"Dans l'opinion du peuple pour qui ces liyres ont ete ecrits
le point capital et essentiel n'est certes pas la narration
historiquc, mais bien la legislation et l'idification
religieuse."
In 1795, Frederick Augustus Wolf published a modest octavo volume
entitled "Prolegomena to Homer," from whose appearance is dated the
beginning of a new era of historic criticism. The composition of the
poems of Homer formed its subject. For wellnigh twenty years the author
had collected evidence, weighed arguments, and patiently tested his
results by constant revision. His own wishes were engaged on the side of
the unity of the great Grecian epic. But the results of his researches
continued to point in the opposite direction, and at last his earnest
devotion to truth compelled him to adopt a theory the soundness of whose
construction seemed to be no longer questionable. He was thus worthy
to become the "founder of the science of philology in its present
significance." ** The influence of Wolfs discovery was not confined to
the study of classic literature only.
* "In the estimation of the people for whom these books were
written, the capital, essential point surely was, not the
historic narrative, but rather legislation and religious
edification." (Noldeke, 'Histoire Litte'raire de l'Ancien
Testament,' p. 19.)
** Bonitz, "Ueber den Ursprung der Homerischen Gedichte."
It quickly radiated through every department of history. "In every
singing age," he said, "a single saeculum is almost like a single man.
It is all one mind, one soul."* This conception involved a new social
law, and radically altered the current opinions concerning the relation
of individual effort to the larger forces that affect the development
of nations. The creative energy of remarkable minds was not, indeed,
lessened in importance, but spontaneity, in this connection, acquired
a new meaning; and for the _Deus ex machina_ of the olden time
was substituted the cumulative force of centuries of progressive
advancement, culminating, it is true, at last in the triumphant
synthesis of genius. The commotion which the Wolfian theory has stirred
up in the literary world is largely due to the wide range of ideas
which it affected. Yet it was itself but a part of that general movement
which, toward the close of the last century, became conspicuous in its
effects on every field of human inquiry. Everywhere the shackles of
authority were thrown off, and, in place of blindly accepting the
testimony of the past, men turned to investigate for themselves. A new
principle of research was everywhere acknowledged, a new method
was created, and science, natural and historical, entered upon that
astonishing career of discovery whose rich promise for the future we
have but begun to anticipate.**
* In a letter given in Kttrte's "Leben und Studien F. A
Wolf s." i., p. 307.
** Scientific pursuits are distinguished from others, not by
the material, but by the method of knowledge. The mere
collection of data, however multiplied in detail, however
abstruse the subjects to which they may refer, does not of
itself deserve the name of science. The term properly
applies only when phenomena are placed in causal relation,
and the laws which govern their development are traced.
Measured by this standard, every attempt to explain the
growth of human thought and institutions, and to elucidate
the laws which have acted in the process of their evolution,
has a just claim to be classed under the head of scientific
inquiry.
To the impetus given by Wolf, and to the new-born spirit of science
which he carried into the sphere of philology, we owe among other
valuable results the beginnings of a more critical inquiry into the
records of the ancient Hebrew religion. Indeed, the author of the
"Prolegomena" himself clearly foresaw the influence which his book was
destined to exert on Hebrew studies. In a letter, from which we have
already quoted above, he says: "The demonstration that the Pentateuch is
made up of unequal portions, that these are the products of different
centuries, and that they were put together shortly after the time of
Solomon, may, ere long, be confidently expected. I should myself be
willing to undertake such an argument without fear, for nowhere do we
find any ancient witness to guarantee the authorship of the Pentateuch
to Moses himself."*
* Letter in Korte's "Leben und Studien F. A. Wolf," i., p.
309.
The prediction embodied in these words soon came true. A host of
competent scholars took up the study of the Hebrew Bible, and, profiting
by Wolf's example and suggestions, applied to its elucidation the same
careful methods, the same scrupulous honesty of interpretation, that had
proved so successful in the realm of classical philology. Theologians
by profession, they set aside their predilections, and placed the
ascertainment of the truth above all other interests. They believed in
the indestructible vitality of religion, and were willing to admit the
full light of criticism upon the scriptural page, confident that any
loss would be temporary only, the gain permanent. In the course of
their researches they arrived, among others, at the following important
conclusions:
That the editor of the Pentateuch had admitted into his volume several
accounts touching the main facts of early Hebrew history; that these
accounts are often mutually at variance; that minute analysis and
careful comparison alone can lead to an approximately true estimate
of their comparative value; and, lastly, that the transmission of
historical information had in no wise been the object of the Hebrew
writers. The history of their people served, it is true, to illustrate
certain of their doctrines concerning the divine government of the
world, and especially the peculiar relations of the Deity to the chosen
race; but it was employed much in the sense of a moral tale, being
designed, not to convey facts, but to enforce lessons. Had the
acceptance of any particular scheme of Hebrew history been deemed
essential to the integrity of religious belief, the Bible, they argued,
would certainly not have included discrepant accounts of that history in
its pages. In the light of this new insight, it seemed advisable to draw
a distinction between the biblical narrative proper and the doctrines
which it was designed to illustrate. The latter belong to the province
of faith, and their treatment may be left to the expounders of faith.
The former is a department of general history, and in dealing with it
we are at liberty to apply the same canons of criticism that obtain in
every other department, without fearing to trespass upon sacred ground.
It is our purpose in the following pages to present some of the
more interesting results that have been reached in the study of the
Pentateuch, so far as they illustrate the evolution of religious ideas
among the Hebrews. We shall begin by summarizing a few instances of
discrepant testimony to introduce our subject, and, in particular, to
show how little the ordinary purposes of history have been considered
in the composition of the biblical writings; how little the bare
transmission of facts was an object with the sacred authors.*
The Scriptures open with two divergent accounts of the creation. In
Genesis i., the work of creation proceeds in two grand movements,
including the formation of inanimate and animate Nature respectively.**
On the first day a diffused light is spread out over chaos. Then are
made the firmament, the dry earth, the green herbs, and fruit-bearing
trees; on the fourth day the great luminaries are called into being; on
the fifth, the fishes and birds of the air; on the sixth, the beasts of
the field; and, lastly, crowning all, man, his Maker's masterpiece. The
human species enters at once upon its existence _as a pair_. "Male and
female did he create them." In the second chapter the same methodical
arrangement, the same deliberate progress from the lower to the
higher forms of being, is not observed. Man, his interests and
responsibilities, stand in the foreground of the picture. The trees of
the field are not made until after Adam; and, subsequently to them,
the cattle and beasts. Moreover, man is a solitary being. A comparison
between his lonely condition and the dual existence of the remainder
of the animal world leads the Deity to determine upon the creation of
woman. A profound slumber then falls upon Adam, a rib is taken from
his side, and from it Eve is fashioned.* We may observe that the
name Jehovah, as appertaining to the Deity, is employed in the second
chapter, while it is scrupulously avoided in the first. The recognition
of this distinction has led to further discoveries of far-reaching
importance, but too complicated in their nature to be here detailed.
The conflicting statements of the two accounts, which we have just
indicated, have induced scholars to regard them as the work of different
writers. In Genesis iv. we learn that in the days of Enoch, Adam's
grandson, men began to call on the name of Jehovah; in Exodus vi, on
the contrary, that the name Jehovah was first revealed to Moses, being
unknown even to the patriarchs.
* Many of the following examples are familiarly known. A
few, however, are drawn from recent investigations. Compare,
especially, Kuenen, "The Religion of Israel."
** Tuch's "Genesis," p. 3, second edition, Halle, 1871.
Gen. xvi., Hagar is driven from her home by the jealousy of her
mistress; escapes into the desert; beholds a vision of God at a well in
a wilderness. Gen. xxi., the flight of Hagar is related a second time.
The general scheme of the narrative is the same as above; but there
are important divergencies of detail. As narrated in chapter xvi., the
escape took place immediately before the birth of Ishmael. Fifteen years
elapsed,** and Ishmael, now approaching the years of maturity, is once
more driven forth from the house of Abraham. But, to our surprise, in
chapter xxi. the lad is described as a mere infant; he is carried on
his mother's shoulders, and laid away, like a helpless babe, under some
bushes by the wayside. It appears that we have before us two accounts
touching the same event, agreeing in the main incidents of the escape,
but showing a disagreement of fifteen years as to the date of its
occurrence. The narratives are distinguished as above by the employment
of different names of the Deity: Jehovah in the one instance, Elohim in
the other.
* For an account of the close analogy between the biblical
narration and the Persian story of Meshja and Meshjane,
their temptation and fall, vide ibid. p. 40. It is of
special importance to note that reference to the account of
Genesis ii. is made only in the later literature of the
Hebrews, ibid., p. 42.
** Gen. xvii. 25. In quoting from the Old Testament, we
follow the order of the Hebrew text.
Gen. xxxii., Jacob at the fords of Jabbok, after wrestling during the
night with a divine being, receives the name of Israel. Gen. xxxv.,
without reference to the previous account, the name Israel is conferred
upon Jacob at a different place and under different circumstances.
Gen. xlix., the dispersion of the Levites among the tribes is
characterized as a punishment and a curse. They are to be forever
homeless and fugitive. Deuteronomy xxxiii. and elsewhere, it is
described as a blessing. The Levites have been scattered as good seed
over the land. They are apostles, commissioned to propagate Jehovah's
law.
Passing on to the second book of the Pentateuch, we pause before the
account of the Revelation on Mount Sinai, beyond a doubt the most
important event of Israel's ancient history. Exodus xxiv. 2, Moses alone
is to approach the divine presence. Exod. xix. 24, Aaron is to accompany
him. Exod. xxiv. 13, Aaron is to remain below and Joshua is to go in
his stead. Again, Exod. xxxiii. 20, instant death will overtake him
who beholds God. Exod. xxiv. 9-11, Moses, Aaron, two of his sons, and
seventy elders of Israel "ascended, and they saw the God of Israel....
Also, they saw God, and did eat and drink." Once more, Exod. xxiv. 4-7,
Moses himself writes down the words of revelation in a book of covenant.
Exod. xxiv. 12, not Moses but God writes them; and, elsewhere, "Two
tables of stone inscribed by the finger of God."
Exod. xx. enjoins the observance of the sabbath-day as a memorial of
the repose of the Maker of heaven and earth on the sabbath of creation.
Deut. v., the fourth commandment is enjoined because of the redemption
of Israel from Egyptian bondage. Exod. xxxiv., a new version of the
decalogue, differing in most respects from the one commonly received,
is promulgated.* The first commandment is to worship no strange god;
the second, to make no graven images; the third, to observe the feast
of unleavened bread; the fourth, to deliver the first-born unto Jehovah;
the fifth, to observe the sabbath, etc.
* Compare De Wette's "Einleitung in das alte Testament"
(Schrader's edition), p. 286, note 53.
In Exod. xx. we read that the guilt of the fathers will be avenged upon
the children down even to the third and fourth generation; in Deut.
xxiv., the children shall not die for their fathers. Every one for his
own sin shall die.
In Deut. xxv. the marrying of a deceased brother's wife is under certain
conditions enjoined as a duty. In Levit. xviii. it is unconditionally
prohibited as a crime.
Exod. xxxiii., Moses removes the tabernacle beyond the camp. Num. ii.,
the tabernacle rests in the very heart of the camp, with all the tribes
of Israel grouped round about it, according to their standards and
divisions.
Num. xvi., the sons of Korah, the leader of the great Leviti-cal
sedition, perish with their father. Num. xxvi., the sons of Korah do not
perish.*
Of the forty years which the Israelites are said to have dwelt in the
desert, not more than two are covered by the events of the narrative.
The remainder are wrapped in dense obscurity. There is, however, a
significant fact which deserves mention in this connection. The death
of Aaron marks, as it were, the close of Israel's journey. Now, while in
Num. xxxiii. the death of the high-priest is described as occurring in
the fortieth year, in Deut. x. it is actually referred to the second
year of the Exodus.**
* Num. xxvi. 11. Indeed, had the sons of Korah and every
human being related to him perished, as Num. xvi. avers, how
could we account for the fact that Korah's descendants
filled high offices in the Temple at Jerusalem later on?
The celebrated singer, Heman, himself was a lineal
descendant of Korah. To the descendants of Korah also are
ascribed the following Psalms: Ps. xlii., xliv.-xlix.,
lxxxiv., lxxxv., lxxxvii., lxxxviii.
** In connection with this subject it is of interest to
compare Goethe's argument in the "Westoslicher Divan" on the
duration of the desert journey. Here, as in so many other
instances, the intuitive perception of the great poet
anticipated the tardy results of subsequent investigation.
A brief digression beyond the borders of the Pentateuch will show that
the conflict of testimony which we have thus far noticed, affecting as
it does some of the leading events of ancient Hebrew history, does not
diminish as we proceed in the narrative. In I Samuel vii. it is said
that the Philistines ceased to harass the land of Israel all the days of
Samuel. Immediately thereupon we read of new Philistine incursions more
direful than ever in their consequences.* The popular proverb, "Is Saul
among the prophets?" is variously explained, I Sam. x. and xix. Two
discrepant accounts are given of Saul's rejection from the kingdom, I
Sam. xiii. and xv.; of David's introduction to Saul, i Sam. xvi. and
xvii. The charming story of David's encounter with the giant Goliath
told in I Sam. xvii. is contradicted in 2 Sam. xxi. 19, where, not
David, but some person otherwise unknown to fame, is reported to
have slain the giant Goliath, and also the time, place, and attendant
circumstances, are differently related.**
* Compare 1 Sam. vii. 13, and 1 Sam. xiii. 19.
** In 1 Chron. xx. 5, we read, "the brother of Goliath." The
purpose of the change is clear, and accords well with the
apologetical tendencies of the author of Chronicles. Vide De
Wette, "Einleitung," etc., p. 370. Geiger, "Urschrift."
It thus appears that the compiler of the Pentateuch has admitted a
variety of views, not only on the ancient history of his people, but
also on the general subject of religion and morals, into his work; and
that the discordant opinions of diverse authors and of diverse stages of
human progress are reflected in its pages. It is the monument of a grand
religious movement extending over many centuries of gradual development.
It is the image of a nation's struggles and growth. As contained in the
books of the Pentateuch, the Mosaic religion is a religious mosaic.
In the foregoing sketch we have observed how deep a mist of uncertainty
hangs over the earliest period, the golden age of the history of the
Hebrews. All is in a state of flux, and what appeared compact and
coherent at a distance yields to our touch upon closer contact. To gain
_terra firma_ let us turn to the period which immediately succeeded the
settlement of the Israelites in Palestine; a period in which the outline
of historical events begins to assume a more definite and tangible
shape.
It was a dismal and sorrowful age. The bonds of social order were
loosened; the current conceptions of the Deity and the rites of his
worship were gross and often degrading. Mutual jealousies kindled the
firebrand of war among the contending clans. Almost the whole tribe of
Benjamin was extirpated. Abimelech slew seventy princes upon one stone.
Lust and treachery ran riot. A wilder deed has never been chronicled in
the annals of mankind than that related in chapter xix. of Judges,
nor ever has a terrible deed been more terribly avenged. Now, looking
backward, we ask, Is it to be believed that in the fourteenth century B.
C. not only the leader of Israel, but also their elders, their priests,
nay, large numbers of the very populace, shared in the most exalted,
the most spiritual conceptions of God, and nourished the most refined
sentiments in regard to human relationships, while immediately
thereupon, and centuries thereafter, violence and bloodshed, and
idolatry, do not cease from the records? It has been argued, indeed,
that the worship of idols was but a _relapse_ from the purity of a
preceding age; and that, though the tradition of the Mosaic time may
have been lost in the succeeding period among the people at large, it
was still preserved in the circle of a select few, the judges, King
David, and others. These, it is believed, continued to remain faithful
disciples of the great lawgiver. But these very men, the judges--King
David himself--all fall immeasurably below the standard that is set up
in the Pentateuch. If they were esteemed the true representatives of
the national religion in their day, if the very points in which they
transgressed the provisions of the Mosaic code are distinguished by
the approval of God and man, we are forced to conclude that that
standard--by which they stand condemned--did not yet exist; that, in
the days of David, the laws of Moses, as we now have them; were as yet
unwritten and unknown. Let us illustrate this important point by a few
examples taken from the records. Gideon no sooner returns from victory
than he makes a golden idol and sets it up for worship. Jephthah
slays his daughter as an offering of thanksgiving to Jehovah. In
the Pentateuch the adoration of images is branded as the gravest of
offences. David keeps household gods in his own home (Sam. xix). In the
Pentateuch, on its opening page, God is proclaimed as a pure spirit,
maker of heaven and earth. In the eyes of David (1 Sam, xxvi. 19), the
sway of Jehovah does not extend beyond the borders of Palestine.* In the
Pentateuch the ark of the covenant is described as the treasury of all
that is brightest and best in the worship of the one God. None but
the consecrated priest dare approach it, and even he only under
circumstances calculated to inspire peculiar veneration and awe. In 2
Sam. vi., David abandons the ark to the keeping of a heathen Philistine.
In an early age of culture, when fear and terror in the presence of
superior force entered largely into the religious conceptions of
the Hebrews, the taking of the census was deemed an act of grave
transgression. It appeared a vaunting of one's strength; it seemed to
indicate a defiant attitude toward the loftier power of the Deity, which
he would certainly visit with condign punishment. At a later period the
priesthood found it in their interest to override these scruples, and
the taking of the census became an affair of habitual occurrence. In
the last chapter of Samuel the more primitive view still predominated.
Seventy thousand Israelites are miserably slain to atone for King
David's presumption in commanding a census of the people. In the fourth
book of Moses, on the other hand, the numbering of the people not only
proceeds without the slightest evil resulting therefrom, but at the
express command of God himself.
In the book of Deuteronomy the service of Jehovah is said to consist
mainly in the practice of righteousness, in works of kindness toward our
fellows, in sincere and holy love toward the Deity, who is represented
as the merciful father of all his human children. Second Sam. xxi., a
famine comes upon the land of Israel. The anger of Jehovah is kindled
against the people. To appease him, David offers sacrifice--human
sacrifice. The seven sons of Saul are slain, and their bodies kept
exposed on the hill, "in sight of Jehovah," and the horrid offering _is
accepted_, and the divine wrath is thereby pacified.** Truly, in the age
of in the beginning of the barley-harvest. This circumstance seems to
throw light on the primitive mode of celebrating the Passover. That the
rite of human sacrifice was originally connected with this festival is
generally acknowledged. Vide, e. g., Exod. xiii., 2. By such offerings
it was intended, no doubt, to secure the favor of the god during the
continuance of the harvest.
* Banishment being described as a transfer of allegiance to
strange gods.
** It is important to note that the seven sons of Saul were
sacrificed
David, the Hebrews were far, far removed from the high state of culture
in which the ideal conception of religion that pervades Deuteronomy
became possible. And long after, when centuries had gone by and the
kingdom of Judah was already approaching its dissolution, the direful
practices of David's reign still survived, and the root of idolatry had
not been plucked from the heart of the people. Still do we hear of human
sacrifice perpetrated in the midst of Jerusalem, and steeds and chariots
dedicated to the sun-god, and images of the Phallus, and all the
abominations of sensual worship, filled the very Temple of Jehovah.
But in the meantime a new force had entered the current of Hebrew
history. The conviction that one God, and he an all-just, almighty
being, ruled the destinies of Israel, began to take root. In the eighth
century B. C. authentic records prove that monotheism, as a form of
religious belief, obtained, at least among the more illustrious members
of the prophetic order. We have elsewhere attempted to trace the causes
which led to the rise of monotheism at this particular epoch, and can do
no more than briefly allude to them here.
When the mountaineers of Southern Palestine, after centuries of
protracted struggles, had secured the safe possession of individual
homes, the endearments of domestic life were invested with a sanctity in
their eyes never before known. The attachment of the Hebrew toward his
offspring was intensified; his devotion to the wife of his bosom became
purer and more enduring. Now, the prevailing forms of Semitic religion
outraged these feelings at every point. The gods of the surrounding
nations were gods of pleasure and of pain; and in their worship the
stern practices of fanatic asceticism alternated with the wildest orgies
of sensual enjoyment. The worship of Baal Moloch demanded the sacrifice
of children; that of the lascivious Baaltis insulted the modesty of
woman. The nobler spirits among the Hebrews rebelled against both these
demands. And, as the latter were put forth in the name of the dominant
religion, the inevitable conclusion followed that that religion itself
must be radically wrong. The spirit of opposition thus awakened was
aroused into powerful activity when, in the days of Ahab, the queen,
supported by an influential priesthood, determined to introduce the
forms of Phoenician religion in Israel by measures of force. The
royal edicts were resisted, but for a while the rule of the stronger
prevailed. The leaders of the opposition were compelled to flee, and,
avoiding the habitations of men, to take refuge in wild and solitary
places. Thus the rupture was widened into schism, and persecution
inflamed the zeal and kindled the energies of that new order of men of
whom Elijah is the well-known type.
Through their agency the emotional nature of the Semitic race now found
expression in a form of religious worship loftier by far than any
that had ever arisen among men. If Baal was the embodiment of Semitic
asceticism and Baaltis the type of sensual orgiastic passion, the
national God of Israel now became the type of a nobler emotion, the
guardian of domestic purity, the source of sanctity, the ideal Father.
It is indeed the image of a just patriarch that fills the mind and
wings the fancy of the eldest prophets, when they describe the nature of
Jehovah, their God. Jehovah is the husband of the people. Israel shall
be his true and loyal spouse. The children of Israel are his children.
Unchastity and irreligion are synonymous terms. And thus, if we err not,
the peculiar feature of Hebrew character, their faithful attachment
to kith and kin, the strength and purity of their domestic affections,
serves to explain the peculiar character, the origin and development
of the Hebrew religion. And because the essential elements of the new
religion were moral elements it could not tolerate the Nature-worship of
the heathens: and the way was prepared for the gradual ascendency of
the purely spiritual in religion, which after ages of gradual progress
constituted the last, the lasting triumph of prophecy.
After ages of development! For we are not to suppose that, in the
centuries succeeding Hosea, the doctrines of the prophetic schools had
become in any sense the property of the people at large. "The powers
that be" were arrayed against them, and the annals of the kings are
replete with evidence of their sufferings. It was in the late reign
of Josiah that they at last received not only the countenance of the
reigning monarch, but also a decisive influence upon the direction of
affairs. In that reign a scroll was found in the temple imbued with the
doctrine of the unity of God, and breathing the vigorous spirit of the
prophets. In it was emphasized the heart's religion in preference to the
empty ceremonial of priestly worship. The allegiance of the people was
directed toward the God who had elected them from among the nations of
the earth, and dire disaster was predicted in case of disobedience.
When brought to the king and read in his presence, he was powerfully
affected, and determined, if possible, to stem the tide of impending
ruin by such salutary measures of reform as the injunctions of the
newly-found Scripture seemed most urgently to call for. The concurrence
of many critics has identified this scroll, written and published at or
about the time when the youthful Josiah succeeded to the throne of his
ancestors, with Deuteronomy, the fifth of the books of Moses. It differs
materially from the more recent writings of the Pentateuch. The family
of Aaron are not yet exclusively endowed with the priesthood. The
priests are all Levites, the Levites all priests. There are, moreover,
other vital differences, into which the limits of this article do not
permit us to enter.* The date of the composition of Deuteronomy is thus
referred to the closing decades of the seventh century B. C.**
* E. G., the rebellion of Korah is unknown to the author of
Deuteronomy.
** The language of Deuteronomy attests its late origin.
Sixty-six phrases of Deuteronomy recur in the writings of
Jeremiah. Vide Zunz, Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, xxviii., p. 670.
The princes who succeeded Josiah fell back into the old course, and
quite undid the work which had begun with such fair promise. Indeed,
little permanent good was to be hoped for in so disordered a condition
of political affairs, and from the degenerate rulers who then swayed
the helm of state. The fortunes of the kingdom of Judah were swiftly
declining, and not fully a quarter of a century after the pious Josiah
had breathed his last, Nebuchadnezzar burned the Temple of Jerusalem,
and carried its inhabitants captive to Babylon.
Heretofore, with but a brief, brilliant interlude, idolatry had been
the court religion of Judah. Early training, long usage, the example of
revered ancestors, had endeared its forms and symbols to the affections
of the people. Resistance to the innovating prophets was natural; men
being then, as ever, loath to abandon the sacred usages which had come
down to them from the distant generations of the past. But, in the long
years of the captivity, a profound change came over the spirit of
the Hebrew people; "by Babel's streams they sat and wept;" by Babel's
streams they recalled the memories of their native land, that land which
they had lost. It was then that the voices of Jehovah's messengers,
which had so earnestly warned them of the approaching doom, recurred to
their startled recollection. They remembered the message; they beheld
its fulfillment; the testimony of the prophets had been confirmed by
events; the one God to whom they testified had revealed his omnipotence
in history; and with ready assent the exiles promised allegiance to his
commandments in the future. The love of country, the dread of further
chastisement, the dear hope of restoration, combined to win them to
the purer worship of their God, and, in the crucible of Babylon, the
national religion was purged of the last dregs of heathendom.
With the permission of Cyrus, the Jews returned to Palestine and the
Temple at Jerusalem was rebuilt. The question now arose in what
forms the ceremonial of the new sanctuary should be conducted. The
time-honored festivals, the solemn and joyful convocations, the
sacrifices and purifications of the olden time, were all more or
less infected with the taint of paganism. Prophecy would have none of
them--prophecy, free child of genius, contemned sacrifice, denounced the
priesthood, even the temple and its ritual;* proclaimed humbleness and
loving-kindness as the true service in which Jehovah takes delight.
There was formalism on the one hand, idealism on the other. As is
usual in such cases, when the time had arrived for turning theory into
practice, it was found necessary to effect a compromise.
* Jeremiah vii. 4; Isaiah lxvi. 1; Micah vi. 6.
As Christianity in later days adopted the yule-tree into its system, and
lit the lamps of the heathen festival of the 25th of December in honor
of the nativity of its founder, so the leaders of the Jews, in the fifth
century before our era, adopted the feasts and usages of an ancient
Nature-worship, breathed into them a new spirit informed them with a
loftier meaning, and made them tokens, symbols of the eternal God. The
old foes were thus reconciled; priesthood and prophecy joined hands, and
were thenceforth united. As an offspring of this union, we behold a new
code of laws and prescriptions, whose marked and inharmonious features
at once betray the dual nature of its progenitors. "A rough preliminary
draft, as it were," of this code, is preserved in the book of Ezekiel,
composed probably about the middle of the fifth century. In its finished
and final shape, it forms the bulk of a still later work--of Leviticus,
namely the third of the books of the Pentateuch: of all the discoveries
of criticism none more noteworthy, none we are permitted to consider
more assured. What lends additional certainty to the result is the
circumstance that it was reached independently by two of the most
esteemed scholars of our day, the one a Professor of Theology in the
University of Leyden,* the other a veteran of thought, whose brow is
wreathed by the ripe honors of more than fourscore years.** Let us
briefly advert to the line of argument by which this astonishing
conclusion was reached:
* Prof. A. Kuenen.
** The venerable Dr. Zunz, of Berlin.
The author of the book of Ezekiel was a priest, and one confessedly
loyal to the sanctuary of Jerusalem. Now, had the laws of the Levitical
code, which minutely describe the ritual of that sanctuary, existed, or
been regarded as authoritative in his day, he could not, would not have
disregarded, much less contradicted, their provisions. He does this,
and, be it remarked, in points of capital importance. In chapter xlv.
of Ezekiel are mentioned the great festivals, with the sacrifices
appropriate to each; but the feast of Pentecost, commanded in Leviticus,
is entirely omitted; also that of the eighth day of tabernacles. The
second of the daily burnt-offerings, upon which the legislator of the
fourth book of Moses dwells with such marked emphasis, is not commanded.
The order of sacrifices appointed in Ezekiel is at variance with that in
the more recent code. Ezekiel nowhere mentions the ark of the covenant.
According to him, the new year begins on the tenth of the seventh month,
while the festival of the trumpets, ordained in Leviticus for the first
of that month (the present new year of the Jews), is nowhere referred
to. We are not to suppose, however, that the festivals, the ark, etc.,
did not yet exist in the time of Ezekiel. They existed, no doubt,
but were still too intimately associated with pagan customs and
superstitions to receive or merit the countenance of a prophetic writer.
In Leviticus the process of assimilation above described had reached its
climax. The new meaning had been successfully engrafted upon the
rites and symbols of the olden time; and they were thenceforth freely
employed. The legislation of the Levitical code exhibits the familiar
features which in every instance mark the ascendency or consolidation of
the hierarchical order. The lines of gradation and distinction between
the members of the order among themselves are precisely drawn and
strictly adhered to. The prerogatives of the whole order as against the
people are fenced about with stringent laws. The revenues of the order
are largely increased. In the older code of Deuteronomy, the annual
tithes were set apart for a festival occasion, and given over to the
enjoyment of the people. In the new code, the hierarchy claims the
tithes for its own use. New taxes are invented. The best portions of
the sacrificial animal are reserved for the banquets of the Temple.
The first-born of men and cattle belong to the priesthood, and must be
ransomed by the payment of a sum of money. In no period prior to the
fifth century B. C. was the hierarchy powerful enough to design such
laws. At that time, however, when in the absence of a temporal sovereign
they, with the high-priest at their head, were the acknowledged rulers
of the state, they were both prepared to conceive and able to carry
them into effect. The language of Leviticus contributes not a little to
betray its late origin.* The period in the history of the Jews, when
the fear of taking the name of the Lord in vain induced men to avoid,
if possible, mentioning it at all. We find ha Shem in the above sense in
Lev. xxiv. 11. authorship of Moses attributed to the Levitical code is
symbolical. The name of Moses is utterly unknown to the elder prophets.
* To mention only a single instance, ha Shem (meaning the
name, i. e. the ineffable name of God) was not employed
until very late.
In all their manifold writings it does not occur a single time, though
they make frequent reference to the past. There can now be little doubt
that the composition of the bulk of Leviticus, and of considerable
portions of the books of Numbers, Exodus, and even parts of Genesis,
belongs to the epoch of the second Temple, and that the date of these
writings may be approximately fixed at about one thousand years after
the time of Moses. As to the story of Israel's desert wanderings, it
rests upon ancient traditions whose character it is not our present
business to investigate. It was successively worked up in various
schools of priests and prophets, and this accounts for the host of
discrepancies it contains, some of which have been noticed in the
beginning of this essay. It was finally amplified by the inventive
genius of the second-Temple priesthood, who succeeded in heightening the
sanctity of their own institutions by tracing them back to a revered,
heroic person, who had lived in the dim days of remote antiquity.
In the preceding pages we have indicated the more important phases of
that conflict which ended in the establishment of monotheism, a conflict
whose traces, though sometimes barely legible, are still preserved
in our records. We saw in the first instance that the Mosaic age is
shrouded in uncertainty. We pointed out that pure monotheism was unknown
in the time of the early kings. We briefly referred to the rise of
monotheism. Finally, we endeavored to show how the prophetic idea had
been successively expressed in various codes, each corresponding to a
certain stage in the great process of evolution. From what we have said,
it follows that the prophetic ideal of religion is the root and core
of all that is valuable in the Hebrew Bible. The laws, rites, and
observances, in which it found a temporary and changeful expression,
may lose their vitality; it will always continue to exert its high
influence. It was not the work of one man, nor of a single age, but was
reached in the long course of generations on generations, evolved amid
error and vice, slowly, and against all the odds of time. It has been
said that the Bible is opposed to the theory of evolution. The Bible
itself is a prominent example of evolution in history. It is not
homogeneous in all its parts. There are portions filled with tales of
human error and fallibility. These are the incipient stages of an early
age--the dark and dread beginnings. There are others thrilling with
noblest emotion, freighted with eternal truths, breathing celestial
music. These are the triumph and the fruition of a later day. It is
thus by discriminating between what is essentially excellent and what
is comparatively valueless that we shall best reconcile the discordant
claims of reason and of faith. The Bible was never designed to convey
scientific information, nor was it intended to serve as a text-book of
history. In its ethical teachings lies its true significance. On them it
may fairly rest its claims to the immortal reverence of mankind.
There was a time in the olden days of Greece when it was demanded that
the poems of Homer should be removed from the schools, lest the minds of
the young might be poisoned by the weeds of superstitious belief. Plato,
the poet-philosopher, it was who urged this demand. That time is past.
The tales of the gods and heroes have long since ceased to entice our
credulity. The story of Achilles's wrath and the wanderings of the sage
Ulysses are not believed as history, but the beauty and freshness and
the golden poetry of the Homeric epic have a reality all their own, and
are a delight and a glory now, as they have ever been before. The Bible
also is a classical book. It is the classical book of noble ethical
sentiment. In it the mortal fear, the overflowing hope, the quivering
longings of the human soul toward the better and the best, have found
their first, their freshest, their fittest utterance. In this respect it
can never be superseded.
To Greek philosophy we owe the evolution of the logical categories; to
Hebrew prophecy, the pure canon of moral principle and action. That
this result was the outcome of a long process of suffering and struggle
cannot diminish its value in our estimation. When we compare the
degrading offices of the Hebrew religion in the days of the judges with
the lofty aspirations of the second Isaiah, when we remember the utter
abyss of moral abasement from which the nobler spirits of the Hebrews
rose to the free heights of prophecy, our confidence in the divine
possibilities of the human soul is reinvigorated, our emulation is
kindled, and from the great things already accomplished we gather the
cheering promise of the greater things that are yet to come. It is in
this moral incentive that the practical value of the evolutionary theory
chiefly lies.*
* Most aptly has this thought been expressed in the lines
with which Goethe welcomed the appearance of F. A. Wolfs
"Prolegomena."
"Erst die Gesundheit des Mannes, der, endhch vom Namen
Homeros Kuhn uns befreiend, uns auch flihrt in die vollere
Bahn. Denn wer wagte mit Gettern den Kampf? und wer mit dem
Einen?--Doch Homeride zu seyn, auch nur als letzter, ist
schon."