FOOTNOTES:

[1] The dating of these documents is extremely difficult, since it is

based entirely on internal evidence. Various scholars, while agreeing

on the actual divisions of the text, differ on the question of

priority. The dates here given are those which seem to be most

generally accepted at the present time. They are not put forward as

the result of an independent review of the evidence.

[2] See especially A. Jellinek's _Bet-ha-Midrasch_ (Leipzig, 1853),

for these lesser midrashim.

[3] That on Genesis was edited for the first time by Schechter

(Cambridge, 1902).

[4] In Hebrew [Hebrew: rashi], from the initial letters of Rabbi

Shelomoh Yiz[h.]aqi, a convenient method used by Jewish writers in

referring to well-known authors. The name Jarchi, formerly used for

Rashi, rests on a misunderstanding.

[5] So Bacher in _J.Q.R._ iii. 785 sqq.

[6] For the history of the very extensive literature of this class,

Zunz, _Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie_ (Berlin, 1865), is

indispensable.

[7] See the edition of them in Harkavy, _Studien_, iv. (Berlin,

1885).

[8] Two different texts of it exist: (1) in the ed. pr. (Mantua,

1476); (2) ed. by Seb. Munster (Basel, 1541). There is also an early

Arabic recension, but its relation to the Hebrew and to the Arabic 2

Maccabees is still obscure. See _J. Q. R._, xi. 355 sqq. The Hebrew

text was edited with a Latin translation by Breithaupt (Gotha, 1707).

[9] On the various recensions of the text see D. H. Muller in the

_Denkschriften_ of the Vienna Academy (_Phil.-hist. Cl._, xli. 1, p.

41) and Epstein's ed. (Pressburg, 1891).

[10] A fragment of such a work, probably emanating from the school of

Hivi was found by Schechter and published in _J.Q.R._, xiii. 345 sqq.

[11] See M. Friedlander in _Publications of the Society of Hebrew

Lit._, 1st ser. vol. i., and 2nd ser. vol. iv.

[12] The fullest account of them is to be found in Steinschneider's

_Hebraische Ubersetzungen des Mittelalters_ (Berlin, 1893).

[13] See H. Gollancz, _The Ethical Treatises of Berachya_ (London,

1902).

HEBREW RELIGION (1) _Introductory._--To trace the history of the

religion of the Hebrews is a complex task, because the literary sources

from which our knowledge of that history is derived are themselves

complex and replete with problems as to age and authorship, some of

which have been solved according to the consensus of nearly all the best

scholars, but some of which still await solution or are matters of

dispute. Even if the analysis of the literature into component documents

were complete, we should still possess a most imperfect record, since

the documents themselves have passed through many redactions, and these

redactions have proceeded from varying standpoints of religious

tradition, successively eliminating or modifying certain elements deemed

inconsistent with the canons of religious usage or propriety which

prevailed in the age when the redaction took place. Lastly it should be

recollected that the entire body of the fragments of tradition and

literature belonging to _northern_ Israel has come down to us through

the channel of _Judaean_ recensions.

The influence of the Deuteronomic tradition in redaction is seen in such

passages as Genesis xxxiii. 20 (cf. xxxi. 45 fol.); Josh. iv. 9-20,

xxiv. 26 fol.; 1 Sam. vii. 12, where the _massebhah_ or stone symbol of

deity (forbidden in Deut. xii. 3, xvi. 22) is in some way got rid of (in

Gen. xxxiii. 20 the word "altar" in Hebrew is substituted). Similarly in

Gen. xiii. 18, xiv. 13, xviii. 1, the Septuagint shows that the singular

form "terebinth" stood in the original text. But the Massoretes altered

this to the plural as this form was less suggestive of tree-worship (see

Smend, _A. Tliche Religionsgesch_. i. p. 134, footnote 1; Nowack, _Heb.

Archaol._ p. 12, footnote 1). Many other examples might be cited, as the

"suspended _nun_" which transforms the pronunciation of the original

Mosheh (Moses) into Menashsheh (Manasseh) owing to the irregular

practices of his descendant, Jonathan ben Gershom (Jud. xviii. 30). It

is not improbable that in 2 Kings iii. 27 the words "from Kemosh" stood

after "great wrath" in the original document, as the phraseology seems

bald without them, and the motives for their suppression are obvious.

So far as concerns the critical problems which stand at the threshold of

our task, it must suffice to say that the main conclusions reached by

the school of Kuenen and Wellhausen as to the literary problems of the

Old Testament are assumed throughout this sketch of the evolution of

Hebrew religion. The documents underlying the Pentateuch and book of

Joshua, represented by the ciphers J, E, D and P, are assumed to have

been drawn up in the chronological order in which those ciphers are here

set down, and the period of their composition extends from the 9th

century B.C., in which the earlier portions of J were written, to the

5th century B.C., in which P finally took shape. The view of Professor

Dillmann, who placed P before D in the regal period (though he admitted

exilic and post-exilic additions in Exod., Levit. and Numb.), a view

which he maintained in his commentary on Genesis (edition of 1892), has

now been abandoned by nearly all scholars of repute. In the following

pages we shall not attempt to do more than to sketch in very succinct

outline the general results of investigation into the origins and growth

of Hebrew religion.

2. _Pre-Mosaic Religion._--Can any clear indications be found to guide

us as to the religion of the Hebrew clans before the time of Moses? That

Moses united the scattered tribes, probably consisting at first mainly

of the Josephite, under the common worship of Yahweh, and that upon the

religion of Yahweh a distinctly ethical character was impressed, is

generally recognized. The tradition of the earliest document J ascribes

the worship of Yahweh to much earlier times, in fact to the dawn of

human life. A close survey of the facts, however, would lead us to

regard it as probable that some at least of the Hebrew clans had

patron-deities of their own.

(a) Both Moab and Ammon as well as Edom had their separate tribal

deities, viz. Chemosh (Moab) and Milk (Milcom), the god of Ammon, and in

the case of Edom a deity known from the inscriptions as Kos (in Assyrian

Kaus).[1] From the patriarchal narratives and genealogies in Genesis we

infer that these races were closely allied to Israel. That in early

pre-Mosaic times parallel cults existed among the various Hebrew tribes

is by no means improbable. It would be reasonable to assume that Moab,

Ammon, Edom and kindred tribes of Israel in the 15th and preceding

centuries were included in the generic term Habiri (or Hebrews)

mentioned in the Tell el-Amarna inscriptions as forming predatory bands

that disturbed the security of the Canaanite dwellers west of the

Jordan. Lastly pre-Mosaic polytheism seems to be implied in the Mosaic

prohibition Ex. xx. 3, xxii. 20.

(b) The tribal names Gad and Asher are suggestive of the worship of a

deity of fortune (Gad) and of the male counterpart of the goddess,

Asherah. Under the name Shaddai (which Noldeke suggests[2] was

originally Shedi "my demon") it is possible to discern the name of a

deity who in later times came to be identified with Yahweh. On the other

hand, the connexion of the name Samson with sun-worship throws light on

the period of the Hebrew settlement in Canaan and not on pre-Mosaic

times. Nor is it possible to agree with Baudissin (_Studien zur semit.

Religionsgesch._ i. 55) that Elohim as a plural form for the name of the

Hebrew deity "can hardly be understood otherwise than as a comprehensive

expression for the multitude of gods embraced in the One God of Old

Testament religion," in other words that it presupposes an original

polytheism. For (1) Elohim is also applied in Judges xi. 24 to the

Moabite Chemosh (Kemosh); in 1 Sam. v. 7 to Dagon; in 1 Kings xi. 5 to

Ashtoreth; in 2 Kings i. 2, iii. 6, 16 to Ba'al Zebul of Ekron. (2) It

is merely a plural of dignity (_pluralis majestatis_) parallel to

_adonim_ (applied to a king in 1 Kings xviii. 8, whereas in the previous

verse the _singular_ form _adoni_ is applied to the prophet Elijah). (3)

The Tell el-Amarna inscriptions indicate that the term _Elohim_ might

even be applied in abject homage to an Egyptian monarch as the use of

the term _ilani_ in this connexion obviously implies.[3]

The religion of the Arabian tribes in the days of Mahomet, of which a

picture is presented to us by Wellhausen in his _Remains of Arabic

Heathendom_, furnishes some suggestive indications of the religion that

prevailed in nomadic Israel before as well as during the lifetime of

Moses. It is true that Arabian polytheism in the time of Mahomet was in

a state of decay. Nevertheless the life of the desert changes but

slowly. We may therefore infer that ancient Israel during the period

when they inhabited the _negebh_ (S. of Canaan) stood in awe of the

demons (Jinn) of the desert, just as the Arabs at the present day

described in Doughty's _Arabia deserta_. We know that diseases were

attributed by the Israelites to malignant demons which they, like the

Arabs, identified with serpents. The counterspell took the form of a

bronze image of the serpent-demon; see Frazer, _Golden Bough_, ii. 426;

and I Sam. v. 6, vi. 4, 5 (LXX. and Heb.) as well as Buchanan Gray's

instructive note in _Numbers_, p. 276. The slaughter of a lamb at the

Passover or Easter season, whose blood was smeared on the door-post, as

described in Ex. xii. 21-23, probably points back to an immemorial

custom. In this case the counterspell assumed a different form.

Westermarck has shown from his observations in Morocco that the blood of

the victim was considered to visit a curse upon the object to whom the

sacrifice is offered and thereby the latter is made amenable to the

sacrificer.[4] It is hardly possible to doubt that in the original form

of the rite described in Exodus the blood offering was made to the

plague demon ("the destroyer") and possessed over him a magic power of

arrest.

It is therefore certain that belief in demons and magic spells prevailed

in pre-Mosaic times[5] among the Israelite clans. And it is also

probable that certain persons combined in their own individuality the

functions of magician and sacrificer as well as soothsayer. For we know

that in Arabic the _Kahin_, or soothsayer, is the same participial form

that we meet with in the Hebrew _Kohen_, or priest, and in the early

period of Hebrew history (e.g. in the days of Saul and David) it was the

priest with the ephod or image of Yahweh who gave answers to those who

consulted him. How far _totemism_, or belief in deified animal

ancestors, existed in prehistoric Israel, as evidenced by the tribal

names Simeon (hyena, wolf), Caleb (dog), Hamor (ass), Rahel (ewe) and

Leah (wild cow), &c.,[6] as well as by the laws respecting clean and

unclean animals, is too intricate and speculative a problem to be

discussed here. That the food-taboo against eating the flesh of a

particular animal would prevail in the clan of which that animal was the

deified totem-ancestor is obvious, and it would be a plausible theory to

hold that the laws in question arose when the Israelite tribes were to

be consolidated into a national unity (i.e. in the time of David and

Solomon), but the application of this theory to the list of unclean

foods in Deut. xiv. (Lev. xi.) seems to present insuperable

difficulties. In fact, while Robertson Smith (in _Kinship and Marriage

in Early Arabia_, as well as his _Religion of the Semites_, followed by

Stade and Benzinger) strongly advocated the view that clear traces of

totemism can be found in early Israel, later writers, such as Marti,

_Gesch. der israelit. Religion_, 4th ed., p. 24, Kautzsch in his

_Religion of Israel_ already cited, p. 613, and recently Addis in his

_Hebrew Religion_, p. 33 foll., have abandoned the theory as applied to

Israel.[7] On the other hand, the evidence for the existence of

ancestor-worship in primitive Israel cannot be so easily disposed of as

Kautzsch (_ibid._ p. 615) appears to think. We have examples (1 Sam.

xxviii. 13) in which _Elohim_ is the term which is applied to departed

spirits. Oracles were received from them (Isa. viii. 19, xxviii. 15, 18;

Deut. xviii. 10 foll.). At the graves of national heroes or ancestors

worship was paid. In Gen. xxxv. 20 we read that a _massebah_ or sacred

pillar was erected at Rahel's tomb. That the Teraphim, which we know to

have resembled the human form (1 Sam. xix. 13, 16), were ancestral

images is a reasonable theory. That they were employed in divination is

consonant with the facts already noted. Lastly, the rite of circumcision

(q.v.), which the Hebrews practised in common with their Semitic

neighbours as well as the Egyptians, belonged to ages long anterior to

the time of Moses. This is a fact which has long been recognized: cf.

Gen. xvii. 10 foll., Herod. ii. 104, and Barton, _Semitic Origins_, pp.

98-100. Probably the custom was of African origin, and came from eastern

Africa along with the Semitic race. Respecting Arabia, see Doughty,

_Arabia deserta_, i. 340 foll.

It is necessary here to advert to a subject much debated during recent

years, viz. the effects of Babylonian culture in western Asia on Israel

and Israel's religion in early times even preceding the advent of Moses.

The great influence exercised by Babylonian culture over Palestine

between 2000 and 1400 B.C. (_circa_), which has been clearly revealed to

us since 1887 by the discovery of the Tell el Amarna tablets, is now

universally acknowledged. The subsequent discovery of a document written

in Babylonian cuneiform at Lachish (Tell el Hesy), and more recently

still of another in the excavations at Ta'annek, have established the

fact beyond all dispute. The last discovery had tended to confirm the

views of Fried. Delitzsch, Jeremias (_Monotheistische Stromungen_) and

Baentsch, that monotheistic tendencies are to be found in the midst of

Babylonian polytheism. Page Renouf, in his Hibbert lectures, _Origin and

Growth of Religion as illustrated by that of Ancient Egypt_ (1879), p.

89 foll., pointed out this monotheistic tendency in Egyptian religion,

as did de Rouge before him. Baentsch draws attention to this feature in

his monograph _Altorientalischer u. israelitischer Monotheismus_ (1906).

This tendency, however, he, unlike the earlier conservative writers,

rightly considers to have emerged out of polytheism. He ventures into a

more disputable region when he penetrates into the obscure realm of the

Abrahamic migration and finds in the Abrahamic traditions of Genesis the

higher Canaanite monotheistic tendencies evolved out of Babylonian

astral religion, and reflected in the name El 'Elyon (Gen. xiv. 18, 22).

Further discoveries like Sellin's find at Ta'annek may elucidate the

problem. See Baudissin in _Theolog. lit. Zeitung_ (27th October 1906).

3. _The Era of Moses._--We are now on safer ground though still obscure.

Moses was the first historic individuality who can be said to have

welded the Israelite clans into a whole. This could never have been

accomplished without unity of worship. The object of this worship was

Yahweh. As we have already indicated, the document J assumes that Yahweh

was worshipped by the Hebrew race from the first. On the other hand,

according to P (Ex. vi. 2), God spake to Moses and said to him: "I am

Yahweh. But I appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as El Shaddai and by

my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them." According to this

later tradition Yahweh was unknown till the days of Moses, and under the

aegis of His power the Hebrew tribes were delivered from Egyptian

thraldom. The truth probably lies somewhere between these two sharply

contrasted traditions. So much is clear. Yahweh now becomes the supreme

deity of the Hebrew people, and an ark analogous to the Egyptian and

Babylonian arks portrayed on the monuments[8] was constructed as

embodiment of the _numen_ of Yahweh and was borne in front of the Hebrew

army when it marched to war. It was the signal victory won by Moses at

the exodus against the Egyptians and in the subsequent battle at

Rephidim against 'Amalek (Ex. xvii.) that consolidated the prestige of

Yahweh, Israel's war-god. Indications in the Old Testament itself

clearly point to the celestial or atmospheric character of the Yahweh of

the Hebrews. The supposition that the name originally contained the

notion of permanent or eternal being, and was derived from the verbal

root signifying "to be," involves too abstract a conception to be

probable, though it is based on Ex. iii. 15 (E) representing a tradition

which may have prevailed in the 8th century B.C. Kautzsch, however,

supports it (Hastings's _D.B._, extra vol. "Rel. of Isr." p. 625 foll.)

against the other derivations proposed by recent scholars (see JEHOVAH).

That the name also prevailed as that of a god among other Semitic races

(or even non-Semitic) is rendered certain by the proper names

Jau-bi'-di (= Ilu-bi'di) of Hamath in Sargon's inscriptions, Ahi-jawi

(mi) in Sellin's discovered tablet at Ta'annek, to say nothing of those

which have been found in the documents of Khammurabi's reign. It has

generally been held that Stade's supposition has much to recommend it,

that it was derived by Moses from the Kenites, and should be connected

with the Sinai-Horeb region. The name Sinai suggests moon-worship and

the moon-god Sin; and it also suggests Babylonian influence (cf. also

Mount Nebo, which was a place-name both in Moab and in Judah, and

naturally connects itself with the name of the Babylonian deity).

Several indications favour the view of the connexion in the age of Moses

between the Yahweh-cult at Sinai and the moon-worship of Babylonian

origin to which the name Sinai points (Sin being the Babylonian

moon-god). We note (a) that in the worship of Yahweh the sacred seasons

of new moon and Sabbath are obviously _lunar_. Recent investigations

have even been held to disclose the fact that the Sabbath coincided

originally, i.e. in early pre-exilian days, with the full moon.[9] (b)

It also accords with the name bestowed on Yahweh as "Lord of Hosts"

(_sebaoth_) or stars, which were regarded as personified beings (Job

xxxviii. 7) and attendants on the celestial Yahweh, constituting His

retinue (1 Kings xxii. 19) which fought on high while the earthly armies

of Israel, His people, contended below (Judges v. 20).

The atmospheric and celestial character which belonged from the first to

the Hebrew conception of Yahweh explains to us the ease with which the

idea of His universal sovereignty arose, which the Yahwistic creation

account (belonging to the earlier stratum of J, Gen. ii. 4b foll.)

presupposes. How this came to be overlaid by narrow local limitations of

His power and province will be shown later. It is probable that Moses

held the larger rather than the narrower conception of Yahweh's sphere

of influence. While the ark carried with Israel's host symbolized His

presence in their midst, He was also known to be present in the cloud

which hovered before the host and in the lightning ('_esh Yahweh_ or

"fire of Yahweh") and the thunder (_kol Yahweh_ or "voice of Yahweh")

which played around Mount Sinai. Moreover, it is hardly probable that a

great leader like Moses remained unaffected by the higher conceptions

tending towards monotheism which prevailed in the great empires on the

Nile and on the Euphrates. In Egypt we know that Amenophis IV. came

under this monotheistic movement, and attempted to suppress all other

cults except that of the sun-deity, of which he was a devoted

worshipper. We also know that between 2000 and 1400 B.C. the Babylonian

language as well as Babylonian civilization and ideas spread over

Palestine (as the Tell el Amarna tables clearly testify). The ancient

Babylonian psalms clearly reveal that the highest minds were moving out

of polytheism to a monotheistic identification of various deities as

diverse phases of one underlying essence. A remarkable Babylonian tablet

discovered by Dr Pinches represents Marduk, the god of light, as

identified in his person with all the chief deities of Babylonia, who

are evidently regarded as his varying manifestations.[10]

Through the influence of Mosaic teaching and law a definitely ethical

character was ascribed to Yahweh. It was His "finger" that wrote the

brief code which has come down to us in the decalogue. At first, as

Erdmanns suggests, it may have consisted of only seven commands. So also

Kautzsch, _ibid._ p. 634. The most strongly distinguishing feature of

the code is the rigid exclusion of the worship of other gods than

Yahweh. Moreover, the definitely ethical character of the religion of

Yahweh established by Moses is exhibited in the strict exclusion of all

sexual impurity in His worship. Unlike the Canaanite Baal, Yahweh has no

female consort, and this remained throughout a distinguishing trait of

the original and unadulterated Hebrew religion (see Bathgen, _Beitrage_,

p. 265). Indeed, Hebrew, unlike Assyrian or Phoenician, has no

distinctive form for "goddess." From first to last the true religion of

Yahweh was pure of sexual taint. The kedeshim and kedeshoth, the male

and female priest attendants in the Baal and 'Ashtoreth shrines (cf. the

_kadishtu_ of the temples of the Babylonian Ishtar) were foreign

Canaanite elements which became imported into Hebrew worship during the

period of the Hebrew settlement in Canaan.

Lastly, the earliest codes of Hebrew legislation (Ex. xxi.-xxiii.) bear

the distinct impress of the high ethical character of Yahweh's

requirements originally set forth by Moses. Of this tradition the Naboth

incident in the time of Ahab furnishes a clear example which brings to

light the contrast between the Tyrian Baal-cult, which was scarcely

ethical, and of which Jezebel and Ahab were devotees, and the moral

requirements of the religion of Yahweh of which Elijah was the prophet

and impassioned exponent. It was this definite basis of ethical Mosaic

religion to which the prophets of the 8th century appealed, and apart

from which their denunciations become meaningless. To this early

standard of life and practice Ephraim was faithless in the days of the

prophet Hosea (see his oracles _passim_--especially chaps. i.-iv. and

xiv.), and Judah in the time of Isaiah turned a deaf ear (Isa. i. 2-4,

21).

4. _Influence of Canaan._--The entrance of Israel into Canaan marks the

beginning of a new epoch in the development of Israel's religious life.

For it involved a transition from the simple nomadic relations to those

of the agricultural and more highly civilized Canaanite life. This

subject has been recently treated with admirable clearness by Marti in

his useful treatise _Die Religion des A.T._ (1906), pp. 25-41.

It is in the festivals of the annual calendar that this agricultural

impress is most fully manifested. To the original nomadic _Pesah_

(Passover)--sacrifice of a lamb--there was attached a distinct and

agricultural festival of unleavened cakes (_massoth_) which marks the

beginning of the corn harvest in the middle of the month _Abib_ (the

name of which points to its Canaanite and agricultural origin). The

close of the corn-harvest was marked by the festival _Shabhuoth_ (weeks)

or _Kasir_ (harvest) held seven weeks after massoth. The last and most

characteristic festival of Canaanite life was that of _Asiph_ or

"ingathering" which after the Deuteronomic reformation (621 B.C.) had

made a single sanctuary and therefore a considerable journey with a

longer stay necessary, came to be called _Succoth_ or booths. This was

the autumn festival held at the close of September or beginning of

October. It marked the close of the year's agricultural operations when

the olives and grapes had been gathered [Ex. xxiii. 14-17 (E), xxxiv.

18, 22, 23 (J)]; see FEASTS, PASSOVER, PENTECOST and TABERNACLES.

Another special characteristic of Israel's religion in Canaan was the

considerable increase of sacrificial offerings. Animal sacrifices became

much more frequent, and included not only the bloody sacrifice (Zebah)

but also burnt offerings (_kalil_, _'olah_) whereby the whole animal was

consumed (see SACRIFICE). But we have in addition to the animal

sacrifices, vegetable offerings of meal, oil and cakes (_massoth_,

_ashishah_ and _kawwan_, which last is specially connected with the

'Ashtoreth cult: Jer. vii. 18, xliv. 19), as well as the "bread of the

Presence" (_lehem happanim_), 1 Sam. xxi. 6. Whether the primitive rite

of _water-offerings_ (1 Sam. vii. 6; 2 Sam. xxiii. 16) belonged to early

nomadic Israel (as seems probable) it is not possible to determine with

any certainty.

Again, the conception of Yahweh suffered modification. In the desert he

was worshipped as an atmospheric deity, who manifested himself in

thunder and lightning, whose abode was in the sky, whose sanctuary was

on the mountain summit of Horeb-Sinai, and whose movable palladium was

the ark of the covenant. But when the nomadic clans of Israel came to

occupy the settled abodes of the agricultural Canaanites who had a stake

in the soil which they cultivated, these conditions evidently reacted on

their religion. Now the local Baal was the divine owner of the fertile

spot where his sanctuary (_qodesh_) was marked by the upright stone

pillar, the symbol of his presence, on which the blood of the

slaughtered victim was smeared. To this Baal the productiveness of the

soil was due. Consequently it was needful to secure his favour, and in

order to gain this, gifts were made to him by the local resident

population who depended on the produce of the land (see BAAL, especially

_ad init._). Now when the Hebrews succeeded to these agricultural

conditions and acquired possession of the Canaanite abodes, they

naturally fell into the same cycle of religious ideas and tradition.

Yahweh ceased to be exclusively regarded as god of the atmosphere,

worshipped in a distant mountain, Horeb-Sinai, situated in the south

country (_negebh_), and moving in the clouds of heaven before the

Israelites in the desert, but he came to be associated with Israel's

life in Canaan. He manifested His presence either by a signal victory

over Israel's foes (Josh. x. 10, 11; 1 Sam. vii. 10-12) or by a

thunderstorm (1 Sam. xii. 18) or through a dream (Gen. xxviii. 16 foll.;

cf. 1 Kings iii. 5 foll.) at a sacred spot like Bethel. Accordingly,

whenever His presence and power were displayed in places where the

Canaanite Baal had been worshipped, they came to be attached to these

spots. He had "put his name," i.e. power and presence (_numen_) there,

and the same festivals and sacrifices which had previously been devoted

to the cult of the Canaanite Baal were now annexed to the service of

Yahweh, the war-god of the conquering race. The process of transference

was facilitated by two potent causes: (a) Both Canaanite and Hebrew

spoke a common language; (b) the name Baal is not in reality an

individual proper name like Kemosh (Chemosh), Ramman or Hadad, but is,

like El (Ilu) "god," an appellative meaning "lord," "owner" or

"husband." The name Baal might therefore be used for any deity such as

Milk (Milcom) or Shemesh ("sun") who was the divine owner of the spot.

It was simply a covering epithet, and like the word "god" could be

transferred from one deity to another. In this way Yahweh came to be

called the Baal or "lord" of any sacred place where the armies of Israel

by their victories attested "his mighty hand and outstretched arm." (See

Kautzsch in Hastings's _D.B._, extra vol., p. 645 foll.)

Such was the path of syncretism, and it was fraught with peril to the

older and purer faith. For when Yahweh gradually became Israel's local

Baal he became worshipped like the old Canaanite deity, and all the

sensuous accompaniments of Kedeshoth,[11] as well as the presence of the

_asherah_ or sacred pole, became attached to his cult. But the symbol

carried with it the _numen_ of the goddess symbolized, and there can be

little doubt that Asherah came to be regarded as Yahweh's consort. In

the days of Manasseh syncretism went on unchecked even in the Jerusalem

temple and its precincts, and it was not till the year of Jesiah's

reformation (621 B.C.) that the Kedeshim and Kedeshoth as well as the

Asherah were banished for ever from Yahweh's sanctuary (2 Kings xxi. 7,

xxiii. 7), which their presence had profaned.

Now local worship means the differentiation of the personality

worshipped in the varied local shrines, in other words Ba'alim or Baals.

Just as we have in Assyria an Ishtar of Arbela and an Ishtar of Nineveh

(treated in Assur-bani-pal's (Rassam) cylinder[12] like two distinct

deities), as we have local Madonnas in Roman Catholic countries, so must

it have been with the cults of Yahweh in the regal period carried on in

the numerous high places, Bethel, Shechem, Shiloh (till its destruction

in the days of Eli) and Jerusalem. Each in turn claimed that Yahweh had

placed his name (i.e. personal presence and power or numen) _there_.

Each had a Yahweh of its own.

On the other hand, old deities still lurked in old spots which had been

for centuries their abode. It was no easy task to establish Yahweh in

permanent possession of the new lands conquered by the Hebrew settlers.

The old gods were not to be at once discrowned of might. Of this we have

a vivid example in the episode 2 Kings xviii. 24-28. The inhabitants of

Babylonia and other regions whom the Assyrian kings had settled in

Ephraim after 721 B.C. (cf. Ezra iv. 10) are described as suffering from

the depredations of lions, and a priest from the deported Ephraimites is

sent to them to teach them the worship of Yahweh, the god of the land.

Similarly in the earlier pre-exilian period of Israel's occupation of

Canaanite territory the Hebrews were always subject to this tendency to

worship the _old_ Baal or 'Ashtoreth (the goddess who made the cattle

and flocks prolific).[13] A few years of drought or of bad seasons would

make a Hebrew settler betake himself to the old Canaanite gods. Even in

the days of Hosea the rivalry between Yahweh and the old Canaanite Baal

still continued. The prophet reproaches his Ephraimite countrymen for

going after their "lovers," the old local Baals who were supposed to

have bestowed on them the bread, water, wool, flax and oil, and for not

knowing that "it is I (Yahweh) who have bestowed on her (i.e. Israel)

the corn, the new wine and the oil, and have bestowed on her silver and

gold in abundance which they have wrought into a Baal image" (Hos. ii.

10).

External danger from a foreign foe, such as Midian or the Philistines,

at once brought into prominence the claim and power of Yahweh, Israel's

national war-god since the great days of the exodus. The religion of

Yahweh (as Wellhausen said) meant patriotism, and in war-time tended to

weld the participating tribes into a national unity. The book of Judges

with its "monotonous tempo--religious declension, oppression,

repentance, peace," to which Wellhausen[14] refers as its ever-recurring

cycle, makes us familiar with these alternating phases of action and

reaction. Times of peace meant national disintegration and the lapse of

Israel into the Canaanite local cults, which is interpreted by the

redactor as the prophets of the 8th century would have interpreted it,

viz. as defection from Yahweh. On the other hand, times of war against a

foreign foe meant on the religious side the unification, partial or

complete, of the Israelite tribes by the rallying cry "the sword of

Yahweh" (Judges vii. 20). In this way 'Ophrah became the centre of the

coalition under Gideon in the tribe of Manasseh. Its importance is

attested by Judges viii. 22-28, and we may disregard the "snare" which

the Deuteronomic writer condemns in accordance with the later canons of

orthodoxy. What 'Ophrah became on a small scale in the days of Gideon,

Jerusalem became on a larger scale in the days of David and his

successors. It was the religious expression of the unity of Israel which

the life and death struggle with the Philistines had gradually wrought

out.

Despite the capture of the ark after the disastrous battle of Shiloh,

Yahweh had in the end shown himself through a destructive plague

superior in might to the Philistine Dagon. There are indeed abundant

indications that prove that in the prevalent popular religion of the

regal period monotheistic conceptions had no place. Yahweh was god only

of Israel and of Israel's land. An invasion of foreign territory would

bring Israel under the power of its patron-deity. The wrath with which

the Israelite armies believed themselves to be visited (probably an

outbreak of pestilence) when the king of Moab was reduced to his last

extremity, was obviously the wrath of Chemosh the god of Moab, which the

king's sacrifice of his only son had awakened against the invading army

(2 Kings iii. 27). In other words, the ordinary Israelite worshipper of

Yahweh was at this time far removed from monotheism, and still remained

in the preliminary stage of henotheism, which regarded Yahweh as sole

god of Israel and Israel's land, but at the same time recognized the

existence and power of the deities of other lands and peoples. Of this

we have recurring examples in pre-exilian Hebrew history. See 1 Sam.

xxvi. 19; Judges xi. 23, 24; Ruth i. 16.

Material objects.

5. _Characteristics and Constituent Elements._--It is only possible here

to refer in briefest enumeration to the material and external objects

and forms of popular Hebrew religion. These were of the simplest

character. The upright stone (or _massebah_) was the material symbol of

deity on which the blood of sacrifice was smeared, and in which the

_numen_ of the god resided. It is probable that in some primitive

sanctuaries no real distinction was made between this stone-pillar and

the altar or place where the animal was slaughtered. In ordinary

pre-exilian high places the custom described in the primitive compend of

laws (Ex. xx. 24) would be observed. A mound of earth was raised which

would serve as a platform on which the victim would be slaughtered in

the presence of the concourse of spectators. In the more important

shrines, as at Jerusalem or Samaria, there would be an altar of stone or

of bronze. Another accompaniment of the sanctuary would be the sacred

tree--most frequently a terebinth (cf. Judges ix. 37 "terebinth of

soothsayers"), or it might be a palm tree (cf. "palm tree of Deborah" in

Judges iv. 5), or a tamarisk (_'eshel_), or pomegranate (_rimmon_), as

at the high place in Gibeah where Saul abode. Moreover, we have frequent

references to sacred springs, as that of _Beer-sheba_, _'Enharod_

(_'eyn-harod_) (Judges vii. 1; cf. also Judges 19, _'En-hakkore_

[_'eyn-haqqore'_]). (On this subject of holy trees, holy waters and holy

stones, consult article TREE-WORSHIP, and Robertson Smith's _Religion of

the Semites_, 2nd ed., pp. 165-197.)

The wide prevalence of magic and soothsaying may be illustrated from the

historical books of the Old Testament as well as from the pre-exilian

prophets. The latter indeed tolerated the _qosem_ (soothsayer) as they

did the seer (ro'eh). The rhabdomancy denounced by Hosea (iv. 12) was

associated with idolatry at the high places. But the arts of the

necromancer were always and without exception treated as foreign to the

religion of Yahweh. The necromancer of _ba'al 'obh'_ was held to be

possessed of the spirit who spoke through him with a hollow voice.

Indeed both necromancer and the spirit that possessed him were sometimes

identified, and the former was simply called _obh_. It is probable that

necromancy, like the worship of Asherah and 'Ashtoreth, as well as the

cult of graven images, was a Canaanite importation into Israel's

religious practices. (See Marti, _Religion des A.T._, p. 32.)

Priesthood.

The history of the rise of the priesthood in Israel is exceedingly

obscure. In the nomadic period and during the earlier years of the

settlement of Israel in Canaan the head of every family could offer

sacrifices. In the primitive codes, Ex. xx. 22-xxiii. 19 (E), xxxiv.

10-28 (J), we have no allusion to any separate order of men who were

qualified to offer sacrifices. In Ex. xxiv. 5 (E) we read that Moses

simply commissioned young men to offer sacrifices. On the other hand the

_addendum_ to the book of Judges, chaps. xvii., xviii. (which Budde,

Moore and other critics consider to belong to the two sources of the

narratives in Judges, viz. J[15] as well as E), makes reference to a

Levite of Bethlehem-Judah, expressly stated in xvii. 7 as belonging to a

clan of Judah. This man Micah took into his household as priest. This

narrative has all the marks of primitive simplicity. There can be no

reasonable doubt that the Levite here was member of a priestly tribe or

order, and this view is confirmed by the discovery of what is really the

same word in south Arabian inscriptions.[16] The narrative is of some

value as it shows that while it was possible to appoint any one as a

priest, since Micah, like David, appointed one of his own sons (xvii.

5), yet a special priest-tribe or order also existed, and Micah

considered that the acquisition of one of its members was for his

household a very exceptional advantage: "Now I know that Yahweh will

befriend me because I have the _Levite_ as priest."[17] In other words a

priest who was a Levite possessed a superior professional qualification.

He is paid ten shekels per annum, together with his food and clothing,

and is dignified by the appellation "father" (cf. the like epithet of

"mother" applied to the prophetess Deborah, Judges v. 7; see also 2

Kings ii. 12, vi. 21, xiii. 14). This same narrative dwells upon the

graven images, ephod and teraphim, as forming the apparatus of religious

ceremonial in Micah's household. Now the ephod and teraphim are

constantly mentioned together (cf. Hos. iii. 4) and were used in

divination. The former was the plated image of Yahweh (cf. Judges viii.

26, 27) and the latter were ancestral images (see Marti, _op. cit._ pp.

27, 29; Harper, _Int. Comm._ "Amos and Hosea," p. 222). In other words

the function of the priest was not merely sacrificial (a duty which

Kautzsch unnecessarily detaches from the services which he originally

rendered), nor did he merely bear the ark of the covenant and take

charge of God's house; but he was also and mainly (as the Arabic name

_kahin_ shows) the _soothsayer_ who consulted the ephod and gave the

answers required on the field of battle (see 1 Sam. and 2 Sam. _passim_)

and on other occasions. This is clearly shown in the "blessing of Moses"

(Deut. xxxiii. 8), where the Levite is specially associated with another

apparatus of inquiry, viz. the sacred lots, _Urim_ and _Thummim_. The

true character of _Urim_ (as expressing "aye") and _Thummim_ (as

expressing "nay") is shown by the reconstructed text of 1 Sam. xiv. 41

on the basis of the Septuagint. See Driver _ad loc._

Geniality of Worship.

The chief and most salient characteristic of the worship of the high

places was geniality. The sacrifice was a feast of social communion

between the deity and his worshippers, and knit both deity and

clan-members together in the bonds of a close fellowship. This genial

aspect of Hebrew worship is nowhere depicted more graphically than in

the old narrative (a J section = Budde's G) 1 Sam. ix. 19-24, where a

day of sacrifice in the high place is described. Saul and his attendant

are invited by the seer-priest Samuel into the banqueting chamber

(_lishkah_) where thirty persons partake of the sacrificial meal. It was

the _'asiph_ or festival of ingathering, when the agricultural

operations were brought to a close, which exhibited these genial

features of Canaanite-Hebrew life most vividly. References to them

abound in pre-exilian literature: Judges xxi. 21 (cf. ix. 27); Amos

viii. 1 foll.; Hos. ix. 1 foll., Jer. xxxi. 4; Isa. xvi. 10 (Jer.

xlviii. 33). These festivals formed the veins and arteries of ancient

Hebrew clan and tribal life.[18] Wellhausen's characterization of the

Arabian _hajj_[19] applies with equal force to the Hebrew _hagg_

(festival): "They formed the rendezvous of ancient life. Here came under

the protection of the peace of God the tribes and clans which otherwise

lived apart from one another and only knew peace and security within

their own frontiers." 1 Sam. xx. 28 foll. indicates the strong claims on

personal attendance exercised on each individual member by the local

clan festival at Bethlehem-Judah.

It is easy to discern from varied allusions in the Old Testament that

the Canaanite impress of sensuous life clung to the autumnal vintage

festivals. They became orgiastic in character and scenes of drunkenness,

cf. Judges ix. 27; 1 Sam. 14-16; Isa. xxviii. 7, 8. Against this

tendency the _Nazirite_ order and tradition was a protest. Cf. Amos ii.

11 foll.; Judges xiii. 7, 14. As certain sanctuaries, Shiloh, Shechem,

Bethel, &c., grew in importance, the priesthoods that officiated at them

would acquire special prestige. Eli, the head priest at Shiloh in the

early youth of Samuel, held an important position in what was then the

chief religious and political centre of Ephraim; and the office passed

by inheritance to the sons in ordinary cases. In the regal period the

royal residence gave the priesthood of that place an exceptional

position. Thus Zadok, who obtained the priestly office at Jerusalem in

the reign of Solomon and was succeeded by his sons, was regarded in

later days as the founder of the true and legitimate succession of the

priesthood descended from Levi (Ezek. xl. 46, xliii. 19, xliv. 15; cf. 1

Kings ii. 27, 35). His descent, however, from Eleazar, the elder brother

of Aaron, can only be regarded as the later artificial construction of

the post-exilian chronicler (1 Chron. vi. 4-15, 50-53, xxiv. 1 foll.),

who was controlled by the traditions which prevailed in the 4th century

B.C. and after.

6. _The Prophets._--The rise of the order of prophets, who gradually

emerged out of and became distinct from the old Hebrew "seer" or augur

(1 Sam. ix. 9),[20] marks a new epoch in the religious development of

the Hebrews. Over the successive stages of this growth we pass lightly

(see PROPHET). The life-and-death struggle between Israel and the

Philistines in the reign of Saul called forth under Samuel's leadership

a new order of "men of God," who were called "prophets" or divinely

inspired speakers.[21] These men were distributed in various

settlements, and their exercises were usually of an ecstatic character.

The closest modern analogy would be the orders of dervishes in Islam.

Probably there was little externally to distinguish the prophet of

Yahweh in the days of Samuel from the Canaanite-Phoenician prophets of

Baal and Asherah (1 Kings xviii. 19, 26, 28), for the practices of both

were ecstatic and orgiastic (cf. 1 Sam. x. 5 foll., xviii. 10, xix. 23

foll.). The special quality which distinguished these prophetic gilds or

companies was an intense patriotism combined with enthusiastic devotion

to the cause of Yahweh. This necessarily involved in that primitive age

an extreme jealousy of foreign importations or innovations in ritual. It

is obvious from numerous passages that these prophetic gilds recognized

the superior position and leadership of Samuel, or of any other

distinguished prophet such as Elijah or Elisha. Thus 1 Sam. xix. 20, 23

et seq. show that Samuel was regarded as head of the prophetic

settlement at Naioth. With reference to Elijah and Elisha, see 2 Kings

ii. 3, 5, 15, iv. 1, 38 et seq., vi. 1 et seq. There cannot be any doubt

that such enthusiastic devotees of Yahweh, in days when religion meant

patriotism, did much to keep alive the flame of Israel's hope and

courage in the dark period of national disaster. It is significant that

Saul in his last unavailing struggle against the overwhelming forces of

the Philistines sought through the medium of a sorceress for an

interview with the deceased prophet Samuel. It was the advice of Elisha

that rescued the armies of Jehoram and Jehoshaphat in their war against

Moab when they were involved in the waterless wastes that surrounded

them (2 Kings iii. 14 foll.). We again find Elisha intervening with

effect on behalf of Israel in the wars against Syria, so that his fame

spread to Syria itself (2 Kings v.-viii. 7 foll.). Lastly it was the

fiery counsels of the dying prophet, accompanied by the acted magic of

the arrow shot through the open window, and also of the thrice smitten

floor, that gave nerve and courage to Joash, king of Israel, when the

armies of Syria pressed heavily on the northern kingdom (2 Kings xiii.

14-19).

We see that the prophet had now definitely emerged from the old position

of "seer." Prophetic personality now moved in a larger sphere than that

of divination, important though that function be in the social life of

the ancient state[22] as instrumental in declaring the will of the deity

when any enterprise was on foot. For the prophet's function became in an

increasing degree a function of _mind_, and not merely of traditional

routine or mechanical technique, like that of the diviner with his

arrows or his lots which he cast in the presence of the ephod or plated

Yahweh image. The new name _nabhi'_ became necessary to express this

function of more exalted significance, in which human personality played

its larger role. Even as early as the time of David it would seem that

Nathan assumed this more developed function as interpreter of Yahweh's

righteous will to David. But both in 2 Sam. xii. 1-15 as well as in 2

Sam. vii. we have sections which are evidently coloured by the

conceptions of a later time. We stand on safer ground when we come to

Elijah's bold intervention on behalf of righteousness when he declared

in the name of Yahweh the divine judgment on Ahab and his house for the

judicial murder of Naboth. We here observe a great advance in the

vocation of the prophet. He becomes the interpreter and vindicator of

divine justice, the vocal exponent of a nation's conscience. For Elijah

was in this case obviously no originator or innovator. He represents the

old ethical Mosaism, which had not disappeared from the national

consciousness, but still remained as the moral pre-supposition on which

the prophets of the following century based their appeals and

denunciations. It is highly significant that Elijah, when driven from

the northern kingdom by the threats of the Tyrian Jezebel, retreats to

the old sanctuary at Horeb, whence Moses derived his inspiration and his

Torah.

We have hitherto dealt with isolated examples of prophetism and its rare

and distinguished personalities. The ordinary Hebrew _nabhi'_ still

remained not the reflective visionary, stirred at times by music into

strange raptures (2 Kings iii. 15), but the ecstatic and orgiastic

dervish who was _meshuggah_ or "frenzied," a term which was constantly

applied to him from the days of Elisha to those of Jeremiah (2 Kings ix.

11; in Hos. ix. 7 and Jer. xxix. 26 it is regarded as a term of

reproach). It is only in rare instances that some exalted personality is

raised to a higher level. Of this we have an interesting example in the

vivid episode that preceded the battle of Ramoth-Gilead described in 1

Kings xxii., when Micaiah appears as the true prophet of Yahweh, who in

his rare independence stands in sharp contrast with the conventional

court prophets, who prophesied then, as their descendants prophesied

more than two centuries later, smooth things.

It is not, however, till the 8th century that prophecy attained its

highest level as the interpreter of God's ways to men. This is due to

the fact that it for the first time unfolded the true character of

Yahweh, implicit in the old Mosaic religion and submerged in the

subsequent centuries of Israel's life in Canaan, but now at length made

clear and explicit to the mind of the nation. It became now detached

from the limitations of nationalism and local association with which it

had been hitherto circumscribed.

Even Elisha, the greatest prophet of the 9th century, had remained

within these national limitations which characterized the popular

conceptions of Yahweh. Yahweh was Israel's war-god. His power was

asserted in and from Canaanite soil. If Naaman was to be healed, it

could only be in a Palestinian river, and two mules' load of earth would

be the only permanent guarantee of Yahweh's effective blessing on the

Syrian general in his Syrian home.

That larger conceptions prevailed in some of the loftier minds of

Israel, and may be held to have existed even as far back as the age of

Moses, is a fact which the Yahwistic cosmogony in Gen. ii. 4b-9 (which

may have been composed in the 9th century B.C.) clearly suggests, and it

is strongly sustained by the overwhelming evidence of the powerful

influence of Babylonian culture in the Palestinian region during the

centuries 2000-1400 B.C.[23] Probably in our modern construction of

ancient Hebrew history sufficient consideration has not been given to

the inevitable coexistence of different types and planes of thought,

each evolved from earlier and more primordial forms. In other words we

have to deal not with _one_ evolution but with evolutions.

The existence of the purer and larger conception of Yahweh's character

and power before the advent of Amos indicates that the transition from

the past was not so sudden as Wellhausen's graphic portrayal in the 9th

edition of this _Encyclopaedia_ (art. ISRAEL) would have led us to

suppose. There were pre-existent ideas upon which that prophet's

epoch-making message was based. Yet this consideration should in no way

obscure the fact that the prophet lived and worked in the all-pervading

atmosphere of the popular syncretic Yahweh religion, intensely national

and local in its character. In Wellhausen's words, each petty state

"revolved on its own axis" of social-religious life till the armies of

Tiglath-Pileser III. broke up the security within the Canaanite borders.

According to the dominating popular conception, the destruction of the

national power by a foreign army meant the overthrow of the prestige of

the national deity by the foreign nation's god. If Assyria finally

overthrew Israel and carried off Yahweh's shrine, Assur (Asur), the

tutelary deity of Assyria, was mightier than Yahweh. This was precisely

what was happening among the northern states, and Amos foresaw that this

might eventually be Israel's doom. Rabshakeh's appeal to the besieged

inhabitants of Jerusalem was based on these same considerations. He

argued from past history that Yahweh would be powerless in the presence

of Ashur (2 Kings xviii. 33-35).

This problem of religion was solved by Amos and by the prophets who

succeeded him through a more exalted conception of Yahweh and His sphere

of working, which tended to detach Him from His limited realm as a

national deity. Amos exhibited Him to his countrymen as lord of the

universe, who made the seven stars and Orion and turns the deep midnight

darkness into morning. He calls to the waters of the sea and pours them

on the earth's surface (chap. v. 8). Such a universal God of the world

would hardly make Israel His exclusive concern. Thus He not only brought

the Israelites out of Egypt, but also the Philistines from Caphtor and

the Syrians from Kir (ix. 7). But Amos went beyond this. Yahweh was not

only the lord of the universe and possessed of sovereign power. The

prophet also emphasized with passionate earnestness that Yahweh was a

God whose character was righteous, and God's demand upon His people

Israel was not for sacrifices but for _righteous conduct_. Sacrifice, as

this prophet, like his successor Jeremiah, insisted (Amos v. 25; cf.

Jer. vii. 22) played no part in Mosaic religion. In words which

evidently impressed his younger contemporary Isaiah (cf. esp. Is. chap.

i. 11-17), Amos denounced the non-ethical ceremonial formalism of his

countrymen which then prevailed (chap. v. 21 foll.):--

"I hate, I contemn your festivals and in your feasts I delight not;

for when you offer me your burnt-offerings and gifts, I do not regard

them with favour and your fatted peace-offerings I will not look at.

Take away from me the clamour of your songs; and the music of your

viols I will not hear. But let judgment roll down like waters and

justice like a perennial brook."

In the younger contemporary prophet of Ephraim, Hosea, the stress is

laid on the relation of love (_hesed_) between Yahweh, the divine

husband, and Israel, the faithless spouse. Israel's faithlessness is

shown in idolatry and the prevailing corruption of the high places in

which the old Canaanite Baal was worshipped instead of Yahweh. It is

shown, moreover, in foreign alliances. Compacts with a powerful foreign

state, under whose aegis Israel was glad to shelter, involved covenants

sealed by sacrificial rites in which the deity or deities of the foreign

state were involved as well as Yahweh, the god of the weaker

vassal-state. And so Yahweh's honour was compromised. While these

aspects of Israel's relation to Yahweh are emphasized by the Ephraimite

prophet, the larger conceptions of Yahweh's character as universal Lord

and the God of righteousness, whose government of the world is ethical,

emphasized by the prophet of Tekoah, are scarcely presented.

In Isaiah both aspects--divine universal sovereignty and justice, taught

by Amos, and divine loving-kindness to Israel and God's claims on His

people's allegiance, taught by Hosea--are fully expressed. Yahweh's

relation of love to Israel is exhibited under the purer symbol of

fatherhood (Isa. i. 2-4), a conception which was as ancient and familiar

as that of husband, though perhaps the latter recurs more frequently in

prophecy (Isa. i. 21; Ezek. xvi. &c.). Even more insistently does Isaiah

present the great truth of God's universal sovereignty. As with his

elder contemporary, the foreign peoples--(but in Isaiah's oracles

Assyria and Egypt as well as the Palestinian races)--come within his

survey. The "fullness of the earth" is Yahweh's glory (vi. 3) and the

nations of the earth are the instruments of His irresistible and

righteous will. Assyria is the "bee" and Egypt the "fly" for which

Yahweh hisses. Assyria is the "hired razor" (Isa. vii. 18, 19), or the

"rod of His wrath," for the chastisement of Israel (x. 5). But the

instrument unduly exalts itself, and Assyria itself shall suffer

humiliation at the hands of the world's divine sovereign (x. 7-15).

And so the old limitations of Israel's popular religion,--the same

limitations that encumbered also the religions of all the neighbouring

races that succumbed in turn to Assyria's invincible progress,--now

began to disappear. Therefore, while every other religion which was

purely national was extinguished in the nation's overthrow, the religion

of Israel survived even amid exile and dispersion. For Amos and Isaiah

were able to single out those loftier spiritual and ethical elements

which lay implicit in Mosaism and to lift them into their due place of

prominence. National _sacra_ and the ceremonial requirements were made

to assume a secondary role or were even ignored.[24] The centre of

gravity in Hebrew religion was shifted from ceremonial observance and

local sacra to righteous conduct. Religion and righteousness were

henceforth welded into an indissoluble whole. The religion of Yahweh was

no longer to rest upon the narrow perishable basis of locality and

national sacra, but on the broad adamantine foundations of a universal

divine sovereignty over all mankind and of righteousness as the

essential element in the character of Yahweh and in his claims on man.

This was the "corner-stone of precious solid foundation": "I will make

judgment the measuring-line and righteousness the plummet" (Isa. xxviii.

16, 17). The religion of the Hebrew race--properly the Jews--now enters

on a new stage, for it should be observed that it was Amos, Isaiah and

Micah--prophets of Judah--who laid the actual foundations. The latter

half of the 8th century, which witnessed a rapid succession of reigns in

the northern kingdom accompanied by dismemberment of its territory and

final overthrow, witnessed also the humiliating vassalage and religious

decline of the kingdom of Judah. Unlike Amos and Micah, Isaiah was not

only the prophet of denunciation but also the prophet of hope. Though

Yahweh's chastisements on Ephraim and Judah would continue to fall till

scarcely a remnant was left (Isa. vi. 13, LXX.), yet all was not to be

lost. A remnant of the people was to return, i.e. be converted to

Yahweh. The name given to an infant child--Immanuel--was to become the

mystic symbol of a growing hope. God's presence was to abide in

Jerusalem, and, as the century drew near its close, "Immanuel" became

the watchword and talisman of a strong faith that God would never permit

Jerusalem to be captured by the Assyrians. In fact it is not improbable

that the words of consolation uttered by the prophet (Isa. viii. 9-10)

in the dark days of Ahaz (735-734 B.C.) were among the oracles which God

commanded Isaiah "to seal up among his disciples" (verse 16), and that

they were quoted once more with effect as the armies of Sennacherib

closed around Jerusalem. The talismanic name Immanuel became the nucleus

out of which the later _Messianic_ prophecies of Isaiah grew. To this

age alone can we probably assign Isa. ix. 1-7, xi. 1-9, xxxii. 1-3. The

hopes expressed in the word Immanuel, "God with us," were to become

embodied in a personality of the royal seed of David, an ideal righteous

ruler who was to bring peace to the war-distraught realm. Thus Isaiah

became in that troubled age the true founder of _Messianic_ prophecy.

The strange contrast between the succession of dynasties and kings cut

off by assassination in the northern kingdom, ending in the tragic

overthrow of 721 B.C., and the persistent succession through three

centuries of the seed of David on the throne of Jerusalem, as well as

the marvellous escape of Jerusalem in 701 B.C. from the fate of Samaria,

must have invested the seed of David in the eyes of all thoughtful

observers with a mysterious and divine significance. The Messianic

prophecies of Isaiah, the prophet of faith and deliverance, were

destined to reverberate through all subsequent centuries. We hear the

echoes in Jeremiah and Ezekiel and lastly in Haggai in ever feebler

tones, and they were destined to reawaken in the Psalter (Pss. ii. and

lxxii.), in the psalms of Solomon and in the days of Christ. See MESSIAH

(and also the article "Messiah" in Hastings's _Dict. of Christ and the

Gospels_).

The next notable contribution to the permanent growth of Hebrew

prophetic religion was made about a century after the lifetime of Isaiah

by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The reaction into idolatry and Babylonian star

worship in the long reign of Manasseh synchronized and was connected

with vassalage to Assyria, while the reformation in the reign of Josiah

(621 B.C.) is conversely associated with the decay of Assyrian power

after the death of Assur-bani-pal. That reformation failed to effect its

purifying mission. The hurt of the daughter of God's people was but

lightly healed (Jer. vi. 14, 15; cf. viii. 11, 12). No possibility of

recovery now remained to the diseased Hebrew state. The outlook appeared

indeed far darker to Jeremiah than it seemed more than a century before

to Isaiah in the evil days of Jotham and Ahaz, "when the whole head was

sick and the whole heart faint" (Isa. i. 5). Jeremiah foresaw that there

was now no possibility of recovery. The Hebrew state was doomed and even

its temple was to be destroyed. This involved an entire reconstruction

of theological ideas which went beyond even the reconstructions of Amos

and Isaiah. In the old religion the race or clan was the unit of

religion as well as of social life. Properly speaking, the individual

was related to God only through the externalities of the clan or tribal

life, its common temple and its common _sacra_. But now that these

external bases of the old religion were to be swept away, a

reconstruction of religious ideas became necessary. For the external

supports which had vanished Jeremiah substituted a basis which was

_internal, personal and spiritual_ (i.e. _ethical_). In place of the old

covenant based on external observance, which had been violated, there

was to be a _new covenant_ which was to consist not in outward

prescription, but in the law which God would place _in the heart_ (Jer.

xxxi. 30-33). This was to take place by an act of divine grace (Jer.

xxiv. 5 foll.): "I will give them an heart to know me that I am the

Lord" (verse 7). Ezekiel, who borrowed both Jeremiah's language and

ideas, expresses the same thought in the well-known words that Yahweh

would give the people instead of a heart of stone a heart of flesh

(Ezek. xi. 19, 20, xx. 40 foll., xxxvi. 25-27), and would shame them by

his loving-kindness into repentance, and there "shall ye remember your

ways and all your doings wherein ye have been defiled and ye shall

loathe yourselves in your own sight" (xx. 43).

_Personal religion_ now became an important element in Hebrew piety and

upon this there logically followed the idea of _personal

responsibility_. The solidarity of race or family was expressed in the

old tradition reflected in Deut. v. 9, 10, that God would visit the sins

of the fathers upon the children, and it lived on in later Judaism under

exaggerated forms. The hopes of the individual Jew were based on the

piety of holy ancestors. "We have Abraham as our father." But _Ezekiel_

expressed the strong reaction which had set in against this belief in

its older forms. He denies that the individual ever dies for the sins of

the father. "The soul that sinneth, it (the pronoun emphasized in the

original) shall die" (Ezek. xviii. 4). Neither Noah, Daniel nor Job

could have rescued by his righteousness any but his own soul (xiv. 14).

And as a further consequence _individual freedom_ is strongly asserted.

It is possible for every sinner to turn to God and escape punishment,

and conversely for a righteous man to backslide and fall. In the

presence of these awful truths which Ezekiel preached of individual

freedom and of impending judgment, the prophet is weighted with a heavy

responsibility. It is his duty to warn every individual, for no sinner

is to be punished without warning (Ezek. iii. 16 foll. xxxiii.).

The closing years of the Judaean kingdom and the final destruction of

the temple (586 B.C.) shattered the Messianic ideals cherished in the

evening of Isaiah's lifetime and again in the opening years of the reign

of Josiah. The untimely death of that monarch upon the battlefield of

Megiddo (608 B.C.), followed by the inglorious reigns of the kings who

succeeded him, who became puppets in turn of Egypt or of Babylonia,

silenced for a while the Messianic hopes for a future king or line of

kings of Davidic lineage who would rule a renovated kingdom in

righteousness and peace. Even in the darkness of the exile period hopes

did not die. Yet they no longer remained the same. In the Deutero-Isaiah

(chaps. xl.-lv.) we have no longer a Jewish but a _foreign_ messiah. The

onward progress of the Persian Cyrus and his anticipated conquest of

Babylonia marked him out as Yahweh's anointed instrument for effecting

the deliverance of exiled Israel and their restoration to their old home

and city (Isa. xli. 2, xliv. 24, xlv.). This was, however, but a

subsidiary issue and possesses no permanent spiritual significance. Of

far more vital importance is the conception of Israel as God's

_suffering servant_. This is not the place to enter into the prolonged

controversy as to the real significance of this term, whether it

signifies the nation Israel or the righteous community only, or finally

an idealized prophetic individual who, like the prophet Jeremiah, was

destined to suffer for the well-being of his people. Duhm, in his

epoch-making commentary, distinguishes on the grounds of metre and

contents _the four servant-passages_, in the last of which (lii.

13-liii. 12) the ideal suffering servant of Yahweh is portrayed most

definitely as an individual. In the "servant-passages" he is innocent,

while in the rest of the Deutero-Isaiah he appears as by no means

faultless, and the personal traits are not prominent. These views of

Duhm, in which a severe distinction is thus drawn between the

representation of Yahweh's servant in the servant-passages, and that

which meets us in the rest of the Deutero-Isaiah, have been challenged

by a succession of critics.[25] It is only necessary for us to take note

of the ideal in its general features. It probably arose from the fact

that the calamities from which Israel had suffered both before and

during the exile had drawn the reflective minds of the race to the

contemplation of the problem of suffering. The "servant of Yahweh"

presents one aspect of the problem and its attempted solution, the book

of Job another, while in the Psalms, e.g. Pss. xxii., xlii.-xliii.,

lxxiii., lxxvii., other phases of the problem are presented. In the

Deutero-Isaiah the meaning of Israel's sufferings is exhibited as

vicarious. Israel is suffering for a great end. He suffers, is despised,

rejected, chastened and afflicted that others may be blessed and be at

peace through his chastisement. This noble conception of Israel's great

destiny is conveyed in Isa. xlix. 6, in words which may be regarded as

perhaps the noblest utterance in Hebrew prophecy: "To establish the

tribes of Jacob and bring back the preserved of Israel is less important

than being my servant. Yea, I will make you a light to the _Gentiles_

that my salvation may be unto the end of the earth."[26] This passage,

which belongs to the second of the brief "servant-songs," sets the

mission of Israel in its true relation to the world. It is the necessary

corollary to the teaching of Amos, that God is the righteous lord of all

the world. If Jerusalem has been chosen as His sanctuary and Israel as

His own people, it is only that Israel may diffuse God's blessings in

the world even at the cost of Israel's own humiliation, exile and

dispersion.

The Deutero-Isaiah closes a great prophetic succession, which begins

with Amos, continues in Isaiah in even greater splendour with the added

elements of hope and Messianic expectation, and receives further

accession in Jeremiah with his special teaching on inward spiritual and

personal religion which constituted the new covenant of divine grace.

Finally the Deutero-Isaiah conveyed to captive Israel the message of

Yahweh's unceasing love and care, and the certainty of their return to

Judaea and the restoration of the national prosperity which Ezekiel had

already announced in the earlier period of the exile. To this is united

the noble ideal of the suffering servant, which serves both as a

contribution to the great problem of suffering as purifying and

vicarious and as the interpretation to the mind of the nation itself of

that nation's true function in the future, a lesson which the actual

future showed that Israel was slow to receive. Nowhere in the Old

Testament does the doctrine taught by Amos of Yahweh's universal power

and sovereignty receive ampler and more splendid exposition than in the

great lyrical passages of chap. xl. It marks the highest point to which

the Hebrew race attained in its progress from henotheism to monotheism.

Here again we see the wholesome influences of the exile. The Jew had

passed from the narrow confines of his homeland into a wider world, and

this larger vision of human life reacted on the prophet's theology. This

closes the evolution of Hebrew prophetism. What immediately follows is

on a descending slope with some striking exceptions, e.g. the book of

Job and the book of Jonah.

7. _Deuteronomic Legalism._--The book of Deuteronomy was the product of

prophetic teaching operating on traditional custom, which was

represented in its essential features by the two codes of legislation

contained in Ex. xx. 24-xxiii. 19 (E) and Ex. xxxiv. 10-26 (J), but had

also become tainted and corrupted by centuries of Canaanite influence

and practice which especially infected the cult of the _high places_.

The existence of "high places" is pre-supposed in those two ancient

codes and is also presumed in the narratives of the documents E and J

which contain them. But the prevalence of the worship of "other gods"

and of graven images in these "high places," and the moral debasement of

life which accompanied these cults, made it clear that the "high places"

were sources of grave injury to Israel's social life. In all probability

the reformation instituted in the reign of Hezekiah, to which 2 Kings

xviii. 4 (cf. verse 22) refers, was only partial. It is hardly possible

that all the high places were suppressed. The idolatrous reaction in the

reign of Manasseh appears to have restored all the evils of the past and

added to them. Another and more drastic reform than that which had been

previously initiated (probably at the instigation of Isaiah and Micah)

now became necessary to save the state. It is universally held by

critics that our present book of Deuteronomy (certainly chaps.

xii.-xxvi.) is closely connected with the reformation in the reign of

Josiah. It is quite clear that many provisions in the old codes of J and

E expanded lie at the basis of the book of Deuteronomy. But new features

were added. We note for the first time definite regulations respecting

Passover and the close union of that celebration with _Massoth_ or

"unleavened bread." We note the laws respecting the clean and unclean

animals (certainly based on ancient custom). Moreover, the prohibitions

are strengthened and multiplied. In addition to the bare interdict of

the sorceress (Ex. xxii. 18), of stone pillars to the Canaanite Baal, of

the Asherah-pole, molten images and the worship of other gods than

Yahweh (Ex. xxxiv. 13-17), we now have the strict prohibition of _any

employment whatever_ of the stone-symbol (_Massebhah_), and of all forms

of sorcery, soothsaying and necromancy (Deut. xviii. 10, 11. Respecting

the stone-pillar see xvi. 22). But of much more far-reaching importance

was the _law of the central sanctuary_ which constantly meets us in

Deuteronomy in the reference to "the place (i.e. Jerusalem) which Yahweh

your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put His name there"

(xii. 5, xvi. 5, 11, 16, xxvi. 2). There alone all offerings of any kind

were to be presented (xii. 6, 7, xvi. 7). By this positive enactment all

the high places outside the one sanctuary in Jerusalem became

illegitimate. A further consequence directly followed from the

limitation as to sanctuary, viz. limitation as to the officiating

ministers of the sanctuary. In the "book of the covenant" (Ex. xx.

22-xxii. 19), as we have already seen, and in the general practice of

the regal period, there was no limitation as to the priesthood, but a

definite order of priesthood, viz. Levites, existed, to whom a higher

professional prestige belonged. As it was impossible to find a place for

the officiating priests of the high places, non-levitical as well as

levitical, in the single sanctuary, it became necessary to restrict the

functions of sacrifice to the Levites only as well as to the existing

official priesthood of the Jerusalem temple (see PRIEST). Doubtless such

a reform met with strong resistance from the disestablished and vested

interests, but it was firmly supported by royal influence and by the

Jerusalem priesthood as well as by the true prophets of Yahweh who had

protested against the idolatrous usages and corruptions of the high

places.

The strong impress of Hebrew prophecy is to be found in the deeply

marked ethical spirit of the Deuteronomic legislation. Love to God and

love to man is stamped on a large number of its provisions. Love to God

is emphasized in Deut. vi. 5, while love to man meets us in the constant

reference to the fatherless and the widow (cf. especially Deut. xvi.).

This note of philanthropy is frequently found as a mitigating element

(e.g. in the laws respecting slavery and war)[27] that subdues or even

removes the harshness of earlier laws or usages. It should be noted,

however, that the spirit of brotherly love was confined within national

barriers. It did not operate as a rule beyond the limits of race.

The book of Deuteronomy, in conjunction with the reformation of Josiah's

reign (which synchronizes with the rapid decline of Assyria and the

reviving prestige of Yahweh), appeared to mark the triumph of the great

prophetic movement. It became at once a codified standard of purer

religious life and ultimately served as a beacon of light for the

future. But there was shadow as well as light. We note (a) that though

the book of Deuteronomy bears the prophetic impress, the priestly

impress is perhaps more marked. The writer "evinces a warm regard for

the priestly tribe; he guards its privileges (xviii. 1-8), demands

obedience for its decisions (xxiv. 8; cf. xvii. 10-12) and earnestly

commends its members to the Israelites' benevolence (xii. 18-19, xiv.

27-29, &c.)."[28] (b) In many passages Jewish particularism is painfully

manifest. Yahweh's care for other peoples does not appear. The flesh of

a dead (unslaughtered) beast is not to be eaten, but it may be given to

the "stranger within the gates"! (Deut. xiv. 21).[29] (c) Prophetic

religion was a religion of the spirit which came to the messenger (Isa.

lxi. 1) and expressed itself as a word of instruction of Yahweh

(_torah_); see Isa. 1. 10. Now when the Hebrew religion was reduced to

written form it began to be a book-religion, and since the book

consisted of fixed rules and enactments, religion began to acquire a

stereotyped character. It will be seen in the sequel that this was

destined to be the growing tendency of Jewish religious life--to conform

itself to prescribed rules, in other words, it became _legalism_. (d)

Lastly, the old genial life of the high places, in which the "new moon"

or Sabbath or the annual festival was a sacrificial feast of communion,

in which the members of the local community or clan enjoyed fellowship

with one another--all this picturesque life ceased to be. And though

there was positive gain in the removal of idolatrous and corrupt modes

of worship, there was also positive loss in the disappearance of this

old genial phase of Hebrew social life and worship. It involved a vast

difference to many a Judaean village when the festival pilgrimage was no

longer made to the familiar local sanctuary with its hoary associations

of ancient heroic or patriarchal story, but to a distant and

comparatively unfamiliar city with its stately shrine and priesthood.

8. _Ezekiel's System._--Ezekiel was the successor of Jeremiah and

inherited his conceptions. But though the younger prophet adopted the

ideas respecting personal religion and individual responsibility from

the elder, the characters of the two men were very different. Jeremiah,

when he foretold the destruction of the external state and temple

ritual, found no resource save in a reconstruction that was internal and

spiritual. In this he was true to his prophetic impulse and genius. But

Ezekiel was, as Wellhausen well describes him, "a priest in prophet's

mantle." While Jeremiah's tendency was spiritual and ideal, Ezekiel's

was constructive and practical. He was the first to foretell with

clearness the return of his people from captivity foreshadowed by

Jeremiah, and he set himself the task even in the midnight darkness of

Israel's exile to prepare for the nation's renewed life. The external

bases of Israel's religion had been swept away, and in exchange for

these Jeremiah had led his countrymen to the more permanent internal

grounds of a spiritual renewal. But a religion could not permanently

subsist in this world of space and time without some external concrete

embodiment. It was the task of Ezekiel to take up once more the broken

threads of Israel's religious traditions, and weave them anew into

statelier forms of ritual and national polity. The priest-prophet's keen

eye for detail, manifested in the elaborate vision of the wheels and

living creatures (Ezek. i.) and in his lamentation on Tyre (chap.

xxvii.), is also exhibited in the visions contained in chaps.

xl.-xlviii., which describe the ideal reconstructed temple and theocracy

of the restored Israel. The foreground is filled by the temple and its

precincts. The officiating priests are now the descendants of the line

of Zadok belonging to the tribe of Levi. Thus the priesthood is still

further restricted as compared with the restriction already noted in the

Deuteronomic legislation. It is the sons of Zadok only that have any

right to offer sacrifice at the altar of burnt offering (xliii. 19,

xliv. 15 foll.). The Levites, who formerly ministered in the high

places, now discharge the subordinate offices of gate-keepers and

slaughterers of the sacrificial victims.

Another element in this ideal scheme which comes into prominence is the

sharp distinction between _holy_ and _profane_. The word _holiness_

(_qodesh_) in primitive Hebrew usage partook of the nature of taboo, and

came to be applied to whatever, whether thing or person, stood in close

relation to deity and belonged to him, and could not, therefore, be used

or treated like other objects not so related, and so was separated or

stood apart. The idea underlying the word, which to _us_ is invested

with deep ethical meaning, had only this non-ethical, ritual

significance in Ezekiel. Unlike the old temple and city, the ideal

temple of Ezekiel is entirely separate from the city of Jerusalem. In

the immediate surroundings of the temple there is an open space. Then

come two concentric forecourts of the temple. The temple stands in the

midst of what is called the _gizrah_ or space severed off. The outer

court lies higher than the open space, the inner court higher still, and

the temple-building in the centre highest of all. No heathen may tread

the outer court, no layman the inner court, while the holiest of all may

not be trodden even by the priest Ezekiel but only by the angel who

accompanies him. "The temple-house has a graduated series of

compartments increasing in sanctity inwards" (Davidson). In the

innermost the presence of Yahweh abides.

We are here moving in a realm of ideas prevailing in ancient Israel

respecting _holiness_, _uncleanness_ and _sin_, which are ceremonial and

not ethical; see especially Robertson Smith's _Religion of the Semites_,

2nd ed., p. 446 foll. (additional note B.) on holiness, uncleanness and

taboo. It is, of course, true that the ethical conception of sin as

violation of righteousness and an act of rebellion against the divine

righteous will had been developed since the days of Amos and Isaiah;

but, as we have already observed, cultus and prophetic teaching were

separated by an immense gulf, and in spite of the reformation of 621

B.C. still remain separated. In the sacrificial system of sin-offerings

(_hattath_ and _'asham_) we have to do with sin as ceremonial violation

and neglect (frequently involuntary), or violation of holiness in the

old sense of the term or as personal uncleanness (touching a corpse,

eating unclean food, sexual impurity, &c.). In the historical evolution

of Hebrew sacrifice it is remarkable how long this non-ethical and

primitive survival of old custom still survived, even far into

post-exilian times. (See SACRIFICE; also Moore's art. "Sacrifice" in

_Ency. Bibl._)

One conspicuous feature of Ezekiel's system is the predominance of

piacular sacrifice. It undoubtedly existed in pre-exilian Israel,

especially in times of crisis or calamity, for the appeasement of an

offended deity (2 Sam. xxiv. 18 foll.), and in Deut. xxi. 1-9, we have

details of the purificatory rite which was necessary when human blood

was shed; but now and in the future propitiatory sacrifice and ideas of

propitiation began to overshadow all the other forms of sacrifice and

their ideas. Ezekiel prescribes a half-yearly ritual of sin-offering

whereby atonement was to be made (xlv. 18-20). We shall see subsequently

to what great institution this led the way.

Ezekiel's system constituted an _ecclesiastical_ in place of a political

organization, a _church-state_ in place of a nation. We clearly discern

how this reacted on his Messianic conceptions. In his earlier oracles

(xxxiv. 23 foll.) we find one shepherd ruling over united Israel, viz.

Yahweh's servant David, whereas in the ideal scheme detailed in chap.

xl. et seq. the role of the prince as a ruler is a very shadowy one. The

prince, it is true, has a central domain, but his functions are

ecclesiastical and subordinate and his powers strictly limited (xlvi.

3-8, 12, 16-18).

Thus the exile period marks the parting of the ways in the development

of Hebrew religion. In the Deutero-Isaiah we reach the highest point in

the evolution of prophetism. It is true that we have some noble

resounding echoes in the lyrical passages lx.-lxii. In the Trito-Isaiah

during the post-exilian period, and in such psalm literature as Pss.

xxii., xxxvii., l., lxii., cvii., cxlv. 9-12 and others; and also in

Isa. xxxv., which is obviously a lyrical reproduction of earlier

literature. But it cannot be said that we possess in later literature

any fresh contribution to the conception of God or any presentation of a

higher ideal of human life[30] or national destiny than that which meets

us in chap. xl. or in the servant-passages of the Deutero-Isaiah. It may

with truth be said that _after Jeremiah we discern the parting of the

ways_. The _first_ is represented by the Deutero-Isaiah, who constitutes

the climax and close of Hebrew prophetism, which is henceforth (with the

possible exception of the Trito-Isaiah, Malachi and Jonah, who reproduce

some features of the earlier prophecy) a virtually arrested development.

The _second path_ is that which is traced out by the priest-prophet

Ezekiel, and is that of _legalism_, which was destined to secure a

permanent place in the life and literature of the Jewish people. It is

essentially the path which may be summed up in the word _Judaism_,

though, as will be shown in the sequel, Judaism came to include many

other factors. The statement, however, remains virtually true, since

Judaism is mainly constituted by the body of legal precepts called the

Torah, and, moreover, by the post-exilian Torah.

9. _Post-exilian Law--The Priestercodex._[31]--The oracles of Malachi

clearly reveal the continued influence of the book of Deuteronomy in his

day. But the new conditions created by the return of the exiles and the

germinating influence of Ezekiel's ideas developed a process of new

legislative construction. The code of holiness (Lev. xvii.-xxvi.) is the

most obvious product of that influence. The ideas of expiation and

atonement so prevalent in Ezekiel's scheme, which there find expression

in the half-yearly sacrificial celebrations, are expressed in Lev. xvi.

in the single _annual great fast of atonement_. It is impossible to

enter here into the numerous details of that impressive ceremonial. Two

special features, however, which characterize the celebration should

here be noted: (a) The person of the _high priest_, who is throughout

the entire drama the chief and indeed the sole actor. This supreme

official, who was destined ultimately to take the place of the king in

the church-nation of post-exilian Judaism, is mentioned for the first

time in Zech. iii. 1[32] (in the person of Joshua). In the Priestercodex

he stands at the head of the priests, who are, in the post-exilian

system, the _sons of Aaron_ and possessed the sole right to offer the

temple sacrifices. On the great day of atonement the high priest appears

in a vicarious and representative capacity, and offers on behalf of the

whole nation which he was considered to embody in his sacred person. (b)

The rite of the _goat devoted to Azazel_. There can be little doubt

that _Azazel_ was an evil demon (like an Arabic Jinn) of the desert. The

goat set apart for Azazel was in the concluding part of the ceremonial

brought before the high priest, who laid both his hands upon it and

confessed over it the sins of the people. It was then carried off by an

appointed person to a lonely spot and there set free.

In later post-exilian times this great day of atonement became to an

increasing degree a day of humiliation for sin and penitent sorrow,

accompanied by confession; and the sins confessed were not only of a

purely ceremonial character, whether voluntary or inadvertent, but also

sins against righteousness and the duties which we owe to God and man.

This element of public confession for sin became more prominent in the

days when synagogal worship developed, and prayer took the place of the

sacrificial offerings which could only be offered in the Jerusalem

temple. The development of the priestly code of legislation

(Priestercodex) was a gradual process, and probably occupied a

considerable part of the 5th century B.C. The Hebrew race now definitely

entered upon the new path of organized Jewish legalism which had been

originally marked out for it by Ezekiel in the preceding century. It

became a holy people on holy ground. Circumcision and Sabbath,

separation from marriage with a foreigner, which rendered a Jew unclean,

as well as strict conformity to the precepts of the Torah, constituted

henceforth an adamantine bond which was to preserve the Jewish

communities from disintegration.

10. _The later Post-exilian Developments in Jewish Religion._--These may

be briefly referred to under the following aspects:

(a) _Codified law_ and the written record of the patriarchal history, as

well as the life and work of the lawgiver Moses (to whom the entire body

of law came to be ascribed), assumed an ever greater importance. The

reverence felt for the canonized _Torah_ or law (the Pentateuch or

so-called five books of Moses) grew even into worship. Of this spirit we

find clear expression in some of the later psalms, e.g. the elaborate

alphabetic Ps. cxix. and the latter portion of Ps. xix. There were

various causes which combined to enhance the importance of the written

_Torah_ (the "instruction" _par excellence_ communicated by God through

Moses). Chief among these were (1) _The conception of God as

transcendent_. We have taken due note of Amos, who unfolded the

character of Yahweh as universal righteous sovereign; and also the

sublime portrayal of His exalted nature in Isa. xl. (verse 15; cf.

22-26, and Job xxxvi. 22-xlii. 6). The intellectual influence of Greece,

manifested in Alexandrian philosophy, tended to remove God still further

from the human world of phenomena into that of an inaccessible

transcendental abstraction. Little, therefore, was possible for the Jew

save strict performance of the requirements of the Torah, once for all

given to Moses on Sinai, and, in his approach to the awful and unknown

mystery, to rely on ceremonial and ascetic performances (see Wendt's

_Teaching of Jesus_, i. 55 foll.). The same tendency led the pious

worshippers to avoid His awful name and to substitute _Adonai_ in their

scriptures or to use in the Mishna the term "name" (_shem_) or "heaven."

(2) The _Maccabean conflict_ (165 B.C.) tended to accentuate the

national sentiment of antagonism to Hellenic influence. The Hasidim or

pious devotees, who arose at that time, were the originators of the

Pharisaic movement which was conservative as well as national, and laid

stress on the strict performance of the law.

(b) _Eschatology_ in the Judaism of the Greek period began to assume a

new form. The pre-exilian prophets (especially Isaiah) spoke of the

forthcoming crisis in the world's history as a "day of the Lord." These

were usually regarded as visitations of chastisement for national sins

and vindications of divine righteousness or judgments, i.e. assertions

of God's power as judge (_shophet_). By the older prophets this judgment

of God or "day of Yahweh" was never held to be far removed from the

horizon of the present or the world in which they lived. But now as we

enter the Greek period (320 B.C. and onwards) there is a gradual change

from prophecy to _apocalyptic_. "It may be asserted in general terms

that whereas prophecy foretells a definite future which has its

foundation in the present, apocalyptic directs its anticipations solely

and simply to the future, to a new world-period which stands sharply

contrasted with the present. The classical model for all apocalyptic is

to be found in Dan. vii. It is only after a great war of destruction, a

day of Yahweh's great judgment, that the dominion of God will begin"

(Bousset). Ezek. xxxviii. and xxxix. clearly bear the apocalyptic

character; so also Isa. xxxiv. and notably Isa. xxiv.-xxvii.

Apocalyptic, as Baldensperger has shown, formed a counterpoise to the

normal current of conformity to law. It arose from a spiritual movement

in answer to the yearning of the heart: "O that Thou mightest rend the

heavens and come down and the mountains quake at Thy presence!" (Isa.

lxiv. 1 [Heb. lxiii. 19]); and it was intended to meet the craving of

souls sick with waiting and disappointment. The present outlook was

hopeless, but in the enlarged horizon of time as well as space the

thoughts of some of the most spiritual minds in Judaism were directed to

the transcendent and ultimate. The present world was corrupt and subject

to Satan and the powers of darkness. This they called "the present

_aeon_" (age). Their hopes were therefore directed to "the coming aeon."

Between the two aeons there would take place the _advent of the

Messiah_, who would lead the struggle with evil powers which was called

"the agonies of the Messiah." This terrible intermezzo was no longer

terrestrial, but was a cosmic and universal crisis in which the Messiah

would emerge victorious from the final conflict with the heathen and

demonic powers. This victory inaugurates the entrance of the "aeon to

come," in which the faithful Jews would enter their inheritance. In this

way we perceive the transformation of the old Messianic doctrine through

apocalyptic. Of apocalyptic literature we have numerous examples

extending from the 2nd century B.C. to the 2nd century A.D. (See

especially Charles's _Book of Enoch_.)

The doctrine of the _resurrection of the righteous_ to life in the

heavenly world became engrafted on to the old doctrine of Sheol, or the

dark shadowy underworld (Hades), where life was joyless and feeble, and

from which the soul might be for a brief space summoned forth by the

arts of the necromancer. The most vivid portraiture of Sheol is to be

found in the exilian passage Isa. xiv. 9-20 (cf. Job x. 21-22). With

this also compare the Babylonian _Descent of Ishtar to Hades_. The added

conception of the resurrection of the righteous does not appear in the

world of Jewish thought till the early Greek period in Isa. xxvi. 19. R.

H. Charles thinks that in this passage the idea of resurrection is of

purely Jewish and not of Mazdaan (or Zoroastrian) origin, but it is

otherwise with Dan. xii. 2; see his _Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish and

Christian_. Corresponding to heaven, the abode of the righteous, we have

_Ge-henna_ (originally _Ge-Hinnom_, the scene of the Moloch rites of

human sacrifice), the place of punishment after death for apostate Jews.

(c) _Doctrine of Angels and of Hypostases._--In the writings of the

pre-exilian period we have frequent references to supernatural

personalities good and bad. It is only necessary to refer to them by

name. _Sebaoth_, or "hosts," attached to the name of Yahweh, denoted the

heavenly retinue of stars. The _seraphim_ were burning serpentine forms

who hovered above the enthroned Yahweh and chanted the Trisagion in

Isaiah's consecration vision (Isa. vi.). We have also constant

references to "angels" (_malachim_) of God, divine messengers who

represent Him and may be regarded as the manifestation of His power and

presence. This especially applies to the "angel of Yahweh" or angel of

His Presence [Ex. xxiii. 20, 23 (E). Note in Ex. xxxiii. 14 (J) he is

called "my face" or "presence"[33] (cf. Isa. lxiii. 9)]. We also know

that from earliest times Israel believed in the evil as well as good

spirits. Like the Arabs they held that demons became incorporate in

serpents, as in Gen. iii. The _nephilim_ were a monstrous brood begotten

of the intercourse of the supernatural beings called "sons of God" with

the women of earth. We also read of the "evil spirit" that came upon

Saul. Contact with Babylonia tended to stimulate the angelology and

demonology of Israel. The Hebrew word _shed_ or "demon" is no more than

a Babylonian loan word, and came to designate the deities of foreign

peoples degraded into the position of demons.[34] _Lilith_, the

blood-sucking night-hag of the post-exilian Isa. xxxiv. 14, is the

Babylonian _Lilatu_. Whether the _se'irim_ or shaggy satyrs (Isa. xiii.

31; Lev. xvii. 7) and _Azazel_ were of Babylonian origin it is difficult

to determine. The emergence of _Satan_ as a definite supernatural

personality, the head or prince of the world of evil spirits, is

entirely a phenomenon of post-exilian Judaism. He is portrayed as the

arch-adversary and accuser of man. It is impossible to deny Persian

influence in the development of this conception, and that the Persian

Ahriman (Angromainyu), the evil personality opposed to the good, Ahura

Mazda, moulded the Jewish counterpart, Satan. But in Judaism

monotheistic conceptions reigned supreme, and the Satan of Jewish belief

as opposed to God stops short of the dualism of Persian religion. Of

this we see evidence in the multiplication of Satans in the Book of

Enoch. In the Book of Jubilees he is called _mastema_. In later Judaism

_Sammael_ is the equivalent of Satan. Persian influence is also

responsible for the _vast multiplication of good spirits or angels_,

Gabriel, Raphael, Michael, &c., who play their part in apocalyptic

works, such as the Book of Daniel and the Book of Enoch.

Probably the transcendent nature of the deity in the Judaism of this

later period made the interposition of mediating spirits an intellectual

necessity (cf. Ps. civ. 4). It also stimulated the creation of _divine

hypostases_. First among these may be mentioned _Wisdom_. The roots of

this conception belong to pre-exilian times, in which the "word" of

divine denunciation was regarded as a quasi-material thing. (It is

hurled against offending Israel, Isa. ix. 8.). In the post-exilian

cosmogony it is the divine word or fiat that creates the world (Gen. i.;

cf. Ps. xxxiii. 6, 9). Out of these earlier conceptions the idea of the

divine wisdom (Heb. _hokhmah_) gradually arose during the Persian

period. The expression "wisdom," as it is employed in the _locus

classicus_, Prov. viii., connotes the contents of the Divine reason--His

conscious life, out of which created things emerge. This wisdom is

personified. It dwelt with God (Prov. viii. 22 foll.) before the world

was made. It is the companion of His throne, and by it He made the world

(Prov. iii. 19, viii. 27; cf. Ps. civ. 24). It, moreover, enters into

the life of the world and especially man (Prov. viii. 31). This

conception of wisdom became still further hypostatized. It becomes

redemptive of man. In the Wisdom of Solomon it is the sharer of God's

throne ([Greek: paredros]), the effulgence of the eternal light and the

outflow of His glory (Wisd. vii. 25, viii. 3 foll., ix. 4, 9); "Them

that love her the Lord doth love" (Ecclesiasticus iv. 14). This group of

ideas culminated in the Logos of Philo, expressing the world of divine

ideas which God first of all creates and which becomes the mediating and

formative power between the absolute and transcendent deity and passive

formless matter, transmuted thereby into a rational, ordered universe.

In later Jewish literature we meet with further examples of similar

hypostases in the form of _Memra_, _Metatron_, _Shechinah_, _Holy

Spirit_ and _Bath kol_.

(d) The doctrine of _pre-existence_ is another product of the

speculative tendency of the Jewish mind. The Messiah's pre-existent

state before the creation of the world is asserted in the Book of Enoch

(xlviii. 6, 7). Pre-existence is also asserted of Moses and of sacred

institutions such as the New Jerusalem, the Temple, Paradise, the Torah,

&c. (Apocal. of Baruch iv. 3-lix. 4; Assumptio Mosis i. 14, 17);

Edersheim's _Life and Times of the Messiah_, i. 175 and footnote 1.

11. _Christ resumes the Broken Tradition of Prophetism._--The Psalms of

Solomon and the synoptic Gospels (70 B.C.-A.D. 100) clearly reveal the

powerful revival of Messianic hopes of a national deliverer of the seed

of David. This Messianic expectation had been a fermenting leaven since

the great days of Judas Maccabaeus. The conceptions of Jesus of

Nazareth, however, were not the Messianic conceptions of his

fellow-countrymen, but of the spiritual "son of man" destined to found

a kingdom of God which was righteousness and peace. The Torah of Jesus

was essentially prophetic and in no sense priestly or legal. The

arrested prophetic movement of Jeremiah and Deutero-Isaiah reappears in

John the Baptist and Jesus after an interval of more than five

centuries. The new covenant of redeeming grace--the righteousness which

is in the heart and not in externalities of legal observance or

ceremonial--are once more proclaimed, and the exalted ideals of the

suffering servant of Isa. xlix. 6 and Isa. liii. (nearly suppressed in

the Targum of Jonathan) are reasserted and vindicated by the words and

life of Jesus. Like Jeremiah He foretold the destruction of the temple

and suffered the extreme penalties of anti-patriotism. And thus Israel's

old prophetic Torah was at length to achieve its victory, for after

Jesus came St Paul. "Many shall come from the east and the west and sit

down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt.

viii. 11, 12). The fetters of nationalism were to be broken, and the

Hebrew religion in its essential spiritual elements was to become the

heritage of all humanity.

AUTHORITIES.--1. On Semitic religion generally: Wellhausen's _Reste

des arabischen Heidentums_ (2nd ed.) and Robertson Smith's _Religion

of the Semites_ (2nd ed.) are chiefly to be recommended. Barton's

_Semitic Origins_ is extremely able, but his doctrine of the

derivation of male from original female deities is pushed to an

extreme. Bathgen's _Beitrage zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte_

(1888) is most useful, and contains valuable epigraphic material.

Baudissin's _Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte_ (1876) is

still valuable. See also Kuenen's _National Religions and Universal

Religions_ (Hibbert lectures) and Lagrange's _Etudes sur les religions

semitiques_ (2nd ed.).

2. On Hebrew religion in particular: specially full and helpful is

Kautzsch's article "Religion of Israel" in Hastings's D.B., extra

vol.; Marti's recent _Religion des A.T._ (1906) and his _Geschichte

der israelitischen Religion_, are clear, compact and most serviceable,

and the former work presents the subject in fresh and suggestive

aspects. Wellhausen's _Prolegomena_ and _Judische Geschichte_ should

be read both for criticism and Hebrew history generally. Duhm's

_Theologie der Propheten_ and Robertson Smith's _Prophets of Israel_

should also be consulted. Strongly to be recommended are Smend,

_Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte_; Bennett,

_Theology of the Old Testament_ and _Religion of the Post-Exilic

Prophets_; A. B. Davidson, _The Theology of the Old Testament_, as

well as the sections devoted to "Sacralaltertumer" in the _Hebraische

Archaologie_ both of Benzinger and also of Nowack. Budde's _Die

Religion des Volkes Israel bis zur Verbannung_, as well as Addis's

recent _Hebrew Religion_ (1906), is a most careful and scholarly

compendium. Harper's Introd. to his _Commentary on Amos and Hosea_ (I.

and T. Clark) contains a useful survey of the history of Hebrew

religion before the 8th century. Buchanan Gray's _Divine Discipline of

Israel_, and A. S. Peake's _Problem of Suffering in the O.T._, are

suggestive. See also S. A. Cook, _Religion of Ancient Palestine_.

3. On the history of Judaism till the time of Christ, Schurer's

_Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Christi_ (3rd ed.), vol.

ii. and in part vol. iii., are indispensable. Bousset's _Religion des

Judentums_ (2nd ed.), and Volz, _Die judische Eschatologie von Daniel

bis Akiba_, are highly to be commended. Weber's _Judische Theologie_

is a useful compendium of the theology of later Judaism.

4. On the special department of eschatology the standard works are R.

H. Charles, _Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish and Christian_, and Schwally,

_Das Leben nach dem Tode_, as well as Gressmann's suggestive work _Der

Ursprung der israelitisch-judischen Eschatologie_, which contains,

however, much that is speculative. On apocalyptic generally the

introductions to Charles's Book of Enoch, Apocalypse of Baruch,

Ascension of Isaiah and Book of Jubilees, should be carefully noted.

See also ESCHATOLOGY.

5. On the religion of Babylonia, Jastrow's work is the standard one.

Zimmern's Heft ii. in _K.A.T._ (3rd ed.) is specially important to the

Old Testament student. See also W. Schrank, _Babylonische Suhnriten_.

(O. C. W.)