Ismachiah (continued) – Ismachiah (continued)

Ismachiah (continued)

(5) The only literature which has come to us from this pre-Prophetic time consists of a few poems — the Song of Deborah (Judges 5), David’s Lament over Saul and Jonathan (2 Samuel 1), and a tew fragments elsewhere (e.g. Numbers 21 and Joshua 10:12). No one now thinks of attributing the Psalms in the form in which we have them to David, or the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes to Solomon. The literature of this period, then, is, so far as we know it, secular in character. The people were religious, but the rehgion existed as a help to secular life. It consisted largely of inherited customs, of half-superstitious beliefs, while the main interest of all was centred in physical prosperity. Certain practices were regarded as wrong, — as offences against Jahweh (.e.g. the crime of Judges 19 and David’s sin [2 S 11]), but the ethical content of the rehgion was of a very rudimentary character. Stealing (cf. Judges 18), deceit (Genesis 27), and treachery (Judges 3:15 ff. 5:24, 27) were not only condoned but at times even glorified.

(6) Before the time of Solomon a traveller In Palestine would have fqund no elaborate temple or structure devoted to rehgion. Instead, in every village he would have found an open-air ‘high place,’ marked by ‘pillars’ and asKerahs, — high places such as have recently been excavated at Gezer and Megiddo and found at Petra. In connexion with these there were often sacred caves and other accessories of primitive worship. In some, as at Gezer and Jerusalem, serpent-worship was practised, and brazen serpents as well as the Uvlng animal were kept (ct. PBFSt, 1903, p. 222; 2 K :8<). Probably at most of them, as at Gezer, some form of Ashtart, the mother-goddess, was also worshipped (cf. PEPSt, 1903, p. 228). As time went on, an occasional shrine had a building. The first of these which we can trace was at Shiloh (1 S 1-3); it had at least two rooms and doors. Solomon then erected the splendid Temple at Jerusalem on Phoenician models, departing, as has been pointed out (I. § 14) , from older Hebrew practice in many ways. Perhaps Jeroboam erected temples at Bethel and at Dan (ct. 1 Kings 12:31. Amos 7:13), but for the most part these shrines were of the simplest nature and without buildings. A wealthy citizen might in this period have a private temple in connexion with his residence (Judges 17).

(7) The priesthood in this period was not confined to any tribe. There seems to have been a feeling that it was better to have a leiri for priest (whatever that may have meant; cf . Judges 17:10), but Micah, an Ephraimite, made his son a priest (Judges 17:5)) Samuel, a member of one of the Joseph tribes, acted as priest (1 Samuel 9:12 ff.) and David made his sons priests (2 Samuel 8:18 RVm). According to J (cf. Judges 18:30), Jonathan, a grandson of Moses, started lite as an impecunious resident of Bethlehem in Judah; in seeking his fortune he became a priest in the private shrine of Micah, the Ephraimite; then at the instigation of the Danites he robbed that shrine and fled with them to the north, becoming the founder of a line of priests in the temple of Dan. Even if his descent from Moses should not be credited, the story gives evidence of the kind of irregularity in the priesthood which was still conceivable when the J document was composed. So far as Jerusalem was concerned, David improved this chaotic condition by regulating the priesthood.

(8) The festivals at this period were of a simple, joyous character. They were held in the interest of the worshipper. A picture of one has been preserved in 1 Samuel 1. 2. The priests killed the sacrifice, pouring out the blood no doubt to Jahweh, and then the flesh was cooked. While it was cooking, the priest obtained his portion by a kind of chance (ct. 1 Samuel 2:13 ff.), after which the victim was consumed by the worshippers in a joyous festival. This festival was the appropriate time to pray for children, and it is probable that considerable licence accompanied it (ct. Sem. Or. 287 ff.). The feast described occurred annually, but there were lesser feasts at the time of the new moons and on other occasions, which were probably observed in the same simple way (cf. 1 Samuel 20:5 ff.). In addition to the sacrifices at such feasts (cf. 1 Samuel 9:22 ff.), it is clear that on extraordinary occasions huraansacriflce was in this period still practised. The story of Jephthah’s daughter, whether historical in all its features or not, proves that such sacrifices were regarded as jpoSable. It Is probable that 1 Kings 16:34 is proof that children were still sacrificed when important structures were set up. The language of this passage has been greatly illuminated by the discoveries at Gezer (ct. above, § 1 (6)).

(9) A ghmpse into the household worship of the time we obtain from the teraphim. These seem to have been household deities, similar to those found in Babylonia (Ezekiel 21:21) and among the Aramaans (Genesis 31:19). Of their use we know little. They seem to have been employed for divination (Zee lO^), and they were sometimes made in human form (1 Samuel 19:16). Throughout this period they were a recognized element in the worship (cf. Judges 18:20, Hosea 3:4). Whether these gods formed the centre of the home worship or not we cannot tell. They were evidently a crude survival from an earlier time, and with religious progress they disappeared.

In addition to the features of the religion of the pre- Prophetic period which have been enumerated, it must be remembered that the fundamental institutions of the pre-Jahwistic rehgion of Israel, enumerated in § 1, continued through this period also.

(10) Another religious phenomenon of the pre- Prophetic period consisted in the development of a class of seers or prophets, who are to be carefully distinguished from the great moral and literary prophets of the next period. The prophets of this period were closely akin to the seers and fortune-tellers who are common the world over. They had their parallel in other Semitic countries, e.g. Phoenicia and Assyria. In the time of Saul there was a class of ecstatic prophets in Israel who used music to aid their prophetic excitement, who uttered themselves when possessed by an uncontrollable frenzy, and who went about in bands (cf. 1 Samuel 10 IQ^a- ").

These prophets have their analogue in a youth at Gebal in Phoenicia, of whom the Egyptian Wenamon makes report about B.C. 1100. This youth was seized by the spirit of the gods and thrown into a frenzy, and then uttered prophecies which moved a king (cf. AJSL xxi. 105). This type of prophecy was therefore in this period widely spread over the country even beyond the bounds of Israel. The ‘sons of the prophets’ referred to so often in the OT were simply guilds of these men organized for mutual help. Music helped to bring on the frenzy, and it was more contagious when a number were together.

Samuel was not sharply distinguished from, the ‘sons of the prophets,’ although he was evidently a man of a higher order, believed by the people to possess superior gifts. He was called a ‘seec’ (1 Samuel 9:9). and was believed to be able to direct people in hnding lost property, and not to be above taking a fee for it (1 Samuel 9:7). Somewhat parallel to such a seer is the one mentioned by Ashurbanipal (G. Smith, Assurbanipal, 119 ff.).

These men were held in high esteem, and obtained their living by telling people what they wished to know. Their oracles were mostly about the future, but often no doubt they told a man whether this or that action was in accord with the will of Jahweh , or of the god whom they represented. Baal as well as Jahweh had his prophets (1 Kings 18:19). Such men were necessary adjuncts of a court, for a king had often to engage in hazardous enterprises of State. We find accordingly that Ahab kept four hundred of them about him (1 K 37)., David and other kin^ had probably done the same. No doubt Nathan and Gad, whom later writers mention in connexion with David, were really men of this character, who are in the narratives pictured like the nobler prophets of later time.

These prophets by profession possessed no higher ethical tendencies than the other men of their time. Their sustenance was dependent on the pleasure of their royal master, if they were connected with the court, and usually they gave such oracles as were desired. (For fuller account, see Batten, The Hebrew Prophet, 27-72.) The institution was held in high regard. When the ecstatic frenzy came upon a man and his higher nerve centres were by the excitement inhibited from action, he was, as such men usually are among savage and primitive people (cf . Davenport, Primitive Traits in Religions Revivals, ch. i. vi.), thought to be under the possession of a supernatural spirit. He was accordingly listened to most carefully, and his utterances were supposed to reveal the Divine will. It is significant that the Hebrews used the same word for ‘prophet’ and for ‘lunatic’ The institution was capable nevertheless of high possibilities. If those came forward exercising its gifts who were animated by high ethical purpose and possessed a great spiritual message, the regard in which this institution was held assured them of a hearing.

4. Religion in the Prophetic period.— The period which we call Prophetic extends from Elijah to the great prophet of the Exile, the so-called Second Isaiah. It was in this period that, thanks to the labours of the great school of prophetic reformers, the religion of Israel became ethical and spiritual. They gave it this content, and by the new interpretation which they put on the covenant with Jahweh which Moses and Jethro had mediated, forced it upon the nation. In this they were aided by the misfortunes and sufferings incident to the interference of Assyria and Babylon in Hebrew affairs. In one important respect the prophets in this noble succession changed the method of prophetic utterance. With one exception, they discarded the method of ecstatic utterance, and spoke as the result of prophetic vision. Just what they mean by ‘vision’ we may not say, but we may be sure that intelligence and imagination had their part in it. It led to the perception of a noble ideal, and gave the beholder a holy passion to realize it.

(1) Elijah. The prophetic work began with Elijah. The main points of his career (1 K 17-19) have already been touched upon above (I. $ 17). His significance lies in the •act that in the name of Jahweh he championed the poor against the rich. That his conception of Jahweh was narrow, — that he regarded Him as a god of the nomadic type, — that he opposed a foreign cult, are all incidental. Any enthusiastic member of a prophetic guild might havie done any one of these three things. The significance of the work of Elijah Ues in the fact that it marks the dawn of ethical purity and social justice in Jahweh’s religion. The methoa of EHjah, too, was an ethical method. He delivered his message, and relied upon its weight for the results.

(2) The Jahwist (J writer) . In the same century^ perhaps contemporary with Elijah, the first of the J writers was composing his matchless prose narratives in Judah. He was pervaded by the prophetic spirit in its incipient form. He traces the creation of man to Jahweh^ and is interested in the descent of the nations from a primitive pair. He tells thestories of the patriarchs to illustrate the power of .Jahweh, but the purely religious motive is not often present. He represents the patriarchs as on friendly terms with the Canaanites about them, which indicates that he is not conscious that the religion of Jahweh is hostile to other faiths. His conception of the basis of Jahweh’s covenant with Israel is, aspointed out above (§2 (4)), ten commands of a purely ritual nature. The tone of his stories is soMbre. Clothing and child-bearing came in consequence of sin. The first agriculturist was the first murderer. The inventors of metal instruments and of music were especially wicked men . The civilization of Babylonia attempted such astounding structures, that, as Jahweh looked down from heaven, He found He could prevent men from reaching heaven only by confounding their language. To the Jahwist civilization meant sin, pain, and trouble.^ He had no hopeful outlook. His type of faith was nomadic indeed. He represents the starting-point from which the prophetic movement went forward.

(3) Elisha hardly deserves to be reckoned in this great succession . Hebrews 81 very head of professional prophecy. When absent from the band of associates he found it necessary to call a minstrel to work up his ecstasy before he could prophesy C2 K 3:15). It was he, too, who prompted Jehu, one of the bloodiest of usurpers ana reformers, to undertake the purification of Israel from the taint of foreign religion; and when it was accomplished Israel was not one whit more ethical or spiritual than before. Elisha is usually counted as Elijah’s successor, but he belongs to a different class. The nobler religion of Israel owes him nothing.

(4) Amos, the first prophet to commit his message to writing, came, like Elijah, with a magnificent message — a message indeed which is to that of Elijah ike noon to dawn. Amos announces for the first time the fafth of a practical monotheist. Such a faith had been imphcit in the Jahwist, when he traced the existence of all mankind to Jahweh’s act, but in Amos it is explicit. Jahweh brought not only the Israelites from Egypt, but the Philistines from Caphtor, and the AramsBans from Kir (Amos 9:7). and He will likewise judge the Philistines, Damascus, Moab, Edom, and all nations (chs. 1. 2). Jahweh, too, Amos proclaims as an ethical God. Ethics, not ritual, was the basis of the covenant at Sinai (Amos 5:21–25). Justice is to roll down as waters and righteousness as a perennial stream before Jahweh will be satisfied. In this spirit Amos championed in the name of Jahweh the cause of the oppressed poor, and rebuked the social impurities connected with rehgion, pronoimcing upon the unethical the doom of Jahweh. ‘

(5) The Elohist. Perhaps contemporary with Amos was the first E writer. Hebrews 5 a man of true propKetic spirit. Like J, he recorded many of the traditions of ancient times, but he tells them with a m9re hopeful outlook. He has a high regard for a prof>het, and represents Abraham as one (Genesis 20:7). He represents a higher conception of God than J. J’s anthropomorphism has disappeared. God is never seen in human form in E’s narratives, but reveals Himself in dreams. The ethical character of E’s conception of religion appears, however, in his conception of the basis of the covenant which Moses made between Israel and Jahweh. The basis of this is a Decalogue in which the ritualistic is reduced to a minimum (Ex 20 without the additions of Rd), and which contains the fundamental elements of morality, and a code of laws (Exodus 20:24) embodying the principles of equity that were necessary for the life of a simple agricultural commxmity. In giving expression to this conception, the Elohist placed himself in line with the great ethical prophets, and did much towards the differentiation of the religion of Israel from the nature cults about it. In his opening to the Decalogue (Exodus 20:3) ^e shows that his monotheism was somewhat insecure, but his ethical conception of Jahweh’s relation to Israel helped to put rehgion on a spiritual basis.

(6) Hosea’s main contribution to religious theory was the thought that God is love — not the crass sexual love of the early Semite, but the self-sacrificing love of an affectionate father or a devoted husband, who would suffer to reclaim the fallen. Not less stem than Amos in his conception of ethical standards, Hosea is less occupied with proclaiming doom. He seeks by the love of Jahweh to allure Israel and win her back. Amos devoted himself mainl y to checking the oppression of the poor, Hosea largely to the establishment of social purity. It became clear to him that this could not be accomplished so long as the primitive orgies of sexual freedom which were enacted in the name of religion in ail the high places were permitted to continue. These he believed were no part of the real religion of Jahweh; they had come into it from the cult of Baal and Astarte. He accordingly denounced this impunty as the worship of another god, — a3_ conjugal infidelity to Jahweh, and prohibited the application to Jahweh in the future of the appellation Baal, or ‘lord’ (Hosea 2:16). Thus, as in the time of Elijah the struggle for justice linked itself with opposition to a foreign cult, so now the struggle for justice and purity led to opposition to Baal. The cult was not so foreign as the prophets supposed. It was native, as we have seen, to Jahweh as well as to the clans of Canaan which were now a part of Israel, but the idea that it was foreign helped the prophets to fight it. The fight was taken up by Hosea’s successors and pushed to success. The recovery of the high place at Gezer, with ail its crass and revolting symbolism, helps us to understand the weight of deadening sensualism against which the prophets contended.

Hosea. like Amos, was a monotheist. His conception of Jahweh was, however, not perfect. He thought of Him as caring especially for Israel. Though He ruled other nations. Hosea believed He controlled them mainly for the sake of Israel.

(7) Isaiah continued the work of Amos and Hosea. He proclaimed Jahweh as the All-powerful, who fills heaven and earth, — the Holy One, who proves His sanctity by His justice. For forty years, in many crises and under varying figures, Isaiah set forth this doctrine. Man is in Jahweh’s hands as clay in the hands of the potter. The powerful Assyrian is but the rod by which Jahweh in His wrath is chastising Israel; when His will is accomplished, the rod will be broken and thrown away (Isaiah 117). Isaiah’s monotheism, though lofty, had the same defect as Hosea’s. In upholding this conception of God, Isaiah denounced the social sins which had called out the opposition of Amos and Hosea. So great is Jahweh’s desire for justice, that Isaiah believed that He would one day raise up a prince great in all the qualities of ‘a princely conqueror, who should be a’ Wonderful-counsellor, a god of a warrior, a father of booty, but a prince of peace’ (Isaiah 9:6). At another time he saw a vision of a kingdom of complete justice which an offshoot of the Davidic dynasty should found (Isaiah 11). These visions show how, in Isaiah’s conception, the Holy One would organize human society. In addition to his work in keeping alive these lofty ideas, Isaiah, as was pointed out above (I. § 19), gave practical direction to the development of Israel’s religion. His doctrine of the inviolaoility of Jerusalem took effect in later times, and had much to do with the development of Judaism. He is probably responsible also for that attempt to suppress the high places which afterwards found legal expression in Deuteronomy ._ The significance of this will, however, be pointed out in considering that law. In Micah, a younger contemporary of Isaiah, the spirit and message of Amos reappear.

(8) The Deuteronomist. in the development of the Prophetic period, follows Isaiah. Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah had proclaimed an ethical monotheism. They had denounced ritual as without place in the religion of Jahweh. The message had been enforced by the awful calamity which had overtaken the Northern Kingdom; it had, in consectuence of Isaiah’s friendship with Hezekiah, moulded policies of State. Under Manasseh, however, it became painfully evident that it was to take more than moral means to eliminate impure ritual from the religion of Jahweh. No part of the world, not even the Hebrews, was ready for a religion without ritual. Isaiah, probably, had seen this in his old age. The Deuttronoraist at all events saw it. Ritual should be retained, but it should be brought within manageable limits. The high places should be eliminated, the cult centralized in Jerusalem — the place which Isaiah’s teaching and the signal defeat of Sennacherib had so clearly proved to be Jahweh’s special dwelling-place. From this all sodomites and sacred harlots were to be excluded, as well as all symbols, such as the ‘pillar’ and asherah, which were specially significant of the odious social practices. To accomplish this, the code of the Elohist was rewritten in such a way that this conception of the sanctuary stood in the forefront, and other parts were made to conform to it. Into the whole code a more humanitarian tone towards the poor was introduced. It was thus made to express in legal form the burden of the best social teaching. Although the Deuteronomist did not advance the great ideas of spiritual religion to higher levels, he did by the compromise of tms code help those ideas to influence practical life.

(9) Jeremiah, perhaps the greatest of the prophets, made great advances in the conception of spiritual religion. There was in all his work an undertone of passionate love, — a heart-throb, — like that of Hosea. The greatest significance of his teaching is not, however, his tenderness. He saw that Jahweh is independent of temple or place. An inviolable Jerusalem He did not need. What Jahweh desires is that man shall break up the fallow ground of his disposition, that he shall circumcise his heart (Jeremiah 4:3 ff.). ReU^on is a matter not of a temple, but of a soul. Jeremiah, too, was the first to declare that the idols of the heathen are mere vanities. Others had ignored them, he exhibits them in their true nothingness(108 14:22). Another great truth which Jeremiah was the first to grasp was that the heathen as well as the Hebrew might come to Jahweh and be welcome (16). Not only did Jeremiah proclaim universality and ideality in religion, but he shook himself free from the old Semitic conception of solidarity which had prevailed before him. No lofty morality could prevail until every one was responsible for his own acts and for those only; and this is the standard proclaimed by Jeremiah (31:29, 30). No prophet reached a loftier flight.

( 10) Ezekiel occupies a peculiar position in the Prophetic development. He stands, on one side in the succession of prophets, and, on the other, is the father of Judaism. As one of the prophetic succession, his thief work lay in the recognition and elaboration of the idea of individualism. No prophet is so impressed as he with the fact that God deals with each soul individually (Ezekiel 18). This thought leads Ezekiel to place a very great value upon the individual. The salvation of the individual becomes his special care. He even thinks of the Messiah as primarily a shepherd, — a pastor, — one whose chief care will be to accomplish the salvation of individuals. He addresses the rulers of Israel as shepherds. Cornill, who calls attention to this phase of his work (Prophets of Israel, 115 £f.). calls him the father of pastoral theology. Ezekiel was, however, more truly the successor of the Deuteronomist than of Jeremiah. Like the former, he endeavoured to adapt prophetic conceptions to Israelitish institutions. Isaiah’s conception of Jerusalem as the home of Jahweh he fully shared, and in the closing chapters of his book he utters his ideal for the rehabilitation of Hebrew institutions about Jerusalem as a centre. Some of these conceptions were unpractical, but others took deep root, and made Ezekiel the father of Judaism..

(11) The Second Isaiah was the last of Israel’s really great prophets. His conception of Jahweh as the creator of the universe, as the ruler of the world and the maker of history, is clearer than that of any of his predecessors. The great Cyrus, who was conquering so successfully as the Second Isaiah wrote was only Jahweh’s creature. Cyrus might think otherwise, but Jahweh and His prophet knew the truth. Even Hosea never expressed the tendernessof Jahweh towards His people with greater beauty than did this prophet. His conception of Jahweh, too, is more symmetrical than that of the 8th century prophets. If in him, as in them, Jahweh seems to care chiefly for Israel, it is so only in appearance. He haa shown m his great poem on the Suffering Servant (Isaiah 52:13) that in his view Israel was made the chosen people not through favouritism, or to puff up her self-esteem, but because Jahweh had for her a great mission. That mission was nothing less than to bring the nations of the world to Jahweh. The path of this service was the path of suffering, but it was to accomplish the salvation of the world. Jahweh, then, loved the world. He had chosen Israel and given her her tragic experience that she through this might become a missionary to the nations and bring them all to Jahweh. It does not detract from the prophet’s great conception, that the mission which he conceived for his people was never fulfilled till the coining of the ideal Israelite, Jesus Christ.

This prophetic conception of God and religion, which thus developed from Elijah to the Second Isaiah, is unique in the world’s history. Only once has this teaching been surpassed. Jesus of Nazareth, who perfected this conception of God and made it capable of being universally received, alone has gone beyond it. It was the teaching of these prophets that redeemed the religion of Israel from the level of other Semitic religions. It is this that has made the religion of Jahweh the inspiration of the world as the religion of the one true God. This prophetic teaching is quite unaccounted for by its environment. Nothing like it has been produced without its aid in any portion of the Semitic world, or among any other people. It is in the prophetic teaching and the influences which flowed from it that we find proof of the truth of the words: ‘Men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit’ (2 Peter 1:21).

6. FromtheExiletotheMaccabees.— (1) Itisclearfrom the sketch given above (I. § 24), that in the rehabilitation of the Jewish communities in Palestine the whole sentiment of the organizers centred in the ritual. If there were prophets, such as Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, they uttered their prophetic visions to persuade the people to make sacrifices to restore and maintain the sacred ceremonies. It thus happened that the whole movement in the early days after the Exile was pervaded more by the priestly than by the prophetic spirit. The Priestly document with its supplements (for the analysis cf . Carpenter and Harford-Battersby’s HexateucKi was the heart of the whole movement. The religious life of the Judaean community did not become consistent until it was organized upon this basis, and after this organization it went forward confidently. The author of the Priestly document (P^) was the successor of Ezekiel, as Ezekiel had been the successor of the Deuteronomist. As Ezekiel took more interest in the organization of the ritual than did D, so P^‘s interest greatly exceeded Ezekiel’s. The prophetic movement had given P^ his pure monotheism. From it he had received a faith in an All-powerful, Holy Creator and Ruler of the universe. The nearness and warmth of God, as the prophets had conceived Him, escaped P^, but with such elements of the prophetic conception as he could grasp he set himself to the organization of the ritual.

The ritual which had come down to him from his priestly ancestry he had received as the will of God. We can see that it had its birth in Semitic heathenism, but he could not. In reality this ritual bound him to earth by the strands of many a half-superstitious custom, but in his thought it had all come from heaven. If this were so, the problem to his mind was to find the connexion of all this with the will of the God of the universe. To express the vital connexion which he thought he found, he re-wrote the history of the creation of the world and of the fortunes of the chosen people down to the settlement in Canaan, in such a way as to make it appear that circumcision had been enjoined on Abraham at the very beginning of revelation (Genesis 17), and that the basis of the covenant at Sinai was neither the ‘Book of the Covenant’ (Exodus 20:24), nor the code of Deuteronomy, but the whole Levitical ritual. This ritual, as he conceived it, had been profoundly influenced by Ezekiel. The menial work of the sanctuary was no longer to be performed, as in preexiUc days, by foreign slaves. The descendants of those priests who had ofiiciated in shrines other than Jerusalem were to be assigned to these services (cf. Ezk 44). Thus an order of Levites as a menial class was created. If this ritual was the basis of the covenant at Sinai, it could not have been ignored in the Wilderness Wandering. There must have been a niovable sanctuary. Solomon’s Temple was the model shrine to Ezekiel and the priests, but Solomon’s Temple must (so suppose P2 and his successors) have been patterned upon a previous nomadic shrine; hence the account of the Tabernacle was placed in their history. Among the newly created class of Levites there were many who had descended from men who had officiated as priests at Hebron, Gezer, Kadesh, Ashtaroth, and many other ancient shrines. P^ and his followers accounted for this fact by supposing that Joshua had given the tribe of Levi cities in all parts of the land (Joshua 21; cf . Barton, ‘Levitical Cities of Israel in the Light of the Excavation at Gezer,’ Biblical World, xxiv. 167 fl.).

This conception was accepted as the real account of the history only when the Priestly document had been sldlfuUy combined with the older writings in our Pentateuch in such a way that these priestly institutions seemed to be the heart of the whole and to overshadow all else. Then apparently all .opposition vanished, and priestly enthusiasm and prophetic fervour were joined by popular co-operation in establishing this ritual as the one right method of serving the Living God. This enthusiasm was in part the result of a distorted reading of history, but all uncritical readers so distort the history to the present hour. By the time of Nehemiah this view of the nistory was fully accepted, and by the time of the Chronicler, a century later, it had distorted the history of the Israelites in CanEian, to correspond with the priestly picture, as appears to this day in the Books of Chronicles.

This priestly triumph was in a way a retrogression from prophetic ideals. Some of the prophets, as Jeremiah, had taught a religion free and spiritual, capable of becoming universal. The priestly conception, however noble its monotheism, was so harnessed to outworn ritual that it could appeal only in a limited degree to men of other races. Nevertheless this ritual had its place. In the centuries which followed, when the soul of the Hebrew was tried almost beyond endurance, and no cheering voice of prophet was heard, it was due to this objective ritual, as something for which to live, and strive, and fight, that he survived to do his work in the world. With the adoption of the Priestly Code Judaism was born.

(2) The effects of the priestly ritual were not, however, so deadening as one might suppose. Various causes prevented it from stifling the deeper religious hfe. The teachings of the prophets were cherished, and many of them had taught that religion is a matter of the heart and not a ceremonial. During the long exile the devout Jew had learned how to live a really religious life without the help of Temple ritual. Many of the faithful were in Babylonia, and were still compelled to do without the Temple sacrifices and prayers. Then the Law itself did not contain sacrifices for many sins. The old customs adapted in Lv 4-6 and 16 provided sacrifices for oidy very few of the sins of life. The sincere heart was compelled still to five its life with God in large measure independently of the ritual. The Pentateuch also contains many noble and inspiring precepts on moral and spiritual matters. There were those, too, who paid little attention to theceremonies of the Temple, although most supported it as a matter of duty. AU these causes combined to prevent the Law from at once stereotyping the religious lite. This period became accordingly the creative period in Judaism.

The first of these important creations was the Psalter, the hymn-book of the Second Temple. This greatest of the world’s collections of sacred song was a gradual growth. Book I. (Pss 3-41) came into existence probably in the time of Nehemiah. The other collections were gradually made at different times, the whole not being.completed till the Maccabsean age (cf . art. Psalms). In compiling it some earlier hymns were probably utilized, but they were so re-edited that critics cannot clearly date them. Into this collection there went every variety of religious expression. The breathings of anger against enemies mingle with tender aspirations after communion vrith God. One psalm, the SOth, treats sacrifice sarcastically, while many express a devotion to the Law which is extremely touching. One (Psalms 51) expresses the most advanced and psychologically correct conception of the nature of sin and forgiveness that is found anywhere in the OT. A Judaism capable of producing such a book was noble indeed. To live up to the highest expressions of this the first-fruits of creative Judaism is to be a pure Christian.

(3) There was, however, in this period a class of sages who lived apart from the Ufa of the Temple, untouched by the ceremonies of the priest or the aspirations of the prophet. They treated religious problems from that practical common-sense point of view which the Hebrews called ‘wisdom.’ The books produced by this class had a profound religious influence. The attitude of these men left them free for the greatest play of individuality. Their books are, therefore, vpritten from various standpoints, and present widely divergent points of view.

The oldest of these, the Book of Job, discusses, in some of the noblest poetry ever written, the problem of suffering, or the mystery of life. The author treats his theme with absolute freedom of thought, untrammelled by the priestly conceptions of the Law. In his conclusion, however, he is profoundly religious. He demonstrates at once the function and the limits of reason in the religious life, — its function to keep theology in touch with reality, and its inability to fathom lifes mystery. Job does not find satisfaction till he receives the vision of God, and becomes willing, through appreciation of the Divine Peraonality, to trust even though his problems are unsolved (cf. Peake, Problem of Suffering m OT, 100 ff.).

The Book of Proverbs contains the sayings of sages of the practical, everyday sort. Their view of life is expediential. Wisdom is good because it pays, and the fear (worship) of Jahwen is the beginning of wisdom. Sometimes, as in ch. 8, they rise to noble poetry in the praise of wisdom, but for the most part they pursue the humdrum pathway of everyday expediency. Their point of view is the opposite of that of the impassioned Psalmists, but is not inconsistent with formal faithfulness in the observance of the Law.

Ecdesiastes is the work of a man who has almost lost faith, and who has quite lost that enthusiasm for life which the perception of a noble meaning in it gives. He is not altogether aole to throw off completely his childhood’s beliefs, but they have ceased to be for him a solution of life’s mystery, and he has scant patience with those who, in like case with himself, continue to volubly profess their devotion because it is the orthodox tiling to do. He insists upon bringing all things to the test of reality.

Sirach is a collection of aphorisms which continues the work of the Book of Proverbs.

(4) The religious life thus far described was that which flourished in Palestine. During this period, however, the Jews had been scattering over the world (cf . Dispersion). These scattered communities had no idea of being anything but Jews. They had their synagogues in which the Law was read, and, like the Captivity in Babylonia, they maintained as much of their religious life as they could away from the Temple. As often as possible they went to Jerusalem at the time of somejgreat feast, and took part in its sacrificial worship. Contact with the heathen world, however, broadened the vision of these Jews. They saw that many Gentiles were noble men. Probably too here and there one of the nobler Gentiles was attracted by the lofty religion of the Jew. At all events there sprang up among the Diaspora a desire to win the heathen world to Judaism. The translation of the Bible into Greek, which was begun in the 3rd cent., was demanded not only for the use of the Greek-speaking Jews, but as an instrument in the hands of those who would fulfil the missionary conception of the Second Isaiah and win the world to Jahweh. Towards the end of this period a missionary literature began to be written. One portion of this, the Sibylline Oracles, the oldest part of which dates perhaps from the Maccabsean age, represented the Sibyl, who was so popular in the Grseco-Roman world, as recounting in Greek hexameters the history of the chosen people. The Book of Jonah dates from this period, and is a part of this literature, though probably written in Palestine. Its author satirizes the nation as a whole for her unwillingness, after all her chastisements, either to go on the mission to which Jahweh would send her, or to rejoice that He showed mercy to any but herself.