THE EVOLUTION OF OLD TESTAMENT RELIGION
THE EVOLUTION OF OLD
TESTAMENT RELIGION
BY
W. E. ORCHARD, B.D.
LONDON
JAMES CLARKE & CO., 13 & 14, FLEET STREET
1908
TO
My Wife
PREFACE
The substance of this book was originally delivered as a Course of
Lectures to a week-night congregation. The Lecture form has been
retained, and this accounts for the repetition of the leading ideas,
while the practical interests of Church life account for the insistence
on the religious value and lesson. It is hoped that this, which might
be irritating to the professional student, may be helpful to the
ordinary reader who is repelled by the technicality of critical works,
and often fails to discern the devout spirit by which such works are
inspired, or to discover what religious interest is served by them.
Where everything is borrowed from other writers, and no claim to
originality is made, detailed acknowledgment would be impossible, but
the resolve to attempt some such course in place of the usual form of a
week-night service was formed in the Hebrew class-room of Westminster
College, Cambridge, while listening to the Lectures on Old Testament
Theology and Messianic Prophecy, delivered by the Rev. Professor Dr.
Skinner (now Principal), in which accurate scholarship was combined
with a deep insight into the present religious importance of these
subjects. Grateful acknowledgment is also due to the Rev. J.R. Coates,
B.A., who kindly read through the proofs and made many valuable
suggestions.
W. E. ORCHARD.
ENFIELD, _August, 1908_.
CONTENTS
LECTURE PAGE
INTRODUCTION vii
I. THE SEMITIC RACES 19
II. THE PRIMITIVE RELIGION OF THE HEBREWS 31
III. MOSAISM 55
IV. THE INFLUENCE OF CANAAN 83
V. PROPHETISM--EARLY STAGES 107
VI. THE RELIGION OF THE LITERARY PROPHETS 135
VII. THE EFFECT OF THE EXILE 169
VIII. THE WORK OF THE PRIESTS 195
IX. THE RELIGION OF THE PSALMISTS 215
X. THE RELIGION OF THE WISE 241
XI. MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS 265
INTRODUCTION
It is a matter of common knowledge that within the last few decades a
tremendous change has come over our estimate of the value of the Old
Testament, and that this change is of the gravest importance for our
understanding of religion. But what the exact nature of the change
is, and what we are to deduce from it, is a matter of debate, for the
facts are only known to professional students and to a few others who
may have been led to interest themselves in the subject. With some,
for instance, the idea prevails that the Old Testament has been so
discredited by modern research that its religious significance is now
practically worthless. Others believe that the results arrived at are
untrue, and regard them as the outcome of wicked attacks made upon the
veracity of the Word of God by men whose scholarship is a cloak for
their sinister designs or a mask of their incapacity to comprehend its
spiritual message. There is perhaps a middle course open to some who
have found a message of God to their souls in the Old Testament, and
who, on hearing that the authorship of this book has been questioned
or the historicity of that passage assailed, are unmoved, because
they believe that it does not matter who wrote the Pentateuch or the
Psalms so long as through these documents they hear the voice of the
living Word of God. Here then is a subject on which there exists a
distressing confusion, and, moreover, a subject in which ignorance
plays no small part. Save with a few devout souls who have made a long
and continuous study of the Scriptures, it may be doubted whether there
is any widespread knowledge of the actual message of the Old Testament,
even among Christian people. There are certainly many people willing to
defend the authority of the Bible who spend very little time in reading
it. The favourite Psalms and the evangelical passages of Isaiah are
probably well known, and beyond this there is but the knowledge gained
in early days, from which stand out in the memory the personalities
of Samson and Saul, David and Goliath, and Daniel in the lion's den,
together with the impressive stories of the Flood, the destruction
of Sodom and Gomorrah, the crossing of the Red Sea, and the fall of
Jericho. A very little is probably carried away from the public reading
of the Scriptures in places of worship. It cannot be said that this
acquaintance conveys any real impression of the magnificent message
that lies embedded in these thirty-nine books which go to make up the
Old Testament. Now whatever harm may be charged to the modern methods,
it can at least be claimed that neglected portions have been carefully
studied, the meaning of obscure passages discovered, and much of
importance and interest brought to light; but more than this, it has
been discovered that the essential message of the Old Testament lies
largely apart from those narratives and personalities that impress the
superficial reader, and rather in the record of a gradual development
of the conception of God and of His purpose in calling Israel to be the
recipient of His self-disclosure. It has been found that the striking
figures of the landscape are of less importance than the road that
winds among them along which revelation moves to its final goal.
It may be objected that the new inspiration, which so many who have
studied the Scriptures by these methods claim to have felt, throws
quite a new emphasis on our conception of the Old Testament and
is revolutionary of all that we have been accustomed to believe
concerning it; that the methods are such as could not legitimately
be applied to the Word of God, and are the products of a criticism
which is puffed up with a sense of its own superiority; and that the
results are discreditable to the Old Testament, since they allege
that some of the narratives are unhistorical, some passages and even
whole books unauthentic, and traditions on which the gravest issues
have been staked shown to have nothing more than a legendary basis.
There is much in these objections that is natural, but much that
is misunderstanding. It is true that the contribution which the Old
Testament makes to religion is estimated differently from what it was
fifty years ago, and it must be allowed that this brings a charge of
having misunderstood the Scriptures against generations of scholars
and saints. But it is admitted that all matters of knowledge are open
to misunderstanding. It is no argument against the conception that
the earth moves round the sun, that the contrary idea was held in
other ages. We know that the understanding of the Old Testament has
been obscured, often by those who ought to have been the greatest
authorities on its meaning. Jesus read into the Scriptures a meaning
unrecognised by the authorities of His day, and dealt with them in a
fashion that was regarded as revolutionary. To some of the Scriptures
He appealed as to a final authority, but others He regarded as
imperfect and only suited to the time in which they were written. The
Jews of His day venerated every letter of the sacred writings, and
regarded the very copies of the Law as sacred to the touch, and yet on
their understanding of the Scriptures they rejected the mission and
message of Jesus. Christian scholarship has undoubtedly followed rather
after the Rabbis than after Christ. The message of the Old Testament
that the new methods have made clear certainly appears to be more in
conformity with the Spirit of Christ than with that of His opponents,
and if this is revolutionary then it is no new thing; religion always
moves along such lines.
Great offence has been caused and insuperable prejudice aroused among
many by the name under which these methods have become known. The
name, "higher criticism," conveys to most people a suggestion of
carping fault-finding and an assumption of superiority. This is due to
an entire misunderstanding of a technical term. Criticism is nothing
more than the exercise of the faculty of judgment, and, moreover,
judgment that ought to be perfectly fair. The sinister suggestion
that is conveyed in the word is due to the fact that our criticisms
are so often biassed by personal prejudices. But this only condemns
our faults, and not the method. "Higher" criticism does not mean any
assumption of superiority, but is simply a term used to distinguish it
from "lower" criticism. The criticism that endeavours to ascertain the
original text by a comparison of the various documents available is
called _lower_, and that which deals with matters higher up the stream
of descent by which the writings have been conveyed to us, namely,
matters of date and authorship, is called _higher_ criticism. It might
well be called literary and historical criticism, in distinction from
textual criticism. It employs historical methods, and uses the simple
tests of comparison and contemporaneity. For the understanding of a
particular age, it prefers those documents that describe the times in
which they were written, and give indirect evidence, rather than those
histories which were written long after the event and which reveal a
purpose other than the strictly historical. Fortunately, we have in
the Old Testament many such contemporary and indirect witnesses in the
writings of the Prophets. They are not consciously writing history,
but they tell us indirectly what the practices of their day were, and
especially what religious ideas were prevalent; for it is these things
that they feel called upon to attack. With these reliable standards we
can compare the regular histories, which were necessarily written at a
much later age, and very often to serve some religious purpose.
Now it is this method, which is surely a true and proper one, that
has changed our estimate of the history and development of religion
in Israel. Are we to condemn the method without examination because
it destroys certain traditions about the Bible which we have received
largely from Judaism?--the Judaism which could find no place for Jesus!
But it will be answered that these methods yield results that are
incompatible with the inspiration of the Bible, and are unworthy of
God's revelation to us. But how are we to decide what is compatible
with inspiration? We can only tell, surely, by seeing what these
results are and by discovering whether they bring any inspiration to
us. Can we be certain, without examining the facts, to what lines the
revelation of God is to be restricted? Is this not coming to the Bible
with a theory which we have manufactured and which will surely distort
the facts? It will be said that anything less than absolute accuracy
makes void any claim to be a Divine revelation. Let us consider what
this means. We know that the historical spirit, which endeavours to
see history as it actually happened quite apart from our desires or
sympathies, is an ideal which has only emerged with the general spread
of education, and that in ancient times history was written largely
with a view to edification, and especially for giving such lessons
as would lead to right principles being adopted for the future. It
was not the accuracy of the material but suitability for its purpose
that weighed with the historian. Now, with these conditions existing,
was it impossible for God to speak to men through their conceptions
of history, or had He to wait until the historical spirit prevailed?
Could He not use the early legends which they believed, and through
them bring the truth to men? We know that the greatest of all religious
teachers did not scruple to embody the highest truths in such parables
as lowly minds could receive. We may demand that revelation shall be
infallible, but this would need in turn an infallible person to receive
it, and even then an infallible interpreter. An infallible revelation
would mean that there could never be any progress in revelation; that
it would have to be given perfect in one process; that it would have
to be authenticated to men by authority, since it would be beyond the
understanding of a fallible mind; that it would break in upon every
other experience, remain isolated, and never be grasped by that strong
conviction which we call faith; and this would entail a destruction of
the mental faculties of man, and an acknowledgment that communication
between God and man is really impossible. Could not God speak to man
in his infancy, and with the growing understanding would there not be
growing light?
Meanwhile, whatever we feel about these abstract principles, we ought
to know the facts. In the pages that follow an endeavour is made to
present the results at which a consensus of opinion has arrived. There
will be no great time spent in argument for or against these facts.
Such are to be sought in the scientific works and in the dictionaries,
which alone can deal adequately with these facts, but since many
altogether refuse to consider the facts because of the inferences
which they think can be drawn from them, this book is an earnest
plea for earnest men to consider whether it is not open to be shown
that from these facts there comes to us a much clearer understanding
of God's ways with man; a more certain conviction that in the past
God has actually spoken through the Scriptures; a clue to a better
understanding of the place Jesus occupies in the history of revelation;
and what we all need greatly to-day: a preparation of heart that we may
follow the leading of that Spirit who ever has and who ever will guide
into all truth those who are willing to follow Him. The aim of this
book is that the reader may feel that the voice which speaks in his
own heart and the voice which has guided man through all his strange
history is One, and is of God.
THE SEMITIC RACES
_Read, as Introduction to this Lecture, the Tenth Chapter of Genesis._
This is one of the most interesting documents in anthropology. It is
an attempt at a scientific ethnology, and seems to have been expanded
from the closing verses of the preceding chapter. It will be noticed
that those verses are in poetical form (R.V.), and are likely to be
very ancient.
Note the principles of classification:--
(1) Geographical. It is a very incomplete summary of the peoples of
the earth. Only those nations are mentioned that fill the horizon of
the writer's knowledge. That horizon will be found to correspond very
largely with that of the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
(2) Prejudice. The evident kinship of some peoples is denied on the
ground of dislike; for the same reason, Moab and Ammon, who are well
known, are simply omitted.
The real test of kinship is language, which is here ignored.
The names are not to be taken as individuals. Of this the very form
is witness: Ludim is plural, Mizraim is dual, Tarshish is the name of
a place, and Amorite is gentilic.
Notes:--
Verse 2. Madai = Medes. Javan = the Greeks, or more particularly, the
Ionians.
Verse 4. Tarshish is probably Spain. Kittim = the Cretans. Dodanim
(read Rodanim 1 Ch. i. 7) = the inhabitants of Rhodes.
Verse 6. Mizraim: the name for Egypt. Canaan: here and elsewhere
said to be descended from Ham. Beyond all doubt the Canaanites were
a Semitic people and spoke a language akin to Hebrew. Religious
antagonism and the fact of their conquest demanded in the popular
imagination a different ancestry.
Verse 14. "Whence went forth the Philistines" is misplaced, and
should follow after "Caphtorim" (Amos ix. 7).
Verse 21. Eber: the name of the supposed ancestor of the Hebrews.
Verse 22. Elam = Persia. Racially the Elamites were quite distinct
from the Semites. This inclusion may be a clue to the date of this
Table of Nations; friendship with Persia dates from Cyrus (Sixth
Century B.C.).
(See Driver's "Genesis.")
Lecture I
THE SEMITIC RACES
The Hebrew nation forms a branch of that group of the human family
known as the Semites. Their relation to the other great racial
divisions of mankind is far beyond the reach of our enquiry, and we
cannot even penetrate to a period when the Semites formed an unbroken
family. At the remotest date to which history can take us we find the
family already widely dispersed, with distinct national characteristics
well developed, and their common ancestry quite forgotten in their
violent hatreds of their unrecognised kinsmen. Indeed it is only the
test of language which still preserves for us an indisputable proof
of their common origin. Their existence can be traced back to a very
remote date, for fragments of their literature and other evidences
of civilisation have been discovered that have been dated 5000-4000
B.C., and even at that period the language shows signs of phonetic
degeneration that require a still further period for the process to
have reached this stage.
The primitive home of the Semites cannot have been, however, where
these ancient remains have been found, namely, in the Euphrates valley,
for the records themselves show that they were only immigrants there
and had replaced the original inhabitants, who came of Sumerian stock.
Neither was it in Palestine, as our own Bible will tell us; but it
is probably to be sought in Arabia, where the purest Semitic stock
is still to be found. In this desert home the race was bred that was
destined to have such a tremendous influence on the history of the
world, and it is largely to this desert training that we can trace
influences which have made them what they are. The battle for life in
that inhospitable land would mould a physique capable of extraordinary
endurance, and to this we can perhaps trace the virility of the modern
Jew, who has resisted for centuries the poisonous ghettos of European
cities and remains far healthier than his indigenous neighbours. This
hard training fitted them for an exacting life, and in the Phoenicians
they became the traders of antiquity, and in the Carthaginians and
Saracens, warriors not to be despised. Hardness easily becomes
cruelty, and purely Semitic empires, such as Assyria, developed a
barbarous cruelty, the story of which is told on their inscriptions
and in the denunciations of the Hebrew Prophets. There is something
in the Semitic character that is disliked by Western nations, and
the Jews have been subjects of relentless persecution in mediæval
times, and are still capable of arousing bitter hostility, as may be
seen from those violent eruptions of anti-Semitism which occasionally
burst through the cosmopolitanism of Western Europe. The well-defined
limitations of their primitive home--crushed in between the continents
of Europe, Africa and Asia, the neutral ground of the Eastern and
Western worlds--seem almost to be reflected in the limitations of their
mental development. The Semitic tongue is crude in its simplicity
and incapable of expressing an abstract idea, and it is natural to
find as a result that the philosophical faculty is almost entirely
missing. Although they have given to the world an alphabet, a system
of numeration which has made mathematics possible, and the beginnings
of measurement and of the science of astronomy, yet their mind is not
scientific in the modern sense. They possess, as perhaps no other race,
the gift of telling stories of wonder and mystery, and for a simple
tale of love and pathos they are unsurpassed. They have produced the
finest lyrical literature of the ancient world, but have contributed
hardly anything to dramatic or epic poetry, and their achievements in
art have been cramped by their religious prejudices.
But in the realm of religion they are supreme, and have become the
high-priests of humanity, for from them have gone forth three great
religions, and one of these capable of development into the universal
religion of mankind. These faiths have not been slowly evolved from the
national consciousness, but have both sprung from and been embodied in
inspiring personalities; for have they not given to the world Moses and
the Prophets, Mahomet, and the Son of Man?
The Semites are divided by anthropologists into the following groups:
Southern Group--North Arabians, Sabæans, Abyssinians; Northern
Group--Babylonians, Assyrians, Aramæans, Canaanites, Hebrews; and
all these groups seem to have been formed from the original stock
by migrations from their home in Arabia. The contracted area of the
Arabian peninsula, the inability of the land to support a large
population, coupled with their restless spirit and the constant feuds
between the tribes, made emigration a necessity at a very early period.
The exact history and order of these migrations it is now impossible to
trace, but it would seem that the first great movement was eastward,
whither they were drawn by the culture and wealth of the Sumerian
civilisation in the Euphrates valley. It is quite possible that this
movement commenced 6000 years before Christ. At a later date they
seem to have invaded Egypt and left some traces upon the language and
customs of that land.
The land of Syria would offer a near and easy home for the emigrants,
and yet the first Semites to arrive in Palestine seem to have come from
the Euphrates. The inhabitants they displaced were the Hittites, who
probably came from Asia Minor; they were Turanians, and were akin to
the present inhabitants of Armenia. It is only lately that excavation
has revealed the remains of a Hittite Empire in Palestine. The first
Semitic tribes to reach Palestine pushed down to the seaboard, where
they developed a wonderful maritime civilisation and became the daring
traders and explorers who are known in history as the Phoenicians;
the other tribes occupied the hill country and became the Canaanites
of Bible story. Of the next migration westward, the Bible preserves
a popular account in the story of the journey of Abraham from Ur of
the Chaldees. Now Abraham and his descendants were called Hebrews,
and this name is traced to an ancestor who was called Eber or Heber.
It is doubtful whether an _individual_ so named ever existed. The
name "Hebrew" means "one from the other side," and would therefore
have been a suitable name for those who crossed the Euphrates, coming
from Arabia; but of this movement the Bible knows nothing. Some have
supposed that the name was given much later to the tribes who entered
Palestine across the Jordan. The discovery of the Tel-el-Amarna
tablets has somewhat complicated our understanding of these events.
These tablets were letters written by the vassal-kings of Syria to
their overlord Amenophis III., King of Egypt, and in them the King
of Jerusalem calls for help against some tribes who are invading the
country and whom he names _Habiri_. Now the date of this correspondence
is about 1500 B.C., and if these are the Hebrews, we shall have to
suppose that not all the tribes of Israel went down into Egypt or that
the Exodus took place some two centuries earlier than the date given in
the Bible; but the whole question of the identification of the Habiri
is not yet certain.
It is, however, with those Hebrew tribes who were afterwards known as
the children of Israel that we have to do; and however remote, and
by whatever stages it is to be traced, their Semitic relationship is
certain. Their own tradition of the birthplace of Abraham shows that
they are conscious of their common origin with the Babylonians; the
stories in Genesis acknowledge their kinship with Moab and Ammon, even
though national hatred has coloured the account of their birth (Gen.
xix. 30-38). They formed a brotherly covenant with Edom, and Ishmael is
recognised not only to be kin but to be the elder. The Canaanites were
disowned wrongly, for they were certainly Semites; but the Philistines
rightly, for they came into Palestine over-sea from Crete.
We need always to bear in mind that our Bible is the product of Semitic
thought, and whatever its universal message, it is expressed in the
forms of Semitic genius; and yet that the Hebrews stand out from the
other Semitic nations is indisputable, and the distinguishing mark is
the purity of their religion. What is the cause of that difference? How
came such a tender root out of such a dry ground?
Renan is responsible for the popular idea that the Semites have a
natural tendency towards Monotheism. The idea should present no
difficulties for a theory of Revelation, but it is certainly not true.
It is not true of the general type of Semitic religion, and it cannot
be claimed, in the face of the Prophets' record of their countrymen's
lapses, that it was true even of the Hebrews. If it were said that
there was that in Semitic history and character which, provided
opportunity were given, would offer a congenial soil for the reception
of monotheistic ideas, it would be the utmost that could be said.
Neither is there more truth in the antithesis that contrasts the Aryan
conception of God as immanent with the Semitic as transcendent; for in
their primitive stages Aryan and Semitic religions are alike.
Primitive Semitic religion is indeed quite polytheistic; every tribe
has its own god and this god is closely identified with a particular
locality. Therefore, to be an outcast from the tribe meant to be
an exile from the protection and service of the god. This idea can
be found in the Bible as late as David, who thought that if he were
driven forth from his own land he would have to serve other gods (1
Sam. xxvi. 19). The god is conceived to be the father of the tribe,
while the land is the mother, and this in quite a physical and literal
sense. The same idea is of course frequent in the Greek religions, and
some such conception must be the original of the strange tradition
in Genesis (vi. 1), which describes a union between the sons of God
and the daughters of men. The connection of the god with the tribe
is therefore simply a matter of blood descent, and the blood becomes
in consequence invested with sacred virtues. The blood of the tribe
cannot be shed by one of the members without incurring the vengeance
of the god; and the use of the blood of animals in various ceremonies
may point to the belief in a common ancestry for men and animals; in
some tribes the animal is regarded as a superior being, and is actually
worshipped. The blood of animals even is thought to be too sacred for
human consumption, and is therefore set apart by libation as suitable
food for the god. Seeing that the connection between the god and man
is only tribal, the shedding of the blood of any other tribe is quite
allowable; for the tribal god cares only for his own people, and others
cannot approach him (2 Kings xvii. 27). It is evident that a religion
based upon such ideas can never be a factor in the moral development of
a people. It only needs to provide for help against enemies, counsel
in times of national affliction, and oracles for difficult problems of
judgment; therefore, in times of national prosperity and security, it
will play no part beyond that of custom; and custom often seems the
stronger in proportion to its lack of meaning.
We may insist that the Hebrew religion is superior to all this because
it owes its origin to the special revelation of God; but even that
does not preclude us from enquiring through what natural causes this
revelation came, if we believe that natural causes form some part of
the working of the Divine mind.
Now these ideas common to Semitic religion persisted among the Hebrews
and were only shaken by the earnest ministry of the Prophets, and
eventually destroyed by the reflection which followed the national
disaster of the Exile. The continued national trouble of Israel
was therefore a factor in her advance in the truth, and she stands
as a witness to the possibility of suffering being an educative
force. Moreover, she found that her Promised Land was only a little
strip hemmed in between the desert and the sea, where all dreams of
world-empire were forbidden. Then it was that this nation turned her
thoughts to a spiritual kingdom, and looking across the sea that
she feared to cross saw a day when the distant isles should be her
possession, because she had given to them the Law of Jehovah, and the
knowledge of God.
THE PRIMITIVE RELIGION OF THE HEBREWS
THE STRATA OF THE PENTATEUCH
We give here for reference the proposed identification of the
documents that critics say can be recognised in the construction of
the first five books of the Bible. The theory has been developed so
as to include the Books of Joshua, Judges, and some parts of Samuel,
all of which are said to bear the same marks of composition from
pre-existing documents.
"J." Jahvistic. Dated 900-700 B.C. This document is especially
distinguished for using the name of Jehovah, or "Yahwè," and is
anthropomorphic in its conception of God.
"E." Elohistic. Dated 750-650 B.C. The name for God in this document
is "Elohim," and its conception of God is more spiritual and elevated
than in "J."
"D." Deuteronomist. Dated 650-550 B.C. This document has the style
and thought of the Book of Deuteronomy, where it is chiefly, though
by no means exclusively found. The central idea of this document is
_the one sanctuary_.
"P." Priestly Code. Dated 550-400 B.C. This document supplies the
framework of the Pentateuch, and is distinguished by its interest in
questions of ritual, and by its very legal and stereotyped style.
The dates given above are arrived at from a comparison of the ideas
expressed in these documents with their emergence in the historical
books of the Old Testament. Only for the last two can it be claimed
that there are historical events which are said to confirm them.
These are: the finding of the Book of the Law in the reign of Josiah,
and the promulgation of the Law by Ezra.
Lecture II
THE PRIMITIVE RELIGION OF THE HEBREWS
We have seen from the last lecture that an examination of the
general type of Semitic Religion gives us no explanation of the
mature development of the Religion of the Hebrews; on the contrary,
that development would seem to take place in spite of the common
Semitic characteristics, for it is against these characteristics and
the natural tendency to return to them that we find the Prophets
continually at war. If this is so, can we penetrate to the first stage
at which the new religious movement begins which was to reach such
glorious heights in Jeremiah, the Psalmists and the Son of Man? It is
certainly not to be found in the general character of Semitic religion;
does it commence with the ancestor of the Hebrew race, the Patriarch
Abraham?
To this question the editor of Genesis means to return a decided
answer: the true religion of Jehovah existed from the earliest times,
and all lower forms are deteriorations from that pure original
revelation. The earliest stories in Genesis are made to bear witness
to this; Abel offered the true worship of God in that he brought of
the best of his flock, thus agreeing with the sacrifice of animals set
forth in the fully-developed ritual of Leviticus as the only means of
approach to God; Noah offers of "clean" animals; the Patriarchs offer
animal sacrifices, and call upon the name of Jehovah; Rebekah goes to
enquire of Jehovah and obtains an oracle. The author means to convey by
this that the earliest religion was the religion which we find outlined
in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, with the exceptions that a priest is not
necessary, and that sacrifice is permitted at other places besides the
one chosen sanctuary. This idea is enshrined in that favourite name for
God which we find in the Old Testament, the God of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob.
We have now to enquire whether this is a correct view of the history,
or only the writer's speculations about an age long removed from
his own. We are moved to do this because there are certain facts in
this history that do not seem to fit in with the author's view. It
is evident at the outset, that the writer, whoever he be, is dealing
with subjects concerning which he can have at best only second-hand
knowledge. This may have been conveyed to him in documents, or in
popular tradition. If the object of the compilation of this history was
not so much to produce an accurate and exact history as to interpret
the past as a religious lesson for his own age, it cannot be instantly
dismissed as improbable that he may have altered some of his material
so as to accord more closely with his own religious views. Now scholars
say that they can detect the presence of various documents, which have
been loosely combined and coloured with the editor's own ideas of what
should have taken place. There is hardly any theory which has excited
more ridicule from a certain class of Biblical students. The idea is
dismissed offhand as utterly unworthy of a sacred writer; and even if
he did adopt such a scissors-and-paste method of compiling history, it
is denied that anyone could detect the various strata now. No defence
of these claims of the critical school need be attempted here, for we
are taking their theories as granted, with the idea of seeing what
their acceptance as true would mean to our estimate of the Bible and
Revelation; but it may be shown that the Evangelist Luke is not ashamed
to confess that he used something like this method in compiling his
Gospel. From the Table that faces this lecture, it will be seen that
the critics give dates for these documents that lie very far apart, and
if the dates are even approximately true, it is a fair conclusion that
with such wide separation of time, and with the consequent difference
both in language and idea, there should be sufficient criteria to
detect the different strata. The critics who have attempted the
disintegration of the original documents of the Pentateuch have been
challenged to show their fitness for such a task by extricating the
respective contributions in a joint authorship novel such as "The
Chaplain of the Fleet," by Walter Besant and James Rice. Or, again,
such claims are discounted on the ground of the known failures
of professional literary critics to recognise under pseudonym or
anonymity, the style of a well-known author, or even to guess correctly
the sex of the writer. The analogy fails because the circumstances are
entirely different. It would be on more equal terms to deny that it
would be possible to distinguish, say, the personal opinions of the
author of an English History from the passages quoted from the Doomsday
Book, Chaucer, or an Act of the Long Parliament, if all quotation marks
and references were omitted.
For according to the witness of the very documents themselves this
conception of the early history must be set aside as not quite correct.
The history in Genesis is conscious that some new start began with
Abraham: he abandoned idolatry. Still more clearly is it seen that with
Moses another epoch began, for according to one document, the very name
of Jehovah was unknown before its revelation to Moses (Exod. vi. 2, 3).
We are, therefore, faced with the necessity of enquiring how much of
the stories of the Patriarchs can be called history in any true sense.
The reasons for and against their historical value may be summarised:
_Against_: (1) The stories must have been composed long after the
events took place. (2) Tribal movements and personal incidents seem to
have been confused. (3) The endeavour to explain the origin of personal
and geographical names is often merely popular, and etymologically
incorrect. (Compare with this the common errors of our own day; for
instance, the explanation of the name of Liverpool from a supposed bird
called the liver, now known to be entirely mythical.) (4) While the
contemporary history of this period is now quite an enlightened field,
and the life, character, and customs of the inhabitants of Palestine in
this age of the Patriarchs comparatively well known, we look in vain
for any mention of these persons themselves.
_For_:(1) The narratives of the Patriarchs are admitted by critics to
have been taken from at least two documents of separate origin and
of different dates. This should double the weight of the evidence.
(2) The simplicity of the narratives in many places looks like a
relation of fact. (But over against this must be placed the genius for
relating a story of pure fiction which is so peculiar a distinction
of the Semites. Some of the narratives are quite artificial; as the
story of Isaac's lie to shield his wife, which follows a similar story
related of Abraham.) (3) We might appeal to the memory of the Bedawin
reciters, who can repeat almost incredibly long portions of the Koran.
The most likely solution of this conflicting evidence would seem to be
that in the history of the Patriarchs we have a modicum of historical
foundation which has been worked up into popular and idealised legends.
If the stories of the three Patriarchs be carefully studied, it will
be noticed that while the stories of Jacob are matter of fact, and
do outline a conceivable character, the stories of Isaac produce
only a nebulous character impression, while Abraham stands forth as
a character which has been idealised. This would be an accountable
psychological process: in the case of Jacob a good deal of detail is
remembered, Isaac is almost forgotten, while in the case of Abraham,
only the name and a few incidents are known, which serve to form the
framework of a religious lesson.
It is, however, in the conception of their religion that idealisation
has most plainly occurred, for it is mainly the religion of the Ninth
Century, that is, of the age immediately preceding the great literary
Prophets. In the documents themselves there is left to the careful
reader ample indication in customs and narratives, the meaning of
which has escaped the notice of the editor, that a more primitive
form of religion prevailed. It would seem, as we have seen, that the
name of Jehovah was unknown to them, while there are evident tokens
of polytheistic belief (Gen. xxxi. 19; xxxv. 1-4). The crudity of
the worship may be seen in the frequent reference to the erection of
pillars and stones, which, it will be seen later, have more than a
merely memorial purpose. The ease with which we find idolatry always
reappearing in later history points to some hereditary tendency at
work among the mass of the people. If, however, we suppose that the
primitive religion was entirely heathen we shall be faced with the
problem of discovering some necessary point of departure to which
the higher revelation could affix itself. We may suppose, therefore,
that among the ancestors of the Hebrews there was held a faith that
was relatively purer than that common to the Semites, a faith which
contained in itself the guarantee of the possibility of advance,
if only favourable conditions arose; that "El, the Mighty One
(_Shaddai_)," was worshipped, but along with the retention of customs
and ideas that are to be found in some forms of demon worship, that is,
with the recognition of many other great spirits, not all of whom are
thought of as inimical to man; very much as we find among the North
American Indians the idea of a Great Spirit, existing side by side with
heathen practices and beliefs.
So far our enquiry has not taken us on to very sure ground, and we must
seek other methods. In the study of Comparative Religion the idea of a
certain natural order of the evolution of religion predominates, but
the actual origin of religion is still only a matter of speculation,
as indeed it is bound to remain from the very nature of religion
itself, since it is a vision of faith, rising in different ages and
races through quite different processes. We propose now to take both
the speculations and the assured results of the study of Comparative
Religion, and using these as tests, see if they have left any traces
in the evolution of the Hebrew religion or if they can guide us to its
possible origins. The principles of such enquiry and application may be
stated.
(1) The ascertained customs and ideas of other religions, especially
those of the Semites, will form a working hypothesis, and if we then
find any reference to these customs or ideas in the Old Testament, it
will make towards reasonable proof of a similar origin.
(2) We must be careful, however, to exclude customs that are known
to have been borrowed from the Canaanites, such as the practice of
Baal-worship.
(3) At the same time we must beware of assuming, without further
enquiry, that all the observances ordained by the religion of Jehovah
whose origins are connected with some historical event are to be
thought of as having their beginning then. It is more than likely that
when a long-established custom was recognised to be heathen in its
origin or tendency, it would be strictly forbidden, as in the case
of the heathen practice of necromancy; others which had lost their
original meaning would be baptised into a new significance under the
new religion. (With this phenomenon may be compared our own festival of
Christmas Day, taken over from the Roman Saturnalia, and our mourning
customs, which are survivals of heathenism, and can only with great
difficulty be made to take on a Christian meaning.) Let us then examine
the supposed origins of heathen religion, and first of all, that known
as Totemism.
Totemism is a custom exceedingly common among savage tribes, in which
some animal is chosen as the badge, or the name of the tribe, and a
blood covenant formed, when the animal becomes the "totem" or god of
the tribe. Popular instances may be given in the names of many of the
Indian tribes of North America, or even in the crests and emblems of
our now disrupted clans in Scotland, which can be traced back to a
similar idea. In other cases the totem may be one of the well-known
flora of the country or some other natural object. The custom is,
of course, seen in the well-known worship of animals which has
continued even among nations of advanced civilisation. Are there any
traces of the influence of this idea at work in the religion of the
Old Testament? There are one or two tribal names which are names of
animals. Simeon is probably the name of a hybrid between a wolf and a
hyæna. Leah means a wild cow, and Rachel is the Hebrew name for an ewe.
The distinction between clean and unclean animals might be traced to
this influence, but it does not altogether explain the lists in Lev.
xi. and Deut. xiv.
Another theory of the origin of religion is that known as Animism. This
is the belief in the existence of spirits,--a belief prompted by the
phenomena of dreams,--which usually takes the form of belief in the
activity of the spirits of the recently deceased, an activity which
is sometimes thought to be harmful and therefore feared. Animism, as
a belief in a spiritual activity behind natural phenomena, especially
those of the fearful type, survives in some form or other in the
highest religions, and was particularly active in the Hebrew idea that
Jehovah controlled natural forces for the deliverance of His people and
for His own wonderful manifestations. Animism generally survives among
uncivilised peoples in the practice of ancestor worship, of which there
is no trace among the Hebrews.
Nevertheless, the belief in Animism has left some customs behind it.
Especially is this seen in the mourning customs which are designed to
render the relatives unrecognisable to the departed spirit. This was
effected by sprinkling ashes on the head, going naked or clothed in
sackcloth. Cutting the flesh for this purpose is expressly forbidden
(Lev. xix. 28). The ritual uncleanness of one who has come into contact
with a dead body is also a relic of Animism, as is also the strange
idea in Num. xix. 15, which is intended to guard against the spirit
taking up its abode in a position from which it would be difficult to
dislodge it. The funeral feast is held with the idea that the dead can
still partake, but in this case friendly feelings rather than fear
operate. The conclusion is that Animism has played its part in the
shaping of Israel's religion, but that the cruder forms of it were
dropped at a very early age.
The religion of savage tribes is generally found to be polytheistic,
and this is supposed to be one of the earliest stages in the
development of religion. It takes the form of the deification of the
forces of Nature or of striking natural objects, which are worshipped
and generally feared, and is therefore a form of Animism. If the
theories of the critics as to the composition of the early books of
the Bible are correct, we should expect to find that, if any traces
of Polytheism could be detected, they would be carefully obliterated
from the original documents by the latest editor. There are indications
discernible which show that this has been done, for although the
worship of other gods is always severely condemned as the greatest of
sins, yet at the same time we find no clear recognition of the idea of
the One God until the time of the Prophets. The gods of the heathen
are mentioned as if they were real beings who are to be feared. The
evidence for this may be objected to in detail, but the accumulation of
facts does press the reader to the unavoidable conclusion that until
the Prophets, the faith of Israel was Monolatry rather than Monotheism,
that is, the worship of one God rather than the definite belief that He
is the Only God.
The very name for God in the Hebrew language has a plural form
(Elohim), but this is explained by a grammatical custom by which things
of exalted idea are spoken of in the plural, called by grammarians,
_the plural of eminence_. The evidence for Polytheism quoted above
from Gen. xxxi. 19; xxxv. 1-4, might be referred to the introduction
of alien idolatrous practices; but this can hardly be claimed in
the case of the practice mentioned in Lev. xvii. 7, which must be
a reference to the cult of satyrs, or goat-like demons which were
commonly supposed to inhabit the desert, to the discouragement of
which the ceremony mentioned in Lev. xvi. 8, 10, 21 ff, would seem
to be directed. This strange figure called Azazel is not elsewhere
described in the Old Testament, but we learn from the Book of Enoch
that this was the name for the King of the Demons, a kind of _djinn_
who inhabited the wilderness and demanded toll of human life. (In
agreement with what has been said before it will be noticed how this
practice has been absorbed in the ritual of the Tabernacle, but with
a different meaning.) Even the First Commandment does not explicitly
deny the existence of other gods; it merely prohibits their worship
by the Israelites. It may be that this command led to the full
monotheistic belief which we find in men like Isaiah, but that full
conception cannot be fairly read into the First Commandment. Chemosh,
the god of the Amorites, is mentioned in Judges xi. 24, as a real
being who had given the Amorites the possession of their land, even as
Jehovah had given Canaan to the Israelites. In the popular imagination
these heathen gods would remain as real beings probably long after
the monotheistic belief had been held by the more enlightened,
being thought of as demon powers, in much the same way as the early
Christians regarded the gods of Greece and Rome.
When we turn to the evidence from the customs of worship that owe their
origin to heathen ideas, the supposition that the early religion of the
Hebrews was hardly distinguishable from that of the Semitic races finds
a full confirmation.
The most determinative of these ideas is that of the localisation of
the god, who appears only at certain specified places with which he
is inseparably connected. The appearance is generally in some form
more or less human, and the site of the manifestation is either marked
for posterity by the erection of a suitable memorial, in the shape of
a stone or an altar, or else some natural object is taken to be the
actual residence of the god. The god is therefore connected rather
with the land than with the people, and it is this antagonism of the
popular idea with that of the Prophets, who stand for the relation
between Jehovah and Israel as not territorial but covenanted, which is
the key to the history of Israel. Apart from this prevalent idea, which
is in itself a sufficient proof, we have the frequent reference to the
sacredness of certain memorials and objects whose original significance
cannot be hidden from the careful reader. We shall examine first these
objects of reverential regard and then proceed to notice some of the
more outstanding customs whose origin is heathen.