2018a palm.\u2019 The change of _d_ to _l_ in Latin\n  words is familiar to etymologists, and the initial _p_ for _t_ is\n  paralleled by _pavo_, \u2018a peacock,\u2019 from the Greek \u03c4\u03b1\u1f67\u03c2 (Persian\n  _t\u00e2w\u00fbs_). One of the Septuagint MSS. has Thermath for Tadmor, but in\n  the ordinary text the whole passage is omitted.\n\nFootnote 540:\n\n  Thus \u2018Beth-horon the Upper\u2019 is omitted in the verse, and the words \u2018in\n  the land\u2019 (of Judah) have been transposed to the end of it, instead of\n  coming as they should after \u2018Baalath.\u2019\n\nFootnote 541:\n\n  _Records of the Past_, new ser., i. p. 115.\n\nFootnote 542:\n\n  1 Kings iv. 33. That books are meant, and not lectures such as were\n  given to his subjects by the Egyptian king Khu-n-Aten, seems evident\n  from verse 32, compared with Prov. xxv. 1.\n\nFootnote 543:\n\n  \u2018The enemies of Assur,\u2019 says Assur-natsir-pal, he \u2018has combated to\n  their furthest bounds above and below\u2019 (_Records of the Past_, new\n  ser., ii. p. 136); \u2018Countries, mountains, fortresses, and kinglets,\n  the enemies of Assur, I have conquered,\u2019 says Tiglath-pileser I.\n  (_Records of the Past_, new ser., i. p. 94).\n\n\n\n\n                                 INDEX.\n\n\n A\n\n Aaron, 34, 134, 162, 165, 201, 215, 218, 221, 223, 245.\n\n Abarim, 7, 226, 244.\n\n Abdiel, 13, 38.\n\n Abdon, 322.\n\n Abel (city), 436.\n\n Abel-mizraim, 98.\n\n Abesukh (Abishua), 13.\n\n Abi, 459.\n\n Abiah, 355.\n\n Abiathar, 348, 381, 388, 391, 431, 443, 444, 445, 447, 455.\n\n Abibal, 410, 411, 437, 452, 453, 462.\n\n Abiel, 399.\n\n Abi-ezrites, 305, 307, 309, 311.\n\n Abigail, 384, 401, 431.\n\n Abimelech, 242, 306, 310, 316 _sq._\n\n Abimelech of Gerar, 63.\n\n Abinadab, 348, 352, 398.\n\n Abinoam, 299, 303.\n\n Abishag, 445, 455.\n\n Abishai, 384, 408, 417, 426, 432, 436.\n\n Abishar, 459.\n\n Abital, 401.\n\n Abner, 371, 374 _sq._, 436.\n\n Abraham, etymology of, 33, 34.\n   age of, 143.\n\n Abram (Abi-ramu), 13, 38, 128.\n\n _abr\u00eak_, 87.\n\n Absalom, 146, 401, 429 _sq._, 448.\n\n Abulfarag, 95.\n\n Achan, 251.\n\n Achish, 378, 385, 389.\n\n Achshaph, 259.\n\n Adam (city), 248.\n\n Adino, 406.\n\n Adoni-bezek, 267.\n\n Adonijah, 401, 445, 446, 447, 455.\n\n Adoni-zedek, 254.\n\n Adoram. _See_ Hadoram.\n\n Adriel, 439.\n\n Adullam, 379, 405.\n\n Agag, 367.\n\n Ahiah. _See_ Ahimelech.\n\n Ahijah, 373, 376, 476.\n\n Ahimaaz, 369, 431, 433, 459.\n\n\n Ahimelech or Ahiah, 348, 363, 365, 378, 381, 443.\n   the Hittite, 384.\n\n Ahinoam, 369.\n   wife of David, 384, 401.\n\n Ahira, 459.\n\n Ahitophel, 430, 432.\n\n Ahitub, 348, 349, 353, 443.\n\n Ahmes, 148.\n   \u2018Captain,\u2019 89, 92, 95.\n\n Aholiab, 198.\n\n Ai, 14, 247, 251, 254, 258, 269.\n\n Aijalon, 257, 363.\n   in Zebulon, 322.\n\n Akiamos, 292, 293.\n\n Aleppo, 421.\n\n Alexander the Great, 185.\n\n Allon-bachuth, 298.\n\n _al\u00fbph\u00eem_, 67, 224.\n\n Amalek, city of, 367.\n\n Amalekites, 43, 46, 186, 189, 215, 230, 234, 247, 289, 303, 307, 322,\n    367, 386, 391, 392, 395, 426.\n\n Amasa, 431 _sq._\n\n amber, 475.\n\n Ameni, 175, 231.\n\n Amen\u00f4phis, 173, 174.\n\n Amen\u00f4phis, IV. or Khu-n-Aten, 155, 287.\n\n Ammi, 13, 39, 413.\n\n Ammi-satana (dhitana), 12.\n\n Ammiya, 229.\n\n Ammi-zadoq, 7, 13, 14, 39, 40.\n\n Ammo, 40, 228.\n\n Ammon, 13, 39, 44, 227, 289, 358, 401, 417 _sq._, 427, 457.\n\n Ammonites, 322, 323, 398, 432.\n\n Amnon, 401, 429.\n\n Amon, 156, 158, 237.\n\n Amorites, 2, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, 21, 24, 38, 42 _sq._, 56, 57, 231,\n    252, 264, 285, 292, 353, 415.\n\n Amram, 162.\n\n Amraphel (_see_ Khammu-rabi), 12, 24, 117, 126, 128, 147, 149, 295.\n\n Amu, 6.\n\n Amurru (Amorites), 15, 30, 42.\n\n Anab, 266.\n\n Anakim, 41, 53, 294, 370.\n\n Anath, 295.\n\n Anathoth, 237, 455.\n\n angels, Babylonian, 194.\n\n Ansar\u00eeyeh, 37.\n\n Anu, 295, 350.\n\n Anuti, 3.\n\n Aperu, 3.\n\n Aphek, 261, 262, 346, 387, 391.\n\n Apophis, 23, 85, 95, 99, 148.\n\n Apuriu, 2, 173.\n\n Ar, 44, 227.\n\n Arad, 182, 217, 257, 263, 329.\n\n Aram, 368, 401, 417, 473, 478.\n\n Aramaic, 34 _sq._\n\n Araunah, 441.\n\n Arba, 53.\n\n Argob, 227, 322.\n\n _ariel_, 416.\n\n Arioch (_see_ Eri-Aku), 11, 24, 26, 58, 128.\n\n ark, 196 _sq._, 346 _sq._, 354, 413, 456, 468.\n\n Arnon, 43, 222, 223, 226.\n\n Aroer, 392, 393.\n\n Arphaxad, 143.\n\n Arrian, 185.\n\n Arumah, 318.\n\n Arvad, 231, 285, 461.\n\n Asahel, 400.\n\n Asenath, 84.\n\n Ashdod, 292, 293, 349, 351.\n\n Asher, 78, 248, 304, 311, 314.\n\n Asherah (Asratu), 15, 241, 274, 307, 468.\n\n Ashkelon, 56, 159, 292, 396.\n\n Ashtaroth-Karnaim, 24, 41, 223, 227.\n\n Ashurites, 401.\n\n Asshurim, 7, 223, 231.\n\n Assur-bil-kala, 231.\n\n Assur-irbi, 231, 437.\n\n Assur-natsir-pal, 359, 478.\n\n Assyrians, 21, etc., 418, 451.\n\n Astruc, 105.\n\n _asyla_, 235, 236.\n\n Aten-Ra, 156.\n\n Atonement, day of, 134.\n\n Aup, 229.\n\n Avaris, 23, 173.\n\n Avim, 294.\n\n Azariah, 459.\n\n Azekah, 369.\n\n Azmaveth, 445.\n\n\n B\n\n Baal, 308.\n\n Baalath of Judah, 471.\n\n Baal-berith, 283, 310.\n\n Baale-Judah, 413.\n\n Baal-hanan, 356, 445.\n\n Baal-Peor, 233, 244.\n\n Baal-perazim, 407.\n\n Baal-zephon, 181.\n\n Baanah, 404.\n\n Baasha, 459.\n\n Baba, 93.\n\n Babylon, 11, 12.\n\n Babylonia, 2, etc.\n   kings of, 12, 147.\n\n Babylonian law, 57 _sq._\n   ritual, 204.\n\n Bad-makh-dingirene, 26.\n\n Baethgen, 306.\n\n\n Balaam, 40, 132, 224, 228 _sq._, 234.\n\n Balak, 228.\n\n Balaw\u00e2t, 197, 202.\n\n Barak, 296 _sq._, 311.\n\n Baring-Gould, 195.\n\n Barzillai, 439, 447.\n\n Bashan, 24, 223, 227, 235, 322, 457.\n\n Bastian, 31.\n\n Bath-sheba, 263, 424, 429, 445, 446.\n\n Baxter, 135.\n\n Beer, 318.\n\n Beeroth, 252, 404.\n\n Beer-Sheba, 64, 353.\n\n Bela, son of Beor (_see_ Balaam), 224.\n\n Belbeis, 96, 154, 171.\n\n Benaiah, 416, 443, 446, 462.\n\n Ben-Hadad, 420, 451.\n\n Beni-Yaakan, 221.\n\n Benjamin, 76, 79, 253, 268, 275 _sq._, 303.\n\n Ben-Oni, 79.\n\n Bent, 463.\n\n Berger, 34.\n\n Berothai, 423.\n\n Beth-Anoth, 285.\n\n Beth-barah, 312, 317, 318, 319.\n\n Beth-car, 352.\n\n Beth-el, 69, 70, 81, 247, 253, 277, 298, 345, 353, 354, 363.\n\n Beth-horon, 255, 471, 472.\n\n Beth-lehem, 81, 264, 268, 275, 279, 338, 369, 371, 377.\n\n Beth-lehem in Zebulon, 322.\n\n Beth-On, 70, 79, 86, 253, 363.\n\n Beth-Rehob, 420.\n\n Beth-Shean, Beth-Shan, 247, 252, 296, 394\n\n Beth-Shemesh, 351, 352.\n\n Bethuel, 65.\n\n Beybars I., Sultan, 249.\n\n Bezek, 247, 267, 359.\n\n Bint-Anat, 161.\n\n Birch, 185.\n\n Bissell, 110.\n\n Bliss, 255, 256, 410, 466, 467, 475.\n\n Boaz, 394.\n\n Boaz, (a column), 467.\n\n Boeckh, 453.\n\n Briggs, 105.\n\n Brinton, 42.\n\n Browne, Sir Th., 201.\n\n Brugsch, 3, 93, 149, 150, 179, 180.\n\n Br\u00fcnnow, 4.\n\n Bubastis, 154.\n\n Budde, 226, 290, 297.\n\n Bul (month), 469.\n\n Burna-buryas, 21.\n\n\n C\n\n Caleb, 246, 256, 263 _sq._, 269, 287, 392, 394, 397.\n\n calendar changed, 178.\n\n camels, 169.\n\n Canaan, 2, 8, 11, 21, 34, 131, 159, 160, 217.\n\n Canaanitish. _See_ Hebrew.\n\n Caphtor, 291.\n\n Carchemish, 19, 40, 55, 228, 285, 419, 472.\n\n Carmel of Judah, 285, 383.\n\n Carthage, 288, 453.\n\n Casdim, 8.\n\n census, 210, 440.\n\n Chabas, 3.\n\n Ch\u00e6r\u00eam\u00f4n, 174.\n\n\n Chedor-laomer, 11, 24, 26, 128.\n\n Chemosh, 40, 44, 416, 478.\n\n Chephirah, 252.\n\n Cherethithes, 392.\n\n Cheyne, 304, 305.\n\n Chileab, 401.\n\n Chinnereth, 259.\n\n Chronicles, books of, 140.\n\n chronology, 142 _sq._, 211, 451.\n\n Chun, 423.\n\n Chushan-rishathaim, 286, 287.\n\n circumcision, 31, 165, 250.\n\n Clercq, de, 202.\n\n Clermont-Ganneau, 29, 52, 249, 252, 346.\n\n copper, 474.\n\n Cornill, 343.\n\n Cornwall, 474.\n\n Covenant, book of, 101, 136, 196.\n\n cuneiform characters, use of in Israel, 244, 339.\n\n Cushite wife of Moses, 215.\n\n Cyprus, 230, 285, 474.\n\n\n D\n\n Dagon, 294, 349, 350.\n\n Damascus, 25, 28, 368, 373, 421, 423, 438, 462, 477.\n\n Dan, 76, 80, 248, 254, 263, 280, 294, 304, 320, 330.\n   Camp of, 279, 280.\n\n Dangin, Thureau-, 10.\n\n Daressy, 14, 223.\n\n David, 146, 369 _sq._\n   City of, 465, 466.\n\n Day of Atonement, 208.\n\n Debir (king), 254.\n\n Debir (city), 265.\n\n Deborah, 81, 295 _sq._\n   Song of, 273 _sq._\n\n Dedan, 45.\n\n Delitzsch, Friedrich, 148, 419.\n\n Deluge\u2014story, 122 _sq._\n\n Derket\u00f4, 292.\n\n Deuteronomy, 101, 219, 238 _sq._\n\n Dhi-Zahab, 222.\n\n Dibon, 79.\n\n Diktynna, 294.\n\n\n Dinhabah (Dunip), 37, 224.\n\n Diodoros, 96, 97, 184.\n\n Dodah, 416.\n\n Doeg, 356, 381.\n\n Dor (_Tant\u00fbra_), 247, 252, 259, 261, 294, 313, 387, 457.\n\n Driver, 143.\n\n Dungi, 60.\n\n Dusratta, 287.\n\n Dussaud, 37.\n\n\n E\n\n Ebal, 242, 243.\n\n Ebed-Tob, 3, 28, 29, 128, 254, 266, 441.\n\n Ebed-Asherah, 229.\n\n Eben-ezer, 346, 352, 354.\n\n Eber, 7, 231, 285.\n\n Ebers, 86.\n\n Ebir-n\u00e2ri, 7, 8, 231, 423.\n\n Ebronah, 7, 221.\n\n Ecclesiasticus, book of, 137.\n\n Edar, tower of, 82.\n\n Edom, 39, 66 _sq._, 120, 132, 155, 182, 189, 190, 222, 224, 230, 288,\n    356, 368, 401, 426, 427, 442, 454, 463, 477.\n\n Edom (god), 413.\n\n Edrei, 227.\n\n Egibi, 69.\n\n Eglah, 401.\n\n Eglon (king of Moab), 289 _sq._\n\n Eglon (city), 254, 256.\n\n Egypt, 2, etc., 418.\n\n Egyptians in Israel, 288.\n\n Ehud, 290.\n\n Eisenlohr, 151.\n\n Ekron, 351, 371.\n\n El, 46.\n\n Elah, 226, 369, 371, 374.\n\n Elath, 66, 182, 187, 427, 464.\n\n Elam, 5, 11, 12, 24, 26.\n\n Eleazar, 221, 406, 443.\n\n El-hanan, 356, 369, 372.\n\n El-H\u00eeba (in Egypt), 418.\n\n Eli, 219, 340 _sq._, 381, 443, 455.\n\n Eliab, 459.\n\n Eliadah, 421.\n\n Eliak, 459.\n\n Elijah, 189.\n\n Elim, 182, 187.\n\n Elimelech, 4.\n\n Elishah (Cyprus), 285.\n\n El-Kab, 89, 92, 93.\n\n Elkanah, 339.\n\n Ellasar (Larsa), 25, 138.\n\n Elon, 321.\n\n El-Paran, 187, 226.\n\n embalming, 96, 97.\n\n Emim, 24, 41, 43.\n\n Endor, witch of, 389.\n\n En-gedi, 383.\n\n En-hakkor\u00ea, 327, 328.\n\n En-Mishpat (Kadesh-barnea), 191, 215, 220.\n\n Enna (Egyptian writer), 83.\n\n En-rogel (the Fuller\u2019s Well), 446.\n\n ephod, 72, 283, 316.\n\n Ephraim, 76, 79, 253, 303, 313 _sq._, 322 _sq._, 325 _sq._, 334, 335,\n    338.\n\n Ephrathite, 338.\n\n eponyms, 451.\n\n Erman, 89, 90, 91, 198, 212, 223.\n\n Erech, 11, 12.\n\n\n Eri-Aku (Arioch), 11, 12, 25, 27, 59.\n\n Esar-haddon, 208, 225.\n\n Esau, 66 _sq._, 74.\n\n Esh-Baal, 368, 393, 398 _sq._, 417, 430, 444.\n\n Eshcol, 216.\n\n Eshtaol, 279, 326.\n\n Eshtemoa, 264.\n\n Etana, 328.\n\n Etham, 180, 187.\n\n Ethanim (month), 469.\n\n eunuchs, 86.\n\n Eurafrican race, 43.\n\n Ewald, 305.\n\n Ezion-geber, 182, 221, 427, 464.\n\n Ezra, 132, 134.\n\n Ezri, 445.\n\n\n F\n\n Feast of Trumpets, 208.\n\n Fenkhu, 2, 6.\n\n festivals, 194.\n\n firstborn claimed by Baal, 206.\n\n\n G\n\n Gaal, 318.\n\n Gad (tribe), 76, 80, 227, 232, 235.\n\n Gad (prophet), 345, 380, 388, 440, 442.\n\n Galilee, 467.\n\n gardens, zoological and botanical, 473.\n\n Gath, 266, 351, 378, 386, 408, 413, 414, 432.\n\n Gaza, 180, 258, 292, 293, 294, 328.\n\n Geba, 352.\n\n Gebal, 94, 461.\n\n Gedor, 265.\n\n George Syncellus, 95.\n\n Gerar, 63.\n\n Gerizim, 243, 317.\n\n Geshur, 227, 368, 401, 427, 457.\n\n Gezer, 120, 159, 247, 252, 253, 256, 257, 408, 460, 462.\n\n Gibeah, 275 _sq._, 352, 353, 357, 358, 361, 366, 369, 377, 380, 387,\n    412, 439.\n\n Gibeon, 252, 254, 352, 353, 436.\n\n Gibeonites, 253, 259, 404, 438, 475.\n\n Gideon (Jerub-baal), 232, 305 _sq._\n\n Gihon, 446, 466.\n\n Gilboa, 387, 393, 396, 399, 404.\n\n Gilead, 227, 235, 304, 312, 322 _sq._, 368, 432, 447, 457.\n\n Gilgal, 250, 261, 290, 353, 357, 360, 361, 366, 367.\n\n Gilgames, Epic of, 123.\n\n Gimil-Sin, 10.\n\n Girshin, 37.\n\n Glaser, 7, 119, 459.\n\n Gob, 408.\n\n Goldziher, 226.\n\n Gol\u00e9nischeff, 175, 291, 294, 313, 461.\n\n Goliath, 353, 356, 369 _sq._, 375, 378, 408.\n\n Gomer (Kimmerians), 131.\n\n Goodwin, 181.\n\n Goshen, 95, 150, 153, 158.\n\n granaries, 92.\n\n Gray, Buchanan, 198.\n\n Greene, Baker, 187.\n\n Gudea, 164, 207.\n\n Gudgodah, 221.\n\n Guthe, 409, 467.\n\n\n H\n\n Hachilah, 384.\n\n Hadad (god), 15, 241.\n\n Hadad (king), 146, 356, 427, 477.\n\n Hadad, son of Bedad, 232.\n\n Hadad-ezer, 368, 417, 418, 420, 421, 424.\n\n Hadar, 427.\n\n Hadashah, 286.\n\n\n Hadoram (Adoram), 444, 452, 457, 458, 464.\n   or Joram, 254, 423.\n\n Hadrach, 419.\n\n Haggith, 401.\n\n Ham (Ammon), 25, 41.\n\n Hamath, 254, 421, 423, 472, 478.\n\n Hamor, 75.\n\n Hannah, 339.\n\n Har-el, 50.\n\n Harosheth, 296, 299, 300.\n\n\n Harran (Kharran), 8, 9, 15, 65, 71, 350.\n\n Hashmonah, 221.\n\n Hathor, 88.\n\n Haur\u00e2n, 368, 419.\n\n Havilah, 190, 367.\n\n Havoth-Jair, 227.\n\n Hayman, 243.\n\n Hazeroth, 214.\n\n Hazor, 248, 258, 259 _sq._, 296 _sq._\n\n Heber, 299, 304.\n\n\n Hebrew language, 35 _sq._\n\n Hebrews, 1, etc., 362.\n\n Hebron, 4, 23, 53, 81, 149, 236, 254, 264, 265, 285, 289, 373, 397,\n    398, 401, 402, 403, 405, 429.\n\n Helam (Aleppo), 422.\n\n Heliopolis (On), 85, 99, 154, 171.\n\n Hepher, 261, 262.\n\n Herodotos, 14, 31, 96, 468.\n\n Heshbon, 43.\n\n Hesy (_see_ Lachish), 255.\n\n Hexateuch, 100.\n\n Hezekiah, 225.\n\n high-priests, 219, 315.\n\n Hilprecht, 10.\n\n Hinnom, valley of sons of, 409, 466.\n\n Hiram, 410, 452, 453, 462, 463, 464, 465, 480.\n\n Hir-Hor, 461.\n\n Hittites, 14, 21, 22, 29, 40, 54 _sq._, 94, 159, 160, 262, 274, 284,\n    285, 300, 418, 420, 437, 471, 472, 473, 474.\n\n Hitzig, 300, 378.\n\n Hivites, 262, 274.\n\n Hobab, 213.\n\n Hoffmann, 37.\n\n Hoham, 254.\n\n Hommel, 5, 7, 26, 29, 34, 45, 80, 119, 148, 151, 164, 198, 231, 291,\n    321, 423, 459.\n\n Hophni, 340.\n\n Hor, 182, 221.\n\n Horam, 256.\n\n Horeb, 164, 189.\n\n Hormah (or Zephath), 215, 217, 258, 392.\n\n hornet, the, 286, 293.\n\n Horites, 2, 24, 66, 74, 159.\n\n horse, the, 90.\n\n Huldah, 297.\n\n H\u00fbleh (Lake Merom), 259, 261.\n\n Hushai, 430, 432, 458.\n\n Hyksos, 6, 22, 69, 83, 84, 85, 90, 95, 99, 148, 154, 174, 212.\n\n\n I\n\n Ibleam, 252.\n\n Ibzan, 322.\n\n I-chabod, 348.\n\n Iddo, 345.\n\n In\u00ea-Sin, 10, 11.\n\n Ira, 444.\n\n Ir-Shemesh, 285.\n\n Isaac, 46, 62 _sq._\n   age of, 143.\n\n Ishbi-benob, 408.\n\n Ishmael, 34, 38, 66, 76.\n\n Ishmaelites, 46.\n\n Ishui, 398, 399.\n\n Israel, etymology of, 73.\n\n \u2018Israelites\u2019 in Egyptian, 159, 172.\n\n Issachar, 80, 252, 296, 297, 303, 313, 314, 321.\n\n Istar (Ashtoreth), 161, 188.\n\n Ithamar, 340, 443.\n\n Ithream, 401.\n\n Ittai, 432.\n\n Iye-ha-Abarim, 225.\n\n\n J\n\n Jaazer, 227.\n\n Jabesh-gilead, 277, 278, 358, 394.\n\n Jabez, 263.\n\n Jabin, 259 _sq._, 296, 300.\n\n Jachin (column), 467.\n\n Jacob, 67 _sq._\n\n Jacob-el, 13, 38, 68 _sq._, 128.\n\n Jacob\u2019s Well, 75.\n\n Jael, 301, 302, 304.\n\n Jaffa. _See_ Joppa.\n\n Jair, 227, 322.\n\n Jarmuth, 254, 255.\n\n Jasher (Jashar), book of, 136, 257, 396.\n\n Jashobeam, 406.\n\n Jaziz, 445.\n\n Jebus, 268.\n\n Jebusites, 247, 264, 267, 409, 414, 441, 465.\n\n Jedidiah (Solomon), 306, 425.\n\n Jehdeiah, 445.\n\n Jehoshaphat, 443, 458.\n\n Jephthah, 322 _sq._, 335.\n\n Jephthah-el, 326.\n\n Jerahmeel, 263, 320, 386, 392, 393.\n\n Jericho, 177, 248, 250, 258, 263, 289.\n\n Jeroboam, 456, 476.\n\n Jerub-baal (Gideon), 305 _sq._\n\n Jerusalem, 3, 25, 28, 174, 246, 254, 257, 264, 268, 269, 275, 284, 286,\n    407, 408 _sq._, 441, 464, 470, 471, 480.\n\n Jeshurun, 73, 191, 242, 244.\n\n Jesse, 369, 371.\n\n Jethro, 163, 186, 190.\n\n Jezreel, 262, 384.\n\n Joab, 399 _sq._\n\n Joash, 305 _sq._, 445.\n\n Jobaal, 318.\n\n Jobab, 259.\n\n Joel, 355.\n\n Johanan, 261, 431, 447, 459.\n\n Jonathan, son of Saul, 358, 360 _sq._\n\n Jonathan, son of Moses, 281.\n\n Jonathan, brother of Joab, 408.\n\n Jonathan, son of Uzziah, 445.\n\n\n Joppa (Jaffa), 294, 311, 410, 412.\n\n Joram, 254.\n\n Jordan, dried up, 249.\n\n Joseph, 79, 82 _sq._\n\n Joseph-el, 13, 38, 68, 128.\n\n Josephus, 410, 421, 422, 452.\n\n Joshebbashebeth, 406.\n\n Joshua, 246 _sq._, 265, 270, 271, 287.\n\n Jotham, 317.\n\n Judah, 37, 76, 80, 258, 263, 264, 267 _sq._, 320 _sq._, 328.\n\n judge (_shoph\u00eat_), 190, 288.\n\n Justin, 30.\n\n\n K\n\n Kabzeel, 416.\n\n Kadesh on the Orontes, 55, 80, 300, 419, 437, 442, 473.\n\n Kadesh in Galilee, 236, 259, 261, 296, 298, 299.\n\n Kadesh-barnea, 187, 189, 191, 215, 220, 221, 258, 267.\n\n Kadmonites (_see_ Kedem), 162, 307.\n\n Kainan, 143.\n\n _kalbu_, 265.\n\n Kallisthenes, 184.\n\n Karians, 415.\n\n Kastor, 293.\n\n\n Kedem or Qedem (Kadmonites), 163, 306.\n\n Keft, 378.\n\n Keilah, 264, 382.\n\n Kelt, 43.\n\n Kenaz, 80, 263.\n\n Kenites, or \u2018Smiths,\u2019 214, 230, 263, 267, 288, 299, 320, 336, 386, 392.\n\n Kenizzites, 264, 267, 286, 287, 289, 320.\n\n Kennicott, 281.\n\n Keturah, 45.\n\n Kibroth-hattaavah, 214.\n\n Kidron, 409.\n\n king, law about the, 241.\n\n Kirjath-jearim, 252, 279, 348, 352, 354, 412.\n\n Kirjath-Sannah, 265.\n\n Kirjath-Sepher, 265, 287, 330.\n\n Kish, 356.\n\n Kishon, 261, 297, 300, 303, 304, 310, 356.\n\n Kittel, 306.\n\n Kohath, 338.\n\n Korkha, 286.\n\n Kretans, 415, 428, 443.\n\n Krete, 293, 294, 320.\n\n Kudur-Laghghamar. _See_ Chedor-laomer.\n\n Kudur-Nankhundi, 12.\n\n Kush, 161.\n\n Khabir\u00e2, 5.\n\n Khabiri, 3, 4, 254, 266, 284, 286.\n\n Khalaman, 422.\n\n\n Khammu-rabi (Amraphel), 11, 12, 13, 25, 27, 45, 59, 68, 71.\n\n Khanun, 417, 432.\n\n Khar (Horites), 2, 159, 160, 192.\n\n Kharran. _See_ Harran.\n\n Khetem (Etham), 180, 181, 187.\n\n Khubur, 5.\n\n Khu-n-Aten (Amen\u00f4phis IV.), 156, 157.\n\n\n L\n\n Laban, 36, 71 _sq._\n\n Laban (god), 18.\n\n\n Lachish, 20, 120, 248, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 267, 475.\n\n Laish, 248, 259, 280 _sq._\n\n Lakhmu, 81.\n\n Lapidoth, 297.\n\n Larsa (Ellasar), 11, 12, 25, 27, 28, 117, 138.\n\n lawgiver, the, 121.\n\n Leah, 71.\n\n Lebanon, 11.\n\n Lehmann, 60.\n\n Lemuel, 13.\n\n Lenormant, Fr., 473.\n\n Lepsius, 454.\n\n Levi, 76, 80, 134, 201.\n\n Levite, story of the, 275 _sq._\n\n Levite of Ephraim, 279 _sq._\n\n Levites, 218 _sq._, 234, 239, 243, 378, 413.\n   cities of, 235 _sq._, 282.\n\n Libnah, 255.\n\n Libyans, 20, 42, 159, 171, 172, 175, 212.\n\n Lihyanian, 35.\n\n Lindl, 25.\n\n Lot, 39, 44.\n\n Lotan, 2.\n\n Luz, 81.\n\n Lycians, 415.\n\n Lydians, 292, 293.\n\n\n M\n\n Maachah, 227, 417, 436.\n\n Maachah wife of David, 429.\n\n\n Maachah or Maoch of Gath, 378, 379.\n\n Machir, 76, 121, 144, 227, 303, 313.\n\n Machpelah, 53, 97.\n\n Madai, 131.\n\n Madon, 259.\n\n Mafkat (Sinaitic Peninsula), 163, 182, 186.\n\n Mahanaim, 73, 398, 400, 432, 457.\n\n Mahler, 151.\n\n Makkedah, 255, 257, 304.\n\n Malcham or Milcom, 426.\n\n Malik (Moloch), 11.\n\n Mamre, 23, 216.\n\n M\u00e2\u2019n. _See_ Min\u00e6ans.\n\n Manasseh, 76, 77, 281, 311, 391, 406.\n   kingdom of, 306.\n\n maneh or mina, 60, 252.\n\n Manetho, 149, 151, 173, 212, 330.\n\n Maoch. _See_ Maachah.\n\n Maon, 383.\n\n Maonites (Min\u00e6ans), 321.\n\n Maqr\u00eez\u00ee, 93, 129.\n\n Marah, 187.\n\n Mariette, 148.\n\n _marna_, 294.\n\n marriage by capture, 277.\n\n Martu (Moreh), 20, 21, 42, 44.\n\n Maspero, 23, 85, 93, 95, 129, 151, 160, 163.\n\n Massah, 214.\n\n Max M\u00fcller, W., 22, 266, 378.\n\n Maxyes, 362.\n\n Megiddo, 247, 252, 259, 296, 304, 310, 387.\n\n Meholah, 439.\n\n Meissner, 8, 60.\n\n Melchi-shua, 399.\n\n Melchizedek, 25, 28, 128.\n\n Melkarth, 315, 463, 467.\n\n Melukhkha, 163, 190, 367, 427.\n\n Memphis, 14.\n\n Menander, 185, 410, 452, 480.\n\n Meneptah, son of Ramses II., 22, 64, 94, 96, 149, 150, 154, 155, 159,\n    160, 170 _sq._, 175, 178, 185, 212, 291, 361, 374.\n\n Men-kheper-Ra, 418.\n\n Mephibosheth (Merib-Baal), 404, 438.\n\n Merab, 374.\n\n Mer\u2019ash, 10.\n\n Meribah, 214, 220.\n\n Merib-Baal (Mephibosheth), 307, 404, 438.\n\n Merom, 259, 262.\n\n Meroz, 274, 304.\n\n Mesopotamia, 284.\n\n Messianic psalms, 450.\n\n _messu_, 161.\n\n Messui or Messu, 161, 215.\n\n _metheg-ammah_, 414.\n\n mice, 351.\n\n Micah, 278.\n\n Michal, 374, 384, 413, 439.\n\n Michmash, 349, 353, 361, 362, 366.\n\n Midian, 32, 45, 163, 190, 213, 232 _sq._, 263, 306 _sq._\n\n Migdol, 180, 181, 184.\n\n Millo, 319, 466, 476.\n\n\n Min\u00e6ans (M\u00e2\u2019n), 7, 34, 45, 119, 198, 459, 460.\n\n Minos, 293.\n\n Miriam, 162, 214, 223.\n\n Mitanni, 17, 18, 284 _sq._, 300, 419, 462.\n\n Mizpah, 36, 245, 262, 324, 345, 352, 353, 358.\n\n Moab, 223, 226, 232, 289, 368, 381, 415, 457.\n\n Moabite Stone, 146, 416.\n\n Mopsos, 292.\n\n Moreh, 21, 44.\n\n Moriah, 49, 51, 465.\n\n Moseley, H. N., 31.\n\n Moseroth or Mosera, 220.\n\n Moses, 161 _sq._, 281.\n   songs of, 243.\n   death of, 244.\n\n Mount of the Lord, 50.\n\n M\u00fcller, D. H., 35, 231.\n\n Muzri, 183.\n\n\n N\n\n Nabal, 383.\n\n Nabatheans, 40, 419.\n\n Nabonassar, 12.\n\n Nabonidos, 16.\n\n Nadab and Abihu, 207.\n\n Naharaim (Mesopotamia), 17, 40, 284 _sq._\n\n Nahash (of Ammon), 358, 417, 432.\n\n Nahash (aunt of Joab), 431.\n\n Nahor, 18, 19.\n\n Nahshon, 145.\n\n Naioth (\u2018the monastery\u2019), 342, 344, 376.\n\n name changed, 32.\n\n Naphtali, 80, 311, 457.\n\n Naram-Sin, 24, 188.\n\n Nathan, 345, 412, 425, 442, 445, 446, 456, 458.\n\n \u2018Nations\u2019 (Goyyim), 26.\n\n Naville, 95, 129, 149, 153, 154, 183.\n\n Nebat, 476.\n\n Nebo, 245, 343, 416.\n\n Nebuchadrezzar, 196, 197, 288, 418, 468, 469.\n\n Negeb, the, 246, 254, 257, 269, 329, 392.\n\n Ner, 398, 399.\n\n Nethinim, the, 354, 475.\n\n Neubauer, 37, 162, 224, 302, 476.\n\n Nile, 88, 93, 94.\n\n Nin-ip, 29, 441.\n\n Nin-Marki, 15.\n\n Nin-Martu, 59.\n\n Noah, 123, 124, 126.\n\n Noam, 299.\n\n Nob, 237, 349, 353, 369, 372, 378, 380, 408, 438, 444.\n\n Nobah, 227.\n\n\n O\n\n Obed-Edom, 413.\n\n Obil, 445.\n\n Oboth, 225.\n\n Og, 43, 224, 227.\n\n On (Heliopolis), 85, 86, 154, 174.\n\n Ophel, 466, 467.\n\n Ophir, 463.\n\n Ophrah, 283, 305, 307 _sq._, 338.\n\n Oppert, 148.\n\n Oreb, 312.\n\n Oros, 173.\n\n Osarsiph, 174.\n\n Osiris, 223.\n\n Othniel, 256, 263, 266, 287 _sq._\n\n\n P\n\n Padan (-Aram), 16, 17, 69.\n\n Pa-ebpasa, 179.\n\n palace of David, 452.\n\n palace of Solomon, 465.\n\n Palestine, name of, 398.\n\n Palmyra (Tadmor), 471, 472, 473.\n\n Paran, 186, 213, 383.\n   mount of, 189.\n\n Passover, the, 176 _sq._\n\n peacocks, 474.\n\n Peiser, 8, 59, 60, 71, 148.\n\n Pella, 259.\n\n Peniel, or Penuel, 73, 312.\n\n Perizzites, or \u2018fellahin,\u2019 228.\n\n Pethor, 40, 228.\n\n Petra, 188, 214, 233.\n\n Petrie, Flinders, 20, 21, 56, 60, 151, 159, 170, 255.\n\n Phaltiel, 384, 439.\n\n Pharaoh, etymology of, 97.\n\n Phichol, 64.\n\n Philistines, 64, 180, 257, 291 _sq._, 320, 326 _sq._, 335, 437.\n\n Philo Byblius, 46.\n\n Phinehas, 145, 215, 233, 275, 443.\n\n Phineas son of Eli, 340, 348.\n\n Ph\u0153nician alphabet, 119.\n\n Ph\u0153nicians, 2, 30, 35, 94, 454, 467.\n\n Ph\u0153nician sacrificial tariffs, 204, 205, 206.\n\n Pi-hahiroth, 181.\n\n Pinches, 12, 13, 26, 60, 68, 70, 295.\n\n Pinon. _See_ Punon.\n\n Piram, 255, 256.\n\n Pirathon, 322.\n\n Pithom (Pi-Tum), 149, 150, 153, 154, 155, 166.\n\n plagues, the ten, 167 _sq._\n\n Pliny, 97.\n\n Plutarch, 184.\n\n polygamy, 316, 428.\n\n Porphyry, 306.\n\n Potiphar\u2019s wife, 83.\n\n Potipherah (Potiphar), 84, 86.\n\n Priestly Code, the, 101, 103, 106.\n\n\n prophet, the, 341 _sq._\n\n Ptah-hotep, 98, 118.\n\n Puah, 321.\n\n\n Punon or Pinon, 225, 226.\n\n Pur-Sin, 20.\n\n\n Q\n\n Qarantel, mount, 250.\n\n Qedem. _See_ Kedem.\n\n Qos, 356.\n\n Qosem (Goshen), 95, 153, 154.\n\n Qu\u00ea, 419, 473.\n\n\n R\n\n Raamses (Rameses or Ramses), 150.\n\n Rabbah, 44, 227, 228.\n\n Rabbath-Ammon (Rabbah), 417, 424, 426, 432.\n\n Rab-saris, the, 86.\n\n Rab-shakeh, the, 459.\n\n Rachel, 71, 81, 82.\n\n ram in sacrifice, 52.\n\n Ramah, 298, 344, 346, 349, 352, 357, 367, 376.\n\n Ramathaim-zophim, 338, 352.\n\n Ramath-lehi, 327, 328.\n\n Rameses or Raamses, city of, 179.\n\n Ramoth of the South, 392.\n\n Ramoth-Gilead, 457.\n\n Ramsay, W. M., 237.\n\n Ramses or Rameses I., 150, 153, 158.\n\n Ramses II., 4, 55, 64, 78, 148, 149, 150, 154, 180, 223, 266, 379, 415,\n    464.\n\n Ramses III., 3, 4, 67, 150, 171, 222, 224, 285, 291, 292.\n\n Ramses IV., 3, 212.\n\n Ramses VI., 186.\n\n Rassam, Hormuzd, 197.\n\n Rechab, 404.\n\n \u2018Red Sea,\u2019 the, 182.\n\n refuge, cities of, 235.\n\n Rehob, 420.\n\n Rehoboam, 452.\n\n Rei, 446.\n\n Reisner, 15.\n\n Rekem, 233.\n\n Rephaim, 24, 41, 227.\n   plain of, 407.\n\n Rephidim, 189.\n\n Reshpu, 413.\n\n resurrection, 210.\n\n Reuben, 77, 80, 227, 232, 235, 289, 303, 392.\n\n Reuel, 63.\n\n Rezon, 147, 421, 437, 452, 462, 477.\n\n Rib-Hadad, 94, 284, 306.\n\n Rimmon (god), 15, 30, 299.\n\n Rimmon (Benjamite), 404.\n   rock of, 277.\n\n Rizpah, 402, 439.\n\n Rowlands, J., 215.\n\n Ruth, 263, 394.\n\n\n S\n\n Saba or Sheba, 119, 163, 219.\n\n Sab\u00e6ans, in Babylonia, 13.\n\n Sabbath, Babylonian etymology of, 193, 208.\n\n Sachau, 19.\n\n sacrifices, 197 _sq._\n   Babylonian, 197.\n   human, 46 _sq._, 324.\n\n Saft-el-Henna (Goshen), 96, 153, 154.\n\n Sakea, Babylonian feast of, 209.\n\n Salem or Jerusalem, 28, 268.\n\n Salimmu, god of peace, 28.\n\n Salma or Salmon, 394.\n\n Sam\u00e2la or Samalla, 36, 231.\n\n Samaritans, 100, 103.\n\n Samson, 327 _sq._\n\n Samsu-iluna, 45.\n\n Samuel, 242, 245, 335 _sq._, 365 _sq._, 389.\n\n sanctuary, central, 240.\n\n Saph, 459.\n\n Sardinians, 293.\n\n Sargon of Akkad, 10, 20, 161.\n\n Sarid, 303.\n\n Saul, 146, 190, 356 _sq._\n\n Saxon conquest of Britain, 252, 269, 271.\n\n scapegoat, the, 48.\n\n Scheil, 12, 27.\n\n Schliemann, 475.\n\n Schumacher, 223.\n\n scribes, 121.\n\n \u2018sea\u2019 in the temple, 468.\n\n Sebaita (Zephath), 215.\n\n seer. _See_ prophet.\n\n Seir, 24, 66, 67, 74, 162, 171, 188, 222.\n\n Seirath, 290.\n\n Selaman\u00eas, 425.\n\n Sennacherib, 137, 152, 257, 260, 359, 383.\n\n Septuagint, 136, 154.\n\n Seraiah, 443, 444.\n\n seraph, 225.\n\n serpents, bronze, in Babylonia, 225, 353.\n\n Set, 165.\n\n Sethos (Ramses), 174.\n\n Seti I., 2, 158, 216.\n\n Seti II., 83, 98, 151, 178, 180, 185.\n\n Set-Nubti, 148.\n\n Shalman, 425.\n\n Shamgar, 295, 301, 320.\n\n Shamir, 321.\n\n Shammah, 406.\n\n Shapher, 221.\n\n Shasu, 67, 171, 217, 222.\n\n Sharon, 261.\n\n Shavsha, 443.\n\n Sheba (Benjamite), 435, 436, 440.\n\n Sheba or Saba, 45, 119, 163, 321, 459, 460.\n\n Shechem, 22, 75, 76, 262, 269, 270, 283, 309, 316 _sq._\n\n shekel, 60.\n\n Shelomith, 207.\n\n Shem (Babylonian Sumu), 13.\n\n Shemesh-Edom, 413.\n\n Shephatiah, 401.\n\n shepherd, 90.\n\n Sheth, 230.\n\n Sheva, 443, 444.\n\n shewbread, 197, 468.\n\n _shibboleth_, 325.\n\n Shiloh, 269, 270, 275, 277, 281, 283, 320, 333, 334, 337, 339, 344\n    _sq._, 352, 353, 378, 444, 476.\n\n Shimei (Benjamite), 430, 438, 439, 447, 455.\n\n Shimei (official of David), 445, 446.\n\n Shimron, 259.\n\n Shimron-meron, 260.\n\n Shinar, 11, 25.\n\n Shisha, 443, 444, 458.\n\n Shishak, 84, 252, 263, 453, 476, 477.\n\n Shobach or Shophach, 418, 421.\n\n Shobi, 432.\n\n Shunem, 387, 445.\n\n Shur, 181, 183, 187, 190.\n\n Siddim, 24, 30.\n\n Sidon, 259, 262, 274, 280, 321.\n\n Sihon, 43, 224, 226.\n\n Siloam, pool of, 466.\n\n Simeon, 76, 80, 263, 320, 329, 392.\n\n Sin (moon-god), 9, 16, 188.\n   desert of, 188, 189.\n\n Sinai, 164, 188, 302.\n   mount, 188, 191 _sq._\n\n Sinaitic Peninsula, 163, 182, 186, 187.\n\n Sin-idinnam, 12, 27.\n\n Sinjerli, 19, 36, 138.\n\n Sinuhit, 162.\n\n Sippara (Sepharvaim), 14, 57.\n\n Sisera, 261, 296 _sq._\n\n slave, penalty for murder of, 194.\n\n Smith, G. A., 36.\n\n Socho or Socoh, 265, 369.\n\n Sodom, 25, 30.\n\n Solomon, 146, 306, 425, 445, 447, 452 _sq._\n   proverbs of, 138.\n\n sphinx, 88.\n\n Spinoza, 105.\n\n Stade, 103, 278, 409.\n\n Stone of Job, 223.\n\n Strabo, 185.\n\n Strassmaier, 59, 197.\n\n strikes, 166.\n\n Subarti, 5, 16.\n\n Succoth, 150, 155, 179, 180, 181, 312.\n\n Suez Canal, 212.\n\n Sumu-abi, 13.\n\n\n Suphah, 222.\n\n Suru (Syria), 16.\n\n Sutekh, 22, 23, 85, 148.\n\n Sutu or Sut\u00ea, 230, 289.\n\n Suwein\u00eet, W\u00e2di, 362.\n\n\n T\n\n Taanach, 247, 252, 261, 296, 304.\n\n Taberah, 214.\n\n tabernacle, the, 196 _sq._, 353, 414.\n\n tables of the law, 202.\n\n Tabor, 299, 309, 310.\n\n Tadmor, 471, 472.\n\n Tahtim-hodshi, 300.\n\n Takmonite, 406.\n\n tale of the two brothers, 83.\n\n Talmai, 401, 429.\n\n Tamar (wife of Judah), 82.\n\n Tamar (daughter of David), 429.\n\n Tamar (city of), 471.\n\n Tappuah, 261, 262.\n\n Tarkhu, 19.\n\n tartan, the, 374, 443.\n\n Tatian, 105.\n\n Tatnai, 8.\n\n tattooing, 200, 241.\n\n Teie, 155, 158.\n\n Tel el-Amarna, 2, etc.\n   tablets of, 113 _sq._\n\n Tel el-Maskh\u00fbta, 149, 154, 166.\n\n Tema, 45, 459.\n\n Teman, 189.\n\n temple, when built, 145, 412.\n   of Solomon, 464, 467 _sq._\n\n Terah, 18, 19.\n\n teraphim, 72, 80, 279.\n\n Thapsacus (Tiphsakh), 472.\n\n Thebes in Egypt, 461.\n\n Thebez, 319.\n\n Themistokles, 237.\n\n Thothmes III., 20, 41, 50, 55, 68, 80, 84, 98, 175, 217, 237, 259\n    _sq._, 280, 300, 311, 323, 413, 423, 473.\n\n Thothmes IV., 88.\n\n Thukut (Succoth), 149, 155, 179, 180, 181.\n\n Tiamat, 125.\n\n Tibhath, 423.\n\n\n Tid\u2019al, 12, 24, 26, 128.\n\n Tiglath-pileser I., 231, 419, 461, 474, 478.\n\n Tiglath-pileser III., 138, 230, 281, 424, 425, 451, 459, 460.\n\n Tiglath-Ninip, 418.\n\n Timnath-heres, 271.\n\n tin, 474.\n\n Tirzah, 261.\n\n tithe, 29.\n\n Tob, 323, 417.\n\n Toi or Tou, 423.\n\n Tola, 321.\n\n Tomkins, H. G., 20, 80, 81, 84, 259, 300.\n\n Travels of the Mohar, 266, 416.\n\n tribes, the twelve, 77.\n\n Trumbull, Clay, 176, 215, 350.\n\n Tubikhi (Tibhath), 423.\n\n Tudghula. _See_ Tid\u2019al.\n\n Tumil\u00e2t, W\u00e2di (Goshen), 95, 153, 154, 155.\n\n Tunip (_see_ Dinhabah), 65.\n\n Tyre, 274, 288, 315, 410, 457, 462, 463, 465, 467, 480.\n\n Tyrop\u0153on valley, 466.\n\n\n U\n\n Ubi (Aup), 229.\n\n Umman-Manda, 26.\n\n Unger, 454.\n\n Ur of the Chaldees, 8, 9, 11, 16, 60, 127, 209.\n\n Uriah, 424, 425.\n\n Urim and Thummim, 72, 198, 388.\n\n Usous, 66.\n\n Uzzah, 413.\n\n\n V\n\n Virey, 92, 99.\n\n von Luschan, 36.\n\n\n W\n\n Warburton, Bishop, 210.\n\n Ward, J., 23.\n\n wedges of gold, 252.\n\n Wellhausen, 103, 145, 297, 300.\n\n Welsh laws, 288.\n\n Wessely, 175.\n\n Wiedemann, 194, 239.\n\n Wilbour, 93.\n\n Wilcken, 175.\n\n Winckler, 148, 183, 266.\n\n Wolf, 104, 121.\n\n Wright, Bateson, 104.\n\n\n X\n\n Xanthos, 293.\n\n\n Y\n\n Yabniel, 256.\n\n Ya\u2019di, 37, 80, 231.\n\n Yahveh, 34, 47, 164.\n\n Yahveh-Shalom, 308, 310.\n\n Yahveh-yireh, 49.\n\n Yaphia, 255.\n\n Y\u00e2m S\u00fbph (_see_ Suphah), 180, 181, 182, 183, 185, 188, 427.\n\n Yaud\u00e2 or Yaud\u00fb, 37, 80.\n\n Year of Jubilee, 208.\n\n Yeud, 46.\n\n\n Z\n\n Zabdi, 445.\n\n Zabsali (Zamzummim), 11, 41.\n\n Zadok, 145, 431, 443, 444, 446, 455, 459.\n\n Zahi, 2.\n\n Zakkal. _See_ Zaqqal.\n\n Zalmon, 319.\n\n Zalmonah, 225.\n\n Zalmunna, 312.\n\n Zambesi, 474.\n\n Zamzummim, 11, 25, 41, 43, 138.\n\n Zanoah, 264.\n\n Zaphnath-paaneah, 89, 174.\n\n\n Zaqqal or Zakkal, 5, 291, 293, 294, 313, 387, 388, 412, 457.\n\n Zared, 226.\n\n Zaretan, 248.\n\n Zaru, 179, 181.\n\n Zebah, 312, 368, 401.\n\n Zebud, 459.\n\n Zebul, 318, 319.\n\n Zebulon, 121, 303, 311, 321.\n\n Zeeb, 312.\n\n Zelah, 358, 439.\n\n Zelophehad, 144, 207.\n\n Zephath (Hormah), 217, 246, 257, 258, 329, 392.\n\n Zeruiah, 400, 431.\n\n Ziba, 438.\n\n Ziklag, 386, 389, 391, 392.\n\n Zimrida, 256.\n\n Zin, 220.\n\n Zion, 410, 466.\n\n Ziph, 382, 384.\n\n Zippor, 228.\n\n Zipporah, 163, 165, 215.\n\n Zoan (Tanis), 23, 53, 90, 148, 149, 150, 460.\n\n Zobah, 417, 419, 422, 427, 442, 454, 472, 477.\n\n Zoheleth, 446.\n\n Zorah, 279, 320, 326.\n\n Zuph or Ziph, 338.\n\n Zuzim, 11, 24, 25, 41, 138.\n\n\n\n\n \u25cf Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n    \u25cb Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).\n    \u25cb Footnotes have been moved to follow the sections in which they are\n      referenced.","title":"The early history of the Hebrews","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":184776}