the nomad does not preserve records of his experiences. In the agricultural stage written documents begin to appear. But it is only under the monarchy that literature in any real sense of the word takes form. And religiously the most important literary monuments of this period are the remains of the written prophets. Of course here, as in other departments of human history, no clear and sharp lines of division can be drawn. This is most distinctly seen in the case of Deuteronomy. The writers of this book supposed themselves to be putting the ideas of the prophets into definite form; yet they were, in fact, introducing a new period that of legalism. This instance is important as showing that the political development and the religious history do not exactly coincide. Politically, the fall of Jerusalem in 586 was the most important event in the history of Israel; religiously, the publication of Deuteronomy, nearly forty years earlier, was epoch-making. It may be well to note, however, that the legalism introduced by Deuteronomy would not have become effective had not Jerusalem fallen into the hands of Nebuchadrezzar. What stands out clearly is that our divisions of Israel's religion will be the following: 1. Nomadic religion. 2. Agricultural religion. 3. Prophetism. 4. Legalism. CHAPTER II NOMADIC RELIGION ACCORDING to the unanimous voice of tradition, the Hebrews were immigrants to Palestine, coming from the eastern desert or from the south. The tradition is confirmed by the monuments, according to which the Chabiri, a nomadic people, invaded Syria in the fourteenth century or earlier. We are entitled, therefore, at the outset to seek for religious phenomena akin to those presented by the desert-dwellers of the present day. Direct testimony, that is, accounts contemporary with the desert sojourn, we must not expect, for the literature in our hands dates from the time of the monarchy. But the conservatism of religion is such that we may expect survivals from the earlier stage of thought to show themselves in tradition. The tradition, as was just remarked, is to the effect that the fathers of the people were, if not nomads in the strict sense of the word, at least shepherds without fixed dwellings. This is the more striking because the ideal of the Hebrew writers for themselves was agricultural. What the Israelite of the ninth century desired for himself was to dwell in the shadow of his own vine and fig-tree, with none to molest or make him afraid. But when he pictured those ideal figures, the patriarchs, he represented them as shepherds wandering up and down the land accompanied by their flocks, living in tents, and not having title even to a burial-place until they had bought it from the earlier inhabitants. What, then, was the religion of these fathers of the nation? It is almost superfluous to remark that it was not monotheism. The theory of Renan, according to which early Semitic monotheism was suggested by the sterile uniformity of the desert, so different from the engaging variety of the cultivated country, is no longer held by any one. In fact, to the nomad the phenomena of the desert are as varied as are those of any other region. And better acquaintance with nomadic ideas shows us that the early Semites, like all other peoples, did not hold a belief in one God. This is made evident by the Arab descriptions of the times before Mohammed as well as by the survivals of polydemonism among the Bedawin to-day. The idea of the unity of God came late to the Semite as it comes late to other peoples. The impression made by nature upon early thinkers is that of a multiplicity of powers, and religion consists in the worship or at least the conciliation of these powers whenever they make their presence known. Since the decipherment of the Babylonian and Assyrian documents the endeavour has been made to discover in them a primitive monotheism, and to derive Hebrew religion from the dwellers in the Euphrates Valley. It is sufficient to notice here that if any monotheistic beliefs existed in Babylon they were the property of a few isolated thinkers and never moulded the popular religion. The whole impression made by the religion of Babylonia and Assyria is that of a highly developed polytheism. And that the early Hebrews worshipped a multitude of gods is affirmed by their own writers. The author of Joshua's farewell speech (Joshua 24:2) declares that the fathers served other gods before their migration to Canaan. Even as late as the time of Jeremiah the prophet could say that Judah's gods were as many as her cities (Jer. 2:28). The sacred writers did indeed believe, or at least some of them believed, that the polytheism which was so constant a phenomenon in their people's history was a declension from the purer faith of the fathers. But in this they were moved by the same sort of idealism which prevails in almost every period of history, an idealism which locates the golden age in the past. Careful consideration of the facts will free us from this prepossession. Polytheism among the Hebrews seems to be indicated first of all, by the fact that the usual Hebrew name for God (Elohim) is plural in form. Various theories have been brought forward to account for this curious fact. For the early dogmaticians, who assumed that the Old Testament reveals all that is essential for Christian belief, it was an evidence of a trinity of persons in the Godhead. This will hardly be seriously urged to-day. More recent is the hypothesis that Elohim is a plural of majesty, akin to the formulæ in which monarchs speak of themselves as "we." Such plurals of majesty, however, are without parallel in Hebrew. The only view that can be urged with plausibility is that the word originally designated the whole group of divinities and was gradually narrowed down so as to be applied to the One. Vestiges of a belief in a group of divine beings have survived even in our present Bible. Yahweh himself says: "Man has become like one of us" (Gen. 3:22). The Creator takes counsel of his associates: "Let us make man in our image" (Gen. 1:26). We read also of sons of Elohim, who must themselves be of divine nature (Gen. 6:2). It is true that in our present text these other divine beings are thought of as subordinate to the chief God. But this shows only how the earlier belief was reconciled with the later. More convincing is the variety of names which are used for God. Strictly speaking, the fact that any name besides "God" is used is evidence for polytheism. It would not occur to a man of our time to ask for the name of the divinity who reveals himself to him; yet this is what Moses does. And in Israel we find several names applied to God. Elohim we have just discussed. Then we have El (Gen. 31:13; 35: 1; 49: 25, and elsewhere), a name found among the other Semites. It has been traced among the Phoenicians and Arabs as well as in Babylonia. Among the Babylonians it seems to have been the most general name for God, but among the Phoenicians it was applied to a particular divinity whom Greek authors identified with Kro nos.1 Again we find a name, Shaddai, sometimes conjoined with El, but apparently once designating a separate divinity (Deut. 32:17). In poetic passages of comparatively early date it is brought into parallelism with Yahweh, as though an archaic equivalent of that name (Gen. 49:25; Num. 24:4 and 16). Further, we meet with Elyon, meaning Most High, usually combined with El, but sometimes independent (Num. 24 : 16; Deut. 32:8). In the former passage we have three of these names in parallel clauses: "Who hears the words of El, knows the knowledge of Elyon, and sees the vision of Shaddai." The name Elyon (Elioun) was known among the Phoenicians, as we learn from Eusebius. This author quotes from Philo of Byblos, who in his account of the Phoenician religion says that Elioun was one of the gods who died and received worship after his death.2 The theory that the gods are deified men, which underlies this statement, does not here concern us. All that we have now to do is to note the evidence of these various names for God. Although applied by the biblical writers to the one God of the Hebrews, they really attest a primitive polytheism. It was at one time thought that the primitive ideas of religion could be discovered by tracing the etymology of divine names. Unfortunately, the meaning of almost all the Semitic names for God is obscure. Elyon, to be sure, is quite transparent, meaning the Exalted or the Most High. This meaning made it easy for the Hebrews to apply it to their God. Of the others, the name Yahweh, the proper name of Israel's God, has naturally been most discussed, but the discussion has led to no generally received result. The idea of the biblical writers, or at least of some of them, on this point will occupy us later. As to the other divine names we remark that it is still uncertain whether Shaddai means Mighty or El means Powerful (these meanings are 1 A detailed discussion may be found in Lagrange, Études sur les Religions Sémitiques,2 pp. 70-83. 2 Eusebius, Præparatio Evangelica, I, 10. |