



Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, Charlie Howard, and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from images
made available by the HathiTrust Digital Library.)









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 mediaeval
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, Sabaeans, Abyssinians; Northern
Group--Babylonians, Assyrians, Aramaeans, 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 "Yahwe," 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
hyaena. 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.

(a) _Sacred Stones._ Throughout the Old Testament we meet with numerous
references to stones or circles that form convenient landmarks or
natural _rendezvous_ for national ceremonies. Adonijah strengthens
his rebellion by a great sacrifice at the stone of Zoheleth--"the
serpent's stone." The extremely important part which the serpent plays
in all Semitic religion and mythology, together with the sacrificial
act at this spot, points to its having been the ancient site of some
idolatrous cult. Many of these sacred stones may have been the shrines
of the Canaanites, and to some of these the invading religion attached
its own meaning. The circle at Gilgal, which is said to commemorate
the crossing of the Jordan, may be an example of this, for there
is some contradiction in the account which refers it to a memorial
erected by Joshua for this purpose (compare Josh. iv. 2-6, 20 ff, with
iv. 9), and it is more than likely that the circle of graven images
mentioned in Judges iii. 19 (R.V. margin) is to be identified with
it. Among this class of sacred objects must be mentioned the obscure
_Mazzebah_, translated in the margin of the Revised Version, "Obelisk."
The use of the Mazzebah is strictly forbidden in Exod. xxxiv. 13, as
one of the idolatrous customs of the former inhabitants of the land,
but in the Eighth Century the Mazzebah is reckoned by Hosea as one
of the essentials of Hebrew worship, as if he knew nothing of this
proscription in the Law (Hosea iii. iv.). These pillars were evidently
used to mark the place of worship, and they are said to have been found
at Shechem, Bethel, Gilgal, Mizpeh, and elsewhere. From their usage in
primitive Semitic religion as well as from their prohibition in Exodus
it can be seen that they had idolatrous significance, and it is thought
that they were rudely carved to resemble the likeness of the god. The
two pillars placed before the temple, called Jachin and Boaz, are
probably connected with the Mazzebah.

(b) _Sacred Trees._ The continual reference to these in the Old
Testament shows that they had some special and sacred significance.
Such are the terebinths of Mamre (Gen. xiii. 18; should be singular
according to the Septuagint), the tamarisk at Beersheba (Gen. xxi. 33),
the palm of Deborah (Judges iv. 5), and the terebinth in Ophrah (Judges
vi. 11). We can understand how to desert peoples trees naturally
stood for objects of thankful reverence, and in the popular mind were
regarded as the special seat and haunt of a deity. That they also
served for the purpose of obtaining oracles may be seen from 2 Sam.
v. 24; with which may be compared the practice of oracular decision
by the rustling of the famous oaks of Delphi. With this species of
tree-worship we must compare the use of the Asherah mentioned as a
sacred symbol in Judges vi. 25; this is expressly forbidden in Exod.
xxxiv. 13, Deut. xvi. 21. It used to be supposed that this was a wooden
symbol of a goddess Asherah, but from the description in the passage
quoted from Deuteronomy, and from Isa. xvii. 8, it would seem to be a
tree-like post, and is more likely to be a remnant of tree worship,
as our own Maypole may be. It came to pass that the tree or tree-like
pole could therefore stand beside any altar as the sign of the presence
of the god, and in the pre-Prophetic religion of Israel this was
transferred to a sign of the presence of Jehovah until the Asherah was
forbidden, in that great attempt to make return to idolatry impossible,
the reform under Josiah.

(c) _Sacred Springs._ A similar origin may be supposed for the
recognised sacredness of springs. From the names given to some of these
it is evident that they were regarded as the special seat of Divine
power, natural enough, as in the case of the trees, to a desert-bred
race and to dwellers in a land which never had too plentiful a supply
of water. The proximity of the spring to an altar or sacred stone
confirms this, as in the case of the stone Zoheleth near the spring
En-rogel, the "spring of the fuller." The name of "En-Mishpat" (Gen.
xiv. 7), "the spring of judgment," would seem to indicate that springs
were used for the purpose of obtaining oracles, but by what signs this
was effected is not known. The name of the spring in Gen. xvi. 14,
where the angel appeared to Hagar, is significant in this connection:
"the well of the living one who seeth me."

In the customs of worship, and in all customs to which there is
attached a definite religious significance, we find analogies in
the heathen religions which show that they must have had a common
origin. Chief among these must be classed the custom of sacrifice.
It is natural, therefore, to find that sacrifice, which has such an
undoubtedly natural explanation in heathen religions as either the food
of the god or a means of propitiation, is nowhere in the Old Testament
explicitly defined as to its intent and meaning. The root idea is,
however, clearly seen in such customs as that of the setting forth of
the Shewbread, however much the meaning may have become spiritualised
by a purer idea of the nature of Jehovah, while in Ezek. xliv. 7, 15,
this seems to be quite explicitly stated. As the conception of Deity
was spiritualised, the idea of material food would doubtless grow too
repugnant to be retained in the bare offering of flesh, and so we get
the burnt-offering, the smoke of which Jehovah can smell. The blood
especially, forms the correct offering, since being the seat of life,
it belongs altogether to God. On the idea of the sacrifice being used
as a propitiation to the Deity, it follows naturally that the more
costly the victim the more acceptable it will be, and of all sacrifices
the most efficacious will be that of a human being. The story of Abram
and Isaac in Gen. xxii. is made to serve as a condemnation of human
sacrifices, but the origin of the story may very well have pointed
the other way, as indeed the first part of the story does; and that
the practice was common may be seen from 2 Kings xvi. 3; xxi. 6; Jer.
vii. 31; xix. 5 (Delete the last words of Jer. xix. 5, as an evident
gloss from vii. 31). True, in these passages human sacrifice is said
to be in express contravention of the will of Jehovah, but no such
comment is added to the story of Jephthah (Judges xi. 30 ff.), while
in Micah vi. 7, the sacrifice of the firstborn is simply classed among
other sacrifices as part of the common idea. A remnant of this horrible
practice is probably to be found in the consecration of the firstborn
to Jehovah, while the legality of human sacrifice is determinative in
the common practice of the "ban," by which all captives were devoted
to Jehovah, and any violation visited by the direst vengeance; as in
the case of Saul and Agag. Another use of the sacrifice was that of
ratifying a covenant by cutting a victim in parts, between which the
contracting parties passed (Gen. xv. 9-17; Jer. xxxiv. 18).

Much the same result will be found from enquiry into the origin of
special feasts and customs that are said to have been instigated at
the express command of Jehovah; for there is evidence which shows that
they were often customs common amongst the heathen, and were only
invested with a new significance by the higher religion of the Hebrews.
Among these it is likely that we must reckon even the Passover, for
the daubing of the lintels is said to be a common heathen practice,
and it will be noticed in support of the pre-Mosaic origin of the
ceremony that at its first mention in Exod. xii. 21, it is called _the_
Passover. The meaning of the Hebrew word translated "Passover" is
also capable of another meaning than that given in the story of its
institution, a meaning which also points to its being the survival of
a Semitic and heathen custom. Similar enquiry into ancient religions
of the Semitic type shows that originally circumcision had no special
religious significance, but was probably a sign of puberty and the
right to marry. As manners softened it became a family rite and there
was no need to postpone it till years of manhood. The practice of
wearing special garments at religious rites is also found in heathen
religions, and still maintains itself in our habit of wearing "Sunday
clothes."

The results of these enquiries are sufficiently startling to those who
have been accustomed to regard the religion of Israel as starting from
some definite act of revelation which ordained these ordinances and
their religious meaning for the first time. But it is common enough
in history to find that customs persist long after their original
significance has been forgotten, and that they are gradually invested
with a meaning more appropriate to the spirit of the age. We are not,
however, shut up to the conclusion, that, because we can trace much of
the wonderful religion of Israel to common causes acting upon heathen
religion, there is no real work of revelation in this gradual progress
from lower to higher stages. It would be quite useless, from the
point of view of this book, to enter on the fruitless discussion as to
whether in the evolution of religion we have to deal with a natural
process or with a supernatural revelation. Is any such antithesis
necessary? Surely the one can come through the other. If revelation is
to reach us it must come through the ordinary processes of our minds;
the recognition that it is from God cannot be authenticated to us by
any miracle or outward authority, but simply by the possibility of the
mind, which God has made, being able to recognise its Maker. It may
be more of a difficulty to others that we should have such erroneous
conceptions of history in a Book that has been regarded as infallible
on these matters. We have to face the fact, from which there is no
escape, that the historian may not have known the origin of the things
of which he wrote, or may have intentionally obscured the fact of the
heathen origin of customs that had become to all pious Israelites
expressions of Jehovah's special revelation to Israel. If we are going
to call this fraud, then it means that we are going to force on that
early age a conception of historical accuracy which it certainly did
not possess, and which, as a matter of fact, is only a late demand of
the human mind. And after all, there was truth in this reference of all
their religion to the revelation of Jehovah. It witnesses to the fact
that behind even the crudest religion there is something which defies
explanation, and that we have in heathen religions the slow dawning
consciousness of God within man's soul. In Israel these things never
stood still. That central idea of the localisation of Jehovah grew
too small to contain the widening conception of Him as it was evolved
through reflection and national experience, until the Prophets burst
forth with the proclamation that He was the God of the whole earth, and
His relation to Israel not tribal or territorial, but moral, and only
to be maintained by righteousness and true holiness.




MOSAISM


  The reader is recommended to make a careful study of the following
  passages, which are among the most important adduced by the critics
  as evidence for the non-Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

  (1) Mosaic authorship is never claimed for the Pentateuch as a
  whole. Only in certain places is it noted that Moses wrote down
  special things (Exod. xvii. 14; xxiv. 4; xxxiv. 27; Num. xxxiii.
  2; Deut. xxxi. 9, 22, 24). Moses is consistently spoken of in the
  third person, and it is hardly likely that this is a style purposely
  adopted, or the statement of Num. xii. 3 would be extraordinary in
  the circumstances. Obviously the last chapter of Deuteronomy was not
  written by him, nor is the common opinion that it was added by Joshua
  at all probable, for there is no difference in style from the rest
  of the book discernible, and, moreover, Dan is referred to (Deut.
  xxxiv. 1; cp. also Gen. xiv. 14), which was not so named until after
  the conquest. (Josh. xix. 47; Judges xviii. 29.) Would Moses need to
  authenticate his history of contemporaneous events by quoting from
  what are regarded as ancient books: from the Book of the Wars of
  Jehovah (Num. xxi. 14), wars which could have only just commenced, or
  from the poem which refers to the victory over Sihon (Num. xxi. 27
  ff.), which took place at the very end of the forty years' wandering?

  (2) The standpoint as a whole is that of an age later than Moses.
  The remark in Gen. xxxvi. 31 can only have had any meaning in the
  age of David when Edom was in submission to Israel. A late date is
  also needed for the following passages: Gen. xii. 6; xiii. 7; xxxiv.
  7 ("in Israel"! cp. Judges xx. 10; 2 Sam. xiii. 12); Lev. xviii.
  27; Deut. ii. 12; iv. 38. In fact, the whole geographical outlook
  is that of an inhabitant of Western Palestine, as may be seen from
  the use of the term "Seaward" to indicate the west, and of "Negeb,"
  or the desert land, for the south. These terms are used even in the
  description of the Tabernacle, which, if taken from the site of Mount
  Sinai, would be altogether wrong and meaningless. Compare Num. xxii.
  1; xxxiv. 15; Deut. i. 1, 5; iii. 8; iv. 41, 46, 49: "beyond the
  Jordan," showing clearly that the writer's position is in Palestine,
  west of the Jordan.

  (3) There is no trace in the history of any observance of the
  Levitical ritual until after the exile; the day of atonement, the
  sin-offering, the high-priest, all are unheard of until this date.
  Nor can it be claimed that it was the ignorance of the common people,
  or their apostasy, that was responsible for this condition of things.
  The great leaders of the various reformations are apparently also
  quite ignorant that none but a priest could sacrifice, and none but a
  Levite take charge of the ark. Samuel, who was not a Levite, sleeps
  beside the ark and offers sacrifice. Elijah does nothing to recall
  the people to the ritual of Leviticus.

  (4) The conclusion is that, while later ages were right in
  attributing to Moses the founding of their religion and some of
  their ritual, all the accumulation of law, which had only been the
  growth of many centuries, has been placed to his credit. What the
  actual contribution of Moses was it is now impossible to say, but the
  original of the Ten Words and of the Book of the Covenant (Exod. xx.
  2-xxiii. 33) may well go back to that age, as may be seen from the
  relative simplicity of the laws and rules. For example, compare the
  simple regulations for the altar in Exod. xx. 24 with the elaborate
  altar described in Exod. xxvii. 1-8.




Lecture III

MOSAISM


The national consciousness of Israel goes back to a series of
remarkable events in which the nation was born, and which are too
deeply graven on the mind of the people to be mere legends without
historical foundation. These events are the deliverance from the
bondage in Egypt and the great covenant made with Jehovah at Sinai. The
indispensable personal centre, round which these events revolve, is
that of the great national leader, Moses. The fact that, outside the
Pentateuch and the closely connected Book of Joshua, little is known
of the work of Moses until after the exile, has given rise to doubts
concerning his historical reality. If we take the writings of the Old
Testament that are contemporary with the period they describe, there
stand out in indisputable primacy the writings of the great literary
Prophets. To these modern criticism has rightly turned to discover the
opinions, customs, and religion, prevailing in the Eighth Century; and
it is claimed that by these writings we can test the historical value
of the Pentateuch, and of the other historical books. Now it must be
admitted that in the pre-exilic Prophets the mention of Moses is less
frequent than we should expect from the position which is claimed for
him in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. The
Prophets do appeal with one consent to the original covenant of Jehovah
with Israel, to the fulfilment of which they would recall the nation;
but only rarely is the name of Moses associated with that covenant.
There are only four references to Moses in the Prophets before the
exile (Hosea xii. 13--Moses not actually named; Micah vi. 4; Jer.
xv. 1; Isa. lxiii. 12--reckoned post-exilic by critics), and in none
of these is Moses referred to as a law-giver, but as a prophet and
national deliverer. We have to come to Prophets writing after the exile
to find any reference to the legislative work of Moses (Mal. iv. 4;
Dan. ix. 11-13). The purpose of the prophetic writings is moral rather
than historical, and this forbids putting more evidential weight upon
this argument from silence than it will bear; but in face of their
continual appeal to the covenant of Sinai, this silence is at least
significant. Evidently Moses was not a name to conjure with in their
age. (Compare Jer. xxxi. 31, 32, where the mention of the name of Moses
would have been most natural.)

We have, on these and other grounds, to disregard the later idea
that Moses was the only law-giver of Israel and the author of the
Pentateuch, although the fact that the later legislation could only
find sanction as it was included under his name, points to him as
in some way the initiator of Israel's great Code of Laws. While in
addition to this, it must be admitted that a great deal of the story
of his life is due to the growth of legend, there is no need to regard
the figure of Moses as entirely mythical. The events by which a motley
crowd of serfs became a nation and covenanted themselves to an almost
new religion not only need for their explanation a great interpreter,
but also a great leader; and this demand and need Moses fills. We may
therefore safely regard Moses as one of the great Founders of Religion.

We have now to enquire how much of the marvellous story of his life can
be safely reckoned as history. The document which gives the earliest,
and therefore the most trustworthy, story of his life is dated by the
critics in the Ninth Century, although it is not denied that it may,
and probably does, go back for its material to a much earlier period.
This document, known to the critics as "J," owes its origin to early
prophetic influence. In this document, as might be expected from the
analogy in similar cases (compare the absence of the birth stories in
Mark), the story of the birth and finding of Moses is omitted; it is
probably nothing more than an effort to find a popular explanation
of his name, as derived from _Mashah_, "to draw out." A much more
likely origin of the name is found by modern scholars in the Egyptian
word for "son" (_Mesu_). The important thing to be noticed is that in
this early document he appears first of all in Midian, although there
are indications which show that it is known that he had previously
been in Egypt. Here, alone in the wilderness, or in intercourse with
the strange Bedawin who still inhabit that region, there came to him
a revelation of Jehovah and the call to deliver Israel from their
bondage. He returned to Egypt with a message at once religious and
national. He calls upon the Israelites to leave Egypt and to seek
a covenant with Jehovah at His shrine at Sinai. During a plague,
the passage of the Red Sea was effected under conditions that were
interpreted to be due to the direct intervention of Jehovah; and, the
returning tide cutting off the pursuing Egyptians who challenged their
flight, the Israelites stood delivered from their enemies and their
first trust in Jehovah was vindicated. It is not for us to enquire
into the exact causes which proved so favourable to the Israelites and
so disastrous to the Egyptians; we only need to know that they were
interpreted religiously. Then around Mount Sinai, with its impressive
solitude and its awful storms, Moses gathered the people, imparted
the secret of the new worship, made a solemn covenant by which the
people of Israel became for ever the people of Jehovah, and probably
laid down some rudiments of legislation fitted for their primitive and
nomadic condition. This much at least the after history demands as the
irreducible minimum.

If this is at all an accurate view of the founding of the religion of
Jehovah, then we are faced with the phenomenon of a nation practically
adopting a new religion. We do not ignore "revelation" when we feel
compelled to seek for natural causes which might prepare the way for
this event; and this we may attempt by an enquiry into the meaning of
the name "Jehovah."

It should be noted at the outset that "Jehovah" is a personal name,
like that of Zeus or Poseidon, conveying the idea of some aspect of
deity. The meaning of the name is exceedingly obscure. The general
name for deity common to all Semites, and therefore belonging to the
undivided primitive stock, is "El," meaning either "the Mighty One" or,
and more in accord with Semitic conceptions of God, "the Leader." The
meaning of the name "Jehovah" is difficult to discover, because in the
first place the exact pronunciation of the word has been lost, probably
beyond recovery.

The word "Jehovah" is a hybrid compound, and as a matter of fact was
never used as a name for God until the Reformation. We can be certain
only that the consonants of the word were _JHVH_ (or _YHWH_, Hebrew
pronunciation). This extraordinary state of things is accounted for
by the fact that for centuries the Hebrew Scriptures were "unpointed"
or unvocalised--that is, the consonants only were written and the
necessary connecting vowels were taught orally, and only retained in
the memory for use when the Scriptures were read aloud. When in the
Ninth Century A.D. it was likely that the pronunciation of the sacred
language would be entirely forgotten, a device for its preservation
was made whereby the vowel pronunciation was indicated by means of
"points" placed chiefly underneath the consonantal text; very much like
the dots and dashes used for vowels in Pitman's system of shorthand.
When, however, it came to the "pointing" of JHVH, it was found that
the pronunciation of this word had been entirely lost. Reverence for
the name of God had become so exaggerated that, in reading aloud from
the Scriptures, wherever the sacred name occurred another word had
always been substituted. This word was one of respect, but of less
marked exaltation--_Adonai_, equal to our word "Lord." The only course
open to the punctuators was that of inserting under the consonants
JHVH, the vowels (with suitable euphonic modifications) of the word
_Adonai_, with the result that we get the conflate "Jehovah," a word
which has become invested with so much solemnity to our ears, but
which was certainly not the right pronunciation, and which has never
been used by the Jews. Scholars have endeavoured, at present without
any universally accepted result, to recover the lost pronunciation
by linguistic enquiries, with the desire to discover what the word
originally meant, in the hope that it would throw some light on the
origin of the religion founded by Moses. In Exod. iii. 13 ff. (R. V.
margin) we have the traditional explanation of the word, an explanation
which is not altogether satisfactory from a grammatical point of
view; the great Hebraist Ewald goes so far as to pronounce it highly
artificial. It has been objected that the man who wrote this account,
about 750 B.C., surely understood his own language. Probably; but that
is not to say that he understood the etymology of it, for etymology is
a new science, and has upset many popular derivations in the case of
our own language. If the explanation given in Exodus is correct, and
we cannot with certainty put anything much better in its place, then
the meaning of the word "Jehovah" would be "He that is," perhaps an
equivalent in Hebrew form to the Western idea of "The Eternal." Only
one of the numerous guesses as to the meaning of the original name
need be quoted here: that the word comes from a verb, _hawah_, meaning
either "to fall," or "to blow." Similar ideas would seem to account
for either of these meanings. "He who blows," looks like the name for
the Tempest God, while "that which falls" has been taken to indicate a
fallen meteorite, which may have been preserved as a symbol of Jehovah.
When we remember the thunderstorms at Sinai, and the common belief that
thunder was a special theophany of Jehovah, these ideas are not to be
hastily dismissed as altogether incredible. Nor should we be prevented
from considering such an idea from the prejudice that it would make
the origin of the religion of Israel a piece of Nature-worship and
superstition. God has taken man where He has found him, and none can
dare to define the limits of childish and crude conceptions within
which the Spirit of God can begin His work in man's mind.

The conclusion derived from the examination of the meaning of the name
"Jehovah" must therefore remain open until some further light is thrown
on the subject. (Scholars usually adopt the pronunciation, _Yahwe_, as
our nearest approach to the original.)

An endeavour has been made to discover the origin of the religion of
Israel from the persistent connection of Jehovah with the locality of
Mount Sinai. This idea continues long after in the Promised Land (Deut.
xxxiii. 2; Judges v. 5), and Elijah takes a long journey back to the
sacred spot, presumably to get into closer touch with Jehovah (1 Kings
xix.). With the prevailing beliefs of that age in the localisation of
the god, this connection must be thought of as of more than accidental
significance. It is fair to assume that the seat of Jehovah at Sinai
must have been known before the great covenant, and is indeed required
by the narrative itself (Exod. iii.; iv. 27), while recent discoveries
are said to prove that the traditional Sinai must have been a sacred
place from the earliest times. Moses, however, is clearly represented
as coming to know of Jehovah during his stay in Midian. The exact means
of the revelation is said to have been the sight of a bush on fire, yet
miraculously unconsumed. What actually lies behind this story--whether
it is a creation of the religious imagination which sees "every common
bush afire with God"--it is useless for us to try and discover. A
natural explanation has been sought in the fact that Jethro, the
Kenite, was the priest of Midian, and presumably of some shrine of
Jehovah. Certainly Jethro knew the name of Jehovah, but apparently only
regarded Him as one of the gods, until the marvellous deliverance of
the Exodus proved Him to be the greatest of gods (Exod. xviii. 9-11).
Jethro performs an act of sacrifice to Jehovah, in the presence of
Aaron and the elders, that looks remarkably like an act of initiation
by which Israel are introduced to the worship of Jehovah by the regular
priest of the shrine (Exod. xviii. 12). The hypothesis is further
strengthened by the fact that the Kenites are found later dwelling
in Palestine (Judges i. 16), and are always remembered long after as
the friends of the Israelites (1 Sam. xv. 6; xxvii. 10; xxx. 29). The
inference from this is that Moses first learned of Jehovah from his
father-in-law Jethro, but that he understood more of the character
of Jehovah than Jethro, and by his superior religious consciousness
conceived of Him as in some way Supreme who to Jethro had been only one
of the desert gods.

This theory would certainly be strengthened if Sinai could be
identified, not with the traditional site of _Jebel Musa_ in the
southern part of the Sinaitic peninsula, but with some spot in the land
of Midian, across the gulf of Akaba. This does indeed seem necessary
from the narrative, for from the most natural interpretation of Exod.
iii. 1, Horeb, the mount of God, was in Midian. It is generally taken
for granted that Horeb and Sinai are identical; the respective names
are used by different documents. It is said that, for some reasons,
Midian would fit in with the record of the journey through the
wilderness better than the Sinaitic peninsula. If the parallelism of
Sinai with Seir in Deut. xxxiii. 2 can be taken to show identity, as is
natural, we have a further confirmation, for Seir is in Midian.

The grave difficulty of all this is that it would make the religion
of Jehovah a distinct importation. Is such a thing as its reception by
the Hebrews credible on this account? The idea of a nation changing
its religion is certainly repugnant to the Semitic mind (Jer. ii. 10,
11), and some more natural connection seems necessary, both from the
narrative and from general considerations. Now the narrative hints that
the religion was not entirely new (Exod. vi. 3), but was known to the
Patriarchs under different forms; while the sanctity of Sinai would
seem to have been already known to some of the tribes (Exod. iv. 27).
There is nothing here definite enough for us to proceed to historical
certainty, but it is fair to suppose that the shrine at Sinai was
known to the Patriarchs in their wanderings, and that Jehovah would be
worshipped; as would any other local god whose territory they happened
to be in. Grant that this was partly known to the Hebrew slaves in
Egypt; that Moses received the revelation of the power of Jehovah in
his exile in Midian, and by a splendid leap of inspiration identified
the actual shrine and the Person of Jehovah with the Mighty Spirit
dimly known to the Patriarchs, and we have an explanation that is
natural and is also true; for the Object of man's worship has been One
through all history. When the successful passage of the Red Sea and
the defeat of the Egyptians were interpreted by Moses as the direct
intervention of Jehovah, the transition to the great covenant is made
possible. All this may be very contrary to the traditional idea of how
Moses received the revelation of Jehovah, but the facts do point this
way; and it is not for us to deny that the Spirit of God could work
through these natural events and through the mind of this commanding
personality, and so bring about this identification of Jehovah and the
Great Spirit of the Patriarchal thought, which was to lead to such
great results for religion.

We are now free to investigate what the character of the religion
introduced by Moses actually was.

(1) _General Character._ A careful examination of its character shows
that while it is by no means identical with the religion taught by the
Prophets, and while it retained many heathen ideas and customs, yet it
contained within itself the promise and guarantee of development. We
have already had occasion to notice that it is not pure Monotheism.
Jehovah is not the only God; He is the only God for Israel. The heathen
deities are still regarded as having a real existence. Neither can it
be called a purely spiritual religion, for Jehovah is rather said to
have a spirit than to be a spirit; He has a form which, though terrible
in its effect on the beholder, by reason of its glory, can nevertheless
be seen; He inhabits a special place, which is His sacred territory,
and on this Moses stumbles all unwittingly in Midian.

Still more emphatically against the idea of a purely spiritual religion
is the fact--which the editors have done their best to hide, but
not successfully--that images of some kind were allowed, or existed
unreproved. The Ephod, of which we hear so often, was evidently at
one time an idol. The meaning of the word is of something "covered,"
as may be seen from Isa. xxx. 22, where the feminine form of the word
(_aphuddah_) is used of the gold plating of images; but according to
a later idea (Exod. xxviii. 6-14), the Ephod formed part of the dress
of the High Priest, and was a kind of embroidered waistcoat. This
explanation, however, does violence to a number of passages where
the Ephod is mentioned. Gideon expended seventeen hundred shekels of
gold on an Ephod which he "set up" in Ophrah (Jud. viii. 26 f.); this
cannot be a waistcoat. Only the explanation that the Ephod was an image
can do justice to the reference in Judges xvii. 5, and it suits the
passage in 1 Sam. xxi. 9, if we think of the sword hanging behind an
image. If the ephod was nothing more than a waistcoat by which lots
were determined, we have to explain why it is so sharply condemned
in Judges viii. 27, and why the text of 1 Sam. xiv. 18, which in the
Septuagint reads "ephod," in the Hebrew text has been altered to read
"ark"; an alteration which is quite impossible here, as the ark was at
this time in Kirjath Jearim, and, moreover, was never used for the
purpose of obtaining oracles. (The only explanation is that some scribe
has made this alteration because he knew that there was something
idolatrous about the ephod.) Even as late as Hosea (iii. 4) we find
the ephod mentioned in a connection where it can only stand for an
object of idolatrous worship. It is certainly strange that the same
name should be in use for an image, and then later for a garment of the
high-priest; but the likely explanation of this is that the image was
at one time clothed with a dress, as was usual (Jer. x. 9), and that
in the pockets of this the lots were kept. When the use of the image
became offensive the garment was retained as part of the high-priest's
dress. The transition is made more natural if we can suppose that the
Priest of the Oracle, in the early days, was accustomed to put on the
garment of the image, under the customary idea that thus the divine
knowledge of the idol would be communicated to him. In 2 Kings xviii.
4, we read of _Nehushtan_, the brazen serpent which Moses had made,
being used idolatrously; but perhaps this has been wrongly ascribed to
Moses. From the intimate connection of bull-worship with the worship
of Jehovah, it would seem that the bull was regarded as a symbol of
Jehovah; a similar idea may have instituted Aaron's golden calf.
While admitting the force of this evidence, we must still keep open
the possibility that the religion instituted by Moses was of a purer
type, but was never strong enough to drive out the remnants of heathen
practice.

More indisputable evidence of the materialistic conception of the
Person of Jehovah is found in the reverence paid to what is known as
"the ark of Jehovah," the making of which is certainly ascribed to
Moses. The name "the ark of the covenant," was not the original name
given to the ark, but is taken from the incident recorded in Deut. x.
1-5. The idea that the ark was built to contain the tables of the Law
does not appear until the time of Deuteronomy, and is quite unknown to
the older strata of the Pentateuch. In these older strata all mention
of the actual making of the ark is omitted, although there is evidence
that they did contain an account of its preparation and meaning.
Enough, however, is told us of the reverential treatment of it, to show
that it was a symbol of higher sanctity than a mere receptacle for the
stones of the law would be likely to be. It is certainly very closely
identified with Jehovah Himself, as may be seen from Num. x. 35. (This
is in poetic form, and is therefore likely to be a very early fragment.
It should be noticed that the ark apparently starts of itself.) Its
presence in the battlefield ensures victory, while its absence brings
about defeat (Num. xiv. 42-45; 1 Sam. iv. 3-7; v. 1 ff.). It can hardly
be that the ark was taken for Jehovah Himself, but it must have
contained something that was closely identified with Jehovah; a box
is not built except with the idea of holding something. We have seen
that it is unlikely that that something was originally the two tables
of the law; was it something else of stone which made the transference
to the tables of the law at once necessary and natural? Was it a stone
image of Jehovah? It has been conjectured that it may have contained
meteoritic stones, which would agree with the proposed derivation of
"Jehovah" from the Storm God of Sinai. There is nothing in the Old
Testament which gives any support to these conjectures, but in face
of the fact that the original narrative of the making of the ark has
been omitted, and in view of the ideas of religion which were common
in that period, we cannot say that they are absolutely excluded from
consideration. The ark was certainly bound up with the idea of war, and
would seem to have been kept in a soldier's tent. It was transferred to
the dark inner temple till 586 B.C., and from that date all trace of it
is lost. The Priest's Code ("P") makes provision for it in the second
temple, but we have unimpeachable Jewish testimony that the shrine of
the inner temple was absolutely empty (Josephus, _War of the Jews_, v.
v. Sec. 5). Jeremiah may have been aware of the original significance of
the ark as tending towards idolatry, and hence his words in Jer. iii.
16.

(2) _Ordinances of Worship._ It remains for us to enquire into the
character of the religion founded by Moses by an examination of some of
the outstanding ordinances that regulated the idea of worship.

Here the traditional ascription of the fully developed ritual of the
Book of Leviticus to Moses has to be set aside, on the consideration
that we have no record of its observance until late in the period of
the monarchy, and from then it can be traced as a gradual growth of
custom and ideal until its complete observance after the Exile.

There does not seem to have been any priesthood of the exclusive
Levitical order founded by Moses. The story of the Levites in Exod.
xxxii. can only be a late story, for there is no record of their
monopoly of the ritual service until the Reform under Josiah:
Joshua, an Ephraimite, is the "servant of the tent"; Samuel, also an
Ephraimite, sleeps beside the ark (1 Sam. iii. 3); David and Solomon
assume a kind of chief priesthood (2 Sam. vi. 13; 1 Kings viii. 5, 62
ff.), and of course neither of them were Levites. The story in Judges
xvii. gives what is perhaps the true position of the Levites: anyone
could be consecrated as a family priest, but the presence of a Levite
was reckoned propitious. Down to a very late age sacrifice seems to
have remained largely a tribal or family act, and although a descendant
of Moses' tribe (Levi) was regarded as possessing special advantage,
there was no law by which Levites alone were reckoned capable of
discharging priestly functions.

In the matter of sacrifice, it would seem that Moses simply adopted
what was a very ancient and common practice. In face of the evident
neglect of the Levitical ritual in matters of sacrifice, both by
the common people and by such great reformers as Samuel and Elijah,
together with the fact that in the teaching of the prophets doubts are
cast on its divine origin (Isa. i. 11; Amos v. 25; Micah vi. 6-8),
we cannot infer that the detailed and explicit commands concerning
sacrifice found in the Book of Leviticus are the work of Moses,
or belong to an early age. To the Prophets, sacrifice is always
reminiscent of paganism. The time when the change came in may be
detected in the different value given to sacrifice by the post-exilic
prophets (Mal. i. 13 f.), while the incompatibility of the two views,
prophetic and priestly, can be seen from the addition which has been
made to Ps. li., to bring it into accord with the later view.

Neither is it possible for us to believe that the elaborate shrine
known as the Tabernacle owed its existence to Moses. The impossibility
of transporting the cumbrous fixtures through the wilderness had been
noticed before the modern era of critical study. A close examination
of the details of construction shows that it is nothing more than an
ideal projection from the mind of a priestly writer who believed that
a tent-like counterpart of Ezekiel's temple was essential to Israel's
worship in the wilderness. It is enough to recall that the tabernacle
of the priestly writer's imagination is quite unknown to the historical
books. In Exod. xxxiii. 7 ff., which may be seen to be only a fragment
of an early document, since it starts abruptly by describing "the"
tent, which is known as the Tent of Meeting, we have what has been
taken to be the Tabernacle; but it is nothing more than a tent for
keeping the ark in.

(3) _Legislation._ How much of the legislation of the Pentateuch is
to be ascribed to Moses we cannot tell. Too many hands have been at
work on it for the original to be discovered. A remarkable discovery
was made in the year 1901 of some enormous _steles_, which bear in
cuneiform characters what is now known as the Code of Hammurabi, the
oldest code of laws in the world, the date of which is reckoned to
be 2250 B.C. They presuppose an advanced state of civilisation and
morality existing in the Euphrates valley at that period. The agreement
between the Pentateuchal Code and the Code of Hammurabi argues
dependence of the former on the latter to a very considerable extent,
and supplies a still further testimony to the extent to which the
religion of Israel is indebted to Babylon. The exact bearing of this
discovery upon critical theories, and especially upon the date of the
Pentateuch has perhaps hardly been estimated yet; it does not, however,
refute the theory which denies that the Pentateuch as it stands is from
the hand of Moses.

We naturally think of the Decalogue as the work of Moses, but here
we are faced by the difficulty that the Decalogue appears to exist
in three recensions (Exod. xx. 1-17; xxxiv. 14-28; Deut. v. 6-21).
The account in Exod. xxxiv., which forms part of the document "J," is
reckoned to be the oldest of these, and the original of this might well
go back to the time of Moses. It has been objected that the Decalogue
is too ethical to suit the time of Moses, but is this not because we
are inclined to read into the Ten Commandments far more than is to be
found there? It can be shown that they are little more than ten laws
of "rights." A special difficulty is found in ascribing the second
commandment to this age, in view of its frequent uncensured breach;
but perhaps there is some difference that escapes us between a molten
image, which is prescribed in the first draft (Exod. xxxiv. 17), and
the later prohibition of the graven image (Exod. xx. 4).

In the foregoing examination we have allowed for the most rigorous
demands of advanced criticism, demands which may have to be modified
as criticism becomes more of a science, but there remains the need to
discover what there was, on these critical assumptions, in the Mosaic
religion that provided the way for a further advance into the faith
which became the glory of Israel. What is it that makes the difference
between Mosaism and the heathen Semitic religions, a difference which
was to make the gradual growth of a pure Monotheism possible?

The first important element which needs to be reckoned with is that it
was a religion of choice rather than a religion of nature. We saw that
it was difficult to conceive how the religion of Jehovah could have
been adopted by Israel unless there had been some previous contact.
What is so difficult to understand is nevertheless the one element
that contained the possibility of progress. The relation of Israel to
Jehovah was neither by physical descent nor through the connection of
the god with the land, as with the heathen Semitic religions. Jehovah
was at first conceived of as the God of the tribe only, but even
this was not by nature, but by His gracious choice. Their land was
given to them by Jehovah, but His natural connection was with a far
distant shrine. This fact in itself must have rendered necessary some
more spiritual conception of His habitation, and, though hard enough
for the common people to realise, when they entered Canaan and found
a full-grown cultus and religion in connection with the god of the
land already in possession, it was this fact upon which the Prophets
fastened and which could not be denied: the religion of Jehovah was a
matter of choice and not of racial or local connection. That choice
had been ratified by solemn covenant, to which the Prophets appealed.
The relation between Jehovah and Israel depended therefore on the
conditions of the covenant being faithfully kept. When we compare the
religions of the other Semites, which made the relation of the god
and his people one which nothing could break, and from which neither
the god nor the people could escape, we can see how this difference
constituted one of the ethical germs of the religion which was destined
to grow into fuller power and life.

There was another important conception, which was intensified by the
fact that the religion of Jehovah was a religion of choice: that of
the jealousy of Jehovah. This was often interpreted, especially in
the pre-prophetic period, in a very crude and in even a cruel way.
The jealousy of Jehovah was very like the human passion: uncertain,
arbitrary and irrational, manifesting itself according to the popular
mind in outbreaks of fury for ceremonial mistakes, or for causes even
less comprehensible (Num. iii. 4; 2 Sam. vi. 7). In all the religions
it was thought to be a serious thing to depart from the allegiance
to the rightful god, and sure to lay one open to his jealousy and
vengeance; but something more is now found in this idea as it develops
in Hebrew thought: it is that the jealousy of Jehovah is due to the
great difference between Him and the other gods, a difference which
came to be recognised as one of character. Something of this must go
back to Moses himself.

This difference is also expressed in the idea that He is a God of
righteousness. The word "righteousness" does not always have in
the Hebrew Scriptures the absolute meaning which it has for us. It
was rather equal to our word "rights," which we often employ quite
unethically. Jehovah was one who gave right judgments when questions
were submitted and answered by the lot, and One who brought victory
to the right. It was undoubtedly Israel's right that was chiefly
considered, but there was hidden in it an ethical germ which was to
bring forth notable fruit when man's sense of right was widened.

This at least was the mark of the new religion which Moses impressed on
the people, impressed with such a force that it could never be quite
forgotten. It had new thoughts pregnant with meaning for the mind of
man and for the future of religion, and these became the fulcrum of the
Prophets' appeal. From the bosom of this people was to come forth One
who was to reveal the Father as perfectly righteous and impartial, and
who demands for His service a righteousness that must far exceed that
of the straitest observers of external religion.

It would be easy for us to despise this day of small beginnings, or
to refuse to see in it any real revelation of God at all. Doubtless
this enquiry may necessitate a change in our conceptions of the work
of Moses, but it is one that we are forced to by a multitude of facts,
and we must find a theory of inspiration wide enough to fit them. Crude
as we may make the beginnings of Israel's faith, natural as we may
feel are the laws by which it worked towards its growth, we have not
been able to get any nearer to some of those ultimate questions which
ask how religion begins, what the nature of revelation is, and how it
comes to man's mind. We need not think that God had to break in on the
mind of Moses, so that the personality of the man was in abeyance while
God worked through him. When God wishes to bring men to a higher truth
He does not supernaturally communicate it; He makes human nature to
produce personalities whose minds come naturally to the truth. There
can be no separation of natural and supernatural here; wherever that
separation is to be made, we certainly cannot make it. There can be
no meaning in revelation, and no possibility of it, unless God has
made man's mind to be growingly in touch with Him and to be capable of
receiving His revelation by the natural working of thought, so that it
seems to spring up within his own consciousness.

Deeper into this question we are not called upon to go at present, but
no one can object that it is less reverent, or that it shows signs of a
decay of faith, if men can see God to-day not only in the extraordinary
and the supernatural, but also in the ordinary and the natural. If the
recognition of God depends on spiritual vision, then those who refuse
to narrow the limits within which God can be seen, and who therefore
welcome all truth with gladness and without fear, are not to be called
godless and unspiritual.

We should learn to be thankful for Moses, for he was faithful as far as
he knew; if we were as faithful in proportion to the fuller light which
has come to us, religion would be a very real and inclusive thing. We
should also learn to take heart, if from these beginnings such mighty
movements have sprung. The mistakes inevitable to the human mind do not
destroy the possibility of revelation, the error cannot everlastingly
obscure the truth, nor in the long run will evil triumph over good.
It was possible in that far off age, it was possible in all ages, it
is possible now, for a mind still far from the true conception of the
ultimate nature of God to yet grasp something, and by a supreme faith
in the leading of a Mighty Power to lift a whole nation, and through it
the world, one stage further on in goodness and truth.




THE INFLUENCE OF CANAAN


  As an introduction to Lecture IV. the reader is advised to make a
  careful study of Judges i. 1-ii. 5, a mutilated fragment of a very
  early and reliable account of the invasion of Canaan. The opening
  words (verse 1) refer the events which follow to the period after
  the death of Joshua; but the Book of Joshua has already recorded
  the complete conquest of Canaan, so that there can be no place for
  this further invasion on a far less ambitious plan, and apparently
  with less successful results. It will be noticed, however, that
  this account easily falls away from the main body of the narrative;
  Judges ii. 6 follows naturally after Joshua xxiv. 28, and ignores
  what comes between. We have, therefore, in this account another
  history of the conquest of Canaan, which contradicts altogether the
  impression--which we get from reading the Book of Joshua--that the
  conquest of Canaan was effected by the tribes acting in unison, that
  it was complete, and that the conquered were exterminated; it records
  a movement of tribes acting independently, there is no "conquest" in
  the ordinary sense of the term, but a footing is obtained alongside
  the original inhabitants of the land.

  This account of a gradual immigration of tribes is confirmed by the
  discovery of inscriptions, which seem to show that there were some
  tribes of the Hebrews in Palestine before the traditional date of the
  Conquest, and even before the Exodus.

  Until quite lately the history of Egypt has thrown no light on these
  events. It has not even been possible to identify with any certainty
  the Pharaoh under whom the Exodus took place. One identification
  is now fairly certain. The Pharaoh who enslaved the Israelites was
  Rameses III., for discoveries have proved that it was he who built
  Pithom (Exod. i. 11); the Exodus has therefore been referred to
  the reigns of Merneptah or Seti II., his immediate successors. The
  objection to this is that in these reigns both the peninsula of
  Sinai and the land of Palestine were under full Egyptian control,
  and therefore the Exodus must be put later on, when this control
  slackened. This would bring the Exodus to the date of 1200-1180 B.C.
  and the Conquest some fifty years later.

  The latest discoveries tend to throw this result into confusion.
  Names, which it is proposed to identify with tribes of the
  Israelites, have been found in inscriptions belonging to earlier
  reigns. On an inscription of Rameses II. the name of Asher is found
  as dwelling in North Palestine. In a list of Thotmes III. (still
  earlier, Sixteenth Century, B.C.) we find the names Jacob and Joseph
  in the significant combination, Jacob-el and Joseph-el, used to
  describe the Dan-Ephraim district of Palestine. This makes it more
  likely that the Tel-el-Amarna tablets (dated Fourteenth Century,
  B.C.) refer to the Hebrews. In these letters, addressed to Amenophis
  IV., the King of Jerusalem appeals for help against an invasion of
  the _Habiri_, who are led by Abd Ashera. The invasion is not by a
  large force, as may be seen from the fact that it is thought thirty
  or forty Egyptian soldiers will be sufficient for the purpose of
  resisting their attacks. More certain than any of these references
  is the occurrence of the name of Israel on a Stele of Merneptah,
  in connection with a recital of his triumphs in Syria. The form in
  which this reference is made leaves no doubt that, by this period,
  Israel was already settled in Palestine. ("Israel is laid waste,
  its corn is annihilated.") There is no confirmation of a Syrian
  campaign under Merneptah, and it may be that in accordance with the
  fashion of the age, he is including among his victories the exploits
  of his predecessors; this would agree with the earlier date for the
  occupation of Canaan by Israel which the previous references seem to
  require.

  The exact bearing of these discoveries has yet to be determined, but
  they either require us to put the date of the Exodus earlier, which
  would in itself be difficult, or, what would bring light on many
  problems, assume that not all the tribes were in bondage in Egypt,
  and that the invasion of Canaan by various tribes, only long after
  welded into a nation, was spread over a long period.




Lecture IV

THE INFLUENCE OF CANAAN


If the nation of Israel may be said to have been born in captivity,
baptised in the Red Sea, and awakened to national consciousness at
Mount Sinai, then the settlement in Canaan corresponds to the no
less critical period of adolescence, when, training and tutelage
being over, youth must choose its own path and fight its way in the
world. Certain it is that the entrance into Canaan largely determined
the future of this people, for it must have profoundly modified the
national character, turning as it did nomadic tribes into a settled and
civilised people; but above all, and what more concerns us, it proved
extremely critical for the fate of that as yet untried revelation of
Jehovah, which had still to win its way against the heathenism of
the common people, and was now by this new experience called upon to
measure its strength against the attraction of a competing faith.

The peculiar and pathetic love of the Jews for Canaan is largely due to
the remembrance that it was not their own land but the long promised
gift of Jehovah, standing therefore to all time as the material proof
of His love for Israel; while their estimate of it was intensely
deepened by the wilderness experience which preceded. That estimate
seems to us somewhat exaggerated, for to-day Palestine has almost given
up the struggle against the always threatening advance of the desert.
It has certainly changed for the worse under neglect and misrule, but
it can never have been a too indulgent land; only comparison with the
bare and awful desert can have called forth the description, "a land
flowing with milk and honey." With the long memory of restless nomadic
life and the bitter thought of bondage, any land would seem welcome
that offered them freedom and safety; while to those approaching it
from the desert it seemed as fair and fruitful a land as men could
desire.

All lands have contributed largely to the character of the nations they
have reared, and the wilderness ancestry and the character of Canaan
have played their part in the development of Israel.

The very geographical position of Canaan helps us to understand the
Hebrews, and even to see how it was that in this land it was possible
to nurture from such unpromising beginnings the wonderful development
of religion that was to make this smallest of all lands one of the most
sacred spots on earth, and this strange and limited people among the
greatest contributors to the moral and religious ideas of humanity.
Crushed in between the sea and the desert, hemmed in by great military
powers, the little buffer state itself the very crossways of East and
West, its roads never long at rest from the tramp of armies; here was
a land in which all dreams of fame and empire were hammered out, and
nothing left possible save an empire of spiritual power and the fame of
a unique religion. A people strangely proud and passionately exclusive,
they could never rest under the dominion of their great neighbours,
however light the burden imposed; and since sustained resistance was
out of the question by reason of their inferior numbers and lack of
military power, they resorted to irritating acts of rebellion, or
intrigued with the enemies of their overlords, and so brought down on
their land frequent vengeance. Such was their untameable nature that
the only practical policy open to Babylon, if she wished to insure the
loyalty, or at least, the neutrality of Palestine, was to deport the
Jews bodily to where they could be under observation.

So we find the greatest heroes of Jewish history--from Moses, through
Gideon and Samson, to David and Judas Maccabaeus--are those who deliver
the nation from oppression; while Israel's prayers are largely cries
for succour against enemies, or for Divine vengeance on the oppressor;
only too eloquent a witness of the sense of their own impotence. Yet it
was precisely this experience that forced their religion to rise above
the common type, to conquer its natural tendencies, and to become the
most magnificent faith in God that the world has seen. Of this they
themselves were not ignorant; for one of their writers points to the
easy lot of Moab as the cause of their irreligion (Jer. xlviii. 11),
and one of the Psalmists says that it is the men who have no changes
who fear not God (lv. 19). We need not consider the utterly feeble
objection that all this makes the religion of Israel the outcome of
natural necessity, rather than of Divine revelation; for God made the
land that made Israel.

The entry into Canaan was therefore one of the most critical periods in
the history of this people and in the development of the religion of
the Old Testament. It is, however, extremely difficult to discover from
the means at our disposal just how or when that entry was effected. The
sources for this period are found in the Books of Joshua and Judges,
but, from comparison with much in the history that follows, it is clear
that they do not present us with absolute history; yet a critical
examination of these books enables us to recover the essential facts.

A study of the preface to this lecture will show that the story of
the Conquest is obscure in its details and difficult to reconcile
with modern discoveries. A careful examination of our sources shows
that the description of the entry of the Hebrews into Canaan as a
"conquest," which was settled by a few decisive battles, is at least
rather fanciful; and as a matter of fact we have quite another picture
in the first chapter of Judges, which partakes more of the character
of an "alien immigration," a method of "conquest" in which the Jews
have always been remarkably successful. The history in Joshua certainly
represents the Conquest as striking, complete, and followed by a
ruthless extermination of the defenders of their native land. In view
of the relations that were for long maintained between the Canaanites
and the Hebrews, the representation in Judges i. must be regarded
as nearer to the facts than the story of the Conquest according to
the Book of Joshua. The children of Israel dwelt side by side with
the Canaanites, simply because they were not able to drive them out;
and as a result the tribes were frequently divided by strong belts
of Canaanitish territory. Right through the time of the Judges we
get warfare between the Israelites and the inhabitants of the land;
sometimes in pitched battles between the Canaanites and the united
tribes of Israel (Judges iv. v.), but more generally in guerilla
warfare or in the sudden surprise of a Canaanitish garrison (Judges
xviii.). The result of the conflict seems to have been the gradual
absorption of the two elements into one nation. The records definitely
admit that it was not until the time of David that the Jebusites were
driven from Jerusalem (2 Sam. v. 6, 7), and not until Solomon that the
superiority of the Israelites was finally established (1 Kings ix. 20,
21). It surely is an immense relief to think that the huge slaughters
recorded in the Book of Joshua are, to say the least, exaggerations.

The history in Judges also clearly shows that there was little cohesion
between the tribes. They filtered across the Jordan only by degrees,
and there is evidence that this process may have extended over a
considerable time. We have records of quarrels between Gideon and
Ephraim (Judges viii. 1), and between Jephthah and Ephraim (Judges xii.
1). These inter-tribal conflicts might have been serious, were it not
for the circumstance that the Israelites were no sooner settled in the
land than other tribes of desert invaders began to press upon them, and
they had to sink family differences in order to combine against the
common enemy.

The song of Deborah (Judges v.) is one of the most valuable documents
we possess for the light which it throws on the conditions of religious
and national life in this period, for it is probably the only document
in the Old Testament, earlier than the founding of the monarchy, that
is contemporary with the events it describes. It shows that the tribes
had somewhat improved their position, for they now seem to be in
possession of the highlands of Ephraim, although the plains are still
in the hands of the Canaanites. The growing power of the Israelites
and their threatening predominance moved the Canaanites to a united
effort to repress Israel. It is to face this danger that the Prophetess
Deborah calls the tribes; but from the way in which the praise and
blame is meted out we can see that a strong sense of national unity
was still lacking. The important point to be noticed is that the bond
of unity to which Deborah could appeal was the name of Jehovah. It
should be noted also that in the enumeration of the tribes, Judah,
Simeon, and Levi are altogether omitted. In the case of so important a
tribe as Judah this is significant, for it agrees with the fact that
until the time of David this tribe does not come into prominence. It
has been conjectured that Judah was only a small tribe, and may have
invaded Canaan from the south, for it is difficult to conceive how it
could have crossed the strong Canaanitish territory which separated it
from the other tribes. At any rate, at this time it was not regarded as
one of the tribes of Israel; it may have been that this tribe embraced
a strong Canaanitish element (Gen. xxxviii.), and this fact may have
contributed to the resentment which broke out among the other tribes
when Judah assumed the hegemony in the time of David, and which led in
the end to the disruption of the Kingdom.

In our sources the history of this period has attached to it a
religious interpretation: apostasy, and disobedience to the commands
of Jehovah were the causes of the people being sold into the power
of their enemies; when they returned to the worship of Jehovah and
penitently pleaded for His forgiveness then deliverers were raised
up who vanquished their oppressors. This can be nothing but a late
interpretation, for the religion of the Book of Judges is of quite
a fixed order, and many of the stories recorded in it will not lend
themselves to any such interpretation. The hand that supplied this
reading of the history of this period has been identified with the
author of Deuteronomy, or, as some would prefer to say, with the
school of thought that produced that work. There is a religious lesson
in this history, as in all history; but it is hardly to be found in
a series of apostasies and returns. There are really four separate
endeavours to account for the undoubted fact of the Canaanites being
spared. (1) Israel was not able to drive them out (Judges i. 19, 27).
(2) Israel was only commanded to drive them out by degrees, "lest
the beasts of the field increase upon thee" (Deut. vii. 22). (3) It
was a providential arrangement to keep the Israelites practised in
war (Judges iii. 1, 2). (4) It was due to direct disobedience to the
command of Jehovah (Judges ii. 20).

The history does not entitle us to assume that the judges were
officials who exercised kingly rights over a united Israel. The word
translated "Judge" more often means "Deliverer," and this is certainly
the part that they play. Of some of the so-called minor judges we know
nothing beyond their names, and there is evidence that they have simply
been used to fill out a traditional period of 480 years (1 Kings vi.
1). Whenever the "Judges" assumed kingly or judicial functions trouble
and rebellion always followed. The figure of Samson displays little
fitness for ruling a nation or guiding it in religion, but the stones
of his life are illuminating for the understanding of the morality and
interests of that age.

With this revised conception of the history of the Conquest, and of
the events which followed, we are in a better position to estimate the
effect of the change from nomadic life to a settled existence, and to
understand how critical for the future of the religion of Jehovah this
change was.

We see tribes possessing little national unity, but bound together by
a religion in which lay the germ of a mighty future, entering a land
where the inhabitants had reached a higher stage of civilisation, and
possessed a religion that drew its power from the fact that it was the
worship of Baal, the possessor and owner of the land. In face of these
conditions it was almost inevitable that many of the customs of the
original inhabitants should be gradually adopted, and that the religion
of Jehovah should borrow something from the religion indigenous to the
land. This was certainly the result which followed. For a considerable
period we find a religion prevalent among the common people, which is
simply a conflation of the two religions. There were certain elements
common to both, and certain advantages in the one, together with
corresponding weaknesses in the other, that prepared the way for this
syncretism.

We shall now turn to examine the religion of the Canaanites, which
we shall find to partake largely of the common elements of Semitic
religion. Their deities were personifications of natural forces,
and among these there is no one which is supreme, and nothing that
tends to Monotheism. The gods are friendly and destructive by turn,
and of unreliable character. It is nothing more than an undeveloped
Polytheism. The religion, as it is seen in the Old Testament, groups
itself around three names: Baal, Ashtoreth (often written in plural
form Ashtaroth), and Molech (otherwise written Moloch, Milcom, and
known to the Phoenicians as Melkart).

The name of Baal has a hateful memory in the pages of the Old Testament
as the Canaanitish deity to whom Israel constantly apostatised. The
exact significance of Baal in the Canaanitish religion is a matter of
dispute. He has been identified with the sun, and by the Greeks with
Zeus; so that it has been inferred that Baal was the President of the
Canaanitish Pantheon. This view is no longer generally accepted, for
it certainly fails to fit in with the records of the cult preserved in
the Old Testament. The word "Baal" is not a proper name, but signifies
"the Possessor"; it is used in Semitic language for "husband," as
the possessor of the wife, and is used as the name for deity, as the
possessor of the land. Every land, and indeed every locality, will
therefore have its own Baal; so that in the Old Testament we hear of
the "Baalim" (the Hebrew plural), and these local Baalim are further
distinguished by the addition of the name of their locality or of
some event with which they were connected, as Baal-Peor, Baal-Berith,
Baal-Zebul. The "Baal" is especially responsible for sending rain and
sunshine, and for giving fruitful seasons. He is, therefore, the god
of agriculture, and the great events of the agricultural year, such
as harvest and vintage, are observed as his festivals. It is natural
to find the uncertainty of the weather reflected in the character of
the Baalim, with the result that we get a religion alternating between
intoxicating joy and the deepest gloom. To appease the fickle god or to
win his favour sacrifices, even of human lives, are presented, and if
Baal continues unheeding, scenes of the most unrestrained fanaticism
prevail. It is this gloomy religion which darkens the times of the
later Kings of Judah.

The Canaanitish Baal should be distinguished from the Baal of Tyre
(Melkart) whose worship was introduced by Ahab. Here the introduction
of an alien Baal, with probably different rites and ceremonies, awoke
the resentment of the prophetic party under the leadership of Elijah,
but the worship of the Canaanite Baal was maintained for long unchecked.

Closely connected with the worship of the Baalim we find the worship
of the Ashtaroth (Judges ii. 13). The pronunciation of this word is
obscure; it was probably _Ashtart_, and the singular form, Ashtoreth
(1 Kings xi. 5), has been formed by inserting the vowels of the word
_bosheth_ (shame), a common device in the Old Testament for expressing
contempt. Ashtart is the female counterpart of Baal, and is spoken of
in the plural for a similar reason. Monuments of the worship of Ashtart
are still to be found, and from these it is evident that we have here
the worship of the goddess of sexual passion, as common in polytheistic
systems, and best known in the Greek worship of Aphrodite. The whole
conception of Ashtart can be traced to the famous goddess _Ishtar_
of Babylonian religion, and there is only too certain evidence that
in Canaan as elsewhere the degrading rite of religious prostitution
was used in this worship of female divinity (Hosea iv. 13). The
identification of Ashtart with the "Queen of Heaven" (Jer. vii. 18;
xliv. 15-25) is not so certain. As far as the worship of the latter is
described to us, it looks like an importation of the Babylonian worship
of Ishtar, who was identified with the planet Venus or sometimes with
the moon. The "cakes to pourtray her" (Jer. xliv. 19) may have been
crescent-shaped cakes.

Of a similar character was the worship that gathered around the name of
Molech. We have here simply the word for king (_Milk_) with the vowels
of _bosheth_. Of this name, Moloch, Milcom, and Melkart of Tyre are
variations. Molech is not to be distinguished from Baal, as may be seen
from Jer. xix. 5, where the practice of passing children through the
fire, which was certainly connected with the worship of Molech, is a
part of the worship of Baal. This burnt-sacrifice of children evidently
belonged to the Canaanitish religion (2 Kings xvi. 3).

This then was the religion of the Canaanites: in times of prosperity
and fruitful seasons, one of rejoicing and festivity; but in time of
famine, drought or national danger, one of the most hopeless gloom and
of the most fearful fanaticism. In conflict with this religion, the
purer worship of Jehovah yet presented certain weaknesses; these are
found chiefly in points of possible identification, which in the course
of the history actually took place. This may be difficult for us to
understand until we remember that Baal and Molech, to Semitic ears,
simply meant "Lord" and "King"; and Jehovah was the "Lord" and "King"
of Israel. If the character of Jehovah was not clearly apprehended as
moral by the common people, we can see how easy it was for confusion to
take place.

The great weakness of the religion of Jehovah was that He was not the
God of Canaan. His home was in distant Sinai, and the only symbol of
His presence was the ark, a symbol bound up with the idea of war. As
the people settled down to a peaceful agricultural life, the need for
Jehovah, the warrior God, would not be keenly felt. There was certainly
a party from the very first who recognised the difference between
Jehovah and Baal and fought against their identification, but so long
as Baal was believed to be a real being the danger of his secret
worship at least was never far away. Every land had its own god, and
although the people knew that Jehovah was their God, yet they might
think it necessary, and not inconsistent, to pay their respects to the
local Baalim on whom they were dependent for the fruits of the earth
(Hosea ii. 8). Nothing therefore but a national calamity could revive
the old religion in face of the attractions of the new; if peace had
been continuous it is hard to see how the religion founded by Moses
could have persevered. Such dangerous peace the Children of Israel
were not to enjoy. We soon hear the rousing call to the help of Jehovah
in the Song of Deborah, and it was the threatened domination by the
Philistines that called the monarchy into existence and revived the
religion of Jehovah.

Meanwhile, however, a process of syncretism was gradually taking place,
which it was to be the task of the Prophets to unravel; and how far
it had gone may be seen from the difficulty they found in making the
character of Jehovah and the moral demand made upon His worshippers
clear to the people. "Jehovah," it must be remembered, was a name
largely personal. Baal was a general name for deity, and could be
applied to Jehovah quite truthfully. That this actually took place
may be seen from a number of passages in the Old Testament. The most
instructive instance is to be found in Hosea ii. 16; but the names
given to places point in the same direction: David calls the spot
where Jehovah broke his enemies, Baal-perazim; the same god is called
indiscriminately, Baal-berith (Judges viii. 33; ix. 4) and El-berith
(Judges ix. 46). This practice accounts for the names of Saul's son,
Eshbaal, and of Jonathan's son, Meribbaal (1 Chron. viii. 33, 34), both
of which have been altered in the Book of Samuel to "bosheth." (In
obedience to the command of Exod. xxiii. 13, _Bosheth_ was substituted
for _Baal_ in reading the Scriptures. The written text was altered in
many places at a later period; the Chronicler must have found _Baal_ in
his text of Samuel; that is about 200 B.C.) The names of Jehovah and
Baal therefore came to have the same significance, and the distinction
began to be missed; Jehovah was still the God of Israel, but the moral
elements of His religion were gradually diluted with the naturalistic
conceptions of the worship of Baal. Jehovah becomes the Baal of the
land; that is, the relation between Him and Israel is conceived in a
natural and even physical way. It is therefore no longer a covenant
relation, which depends on the observance of moral obligations, but
one of nature which cannot be broken by either party. Naturally the
sanctuaries of the Canaanites are taken over by the Israelites, and
Jehovah is worshipped in "the high places." All through the history
worship at these local sanctuaries is condemned, but only from a later
standpoint, for the earliest Book of Laws permitted an altar to be
erected anywhere where Jehovah had manifested Himself (Exod. xx. 24).
Around some of these undoubtedly Canaanitish sanctuaries the stories
of the Patriarchs gathered, but from the practices which prevailed at
such places as Bethel we can see that heathen rites were used, for here
Jeroboam set up the golden calves, which seem to have been used in the
worship of Jehovah, for neither Elijah nor Amos condemns them. Jehovah
is now worshipped all over the land, but there is the same tendency to
regard each separate place as having its local deity, and so Jehovah is
multiplied (perhaps, Jer. xi. 13) and needs to be further identified
by the addition of place names, as in the strange name El-bethel (Gen.
xxxv. 7), El-elohe-Israel (Gen. xxxiii. 20), in a way that is very
like the multiplication of the Baalim. So deeply was the worship of
Jehovah mixed up with Canaanitish ideas that in the reign of Josiah the
only possibility of reform lay in forbidding the worship at the local
sanctuaries altogether and concentrating all worship at the central
sanctuary of Jerusalem.

Nothing but this process of syncretism can explain the condition of
religion in the subsequent history, and it is needed to enable us to
understand both the difficulty of the work of the Prophets and the form
their message takes.

Nevertheless, there must have been from the earliest times elements
that made for a purer faith, and that never acquiesced in this
confusion between Jehovah and Baal, which certainly prevailed in
the popular mind; otherwise the Reformation of the Eighth Century
would be an isolated and inexplicable movement, and without that
historical support the Prophets claimed. There was a party against Baal
altogether, although they do not emerge until the monarchy. This party
may have consisted of the "priests" of Jehovah. At mention of these
we must not think of the sacrificing priests described in the Book of
Leviticus. No such persons are known until after the exile; during
this period anyone could sacrifice. The story of the priest in Judges
xvii. gives a good idea of this class; his chief duties seem to have
consisted in keeping the oracle and obtaining decisions by the lot.
These decisions became the basis on which there was gradually built up
the _Torah_ (the Law), which, as the word implies, was a collection
of decisions obtained by casting lots. For the purpose of obtaining
these decisions the priests seem to have used an idol of some kind;
for this is the most natural explanation of the Ephod and its use in
the early history. There would be different degrees of intellectual
and moral capacity found in the ranks of the priests, and many of them
may have had higher ideals of their duties than the one mentioned in
Judges. It would be likely that those who were in charge of the Sacred
Ark possessed a superior dignity and maintained a purer tradition.
Gradually the magical accompaniments to their oracular decisions may
have given way to more judicial deliverances, although in the time of
David and Abiathar they were apparently still used (1 Sam. xxx. 7). At
any rate the priests kept alive the idea of Jehovah as the dispenser of
justice, and helped to build up that system of laws for which Israel is
so justly famous.

This "higher critical" view of the history is simply one to which
we are driven by the records that stand nearest to the times they
describe. It certainly alters considerably the ordinary conceptions of
the type of religion that prevailed in those early days, before the
coming of the Prophets; but that such was the type is only too clearly
shown by the writings of the Prophets themselves. Nevertheless this
view of the period, while it shuts out a somewhat stiff and mechanical
religious interpretation of the history which has been forced upon
it by a later age, is still not without a valuable lesson, which is
perhaps not taught elsewhere in the Bible, and yet is one that we
need to have always before us. It is one, the possibility of which
always exists and often threatens a spiritual religion: the danger
of a gradual encroachment and assimilation of pagan ideas until the
original purity is lost almost beyond recovery. If this has happened
anywhere it has happened in Christianity. It was the awakening to
this paganisation of Christianity that provoked the struggle of the
Reformation, not yet decided. Many of the conceptions that are still
popularly identified with Christianity are the remnants of paganism.
It is not necessary to enumerate the common customs which wear only a
thin veneer of Christianity; but many of the ideas in connection with
Christian Doctrine certainly owe more to pagan philosophy than they do
to the New Testament. The syncretism between Paganism and Christianity
has not been destroyed by the Reformation. Many of the popular ideas
of the Atonement, for instance, rest on a pagan conception of God and
a materialistic idea of Christ's work which are so deeply involved in
the common presentation of Christianity that to present the actual New
Testament teaching would seem to many like a denial of the foundation
truths of the Gospel. Still more dangerous is the localisation of
the god as the peculiar patron of the land, which justifies many
unholy wars and makes such a thing as a national repentance almost
impossible. There is a god of the British Empire who is remarkably
like the Jehovah-Baal of the old syncretised religion that ruled in
the period which we have been studying, and whose worship begets
equal indifference to the claims of true religion, and equally cruel
treatment for the prophet who strives to call men to a purer faith.

It is a relief to turn to a more comforting lesson. It is that which
assures us that man's thought of God is not entirely his own, that it
cannot be destroyed and is never wholly forgotten, but ever makes its
way to higher truth and greater power. The way in which the higher
religion comes is through the pure minds of those who wish only to live
up to the fulness of the truth, and however mistaken they be, wish
only to know and to do the will of God. A similar task lies equally
before every honest man and every true Christian. The lesson is plain:
beware of a stagnant religion that dreads progress, and keep the mind
open as a child's to God's further revelation of Himself, which has yet
many things to tell us.




PROPHETISM--EARLY STAGES


  The reader is recommended to investigate for himself the origins of
  Prophetism by a careful examination of the following passages:--

  I. There were originally Guilds or Schools of Prophets; from which
  it would appear that Prophetism was a kind of profession (1 Sam.
  x. 5; xix. 20; 2 Kings ii. 3, 5). There is nothing in the records
  that we possess that marks these bands of prophets as possessed of
  great spiritual power; they were devoted to the cause of Israel
  and Jehovah, and the way in which this was manifested was taken to
  imply that they were filled with the spirit of Jehovah; it inclines
  somewhat to the Dervish order of enthusiastic devotion (1 Sam. x.
  5; xix. 20-24). It is significant that wherever these schools are
  found there is known to have existed a "high place," _i.e._, an old
  Canaanitish sanctuary, now used for the worship of Jehovah-Baal.
  A similar order of prophets was connected with the worship of the
  Tyrian Baal (1 Kings xviii.).

  II. Samuel (1 Sam. xix. 20) Elisha (2 Kings ii. 15; iv. 38; vi. 1-7)
  and in much less degree, Elijah (1 Kings xviii. 4; xix. 10) had some
  connection with these schools.

  III. The later Prophets did not claim descent from these guilds of
  "prophecy," and even repudiated any connection with them (Amos vii.
  14). This conflict between the "called" prophet and the professionals
  is revealed in the fierce denunciations of Isaiah (xxix. 10) and
  Jeremiah (v. 31; xiv. 13, 14; xxvi. 7, 8).

  IV. The identification of these prophets with priests and seers
  probably gives a clue to their origin (1 Sam. ix. 9; Isa. xxix. 10;
  Jer. xxvi. 7, 8; Amos vii. 12).

  V. Certain individuals who are called prophets or seers had official
  court connection (2 Sam. xxiv. 11; 1 Chron. xxv. 5; Amos vii. 10).

  Between these "prophets" and the great writers who bear the same
  designation, we cannot fail to recognise an immense difference;
  Samuel and Elijah are connecting links between the two classes.
  Elijah is rather a hero than a prophet in the later sense, for
  he gives us no new doctrine, and Samuel is a seer who has risen
  to political power, rather than a religious ruler. Critics have
  discovered evidence of a double narrative in our documents.

  (Earlier) 1 Sam. ix. 1-x. 16; xi. xiii. 2-xiv. 52.

  (Later) 1 Sam. i. ii. iii. iv. vii. 3-17; viii. x. 17-25; xii. xv.

  If these be examined and contrasted, it will be found that Samuel
  is more allied in the earlier narratives with the "priest-seer"
  than with the Prophet of the type of Amos. A confirmation of this
  double narrative is found in the different accounts of the origin
  of the monarchy which they give. Samuel, according to the earlier
  sources, is just the type we need for the intermediate stage in the
  development of the Prophet.

  For the different historical conceptions of the work and character
  of David the narratives in Samuel should be compared with the
  representation given in Chronicles, and with that inferred by the
  ascription of various Psalms to his authorship.




Lecture V

PROPHETISM--EARLY STAGES


We have seen that in the time of the Judges the religion of Jehovah
became so mixed with elements taken over from the Canaanites that the
original revelation gained through Moses was in danger of being lost.
We have now to trace the steps by which this syncretism was broken
up, and the advance made to the purely monotheistic conception and
the lofty morality of the great literary Prophets. However this came
about it is certain that it was not due to any gradual movement among
the mass of the people, for the type of religion which we have been
considering remains largely unaltered in its hold upon the popular
mind. Through the teaching of the earlier prophets certain reforms
were attempted, but none of them seem to have touched the heart of
the nation. Hezekiah and Josiah attempted to reform religion by
centralising the national worship, but, from whatever cause, it left
the people still in opposition to the prophetic type of religion, a
conflict that was only ended by the calamity of the exile. It is,
therefore, to the prophetic band themselves that we must turn. Can we
trace within this more limited circle a movement that shall in any way
prepare us for the appearance of men of the type of Amos?

To answer this question we must turn to the Books of Samuel and Kings.
These present us with a history of the period which, like most history,
has been written, or over-written, from a later standpoint and made to
conform with later ideals. On the whole, however, and by contrasting
it with the still later conceptions of the Books of Chronicles, we
can form an accurate impression of the state of religion at this
time; and incidentally we have a valuable account of a movement that
evidently gave birth to those great conceptions of religion which were
to be voiced with such power and force by the great Prophets. The
writers who, apart from the value of their religious teaching, have
by their distinctive style made the Old Testament a contribution to
the literature of the world, are known to us as "Prophets." This name
they share, however, with others who have left us no first-hand record
of their religious opinions, and who, as described to us in the early
sources, bear only the slightest resemblance to Prophets as we conceive
them. Our task will be, therefore, to investigate the origins of this
movement which embraces such diverse elements, and this we may commence
by examining the meaning of the word "Prophet" (_Nabi_).

Like many other words in the Old Testament that lock up important
secrets, the origin of the word Prophet is obscure and its meaning
disputed. The conception which is most natural to our word "Prophet"
is of one who sees into the future; this is not even the main
characteristic of the writing Prophets, nor does it embrace all the
phenomena connected with the movement, especially in its early stages.
All that can be said of the word from an etymological standpoint
is that it has no origin which can be traced in historical Hebrew,
and the inference is that it is either a very ancient word, or one
borrowed from some other language. The word can, however, hardly be
ancient, for it is not common to Semitic tongues, as is the word
"priest," for instance, while we have a definite statement that within
historic times it superseded the older word "seer" (1 Sam. ix. 9).
The name was also used for certain devotees of the Tyrian Baal, whose
worship was imported by Ahab; but it can hardly be that the name would
be adopted directly from a phenomenon that was so repugnant to the
Israelites, although the common name hints that there was a common
ancestry somewhere. It seems fair to assume from the facts mentioned
that the word is, at least, not older than the entry into Canaan, and
while it cannot be definitely proved that it was borrowed from the
Canaanites, there is some confirmation of this in the fact that the
earliest occurrence of the name is in connection with the "sons of the
prophets," who are always found in places where it is known that there
were Canaanitish sanctuaries.

The word _Nabi_ has been variously connected with the root, _nab'a_,
"to bubble," and so one inspired; with the Arabic word, "to speak,"
and so a speaker or herald. The word seems to exist in Assyrian in
the form _nabu_, "to announce," but this is probably from the name of
the Babylonian deity, Nebo, the God of Eloquence, so that the word
might mean one possessed by Nebo. Some have even looked to this as the
ultimate derivation of the word. The investigation of the word really
gives nothing satisfactory, and we must therefore turn to examine the
character of the persons to whom it was applied.

In various passages in the Old Testament, Seer and Prophet are so
used as to lead us to infer that they embraced identical ideas (Isa.
xxix. 10; Amos vii. 12), and in one passage, which has only the
authority of a late annotation of the text, we learn that they were
identical in their application (1 Sam. ix. 9). The other name with
which Prophet is frequently bracketed is that of Priest; they are
placed together in the denunciations of Jeremiah (ii. 8; v. 31). Our
previous studies showed us that these classes were all somewhat akin
in their origins; the duties of the priest were discharged in keeping
the oracles, while the Seer is evidently akin to the Soothsayer, a
type that has appeared in all religions. We have a concrete example
of these classes being combined in Samuel. In the early story of
Samuel's first meeting with Saul, we find Saul turning to consult the
famous Seer in order to discover where his father's lost asses are to
be found; and even the question of the Seer's usual fee is mentioned
(1 Sam. ix. 8). This picture, which makes Samuel a notable Seer, is
earlier and more authentic than that which makes him nearly a ruler
over Israel. Although he is nowhere called a priest, yet he himself
sacrifices, and his presence at a sacrifice is reckoned an advantage
(1 Sam. xiii. 8-13); while we have the story of his sleeping by the
ark in his youth. The Seer is, therefore, an exalted type of priest
who has obtained renown by the success of his prognostications, and
so we read of Seers attached to the courts of the Kings (2 Sam. xxiv.
11; 1 Chron. xxv. 5); but the later sources have recognised that
there is something heathenish about the word, and have covered it up
with the name Prophet. From the early descriptions of the bands of
prophets in the books of Samuel, it would seem that they are more
allied to the priestly order than to the Seers, for it is certain that
down to the middle of the Ninth Century the name Prophet stands for
something different from its use as applied to Moses and the literary
Prophets. The name is applied to bands of men who "prophesy," but
this prophesying is entirely unlike the methods associated by us with
the prophetic spirit. It is evidently something which is done, not
individually, but in companies, and apparently in solemn procession
to the accompaniment of noisy music. It must have been a species of
violent incantation, leading to acts of fierce fanaticism, in which the
clothing might be stripped off, and often ending in complete mental
prostration (1 Sam. x. 5, 6; xix. 23, 24). The connection of music
with religious exercises is almost universal, and it always had a
conspicuous place in the worship of Jehovah (2 Sam. vi. 5; Isa. xxx.
29), while music has often been used to induce the prophetic vision (2
Kings iii. 15). These prophets seem to have lived together in schools,
semi-monastic orders, or guilds, and to have been found where there
were high places, or Canaanitish sanctuaries; and from their behaviour
we are forced to admit that we have here a common manifestation in
the history of religion, where companies of men devote themselves
to fanatical outbursts that are taken to indicate possession by the
Spirit of God. To the accompaniment of music and frenzied dancing
they work themselves into a state that approaches madness--always
among uncivilised peoples taken to be a sign of the hand of God (Hosea
ix. 7). We cannot fail to be reminded of the greater excesses of
the prophets of Baal, the extraordinary performances of the dervish
bands, and the fanatical excesses that have always disfigured monastic
institutions.

It cannot be dismissed, therefore, as incredible that this phenomenon
was derived from the Canaanites, and developed a zeal for Jehovah
that was manifested after a fashion common to the devotees of other
religions.

Down to a very late date in the history of the Kingdom, the literary
Prophets found themselves in conflict with bands of prophets, who to
their judgment prophesied falsely; and from the way in which these
are often associated with the priests, it seems probable that they
represent the deteriorated--or perhaps simply the stagnant--remnant of
this earlier movement. It is, however, necessary to assume that even
in the earlier movement there were purer elements than those which
we have noticed, and that it embraced individuals who were led into
a real fellowship with the mind of God, of which Samuel and Elisha
are conspicuous examples. Religious movements of the "revival" type,
which have undoubtedly inspired and produced great ethical changes and
resulted finally in sane religion, have often been accompanied in their
earlier stages by these frenzied outbreaks. It would be in response
to some of those strange mental movements which modern psychology is
endeavouring to understand, but also whenever danger threatened the
nation or the national religion, that these enthusiasts would take the
field. As the movement shed its purely hysterical elements, it may have
been occupied in the compilation of the records of Israel's history,
for many of these hardly reflect the higher prophetic standpoint, or in
writing down such stories of their great heroes as we find connected
with Elijah and Elisha. A connection with the literary productions
of the great Prophets may be thus indirectly traced, as it also most
certainly can in the prophetic _style_, which in its fierce rhythm
of denunciation or its sobbing sweeps of passionate appeal recalls
something of the incantation of the prophetic bands. Samuel, Elijah and
Elisha, by their connection with this early phenomenon of prophetism
and by the approximation of their work to the ideals of the later
Prophets, are the true links between the earlier and later stages of
the prophetic movement. It is both credible and natural that, when
the movement had spent itself in some wonderful advance into ethical
power and religious insight, the less noble elements should have still
remained and continued to claim divine inspiration, and yet have been
found in open conflict with its own nobler productions.

It would seem that the obscure sect known as Nazarites were connected
in some way with the early prophetic movement, for they are mentioned
side by side with the prophets (Amos ii. 11, 12); and it is probable
that Samuel was both a Nazarite and a prophet (1 Sam. i. 11), while
Samson, in whom the Spirit of Jehovah seemed to produce these strange
outbursts of savage frenzy, was certainly a Nazarite (Judges xiii. 4,
5, 7, 14). It would appear that the Nazarites were men who devoted
themselves to the service of Jehovah under certain vows of abstinence
from wine and ceremonial defilement. The vows might be taken for life
or for a limited period, but while under the vow the hair was left
unshorn. There is evidence that this is an old Semitic custom, and that
when the vow was accomplished the hair was made an offering to the god
(Num. vi. 18); to this day the pilgrims to Mecca are forbidden to cut
their hair until the journey is completed. The law of the Nazarites
(Num. vi.) is only a late attempt to legislate for a custom that had
existed independently of the institutions of the religion of Jehovah,
and so to secure a place within the official religion for a custom
that would have been difficult to suppress by prohibition. Similar
in many respects to the Nazarites, but even more obscure, were the
Rechabites, who abstained from wine (Jer. xxxv. 2-10), but who seem
also to have protested against the adoption of any of the arts and
customs of settled life, especially as these customs were typified
in the cultivation of the vine. They chose these methods in order to
resist the influence of Canaan, which was threatening so dangerously
the integrity of the nation and the national religion. They probably
hoped by these conservative manners to destroy the syncretism between
Baal and Jehovah; for the only other mention of the sect in the Old
Testament is in connection with the extirpation of the house of Ahab (2
Kings x. 15-17).

It may appear repulsive to those who have made up their minds as to the
methods by which the Spirit of God can work to trace back the supreme
genius, the impassioned ethical ideals, and the practical statesmanship
of the great Prophets of Israel to movements bordering on insanity; yet
it is from enthusiasm that most of the great saving movements of the
world have come. Certainly the great religious revival which was soon
to come in Israel owed almost as much of its success to these bands of
enthusiasts as to the personality of Elijah.

It falls now to our task to trace the movement from bands to
individuals, from Prophetism to Prophecy, from a phenomenon to a
teaching. We have records of men who seem to have moved beyond the
mantic stage and who prepare the way for the great Prophets. We can
conveniently call these "transition prophets." We shall find that
they bear some resemblance to the old style of Seer, or to the guild
prophets, or to both. Of some of these we have only the merest mention,
so that they may be called the _minor_ transition prophets.

Two stand together by their connection with David and from the fact
that they both seem to have been Court officials (2 Sam. vii. 2; xxiv.
11; 1 Kings i. 10). There is no word here of the mantic fury of the
early prophets; although in Gad, who makes known the best way to escape
the anger of an offended Deity, we have a survival of the ancient seer;
but in Nathan we have a truly noble example of one who, although he
may have been dependent on David for his daily bread, yet faced him
with the unsparing denunciation of his sin. Here is a man who regards
right in Israel more than the smile of princes, and who has a higher
conception of his office than that of a convenient manipulator of
oracles for the flattering of a King. Nathan is a true ancestor of Amos
and Jeremiah.

Ahijah the Shilonite is famous because he foretold the disruption of
the Kingdom (1 Kings xi. 29-31), and we may see in this the beginnings
of that political judgment which was to become notable in the later
Prophets; although a partisan motive might be suspected in this
particular case, when Jeroboam, in later years, sent his wife to
consult Ahijah, accompanied with the usual fee (1 Kings xiv. 2), the
message he received shows that in Ahijah we have no party politician,
but the impartial judgment of the later Prophets.

There is a pathetic and somewhat mysterious story of an unnamed man
of God who delivered the word of Jehovah to Jeroboam at the altar at
Bethel, and who, refusing the accustomed hospitality due to a prophet,
afterwards accepted the invitation of the old prophet of Bethel, and
paid the penalty with his death. We have here a story, the moral of
which may be obscure enough, but which certainly illustrates the
growing conflict between the two prophetic ideals. Here is a prophet
who travels from his own land to rebuke the sin of a King to his
face, afterwards yielding to the blandishments of one of the official
prophets. The new Prophetism, tempted from its superior position by the
old, fell; yet not many years were to elapse before these two orders,
in the persons of Amos and Amaziah, were again to face one another at
this same spot, and this time the new Prophetism was to maintain its
integrity (1 Kings viii.; Amos vii. 10-17).

Before we pass on to the _major_ transition prophets, it will be well
to consider here the effect which the foundation of the Monarchy had on
the development of the religion of Israel.

Of the inauguration of the Monarchy we possess two accounts; one
extremely unfavourable, written doubtless after Judah's experience
of some of her notorious Kings, and in the light of a somewhat ideal
conception of the Theocratic government that was supposed to have
flourished before the time of Saul (1 Sam. x. 17-24); the other
account, in which Samuel himself at the revelation of Jehovah
initiates the movement towards the Monarchy (1 Sam. ix. 15-x. 1) by
anointing Saul, is the one that is placed earlier by the critics. The
Monarchy was an inevitable stage in the social development of a settled
people, and it was the policy of Samuel to make the Monarchy the organ
of the Theocracy. For all this Saul does not seem to have had any
influence on religion, or to have ever realised the needs of his times,
and under the sense of failure he became a prey to fear and depressing
influences which eventually wrecked his reason.

Round the name of David have gathered the national ideals of heroism
and sainthood so often found in combination in early story. They
had a true origin in David, if we judge from the standards of piety
and rulership that were natural to his age. Outlaw, hero, poet,
saint--David is the darling of Israel's history. It would be unfair
to David to picture him as the saintly author of some of the tender
Psalms that bear his name, although others of a more robust character
might well be from his hand. That David was a poet seems to be certain,
and the songs of lament over Saul and Abner, which have strong claims
to be genuine, bear witness to his true poetic gift; but they are
deficient in any display of deep religious feeling. We may have also
to reduce somewhat the conception of the extent or the absoluteness of
his kingly rule. He was rather one of those freebooters who by their
heroism and rough manly courage are able to gather round them men of
their own nature and to inspire in their followers a loyal devotion. To
this pleasant adventurer the early Kingdom fell, but for long it was
only a kingdom of personal followers; nor does he ever seem to have
been enthusiastically acknowledged by the whole nation, or to have
established his claims absolutely beyond dispute. His heroic defence
against the Philistine invasion was sufficient to give him a great
place in the affection of the people, yet he never assumed the imperial
rule in the manner of his successor Solomon. With all this necessary
allowance for the idealising process of a later age, David was the
indispensable centre round which the early ideals and legends of the
Monarchy could collect. His work was of immense importance for the
future; especially his conquest of Jerusalem, now for the first time
wrested from the Canaanites and destined to become in the future the
centre of the national life, to be bound up with his name, and above
all to be the peculiar dwelling-place of Jehovah. To make Jerusalem
his capital was a very diplomatic stroke, for it was neutral territory
to both Ephraim and Judah, and this fact quietened the mutual jealousy
of these tribes. It was also a great work of David that by his rough
piety he definitely connected the Kingship with devotion to the cause
of Jehovah. This devotion found expression in his care for the sacred
palladium of the Tribes, although it was policy as well as piety that
brought the Ark to Jerusalem; for we are forced to admit that in
matters of religion David was not greatly in advance of his times. He
regarded the jurisdiction of Jehovah as not extending beyond Palestine
(1 Sam. xxvi. 19), and although he himself may have abandoned idols,
yet he allowed them in his house (1 Sam. xix. 13), while he retained
the old custom of consulting the will of Jehovah by the Ephod (1 Sam.
xxx. 7) or by the movements of trees (2 Sam. v. 23-25). His conception
of Jehovah was that of a Being of uncertain temper, who would take
vengeance for any acts of ceremonial violation (2 Sam. vi. 9) or whose
anger might be aroused for reasons beyond human discovery (2 Sam. xxiv.
10-17).

But it would be equally wrong to blame David because he does not come
up to the ideals of a later age. So far as it went, we may believe
that his piety was real; he was a man after Jehovah's own heart, _for
those times_. He certainly did his best to found a Kingdom on personal
affection and to establish some kind of impartial justice. In the
matter of Bathsheba and Uriah David has been judged by impossible
standards, and especially by the religious ideas of the 51st Psalm,
which bears in its every line evidence of a morality far too deep for
the age of David, and which is quite unsuitable for a confession of
murder and adultery. It was no crime in the eyes of an oriental monarch
to take his neighbour's wife, and it was novel doctrine that David
heard from the lips of Nathan; it is to be laid to his everlasting
credit that he listened to this prophetic judgment, was convicted of
the sinfulness of his act, and repented very profoundly.

When we pass to Solomon we come to a character altogether different,
but one that is very difficult to estimate from the portrait presented
to us in the Old Testament. The writers allow themselves to be carried
away by the tradition of his magnificence, and by the external evidence
of his piety preserved in the splendid Temple which he reared to the
glory of Jehovah; but they cannot produce much evidence for the depth
of his personal religion. He attempted to build an empire on the lines
of the barbaric and superficial glories of his greatest neighbours;
but its splendour and certainly its significance have been rather
overdrawn by the later historians. It was a reign of splendour, but
for the religion of Israel it was unimportant, for it was in the main
irreligious. Save for the presence of Nathan at his coronation, the
prophetic ministry almost disappears in this reign; what prophets
remain are opposed to his policy. Solomon was little more than a
worldly cosmopolitan; his empire was magnificent in comparison with
the achievements of his predecessors, but it rested not as David's
on the devotion of the people to a popular hero, but depended for
its strength on a system of taxation and a false imperialism: forced
labour was employed and the loyalty of the tribes was strained. It
was an endeavour to change the government from a natural and tribal
system to that of an Eastern despotism; and it ended in failure. The
building of the Temple was only a part of this policy, and it was a
policy resented by the prophetic party, who were all for simplicity
in matters of worship (2 Sam. vii.; omit verse 13). The Temple did
not occupy too outstanding a place in the block of royal buildings,
and there is no evidence that in this age it was anything more than
Solomon's private chapel built with the desire to rival the splendid
royal shrines of other countries. It was evidently designed largely
on heathen models, and contained heathen symbols which the later
religion absorbed with difficulty. The adoption of the Temple as the
supreme centre of Israel's worship was not the work of Solomon, but
the effect of the teaching of Isaiah of Jerusalem and the consequence
of the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah. The harem and the strange
worship were similarly parts of an international policy. Solomon was
certainly the first to give to the worship of Jehovah an imposing
splendour and regularity, but it was not a splendour that appealed
to the Prophets. The beautiful prayer of the dedication can hardly
be the composition of Solomon, but is more likely to have been the
production of a later age which endeavoured to give to this display a
piety which the original did not possess. In time the Temple was to
become of enormous importance, but in this period it remained only a
magnificent shrine for the Ark. The fact that two of the prophets sided
with Jeroboam may point to a revolt against this religious splendour.
The bulls of Jeroboam were a counterblast to the Temple, and although
his name is ever afterwards connected with the introduction of this
idolatrous worship, and the succeeding Kings of Israel condemned for
their participation, it is evident that these strictures are somewhat
intensified by the conception that in the quarrel between Israel and
Judah, Judah was in the right, and by the refusal to allow for the fact
that this method of worship had not been condemned by any contemporary.
The calves were most likely ancient symbols of Semitic divinity, and
were certainly intended as symbols of Jehovah. Nevertheless, the future
lay with the Temple and the South, for the revolution was based on
a merely conservative impulse and contained no ideal. In the South,
Jehovah was never worshipped with such an excess of heathen symbolism,
and thither the voice of Prophecy soon transferred itself to find in
Judah its greatest sphere.

We are brought now to one of the most pregnant movements of this time,
known as the northern prophetic revolt, and to the work and personalty
of the major transition prophets, Elijah and Elisha. The introduction
of the worship of the Tyrian Baal by Ahab was the signal for revolt.
Here was a violation of the commonest conceptions of religion: the
transplantation of the worship of another god, Melkart, the Baal of
Tyre, into the territory of Jehovah, who was regarded as the Baal
of Canaan. It opened the eyes of the schools of the Prophets to the
danger of the use of the name of Baal, and was the cause of its
complete disuse as a name for Jehovah (Hosea ii. 16, 17). In the revolt
against the worship of this heathen Baal there stands out as its chief
inspiration and leader the magnificent figure of the prophet Elijah. It
is evident that in the story of his life we have much that is legendary
and probably some confusion with the work of Elisha, but the religious
significance is sufficiently clear. We have noticed that Elijah is
remotely connected with the prophetic schools, and they share with
him the persecution organised by the devotees of Baal; the old mantic
accompaniments of prophecy are still found in Elijah; he seems to
charm the rain (1 Kings xviii. 42), and he certainly hears it coming.
With all his courage and insight he does not fully comprehend the true
methods by which the religion of Jehovah is to win its way; conviction
is to be brought by thunder and fire; if these fail there remains the
sword. It may be difficult to decide whether Elijah actually conceived
the wonderful revelation at Mount Horeb, but it is more than likely
that to this man there came in the hour of failure the discovery that
there were other ways more to the mind of Jehovah whereby men should
realise His presence; a discovery which has been dramatised in the
theophany on Horeb. Revelation by the still small voice of inner
conviction certainly gained greater recognition after the ministry of
Elijah.

If we seek to understand the meaning of Elijah's stand for Jehovah, we
shall see that it was first of all a protest against the syncretism
of the Baal and Jehovah religions. This protest may have been founded
initially on conceptions not too exalted, namely, that Jehovah and
Melkart could not be worshipped in the same land, but there are
evidences that Elijah had advanced further than that. His daring taunts
to Baal amount to complete scepticism as to his existence, or at least
of his power to injure the true follower of Jehovah. If that is so,
then we have in Elijah the first monotheist. He clearly perceived that
in character Baal and Jehovah were utterly different. The cruelty
connected with the religion of Jehovah still persists under Elijah,
but the incompatibility between the true religion and heathenism is
recognised and affirmed. We may sum up Elijah's religion in his own
phrase: "I have been very jealous for Jehovah."

There is another aspect of Elijah's work which certainly forms a true
transition to the teaching of the later Prophets; he denounces the
murder of Naboth almost as much as the worship of Baal. We trace here
the rise of the ethical conception of the service of Jehovah and the
protest against social wrongs which was to become so great a part of
the burden of such men as Amos and Micah.

With Elijah we can see forming, however dimly, the thought of a Kingdom
of God, and the peculiar patriotism of the Prophets: he desires an
Israel independent of all heathen alliances; it is a conception of
a Kingdom which shall be great in intension rather than wide in
extension. It was this conflict of the prophetic and the so-called
patriotic ideals that was to contribute largely to the final overthrow
of the State. It may have been that the Prophets could never have
built up a strong State on the lines they indicated, and their very
protest may have weakened the arm of statesmen and contributed to the
destruction of the Kingdom founded by David and Solomon. We can only
feel that we side with the Prophets. If the prophetic voice had been
silenced we might have had Israel with a kingdom as mighty as Assyria,
although that is highly doubtful; but it would have been a kingdom as
useless for its contribution to religion as that proud, vain, and
cruel empire.

The theophany at Horeb, therefore, whatever its embellishment and
however symbolical its dress, is the true history of this period.
In the development of the prophetic religion, magic and mystery are
failing, display and external glory are passing away, and there enters
from this time the conception of the religion of the inward voice on
which the work of the later Prophets is built. Elisha is but a pale
reflection of his master, and makes little contribution to religion;
but we soon hear of Micaiah (1 Kings xxii. 8), whose message reveals
the still widening gap between the professional prophet and the new
order of men who hear with greater clearness the true voice of Jehovah.
But sixty years have to pass, and Northern Palestine awakens to the
echoes of a new voice, and listens to the new message of the first
of that prophetic band who have enriched literature while they have
exalted religion--Amos the herdman of Tekoa.

Where elsewhere in history has there been a religion that, starting in
comparative heathenism, almost lost in conflict with a fully-developed
paganism, has yet moved steadily upward, breaking away from its
origins, shedding the false charms of magic and sorcery, and rising
by gradual ascent into fellowship with the Will of God? It is this
_movement_ that constitutes the inspiration of the Old Testament and
that makes it still a Word of God to us.

Many of these conclusions, which have been put forward and established
by critical methods, especially in reference to the religious feeling
of those times, and in the different conception of the piety of
men like David and Solomon, may strike the reader as startling and
disturbing. That may well be, but that is no excuse for our reading
into Bible story more than can be legitimately found there, while it
will be sure to obscure some of its highest teaching, which is to
be found not in isolated "texts," but in great movements. It is the
facts that we have to face, and the facts are obscured not so much
by the corrections of the history by the later historians, as by our
forcing into them the still later conceptions of our own times. We
have not given detailed proof of many of the positions here taken up;
they may be sought in detail by the reader in the works of Biblical
scholarship. Our object is to discover whether these things being so,
we can still find a true revelation in the history of this people,
and hear in it the Voice of God. Do we not get from this corrected
view of the history, a sense of the splendid onward movement of this
religion, which in itself is so much more inspiring than the monotonous
conception, which is only the product of later Judaism, that the
history of Israel's religion is nothing but a series of apostasies
from a pure and perfect faith? That late conception is not borne out
by a careful and critical study of the sources, and it rather owes its
strength to-day to a certain dogmatic conception of human nature that
is needlessly pessimistic, and to an idea of the weakness of the Spirit
of God in His dealings with man that nearly approaches atheism.

One or two lessons of the period stand out in strong relief. One is
that better things come of enthusiasm, even when it is mistaken, than
from indifference. The reference of all the institutions of Israel
to the definitely revealed Will of Jehovah may seem to some, after
these investigations, a mistake. This can only arise from too narrow a
conception of the working of God and the means through which His Spirit
reaches man, for it is this very reference to the Will of God that is
responsible for the advance in Israel's faith. To believe in the Will
of God, and to refer all to it, does gradually increase the knowledge
of that Will, and so leads to a true revelation.

Another lesson is, not to despise the accompaniments of the first
movements of the Spirit of God in man. It is not within the scope of
this work to enquire why it is that when a man is moved by the Spirit
of God such strange phenomena as we have been studying in the prophetic
bands, which still accompany many revivals, should be the immediate
results. There must be patience with these things as beginnings; but
equally must there be impatience with them when they elevate themselves
into a permanent claim to recognition as the only signs of a true
religious life, and when they refuse to recognise as higher the sane
and ethical movement to which they themselves have given birth. One
of the chief difficulties in things religious is to recognise the
offspring of a great movement, to discover the time when the child
must be allowed its new-found freedom, to know when symbols may be
dropped and the reality brought in. Protestantism has given birth to
wider thoughts about God and deeper appreciations of the extent of His
working, which are the logical outcome of Protestantism, and yet which
are often repudiated by those whose Protestantism is of the aggressive
type. A progressive movement of any kind always has these strifes. They
are as constant in Science as in Religion, only in Science they are
more easily overcome by the greater readiness to accept new revelation.
Christianity is a religion that moves, and, as Christ Himself foretold,
it causes the son to rise up against his father, the new generation
to come into conflict with the old. Ours it is never to forget that
the Kingdom of God is on the side of the child; except ye receive the
Kingdom of God as a child, in the spirit of enquiry and growth, except
ye never grow old, ye cannot enter therein.




THE RELIGION OF THE LITERARY PROPHETS


  THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROPHETS


  _Assyrian Period._

                    B.C.
  Amos            760-750                                           B.C.
  Hosea           750-737     Accession of Tiglath Pileser III       745
  Isaiah          740-700     Invasion of Sennacherib                701
  Micah           724-        Fall of Samaria                        722
  Zephaniah _circa_ 627       Western Palestine invaded by Scythians
  Nahum           610-608?    Fall of Nineveh                        607


  _Chaldaean Period._

  Jeremiah        626-586     Deuteronomy discovered                 621
  Habakkuk        605-600?    First Great Exile                      597
  Ezekiel         593-573     Second Great Exile                     586


  _Persian Period._

  Isa. xiii.-xiv.; xxi. 1-10; xxxiv.,      (Date uncertain, but
     xxxv.                                   definitely after the
                                             Exile.)
  Isa. xl.-lv. (The "Second" Isaiah)
    _c_540.                                Cyrus takes Babylon       538
  Isa. lvi.-lxvi. (Various prophecies,
    to be dated after the return.)         Return of the Exiles      537
  Haggai              _c_520
  Zech. i.-viii.      _c_520
  Mal.               460-450               Promulgation of the Law   444
  Zech. ix.-xiv.         322

  There is nothing to enable us to decide the dates of Jonah, Joel, and
  Obadiah with greater definiteness than to say that they were written
  after the Restoration.


  Diagram representing the religious significance of the Prophets:--

                                                        FINAL EMBODIMENT
        GOLDEN AGE OF PROPHECY           SILVER AGE       OF PROPHETIC
                                                            TEACHING
                                    _Exile_
                                      +     +--------+ PSALMS
                                      |     |        |
                                      |     |        |
                                      |     +        |
                       +--------------+ 2 ISAIAH     |
                       |              |              |
                       |              |              |
              +---+ JEREMIAH          |              |
              |                       |              |
              |                       |              |
              +                       |              |
       +--+ HOSEA                     |              |
       |                              |              |
       |                              |              |
  AMOS +-------+ MICAH--NAH.--HAB. +--+--------------+ WISDOM LITERATURE
       |                              |              |
       |                              |              |
       +-----------+ ISAIAH   DEUT.   |              |
                        +             |              |
                        |             |              |
                        |             |              |
                        +-------------+ EZEKIEL -----+ THE LAW

  Judging from the standard of New Testament religion and their
  contribution to it, the Prophets may be roughly classified in the
  above order. The higher tendency seems to vanish from the historical
  works which were composed after the Exile, save in many of the
  Psalms, where religion reaches its highest expression outside the
  New Testament. The tendency represented by the middle and horizontal
  line ends in the somewhat superficial ethics of such works as the
  Book of Proverbs. The lower tendency _is only to be judged so from
  comparison_; it served its purpose, and it was an honest endeavour to
  reduce the Prophetic ideals to a definite system. It is in line with
  the spirit of many of the Psalms that the religion of the revelation
  of Christ takes its rise, and we may see in the Sadducees and the
  Pharisees the degenerate effect of the other lines of development.




Lecture VI

THE RELIGION OF THE LITERARY PROPHETS


Among the writings of the Old Testament, the Prophetical Books, whether
considered as literature or religion, are acknowledged to stand out as
unsurpassed. If the Psalms claim to rival them it is to be remembered
that the Psalms are probably to be traced to the Prophetic teaching.
The Prophets themselves begin a new era; they are creative and owe
but little to their past. That for so long a period, in unbroken
continuity, there should emerge from a tiny nation a succession of men
of differing temperament, training, and social position, who should
with remarkable unity voice truths of religion not only hitherto
unrecognised but rarely surpassed or apprehended in subsequent
history, is in itself a unique phenomenon in comparative religion.
Equally notable is the fact, that in the majority of the Prophets we
have not only the gift of religious intuition, but that this is found
in combination with great oratorical power, true poetic genius, and
practical statesmanship. They remain for all time an indisputable
witness to the Divine revelation in the development of Israel's
religion.

Previous stages which we have been able to recognise in the development
of Israel's religion do not carry us on to Amos by so inevitable a
movement, that his message could be predicted as the next stage to be
reached. When we come fresh from the investigation of the religion
held by the leaders of the people in the times of David and Solomon,
we recognise the immense strides made when we open the Book of Amos.
We can trace a likeness between Elijah and Amos in their denunciation
of wrong; but, in the sphere of religion, there is a great gulf
between them which no records of the intervening period quite help
us to bridge over. We cannot think of Amos taking part in the great
vindication of Carmel; it is probable that he would have recognised
it as useless. In Samuel, Elijah and Elisha we undoubtedly have the
religious ancestors of the Literary Prophets, but while they stood at
the head of popular movements which they led in triumph against the
intrusion of alien faiths, the Prophets that we are now to study stand
in decided antagonism to the popular faith, and the conceptions of
Israel's religion which they reiterate with such passion and insistency
were never acceptable to the people. Their religion has to make its way
against the national religion.

The importance of the Prophets is the natural starting point for
the modern study of the Old Testament, and it is from the earnest
perusal of their writings that modern Biblical science has been forced
to take up a rigorous criticism of the entire literature of the Old
Testament. Under the old methods, the Prophets had only a secondary
position in the history of the ancient revelation, since their message
was conceived as rather concerned with an age yet to come than with
their own times and needs. The Divine Law had already been given
to the people, constituting a perfect norm of religion. When the
people failed to obey the Law, then the Prophet appeared, enforced
its principles, and condemned the people's apostasy. If that message
was rejected, as it often was, then nothing was left for the Prophet
but the proclamation of vengeance, or the prediction of a time when
the Law should be ideally fulfilled by the revelation of the Gospel.
Between the Law and the Gospel, therefore, stood the Prophets, but
they acted only as a bridge from the one to the other. The natural
method of studying their writings was to search for the fulfilment
of their predictions in history. With these aims it was perhaps
inevitable that their words should often be interpreted in a quite
unwarrantable manner; events were read back into their prophecies, or
the fulfilment was found in such ordinary coincidences that the dignity
of prediction was itself lost, the study became puerile and morbid,
while a fancied necessity as to what they must mean prevented any
scholarly and unbiassed interpretation. Their works have consequently
been largely used as mysterious oracles from which the future history
of the world could be accurately predicted. To read the Prophets in
order to obtain a picture of their own age was regarded as a secular
occupation, while every attempt to recover the original application of
their words was regarded as an endeavour to discountenance the proofs
of Divine revelation. Many of their words bear remarkable likeness to
the gracious invitations of the Gospel, so that they have been used
equally with the New Testament for Gospel preaching, but it was never
dreamed that they were real invitations to the people of their own
times, founded on the eternal laws of God's forgiveness afterwards made
clear in Christ; they were simply words spoken under mental effects
which transferred the speakers to the time of the New Testament.
Whatever the final results of the application of historical criticism
may be, it has already laid religion under a permanent obligation in
its discovery of the hitherto unrealised importance of the Prophets.
At first attention was directed to their exalted ethical and religious
standpoint, appearing as it did in an age that neither produced nor
responded to it; minute study then showed that they gave first-hand and
incidental accounts of their own times. Their messages bear witness
to the contemporary state of the religion of Jehovah and the people's
morals, and although it may be that they sometimes judged these from
their own high standard, which caused them to paint them somewhat
darker than an absolutely historical judgment would demand, yet on what
the prevailing religious opinions of the day really were, they are the
best evidence. The startling but unassailable deduction made from the
Prophets' accounts of their own times is, that in matters religious
they were proclaiming doctrines that seemed to their contemporaries
entirely novel. The Prophets do not, however, acquiesce in the charge
of novelty. They profess to go back to the original and inner meaning
of Jehovah's choice of the nation. They refer to this choice, as a
"covenant," and to the religion demanded by it, as the law of the Lord.
The first inference is that they refer to that which _we_ know as the
Law, the Pentateuch, or Law of Moses. A comparison with the Prophetic
teaching with the ordinances of, say, the Book of Leviticus, shows that
this cannot be the case, for they do not correspond. Many things there
commanded as essential are passed over in silence by the Prophets;
but the force of the argument is not wholly drawn from that, although
it has a weight here which the argument from silence cannot usually
carry, because both Leviticus and the Prophets' teaching set forth
the essentials of religion, and there can be no possibility of doubt
that the conceptions of the essentials have an altogether different
outlook. It is chiefly, though not by any means entirely, from the
standpoint of the Prophetical writings that modern criticism is forced
to revise the conception of the progress and decline of religion that
Jewish tradition has embodied in the arrangement of its Scriptures, and
especially in the ascription of the Pentateuch as a whole to the age
and authorship of Moses. The verdict from this comparison between the
Prophets and the Law is, that the five Books of Moses either did not
exist in their present form at the time of the Prophets, or, if they
did, remained entirely unknown to them.

The historical value of the Prophets is therefore to be rated very
high, not only because of their transparent sincerity, but also
because the historical data which can be secured from them are given
indirectly, and are valuable for the same reason as the remarks of a
contemporary diarist. They are unaware that they are writing history,
and are consequently free from the almost unescapable tendency of the
historian to make the facts fit into preconceived theories. Modern
criticism, therefore, does rightly in making the Prophets of paramount
importance for the understanding of the Old Testament, and when the
Prophets are thus made the test, much in the history that was either
completely hidden or difficult to understand, becomes visible and
clear, and the progress of Israel's religion is displayed in all its
grandeur and movement.

We can now turn to examine the extent of the sources from which we may
draw, in order to estimate the religious opinions and influence of the
Prophets, and to examine the peculiar character of the literature for
which they are responsible.

First in importance stand the Books of the Prophets proper. In the
ancient division of the Hebrew Bible into, (1) The Law, (2) The
Prophets, (3) The Hagiographa, or the holy writings, "The Prophets"
included, beside our Books of the Prophets, such historical Books as
Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings. Significantly enough, however, Daniel
is not grouped with the Prophets, but with the Hagiographa, either
because it was not classed as prophecy, or more probably because the
Canon of "The Prophets" had been closed by the time it was written.

Therefore, in addition to the writings ascribed to the Prophets, there
is a literature which has been influenced by their teaching, and this
is found largely in those historical Books which have thus been rightly
included in the Prophetical division of the Hebrew Bible. That is to
say, however, that Books dealing with history prior to the rise of
the Prophets, show traces of an influence that can only have emerged
later. It is here that criticism seems to the ordinary reader to enter
very debatable ground, although among critical students of the Bible
the question is no longer an open one. They claim that the peculiar
conditions under which Hebrew history was compiled allow us to discern,
and to separate with ease, this later prophetical editing, whereas in
other literatures such would be impossible. History was compiled among
the Jews largely from pre-existing documents, much as it is everywhere,
with the difference that in the Old Testament the records have been
simply pieced together with whatever corrections and reductions were
rendered necessary, while the conceptions of the later times, when
this re-editing was accomplished, are often simply superimposed; this
method has been ridiculed as an invention of the critical mind, but it
is simply an indisputable if tiresome fact which has to be taken into
account in any serious study of the literature. The narratives of the
documents that have been named "J" and "E" bear the marks of having
been combined under the influence of prophetical teaching, since this
teaching, it is to be noted, is recognisably incompatible with other
parts of the stories which have been left untouched.

It has been suggested that criticism seems to assume that religion
progressed until it reached a certain height in the Eighth Century, and
to enable this theory to stand all marks of this supposed later type
appearing earlier are classed as interpolations. It is usual to trace
this theory to "Evolution gone mad." Even on the critical theories
this cannot however be legitimately shown to result, since critical
reconstruction shows that the supreme height gained in the Prophets
was never maintained, but suffered a perceptible decline. Whatever the
guiding idea of criticism may be, it cannot be an endeavour to make
the history of Israel's religion confirm some theory of the natural
development and evolution of religion. The critical theories leave us
with the problem of moral lapses to account for and with the failure
of vision to explain, and demand still a moral insight to detect the
cause. But it is clear to many that the moral causes do stand out more
clearly discoverable by this method.

The critical theory of the priority of the Prophets is not based
only upon the emergence under their teaching of certain theological
ideas for the first time; but also on the difference of style and
vocabulary which can be recognised after only a slight acquaintance
with the language; and on the general outline of the history that the
Bible itself forces upon us. It is a fact which the reader can soon
discover for himself, that the historical Books are compilations from
the records of various ages, and these various ages can be as easily
discerned as the conflicting styles of an oft-restored church, or
the disturbance of the normal geological strata that demands some
upheaval for its explanation. It must be remembered that all this is
made possible from the fact of the remarkable uniformity of ideas that
characterises the various stages of Hebrew religion.

The Prophets' teaching can therefore be traced outside their own
writings; mainly in fragmentary comments added to the narratives;
or in a superimposed colouring, which easily falls off, leaving the
original outlines in view; but it is supposed to be found grouped
into one great mass in the Book of Deuteronomy. The critics' theory
of this Book is that it is an endeavour to reduce the teaching of the
Prophets, more especially that of Isaiah, to a code, and to secure
reform by the centralisation of worship at Jerusalem. This idea of a
central worship, which leaves no record of its actual observance until
the time of Josiah, or perhaps an attempt in the reign of Hezekiah, is
so unmistakable and is so uniformly expressed that the work of this
author (perhaps we should say, this school) can be easily detected,
and many of the Books, such as Judges and Kings, can be seen to have
been subjected to a "Deuteronomist" redaction. In all these phenomena
we have teaching that presupposes the Prophets, and that stands in
contrast and often in conflict with the general tone of the original.
It is remarkable that with such redactions of history any clue to
the earlier conceptions should have been left to us, especially that
there should have been left in the records anything that would be in
disagreement with the editors' ideas, but the Jews, like the other
nations of antiquity, did not possess modern notions of exactness, and
their notions of history prevented them from understanding things that
were removed only a short distance from their own times.

It is hardly surprising to find that this Prophetical literature was
in turn liable to redaction, though in a different degree and for a
different reason, since it has been preserved to us under peculiar
conditions. This at first may seem terribly confusing to the bewildered
student, and it is here that tired men reject criticism and all its
works. To such the reminder cannot be spared that in any branch of
Science the same conditions have to be overcome, and if he would
understand the Old Testament and reap the magnificent reward that its
earnest study gives, he must be prepared to face the facts and labour
at their solution.

First of all then, it must be noted that the Books of the Prophets are
not so much literature, in the ordinary sense of the word, as reported
rhetoric, with the qualification that the reporter and the speaker may
be usually assumed to be the same. In most cases the speeches were
written out by the Prophet himself soon after they were delivered,
although sometimes this was done by others long after, and expanded
or altered, as is actually reported to have been the case with the
prophecies of Jeremiah (Jer. xxxvi.).

In the second place, the literature reveals the fact that there does
not seem to have been in that age any conception of literary property;
ideas are borrowed directly from one Prophet by another, and sometimes
direct quotation is made without any acknowledgment or indication of
the source. The Prophet's scribe, his school or followers, could amend
or paraphrase; later generations could evidently insert a qualifying
phrase, temper a threat with a qualifying condition, or to the doom of
exile add a promise of restoration. When it is noticed that messages
like those of Amos or Hosea end unexpectedly in hopeful words, and
when it is recollected that these Prophets have been used as Service
Books in the Synagogue and may have been therefore altered to suit the
purpose, then we shall understand the problem that faces us and why a
shadow of suspicion should rest on promises of restoration that are to
be found in pre-exilic writings. Let it be remembered however that it
is no true critical canon to assume that prediction cannot be made; but
what are we to do when such a prediction fits ill with the context,
breaks the sense, is foreign to the outlook of the speaker, and is in
later style?

Finally, there seem to have been many prophecies circulated
anonymously, and since a place had to be found for these they were
inserted in other writers, on no principle that we can discover, or
more often were grouped together at the end of some notable Prophet's
works. In Zechariah we have to suppose three strata of different
authorship and date, or give up the rational study of the Book
altogether; and in the famous case of the Book of Isaiah we have to
suppose that some of the early chapters are the work of a post-exilic
author, while chapters xl.-lxvi. are a heterogeneous collection by a
number of writers, of which chapters xl.-lv. are recognised to be by
one hand, and that, one of the most wonderful personalities which has
contributed to the Old Testament; about that grand figure we only know
one thing, that he was not Isaiah of Jerusalem. This has been called
"sawing Isaiah asunder" and making the Bible a piece of patchwork and
the critics are blamed; but if they are right, these complaints are
not directed at them, but at the Bible itself, a proceeding which to
say the least, is not pious. When a writer could say many years later
that revelation came of old time in many fragments (Heb. i. 1), others
beside critics fall under these hasty condemnations.

It is refreshing to turn from this less interesting part of our
subject, which nevertheless demands serious study from anyone who
would be informed where ignorance has done and still is doing so much
harm, and to examine the features which distinguish the work of the
literary Prophets. We have already spoken of the novelty of their
message. Whatever theory is chosen for the study of Old Testament
history, nothing quite prepares us for the message of the Prophet Amos.
What an inspiration we miss because he does not stand in our Bibles
in his rightful place, at the head of the Prophets! His bravery and
ruggedness remind us of Elijah, but he brings something that Elijah is
far from giving us. Elijah was very jealous for the due recognition of
Jehovah as the only God for Israel; Amos is jealous for the recognition
of the true _character_ of Jehovah. That is to say, we receive from
Amos definite teaching concerning the character of Jehovah and His
relations to the people of Israel, and these doctrines are startling to
Israelitish ears.

Almost the first thing that strikes us as an outstanding characteristic
of the Prophets is that they are conscious of a call to which they
often appeal. Five of them definitely refer to the circumstances of
their call (Amos vii. 14; Hosea i. 2; Isaiah vi.; Jer. i. 4-10; Ezek.
i. 1-ii. 3). The same is true of their predecessors, but in a different
way; they stand as defenders of the national religion because they
belong to the prophetic guilds or possess certain gifts of vision. On
the other hand the literary Prophets are against the national religion
as a perversion of the true, and to this weary and warlike work they
are called by immediate and special summons of God. This call is not
self-originated nor can it be evaded (Jer. xx. 9), and in some cases
there has been no preparation for the office (Amos vii. 14, 15), and
even positive unfitness (Jer. i. 6). They are very careful therefore to
distinguish themselves from the schools of prophets. Professionalism
has disappeared, and in Jeremiah the official idea also vanishes.

The peculiar mental condition of the Prophets has of late years
attracted a great deal of attention. The rapture and holy frenzy into
which they are sometimes thrown remind us of the phenomena accompanying
the early Prophetism, studied in our last lecture; but this is now
accidental and is becoming rare. The Prophets often speak of this as
"the hand of the Lord" upon them (Isa. viii. 11); in the visions of
Ezekiel the effect is often described as overpowering (Ezek. iii. 14
ff.). There is a similarity between the accompaniments of these states
and the trances which have been found in so many religious movements,
and which are now attracting the attention of the scientific world
so seriously. Only the results differ remarkably from the effects
obtained in hypnotic and sub-conscious states, with which the prophetic
gift has sometimes been compared. The Prophet still exhibits his
natural style when under the influence of the Word of the Lord. Yet it
may be that there is something to be learned along the lines of modern
research; we know that if certain states of mental passivity can be
induced, there lies open a new realm of knowledge, which, although
it can be accounted for, cannot be summoned under ordinary mental
conditions; add to this the superior moral constitution which seems to
be missing from the mediums of spiritualistic phenomena to-day, and the
prophetic consciousness becomes more comprehensible. The Prophets often
speak of visions, but it is difficult to gather their actual character.
It can hardly be objective; it is more like the artistic vision which
creates within the mind in perfect detail and objectivity, so that
what is seen has greater reality than any reproduction on canvas or in
stone. The mind would seem to project its vision by the strength of its
imaginative powers, so that, owing to the emotion aroused by the nature
of the truth perceived, the revelation appears to come from an entirely
external source. Sometimes it would seem to be an actual beholding of
some natural object, which induces a train of thought, as the case of
Amos's vision of the plumb-line may well be. We cannot think either
of any organic hearing of their message, since they sometimes also
declare that they "see" it.

Their predictive power has been exaggerated, chiefly because it was
thought that this was the only office of the Prophet. Where it occurs
it is mostly a natural deduction from their insight into the movements
of their age, their conception of the unchangeable character of
Jehovah, and their belief in His providential government; the emphasis
is never upon details, and it may be added that the prediction is by
no means always fulfilled. Their vision of the future usually takes
a certain outline, or order; a national calamity is immediately
impending, in which they recognise the punishment of the people's sins
and the complete triumph and vindication of Jehovah; this will result
in a purifying of the nation, and in the immediate succession there
will come the Messianic or ideal era. Still there are predictions which
cannot be explained on any theory yet broached, such as the prediction
by Isaiah of the destruction of Sennacherib's army, or Jeremiah's
prophecy of the Restoration. If this is ordinary second sight, then it
is strange that it should have occurred in so many cases at this time
when prophecy was dropping its mysterious accompaniments. Yet it may be
recalled that in the history of all nations there has been, in times
of great national affliction, a tendency to prophecy of this order,
which can sometimes claim a remarkable fulfilment. The distinguishing
glory of Israel's prophecy is, however, to be sought in its ethical
character, and it is perhaps to the writings of men like our own
Carlyle, where we often catch the old prophetic ring, that we are to
look for its analogy.

Among the things that separate Amos from his predecessors is the use
of a literary channel for the dissemination of his teaching, which was
of course primarily preaching. This in itself marks a great change.
What was it that led the Prophet to write down the message which he
had delivered? It may have been that there was a tendency towards
literature at that particular period, but even before this the habit
of keeping records must have commenced, while there is evidence of
collections of poems or sagas, such as the Book of Jasher, or the Book
of the Wars of the Lord, being in existence from a very early period.
It is evident therefore that we need some particular occurrence to
account for the adoption of literature as the vehicle of Prophecy. It
has been suggested that the cause is to be sought initially in the
rejection of the message of Amos by those to whom it was delivered:
he was aware of the permanent application of the truths that he had
delivered, and since his own times would not hearken he resolved to
commit them to the verdict of posterity. The example once set, it was
natural for the succeeding Prophets to wish to give something more
than the fleeting character of the spoken word to teaching that was
new and that had been rejected, and therefore to adopt this form (Isa.
viii. 16 f.). Whatever the cause, we are thankful for the results.

The channel chosen for the preservation of their messages was not
purely literary; the form is not that of the essay, or thesis; it has
not the studied elegance of poetry, yet it rises above prose, and
rhythmic verse is found scattered throughout their writings. These
reports of passionate oratory fall naturally into poetic form as the
Prophet is carried away by his message. Especially do we find a very
extensive use of symbolism, which has proved a trap into which the
literalist has hastened to fall.

The relation of the Prophets to the State is difficult for us
accurately to appreciate. Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha headed what were
practically popular revolutions; in them nationalism overshadows the
universally religious, or the purely moral ideal. To appreciate the
contrast that the literary Prophets present to this, a careful study
should be made of 2 Kings ix. 7-10; x. 30, and this compared with the
verdict of Hosea, which rises above the standard of State interest to
a judgment of universal morals (Hosea i. 4). The literary Prophets
have no office at court and receive no fee (Micah iii. 2); but they
have an official connection with the nation, which they regard as the
chosen instrument for the establishment of God's reign; they have
no conception of a secular state for Israel. It became therefore a
tragedy for Jeremiah to be so completely rejected by the nation, for
then he felt his prophetic office really ceased. It was this that
drove him into a personal relationship with God that is not reached by
any other of the Prophets. It is not correct to say that the Prophets
were social reformers or practical politicians. Their sole concern is
with religion, but it is a religion that goes very deep, and that must
express itself in social and national ethics.

It is however upon their distinctive message that the chief interest
centres, not only for the understanding of their age, but for their
permanent contribution to religion.

It is a declaration of pure ethical Monotheism. Jehovah is not simply
the tutelary deity of Israel; He is the Only God. The gods of the
other nations are not real beings; this truth is vividly expressed in
the scorn which is poured on idols and their worship. Jehovah is a
spiritual Being; therefore the crusade against the idols that had been
used in the worship of Jehovah is an outcome of prophetic teaching.
This condemnation of idols in the worship of Jehovah is not actually
met with until Hosea (xiii. 2), but that any visible form of Jehovah is
derogatory to the true conception of His glory is the only possible
deduction from prophetic teaching. We still get the naive terms that
refer to Jehovah as if He had bodily parts; but this is nothing more
than the necessary imagery which all spiritual conceptions have to
employ, and which are not mistaken by any save the most ignorant. This
purely spiritual Being fills the whole universe (Deut. x. 14; 1 Kings
viii. 27; Jer. xxiii. 24; esp. Isa. xxxi. 3, which implies more clearly
than any other statement in the Old Testament the spirituality of God,
and thus anticipates the declaration of Jesus to the woman of Samaria).
But it is with the _ethical_ character of Jehovah that they are mostly
concerned. He is righteous; which means more than the early conception
that He simply defends Israel's right. They insist on His complete
impartiality, which no choice of Israel for His own can turn aside:
"You only have I known of all the families of the earth, _therefore_
will I visit upon you all your iniquities." They fall back again
and again on His absolute fidelity and truthfulness. The arbitrary
character which is ascribed to Jehovah in the Books of Samuel has
completely disappeared; the Prophet can say: "Come and let us reason
together, saith Jehovah."

Universalism is the necessary corollary to Monotheism, but the strong
sense of Israel as His chosen instrument hinders the clear statement
of this truth by the Prophets. A particular regard for Israel still
colours their vision; but they are altogether against the popular
estimate in maintaining that this choice was made solely as a means
for reaching the whole world. Universalism is seen forming in the idea
that Jehovah is concerned with the punishment of other nations, since
He it is who will punish them for their sins; not only for their hatred
of His chosen, but for their cruelty to other nations: He will punish
Moab for his inhumanity to Edom (Amos ii. 1). This is a great advance.
Even when the surrounding nations afflict Israel it is not because the
Lord has no control over them, but it is He that raises up the hostile
powers as instruments of His chastisement. Even kinder views are to be
found in Amos, in whose tiny book we find nearly all the characteristic
ideas of the Prophets; for Jehovah is said to have been concerned in
the early migratory movements not only of the Hebrews, but of the
hated Philistines and Assyrians (Amos ix. 7). The grand universalism
of Isaiah xix. 19-25 only needs us to recall the part that Egypt and
Assyria played in the history of Israel, in order to appreciate its
magnanimity. Yet in spite of these passages, the outlook as a whole
is centred on Israel, and works of a definitely universalistic nature
could hardly have found a place in the canon. This spirit probably made
it necessary for the writer of "Jonah" to embody his universalistic
doctrines in the form of an obscure parable about a Prophet and a
whale. It was the same national bigotry that led to the rejection of
the Son of man.

It is in the idea of the conditions of the covenant between Jehovah
and Israel that the teaching of the Prophets stands in such contrast
to the conceptions of the people. That relation was conceived of, as
we have seen, as tribal; the Prophets declare it to rest on a covenant
of choice, which is to be maintained by the adherence of the parties
to the original terms. They love to place in contrast the unwearied
faithfulness of Jehovah and the fickleness of the people; while they
alternate between threats of Jehovah's complete rejection and the
recurring thought that despite all He can never change, and against
all known custom will even welcome back the harlot nation. Jehovah's
requirements from Israel, for the proper maintenance of the covenant,
are simply the full allegiance of the people; but how this is to be
displayed is not so definitely described. There must be a pure worship
of Jehovah, but this is not to find expression in accurate ritual or
great sacrifices. Indeed it cannot be claimed that the Prophets are
at all concerned about ritual. The Book of Deuteronomy distinctly
lays down that the true worship of Jehovah is to be performed at one
chosen central spot, while Leviticus provides an elaborate method of
approach, which can only be neglected at the peril of the worshipper.
On the other hand, it is certain that the Prophets found the people
worshipping at the "high places," the old Canaanitish shrines, with
many customs which would be a direct infringement of the Code of
Leviticus, yet they are entirely unconcerned with these faults. The
principle of sacrifice as a means of worship had existed from ancient
times, and is to be found in nearly all religions; yet there is an
overwhelming verdict from the pre-exilic Prophets that shows that they
are doubtful of its Divine appointment or of its necessity. (These
passages should be carefully examined:--Amos v. 25; Hosea vi. 6; Isa.
i. 11-17; Micah vi. 6-8; 1 Sam. xv. 22; Jer. vi. 20; vii. 21-23;
and Jeremiah may have been a priest!) There is only one conclusion
possible; these Prophets had never seen the Book of Leviticus.

The ritual which the Prophets seek is that of an upright life. They
base all their morality on religious ideas. The great incentive to
moral conduct is the recognition that the whole nation and land is
the property of Jehovah; any social wrong is wrong against Him. So we
find that the earliest attempt to formulate this teaching in a code
contains many regulations which are purely humanitarian (Deut. xiv. 29;
xix. 2 ff.; xxi. 10-17; xxii. 1-3; xxiv. 6, 10-15). Ritual is turned
into ethics. Against the inequalities and injustices of their day the
Prophets set their faces, with an utter disregard for consequences:
they hurled their accusations at the nation with tremendous energy, in
public, before kings, as men went up to worship; fiery denunciation
mingling with a patriot's tears; for the time, all unavailing. Yet they
have had their harvest, and to-day they are among the voices that call
men to social reform.

It will be well to endeavour to show, in the briefest possible outline,
the historic setting of this mighty message.

It was shortly after the opening of the Eighth Century that threatening
indications began to gather on the horizon of Northern Israel. The
situation called for a Prophet's message. Amos, the herdman of Tekoa,
comes like a whirlwind from Judah, utters his message at Bethel and
returns. He is the first and in many respects the greatest of that
meteoric band who illumine the dark night of Israel's history; later
Prophets repeat his words and share his ideas. Hosea, from the Northern
Kingdom, follows in his steps, but with a message made the more tender
from the fact that the whole drama of Israel's unfaithfulness to her
husband Jehovah had been brought home to him in a personal domestic
tragedy. The tender heart which led him to forgive his unfaithful wife,
wondered if Jehovah would not be equally forgiving, and through this
experience he almost penetrates to the thought of God as Love. A few
years later, a voice is heard in the villages of Judah proclaiming the
message of Amos with the same call to simple reality: Micah pleads for
simple life, simple worship, simple justice. With this transference
of the prophetic voice to the Southern Kingdom there falls an awful
silence on the North. In 722 B.C., Samaria fell before the arms of
Assyria, and Israel ceased to exist. For centuries that land was to
remain silent and despised, until there should come from Galilee of the
Gentiles He of whom all the Prophets spake. One would expect that the
awful doom which had overtaken the Northern Kingdom would not have been
without effect on Judah. Its only visible effect was the strengthening
of her belief in her own inviolability, and the acceptance of the idea
that Israel's fall was due to her separation from Judah. If a Prophet
could have turned the people's thought in a saner direction, then it
would have been accomplished by Isaiah, the most princely and the most
literary of all the Prophets. His work was not indeed without effect.
He was the means of lifting prophecy into popular favour, and a revival
followed his teaching. The chief cause of this favour was the events
of the memorable year, 701 B.C. In face of the demands of Assyria,
Isaiah had all along counselled submission and the avoidance of all
intrigues with Egypt. But the violation of the treaty by Sennacherib,
who demanded the surrender of the city after he had been bought off,
roused the anger of Isaiah. In answer to the insulting message of the
Rabshakeh, while the army lay round the city, in obedience to the word
of Jehovah he counsels resistance. Nothing seemed more improbable than
that there could be any escape for Jerusalem; nevertheless he declared
that the holy city should be inviolable. The great host with their
insolent captain lay before the gates, but in the morning

        "The Gentile, unsmote by the sword,
        Had melted like snow in the glance of the Lord."

Whatever the actual cause of the raising of the siege may have been,
there can be no doubt that something did happen to the Assyrian army
which Isaiah was able to attribute to the intervention of Jehovah,
for from this time Isaiah became famous. To those who see in the
fulfilment of prediction the chief end of prophecy this event will
naturally seem of profound importance. To another view of the function
of prophecy this is the least thing that Isaiah did, for while it
lifted his name into popular favour, that same deliverance proved a
snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. For his declaration of the
city's inviolability was remembered long after, and quoted as if it had
been of universal, instead of temporary application, while his moral
teaching was forgotten. To that trick of national memory the exile was
largely due.

From this time the sacrosanct character of the city obsessed the
popular mind, and in consequence the Temple became, for the first time
since its erection, of supreme significance in Jewish eyes. Following
Isaiah, there was a movement, commenced probably by his disciples, that
strove to bring the Temple into prominence as the one authorised place
of worship. Possibly during the reactionary reign of Manasseh, when
their master is said to have been martyred, they worked at this idea,
and driven into silence by the persecutions of the king they employed
their pens in producing a code of laws, which undoubtedly gathered into
legal form many of the customs which had existed for centuries, and
endeavoured to give them the religious interpretation of the prophetic
teaching. Its chief injunction was the suppression of the high places
as no longer authorised for the worship of Jehovah, hoping to centre
thereby the whole of the nation's worship at the Temple. This code was
probably laid up for publication in brighter days, and was discovered
in the reign of Josiah, in the year 621 B.C. There can be but little
doubt, from the reforms instituted, and from the total disregard of
them until this time, that this code was our Book of Deuteronomy. Since
it was published under the name of Moses, many moderns have looked upon
its compilation as a pious forgery. This is to read into a past age
the legal conceptions of Western civilisation. It must be remembered
that many of these laws could be legitimately traced back to Moses or
to his influence, and there was no idea of deception in using his name.
The hand of the School which produced this work can also be traced in
the compilation and redaction of other historical works, which were
undertaken with this idea of making the past history teach the value of
the reforms they wished the people to adopt. This was not only regarded
as legitimate, but as a sacred duty imposed upon them. The modern
historical ideal, which instigates research with the sole intention
of discovering the facts, is only the product of our own age, and is
still unsuccessfully striven after. The reformation under Josiah is
therefore known as the Deuteronomic reformation. From this time the
Temple becomes the only spot where God can be publicly worshipped, and
the local shrines are forbidden. This may seem an arbitrary action, and
it is possible that for some time it called forth loud complaints; but
it was certainly for the benefit of religion. It had been proved to be
impossible to dissociate the local shrines from the customs and ideas
which had descended from the original Canaanitish worship carried on
there. With a central worship it was found possible to check practices
that were not in accordance with the religion of Jehovah. The teaching
of the Prophets finds then in the Book of Deuteronomy its first-fruits
of reform.

The relation of one young man to this new movement is full of peculiar
interest and difficulty. It was at this very time that Jeremiah began
his ministry, and it is possible that he took some part in the movement
(Jer. xi. 8). He also lived to see the reaction and to prove that the
reform was only superficial. There is one passage which seems to point
to a change of view and even to the suspicion that the new code was
not authoritative (Jer. vii. 8). When Jeremiah attacked the sin of the
people, and warned them that the presence of Jehovah's Temple would
not suffice to protect them if they persisted in their iniquity, his
message was rejected and eventually he was imprisoned and silenced by a
coalition of the priests and prophets. Jeremiah ceased therefore to be
the Prophet of that nation. In his loneliness and sorrow, his thoughts
turned in an hitherto unexplored direction. He complains to God in
words which sound almost blasphemous, and pours forth expostulations
that are the reverse of the submissive spirit usually thought proper
to religion; but it is through this agony that Jeremiah discovers that
God can be something to him, not only as the Prophet of the nation,
but for himself. He discovers personal religion. His next discovery is
equally momentous; for he is led to see that no promulgation of laws
can save the nation: ordinances do not change the heart. He sorrowfully
pronounces the doom of the nation, but as he stands by its open grave
he sings of its resurrection. When purged by trial the nation shall
return, and the New Covenant shall be set up, in which Jehovah shall
write His laws in their hearts. It is a long far-off look that he
gives, and the picture is not complete until One sits at a last supper
and says: This cup is the New Covenant in my blood.




THE EFFECT OF THE EXILE


  Dates for reference:--

  B.C. 597.  Jehoiachin and 10,000 captives deported to Babylon,
               and Zedekiah made king in his stead. FIRST
               CAPTIVITY.
     587-6.  Jerusalem besieged, Zedekiah taken to Babylon, Jerusalem
               and the Temple destroyed, and the whole
               population, save the very poorest, deported to Babylon.
               SECOND CAPTIVITY.
       538.  Cyrus issues edict for Return.
             Return under Sheshbazzar (?) (Ezra i.).
       537.  Return under Zerubbabel (Ezra ii.).
       458.  Arrival of Ezra.
       445.  First Mission of Nehemiah.
       433.  Second Mission of Nehemiah.

  There is a good deal of uncertainty about the above dates, and the
  condition of the documents in Ezra-Nehemiah offers difficulties which
  have not, so far, found acceptable solutions. Some have sought to
  identify Sheshbazzar with Zerubbabel, and to bring down the date of
  the Return to 522-21.

  It will be seen from the above Table that Jeremiah's prophecy of
  Seventy Years was not literally fulfilled.

       *       *       *       *       *

  The student would receive a clear idea of the growth of Israel's
  institutions and the way in which they have been incorporated in the
  successive documents, by tracing the development of the Sabbath in
  the following passages.

  Some claim that the Records of Babylonia show that the observance
  of the seventh day as sacred goes back to the origins of primitive
  Semitic religion.

  (1) In "J-E" (which may be prior to Amos in oral form, and perhaps
  slightly later as documents): Exod. xxiii. 12; xxxiv. 21; xx. 8.

  (2) In historical books: 2 Kings iv. 22, 23; Amos viii. 5; Hosea ii.
  11; Isa. i. 13.

  (3) In "D": Deut. v. 14.

  (4) In Jer. xvii. 19-27. (Jeremiah is the first writer to show traces
  of the influence of Deuteronomy.)

  (5) In "H," The Code of Holiness (Lev. xvii.-xxvi.): Lev. xix. 3, 30;
  xxvi. 2.

  (6) In Ezek. xx. 12, 13.

  (7) In "P": Gen. ii. 1-3; Exod. xx. 10, 11; xxxi. 12-17; xxxv. 1-3;
  Lev. xxiii. 3; Num. xv. 32-36; Exod. xvi. 5, 22-30.

  (8) In post-exilic observance: Neh. xiii. 15-22; Isa. lvi. 2, 4, 6;
  lviii. 13, f.; lxvi. 23.




Lecture VII

THE EFFECT OF THE EXILE


In the year 597 B.C., a catastrophe long foretold befell the Kingdom
of Judah. Nebuchadrezzar invaded the land, took Jerusalem, and robbing
the land of every person of importance or usefulness, transported them
together with King Jehoiachin to Babylon, hoping doubtless to prevent
any further trouble with Judaea. In what a conflict of emotion must the
exiles have left that city which they had fondly imagined inviolable!
for even in Babylon they continued to believe that so long as Jerusalem
stood, Jehovah would have a citadel, and the holy city would remain a
symbolic witness to their unconquered religion. With the captives there
went a young man who was destined to leave a deep impression upon the
future of his nation--the priest Ezekiel. Arrived in Babylon, he felt
himself called to a prophetic ministry to the exiles, and his first
message was directed to the crushing of their remaining hopes; for
with dramatic symbolism he predicted that Jerusalem would be utterly
destroyed. The suicidal policy of Zedekiah, whom Nebuchadrezzar had
left to carry on the government as his vassal, soon fulfilled this
prophecy; for sedition and intrigue soon compelled Nebuchadrezzar to
adopt still stricter measures. He again marched into Judaea and besieged
Jerusalem. This time the Jews expected no mercy, and resisted with
such tenacity that the siege lasted for nearly two years. On the ninth
day of the Fourth month, (our July) 586 B.C., a day still kept with
solemn fasting by the Jews, a breach was made in the walls and the
city capitulated. A month later the entire destruction of the city and
Temple was ruthlessly carried out, and the whole population, with the
exception of a few husbandmen, was deported to swell the company of
exiles now at Babylon.

This was the inevitable culmination of the policy of the Kingdom of
Judah under her latest monarchs. The position of their land laid
them open to conflicts with the powers of Assyria and Babylon. The
wise and peaceful policy of Solomon had been departed from, and
indeed rendered impossible by the disruption of the Tribes. A period
of national decadence seems to have followed, in which luxury and
corruption undermined all political sanity, and both rulers and people
became blind to the dangers that threatened. Such religion as existed,
only expressed itself in bursts of fanaticism, and filled the people
with the fatal idea that Jehovah would never suffer the Temple to be
violated or the holy city to be taken.

The disaster of the Exile is charged by the Prophets to the unrepented
sins of the nation, and while this is a religious interpretation it is
not unsupported by a review of the history. The people had set their
hearts upon a glorious kingdom of material prosperity, presided over
and protected by a mighty national deity; the Prophets wanted a kingdom
of righteousness, which would reflect the character of Jehovah and be
a witness to the nations of His reality and power. While they saw in
the Exile a calamity which meant the destruction of the nation, and an
evidence that Jehovah had broken His covenant because of disobedience,
they clung to the belief that the end for which Jehovah had chosen
Israel might still be attained. That nation might be destroyed, yet
from its ruins there would arise a Kingdom of God; a remnant would
return, weaned from a false religion, to work out a new ideal of
holiness and service.

The period which follows is one of great obscurity and the records
which are actually dated from this time are scanty. Literary criticism
however throws great light on this period because it believes that
it is from the Exile that we are to date many institutions and
writings that have been referred to a previous age. This may seem
at first sight a desperate device, since so little is known of the
actual conditions; and yet unfettered investigation can arrive at no
other conclusion, the exilic stamp being often unmistakable and even
showing itself in geographical outlook (1 Kings iv. 24). If we take
the Bible as it stands, it presents us with the story of an early
legislation given by Moses, neglected however by the entire people,
including the Reformers and Prophets, until it suddenly appears after
the Exile as the acknowledged code for the regulation of religion and
common life. It would be quite possible to conceive that the shock
of the Exile drove the Jews to examine the details of the neglected
covenant of Jehovah and to restore the authority of the Law of Moses.
Such however is impossible, not only from that fact that there is no
mention of the Law of Moses in the records that can be dated between
the Conquest of Canaan and the Exile, but that in this period we can
discern customs and ideas _gradually_ growing up that find their full
and final embodiment in the Pentateuch as we now possess it. From the
lawless condition of the Judges and the early monarchy, we advance to
the teaching of the Prophets. It is Isaiah who contributes the ideas
which lie at the basis of the Deuteronomic Code, and the time of Josiah
is the first to show the influence of that code. Ezekiel is the first
to show any trace of the ideas which we find embodied in Leviticus,
but these, as we shall see, have to be explained as anticipations of,
rather than as an acquaintance with, the finished Levitical Code.

When we consider what effect the Exile would have upon the more
thoughtful of the Jews, we can imagine that conscience would be
shocked into activity, and a new interest would be taken in their
strange history, especially in its prophetic interpretation. It is
common in history to find that repentance rarely goes so deep as to
grasp the inner meaning of its discovered sin, but is apt to content
itself with somewhat superficial methods of showing its sincerity and
securing future compliance with religion. So at least, the records
of Israel's history assure us, happened in this instance, and one of
the resolutions of their penitence took concrete form in the writing
or editing of their history so that it should be a warning to the
future, and in codifying customs and drawing up regulations which
should make apostasy for ever impossible. Many references in the
ancient records or in the oral tradition which savoured of idolatry or
of a too anthropomorphic conception of God were corrected, as those
references, the tendency of which was not detected, have remained to
bear witness; and the whole history was fitted somewhat clumsily into
a mechanical scheme, which was rather what they thought ought to have
happened than what really did happen. One example of this may be seen
in the condemnation which is naively passed on king after king because
he had allowed sacrifice to be made at the high places; the fact being
that this was not made illegitimate until the reign of Josiah. In
this way external offences were marked and abandoned, while the deeper
incongruity between the national religion and the teaching of the
Prophets was missed.

If we seek in this period for the rise of ideas which shall bridge over
the change from the popular religion on the one hand, and the religion
of Jeremiah on the other, to the complete unity of the national
religion under Nehemiah and Ezra, we shall find a most important link
in the Book of Ezekiel.

The Book of Ezekiel is said to be the least read book in the Bible,
yet its author plays a most important part in the history of Israel's
religion, and to grasp the position which he occupies is to have a
focus point from which the whole development may be conveniently
grasped. The Prophet probably got a better hearing from his
contemporaries than any of his predecessors. He accompanied the body
of captives who left Jerusalem for Babylon in the year 597, and his
works date from soon after that year and go down to about 570. The men
to whom he was called to speak were therefore his fellow captives, and
he had not to look far for a text for his sermons. His hearers were in
Babylon for their sins, and they knew it. His style of preaching is
difficult, and his method of embodying his message in visions marks
a new phenomenon in Israel's religion. He states truth in strange
and fanciful figures, a method which was to form an example for the
later works of Judaism, and if we detect in Ezekiel a return to the
extravagance of the earlier prophecy, we must make allowance for the
tragic times in which he lived; especially must we do this where we
trace a falling off from his predecessors in moral insight and in the
ritualistic influence which his work undoubtedly left behind him.

Ezekiel continues the work of the pre-exilic Prophets in that he
proclaims their characteristic doctrines, and naturally he shows
distinct traces of the influence of Jeremiah. What is new, is that
he gives to those doctrines a more fixed and somewhat pedantic form,
and a greater self-consciousness is discernible; the prophecies are
accurately arranged, and the language is marked by precision; rhetoric
is less frequent, and the prophecies look more fit for reading than for
delivery. The idea of God is the same as in the earlier Prophets, but
in Ezekiel it is elevated and rarified; especially is great emphasis
laid upon the attribute of holiness, which is however a ceremonial
rather than a purely ethical conception. The characteristic idea of the
Prophets, that Jehovah chose Israel not for their own sakes, becomes
the idea that Jehovah did this for His own sake alone, and this is
so often repeated that it almost looks like arbitrariness. The cause
of Judah's punishment is still traced to the sin of the people, but
that sin is now definitely determined to be idolatry; and this is
insisted on almost to the exclusion of the social and ethical wrongs
assailed by the earlier Prophets. While, however, Ezekiel enforces
the bitter lessons of the Exile, he carefully distinguishes the true
interpretation of that disaster from that which rose readily to the
popular mind. He disposes of the conception that the Captivity was due
to the inability of Jehovah to defend His own land (xxxvi. 20); it was
a punishment for sin (xxxix. 23), and in His own time He will prove
this by restoring them to their land again (xxxix. 25). Neither will
he allow them to rest in the flattering thought that they were only
suffering for the unvisited sins of a former generation; he insists,
probably with greater rigour than experience would sanction, that each
man bears his own sin, and never suffers for the sins of others. But to
those who admit the justice of his charges, and who therefore regard
the future as hopeless, he preaches a tender doctrine of forgiveness
and the possibility of cleansing from sin. From the events of his
times, he seeks to draw lessons which should redeem the mistakes that
had been made in the past: the teaching of the Prophets must be kept
before the people in definite rules and religious ceremonies. Old
customs, whose original significance had long been forgotten, were
invested with new interpretations worthy of the true religion of
Jehovah, and were made not only customs, but religious commands. In the
book which bears his name, and especially in chapters xl.-xlviii., he
outlines a policy in which the whole of national life is comprehended
in its religious significance, and thus the calamity of future apostasy
prevented. The new State is to centre round the idea of worship: the
Temple with its services and appointments is to be the expression of
the national life. Now in this scheme there is little doubt that we
have the beginning of the Levitical system, for Ezekiel is related to
Leviticus as the rough sketch to the finished plan. If Leviticus in its
present form existed in Ezekiel's time, then the work of the Prophet
was not only entirely unnecessary, but careless and presumptuous. Some
of the facts which point to the priority of Ezekiel to the Levitical
Code may be noticed. In the Levitical Code we find that a distinction
is made between priests and Levites. This is not found in Deuteronomy
(xvii. 9, 18; xviii. 1) but is first found in Ezekiel (xliv. 10-15),
where it is explained to be due to the degradation of the Levites
as a punishment for leading the people into idolatry; in Leviticus
we reach the final stage, where the distinction is accepted without
explanation. In Ezekiel we have no mention of the high-priest or of
the Day of Atonement, both of which figure so largely in the Priest's
Code, although we can find _foreshadowings_ of the Day of Atonement
(Ezek. xlv. 18-20). Indeed we meet with no mention of the Day of
Atonement, apart from the Priestly Code, until Zechariah (vii. 5; viii.
19). The general conclusion may be safely drawn, that during and after
the Exile, Ezekiel's ideas were stiffened and developed into the full
legislation now preserved for us in Leviticus.

We may rightly claim Ezekiel to be the founder of Judaism, with
its transcendent conception of Jehovah and its great attention to
ceremonial detail, and we are bound therefore to recognise in Ezekiel a
falling off from the ideals of the pre-exilic Prophets; he is a prophet
in priest's clothing. Yet it may be questioned whether the idealistic
teaching of the Prophets could have been preserved through the periods
of the Exile and the Restoration, without this formal process. An outer
husk of formality had to develop in order that the living kernel might
be protected during the critical years when Persia, Greece, and Rome
were to press their alien ideas upon this people. It has been well for
the world that Ezekiel clothed the Prophets' teaching in the resisting
garments of Judaism.

The Exile could not fail to leave upon the Jewish nation an
imperishable mark, and they emerged from that trial a different
people. It was a shock that brought a repentance the Prophets had
often laboured for in vain, and this repentance was marked by the
initiation of many new movements in thought, and by a more stringent
and solemn observance of their peculiar institutions. Probably in that
alien land many of the Jews adopted the customs of their conquerors,
since it is estimated that not more than a small fraction returned
to Palestine. This defection would impress upon those who remained
faithful the necessity for a strict policy of separation, and from this
time certain institutions which had been inherited from ancient Semitic
practice received a new meaning. Chief among these may be noticed the
observance of the Sabbath, and the rite of circumcision. The observance
of a certain day as sacred to the gods is a custom that is found in
nearly all early religions, and there are traces of such an observance
in the Babylonian religion. We do not find however in the historical
books of the Bible that mention of the Sabbath which would be expected,
if it was observed with the strictness common after the Exile. There
are traces of an observance, not strictly defined, save that it is
in association with the new moon feasts, and is combined with social
relaxation (2 Kings iv. 22, 23; Hosea ii. 11; Amos viii. 5; Isa. i.
13). Even before the Exile however a more religious conception had
arisen (Jer. xvii. 19-27), and is even then referred to as an earlier
command. The change after the Exile was towards an ever increasing
strictness (Isa. lvi. 2, 4, 6; lviii. 13; lxvi. 23; Neh. xiii. 15-22).

The rite of circumcision was by no means peculiar to the Jewish
religion (Jer. ix. 25, 26), except perhaps in so far as it was
performed in infancy: its origin and growth are very obscure. Its
original significance was early lost and its interpretation was
probably due to the Prophets themselves, who often referred to a
spiritual circumcision, and thus made possible the full ceremonial
interpretation which became so important a feature in later Judaism.

We have seen that there is evidence to prove that the religion of
Israel had not always been averse to the use of idols as part of the
legitimate worship of Jehovah. The Prophets began the protest against
this, not so much because of its principles, but because of the immoral
practices with which idol worship was connected. But after the Exile,
idolatry was for ever separated from the worship of Jehovah, and in
the later Prophets idolatry becomes the target for their most scornful
invective. It has been suggested that this new abhorrence accounts for
the non-return of the Ark, which in this period disappears from history.

Among the most important of the new institutions that can be traced
back to the period of the Exile is the founding of the Synagogue.
In the land of Exile, away from the one spot where sacrifice was
permitted, worship had to be carried on without the aid of sacrificial
or ceremonial rites, but there was nothing to prevent the people from
gathering together for prayer or to hear read their newly reverenced
prophetic books. It is quite possible that this led to a collection of
the Prophets' writings being made, and perhaps to some editing to meet
their present needs. This movement was of profound importance for the
future development of religion, for it was in the Synagogue rather than
in the Temple that Christianity was to find the readiest medium for its
dissemination and the earliest model for its worship. The Synagogue
itself prepared the way for the more spiritual developments within
Judaism, for away from the Temple sacrifices and their always dangerous
suggestions men learned that the sacrifice of the broken heart was more
acceptable to Jehovah; and so the way was prepared for that magnificent
collection of prayers and songs which we call the Psalms, which were
afterwards to be used as an accompaniment to a form of worship that
they frequently condemn. The external and legal conceptions were,
however, to be the most visible results gained from the Exile, and they
were to mould religion for many a year.

The materials for an exact history of the return from Exile do not
exist in our Bibles; the accounts found in Ezra and Nehemiah raise
questions which have not yet been satisfactorily answered. The Prophets
who had foretold the destruction of the kingdom of Judah had never
been able to rest in the thought that this was the final chapter in
Jehovah's dealings with His people, and their faith forced them to peer
through this impending disaster and dimly discern a purpose yet to
be disclosed. This is often pictured in merely general terms, but in
Jeremiah and Ezekiel these hopes issued in the definite prophecy of the
restoration of the Jews to their own land within a certain period. When
political changes brought this on the horizon of possibility, the times
wakened the "voice of one crying in the wilderness," in some respects
the most wonderful of all that noble band we have been studying.
The name of this herald has not been preserved, but he is known to
criticism as the Second Isaiah. This does not of course mean that he
bore that name, but it is a convenient designation for the writings
that occupy the second half of the work included under the name of
Isaiah. The separation of chapters xl.-lxvi. from those which precede,
as from different hands, is one of the most universally accepted
results of criticism. The preceding chapters end with a historic
survey of events that happened in the lifetime of the great Isaiah of
Jerusalem, and then suddenly the whole outlook and atmosphere change.
Critics claim that the test of language and style is itself decisive,
but while this must remain a question on which only Hebrew experts are
qualified to pronounce, the difference of theological ideas, and the
change of situation cannot be missed by any attentive English reader.
Indeed that the situation has changed is a fact which has never been
challenged. From chapter xl., the audience addressed consists no longer
of the proud and scornful peoples of the time of Hezekiah, but of
penitent captives far from their native land some 150 years later; the
accepted explanation used to be that Isaiah transported himself to this
later time by a miracle of prophetic inspiration. But there is really
only one adducible reason for attributing this prophecy to Isaiah:
it is bound up with the book that bears his name as the title. This
reason is of little value when we admit our ignorance of the method
by which the Old Testament was finally edited, and when the internal
evidence entirely contradicts the traditional theory. For it must be
borne in mind that the explanation that this is due to a prophetic
transportation is only a hypothesis framed to fit the conditions, and
has no claim to acceptance if there can be found one that does equal
justice to the facts without appealing to such an unusual method.
Moreover, the hypothesis of prediction does not fit the facts, for
while some parts of the prophecy have predictive form, others have not.
For instance, the picture of Cyrus and his conquests, complete even
to the name of the hero, is not only presented as if he were on the
stage of actual history, but his appearance is adduced as a convincing
evidence of the fulfilment of prophecy. What fulfilment would it be
if Cyrus was yet a figure of the unknown future? If it is claimed
that this presentation is due to what is known to Hebrew grammarians
as a use of the _prophetic present tense_, in which things future in
fact, are stated as present, owing to the vividness of the prophetic
consciousness, then we must ask why it is that Cyrus is presented as
a figure of contemporary history, while the fall of Babylon is still
spoken of as future. This distinction would be meaningless if the whole
of this period was seen from some anterior time.

The "settled results" of criticism were greatly ridiculed when further
investigation pronounced that only chapters xl.-lv. can have come
from this great Prophet, and that the remainder of the book is of a
composite character, extending at least to the time of the Second
Temple. To have to bring in a third author, or even more, to explain
this book is quoted as an example of the foolishness of criticism. Now
the critics _may_ be wrong, but their theories are simply endeavours to
understand these prophecies by setting them in their exact historical
surroundings. Surely this is a task worthy of any reverent student of
the Old Testament, and if it brings, as many believe, wonderful light
on these messages, and thus sets free their eternal significance,
then these men should earn gratitude rather than ridicule, when the
difficulty of their task calls for a continual rearrangement and a
finer adjustment.

The critical reconstruction of this prophecy therefore places chapters
xl.-lv. among the scenes it depicts, and in the very history whose
movements called it forth. The exact conditions can be discerned. After
the death of Nebuchadrezzar the kingdom of the Chaldaeans began to
decline, and when Cyrus succeeded to the throne of Persia its fate was
determined. His victorious campaigns, culminating in the fall of Sardis
in B.C. 547, could not fail to reach the ears of the exiles in Babylon,
and many a whisper of hope must have been exchanged, and many a
prophecy handed on. Babylon itself fell before the conqueror in 538 and
between these two dates, and perhaps nearer to the latter, the internal
witness of the prophecy demands that it should be placed.

When we turn to examine the work of this unknown messenger we cannot
help noticing the difference in style, which even the translation
cannot obscure. The great Isaiah writes in terse, closely-packed
sentences, with all the authoritative manner customary with the
Prophets. This writer, on the other hand, is rhetorical, and loves
to dwell on his favourite ideas. The sharp word of the prophetic
deliverance here gives way to a reasoning exposition and a pleading
tenderness that makes this prophecy a Gospel before the Gospels. The
distinctive religious ideas can be easily marked. Absolute Monotheism
is insisted on with a fulness and repetition which shows that it is in
some degree a new truth. There is none beside Jehovah; He is alone,
unique; and description is exhausted in the endeavour to picture His
glory and power. He is now constantly referred to as the Creator of the
world, the framer of the stars on high, the maker of both darkness and
light, both good and evil; so that no room is left for the dualism that
the Prophet may have learned to despise in the Babylonian religion. His
finest scorn is reserved for the conception that an idol can have any
claim to divinity. He depicts the process of their manufacture, their
utter helplessness; it may be that he had seen them borne in to the
capital as the suburbs fell before the invader.

Universalism struggles for expression in this writer, but it is not
always so clear and definite as in the writings of the great Isaiah.
This arises however, not so much from the racial prejudices that have
so clogged the Hebrew mind, as from a reading of Israel's history which
the prophet was well entitled to make, namely, that she was to be the
premier nation in the instruction of the world in righteousness and
the knowledge of God, the priest-nation of humanity. This conception
of the nation's history and destiny is embodied in a personification
known as the Servant of Jehovah. Israel has been chosen as the Servant
so that the light may be brought to the nations. In this mission the
Servant meets with persecution, yet turns not back from those who
pluck off the hair nor hides his face from shame and spitting. The
slightest retrospect of Israel's history shows that the Servant of
Jehovah was trained for his task only through suffering. Israel had
suffered for her sins of presumption and disobedience; but were the
nations who punished her any more righteous? Moreover, many of those
who sat down by the waters of Babylon and wept when they remembered
Zion must have been pious and righteous, and innocent of the causes
of their nation's calamities. As the prophet broods over the meaning
of the Exile, as it affected the godly remnant, he begins to see that
this suffering, undeserved though it might be in particular cases,
would become a supreme lesson in righteousness to the world. This
assumption is embodied in the astonishing drama of the suffering
Servant; one who suffers from a disfiguring disease, which marks him
out to all beholders as the afflicted of Jehovah, and who is therefore
despised and rejected of men. But the day comes when the idea slowly
dawns upon men that this servant-nation suffered for the sake of the
world, bore the consciousness of sin when other nations lived in
carelessness and flourished on cruelty. The Prophet believed that
this patient suffering would be an awakening force and would be the
means of bringing the world to the knowledge of God. It is a marvellous
reading of Israel's history; but it is true, for that little nation
despised and rejected by Empires, battered by the armed forces which
surrounded her, has made the whole world her debtor. But indirectly
this interpretation is a revelation of the meaning of all history, and
especially of that strange law of vicarious suffering which binds all
the world one and makes every new age in debt to the past. This unknown
writer has contributed one of the most fruitful ideas to the philosophy
of history.

It is not surprising that most early commentators have tried to read
in the 53rd chapter a picture, not of a nation, but of some definite
person; although the Prophet definitely identifies the Servant of
the Lord with Israel (Isa. xli. 8). But when did Israel embody such
a conception? It can only stand for an ideal of what Israel ought to
have been; and there have been many things which have entered into
the composition of the picture. It has been suggested that one of the
Prophets sat for this picture, just as sometimes an artist painting a
symbolical picture will get one of his friends to sit for the model;
and who could be better for this purpose than Jeremiah, the rejected
of the nation? The interpretation that finds in this picture a minute
prediction of the life and passion of Jesus is not sanctioned by a
careful study of the passage; but the instinct that has led to this
is right in the main, for as we travel down the ages looking for the
fulfilment of this ideal, we only rest with complete satisfaction on
the story of the life and death of One who stepping out from this very
race, by His uninterrupted communion with God, His hatred of sin and
His profound sympathy with mankind, bore away the sin of the world on
the red flood of sacrifice, and brought in for ever the true Kingdom of
God.

An increasing number of Old Testament scholars believe that another
of the Prophets contains an interpretation of the Exile, conceived in
the same spirit as that of the Second Isaiah, although veiled under
such a strange allegorical form that centuries of Jewish and Christian
interpretation have entirely missed its meaning. The book of the
Prophet Jonah belongs to a later age, and should probably stand last of
all the Minor Prophets, but the critical interpretation of the prophecy
falls naturally to be considered here. The character of the Book
reveals on close inspection that it was never intended for history;
as its inclusion among the prophetical writings perhaps recognises.
It is not only the improbability of the whale episode that has led to
this conclusion, but the whole character of the events narrated: the
sudden growth and withering of the gourd, the instant repentance of
the Ninevites, which included a forced regime of fasting even for the
cattle! Moreover, the closing words of the book breathe a spirit of
universalism and humanity that is almost the high-water mark of Old
Testament inspiration, and this encourages the reader to look for some
deeper meaning in the rest of the book. The story as interpreted by
critical methods is that Jonah is the nation of Israel, chosen to be
a missionary nation to the heathen. On refusing the task which Divine
selection had marked out for her she is thrown into exile, and has been
restored for the purpose of carrying out her original mission. This
is here symbolised by the whale swallowing Jonah, who on being cast
up proceeded on his neglected commission, though still with little
love for his work. The imagery is crude and may strike the reader as
exceedingly improbable, until his attention is drawn to the fact that
the whale or sea-monster plays a great part in Old Testament imagery
and is once actually used as a symbol of the Exile. "Nebuchadrezzar
the King of Babylon hath devoured me, ... he hath swallowed me up
like a dragon, ... he hath cast me out.... I will do judgment upon
Bel in Babylon, and I will bring out of his mouth that which he hath
swallowed up" (Jer. li. 34, 44). With this interpretation as a clue,
the book becomes luminous. It is an apology for the Gentiles who are
shown to be capable of repentance; Israel is blamed for her grudging
estimate of the heathen, for her refusal to convey to them the light
which she enjoyed, and for her fear lest others should share the favour
of Jehovah. Perhaps the symbolic character of the book was adopted,
because the author knew that if such truths were boldly stated they
would never be received by his age; and so he hoped that the truth
might enter in through an interesting story of wonder and adventure.
It can hardly be claimed that the author has been successful; for the
Jews resisted the universalism of the Son of Man and the propagandist
methods of the Apostle Paul, while Christendom has been far more
concerned in proving that a whale can swallow a man, than in carrying
out the command to evangelise those who know not their right hand from
their left.




THE WORK OF THE PRIESTS


  The following passage (Exod. vii. 14-25) illustrates the attempt to
  disintegrate the various documents ("J" is indicated by roman type,
  "E" by _italics_, and "P" by CAPITALS).

  "And Yahwe said unto Moses, Pharaoh's heart is stubborn, he refuseth
  to let the people go. _Get thee unto Pharaoh in the morning; lo,
  he goeth out unto the water; and thou shalt stand by the river's
  brink to meet him; and the rod which was turned to a serpent shalt
  thou take into thine hand._ And thou shalt say unto him, Yahwe, the
  God of the Hebrews, hath sent me unto thee, saying, Let my people
  go, that they may serve me in the wilderness: and, behold, hitherto
  thou hast not hearkened. Thus saith Yahwe, in this thou shalt know
  that I am Yahwe: behold, I will smite ... _with the rod that is in
  mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be
  turned to blood_. And the fish that is in the river shall die, and
  the river shall stink; and the Egyptians shall loathe to drink water
  from the river. AND YAHWE SAID UNTO MOSES, SAY UNTO AARON, TAKE THY
  ROD, AND STRETCH OUT THINE HAND OVER THE WATERS OF EGYPT, OVER THEIR
  RIVERS, OVER THEIR STREAMS, AND OVER THEIR POOLS, AND OVER ALL THEIR
  PONDS OF WATER, THAT THEY MAY BECOME BLOOD; AND THERE SHALL BE BLOOD
  THROUGHOUT ALL THE LAND OF EGYPT, BOTH IN VESSELS OF WOOD AND IN
  VESSELS OF STONE. AND MOSES AND AARON DID SO, AS YAHWE COMMANDED;
  _and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the
  river; in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants;
  and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood_.
  And the fish that was in the River died; and the river stank, and
  the Egyptians could not drink water from the river; AND THE BLOOD
  WAS THROUGHOUT ALL THE LAND OF EGYPT. AND THE MAGICIANS OF EGYPT
  DID IN LIKE MANNER WITH THEIR ENCHANTMENTS: AND PHARAOH'S HEART WAS
  HARDENED, AND HE HEARKENED NOT UNTO THEM; AS YAHWE HAD SPOKEN. _And
  Pharaoh turned and went into his house, neither did he lay even this
  to heart._ And all the Egyptians digged round about the river for
  water to drink; for they could not drink of the water of the river.
  And seven days were fulfilled, after that Yahwe had smitten the
  river."

Notes:--The account in "J" evidently had nothing about the water being
turned into blood. Yahwe himself will smite the river (_Ye' or_; the
Nile) so that the fish will die. "The river" probably stood after
"smite ..." in "J."

In "E" Moses is commanded to smite with his rod, and the Nile will be
turned into blood. In verse 17 _thine_ must have stood in the original
and was altered to "mine" when the documents were pieced together.

In "P" Aaron is to take the rod, and now all the rivers of Egypt, and
even the water in the houses, is to be turned into blood.

Notice the formal repetition in "P."




Lecture VIII

THE WORK OF THE PRIESTS


We have seen that the Exile produced two important prophetical works.
The one is a vision of a restored Jewish state, contemplated under the
guise of a Church rather than as a Nation; the work of the priestly
Prophet Ezekiel. The other is incorporated in the second half of the
prophecies ascribed to Isaiah; the author is unknown, but the work is
an attempt to interpret the calamitous history of the Exile in such
a fashion that the nation might be led to take as its ideal for the
future, the Servant of Jehovah, the bearer of light to the nations
of the world. The outlook in these two works is entirely different,
yet both seem to have called forth a school which endeavoured to work
out their ideals, but the school of Ezekiel obtained a more immediate
recognition and exerted the greater influence on the nation. For the
first time in Israel's history a prophet is found who is concerned with
matters of ritual, the regulation of a priesthood, and the details of
ecclesiasticism. Ezekiel endeavoured to secure the reforms demanded by
the Prophets, not only by the effect of his own preaching, but by the
formation of definite organisations and the establishment of certain
customs. The priestly school which followed Ezekiel and developed his
conceptions, possessed sufficient prestige to persuade the nation that
their scheme was of Divine authority. Their work was carried on during
and after the Exile, but with the exception of Ezra, the names of
the authors have not been preserved. In the Bible history their work
suddenly appears under the name of "the law of Moses" in 444 B.C. The
first certain mention of the recognition and observance of this law is
found in Nehemiah (viii.), where a memorable scene is described. Ezra
the Scribe, "the writer of the words of the commandments of the Lord
and of his statutes to Israel" (Ezra vii. 11), has come from Babylon,
bringing with him the law of Moses. The people are gathered together
on a certain day, and from morning to noon, the law is read in their
hearing, with such comments and explanations as seemed necessary. The
immediate result of this publication was the discovery that important
provisions had been neglected and commands very seriously transgressed,
and there followed such grief and alarm among those who listened, that
it was difficult for the authorities to persuade the people to abandon
their mourning and rejoice in the fact that the law had now been made
known to them. On the morrow a further reading took place, when they
discovered that on that very day they ought to be keeping a feast of
tabernacles. The feast was therefore observed for the appointed time
of eight days, and it is expressly noted that this had not been done
since the time of Joshua. Other reforms were immediately set in motion;
marriage with those not of pure Jewish blood was not only forbidden
but, where such had actually been contracted, an immediate dissolution
was enforced; a tax of one third of a shekel was levied for the upkeep
of the Temple Services, and the law of the Sabbath was rigorously
enforced. Now this picture was not written by a contemporary, and
critics have found such difficulty in discovering the exact historical
facts that considerable doubt has been aroused, not only concerning the
historicity of this event, but even concerning the existence of Ezra
himself. But it is certain that in the Fifth Century B.C., laws were
obeyed and institutions were recognised, of which we have no record,
outside the Pentateuch, in the earlier historical books. The question
to be answered is: What was that "law of Moses" which Ezra brought to
Jerusalem and read to the people? Later Judaism calls the first five
books of the Bible "the Law of Moses," and for centuries both Jewish
and Christian scholars have identified Ezra's law with these books,
have supposed that they existed from the time of Moses downwards, but
were entirely neglected by the Jews until this time. Modern research
is compelled to dissent altogether from this tradition. Our purpose in
this book prevents us from discussing the details of this controversy,
but in addition to what has been already said in an earlier lecture,
the main results of critical study on the origin of the Law may be
outlined.

From the time occupied by Ezra in reading his law it is inferred that
it could hardly have been our first five books of the Bible; and
since to carry out the laws contained in them would involve endless
discussion because of their contradictory character (compare for
example the directions for keeping the feast of Tabernacles in Deut.
xvi. 13, 15, which commands seven days, with Lev. xxiii. 39, which adds
an eighth day for a solemn assembly; compare also the account in 1
Kings viii. 66, with 2 Chron. vii. 8, 10), it is thought that this law
of Ezra must have been much smaller than the Pentateuch, and much more
homogeneous. The Pentateuch not only contains more than "laws," but
even the legal sections bear the marks of such widely different aims
and conditions that we are compelled to assume a gradual collection,
with continual redaction and codification, in order to account for
the various phenomena. The earliest strata may go back to a great
antiquity, and the customs themselves must often be primitive Semitic
survivals, but the critical contention is that, as a whole, the "Law
of Moses" owes its present form to an age later than the Exile, and
somewhat later than Ezra himself; for Ezra's code has itself been
revised (compare Neh. x. 32, where a third of a shekel is appointed,
with Exod. xxx. 13, where it has increased to half a shekel), before it
was amalgamated with the Pentateuch in its existing form.

The critical basis for this theory of the gradual formation of the law
is found first in the fact that the legislation of the Pentateuch is
not homogeneous: it is so contradictory that to carry out the law as
it stands would be found impossible. It is claimed that the presence
of the various strata can be detected by the numerous repetitions
(_e.g._, the commandments exist in three recensions: Exod. xx. 1-17;
xxxiv. 17-28; Deut. v. 6-21); by the use of different names for God, by
the difference in language and style, and by the change in theological
conceptions; and moreover, that these different strata can be roughly
assigned to various ages, which can be actually confirmed by the record
of their observance in the historical books (compare the provisions
made for the Ark in Exod. xxv.-xl.; Num. iii.-iv., with its actual
treatment in 1 Sam.).

The different strata of the laws, and the ages to which they may be
roughly assigned, are as follows:--The earliest code of laws is said
to be that of the "Book of the Covenant" (Exod. xxiv. 7), found in
Exod. xx. 20-xxiii. 33. The primitive character of this code can be
discerned, by the comparison of its directions for worship with those
of later ages. It sanctioned the erection of rude altars at any place
where Jehovah had been revealed, whereas in later codes no place except
the one chosen spot can be used for worship, and the altar must be of
highly specialised construction (compare Exod. xx. 24-26 and Deut.
xii. 4-24, with Exod. xxvii. 1-8). Now it is precisely this informal
worship, which could be performed by any one and at any place, that
appears to have been the custom until the time of the reformation
under Josiah; and in his times, and as the cause of his reform, the
critics place the Book of Deuteronomy, v.-xxvi.; for it presupposes
the teaching of the prophets and is the programme followed by Josiah.
Then next follows "the Law of Holiness" (Lev. xvii.-xxvi.); which is
either the outcome of Ezekiel's work or is shortly prior to it; anyhow,
the connection is close. Then in 444 B.C. appears the code of Ezra,
which was afterwards developed and set in a brief narrative describing
the historical preparation for the law and its actual deliverance by
Moses; this document of history and laws is known for convenience as
the Priestly Code, and is denoted by the letter "P." The editorial
framework of the completed Hexateuch (the first six books of the
Bible), is of the same stamp as the Priests' Code, and the date of its
final compilation must not be put very much later than Ezra, since
the Samaritan Pentateuch probably goes back to the Fourth Century,
from which date it can claim an independent existence. It is this
work of the Priests that we are now to examine. "P" is to be found at
present scattered throughout the Hexateuch, and embraces nearly the
whole of Leviticus, Numbers and a good portion of Exodus; is found in
many scattered passages in Genesis and in a small portion of Joshua
and Judges, especially, in the latter case, in the closing chapters;
there is only a very little in Deuteronomy. Although not the work of
one hand, these passages can be detected by their unity of motive,
the uniform phraseology, the priestly outlook, and their concern with
legal and ritualistic regulations. The style is stereotyped, measured,
and prosaic, and is rendered somewhat monotonous by the repetition of
stated formulae. The theological ideas are dominated by the thought of
the awful holiness of God and the danger that there lies in approaching
Him in any other than the ordained way.

What were the sources from which this code drew its material? It is not
suggested that the code was simply _invented_ during the Exile. Many
of the legal commands concerning uncleanness, leprosy, and marriage
are really ancient customs, and only owed their _codification_ to
this late age; for they reflect a low stage of culture, and their
rites of purification are primitive. Again sacrifice had been
performed as far back as Semitic history can be traced, and customs
which had persisted were now simply tabulated and their form fixed.
Many of the sacrificial rites prescribed in the code still bear the
marks of their early origin, especially in the case of the burnt
and the peace-offerings, but the law of the sin-offering shows
artificial elaboration. Undoubtedly when Solomon's Temple was built
a new sacrificial ritual would be developed more in keeping with the
splendour of the edifice, and as the Temple increased in prestige, and
when under Isaiah's influence it became the one spot at which sacrifice
could be performed, the priestly caste would keep the rite in their
own hands and perform it with more care; and all this would become the
basis for a new ritualistic legislation. The minuteness of the Priestly
Code often gives the impression of a record of exact history, but a
careful examination of such measurements as are given in the case of
the Ark or the Tabernacle do not confirm the historical accuracy; for
the Tabernacle cannot be made exactly as described, and if it could
be, would neither stand up, nor be suitable for the purpose for which
it was intended, nor be able to be transported through the desert. It
is simply a tent-like model of the Temple projected into the early
history on the theory that the worship which existed in the writer's
time was that which had always existed. The artificial conception of
the history which "P" follows can of course be seen, if we separate
the various strata of the first six books in the Bible, but it can be
seen without this difficult and controversial method by comparing the
history of Kings with Chronicles: the one written largely before and
the other entirely after the legislation of "P" had been accepted. The
law of the Day of Atonement is almost entirely late, and originated in
the deepened sense of guilt produced during the Exile; neither is there
any trace of its observance until that time.

A difficult question has arisen concerning the date of this legislation
since the discovery of the Code of Hammurabi. Hammurabi was a
Babylonian king who lived somewhere about 2,250 B.C., and who has been
identified by some with the Amraphael of Gen. xiv. His code reveals a
fairly advanced stage of civilisation and morality existing in Babylon
at that time, but its chief interest for us is found in the fact that
many of the laws concerning common life, marriage, etc., are not only
like the laws of the Bible, but in some cases are verbally similar.
This phenomenon demands some theory of contact between the two codes,
but no theory has yet been found that explains all the facts. The idea
of direct borrowing on either side can hardly be taken seriously,
and the correspondence between the two codes hardly requires that;
so that the question is narrowed to one of influence. This influence
would seem to be most natural in the time of the Exile, were it not
that the strictly exclusive spirit then developed by the Jews makes it
unthinkable. There remains either the explanation of a common basis
for the two codes, traceable to their Semitic origin, or what has
received the greater support from scholars, the idea that the influence
of Hammurabi's laws on Israel's legislation is to be traced through
the former inhabitants of Canaan. To understand how this is possible,
we must remember that it is now known that Babylon had predominating
influence over Western Palestine before the conquest of Canaan by the
Hebrews; that the inhabitants of the land were much more civilised
than their conquerors; and that the invaders did not exterminate the
inhabitants, but quietly effected a settlement among them and adopted
many of their customs.

While on the subject of the influence of Babylon it will be convenient
to notice here that this influence is not confined to legal matters,
but can be traced in certain legendary elements in the Old Testament.
The ideal of the Priests' Code would not tolerate heathen mythology
that could be detected as such, to appear in its work, and yet
there are definite traces of such mythology to be found in "P"s
account of the creation in Gen. i. The discovery of the libraries of
Assurbanipal has brought to light records of a mythological cosmogony
which, while utterly different in conception and spirit from Genesis,
is sufficiently similar to suggest some degree of connection. This
Babylonian Epic of creation deals not so much with the remarkably
scientific idea of a gradual creation of our earth out of chaotic
materials, but with a conflict of gods and monsters which is supposed
to have taken place before the creation. In the opening verses of the
Bible there is a reference to the partition of the deep, which is here
called by the non-Hebrew name _Tehom_, into two parts: the waters above
and the waters under the firmament. Now in the Babylonian story the
actual creation of the earth is preceded by a mighty struggle between
_Marduk_, the sun-god (the Merodach of the Bible) and a great dragon
symbolical of the primeval waters, which bears the name _Tiamat_, the
Babylonian form of _Tehom_. The influence of this myth is the more
certainly to be traced in Genesis, because it appears elsewhere in the
Old Testament under the form of a legend of a conflict between Jehovah
and Rahab, a mighty dragon; and this legend is generally in some way
connected with creation (Job ix. 13; xxvi. 12; Isa. li. 9; Ps. lxxxix.
10). There is also a Babylonian story of the flood which keeps even
closer to the Bible narrative, and it may be seen from the Babylonian
version that this is more probably another form of the dragon myth than
a common memory of a tremendous deluge. A Babylonian seal cylinder in
the British Museum bears the picture of a man and woman standing one on
each side of a sacred tree, from which they are picking fruit, while a
serpent coils around the tree; but no written explanation of this very
suggestive picture has been discovered. These mythical stories have
come down from primitive Semitic times, but we cannot fail to notice
that while their ancestry is undoubtedly common, there is a tremendous
difference between the stage reached under the inspiration of the
Hebrew genius and the crude Polytheism of the Babylonian stories. Their
connection in some way is unmistakable, but still more certain is
their different ethical and religious level. The fact of the borrowing
does not deny the inspiration; it rather reveals how powerful that
inspiration was.

To turn now to a consideration of the work of the Priests. We must
doubtless concede to the workers a very lofty motive: it was nothing
less than an endeavour to include the whole of the nation's life under
the conception that God was dwelling among His people, and that the
nation must be holy because He is holy.

But in the working out of this purpose the ideal is neither secured nor
maintained. The holiness of God is insisted on with much reiteration,
but it is conceived of as a physical rather than a moral attribute.
It is really only a conception of the unapproachability of God unless
certain purely ritual and physical conditions are observed. For the
enforcement of this idea the old custom of sacrifice was elaborated
and strictly defined, but strangely enough, without explicit teaching
as to its meaning. This is peculiar, and it seems to have remained
largely unnoticed, for many Biblical expositors have adopted without
inquiry the idea that the sacrifices were substitutionary, piacular,
and typical of the sacrifice of Christ. The piacular meaning suggests
itself at so many points that it is startling to find that it cannot be
borne out by careful examination. The sacrifices are in most instances
only efficacious for the forgiveness of unintentional sins, or for
the atonement of ritualistic mistakes made in ignorance or through
inadvertence. The ceremony of laying the hands of the offerer on the
head of the intended victim, suggests that a symbolical transference of
guilt is taking place, and yet only in one case is this accompanied by
a confession of sins, and there the victim is not slain, but led away
for Azazel. The sin-offering involved the death of the animal, but an
animal was not absolutely necessary for the purpose, and flour might
be substituted; and even where we have the slain animal, the idea that
the animal has taken the place of the sinner seems to be excluded by
the fact that its flesh is regarded as "most holy." The offerings are
said to make atonement, but we are not told how this is affected unless
in the passage that states that "it is the blood that maketh atonement,
by reason of the life." The word translated "atonement" means simply "a
covering," and of course may mean that the blood, which is symbolical
of the offered life, either covers the eyes of God from beholding the
sin, or covers the sinner. We are left then, either with the deduction
that the exact significance of the sacrifices was not mentioned because
everyone knew what it was, or that it has not been told because it
was too mysterious, or that there was no definite meaning attached to
them. Originally sacrifice did not bear a piacular significance, but it
would be unsafe to argue from this that no substitutionary value was
attached to the Levitical sacrifices by these priestly lawyers; indeed
the only safe conclusion seems to be that the priests adopted these
sacrifices, which were time-honoured, as the proper ritual for the
approach to God, without any definite inquiry as to their meaning. But
taking the Levitical system as a whole there seems to underlie it the
theory of symbolical, although not piacular substitution. God owns man
entirely, and that by right: his time, possessions, flocks, and lands;
and demands from him the completest recognition of this ownership. Now
in practice, this absolute demand can only be recognised by substitute
and proxy; and so we have the recognition of God's claims by the
observance of one holy day in seven, by the ransom of the first-born,
by the sabbatical and jubilee years, by the tithes, and especially by
the sacrifices. His dwelling in the land is symbolised by the respect
paid to one symbolical holy place; and the continual service He demands
is represented by the daily service carried on by the Levitical caste.
But even if this be the intention of the system, it is nowhere so
defined, and therefore it is not surprising to find that people soon
forgot the symbolical meaning, and treated the symbol as a thing
sufficient in itself; with the result, that the service of God came to
be restricted to a performance of rites that had lost all significance.
One explanation would soon silence any criticism of this scheme
that might arise, namely, that God had so ordained that men should
worship Him. But deeper still there lay a radical misconception of
the very nature of God and of the service He seeks. God was conceived
as inimical not so much to man's sin, as to man himself; and this
danger was averted by the use of protective rites which needed to be
performed with scrupulous care, lest a mistake might bring down on the
worshipper immediate and awful destruction, quite irrespective of his
moral condition. Doubtless the nation might be impressed by these means
with the awful aloofness of God, and there must often have accompanied
this some notion of the ethical character that was expressed in this
separateness; but the means taken for satisfying this character and
demand in the nature of God could never have had any other result than
it did, namely, the conception that attention to details of ritual
could be a substitute for the much more difficult service of repentance
and righteousness. It is possible that we may be under-estimating the
real motive of the Priests' work and its actual success in preserving
religion under these forms; but the radical evil is clearly exposed
when we come to the time of another calamity, that which befel the
nation under Antiochus Epiphanes, when no other method of averting the
anger of God seems to have been thought of, except that of increasing
the rigour of this ritual law and fencing it round with still further
restrictions, until it became a burden too heavy to be borne.

Such a regime utterly failed to understand the teaching of Jesus and
could only regard His religion as impious and lacking in all that was
essential, reverential, or good, and it was "the Law" which put Jesus
to death. It is much to be deplored that the Sacrifice of Christ has
in turn been explained to the conscience touched to penitence and
tenderness by the story of the Cross, rather by the analogy of the Old
Testament sacrifices than by its complete superiority to them as based
upon a different and ethical order; for the rags and tatters of the
Levitical system still impede the religious life; allowing men to think
that God is content with substitutes, can be placated with blood, and
is more concerned with abstract regulations than with moral change.
And so there still hang about religion the same inconsistencies, the
same slaughter of the prophets, the same blindness to the eternal
demands of personal and social righteousness. The motive of the work
of the Priests may have been to enforce the prophetic repentance, but
to gain this end they compromised with unspiritual ritual, and on that
compromise Christ was, and is still crucified.




THE RELIGION OF THE PSALMISTS


  Titles of the Psalms, descriptive of their contents:--

  (1) Song, Heb. _Shirah._ A lyrical poem for singing. Probably the
  earliest title, which in some instances may have belonged to the
  original composition.

  (2) _Michtam_, perhaps, "a golden piece." The title indicates their
  artistic form and choice contents. They were probably all taken from
  a previous collection.

  (3) _Maschil_, a meditative poem, from a collection made perhaps in
  the late Persian period.

  (4) Psalm, Heb. _Mizmor_. The name given to a collection used for
  public worship, probably in the early Greek period.

  (5) _Shiggaion_, (Ps. vii.; also in plural, Hab. iii. 1.) Some take
  this to mean a wild, passionate composition, but this Psalm hardly
  bears that character. Perhaps we may expect a textual corruption from
  _Neginah_: a song accompanied with musical instruments.

  (6) A song of Ascents: used in the processions to the Temple.

  (7) A prayer.

  On the question of the Davidic authorship of the Psalms, the
  following passages should be examined; they would appear to be in
  hopeless disagreement with the life of David as depicted in the
  historical books. Ps. v. 8-10; vi. 7, f.; xii. 1-4; xvii. 9-14;
  xxii.; xxvii. 10, 12; xxxv. 11-21; xli. 5-9; liv. 2-6; lxii. 3, f.
  The Psalms which are ascribed to some definite occasion in David's
  life are not on the whole any more suitable to the situation,
  although there is generally some single phrase which probably gave
  rise to this identification.

  The great commentator Ewald, on literary grounds ascribed the
  following Psalms to David because of their originality and dignified
  spirit: Ps. iii.; iv.; vii.; viii.; xi.; xv.; xviii.; xix. 1-6; xxiv.
  1-6; xxiv. 7-10; xxix.; xxxii.; lx. 6-9; lxviii. 13-18; ci.; cxliv.
  12-14.

  Briggs would not go so far as to indicate Davidic Psalms, but would
  put as far back as the Early Monarchy, Ps. vii., xiii., xviii.,
  xxiii., xxiv. b, lx. a, and cx.




Lecture IX

THE RELIGION OF THE PSALMISTS


The principles of Biblical criticism have often been traced to a
vigorous application of the theory of evolution to the growth of
religious ideas. Such an application, if without the support of facts,
would discredit all critical results; but as a matter of fact, the
critical readjustment of the Old Testament does not give a perfect
progression in religious development. Indeed, it leaves us with a
perplexing story of decline from high attainment. The Law follows
the Prophets, and no theory can recognise the Law as an advance upon
prophetic teaching. The national rejection of the Prophets is the
central tragedy of Hebrew history and prepares us for the national
rejection of Jesus. Yet between the Prophets and the religion of
the Gospels we are able to trace an almost continuous link in the
religion of the Psalmists. This connection is somewhat obscured by
the early date assigned to the Psalms by uncritical tradition, by
the heterogeneous character of the collection, and by its continual
redaction in the interest of the purpose to which they were adapted.
In adopting this collection of religious poems for the purpose of
public praise, it is more than likely that additions were made, in
order that they might more fitly express the need of the time, while
reverence for the writings, by the time at least, of the final edition
of the work, operated to preserve the original; as may be seen, for
instance, in the addition made to the fifty-first Psalm (ver. 18,
19), which in its original form condemns the very worship in which
it was used. Moreover the collection is as much a prayer-book as a
hymn-book, for many of the Psalms are really prayers, and five of them
are actually so entitled. The book was certainly used in the Temple
services, but on the whole it must have seemed more fitted for the
non-sacrificial and non-ceremonial worship of the synagogue, or for the
private devotions of pious men and women. However and wherever used, it
must have nourished a deep personal religion and kept alive hopes to
which Christianity afterwards appealed.

No other single book of the Old Testament has had such an influence on
Christian piety and worship. From ancient times to the present day the
Psalms have been chanted, and in Churches of widely differing ritual
they have been considered the only fit vehicle for Christian praise.

Nothing more clearly demonstrates their proximity to the Christian
view of things, although the modern spirit in Christendom is finding
it increasingly difficult to express itself in the language of all the
Psalms, on account of their imprecatory wishes. Perhaps still more, the
predominant tone of the book, which is one of crying for deliverance
from overwhelming enemies and oppression, hardly suits the safety of
our times, or meets the demand for a joyful religious spirit. Many
of the Psalms become real only in times of severe spiritual trial,
and where there exists a deep sense of contrition; still better do
they express the emotions which arise in times of national calamity
or religious persecution; and most of all when men are constrained
to take arms in the cause of religion and righteousness. They have
never sounded so fitting as on the lips of the Reformers, Cromwell's
Ironsides, or the Scottish Covenanters. And yet their great breadth
of appeal, their touching of every possible note in religious
experience--penitence and joy, questioning and trust, longing and
satisfaction, defeat and victory,--their majestic literary form,
and their poetic inspiration will preserve them for ever as sublime
utterances of universal religion. But our work is not to appraise their
eternal value, but to estimate their significance, influence, and
position in the development of Old Testament religion; and to do this
we must endeavour to trace the origin and compilation of the Psalter.

The criticism of the Psalter is faced by a peculiarly difficult and
complex problem, arising from the lack of historic connection, the
possible obliteration by editorial redaction, and the difficulty of
interpreting with certainty even those data which the text presents,
and it has by no means yet reached settled conclusions; only general
and tentative results can be noted here. That, however, the book is
the result of a gradual process, may be seen from the presence of
doublets (liii. = xiv.; lxx. = xl. 13-17; cviii. = lvii. 7-11 + lx.
5-12), and from the subscription at the end of Book II., which displays
ignorance of the fact that further Psalms, ascribed to David follow.
It will be more convenient to start from the final position and work
backward; and that final position is undoubtedly this, that the Book
of Psalms as it stands in our Bible is the hymn-book of the restored
Second Temple. It is a book prepared for musical accompaniment; this
may be seen from the titles still preserved at the head of many of
the Psalms. These titles are of three kinds: they describe the nature
of the poetic composition; they give the names of the authors and
sometimes the circumstances in which they were composed; and the third
kind are most probably to be explained as instructions for musical
setting. These last-named titles are in most cases very obscure; the
Revised Version has simply transliterated the Hebrew words. On the
assumption that these are musical terms, we have three classes of them
in the Psalms. One class apparently gives directions for the tune to
which the Psalm is to be sung, and this tune is named, like some modern
hymn tunes, after the words with which the tune had been originally
or customarily associated; these appear to have been popular songs,
not necessarily of an entirely religious character (Ps. lvi., R.V.
title: "set to Jonath elem rehokim"; mar. translates: "The silent dove
of them that are afar off"; Ps. lvii., lviii.: "set to Al tashheth,"
which means: "Do not destroy." In the Septuagint the setting of Ps.
lxx. has been altered to: "Save me, O Lord"). Other titles seem to
direct the voice to be used in singing, as either falsetto or bass (Ps.
xlvi., "set to Alamoth"; probably maiden-like voices, and as women
took no part in the service of the choirs, this must refer either to
tenor, or male falsetto; Ps. vi., xii., "set to the Sheminith." R.V.
mar., "the eighth." This is probably the octave or bass voice). Two
references are to be found to the instrumental accompaniment to be
used, as either stringed or wind instruments (Ps. iv., vi., etc.,
"on stringed instruments"; Ps. v., "with the Nehiloth," mar., "wind
instruments"). The much discussed meaning of _Selah_ is most probably
to be sought in a musical direction. The word means: "lift up." The
Septuagint translates, "interlude," but many other versions (Version
of Aquila, Syriac Peshitto, Jerome and the Targum) translate, "for
ever." This duplicate translation suggests the very possible clue
that at the places where _Selah_ appears, the Psalm might be ended,
if desired, and the "for ever," or the doxology, which was usually
sung at the end of the Psalm and which is found at the end of each
book, could be taken there. As completed, the Psalter is therefore a
book with directions for a fully organised and choral worship, and
we have to seek for a time when such a worship was in existence. The
difficulty is that these musical directions are somewhat rare and
are not found in the later books, but only in connection with those
Psalms entitled, "for the Director." As the instruments mentioned are
only of the simplest kind and not of the varied character used in the
ornate worship of the Temple (cxlix. 3; cl. 3-5), and as by the time
the Greek translation was made (150 B.C.), their significance was
forgotten, we have to put the final edition long after the founding of
synagogue worship, in which the Director's Psalm Book was first used,
and at some period when there had been a complete change in musical
practice. This demands a time when Hellenistic culture had moulded even
the Temple worship. (The Jews were under Greek influence and rule from
B.C. 333 to B.C. 63.) The time from which a full choral service was in
use in the Temple is to be carried back, according to the Chronicler,
to the time of Solomon and David, but a comparison with the earlier
history contained in the Books of the Kings does not confirm this.
The Chronicler, who from his interest in these matters seems to have
been a member of one of the Levite choirs, really gives us the customs
current in his times, and infers that they went back unchanged to the
time of the building of the first Temple and to the preparatory work
of David. These considerations, together with the admitted lateness of
many of the Psalms, some of them undoubtedly belonging to the times of
the Maccabaean wars, bring us down to that late age and perhaps more
precisely to the time of the rededicated Temple (165 B.C.), and demand
that the final edition of the Psalter is to be placed somewhere about
150 B.C.

We might expect to find traces of the growth of the Psalter in the
division into five books (at xli., lxxii., cvi., cl., see R. V.),
but there seems no real division necessary between Books IV. and V.
and the five-fold division may be due to the desire to imitate the
divisions of the Law; the other divisions however contain more hopeful
suggestions. The first book, for instance, is almost entirely ascribed
to David (Ps. i. is an introduction to the whole book, composed for
the final edition, and Ps. ii. may have been also placed in front as
part of the introduction. Ps. xxxiii., which is very late, may have
been added as a kind of doxology to Ps. xxxii. The rest are ascribed
to David). The second book is largely Davidic and it concludes with
the statement: "the prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended."
In spite of this notice Psalms are found ascribed to David in the
books that follow, so that the remark must have been found appended
to a collection that the final editor took over; it cannot be due to
his own hand. Further evidence of compilation is to be found in the
strange occurrence of the different names for God: Elohim and Jehovah.
In the first book the name of Jehovah preponderates. In Book II.
the name Elohim is found most frequently. Then in Book III. Psalms
lxxiii.-lxxxiii. use Elohim only, and lxxxiv.-lxxxix. Jehovah mainly;
and in practically the whole of Books IV. and V. Jehovah is almost
solely used, The reason for this phenomenon must be sought in editorial
redaction, for in the duplicate Psalms, xiv. and liii., xl. 13-17 and
lxx., Jehovah is found in the first recension and Elohim in the second.
The Elohistic character of lxxiii.-lxxxiii. may be due to the original
compiler since they are all ascribed to Asaph and otherwise bear marks
of common production. The Elohistic redaction may have been made in
a period when the name Jehovah sounded tribal and almost heathenish;
but a similar test leads to the conclusion that the first collection
enjoyed by this time a liturgical familiarity, which did not permit
of alteration. The reversion to the name of Jehovah in Books IV. and
V. might be explained by the fact that in later times the name was
written but never pronounced. On the line of these suggestions we
should expect to find that Book I. contained the earliest Psalms and
Books IV. and V. the latest; this is roughly correct, if we allow for
the possibility of minor insertions being made for various purposes in
the last edition. In Book V. there is a group of Psalms (civ.-cvi.,
cxi.-cxiii., cxv.-cxvii., cxxxv., cxlvi.-cl.), which are distinguished
by either commencing or ending with "Hallelujah," and are known as
the "Hallels." From their contents, it may be observed that they are
suitable for use at the Great Festivals, and it is known that they
were, and are still so used by the Jews. They imply a highly organised
musical service (Ps. cl.), they require a time when the festivals were
regularly observed and when the worship of the Temple could be carried
on without fear. Such conditions are to be found together only after
the Exile, and then only during the period of Greek rule; and to this
late period the composition of these Psalms is to be referred. An
even later date is demanded for some Psalms that are said to reflect
the rebellion against the Hellenizing movement enforced by Antiochus
Epiphanes, in which the Maccabees played such a heroic part. This date
is confirmed by the references to: the "assembly of the saints" (Ps.
cxlix. 1, Heb. _hasidim_, the purist party formed in that time); the
cruel persecution for religious opinions (Ps. xliv. 17-22; lxxix.
2; lxxxiii. 3, 4); the defiling of the Temple, the burning of the
synagogues, and the silence of the Prophetic voice (Ps. lxxiv. 7-9;
lxxix. 1). Other Maccabaean Psalms are said to be: cx., where there is a
reference to some priest who is not in the legitimate succession, which
entirely describes the Priest-Kings of the Maccabaean dynasty (other
scholars would put this Psalm very early; on the other hand there are
alleged traces of an acrostic that would spell Simon, the first of the
Maccabaean Priest-Kings); cxv. cxviii., which celebrate successful wars
in which the leaders have been the house of Aaron, to which house the
Maccabees of course belonged. This is the latest date that is demanded
for any of the Psalms, and in the present condition of criticism we
can only say that between this and some earlier period the book is to
be placed. It must now be our task to discover the earliest date that
any of the Psalms demand. We have seen that Book I. seems to be the
earliest collection, and tradition assumes that this was the work of
David and was the Psalm Book used in the First Temple. To discuss this
point it is necessary to enquire into the reliability of the titles
that ascribe the Psalms to definite authors. These titles give: one
each to Moses, Ethan, and Heman; two to Solomon; eleven to the Sons
of Korah; twelve to Asaph; and seventy-three to David (it is doubtful
whether Jeduthun is a person; if so he is probably the same as Ethan:
Ps. xxxix., lxii., lxxvii., titles; cp. 1 Chron. vi. 44 with 1 Chron.
ix. 16). Now it should be noticed that none of the authors are later
than Solomon (Ethan, 1 Kings iv. 31, 1 Chron. vi. 44; Heman, 1 Kings
iv. 31, 1 Chron. vi. 33, xv. 17, 19, xxv. 5; Asaph, 1 Chron. vi. 39,
xxv. 1f, Neh. xii. 46; in Ezra ii. 41, Neh. vii. 44, Asaph seems to
mean a guild of singers rather than an individual). If any of the
Psalms ascribed to authors might be expected to yield confirmation by
internal evidence, it would be Ps. xc.; but there is nothing in its
language or thought that points to extreme antiquity. There is also
nothing in the Psalms themselves that confirms the authorship of the
contemporaries of Solomon, Ethan and Heman. The title of Ps. cxxvii.,
"of Solomon," is missing in the Septuagint and is evidently a late
gloss, and the title of Ps. lxxii. is translated in the Septuagint: "a
psalm _for_ Solomon," which certainly describes the contents better.
The Psalms ascribed to the Sons of Korah (xlii.-xlix., lxxxiv., lxxxv.,
lxxxvii., lxxxviii.; 2 Chron. xx. 19, 1 Chron. xxvi. 19; but 1 Chron.
vi. 33-38 shows that Kohathite and Korahite are the same), have common
features, as have also the Psalms ascribed to Asaph, which imply that
they are at least guild collections; but their exalted conception of
God, their consciousness of national righteousness, the reference to
synagogue worship and the cessation of prophecy (lxxiv. 8f) point to a
time subsequent to Ezra.

The chief interest of the titles is found in the ascription of so
many Psalms to David. It was long thought that David was not only the
author of the Psalms ascribed to him, but that he was also editor of
the entire Psalter. (When as early as Theodore of Mopsuestia it was
recognised that some of the Psalms were Maccabaean, it was supposed
that David wrote them in the spirit of prophecy.) Our enquiry may
be narrowed down to those Psalms that are ascribed to David in the
earliest collection, Book I. Do these reflect the conditions and
development of his times? It must be replied that there is nothing in
the Davidic Psalms as a whole to distinguish them from other Psalms,
and what historical connection they betray seems everywhere to belong
to an age later than David. The Temple is spoken of as already in
existence (Ps. v. 7; xi. 4) and the name for Jerusalem, "my holy
hill," seems to demand a time subsequent to the mission of Isaiah.
The general conditions of life reflected are clearly those in which a
godly minority is oppressed and wickedness is established in the land;
a condition which finds no parallel in the Books of Samuel. Moreover,
the religious ideas are far in advance of those that seem to have been
prevalent in the time of David or that can be traced to him. The
general tone of the Psalms is one of a chastened piety that hardly
existed in the time of the kingdom, and the religious ideas everywhere
show dependence upon the teaching of the Prophets. There is hardly a
verse of the fifty-first Psalm which cannot be paralleled in Jeremiah,
but there is almost nothing in the Psalm that makes it a fitting
confession for an adulterer and murderer. These considerations lead us
to enquire whether the Hebrew preposition translated "of" David denotes
authorship; its accurate signification is "belonging to," and from
the analogy of the other titles we infer this to mean that the editor
found these Psalms in a collection ascribed to David. What gave the
name of David to that collection? Some of the Psalms may be pre-exilic
and may even go down to the early monarchy; Ps. xx. may belong to the
Old Kingdom, but it can hardly have come from the lips of David; it is
Ps. xviii. that has perhaps the greatest claim to Davidic authorship.
This Psalm is also found in 2 Sam. xxii., but there it seems to be an
interpolation, for it breaks apart verses that apparently once stood
together (2 Sam. xxi. 22 and xxiii. 8). Yet we meet with a reference to
the Temple even in this Psalm (2 Sam. xxi. 7); at the same time several
of its passages would come very fittingly from the Warrior King, and
would be suitable to his barbarous times. In this Psalm, if anywhere,
we may possess some original Davidic fragments. We must conclude
therefore, that the Davidic Psalter was so called because its origin
was somehow due to David, or because it contained some Song of David
which must have been considerably altered to suit liturgical purposes.
The early tradition of David ascribes to him a poetic and musical
gift (1 Sam. xvi. 18; Amos. vi. 5), and of this the lament over Saul
and Jonathan (2 Sam. i.) is a sufficient confirmation, but it should
be noticed that it is remarkably free from any religious sentiment
whatsoever. It must be due to the later tradition of the Chronicler
that David has been credited as the saintly author of the whole Book of
Psalms. The conclusion is that the titles are not, strictly speaking,
a claim to authorship, but are names given, for various reasons, to
pre-existing collections; that the earliest of these collections may
contain pre-exilic Psalms, but that everything points to the collection
being made for use in the time of the Second Temple. The references
to a king do not necessitate any re-consideration of this verdict;
they may be personifications of the nation in the light of Messianic
conceptions.

This position has been steadily resisted by some in the interests of
tradition, but without any real religious reason being adduced; for
the idea that this decision denies the authority of Christ and His
Apostles is disposed of by the simple fact that in the New Testament,
David is simply a name for the Psalter (Ps. ii. is ascribed to David in
Acts ii. 34; it is anonymous in the Psalter. Heb. iv. 7 has "in" David;
this does not refer to authorship, for the author of this Epistle never
quotes the Scriptures save anonymously). To others it will perhaps
come as a great relief to feel that the writer of some of the most
spiritual utterances of personal religion need not be identified with
the historical David. There are awful possibilities of failure in
the most religious men, but the problem here is more difficult than
that: it would compel us to think of David as displaying in public no
hint of the secrets of his inner religious life, but very much that
contradicts them. The traditional idea of the authorship of the Psalms
has done grave injustice to the sincere if passionate character of
the historical David. The origin of such a tradition is due as much
to the spiritual blindness as to the careless historic judgment of
later Judaism, and its acceptance by generations of Christian students
speaks a greater reverence for tradition than for religious insight.
To be compelled to date the great majority of the Psalms within the
period 500-150 B.C., is indeed a comforting interpretation of Jewish
history; for it shows that the barren ground of post-exilic times was
not without its tender flowers of piety and an appreciation of the
prophetic religion far beyond that of the Prophets' contemporaries. The
gloss of legalism, which can be traced in the Psalter, and which was
inevitable when these private devotions were adapted to the Levitical
worship of the Temple, has not succeeded in obscuring, but rather
brings into greater clearness the spiritual elements in the Psalms.

It is welcome to turn from this task of literary criticism, which
finds in the Psalms its most difficult field, and which perhaps
yields here less help than in other branches of Bible literature,
to an endeavour to appreciate the religion of the Psalmists. There
is difficulty here also; but now it is in the splendour of the
composition, the magnificent breadth of experience they embrace,
the classic utterance of the eternal religion of the heart. We have
recognised the heterogeneous character of the collection, and it is
only to be expected that this should be reflected in the variety of
religious ideas. A theology of the Psalter is as impossible as it is
mistaken. The quality of poetic genius varies, the heights of religious
inspiration sometimes reached are not consistently maintained, and
there are many lower levels. And yet there remains a sufficient
unity to leave a very definite impression; that unity owes little to
similarity of circumstances, to contemporaneity, or to the influence
of a theological school; it is rather due to the unreflective
simplicity of the human mind in the realised presence of God. In that
position all unfettered religion speaks one tongue: the only mother
tongue of humanity. The inspiration of the Psalmist owes its beauty
to the absence of self-consciousness. There is nothing here of the
prophetic claim to speak in the name of God; in the Psalms God does
not speak to men, men speak to God, but it is just because of this
that the revelation in the Psalms reaches so far beyond the limits
of Old Testament religion and seems to grasp that religion which was
to be personified in the consciousness of Jesus. We are compelled to
recognise that men's prayers are themselves a revelation of God, and
that when men seek to voice their highest aspiration we catch the sound
of a deep undertone, the supplication of the Spirit that intercedes
within.

As an expression of eternal religion the Psalms have one serious
defect, which really unfits them, without careful selection, for use
in Christian worship--their awful imprecations upon enemies. There
are hardly to be found in the whole realm of literature more fearful
desires for vengeance than in the Psalms (cix. 6-15. cxxxvii. 9; cxl.
10). To date the Psalms from the comfortable times of the monarchy,
under the martial supremacy of David and Solomon, is to make them
cruel without meaning; but imagine the sufferings of the Israelites
in Exile, or in the still worse times when the pious remnant were
persecuted by their own irreligious and apostate countrymen, which
was so often their lot in post-exilic times, and these expressions
can be explained, even if they cannot be justified. The desire for
vengeance does not arise from personal motives, but is doubtless due
to the complete identification of the Psalmist with the cause of God
and righteousness, and to his burning indignation against the cruelty,
injustice, and craftiness of the impenitent wicked. Thus understood,
there is a moral element in this anger, which is not only to be
condoned but even admired. This deep moral revulsion has been one of
the greatest factors in moulding history along righteous lines. But
when all this has been said, it remains to be acknowledged frankly that
this is not the religion of the Sermon on the Mount. The anger at sin
is right, but the desire for vengeance is no real cure for sin. It is
far from the deep wisdom of the Son of Man; but we have to remember,
when we judge the Psalms from that standard, that His wisdom is still
unaccepted, not only by the world, but by many who profess His name.

It is in the Psalms that personal religion receives its clearest
exposition in the Old Testament, and this spirit owes much to the
personal experience of Jeremiah. There has been an endeavour to
find the speaking subject of the Psalms not in the individual but
in the nation. There are national Psalms, but many others cannot be
successfully interpreted save as the expressions of personal devotion.
National religion could never reach these heights; it is bound down to
the average level, it is always open to unethical movements and ideas.
The personal element is not to be confused with the individualistic;
the personal is wider than the individual; it realises the things that
lie at the base of all human life, and when it is most personal it
speaks the most universal language. It is in the deep sense of sin and
the assurance of forgiveness that the Psalms are the classics for all
who know the secrets they utter; and the sense of sin can never be felt
save under the searching light of God's very presence. To be deeply
conscious of sin is the first step towards any high revelation of God,
and of this the fifty-first Psalm is the most perfect expression;
there we see the sense of inward sin, opening up the possibility of
a separation between the self and that higher self, the holy spirit,
and bringing about the severest mental pain and anguish. Naturally,
the Psalms hardly rise to the Christian ground of forgiveness, but the
thirty-second Psalm vibrates with the joy that the Christian knows and,
when mere figures of speech are discounted, it springs from the same
reason: the acknowledgment of one's sin and the consciousness of its
forgiveness in the newly realised communion with God.

In dealing with the problem of the providential order of the world, the
Psalms hardly reflect any higher conceptions than those found elsewhere
in the Old Testament, if they even rise as high as the conception of
the Second Isaiah. The idea that goodness is rewarded by long life and
prosperity, and that wickedness is always marked by outward disaster is
the root idea; and the fact that this is not confirmed by observation
is the cause of the complaint of many a Psalm. This problem receives no
conscious solution throughout the book. The revelation given through
the worship of the sanctuary only shows that the prosperity of the
wicked is temporary (Ps. xxxvii., lxxiii.); but how often even this
must seem to be untrue, for in many cases there are no bands in their
death. Nothing higher is reached than pride in one's integrity and the
assurance that somehow and somewhere retribution is sure. There is no
conception of the principle of vicarious suffering, and the values set
upon righteousness and prosperity never attain to those words of Jesus:
"Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness sake."

The pressure of this problem of Providence is supposed to have driven
the Psalmists to pierce the veil and to descry beyond the grave a
compensation for the inequalities of this life, and passages are
frequently adduced to prove this (Ps. xvi. 10, 11; xvii. 15; xlix.,
15; lxxiii. 23-26). The current belief of Israel embraced an existence
after death, but only in the form of unconscious and shadowy life in
the under world, _Sheol_, and this is most explicitly expressed in
many of the Psalms (vi. 5; xxx. 9; xlix. 14; lxxxviii. 10-12). What
then is the significance of the expressions which seem to point to
something more? An accurate translation and a correct exegesis dispose
of nearly all of these passages as in any sense explicit evidence for
a definite belief in immortality; but there remains a witness of much
greater value. It is through communion with God, and because of the
significance with which it invests conscious life that the Psalmists
are led to feel that their experience can never be interrupted by
death. To those who know the reality of personal communion with God,
this has more cogency than any other argument for immortality. The
experience of communion throws a new value on personality and gives
a deeper meaning to this life, and in face of this discovery death
becomes nothing more than a passing shadow. While therefore the
application of Ps. xvi. 10 to the resurrection of Christ is foreign to
the methods of modern interpretation, that passage does show the real
significance of the resurrection of Christ; for it is the person of
Christ in communion with God that has brought life and immortality to
light. The Psalmist shared this vital experience whether he was able
to infer immortality of the soul from it or not.

But the glory of the Psalms is found in their realisation of the
presence of God. This expresses itself in the vivid consciousness of a
present and helpful Personality rather than in intellectual concepts
or theological definitions. The transcendence of God receives full
appreciation, but it is never in terms of spatial distance, but in an
inward realisation of His moral excellence (Ps. xxxvi. 5-7). To the
discerning soul the presence of God is inescapable and is absolutely
omnipresent (Ps. cxxxix. 7-10). Right alongside of the recognition of
the might of God and His holiness, there is found the sense of His
fatherly pity, His gentleness, and His understanding of us (Ps. ciii.
13; xviii. 35).

It would be altogether mistaken to look in the Psalms for that
conception of Nature which has become one of the greatest gains of
modern culture. To the Psalmist Nature has no meaning apart from God,
and it is merely the sphere of His activity. But the beginnings of
a poetic delight in things is felt almost on every page (Ps. xxiii.
2; lv. 6; lxv. 8, 9; xciii. 3; cvii. 24; cx. 3b; cxxiv. 5; cxxx. 6;
cxxxix. 18b); while the so-called Nature Psalms (viii., xix., xxix.,
lxv., xciii., civ., cxlviii.) yield a conception of creation and of
the relation of God to the world that has not sufficiently shaped
theology, and as a consequence has made it possible for us to think of
a conflict between religion and science.

The consciousness of God as of a present living Personality is the
great contribution of Hebrew religion, and of this the Psalms are
the supreme expression. All conception of a merely unconscious,
all-pervading essence is transcended by the intense experience of
communion; He is "an ever present help in time of trouble."

The Hebrew Psalmist may be a child beside the Hindu sage or the Greek
philosopher, but no one has ever sounded the human heart as he. The
experience he has bequeathed to the world is that of a God who is
infinite, mighty and all-present, and yet One who can be known in
the experiences of temporal life and felt in the limitations of the
human mind; One who shepherds and guides men, and who can take the
place of human friend or nearest relative. This is in the direct line
with Christ's consciousness of the Father. Without this we may have a
mysticism that must perforce remain silent, or a philosophy that loses
itself in the endeavour to reconcile the antinomies of thought, but
without this we cannot have a religion that can satisfy the craving of
the human heart for an infinite, holy, and helping Companion.




THE RELIGION OF THE WISE


  In determining from internal evidence whether Job is later or earlier
  than Proverbs, the following comparisons should be examined:--

  Job v. 17        and Prov. iii. 11.
   "  xi. 8         "   "    ix. 18.
   "  xv. 7         "   "    viii. 25.
   "  xviii. 5,6}   "  {"    xiii. 9.
   "  xxi.  17  }   "  {"    xxiv. 20.
   "  xxii. 28      "   "    iv. 18.
   "  xxviii. 18    "   "    iii. 15; viii. 11.
   "  xxviii. 28    "   "    i. 7.

  In these examples, it might be noted, it is the friends of Job who
  quote the Proverbs; except in Job xxi. 17, where Job questions
  the Proverb already quoted by Bildad, rather than quotes it with
  approval; and in the case of xxviii. 18, 28, the whole chapter is
  regarded by critics as suspicious, on the ground that the sentiments
  here expressed by Job are in contradiction to his general attitude.
  These passages would seem somewhat to confirm the idea that the Book
  of Job is intended to be a criticism of the theory of Providence
  found in Proverbs.

       *       *       *       *       *

  On the suggestion that Ecclesiastes owes its disjointed character
  to some disarrangement of the original sheets of the MS., Bickell
  proposes to read the book in the following order:--

  (1) i. 1-ii. 11. (2) v. 9-vi. 7. (3) iii. 9-iv. 8. (4) ii. 12-iii.
  8. (5) viii. 6-ix. 3. (6) ix. 11-x. 1. (7) vi. 8-vii. 22. (8) iv.
  9-v. 8. (9) x. 16-xi. 6 (10) vii. 23-viii. 5. (11) x. 2-x. 15. (12)
  ix. 4-10. (13) xi. 7-xii. 8. Bickell would regard the Appendix, xii.
  9-14, as a later addition.




Lecture X

THE RELIGION OF THE WISE


Certain books of the Old Testament have a marked resemblance both
in their subject-matter and in their religious and ethical outlook.
They stand out from the other classes of the literature, for they are
neither prophetical, like the writings of the Prophets or the histories
written under their influence, nor legalistic, like the great codes
of the Pentateuch, nor liturgical and devotional, like the Psalms;
and for convenience they are designated: "the Wisdom Literature."
These writings deal chiefly with "wisdom," or the practical ordering
of life, and we frequently find a reference to "the words of the
wise," as if there was a school of teachers who were devoted to the
discussion of these problems. The chief contributions of this school
are, in our Bible, the Book of Proverbs, and in the Apocrypha, Wisdom
and Ecclesiasticus. Job and Ecclesiastes are occupied with the same
problems, but their attitude is critical and their method of treatment
peculiar.

No one can fail to feel the almost perplexing difference of this
literature from the rest of the Old Testament; unlike the prophetic
it has less a message to the conscience than a problem for the mind;
unlike the historical books it is perfectly timeless, and utterly
detached from the national hopes; it is not occupied with ceremonies or
ritual, but with religion as a matter of conduct. The nearest approach
to this is to be found in some of the Psalms, which, passing from
the emotions of the devout spirit, become engaged with the problems
and injustices of life. Its religion is more universal than that of
the Prophets or even of the Psalmists, but it is less emotional; the
religion of the heart has given way to the wisdom of the mind. We have
here the beginnings of a philosophy, a mental activity strangely absent
from the Hebrew race; it is not however a speculative philosophy,
but one purely concerned with practical life; and yet there is a
direct progression traceable from the chapters in Proverbs (i.-ix.),
which are devoted to the praise of wisdom, through the work known
as the Wisdom of Solomon, to Philo, the great Jewish philosopher,
who endeavoured to interpret Moses by Plato and to reconcile Hebrew
religion with Greek speculation. Although in this literature we have
the beginnings of a philosophy it is rather that of the street than
of the academy; a cultivation of a philosophic attitude towards life,
its problems and duties, rather than any speculation on metaphysical
reality or the absolute origin of things. The wisdom we hear so much
of is an intellectual virtue, although it embraces neither speculation
nor learning, but is limited to mean sagacity, shrewdness, prudence
in the conduct of life. This is the main theme of the Proverbs, but
the problem of the correct ordering of life unearths a deeper and
darker one--the problem of the existence of evil, the injustice of
life as revealed in the blind indiscrimination of trouble, pain, and
death. With this problem some of the Psalms and the Books of Job and
Ecclesiastes especially deal.

In seeking to place this literature, we are met with an even worse
difficulty than in the case of the Psalms; for the entire absence of
historical allusion, and the spirit of detachment in which religious
questions are discussed, leave no trace of date or age. The three
books in our Bible belonging to this literature are ascribed to very
early authors; two to Solomon and one traditionally to Job or Moses,
although the Book of Job is really anonymous. Now it is exceedingly
difficult to gather from the prophetic or historical books any trace
of the opinions that are found in the Wisdom Literature. The problem
of evil certainly began to occupy the minds of men like Jeremiah even
before the Exile; but in the picture which the Prophets give us of the
Jewish state under the late monarchy, we get no glimpse of a people
who looked on life and religion as do the writers of these books. In
the Wisdom Literature we find references to "the wise" as to a special
class in the community (Prov. i. 6; xxii. 17; xxiv. 23; Job xv. 18);
in the historical literature we find the "wisdom" of certain men
extolled (Solomon, 1 Kings iii. 16-28; iv. 29-34; x. 3 ff.; Joseph,
Gen. xli. 39; the four wise men, 1 Kings iv. 31, the wisdom of Egypt,
the East, 1 Kings iv. 30, and of Edom, Ob. 8; Jer. xlix. 7), and in
the prophetic writings "the wise" are mentioned as a class distinct
from the prophet and the priest (Jer. xviii. 18) and often in a
depreciatory way (Isa. xxix. 14; Jer. viii. 8; ix. 12). It seems almost
impossible to identify the wise men of Proverbs with this class who
receive so little praise from the Prophets. The wise men of Proverbs
do not speak as if they needed to defend themselves against the claims
of the prophet (Prov. xxix. 18; the reference to "vision," which can
only mean a communication to the prophet, is not found elsewhere in
Proverbs and is doubted by many scholars), nor can we understand the
need for the message of the Prophets if this practical religion of "the
wise" was current in their times. This religion may lack passion and be
without national consciousness, but Isaiah and Micah would surely have
found something to their heart's desire in its pure ethical character.
Indeed, the religious thought seems to be dependent on the teaching of
the Prophets, but only at a distance, for it is ethically advanced and
has become somewhat rarefied and unemotional. The literary character
seems also to point to a later age; for it is academical, sophistical,
and polished. The polish of the Proverbs might be due to constant use
among the common people, but they are not like popular sayings (cp.
1 Sam, xxiv. 13; 1 Kings xx. 11; Jer. xxxi. 29; Ezek. xviii. 2), and
their evident kinship with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus indicates a late
post-exilic origin.

We shall first devote some time to an examination of the Book of
Proverbs. The Hebrew "proverb" (_mashal_) means "a representation," and
may be used of a fable or a taunt, but is more especially confined to
any generalisation from experience or observation on life and character
expressed in a rhythmic and polished form. The most usual form of the
proverb is a couplet in which a common fact of Nature is placed beside
a common fact of human life: "Where there is no wood the fire goes out,
and where there is no talebearer strife will cease."

The book as a whole would seem to be ascribed to Solomon (i. 1), but
this is only the tradition of the final editor; for, as in the case of
the Psalter, Proverbs shows every trace of gradual compilation, and the
names of other authors are given.

The main divisions of the book are as follows:--

A. (i. 1-6). The prologue, by the final editor, either ascribing the
work to Solomon or else praising his proverbs.

B. (i. 7-ix.). This seems to be the latest addition to the book; it is
not a collection of proverbs at all, but is a continuous discourse in
praise of Wisdom. In viii. 22 Wisdom is personified as a creature of
God present at the creation of the world. This hypostatization of an
attribute of God is one of the latest developments of Hebrew thought,
and is so unusual to its genius that we are compelled to seek for
some possibility of infiltration from foreign sources. The idea is
still further developed in Ecclesiasticus (xxiv.), and in the Book of
Wisdom has become quite a Platonic speculation (vii. 22-viii. 1). The
appearance of this idea in Hebrew thought seems to be most explicable
in the period of Greek influence, when Plato's doctrine of the Idea
might become known in Palestine; somewhere about 250 B.C. seems a
likely date. The identification of virtue with knowledge, which we find
in the book, is also due to Greek thought. It was along this line of
development that the conception of "the Logos" was welcomed into Jewish
thought, to have through Philo such a profound influence on some of the
writers of the New Testament.

C. (x.-xxii. 16). This collection of proverbs is ascribed to Solomon
and is generally thought by critics to be the oldest main collection;
many would even be willing to assign it to the golden age of the
monarchy. The Solomonic authorship is, however, unthinkable; the
sentiments expressed are unsuitable for a luxurious and polygamous
monarch (xv. 16, xxi. 31; xxii. 14; xiii. 1; cp. 1 Kings iv. 26; xi. 1,
4, 5-13; xii. 10, 11), and the ascription to Solomon is probably due
to circumstances similar to those which operated in the case of the
ascription of the Psalms to David. There are many objections to any
pre-exilic time as a suitable historic background for this collection;
there is no mention of idolatry, whereas we learn from Ezekiel (vi.,
viii., xxiii.) that idolatry was practised in Jerusalem down to the
time of the city's destruction; monogamy seems to be taken quite for
granted, whereas it would appear that polygamy was general before
the prophetic reforms; and of the great upheaval that these reforms
involved, this collection shows no trace. The national religion has
here given place to universalism, a development that seems to demand
some experience of contact with other nations and especially some
acquaintance with foreign culture. The references to the king neither
require Solomonic authorship nor demand an age when the monarchy was
established; for they are only general sentiments concerning the duties
of the king in the State, and are of such a nature that they show very
little reminiscence of Israel's actual experience of a monarchy.

D. (xxii. 17-xxiv. 22) and E. (xxiv. 23-34) are two collections of the
sayings of "the wise," whose ascription, together with the reference to
"instruction," points to an advanced stage of reflection and teaching,
and perhaps to the existence of philosophic teachers who had schools
and pupils.

F. (xxv.-xxix.). "These also are proverbs of Solomon, which the men
of Hezekiah, King of Judah, copied out." This title has an air of
circumstantiality about it which looks like a genuine historical note,
and it has been observed that there is a change of tone, in this
collection, in regard to the monarchy, as if some actual experience
of kingly tyranny had been lately borne; so that if we were to refer
this collection to the age mentioned in the title we should have to
ante-date the collection, C. But in view of the state of society
here portrayed, which is similar to that of Ecclesiasticus, we have
no alternative but to regard the title, as in the case of some of
the Davidic Psalms, as due to later Jewish scribes, and as without
authority.

G., H. and I. are three small collections (xxx.; xxxi. 1-9; xxxi.
10-31), the first by Agur: a very obscure passage, apparently quoting
a declaration of reverent agnosticism, with a reply to it by some more
believing scribe. The second is ascribed to King Lemuel, and the third
is in praise of a virtuous woman, by an anonymous writer.

The religious teaching of the Proverbs would seem to be a refinement
of the prophetic religion, standing quite apart from the legal and
ritual development. Religion has become entirely a matter of ethics;
the creed is wonderfully colourless and simple, and the inducement
to virtue remains almost entirely on the plane of utilitarianism and
prudence. There is a good deal that is quite worldly wisdom, but pure
religion is by no means wanting (xxi. 3; xiv. 34); the fear of the
Lord is not slavish fear, but is a guiding principle for life and the
beginning of wisdom. Men are divided somewhat roughly into the foolish
and the wise; and although no book in the world has ever depicted
the foolishness of men with greater variety and reality, yet there
seems no hope that folly may be overcome, or that wicked men can be
turned from their ways; Wisdom knows no forgiveness and can only mock
when men turn to her too late (i. 24-28). Yet the ethical level is
high; woman especially is highly estimated, and the home life is held
sacred; kindness to animals is inculcated (xii. 10), and there is a
real approach to absolute ethics in such sayings as: "Say not thou, I
will recompense evil"; "Say not I will do so to him as he hath done to
me" (xx. 22; xxiv. 17, 29; xxv. 21, 22). The writers have been called
"humanists," and this rightly describes their position; it is the
highest level rabbinical religion ever reached; it has its parallel in
some of the aphoristic teaching of Jesus, but it has no message for
the outcast and fallen; it knows no secret whereby the fool may be made
wise and the heart be changed by a great emotion; it is the religion of
the sage, not the religion of the Saviour. The doctrine of retribution
is still thought to be quite satisfactory in its working (ii. 21 f.; x.
25; xi. 21). In an earlier and less reflective age this idea would not
have been unexpected; but it is remarkable that it should be acquiesced
in by the wise men; and yet it is an idea of life that seems to persist
against all experience: it is found in the time of Christ and it still
obtains, especially in the judgment of the cause of poverty. Perhaps
its persistence is to be traced to an ideal of justice so strong as to
obscure accurate observation of the facts.

       *       *       *       *       *

When we turn to the Book of Job we come to a work not only the greatest
product of the wise men, but the supreme literary production of the
Hebrew nation. The grandeur of its language has somewhat obscured the
real meaning of the book; for the opinions that the book was written
to controvert are stated with such vivid power and poetic grace that
they are now often quoted as Biblical truths of equal value with the
opinions apparently supported by the author. It is our task, not so
much to admire the literary talent of the author, as to estimate his
contribution to the religion of Israel.

The Book of Job has been referred to almost every age from Moses to
post-exilic times. There is certainly an endeavour to reproduce the
conditions of the patriarchal age, in the avoidance of the name Jehovah
(Exod. vi. 3), and in the money standard adopted (Job. xlii. 11); but
there is no desire to deceive the reader, for this archaic atmosphere
is adopted merely as the appropriate setting of the dialogue, and
is not maintained: the name Jehovah slips from the author's pen, he
takes no pains to conceal his knowledge of the Law and his interest
in the questions of his own times. The question of age is not to be
complicated by the question of authorship; there was a person named
Job, known to Ezekiel (xiv. 14), but there is nowhere any assumption
that Job himself wrote the book; and the mechanical and symbolical
character of the disasters which befall Job, and the nature of the
compensation, show that we have here only dramatic settings for
the speeches and not actual history. It is likely that there was a
well-known tradition of a man named Job who had suffered overwhelming
troubles and eventually had been restored to his former prosperity, and
this is made the basis for a discussion of the problem of suffering. It
has been suggested that in the Prologue and Epilogue we have fragments
of that old tradition, since these passages are in prose while the
body of the book is in semi-poetic rhythm; but the prose form is best
explained as that always adopted by the Hebrews for narrative, for we
find ideas in these parts that betray as late a date as anything in the
body of the work. Considered on internal evidence, everything seems
to point to the age which produced the rest of the Wisdom Literature;
and more precisely, a date shortly before or shortly after Proverbs,
seems indicated. The material for deciding more particularly is such
that different conclusions may be drawn from it. For instance, the
personification of wisdom in Proverbs seems to be in advance of the
idea of wisdom in Job; and if we could think of the development of an
idea always coinciding with chronological progression, then Job would
need to be placed earlier than Proverbs; but this is complicated by
the fact that the main body of the book of the Proverbs may have been
in circulation before the earlier chapters were added. Yet there are
apparent quotations from the Proverbs in the Book of Job (xv. 7 f. =
Prov. viii. 22-25), and the reference to the lamp of the wicked being
put out (Prov. xiii. 9; xxiv. 20) seems clearly to have Proverbs in
mind (Job. xxi. 17). Dependence might, of course, be taken to lie the
other way, but on the whole, it would appear that the problems dealt
with in Job have not yet emerged for the writers of the Proverbs, and
indeed Job seems rather an indictment of the superficial idea, which
we find everywhere assumed in the earlier work that prosperity and
goodness are inseparable. The most satisfactory order seems therefore
to be: Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes. The idea that Job is to be
understood as a personification of the nation, such as we were led to
conceive in the allegory of Jonah and in the Servant of the Lord, can
hardly be maintained in face of the perfect detachment from the history
and the national hopes that characterises the book.

The book deals with a problem already stirring in the minds of the
Prophets and the theme of many of the Psalms, but here stated with an
awful daring and intensity and as the subject-matter of an entirely new
form of literary composition. The Book of Job is not a drama, in the
sense that it was ever intended, or would be suitable, for presentation
on the stage; but it is a poem with dramatic elements and it has a
dramatic movement.

The endeavour to understand the message of the book is rendered
difficult because different points of view are presented, and this
has suggested different authors. The book certainly has well-marked
divisions, and they appear to yield distinct and different solutions
of the problem of suffering. The Prologue shows us what has taken
place in heaven, and seems to infer that the trials came upon Job to
establish his faith and righteousness; but the speeches between Job
and his friends, in the second division, if by the same author as the
Prologue, skilfully avoid this explanation, and the drama pursues its
course with the actors remaining in complete ignorance of the solution
that has been disclosed to the audience. The third division is taken
up with the speeches of Elihu: these break the continuity of the poem,
Job makes no reply to him, and Elihu is not mentioned in the Epilogue.
An examination of these speeches shows that they fall somewhat below
the level of brilliance and originality maintained in the rest of the
book, and the idea that they proceed from another writer of the same
school, who felt that the arguments of the three friends had not been
presented in the best possible way, is worthy of consideration. The
speeches of Jehovah are by the author of the main portion and are
wonderfully impressive and grand, although the exact contribution that
they make to the discussion of the problem is difficult to discern.
The Epilogue falls back into prose, and was certainly written by one
who had the entire work before him; but it so misses the meaning of
the whole argument, and is content with such a superficial solution of
restoration, that it has been thought by many to be an addition to the
original work. Whatever may be thought of the idea of plural authorship
as a solution of these divergences, the divergences themselves must be
borne in mind in any attempt to estimate the message of the book. But
are these different points of view incompatible with a single author?
With an author of such extraordinary talent in voicing opinions with
which he evidently does not agree, it cannot be said to be impossible;
and it may be that he only wished to state the problem and to give
those answers which were current in his age, leaving it to the reader
to discover whether these answers were really solutions; the Prologue
and Epilogue may have nothing to do with the didactive motive, but only
be due to dramatic and artistic demands.

The theology of Job certainly demands a late age and an advanced stage
of reflection. One interesting point is raised by the employment, in
the Prologue, of the figure of Satan. This personality, so fruitful a
factor in speculation on the cause of evil, demands a careful study.
It should be noted, first, that he is referred to as _the_ Satan, that
is, "the Adversary"; it is a generic, not a proper, name. This creature
is represented as appearing together with the angels in the presence
of God, and although his designs are sinister and his suggestions
unworthy, he is still a minister doing the will of God. This delegation
of evil advocacy can be traced, from the idea that it is due to God
Himself (2 Sam. xxiv. 1), to the work of the separate spirit who
offered to entice Ahab (1 Kings xxii. 21), and then to the greater
definiteness of our author. Beyond this book, again, the adversary is a
darker character who has to be rebuked by God (Zech. iii.), and in the
history of the Chronicler _the_ Satan has become "Satan," a proper name
(1 Chron. xxi. 1; cp. 2 Sam. xxiv. 1); but we have to go outside the
Old Testament Canon to get a completely dualistic opposition of God and
Satan (Wisdom ii. 24).

The conception of God has passed, in this book, entirely beyond the
tribal Deity Jehovah, and even beyond the ethical Personality known
to the Prophets, to One who is felt to be unknowable; and yet withal
Job clings to the idea that he shall one day see the face of the
Redeemer who now hides Himself. As in the Psalms, the alleged idea of
immortality (xix. 25 ff.) is not very definite, and so contradicts the
general expectation of the book (vii. 9 f. x. 21 f. xiv. 10 ff. 20 ff.
xvi. 22; xxi. 26; xxx. 23), that it must be taken to refer to Job's
conviction that some vindication of his cause will be made here in
this life. At the same time the idea of a future judgment which shall
proclaim his innocence and the ill-desert of his sufferings, is so
strong, that it sweeps death out of vision, and the hope of the future
life hovers in the thought if it does not break into language.

A dispassionate examination of the solutions here offered to the
problem of suffering shows that nothing really beyond a negative
position is reached in this book. The speeches of Job must be taken to
convey the author's opinions, and they are a most emphatic repudiation
of the doctrine of Providence expressed by the three friends. They
can only repeat the accepted notion that suffering is everywhere the
cause of sin, and with scorn and indignation Job repudiates the charge,
so far as he is concerned; he maintains his innocence and appeals to
God as his witness; but the Witness is silent and there is no daysman
betwixt them. Job's protest is not concerned with mere innocence, for
in one magnificent passage he appeals to his beneficent life spent in
the service of the poor and needy (xxxi.). The answers of Job leave
the little system of Providence supported by his friends, completely
discredited, and in this particular Jehovah sides with Job. The
theophany and speeches of Jehovah do not, however, seem to convey any
further contribution to the problem than perhaps the idea that for man
it is insoluble, because he does not and cannot see the whole; and so
nothing is left for man but to bear his griefs in silence and maintain
his trust in God.

Job remains, not only the finest contribution of Semitic genius to
the realm of literature, but a classic for all those who feel the
anguish of the world and the unintelligible perplexities of life. If it
conveys no real solution, it at least disposes of one long accepted as
adequate, and its complete overthrow removes one of the worst mistakes
of human observation and refutes one of the cruellest judgments of
men. The idea that prosperity always follows goodness has been a most
disastrous bequest of Hebrew thought, and has more than anything
else obscured from men's eyes the real meaning of life, prevented
an accurate judgment of character, and done much to turn aside the
expression of sympathy and obscure the duty of pity and forgiveness.

That a solution was not within the limits of Israel's faith cannot be
affirmed with Isa. liii. before us; but that it had never been rightly
understood and had never taken deep hold of even noble minds is driven
home with a telling force, in a further contribution of the Wisdom
Literature, the Book of Ecclesiastes.

The name Ecclesiastes is borrowed from the attempt to translate
the Hebrew term _Qoheleth_ into Greek. Of this name a variety of
interpretations have been put forward (Qoheleth, from _qahal_ an
assembly, is the active feminine participle and means, one who
calls, or addresses, or is merely member of, an assembly; A.V., "the
Preacher"; R.V. "the great Orator"), but the one that perhaps best
describes the term is that of "the debater." The work is put forward in
the name of Solomon, and of all the works ascribed to him there is none
that would come so suitably from the pen of that monarch, if he ever
reflected deeply on his career; but this ascription is not kept up with
any idea of deceiving the reader, but is simply one of the literary
customs of the time and a way of honouring a great name, for there
are biographical statements impossible to Solomon ("I _was_ king," i.
12; "above all that were before me in Jerusalem," i. 16), while the
reflection of society and the stage of thought, but most notably the
extremely late language, betray what is one of the latest of the Old
Testament writings.

Ecclesiastes is a work that has held an unusual fascination for certain
types of disposition, Renan declaring that it was the only lovely
thing that ever came from a Hebrew mind. The presence of the book at
all in the Old Testament is strange, and there were strong opinions
against admitting it into the Canon; it was perhaps only eventually
sanctioned because its contradictory statements made it possible to
interpret the book as a work written to controvert pessimistic ideas,
which are brought forward only to be refuted. For the intention of the
work is difficult to gather owing to its disjointed and incomplete
character, which makes the book as it stands a mass of contradictions.
Some passages profess utter pessimism and unbelief in God's providence,
while others, like the closing chapter, seek to inculcate religious
fear and trust. Various theories have been proposed to explain these
phenomena occurring in one book. It has been suggested that the work
is a dialogue between a doubting scholar and an orthodox believer.
With a view of straightening out the argument it has been conjectured
that the sheets of the original have somehow become disarranged, and
others have thought of a series of interpolations in an originally
quite unbelieving work; first by a writer who wishes to defend Wisdom
from the author's charges of unprofitableness, and then by a writer
who wishes to defend the providence of God. If interpolation is to be
thought of at all--and it should only be a refuge of despair--it is
to be sought in the opening and closing verses of the last chapter
(xii. 1, 13, 14), which may have been added to correct the influence
of the work; but even they are not impossible from this strangely
vacillating author. Certainly no explanations can remove the gloomy
tone of the book. The writer seems to have come into contact with
Greek pessimism, and from this standpoint he sees nothing true in the
Hebrew doctrine of retribution, and especially does he reject the too
optimistic doctrines of the Wisdom school. The problems that are solved
so simply in Proverbs, stated and left unanswered by Job, are by this
author answered in entirely negative fashion: nothing is profitable in
this life, nothing is new; nature and man move in an endless cycle
without hope or meaning. The pursuit of Wisdom is just as foolish as
the pursuit of folly: the end of the fool and the end of the wicked is
the same; life is not worth living; vanity of vanities, all is vanity.
In this book we at last come upon a clear recognition of the doctrine
of immortality, but only to find it explicitly denied by our author
(iii. 19-21). The only solution that the writer proposes is a sad
Epicureanism: make the best of a bad world. And yet in spite of this
conclusion the author still believes in God (iii. 11, 14; viii. 17);
but He is a God who has hidden His purpose from man and whom man can do
nothing to turn from His ways. This is more like the inscrutable Fate
of the Greek tragedians than the Jehovah of the Prophets: indeed the
word Jehovah is never once used throughout the book. If the concluding
chapter comes from the original author, then it recommends a religious
attitude towards these mysteries; but there is no revelation of
anything that gives assurance of the reasonableness of this position or
of the goodness of God.

What are we to learn from this Book? Are we to refuse to read it and
to reverse the judgment that included it in the Canon? Hardly that.
It is well that man's doubts should find a place in the same sacred
collection with his surest beliefs, for doubt may be but a stage in a
process from an inadequate to a fuller faith. The book shows that the
common appreciation of Israel's faith could not satisfy the mind that
had its attention fixed upon the facts of life; and especially does it
show that the hope of immortality, apart from which Israel's faith had
largely developed, is not the one thing that is lacking. That hope,
with its promise of retribution in a future and better world, will
always appear too speculative to some minds to relieve the burdens of
the life that now is, and even if believed in, it would offer no real
clue to the meaning of our trials here, but only tend to take men's
eyes off this life where perchance they might find the solution they
have missed. For there is an attitude to life that solves its darkest
problems, a disposition which transmutes its pain and failure, finding
it no enigma, but an opportunity for learning the will of the Father;
our presence here not a thing to be reluctantly borne, but a task to be
joyfully accepted as the commission of God. The book of Ecclesiastes
shows us, therefore, that the revelation through Israel is not yet
complete; for it voices the unsatisfied need and stretches out hands
of faith for something not yet made known. It is the deep dark of the
night; the next hour will see the Morning Star of Bethlehem above the
horizon, the fleeing shadows and the breaking of the day.




MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS


  The prevalence of the expectation of a personal Messiah reflected in
  the Gospels, and the clearness and consistency of the idea, are not
  to be explained solely from the Old Testament prophecies.

  In the Apocrypha the Messianic expectation has almost died out
  (Ecclus. xlix. 11; 1 Macc. ii. 57), but after the Maccabaean revolt
  it revived, owing doubtless to the disappointment caused by the
  deterioration of the Hasmonaean dynasty, of which so much had been
  expected. The Pharisees, who resented the policy of the Hasmonaeans,
  made the idea of a restoration of the Davidic line the peculiar
  property of their party, and from this time until the appearance of
  Jesus, Messianic expectation reached a point never before attained.
  The following summary shows the emergence of the idea in the
  literature of the period:--

  (1) The Dream-Visions of Enoch. B.C. 166-161. The Messiah appears
  under the figure of a white bullock, and the saints are changed
  into His image. The Messiah has only an official function in the
  world-drama, and a human though glorified personality.

  (2) The Sibylline Oracles. In a passage assigned to B.C. 140, the
  Messiah is represented as a God-sent King, who is expected to arise
  from the East, and whose appearance will be a signal for an attack
  upon the Temple by the Gentiles.

  (3) The Book of Jubilees. B.C. 135-105. The writer is concerned more
  with the Messianic Kingdom, which he conceives of spiritually, than
  with the Messiah, who is only alluded to once, and who is expected to
  arise from Judah.

  (4) The Similitudes of Enoch. B.C. 95-80. This part of the Book
  of Enoch is much occupied with the person of the Messiah. He is
  definitely named "the Messiah," and also bears the titles "the Elect
  One," "the Righteous One," and "the Son of Man." He is a Prophet and
  a Teacher, "the light of the Gentiles," all judgment is committed
  unto Him, and He will sit on the throne of His glory. He will raise
  again to life all the righteous who have died.

  (5) The Psalms of Solomon. B.C. 70-40. The Messiah is to be sinless;
  He is the Son of David; He will not adopt the ordinary methods of
  warfare, but will smite the earth with the rod of His mouth.

  The following works all belong to the Christian era, but they may
  reflect ideas that had an earlier origin:--

  (6) The Assumption of Moses. A.D. 7-30. The hope of an earthly
  Messiah is abandoned and it is God Himself who is expected to take
  vengeance on His enemies.

  (7) The Apocalypse of Baruch. _c._ 70 A.D. The Messiah will appear
  after Israel's enemies have been destroyed. His Kingdom is likened to
  "the bright lightning," and at the end of His reign He is to return
  in glory to heaven.

  (8) 2 Esdras. A.D. 81-96. The Messiah, although more than earthly,
  dies after a reign of 400 years. He is pictured as a lion rebuking
  an eagle (the Roman power), and "as it were with the likeness of a
  man" arising from the midst of the sea, and flying with the clouds of
  heaven.




Lecture XI

MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS


In all the stages through which the Old Testament religion passed there
seems to have existed a consciousness of their imperfection, and this
produced a tendency to gaze into the future, in which it was thought
the ideal religion would exist, and where could be descried the perfect
realisation of God's dwelling among men. It is natural that this
characteristic should find its clearest expression in the Prophets.
When their eyes are upon the present, they condemn; when they look to
the immediate future, they utter grave warning and the shadows deepen
upon their faces; but when they lift their eyes to the distant hills
of time, the light is on their faces, and they break into songs of
the days that are yet to be. It is this vision of the future and the
endeavour to give it a definite outline that runs like a thread through
the Old Testament and forces us to look beyond its borders for the
ultimate issue of its religious development. This subject may best be
studied under the general head of Messianic expectations.

The immediate difficulty in understanding this subject is found in the
circumstance that it has received from Bible students an exaggerated
attention, and has been pursued with methods that the best modern
scholarship cannot sanction. The eager hunting for Messianic prophecy,
and the desire to find literal fulfilment, has often stretched the
meaning of passages unwarrantably and made a sane exegesis appear tame
and uninteresting. But more disastrous has been the effect upon the
understanding of the Old Testament as a whole. The literature has been
treated as a mysterious typology, in which some indirect picture of
the Messiah was to be discovered, or a series of exact predictions of
His life and work. This has destroyed the sense of perspective, it has
ignored the message of the Prophets to their own age, and it has been
responsible for the idea that the religion of the Psalmists was simply
a pious expectation of the Messiah, instead of a real communion with
God.

It is difficult to gain a right appreciation of this subject after it
has suffered such abuse, but a serious effort should be made; for it is
in the understanding of the Messianic expectation that we shall find a
key to the New Testament and more especially to that conflict of soul
which the acceptance of the Messiahship seems to have brought upon
Jesus.

The method of study followed will be an endeavour to read all alleged
Messianic predictions, first of all in the light of their actual
meaning for the age in which they were uttered; but more particularly
it will embrace the general ideas of the future of which the conception
of the Messiah forms only a part. We shall find that the conscious
prediction of the Messiah is somewhat reduced in bulk, and that the
Messianic expectation includes something more than a figure of the
Messiah himself, and is indeed sometimes found without any such feature.

The Messianic ideal involves the whole conception of the religious
future of Israel. The Hebrew religion receives much inspiration from
its tradition of the past, but infinitely more from its hopes for the
future: the golden age is not thought to lie far back in history,
but in a time yet to come. It seems likely that this idea was widely
dispersed even among the common people, and it is therefore only
natural that it should often have been held in an unspiritual manner
and expressed after a material fashion. This hope was seized upon by
the Prophets, and by them elevated above a merely material expectation;
they enriched it by the wealth of their creative genius, and from
their time it receives a definite content. Standing far above their
contemporaries in their conception of the meaning of Jehovah's covenant
with Israel, the Prophets were forced to realise the failure of their
message to win immediate acceptance, and sometimes they witnessed its
entire rejection by the people; and therefore it was inevitable that
they should look to the future to yield what the present seemed unable
to produce: a religion pure, simple, and free from all limitations.
If we inquire the reason of this hope, we find it in their trust in
Jehovah's covenant and in their conviction of the ultimate triumph
of truth. Now it was not unnatural, with the peculiar character of
their national history, for their hopes to group themselves around
some commanding figure; for all along Israel had been moved by
splendid personalities. They were accustomed to the appearance of men
whose power and genius marked them out as fitted by Jehovah for some
mighty task; so that whenever they think of the future and come to a
detailed description of their vision they descry one dominant figure,
the symbol and representative of the people, but also the symbol and
representative of the power of Jehovah dwelling among them. This
figure receives his peculiar outline largely from the needs of their
immediate times, and any person of whom great things are expected may
be hailed as the Messiah (Cyrus, Isa. xlv. 1; Haggai ii. 20-23, seems
to suggest that Zerubbabel is the expected Messiah; and Zech. vi. 12
uses Messianic language of Joshua the High Priest).

We should have expected that the figure of the Messiah, as conceived
by the Prophets, would partake largely of the prophetic office
idealised and accepted by an obedient people. This however is not
the case. There is a promise of a prophet made through Moses, which
in the New Testament has been interpreted as a Messianic prophecy
(Deut. xviii. 18; Acts iii. 22, vii. 37), but an examination of the
passage, which follows a denunciation of the practices of divination,
necromancy, and sorcery, out of which primitive Prophetism arose, shows
that it is a promise of the establishment of the prophetic office
rather than of any one person. Elsewhere Moses is made to exclaim:
"would that all the Lord's people were prophets" (Num. xi. 29). Both
these passages are due to prophetic teaching, and this is the Prophets'
conception of their office: they do not rejoice in their splendid
isolation and their unique relation to God; they are grieved that the
people do not share their possession of the Spirit of God and their
hearing of His word, for to them these things are the essence of all
true religion. So they look forward to a time when their office will
no longer be necessary (Jer. xxxi. 34), and when the Spirit of the
Lord shall be poured out on all flesh (Joel ii. 28f). It is not in any
contradiction to this that the picture of the Servant of the Lord,
delineated by the Second Isaiah, is largely drawn from the prophetic
office (Isa. xlii. 1-4, xlix. 1-6, l. 4); for the Servant is the Nation
of Israel fulfilling her prophetic role among the nations of mankind.
In the late prophecy of Malachi the figure of Elijah the prophet
is seen in the future, but only as the herald of the coming of the
Messianic era (Mal. iv. 5).

The Priest contributes little more than the Prophet to the picture
(Zech. iii.; vi. 12; Psa. cx.); for to the prophetic conception of
things the Priesthood is hardly a necessary office in a true religion.
It is from the office of the King that the Messiah is largely drawn.
This conception could only have arisen after the founding of the
monarchy and only when the real David had faded far enough into the
past to be idealised. It was in their experience of the imperfection of
the Kings of Israel and Judah that the Prophets saw the need for a true
kingly head; and in the oppression of military kingdoms, the need for a
mighty warrior. And yet it is not a king who fills the picture of the
future, so much as a kingdom.

Outside the Prophets and the Psalms we find little expectation of a
personal Messiah, but we find almost everywhere the conception of
an ideal or Messianic age. What has been called the Protevangelium,
the promise to the woman that her seed should bruise the serpent's
head (Gen. iii. 15), does not point explicitly to any one person,
but simply promises that in man's eternal warfare with temptation he
shall at length gain the victory. The prophecy of Balaam (Num. xxiv.
17-19) involves nothing more than the future supremacy of Israel.
Jacob's blessing on Judah (Gen. xlix. 10) promises a stable dynasty
to that tribe, and the reference to Shiloh is so obscure that nothing
can be built upon it (_Shiloh_ may mean peace, but in the Septuagint
the phrase is translated: "until that which is his shall come."
Another ancient reading is: "till he come whose it is." Shiloh might
refer to the town of that name, but this would give no help to the
interpretation. The text must be corrupt).

It will be necessary for us to examine the circle of ideas which form
the background of the Messianic hope and from which the idea of the
Messiah emerges. When the Prophets speak of the future they often use a
strange phrase: "the day of the Lord." This is found first in Amos (v.
18), but its occurrence there shows that it was already a term in use
among the people, for Amos had to dissent from the popular idea of its
character. The term comes from the Hebrew idiom of the "day" of battle,
and it comes to be used of the great conflict in which Jehovah will
entirely overthrow the enemies of Israel; it is therefore looked for
with expectant hope. Amos points out that the manifestation of Jehovah
will be fatal to sin, whether in Israel or in other nations: _dies irae,
dies illa_. Thus modified by Amos this is the conception which, with
varying details, becomes the prophetic idea of the Day of the Lord. It
may therefore come in some threatened invasion; later, it is conceived
as a gathering of all the nations against Jerusalem, from which we get
the picture of Armageddon, the last great war before the establishment
of peace; and finally it becomes the world assize, and so the "day" of
judgment of the New Testament. This "day" is to separate the history
of God's dealings with men into two distinct periods, and will be the
dividing line between the perfect and the imperfect; so that all the
bright visions of the future are to be "after those days." The Prophets
believe that reconstruction can only come after destruction, that
history will reach its ideal over a precipice; they believe in a reform
by cataclysm rather than by evolution. Every threatening of political
change or national disaster may herald the coming of that day; it is
always at hand; to their vision, they are living near the finality of
things. There is a great deal in this imagery that fails to appeal to
modern ideas of history and progress. It was part of the prophetic
scheme and as such was a limitation of perfect vision; but shorn of its
mere form it remains a witness to their consciousness of the activity
of God in human history and of His judgment in the crises of the world.
The form was a limitation essential to their stage of mental evolution
and to its intelligibility to their age; its spirit is an eternal
message to mankind.

Immediately after the Day of the Lord, the Messianic Age is ushered
in, and in depicting the conditions of that time the lyrical genius of
the Prophets reaches its supreme expression, and these passages still
inspire the reformer and move men with their ideals of peace. The
picture of that age is composed by projecting into the future their own
institutions and especially their religious conceptions. They picture
a condition of human society which is best described in the phrase,
"the kingdom of God"; for although such an expression never breaks
forth from their lips, its contents are obviously in their minds. It
is to be a community in which the will of God is perfectly realised,
when religion shall no longer consist in statutes and commands, but in
the recognition of an inner law. Absolute righteousness, individual
and civil, will prevail, and the nations shall learn war no more. The
animal and natural creation will share in this beneficent order: the
lion shall lie down with the lamb, and the wilderness shall blossom
like the rose; the veil shall be torn from men's vision, all tears
shall be wiped away, and death shall be swallowed up in victory.

When they come to depict the subjects of this kingdom they fail to
attain to the inner and ethical requirements enunciated by Jesus, for
national hopes and ambitions still cloud their outlook. There are two
streams of thought--one frankly particularistic, where the future of
the heathen is ignored, or where they are simply to be exterminated;
and the other universalistic, where the conversion of the whole world
is expected (Isa. xlv. 22; Jer. xii. 14 ff, xvi. 19; cp. Isa. xi. 14-16
with xix. 18-25). It is somewhat surprising, in view of the subsequent
development of these ideas under Christian thought, that the sphere of
this tremendous change is conceived to be this present earth; and even
when the necessity of a new earth and a new heaven is considered, it
is still earth that is to be the chief theatre of events. Heaven is
conceived of as the dwelling place of Jehovah, but there is no idea
that this great change is to be postponed or relegated to some heavenly
condition; heaven is to come down to earth and Jehovah is to dwell
among His people and be their God.

It is from the ground of these ideas that there arises the conception
of the person known as the Messiah, who shall be the Divine instrument
in bringing about this blessed condition. Messiah is from the Hebrew,
_Mashiah_, and means "anointed one." The actual phrase, _the_ Messiah,
without further qualification, is not found in the Old Testament (Dan.
ix. 25, A.V. "The Messiah" is incorrect; it should read: "an anointed
one, a prince," as R.V. mar.); but after the closing of the Canon the
phrase was constantly used to denote the Jewish hope of the appearance
of a singular person, of Davidic descent, who should be superhumanly
endowed, and who should overturn the enemies of the Jews and place
their nation at the head of the world. The title recalls the mode of
consecration used for priests and kings by anointing them with oil
(Lev. iv. 3, 5, 16; vi. 22; 1 Sam. ii. 35; xii. 3), and "the anointed
of Jehovah" is the common title for the kings of Israel. The origin of
this idea of the Messianic King may certainly be traced to Nathan's
promise to David of a perpetual seed which should occupy his throne
and be the special delight and care of Jehovah (2 Sam. vii. 2-17). In
the presence of a weak or unworthy occupant of the throne this promise
would come to mind, and would gather new meaning as the Prophets saw in
the troubles of their times the imminence of the Day of the Lord. It is
to the prophet Isaiah that we owe a striking conception of a monarch
who not only fulfils his promise but transcends it in a way that is
hardly conceivable in a merely human king. The first emergence of this
hope in the mind of the prophet occurs when he attempts to restrain
Ahaz from joining the fatal confederacy of Syria and Ephraim against
Assyria. When Ahaz demands some confirmation, the prophet promises the
sign of a young woman who shall bear a child named Immanuel (Isa. vii.
14-17). Following Matthew, Christian expositors have taken this to be
a prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus; although it is difficult to
see how this could be a sign to Ahaz. The subject is obscure to the
last degree. The Hebrew word rendered "a virgin," although capable of
such a special application, means simply a young woman. The translation
"virgin" was first made by the Septuagint, and this may point to the
fact that at the time this version was made the Messiah was expected
to be born of a virgin. The prophecy seems to have arisen from the
conviction that the Assyrian invasion would bring into existence
some person who should represent the active presence of God with
His people; and beyond this explanation there is nothing but mere
speculation. But in a later oracle of Isaiah's (ix. 6f), the conception
has grown in definiteness, and this expected person is crowned with
such honorific titles as "Wonder of a Counsellor, Hero-God, Father
of Eternity, Prince of Peace." To our ears these titles convey the
sense of absolute Divinity, but it is questionable whether they meant
that to Isaiah. Eastern monarchs have always been addressed with
high-sounding titles, and Isaiah's language may have been coloured by
foreign court customs; but still it would remain that the titles lead
us to expect an unexampled figure who possesses attributes that mark
him out as specially equipped by God. Once more Isaiah returns to this
figure (xi. 1-12), and now definitely asserts that he shall spring
from David's line; only now the majesty of his person is conceived
as due to his seven-fold possession of the Spirit of Jehovah, and
his character fits him rather for administrative and prophetic work.
Micah, a contemporary of Isaiah, has much the same figure (v. 2-5) of
a mighty prince of Davidic lineage and of mysterious birth (Bethlehem
simply stands here for David's line, and "whose outgoings have been
from eternity" probably means nothing more than that his descent shall
spring from this ancient ancestor). There is an inexplicable element
in these predictions, but they have been found elsewhere, outside
Israel, in times of great national danger or expectation. In Israel,
the idealisation of David, the personal element in her history, and
the increased possibilities discovered in human personality when under
the complete dominion of the Spirit of Jehovah, have contributed to
the creation of this figure. It cannot be said that it was a mental
vision of the person of Jesus that shaped the prophecy, for it must not
be forgotten that it was an immediate fulfilment that they expected;
and indeed their picture so utterly misled the Jews, that, when Christ
claimed to be the Messiah, they treated His claim as blasphemous. While
we can see that Christ was indeed a King, it is only by a spiritual
conception of kingship, and only after the verdict of history has
crowned Him as a true ruler of men; not by any actual resemblance to
the external magnificence of the Messianic King. When the Messianic
call came to Jesus He found in these passages a difficulty, for they
outlined a programme He could only reject; but it was other and
indirect allusions of the old Testament, some of which had never been
considered as Messianic, that Jesus took for His pattern. This meant a
reading of prophecy very different from that of the Jews of His time,
and it is surely here that the views we have found ourselves forced to
accept in regard to Old Testament prophecy can claim the support of
Jesus Himself. It is important to grasp this point: the argument from
predictions definitely fulfilled in Jesus has failed to convince the
Jews, who ought to understand their own Scriptures best, and we must
recognise that it is only a spiritual interpretation of prophecy and a
valuation of Jesus which owes nothing to flesh and blood that can see
in Him One of whom all the Prophets bore witness.

It is to these other conceptions, to which the spiritual intuition of
Jesus led Him in His search for support for His Messianic ideals, that
we must now turn.

The first of these in importance is undoubtedly "the Servant of the
Lord." We saw when examining this idea that it was an ideal of a nation
rather than of an individual, and yet it was upon this that Jesus
fixed, and it was this idea that seemed to mould His whole conception
of His mission. According to Luke, the first discourse of Jesus took
place in the Synagogue at Nazareth, where He set forth His programme
and policy, and stated them to be identical with those the prophet
had outlined for the nation centuries before (Luke iv. 16-21; Isa.
lxi. 1, 2); and the evangelist Matthew sees in the methods of Jesus a
fulfilment of the prophecy of the Servant (Matt. xii. 18-21; Isa. xlii.
1-4). It was probably as Jesus saw the clouds gather about His life and
disaster began to threaten that He was led to study the career of that
Servant and see that it involved suffering, being despised and rejected
of men; and so He came to find the key to the mystery of His Cross in
that classic of the vicarious life, the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah.
Jesus was probably the first to interpret that passage in a Messianic
sense.

His reason for adopting the title of "the Son of Man" is exceedingly
difficult to trace; it may be said that no completely satisfactory
explanation of the origin or meaning of the term has yet been
discovered, and in the present state of research on the subject it
would be folly to commit ourselves to any of the theories that have
been propounded. We can only keep in mind the various facts, which
the use of this title in the Gospels presents to us. It is clear that
Jesus did not intend the title to be a declaration to the world that
He had accepted the Messianic call; for all along it was His deliberate
purpose to conceal His Messiahship, and for reasons that are obvious,
when we consider the difference between His conception of Messianic
function and that of the Jews of His day. Again, although there is a
slight difference between Daniel, where we only hear of "one like unto
a son of man," and Jesus who calls Himself "_the_ son of man," yet
when challenged by the high-priest Jesus certainly quotes from Daniel
(Dan. vii. 13; Mark xiv. 62). Now in Daniel it is not a person who is
figured by this title, so much as a humane kingdom which is to replace
the kingdoms that were more like beasts in their character. It is only
in the Book of Enoch that the Son of Man is definitely identified with
the Messiah. Did Jesus ever read that Book, or were its ideas at all
commonly known? If so we should have to concede that the Son of Man
meant the Messiah, both to Jesus and to the people, and yet this is an
apparent contradiction of His general motive in keeping the Messiahship
secret.

Perhaps, and the suggestion is made with the knowledge that in the
present state of the problem it can be nothing more than a suggestion,
there is a line that has not been exhausted, and along which help may
yet be found. It starts from the fact that Jesus seems to have adopted
the _character_ of the Servant of the Lord under the _name_ of the Son
of Man; and we have seen that both these are ideals of a community or
a nation rather than of a person. Again, that somehow the title "the
Son of Man" had Messianic significance, and in the mind of Jesus was
connected with the figure in Daniel, is seen from His confession before
Caiaphas. The contradiction between these facts and the purpose of
concealing His Messiahship can perhaps be solved by noticing that Jesus
never explicitly identifies Himself with the Son of Man; and if all
the passages where this title is found in the Synoptics are examined,
they seem to separate themselves into three distinct groups: (1) where
the reference might be not only to Jesus Himself but to Man fulfilling
his ideal; (2) where the reference is to the suffering which the Son
of Man must undergo; (3) and most important, this term is always used
when Jesus speaks of that mysterious return on the clouds which is
known as the Second Advent. The conclusion to which it is suggested
all these facts point is that although Jesus believed Himself to be
the personal centre on which the Messianic hope converged, it was not
to Himself personally, but to the new humanity which His Spirit should
beget, that He looked for the complete fulfilment of the Messianic
hope. Thus at least are linked together the fact that the Prophets are
occupied rather with the Messianic community than with the Messiah,
and the fact that Jesus made the centre and aim of His teaching the
Kingdom rather than its personal embodiment in Himself. Jesus certainly
read these Prophets more according to their real inwardness than any
of His contemporaries or than many generations of Christian scholars;
and there is no better preparation for the serious study of the Gospels
than a careful examination of the growing revelation of the Old
Testament religion, and the inner meaning of the Messianic hope.

Of this wonderful growth and moving revelation, it can be said, in a
way deeper than the old typological and prophetic methods of study
could understand, that Christ is the aim and the goal; not only
Jesus of Nazareth with His unique Personality, but that still more
transcendent mystery, the Christ within the heart, Christ the head of
every man. If we have learned nothing else, surely we have learned
this: that behind the hopes of mankind, behind their misty dreams,
their gropings after truth, their struggles for righteousness, are
the eternal thoughts of God; and although these may transcend their
poor reflection in the mind of man, as the heavens the earth, yet this
remains: that for every hope implanted, there is an answer beyond
our expectation; for every desire Godward, the revelation of the
Father-friend; for every ideal of the human heart, the Christ; and
for every effort after human progress, the ever nearer coming of the
Kingdom of God.




INDEX


  Abraham, emigration of, 23;
    historicity of, 36;
    religion of, 31, 34

  _Adonai_, 60

  Ahijah, 117

  Altars, erected anywhere, 98;
    construction of, 200

  Amaziah, 118

  Amos, 98, 118, 136, 148, 152, 159, 271

  Animals, as tribal names, 39;
    clean and unclean, 40;
    worship of, 26, 39, 68, 124

  Animism, 40, 41

  Apostasy, 90, 129

  Arabia, home of Semites, 20, 22

  Ark, 69, 70, 121, 180

  Armageddon, 272

  Aryan conception of God, 25

  Asaph, 222, 225

  Asherah, 46

  Ashtoreth, or _Ashtart_, 94

  Assembly of the saints, 223

  Assyria, 156, 160, 161

  Atonement, 102, 208;
    of Christ, 210, 211;
    Day of, 177, 178

  Azazel, 42, 207, 208


  Baal, 38, 92, 96, 98

  Baal of Tyre, 94, 109, 125. See also under Melkart

  Babylon, fall of, 185;
    Jews in, 169-174, 179, 185, 204

  Babylonian epic of Creation, 205;
    influence of, 204-206

  Babylonian religion, 186

  Balaam, prophecy of, 271

  Ban, the, 49

  Blood, significance of, 26, 208;
    food of deity, 48

  Book of the Covenant, 200

  _Bosheth_, 94, 97

  Bull-worship, 68, 98, 124


  Calf-worship. See under Bull

  Canaan, influence of, 27, 83-86, 170;
    conquest of, 82, 86, 87;
    Jewish love for, 83;
    limitations of, 84

  Canaanites, customs of, borrowed, 92, 98;
    origin of, 23, 24;
    religion of, 38, 92-95;
    sanctuaries of, 98, 158, 163;
    why not exterminated, 90;
    and Hebrews, 87

  Centralization of worship, 144, 157, 163

  Chemosh, 43

  Choice of Israel, Jehovah's, 75;
    prophetic conception of, 156, 187

  Christ the goal of Old Testament, 282.
    And see under Jesus

  Christianity, 101, 274

  Chronicler, the, 221

  Circumcision, 50, 180

  Comparative religion, 38

  Conditions of life among Semites, 20;
    in time of Judges, 87;
    after exile, 196, 232;
    in time of Psalms, 226, 231, 232;
    reflected in Wisdom lit., 247;
    in Ecclesiastes, 259;
    in Messianic age, 273

  Covenant at Sinai, 58, 65;
    prophetic conception of, 76, 157, 267

  Covenant-sacrifice, 49, 63

  Creation, 186, 205;
    Babylonian legend of, 205

  Customs retained with new significance, 39, 50, 176

  Customs, mourning, 40

  Cyrus, 183, 185, 268


  Daniel, Book of, 141

  David, character of, 119, 121, 229;
    influence of, 120;
    his kingdom, 88, 120;
    a poet, 119;
    his religious ideas, 121;
    his work, 120;
    and the Messiah, 270, 275

  Day of Atonement, 177;
    of the Lord, 271;
    of judgment, 272

  Deborah, Song of, 88

  Decalogue, the, 74

  Deluge, the, 206

  Deuteronomy, Book of, 145, 157, 162, 200

  Development of Religion, xiv, 27, 37, 79, 86, 99, 128, 129, 131,
          142, 215, 282

  Director's Psalm Book, 220

  Documents, various, how detected, 33, 194, 199


  "E," 30, 142, 194

  Ecclesiastes, name, 258;
    Book of, 260;
    ascribed to Solomon, 258;
    significance of, 262

  El, 37, 59

  Elijah, 98, 99, 106, 114, 125, 126, 136, 148

  Elisha, 113, 114, 125, 128

  _Elohim_, 30, 42, 222

  Ephod, 67, 100

  Ethical conceptions, 127, 152, 155, 158, 244, 249

  Ethnology of Old Testament, 18

  Exile, date of, 134, 168;
    cause of, 171, 176;
    critical view of, 171, 172;
    lessons from, 190;
    religion after, 230

  Exilic stamp on literature, 172

  Exodus, the, 58;
    date of, 24, 82

  Ezekiel, 169, 174, 175, 178, 195;
    Book of, 174, 177;
    his school, 195;
    and Leviticus, 172, 177

  Ezra, 181;
    introduces the Law, 196, 197;
    what did it include? 198, 200


  Feast of Tabernacles, 197, 198

  Forgiveness, 207, 233

  Funeral feasts, 41


  Gad, 117

  God, name of. See under _Elohim_, El and Jehovah

  God, conception of, Semitic, 25, 26;
    Aryan, 25;
    anthropomorphic, 48, 66, 155;
    ethical, 96, 155, 211;
    local, 43, 52, 62, 75, 96;
    spiritual, 155;
    tribal, 26, 32, 75;
    materialistic, 69, 70;
    as the Storm God, 70;
    as the Creator, 186

  God, conception of, by David, 26;
    by Prophets, 154, 155, 175, 186;
    by Psalmists, 236;
    in Job, 256;
    in Ecclesiastes, 261

  God, holiness of, 175, 207;
    jealousy of, 76;
    righteousness of, 77, 155, 232


  _Habiri_, 24, 82

  Hallel Psalms, 223

  Hammurabi, code of, 73, 203, 204

  Heathen deities, 42, 43, 66, 154

  Hebrew, meaning of name, 23

  Hebrew Bible, divisions of, 141

  Hebrews, relation to other nations, 18, 19, 22, 24, 85, 156

  Heroes of Israel, 85

  Hexateuch, 200

  High places, worship at, condemned, 173.
    See also Canaanitish sanctuaries

  Higher criticism, xi, xii

  Historical value of Hebrew tradition, 32, 183, 228, 229, 245, 247

  Historical books, Prophets' influence on, 114, 141, 142

  History, ancient conception of, xiii, 32, 51, 145, 163;
    how compiled, 114, 142, 143;
    religious interpretation of, 90, 101, 129, 171, 176, 187, 189.
    See also under Redaction

  Hittites, 23

  Holiness, 175, 207, 236;
    code of, 200

  Horeb, Theophany at, 126, 128

  Hosea, 159

  Human sacrifice, 48, 49, 95


  Ideal Israel, 188

  Idolatry and images, 37, 45, 67, 68, 70, 154, 176, 180, 186, 247

  Immortality in Psalms, 34, 35;
    in Job, 256;
    in Ecclesiastes, 261, 262

  Inspiration, xiii, 129, 206, 231;
    how related to infallibility, xiii, xiv

  Interpolations, 146

  Isaiah, 160, 295;
    Book of, 147, 156;
    authorship of, 147, 182-185

  Israel. See under Hebrews


  "J," 30, 32, 194

  Jehovah, name, 59;
    pronunciation, 60, 62;
    explanation of, 61

  Jehovah and other nations, 156;
    and Baal, 97, 98;
    and Israel, 44

  Jehovah, religion of, date, 31, 34, 65;
    weakness of, 92, 95, 96;
    prophetic conception of, 154, 155;
    a religion of choice, 65, 75

  Jehovah. See also under God

  Jeremiah, 154, 164, 188

  Jeroboam, 124

  Jerusalem, connection with David, 120;
    idea of inviolability, 161, 169, 170;
    besieged by Sennacherib, 161;
    deliverance of, 161;
    besieged by Nebuchadrezzar, 170;
    destruction of, 169, 170

  Jesus and Messiahship, 266, 276, 278, 280, 281;
    and new covenant, 77;
    and Levitical system, 210;
    and Revelation, xv, 77;
    and Prophets, 273, 282;
    and Psalms, 231, 232, 234;
    and Proverbs, 250;
    and Isa. liii., 189;
    and Book of Daniel, 280, 281; and Book of Enoch, 280;
    and Old Testament, x

  Jethro, 62

  Jews. See under Hebrews

  Job, 251;
    Book of, 250;
    date of, 251, 252;
    author, 251, 254, 255;
    divisions of, 253

  Jonah, Book of, 156, 189

  Joshua, Book of, 82, 86, 87

  Josiah, reform of, 162, 163, 200

  Judah, tribe of, 89

  Judaism, 178

  Judges, functions of, 91;
    Book of, 82, 87, 88, 90, 144


  Kenites, 64

  King. See under Monarchy and Messiah

  Kingdom of God, 28, 127, 131, 171, 273, 282

  Korah, sons of, 225


  Law, origin of, 173;
    of Moses, 196-198;
    later than Prophets, 137, 158;
    no observance of, until after exile, 54, 172, 199.
    See also under Pentateuch and Moses

  Levi, tribe of, 89

  Levite choirs, 221

  Levites, 71;
    distinguished from priests, 177

  Levitical system, 208;
    intention of, 209

  Leviticus, Book of, 157, 158, 172

  Literary ideals, 146, 163, 251, 259

  Localization of God, 43, 96, 103

  Local sanctuaries, 58, 59

  Lower criticism, xi


  Maccabees, the, 223, 224;
    times of, 221;
    Psalms of, 224, 226

  Manasseh, 162

  _Mazzebah_, the, 45

  Melkart, 94, 95, 125.
    See also Baal of Tyre

  Memorial stones, 37, 44

  Messiah, name, 274;
    title, 276;
    Davidic descent of, 275, 277

  Messiah in the Prophets, 269, 276;
    in Apocrypha, 264

  Messiah as Prophet, 269;
    Priest, 270;
    King, 270, 275

  Messianic age, 151, 270, 273

  Messianic King, 228

  Messianic prophecy, 266, 267, 269-271, 275-277;
    includes more than a person, 267, 271, 281

  Micah, 160, 277

  Micaiah, 128

  Midian, 64

  Molech, 95, 96

  Monarchy, origin of, 97, 106, 118;
    in Psalms, 228;
    in Proverbs, 247, 248

  Monotheism among Semites, 25;
    Hebrews, 39, 43;
    not taught by Moses, 66;
    in the Prophets, 42, 154, 186

  Moses, name, 57;
    historical reality, 55, 57;
    his call, 58, 63;
    mention before exile, 56;
    not author of Pentateuch, 54, 57.
    See also under Law, and Pentateuch

  Music and prophecy, 112

  Musical directions in Psalter, 218-220

  Musical services, 223


  Nathan, 117, 122, 275

  Nature in Psalter, 236

  Nazarites, 114

  Nebuchadrezzar, 169

  Necromancy, 39

  Nehustan, 68

  New Covenant, the, 165

  New Testament, Psalms quoted in, 229

  New Testament and Old Testament, 266. See also under Christianity,
          and Jesus


  Old Testament, attitude of Jesus to, x;
    Jewish reverence for, x.
    See also under Hebrew Bible

  Oracles, 27, 46, 47, 68, 77, 100

  Origin of religion, 51, 62


  "P," 194. See under Priestly Code

  Palestine. See under Canaan

  Particularism, 155, 186, 191, 273

  Passover, the, 49

  Patriarchs, historicity of, 35

  Pentateuch, strata of, 30, 194, 199, 200;
    how discovered, 34, 194, 199;
    not by Moses, 54, 73;
    Samaritan, 201.
    See also under Law, and Moses

  Personal conception of religion, 154, 166, 232, 233, 235, 237

  Personalities, influence of, on history, 268

  Personification, 186, 189, 232, 246, 252, 253

  Pharaoh of the Exodus, 82

  Philistines, 24, 97

  Philo, 242, 246

  Philosophy, 21, 246, 252

  Phoenicians, 20, 23

  Poetry, sign of early date, 18, 69, 88;
    of David, 119, 228;
    in Prophets, 153;
    in Psalms, 236;
    in Proverbs, 245

  Polytheism among Semites, 25;
    among Hebrews, 37;
    the religion of savages, 41;
    in original documents, 41;
    evidence of, 42

  Prayer, 216, 231

  Prediction, 137, 151, 182, 183, 266, 278

  Priesthood, 63;
    in time of Moses, 71, 111, 202;
    in time of Judges, 54,68, 100;
    in Ezekiel, 177;
    after exile, 209;
    of Messiah, 270.
    See also under Levites

  Priestly code, the, 200-202;
    ideals of, 206, 210.
    See also under Levitical system

  Priestly school, the, 196, 206

  Problem of Providence, 234, 250, 253, 257, 259, 260

  Problem of suffering, 187, 243, 251, 253, 257, 258, 262

  Progress, causes of, 75, 97, 102.
    See under Development

  Prophesying, 112

  Prophet, name of, 109, 110

  Prophetic bands, 106, 112, 125

  Prophetic consciousness, 149, 150

  Prophetic literature, how compiled, 145, 146, 152

  Prophetic style, 114, 145, 150, 153, 185

  Prophets, origin of, 106;
    two classes, 108, 111, 149, 153;
    conflict between, 113, 128;
    their call, 148;
    their relation to State, 117, 127, 153;
    and national religion, 136, 149;
    and the Covenant, 139, 157;
    chronology of, 134;
    their place in history, 137;
    importance of, for criticism, xii, 137, 138;
    their picture of their age, 138, 139;
    they are creative, 135;
    their relation to the Law, 137, 139, 140, 143, 164, 215;
    and the Gospel, 136, 137, 138;
    their scheme of the future, 151, 272

  Protestantism, 131

  Protevangelium, the, 270

  Proverb, the, 245

  Proverbs, Book of, 245;
    its relation to Job, 240, 252;
    divisions of, 245;
    date of, 247

  Psalms, titles of, 214, 218, 219, 224, 225, 228;
    ascription to David, 214, 218, 221, 222, 225-229;
    authorship of, 224, 225;
    some are prayers, 216;
    use in synagogue, 216;
    in the temple, 216, 218;
    Hallels, 223;
    Maccabaean, 224, 226;
    tone of, 217;
    imprecations in, 217, 231, 232;
    and the Gospel, 215;
    and Christianity, 216;
    their conception of God, 225, 236

  Psalter, the, criticism of, 217, 218;
    date of, 221, 225-227, 229, 231;
    Books of, 221;
    a gradual compilation, 218, 221


  Queen of Heaven, 95


  Rahab, 205

  Rechabites, 115

  Redaction, 144, 145, 173, 215, 218

  Reform, 107;
    of Elijah, 126;
    of Prophets, 139;
    under Josiah, 144, 162, 163;
    after exile, 180, 181;
    under Ezra, 196, 200

  Religion, origin of, 38, 78;
    primitive, 32, 39, 40, 42, 43;
    Semitic, 25;
    of Patriarchs, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 65;
    in time of Moses, 54;
    in time of Judges, 67, 71;
    of Canaanites, 92-95;
    under monarchy, 108, 112, 158;
    after exile, 179, 181;
    Levitical conception of, 209, 210;
    of Psalmists, 230, 231-235;
    in Wisdom lit., 242, 244;
    in Proverbs, 249;
    in Job, 255;
    in Ecclesiastes, 261;
    of the future, 265, 268, 273

  Repentance, 173, 178

  Restoration, the, 181, 182

  Retribution, 250, 262. And see under Problem of Providence

  Revelation, xiii, 51, 63, 66, 78, 79, 231

  Ritual, 157, 209, 211


  Sabbath, 168, 179

  Sacred springs, 47

  Sacred stones, 44

  Sacred trees, 46

  Sacrifice, primitive, 47, 48;
    adopted by Moses, 72;
    covenant, 49, 63;
    human, 48, 49;
    Prophetic estimate of, 72, 158;
    in "P," 202, 207;
    meaning of, 207, 208;
    of Christ, 210, 211.
    See also under Atonement

  Samaria, fall of, 134, 160

  Samson, 115

  Samuel, 106, 111, 113, 114, 119

  Satan, 255, 266

  Saul, 111, 112, 119

  Scepticism, 248, 260, 261

  Science, 21, 131, 237

  Second Isaiah, 147, 180.
    See also under Isaiah

  Seer, 100

  Selah, 219, 220

  Semites, home of, 20;
    desert life, 20;
    Western antipathy to, 21;
    their contribution to thought, 21;
    to science, 21;
    to religion, 22;
    groups of, 22;
    migrations of, 22

  Semitic character of our Bible, 25

  Semitic language, 19

  Semitic religion, 25, 26;
    tribal, 26;
    value of, 27;
    does not account for Hebrew religion, 25, 31

  Sennacherib, 160

  Servant of the Lord, 187, 188, 269, 278, 280;
    the suffering, 187, 279

  Shekel, temple, 197, 199

  Shewbread, 48

  Shiloh, 271

  Simeon, tribe of, 89

  Simon Maccabaeus, 224

  Sin, 176, 207, 209, 232, 233

  Sin-offering, the, 207

  Sinai, 58, 62, 64, 65

  Social conceptions, 127, 158, 159

  Solomon, 88, 122, 224, 225;
    Proverbs ascribed to, 245, 246, 248;
    and Ecclesiastes, 259

  Son of Man, the, title of, 279-281

  Sons of the Prophets, 106, 110-112.
    See also under Prophetic bands

  Substitution, 208, 209

  Supernatural, the, 79

  Symbolism, 208, 209

  Synagogue, the, 180, 181, 216

  Syncretism, 92, 97, 99, 101, 102, 107


  Tabernacle, the, 72, 73, 202

  Tabernacles, Feast of, 197, 198

  _Tehom_, _Tiamat_, 205

  Tel-el-Amarna, tablets, 24, 82

  Temple, the, 122-124, 162, 164, 177, 202;
    worship of, 220, 230;
    mentioned in Psalms, 226, 227

  _Torah_, 100

  Totemism, 39

  Tradition, Jewish, 229

  Tribes, names of, 40;
    unity of, 88, 91


  Universalism, 155, 156, 186, 190, 191, 242, 274


  Virgin birth, the, 276


  Wisdom, 243, 246, 249, 261

  Wisdom literature, 241;
    compared with rest of Bible, 243-244;
    date of, 245

  Wise men, the, 244, 248

  Worship, prophetic conception of, 157;
    of synagogue, 181;
    of temple, 220, 230.
    And see under Altars, Religion, God, and Sacrifice


  Zechariah, Book of, 134, 147


BRADBURY, AGNEW, & CO. LD., PRINTERS, LONDON AND TONBRIDGE.




Transcribers' Notes:


Cover created by Transcriber and placed in the Public Domain.

Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a
predominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not
changed.

Simple typographical errors were corrected; occasional unbalanced
quotation marks retained.

Ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained.

Missing periods at the ends of the Roman numbers of Biblical citations
have been added.

Index not checked for proper alphabetization or correct page references,
but on page 285, reference to page 295 under "Isaiah" should be to
page 195.

Page 208: "how this is affected" perhaps should be "effected".

Page 288: "BRADBURY, AGNEW, & CO. LD." was printed that way, as "LD."








End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Evolution of Old Testament Religion, by
W. E. Orchard

*** 