Ismachiah (continued) – Ismachiah (continued)

Ismachiah (continued)

Aristobulus I., upon his accession, assumed the title of king (Ant. xin. xl. 1) — a step which still further estranged the Pharisees. He was a man of cruel and suspicious disposition, who imprisoned his brother and treated his subjects roughly. He conquered and Judaized in the one year of his reign ‘upper Galilee,’ by which it is supposed Ituraea is meant.

Upon his death his widow, Alexandra, released her brother-in-law, Alexander Jannaeus, from prison and offered him her hand and the throne, both of which he accepted. In his long and chequered reign he not only put down rebellion on the part of his turbulent subjects, but conquered and Judaized the old Israelitish territory across the Jordan, so that under him the little Jewish community had spread, by conquest and forcible conversion, from the narrow limits of the days of Nehemiah to practically the limits of the territory of ancient Israel. Thus the foundations of the NT distribution of Palestinian Jews were laid by the Hasmonaeans. During the whole of the reign of Alexander the opposition of the Pharisees to the dynasty and its policy was exceedingly bitter. As his end approached, Alexander committed the government to Alexandra, advising her to make her peace with the Pharisees (,Ant. xiii. xv. 5). This she did, and for the next ten years the internal affairs of the kingdom were more pacific. Alexandra made her son, John Hyrcanus ii., high priest. Upon her death she left the civil authority to Aristobulus ii., the younger of her two sons (.Ant. xiii. xvi. 1). This division of the two oflSces, which had been united from Simon to Alexandra, proved a fatal mistake. Each brother desired the office of the other, and a civil war followed. This dragged itself on tor several years. Aristobulus was more popular with the soldiery, and in a short time had defeated Hyrcanus and assumed the high priesthood. The contemplative Hyrcanus would probably have been quietly relegated to pri vate Uf e had not an extraordinary man, Antipater, an Idumaean, appeared. He attached himself to Hyrcanus, and persuaded thelatter to flee to Haretath in. (Aretas), king of the Nabataeans, who upon the promise that the cities which Alexander Jannseus had taken should be restored to him, furnished an army for the prosecution of the civil war. The advantage seems to have been with Hyrcanus, when in the year 65, Scaurus, the representative of the Roman general Pompey, appeared In Damascus, and both brothers appealed to him. The interference of Scaurus gave Aristobulus some advantage, but settled nothing, so that when, in 64-63, Pompey himself appeared, both brothers sent him rich gifts and appealed to him. Pompey postponed decision until he should reach Jerusalem. Meantime he set out upon an expedition against the Nabatseans, taking both Aristobulus and Hyrcanus with him.

In the progress of this expedition Aristobulus deserted and fled, first to Alexandrium and then to Jerusalem. Pompey, hearing of this, proceeded at once to Jerusalem. When he approached it, Aristobulus first promised to capitulate, and then, at the instigation of his soldiers, shut the gates against him. Pompey invested the city, which, after a terrible siege of three months, capitulated(Ant. xrv. iv. 1-4). With the fall of Jerusalem. In Oct. 63, the Jews for ever lost their independence, and the dream of empire which had been awakened by the success of Simon eighty years before was dispelled.

28 . Roman Rule before Herod .—The history of the Jews for the next few years reflects the vicissitudes of the tangled politics of the city of Rome. From B.C. 63-48 Palestine was under the personal power of Pompey. That general had re-established Hyrcanus ii. in power as high priest, hut stripped him of most of the territory won since the days of Simon, and made him subject to his personal representative, Scaurus. In the years that followed, Hyrcanus came more and more under the influence of Antipater, his self-appointed adviser. Antipater was found to be a man of such ability that the Romans committed to him the finances of Judaea, and on more than one occasion entrusted delicate missions to him, but Hyrcanus was in name the ruler of the land. How the Pharisees felt during this period we learn from the poems called ‘The Psalter of Solomon.’ The loss of independence had led them to cherish with renewed fervour the hopes of a Messianic kingdom.

After the defeat and death of Pompey in 48, Antipater and Hyrcanus were able to render Julius Cassar material aid at Alexandria, thus winning his favour. Antipater, who had of course been the chief instrument in this, was made a Roman citizen by Csesar, and also procurator of Judaea. Many privileges of which Pompey had deprived them were restored to the Jews. The old powers of the Sanhedrin were revived; the religious customs of the Jews were guaranteed, not only in Judaea, but in Alexandria and elsewhere, and their taxes were remitted in the Sabbatical years (Ant. xiv. ix. 3-5). Antipater proceeded to build up the fortunes of his family, making his son Phasaelus governor of Jerusalem, and Herod governor of Galilee. Herod proved an able administrator, but narrowly escaped condemnation by the Sanhedrin for presuming to exercise the power of life and death without its consent.

In B.C. 44 Lucius Cassius went to Syria to raise funds for the conspirators. Antipater made no resistance, but sought to show how useful his family could be. He set his sons to raise the 700 talents imposed on the Jews, and Herod was so successful in raising the part assigned to him that he was made general of the forces, both land and maritime, of Coele-Syria.

The withdrawal of Cassius from Syria was followed by the murder of Antipater, after which Hyrcanus came under the power of Herod and Phasaelus. When Cassius and Brutus were defeated at Philippi (b.c. 42), Antony moved on to the eastward to secure Syria. Although many Jews complained bitterly of the sons of Antipater, he made them tetrarchs with full political power, leaving to Hyrcanus only the high priesthood.

While Antony was in Egypt, Antigonus, a son of Aristobulus II., gained the aid of the Parthians, who sent a force which captured Jerusalem (b.c. 40), and made Antigonus both king and high priest. In the progress of events which thus culminated Phasaelus had committed suicide. Hyrcanus was taken to Babylon and had his ears cut off, that he might never be high priest again. Herod, in view of these events, made a most remarkable winter journey to Rome, where he besought Augustus and Antony to make Aristobulus. a grandson of Hyrcanus ii., king. These Roman statesmen, however, preferred to commit the government to one whose ability had already been proved; they accordingly made Herod king and he returned to win his kingdom. Naturally Herod could do little until Antony, who was leading an expedition against the Parthians, could allow him troops with which to flght, but with aid so furnished he finally expelled Antigonus and became king of the Jews in fact as well as in name in b.c. 37.

29. Herod and his successors. — The reign of Herod (wh. see) was marked at first by a period of diCBculty . His master, Antony, was the slave of the Egyptian Cleopatra, and Herod had not only the ordinary difficulty of a ruler of the Jews to contend with, but the caprices of Cleopatra as well. After the battle of Actium he won the favour of Augustus, who became the master of the whole Roman world, and a period of prosperity set in. Herod had a passion for building, and knew how to squeeze money out of his subjects for his purposes. He therefore built many cities, adorning them with the beauties of Greek architecture. He also built many temples. His rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem is, perhaps, the best known of these undertakings, but it is only one of many. The taxes necessary for his various enterprises fell heavily upon his subjects, and rendered them wretched and restless. His domestic life was tragic, though his own disposition was the cause of this. During his reign Hellenism made new inroads into Judaea, and Pharisaism became consolidated in the celebrated schools of Hillel and Shammai.

When Herod died (b.c. 4), Augustus divided his dominions among his sons, Archelaus receiving Judaea and Samaria; Antipas, Galilee and Peraea; and Philip, Ituraea and Trachonitis. Antipas held his territory till A.D. 39, and was the ruler of Galilee in the time of Christ, but Archelaus proved such a bad ruler that in A.D. 6 Augustus removed him, banishing him to Gaul (Jos. BJ II. vii. 3). Judffia was then placed under procurators as a part of the province of Syria. The fifth of these procurators was Pontius Pilate, under whom Christ was crucified.

Once more (a.d. 41-44) all the dominions of Herod were united under Herod Agrippa i., a grandson of Herod the Great. Agrippa was a friend of the Emperor Caligula, who gave him this position, but his rule was brief. Upon his death the country patssed once more under direct Roman rule through procurators.

30. last political struggles. — From the time that Pompey conquered Jerusalem many Jews had entertained hopes of national independence. Some thought that the tables might be turned, and Jerusalem might replace Rome as the mistress of the world. Gradually these feehngs pervaded most of the population, and became more intense. Finally, in a.d. 66, they took shape in open rebellion. The Roman general Vespasian was sent to put down the revolution, and had reduced Galilee and the outlying cities of Judaa when he heard of the death of Nero, and withdrew to Egypt to await events. During 69 Vespasian was fighting for the empire, which he flnaUy won; but the Jews, instead of strengthening themselves for the coming conflict, were consuming one another by civil war. Finally, in a.d. 70, Titus appeared before Jerusalem with a Roman army, and after one of the most terrible sieges in its history, which Josephus fully describes (BJ v. ii. £f.), it was once more devastated. The Temple was ruined, its sacred furniture taken to Rome, where the candlestick may still be seen carved on the Arch of Titus, the wall of the city broken down, and the whole site laid waste. The services of the Jewish Temple then ceased for ever.

The tenth Roman legion was left in charge of the spot, and camped here for many years. A small garrison of the Jews who had captured the fortress of Masada, on the shore of the Dead Sea, held out for three years longer, but was finally captured {Jos. BJ vii. viii.).

After this terrible calamity the Jews were politically quiet for many years. The Sanhedrin removed from Jerusalem to Jabneh (Jamnia), a town in the Philistine plain south of Joppa, where in later years its sessions became famous for the discussions of Rabbi Akiba and others concerning Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs and other interesting questions.

In A.D. 116, under the Emperor Trajan, Jews in Cyprus and the East-Mediterranean lands raised a revolt, but it accomplished nothing. Hadrian, a ruler of just and tolerant spirit, is said to have granted permission for the rebuilding of the Temple, when the slanders of the Samaritans led him to revoke it. Such an event tended to foster national resentment. In 132 a new Jewish leader, called Bar Cochba, or ‘Son of the Star,’ appeared and led a new and stubborn revolution. Ttiis precipitated a bloody war. After the defeat of the main force a body of troops fortified themselves at Bether (mod. Bittir), where they held out till 133. Hadrian was so exasperated that he determined to erase the name of Jerusalem from the map. A Roman colony, called iElia Capitolina, weis accordingly founded on the site of Jerusalem, from which all Jews were banished, and a temple to Jupiter was erected on the site of the Temple of Jahweh.

This revolt was the last expression of Israel’s national aspirations. In the centuries which have elapsed since, the Jew has been scattered in many countries. Often persecuted, he has in persecution cherished Messianic expectations. He has maintained his national identity without land or national government, content to stand Eis the representative of a religious idea once embodied in a glorious national life.

II. Religion.— 1. The pre-Jahwisticrellgion of Israel. — The history of the religion of Israel is the history of the religion of Jahweh. The religion of Jahweh was, however, introduced at a definite time in Israel’s history, and His religion as practised by the Hebrews contains many features which are identical with those of other Semitic religions. Several of these can be proved to have had their origin in very primitive conditions common to all the Semites, from which the Israelites had in a good degree emerged before the worship of Jahweh was introduced. It will aid to clearness of thought to note at the beginning what those features were which the Hebrews brought to the religion of Jahweh from their common Semitic inheritance.

(1) In this early religion lotemism, prevailed. In Comparative Religion the term ‘totemism’ denotes the idea that a natural object — usually an animal — is kindred in blood to the worstiipper. Such animals are held in great veneration; often they are regarded as specially related to the god of the tribe, and are then worshipped as the representatives of the deity. Traces of such a conception among the ancestors of the Israelites are found in the fact that the name Leah means ‘wild cow’; Rachel, ‘ewe’; Simeon, a kind of ‘wolf or’ hysna’; Caleb, ‘a dog.’ Confirmation of this view is found in the food taboos of the Israelites. Certain animals were ‘clean,’ and others ‘unclean.’ The latter class was in early times indistinguishable from ‘holy’ animals (Smith, RS 425 fl.). For further proof of totemism, see Barton, Semitic Origins, 34 ft., and the references there given.

(2) Another conception common to the primitive Hamite and Semite was theideathat deity manifests itself especially in the processes of reproduction, and that therefore the organs of reproduction are especially sacred. That this was true of these people generally is abundantly proved (cf. Barton, ch. ill.). One direct evidence that it survived In Israel is the fact that when in early times one swore by Jahweh he put his hand under the thigh (Genesis 24:2), as one now puts it on the Bible.

(3) The ‘pillar’ (mazsibah) was a sacred symbol in the worship of Jahweh down to the reform of Josiah (cf. Genesis 28:22, Hosea 3:4, Deuteronomy 7:5. 2 Kings 23:14). This object was not peculiar to the Israelites, but is found in all Semitic countries. The ‘pillar’ was at first a representation of a phallus (cf. Barton, 102), and no doubt, as such, came to be the symbol of deity. The Egyptian obelisks are but more conventionally fashioned ‘pillars.’

With the ‘pillar’ must be placed the ashSrah. TUs object was among the Hebrews at times a wooden post, but usually consisted of more than one. There is some reason tor supposing that the ashSrah was not complete until there was carved in it a rude doorway, symbolic of the physical doorway of life, in which a figure of a goddess stood (cf. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, p. 165 ff., Plates 17, 18, 29, 80, 83; also 1 Kings 15:13). If this be true, the pillar and the ashlrah together represented at every sanctuary the male and female organs of reproduction (cf. Whatham, Amer. Jour, of Rel. Psychology, i. 25 ft.). Ash^ahs stood by the altar of Jahweh down to the Deuteronomic reform (2 Kings 23:6). These symbols, then, were survivals from the pre-Jahwistio religion of Israel, and their existence proves that the conception of deity of which they are the expression formed a part of that early religion also. Cf. artt. Asherah, Pillar.

(4) Circumcision also is an institution which the Hebrews had inherited from their Semitic ancestry. It can no longer be regarded as a peculiarly Hebrew institution, for it was practised by both Hamites and Semites (Barton, 98-117), and is’pictured on an Egyptian monument earlier than the 1st dynasty (Bvll. de cor. hellenigue, 1892, p. 307 ff., and pi. 1). Circumcision, like many other religious institutions, underwent different interpretations at different periods; but its origin is clearly connected with that naive conception of the close connexion of the reproductive organs with the Divine which characterized all the people of the Hamito-Semitic race (cf. Whatham, ‘Origin of Circumcision,’ I.e. i. 301 ff.). ■The practice of circumcision among the Israelites is another proof that their conception of deity was in early times closely connected with animal fertility.

(5) From the pre-Jahwistic period came also the idea that spirits or numina dwelt in certain natural objects, such as trees, stones, and springs. This conception belonged to the primitive Semites, by whom it was held in common with primitive peoples generally (cf. RS^ 132, 167-183, 185-195; Sem. Or. 82 ff., 87-97). Sacred trees existed in many parts of Palestine. There was Abraham’s oak of Mamre near Hebron (Genesis 13:18 18:1). at Shechem stood another (Joshua 24:26). at Ophrah another (Judges 6:11, 19). and at many other places they were found, and indeed they are still found in Palestine at the present day (cf. Curtiss, Prim. Sem. Rel. To-day, 91 ff.; Barton, A Year’s Wanderings in Bible Lands, 162, 163, and Biblical World, xxiv. 170, 174).

Wells were also sacred. The fountain at Kadesh was called En-mishpat (Genesis 14:7). or the ‘spring of judgment,’ no doubt because oracular decisions were obtained there. The well of Lahai-roi (Genesis 16:14) had a story to account for its sacredness, as had also the wells at Beersheba (Genesis 21:29). which were evidently sacred. En-rogel (modern Job’s Well) was so sacred that Adonijah held a sacrifice by it (1 Kings 1:9 ff.). while Solomon was anointed at Gihon (modern Virgin’s Fountain) for the same reason.

A sacred circle of stones called Oilgal existed on the west of the Jordan (Joshua 4:19 ff.). This sacred stone-circle, like many which exist still on the east of the Jordan (cf. Barton, A Year’s Wanderings, 143, and Biblical World, xxiv. 177), was no doubt of pre-historic origin. In the pre-Jahwistic religion, then, such numina were worshipped by the Hebrews.

(6) Another feature of this early religion was sacrifice. In later times sacrifice was regarded mainly as a gift of food to the deity (cf. Psalms 60), and probably in early times this idea entered into it. The late W. R. Smith thought that the chief feature of primitive sacrifice was communion. i.e. that a commensal feast, in which the god and the worshipper partook of the same food, and their kinship was consequently renewed, was its chief feature i.RS’, vl.-xi.). Whether this was its sole feature or not, there can be no doubt that the sacrificial feast formed an important part of primitive sacrifice, and of sacrifice among the early Hebrews (cf. Exodus 24:11). Curtiss believes that the originally significant element in sacrifice was the bursting forth of the blood, — that this rather than the feast constituted it a sacrifice (Prim. Sem. Bel. To-day, 216-228), while Whatham (}.c. ii. 38) holds that human sacrifice, at least, originated in impersonating the death of the earth-goddess’s son, i.e. the death of vegetation. Whatever the meanings attached to it (and in the long developments of pre-historic time they may have been many), sacrifice both of human beings and of animals was practised by the primitive Semites, and was perpetuated by the Hebrews into the OT period. Traces of human sacrifice were found by Mr. Macalister during the excavation at Gezer (cf. PBFSt, 1903, pp. 33 £f., 121, 306 ff.). The story of the sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis 22) is in reality an attempt to justify the discontinuance of the sacrifice of the human firstborn, and to substitute a ram for it. It is really the story of Isaac’s deliverance, not of his sacrifice. Its presence in the OT proves that in early times the Israelites, in common with other Semites, practised human sacrifice.

(7) Probably the ‘ban’ (chSrem), by which even before a battle all the population of the enemies’ country and their effects were devoted to destruction as a solemn obligation to Jahweh, is another survival from primitive times. Many examples of it are found in the OT (cf. Numbers 21:2. joa 6:17. 1 Samuel 15:3 ff.). It seems to have been the custom of the Moabites, for Mesha says (Moabite Stone, 1. 11 f.): ‘I killed all the people of the city — a pleasing spectacle to Chemosh.’ So barbarous a custom was no doubt primitive.

(8) Another custom perpetuated by the lsraeUtesfrora pre-jahwistic times was the law of blood revenge, by which it became a religious duty, when one was injured, to infiict a hke injury, and if the blood of one’s kinsman was shed, to shed the blood of those who had committed the deed. This idea not only meets us frequently in the OT (Genesis 4: Exodus 21 2m.), but is also found often in the Code of Hammurabi. B.C. 2100 (§§ 127, 195-197, 200, 202, 210, 219, 229, 230, 231), and among the Arabs to-day (cf. e.g. Zwemer, Aralyia. 155, 265). It is clearly one of the religious points of view which have come out of the primitive Semitic past.

(9) The Passover, or spring leaping festival, so called, perhaps, because the young were then gambollingabout ,is another institution which, as is now generally recognized, the Israelites broughtwiththera from their remote Semi tic past (cf. BS2 406ff., 464; Sem. Or. 108 ff.; Kautzsch, in Hastings’ DB, Ext. Vol. 621 ff.: Schmidt, Prophet of Nazareth, 62). It is one of the survivals of the early Semitic worship of deity as the giver of animal life, and, like the ‘pillar’ and ashirah, is an evidence of the sacred nature of reproduction among the ancestors of the Hebrews. It underwent in later times a different interpretation at their hands (cf. Exodus 12), but it is certain that that explanation does not account for its origin.

(10) It is probable that an autumn festival, which in primitive Semitic times was connected with the date harvest, and in the OT period was known as the Feast of Tabernacles, was brought by the Israelites into Jahweh-worship from their primitive life. This is not so universally recognized as in the case of the Passover, but has been practically proved by Barton (Sem. Or. lulls). In connexion with this festival probably in primitive times the wailing for Tammuz occurred, and all those ceremonies which celebrated the death and resurrection of vegetation. This wailing was in the late Hebrew ritual interpreted as mourning tor sin on the Day of Atonement (cf. RS’ il l: Sem. Or. 289 ff.). Similarly after the settlement in Canaan it was regarded a s the feast of the grape harvest instead of the date harvest.

(11) We can hardly say that the Hebrews were believers in polytheism before the covenant with Jahweh, but certainly they were not monotheists. Probably each tribe had its god. One of these, the god of the tribe Gad, has survived in the OT with a specialized function (cf. Isaiah 65:11). These tribal deities received the special homage of their respective clans, but no doubt when men wandered into the region of other local numina they propitiated these also. Such a condition, where tribes worship one deity but recognize the reality of other deities, is called by some scholars ‘henotheism.’

2. The covenant with Jahweh. — The historical circumstances under which Jahweh became the God of Israel have been sketched above (I. § 6).

(1) Those circumstances certainly suggest that Jahweh was the god of the Kenites before He was the God of Israel.

This view, firat suggested by Ghillany , also independently by Tiele, more fully urged by Stade. fully worked out by Budde, is now accepted by Guthe, Wildeboer, H. P. Smith, Barton, and W. R. Harper. The reasonsforit are: (a) Of the three documents which narrate the Exodus, E and P tell of the introduction of the name Jahweh as a new name . In early religion a new name usually means a new deity. E, on whom Pisdependentinthispartofthenarrative.wasanEphraimite and preserved the traditions current among the Joseph tribes. (6) The account of the institution of the covenant (Exodus 18:12 ff.) makes it clear that Jethro, the Kenite priest, offers the sacrifice. He really initiates the Hebrews into the worship of Jahweh. This is confirmed by the underlying thought of all the documents that it waa in this Midianite or Kenite country (the Kenites were a branch of the Midianites) that Moses first learned of Jahweh. (c) For centuries after this Sinai was regarded as the home of Jahweh . From here He marched forth to give victory to His people (Jg5*ff., Deuteronomy 33:2. Habakkuk 3:1. Psalms 68:4). Elijah also made a pilgrimage to Sinai to seek Jahweh in His home (1 Kings 19). (d) The Kenites during several succeeding centuries were the champions of the pure worship of Jahweh. Jael killed Sisera (Judges 5:24 ff.). Trie Rechabites, who from Jehu to Jeremiah (2 Kings 118. Jeremiah 35) championed Jahweh, were Kenites (1 Ch 2). (e) Someof the Kenites joined Israel in her migrations (Numbers 10:29 ff.). mingling with Israel both in the north (Judges 5:24) and in the south (Judges 1:16) some of them remained on the southern border ofjudah. where they main tain edaseparate existence till the time of Saul (1 Samuel 15:6). and were finally, in the days of David, incorporated into the tribe of Judah (1 Samuel 30 ). (f) It is this absorption of the Kenites by Judah. which, if Jahweh were a Kenite deity, explains why the J document, written in Judah, regards the faiowledge Oi the name Jahweh as inmaemorial (Genesis 4:26). The perpetualseparateness ofjudah from the othertribes tended to perpetuate this in spite of contrary currents from other quarters. We are therefore justified in holding that Jahweh was the god of the Kenites , that some of the Hebrew tribes entangled in Egypt were ready to abandon their old gods for one that could deliver them, and thus He became their God. The objections to this view urged by Kautzsch (Zoc.cii. 626 ffO really do not touch thenerveof the argument. The words ‘Giod of thy fathers’ on which he lays so much stress are written from a later point of view, ana that point of view is quite as well justified by the Kenite hypothesis (for the Kenites were absorbed by Judah) as by the supposition that Jahweh was the god of one of the Israeiitish clans.

(2) What conception the Hebrews of the time of Moses held of Jahweh we can in broad outline define. Evidently they conceived Him to be a god of war. The needs of the oppressed tribes demanded a warrior. The people are said to have sung, after their deliverance, ‘Jahweh is a man of war.’ A book of old poems was called ‘The Book of the Wars of Jahweh’ (Numbers 21:14), and ‘Jahweh of hosts’ (or armies) was afterwards one of His most constant names. There can be little doubt that this conception of Jahweh as a war-god had developed among the Kenites, and that it had large influence in drawing the Hebrews into His worship.

There is reason also to believe that, as Jahweh had long been worshipped around Mount Sinai, where severe thunder-storms occur (cf. Agnes Smith Lewis, Expos. Times, June 1906, p. 394), He had come to be regarded as a god who manitested Himself especially in the phenomena of storms. He is usually represented as coming In a thunder-storm (Psalms 18, Ezekiel 1, Habakkuk 3, Isaiah 19:1, Job 38), and the regular name for thunder was ‘the voice of Jahweh’ (Psalms 29:3 ff.; Job 37:4). He is also said to have led His people in a cloud (Exodus 13. 14), to have appeared on Mount Sinai and in the Temple in a cloud (Exodus 19, 1 Kings 8:10, 11) and in the middle books of the Pentateuch the cloud is used more than forty times as the symbol of Jahweh’s presence. Probably, then, the Israelites received Him from the Kenites as a god of war who manifested Himself in the storm-cloud and uttered His terrible voice in thunder.

These conceptions, however, did not exhaust their thought of Him. The Israelites were Semites, and they thought of Him as a god of life. Had this not been so, circumcision would not have been His sign, the ‘pillar’ and ashSrah would not have been symbolic instruments In His worship, the firstborn would not have been offered to Him in sacrifice, and the genitals would not have been the part of the body specially sacred to Him. Barton has shown that Jahweh is an evolution out of that primitive Semitic conception which made plant and animal fertihty especially reveal deity {op. eit. ch. vii.). These conceptions, too, the Hebrews in the time of Moses held of Jahweh.

(3) The name Jahweh, explained in Exodus 3:14 as ‘I am that I am’ or ‘I will be that which I will be,’ was long thought to justify the view that at the time of Moses the Israelites regarded Jahweh as the self-existent or uncreated One. It has now been generally recognized, however, that this is only a later Hebrew explanation of a name the original meaning of which had been forgotten.

In an attempt to recover the lost original, many and various theories have been put forward. For a resume of these, see Barton (op, ett. ^3, 284). Scholara are by no means agreed as to the meaning of the name. There are almost as many theories of its etymology as there are different scholars. Barton has correctly seen that the name probably had some reference to Jahweh as the God of life, — the God whose ‘reward’ is ‘the fruit of the womb’ (Psalms 127:3). but he failed, then, to see that the etymology should be sought not in Hebrew but in Arabic. The Kenites were an Arabian tribe, a.nA. Jahweh was no doubt an Arabian epithet. Probably it is connected with the root hawa, ‘to love passionately’ used in some forms especially of sexual desire. If this meaning were understood by Hebrews at the time of Moses, it was lost as soon as the Israelites began to speak a Canaanitiah dialect.

(4) It is probable that the covenant between Jahweh and Israel involved at the time no more than that they would become His worshippers in return for deliverance, victory, and protection. In becoming His worshippers, however, it was necessary to have a knowledge of His ritual, i.e. how to worship Him. Our oldest document J gives a list of ten commands or ‘words’ (Exodus 34), which its author regarded as the basis of the covenant. As this Decalogue of J stands, it would form a convenient summary of ritual law for a nomadic people to carry In the memory.

Some features of it cannot, however, be as old as Moses, for the feast of ‘unleavened bread’ is, as Wellhausen and others have demonstrated, an agricultural festival, which grew up after the settlement in Canaan. It was, however, merged with the Passover, and its name has probably been substituted for the Passover by some editor. The Feasts of Weeks and of Ingathering were also agricultural festivals, but, as pointed out in the preceding section, the latter goes back to a nomadic date festival. The observance of the Sabbath probably goes back, as Toy has shown (JBL xviii. 190 ff.), to an old taboo. With very little alteration, therefore, the Decalogue of J suits all the wilderness conditions.

We may suppose that the summary of ritual which Moses taught the Israelites as the basis of the covenant with Jahweh was somewhat as follows; —

1. Thou shalt worship no other god.

2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

3. The feast of the Passover thou shalt keep.

4. The firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb.

5. None shall appear before me empty.

6. On the seventh day thou shalt rest.

7. Thou shalt observe the feast [of the date harvest].

8. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread, neither shall the sacrifice of the Passover be left until the morning.

9 . The firstlings of thy flocks thou shalt bring unto Jahweh thy god.

10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk.

These commands are in part conjectural, but as they are obtained from J by omitting the agricultural and later elements, they are probably approximately right.

(5) It will be noticed that the second command is not a prohibition of idols, but only of expensive idols. Kautzsch (Joe. cU. 629) thinks that the number of references to the bodily presence of Jahweh (cf. e.g. Exodus 33:23) may indicate that some idol of Him existed in Sinai. This is quite possible, since the Decalogue, as J understood it in the 9th cent., did not prohibit such images.

(6) Jahweh’s symbol at this time was the sacred ark. As the Egyptians and Babylonians had similar structures for carrying their gods (cf . Wilkinson, AndentEgyptians, iii. 289; ‘Isaiah’ in SBOT, 78), it is probable that the ark was a kind of movable sanctuary for a nomadic people. A late tradition (1 Kings 8:9, 21) says that it contained the Ten Commandments written on stone. The later versions of the Commandments differ so radically that it is not probable that an authoritative copy from such early date was preserved. Scholars suppose therefore that the ark contained an aerolite or some such symbol of Jahweh. Centuries afterwards, when it was carried into the camp of the Philistines, it was thought that Jahweh Himself had come into the camp (1 Samuel 4).

In the J document the ark plays a small part, while in t he E document it is much more prominent . J apparently thought much more of Sinai as the home of Jahweh. This probably came about from the fact that after the settlement the ark was in the possession of the Joseph tribes and became their shrine.

(7) According to the oldest sources, there seems to have been no priesthood at this time except that of Moses himself. J tells us that when the covenant was ratified, Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and seventy elders of Israel went up into Jahweh’s mountain, but only Moses was permitted to come before Him (Exodus 24), while E tells us of a ‘tent of meeting’ which Moses used to pitch at a distance from the camp, and to which he would go to consult Jahweh (Exodus 33:7–11), and then return. In this tent Joshua, Moses’ minister, abode all the time (Exodus 33:11). It is clear that neither of these writers had any conception of the choice of the tribe of Levi for the priesthood. Indeed E makes no mention of the tribe of Levi anywhere. Moses was in his view apparently of one of the Joseph tribes, and how the term ‘Levite’ for priest originated he does not tell us. In Judges 17:7 he tells us of a Levite who belonged to the tribe of Judah (cf. SBOT, ad loc), so that here ‘Levite’ cannot have a tribal signification. J tells us of a tribe of Levi to which a calamity happened (Genesis 34. 49:5–7), and he tells us also (Exodus 32) of a number of men who in a crisis attached (levned) themselves to Moses for the preservation of the religion of Jahweh, and were, perhaps, accordingly called ‘Levites.’ Many scholars think that the later priesthood was developed out of this band, and that its identification with the unfortunate clan of Levi is due to a later confusion of the names. In the present state of our knowledge, this is, perhaps, the most probable view. (For the great variety of opinion among scholars, cf. art. ‘Levi’ in JB vii. 21.) The priesthood is probably a development later than Moses.

3. The pre-Prophetic religion in Canaan. — (1) The conquest of Canaan strengthened the faith of the Israelitish tribes in Jahweh as the god of war. Their success strengthened the hold of Jahweh upon them. A Semitic people upon entering a new land always felt it necessary to propitiate the god of the land. As this was the case as late as the 8th cent. (2 Kings 17:24–34), it would be all the more true at the beginning of the 12th. At first, therefore, they must have mingled the worship of the Baals with the worship of Jahweh. As we have seen, the conquest did not occur all at once; there must have been many conflicts, which kept the tribes in constant dependence upon Jahweh (ct. Judges 5:23). These conflicts continued to the time of Saul and David, and constituted a life and death struggle. When, under David, Israel emerged victorious, Jahweh was more than ever the god of armies. These vicissitudes tended to eliminate the worship of the tribal deities. Little by little Jahweh came to be regarded as the god of the land, — as a Baal, — and as such took possession in their thought of the principal Canaanitish shrines.

(2) Gradually the Canaanitish conceptions connected with these shrines were transferred to Jahweh. This fusion was easily possible because of the kinship of Jahweh and the Baals. Both had sprung from the same primitive conceptions. Both were regarded as gods of animal fertility. To both the same symbols of fertility were sacred. The main difference was that the Baals were the gods of clans which had longer resided in a fertile land (cf. Sem. Or. 297 fl.). By this fusion the somewhat meagre and simple ritual of Jahweh was enriched. By the time of Gideon the term Baal (‘lord ‘) was applied to Jahweh, as Jerub-baal, Gideon’sreal name, proves. Ish-baal and Meri-baal, sons of Saul, and Beeliada, a son of David, bear names which prove the same thing.

(3) During this period it was not thought wrong to make images of Jahweh. Gideon made an ephod-idol at Ophrah (Judges 8:27). Micah made an image to Jahweh (Judges 17:3 ff.). and it is probable that similar images existed elsewhere. Sometimes these were in the form of bullocks as were those which Jeroboam set up at Bethel and Dan. These latter symbolized Jahweh as the generator of life, and the god of pastoral wealth. Household numiirta called teraphim were also worshipped. Images of these were also made, sometimes large enough to be passed off for a man (1 Samuel 19:13 ff.).

(4) In the whole of this period it was thought that Jahweh existed in the form of a man. He might appear and talk with a person, indistinguishable from a human being, until the moment of His departure (cf. Genesis 18:2 ff.; Judges 6:11 ff. 13:3 ff.). Sometimes, as in the last two passages cited, it was the angel of Jahweh that appeared, but at the period when these narratives were written, the conception of the difference between Jahweh and His angel was not fully developed. So the ‘face’ (presence) of Jahweh (Exodus 33) is a reference to the ‘person’ of Jahweh. It indicates that He was conceived as having a bodily form When the J document was written, the Prophetic period was already dawning. As we are indebted to that document for most of these anthropomorphic representations of Jahweh, we may be sure that this conception prevailed throughout the pre-Prophetic period.