diff options
Diffstat (limited to '75324-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 75324-0.txt | 20431 |
1 files changed, 20431 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/75324-0.txt b/75324-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a721b31 --- /dev/null +++ b/75324-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,20431 @@ + +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75324 *** + + + The Early History of the Hebrews + + + + +_BY THE SAME AUTHOR_ + +_Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d._ + +THE EGYPT OF THE HEBREWS AND HERODOTOS + + +CONTENTS.—The Patriarchal Age—The Age of Moses—The Exodus—-The Hebrew +Settlement in Canaan—The Age of the Israelitish Monarchies—The Age of +the Ptolemies—Herodotos in Egypt—In the Steps of Herodotos—Memphis and +the Fayyûm—Appendices—Index. + + ‘Professor Sayce has written a charming work, which every lover of + Egypt will fly to. He makes the old Egypt live again with all the + vitality of accurate research and of sympathetic explanation; he has + produced one of the most readable, useful, and instructive books we + have ever read.’—=Church Bells.= + + ‘Professor Sayce has a story of singular fascination to tell. Every + person interested intelligently in Holy Scripture should make it a + matter of duty to read this book.’—=Yorkshire Post.= + + ‘Truly a valuable addition to existing works on Egypt.’—=Western + Morning News.= + + ‘On the whole, we know of no more useful handbook to Egyptian + history, summing up in a popular form in a short compass the results + of Egyptian research down to the present time.’—=Church Times.= + + +LONDON: RIVINGTONS + + + + + THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE HEBREWS + + BY + + The Rev. A. H. SAYCE + + PROFESSOR OF ASSYRIOLOGY AT OXFORD + AUTHOR OF ‘EGYPT OF THE HEBREWS AND HERODOTOS’ + + + RIVINGTONS + _KING STREET, COVENT GARDEN_ + LONDON + 1897 + + _All rights reserved_ + + + + + PREFACE + + +There are many histories of Israel, but this is the first attempt to +write one from a purely archæological point of view. During the last few +years discovery after discovery has come crowding upon us from the +ancient East, revolutionising all our past conceptions of early Oriental +history, and opening out a new and unexpected world of culture and +civilisation. For the Oriental archæologist Hebrew history has ceased to +stand alone; it has taken its place in that great stream of human life +and action which the excavator and decipherer are revealing to us, and +it can at last be studied like the history of Greece or Rome. The age of +the Patriarchs is being brought close to us; our museums are filled with +written documents which are centuries older than Abraham; and we are +beginning to understand the politics which underlie the story of the +Pentateuch and the causes of the events which are narrated in it. + +Over against the facts of archæology stand the subjective assumptions of +a certain school, which, now that they have ceased to be predominant in +the higher latitudes of scholarship, are finding their way into the +popular literature of the country. Between the results of Oriental +archæology and those which are the logical end of the so-called ‘higher +criticism’ no reconciliation is possible, and the latter must therefore +be cleared out of the way before the archæologist can begin his work. +Hence some of the pages that follow are necessarily controversial, and +it has been needful to show why the linguistic method of the ‘literary +analysis’ is essentially unscientific and fallacious when applied to +history, and must be replaced by the method of historical comparison. + +Even while my book has been passing through the press, a new fact has +come to light which supplements and enforces the conclusion I have drawn +in the second chapter from a comparison of the account of the Deluge in +the book of Genesis with that which has been recovered from the +cuneiform inscriptions. At the recent meeting of the Oriental Congress +in Paris, Dr. Scheil stated that among the tablets lately brought from +Sippara to the museum at Constantinople is one which contains the same +text of the story of the Flood as that which was discovered by George +Smith. But whereas the text found by George Smith was written for the +library of Nineveh in the seventh century B.C., the newly-discovered +text was inscribed in the reign of Ammi-zadok, the fourth successor of +Khammurabi or Amraphel, in the Abrahamic age. And even then the text was +already old. Here and there the word _khibi_, ‘lacuna,’ was inserted, +indicating that the original from which it had been copied was already +illegible in places. Since this text agrees, not with the ‘Elohist’ or +the ‘Yahvist’ separately, but with the supposed combination of the two +documents in the book of Genesis, it is difficult to see, as the +discoverer remarked, how the ‘literary analysis’ of the Pentateuch can +be any longer maintained. At all events, the discovery shows the minute +care and accuracy with which the literature of the past was copied and +handed down. Edition after edition had been published of the story of +the Deluge, and yet the text of the Abrahamic age and that of the +seventh century B.C. agree even to the spelling of words. + +It is the ‘higher critics’ themselves, and not the ancient writers whom +they criticise, that are careless or contemptuous in their use of +evidence. In the preface to my _Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the +Monuments_ I have referred to a flagrant example of their attempt to +explain away unwelcome testimony. Here it was the inscription on an +early Israelitish weight, which was first pronounced to be a forgery, +then to have been misread, and finally to have been engraved by +different persons at different times! The weight is now in the Ashmolean +Museum in Oxford, to which it was presented by Dr. Chaplin, and the +critics have conveniently forgotten the dogmatic assertions that were +made about it. They have, in fact, been busy elsewhere. Cuneiform +tablets have been found relating to Chedorlaomer and the other kings of +the East mentioned in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, while in the +Tel el-Amarna correspondence the King of Jerusalem declares that he had +been raised to the throne by the ‘arm’ of his god, and was therefore, +like Melchizedek, a priest-king. But Chedorlaomer and Melchizedek had +long ago been banished to mythland, and criticism could not admit that +archæological discovery had restored them to actual history. Writers, +accordingly, in complacent ignorance of the cuneiform texts, told the +Assyriologists that their translations and interpretations were alike +erroneous, that they had misread the names of Chedorlaomer and his +allies, and that the ‘arm of the Mighty King,’ in the letters of +Ebed-Tob, meant the Pharaoh of Egypt. Unfortunately, the infallibility +of the ‘critical’ consciousness can be better tested in the case of +Assyriology than in that of the old Hebrew records, and the +Assyriologist may therefore be pardoned if he finds in such displays of +ignorance merely a proof of the worthlessness of the ‘critical’ method. +A method which leads its advocates to deny the facts stated by experts +when these run counter to their own prepossessions cannot be of much +value. At all events, it is a method with which the archæologist and the +historian can have nothing to do. + +This, indeed, is tacitly admitted in a modern German work on Hebrew +history, which is more than once referred to in the following pages. Dr. +Kittel’s _History of the Hebrews_ is partly filled with an imposing +‘analysis’ of the documents which constitute the historical books of the +Old Testament, and we might therefore expect that the history to which +it forms an introduction would be influenced throughout by the results +of the literary disintegration. But nothing of the sort is the case. So +far as Dr. Kittel’s treatment of the history is concerned, the +‘analysis’ might never have been made; all that it does is to prove his +acquaintance with modern ‘critical’ literature. The history is judged on +its own merits without any reference to the age or character of the +‘sources’ upon which it is supposed to rest. The instinct of the +historian has been too strong for the author to resist, and the results +of the linguistic analysis have accordingly been quietly set aside. + +But history also has its canons of evidence, and criticism, in the true +sense of the word, is not confined to the philologists. There is no +infallible history any more than there is infallible philology; and if +we are to understand the history of the Hebrews aright, we must deal +with it as we should with the history of any other ancient people. The +Old Testament writers were human; and in so far as they were historians, +their conceptions and manner of writing history were the same as those +of their Oriental contemporaries. They were not European historians of +the nineteenth century, and to treat them as such would be not only to +pursue a radically false method, but to falsify the history they have +recorded. No human history is, or can be, inerrant, and to claim +inerrancy for the history of Israel is to introduce into Christianity +the Hindu doctrine of the inerrancy of the Veda. For the historian, at +any rate, the questions involved in a theological treatment of the Old +Testament do not exist. + +The present writer, accordingly, must be understood to speak throughout +simply as an archæologist and historian. Theologically he accepts +unreservedly whatever doctrine has been laid down by the Church as an +article of the faith. But among these doctrines he fails to find any +which forbids a free and impartial handling of Old Testament history. + +Perhaps it is necessary to apologise for the multitude of unfamiliar +proper names which make the first chapter of this book somewhat +difficult reading. But they represent the archæological discoveries of +the last few years in their bearing upon the history of the Patriarchs, +and an attempt has been made to lighten the burden of remembering them +by repeating the newly-discovered facts, at all events in outline, +wherever it has been needful to allude to them. Those, however, who find +the burden too heavy and wearisome may pass on to the second chapter. + +A. H. SAYCE, + +23 CHEPSTOW VILLAS, W. + +_September 25, 1897._ + + + CONTENTS + + +CHAPTER I + +THE HEBREW PATRIARCHS + +Who were the Hebrews?—Origin of the Name—Ur and its Kings—Amraphel or +Khammu-rabi—Canaanites in Babylonia—Harran—The Amorites—Abram in Canaan +and Egypt—The Campaign of Chedorlaomer—Melchizedek—Sodom and +Gomorrha—Circumcision—Name of Abraham—Hebrew and Aramaic—Moab and +Ammon—Amorite Kingdoms—Dedan—Sacrifice of the Firstborn—Mount +Moriah—Purchase of the Field of Machpelah—The Hittites—Babylonian +Law—Isaac as a Bedâwi Shêkh—Esau and the Edomites—Jacob—Settles at +Shechem—His Sons—The Israelitish Tribes—Joseph—The Hyksos in +Egypt—Egyptian Character of Joseph’s History—Goshen—Deaths of Jacob and +Joseph ... Pp. 1-99 + + +CHAPTER II + +THE COMPOSITION OF THE PENTATEUCH + +The Literary Analysis and its Conclusions—Based on a Theory and an +Assumption—Weakness of the Philological Evidence—Disregard of the +Scientific Method of Comparison—Imperfection of our Knowledge of +Hebrew—Archæeology unfavourable to the Higher Criticism—Analysis of +Historical Sources—Tel el-Amarna Tablets—Antiquity of Writing in the +East—The Mosaic Age highly Literary—Scribes mentioned in the Song of +Deborah—The Story of the Deluge brought from Babylonia to Canaan before +the time of Moses—The Narratives of the Pentateuch confirmed by +Archæeology—Compiled from early Written Documents—Revised and re-edited +from time to time—Three Strata of Legislation—Accuracy in the +Text—Tendencies—Chronology ... Pp. 100-151 + +CHAPTER III + +THE EXODUS OUT OF EGYPT + +Goshen—The Pharaohs of the Oppression and Exodus—The Heretic King at Tel +el-Amarna—Causes of the Exodus—The Stela of Meneptah—Moses—Flight to +Midian—The Ten Plagues—The Exodus—Egyptian Version of it—Origin of the +Passover—Geography of the Exodus—Position of Sinai—Promulgation of the +Law—Babylonian Analogies—The Tabernacle—The Levitical Law—The +Feasts—Number of the Israelites—Kadesh-barnea—Failure to conquer +Canaan—The High-priest and the Levites—Edom—Conquests on the East of the +Jordan—Balaam—Destruction of the Midianites—Cities of Refuge and of the +Levites—The Deuteronomic Law—Death of Moses ... Pp. 152-245 + + +CHAPTER IV + +THE CONQUEST OF CANAAN + +Joshua not the Conqueror of Canaan—The Conquest gradual—The Passage of +the Jordan—Jericho, Ai, and the Gibeonites—Battle of Makkedah—Lachish +and Hazor—The Kenizzites at Hebron and Kirjath-Sepher—Shechem—Death of +Joshua ... Pp. 246-271 + + +CHAPTER V + +THE AGE OF THE JUDGES + +The Condition of Israel—The Destruction of the Benjamites—Story of +Micah and the Conquest of Dan—Chushan-rishathaim and Ramses +III.—Office of Judge—Eglon of Moab—The Philistines—Deborah and +Barak—Sisera and the Hittites—The Song of Deborah—Gideon—Kingdom of +Abimelech—Jephthah—Sacrifice of his Daughter—Defeat and Slaughter of +the Ephraimites—Samson—Historical Character of the Book of Judges ... +Pp. 272-331 + +CHAPTER VI + +THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MONARCHY + +Influence of Shiloh—Samuel and the Philistines—Duplicate Narratives in +the Books of Samuel—Prophet and Seer—Dervish Monasteries—Capture of the +Ark and Destruction of Shiloh—Saul made King—Quarrels with +Samuel—Delivers Israel from the Philistines—Attacks the +Amalekites—David—Two Accounts of his Rise to Power—Jealousy of +Saul—David’s Flight—Massacre of the Priests at Nob—Wanderings of +David—He sells his Services to the King of Gath—Duties of a +Mercenary—Battle of Gilboa and David’s Position—He is made King of +Judah—War with Esh-Baal—Intrigues with Abner—Murder of Esh-Baal—David +revolts from the Philistines and becomes King of Israel—Capture of +Jerusalem, which is made the Capital—Results of this—Conquest of the +Philistines, of Moab, Ammon, Zobah, and Edom—The Israelitish +Empire—Murder of Uriah and Birth of Solomon—Influence of Nathan—Polygamy +and its Effects in the Family of David—Revolt of Absalom—Of Sheba—Folly +and Ingratitude of David—Saul’s Descendants sacrificed because of a +Drought—The Plague and the Purchase of the Site of the Temple—David’s +Officers and last Instructions—His Character—Chronology—Solomon puts +Joab and Others to Death—His Religious Policy—Queen of Sheba—Trade and +Buildings—Hiram of Tyre—Palace and Temple Built—Tadmor—Zoological and +Botanical Gardens—Discontent in Israel—Impoverishment of the +Country—Jeroboam—Tastes and Character of Solomon ... Pp. 332-480 + + + ABBREVIATIONS + + +W. A. I. = _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia._ Published by the +Trustees of the British Museum. + +Z.D.M.G. = _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft._ + +W. & A. = Winckler and Abel’s edition of the Tel el-Amarna Tablets at +Berlin and Cairo in _Mitthetlungen aus den orientalischen Sammlungen_, +i. ii. iii. + + + CHAPTER I + THE HEBREW PATRIARCHS + + + Who were the Hebrews?—Origin of the Name—Ur and its Kings—Amraphel + or Khammu-rabi—Canaanites in Babylonia—Harran—The Amorites—Abram in + Canaan and Egypt—The Campaign of Chedor-laomer—Melchizedek—Sodom and + Gomorrha—Circumcision—Name of Abraham—Hebrew and Aramaic—Moab and + Ammon—Amorite Kingdoms—Dedan—Sacrifice of the firstborn—Mount + Moriah—Purchase of the Field of Machpelah—The Hittites—Babylonian + Law—Isaac as a Bedâwi Shêkh—Esau and the Edomites—Jacob—Settles at + Shechem—His Sons—The Israelitish Tribes—Joseph—The Hyksos in + Egypt—Egyptian Character of Joseph’s History—Goshen—Deaths of Jacob + and Joseph. + + +The historian of the Hebrews is met at the very outset by a strange +difficulty. Who were the Hebrews whose history he proposes to write? We +speak of a Hebrew people, of a Hebrew literature, and of a Hebrew +language; and by the one we mean the people who called themselves +Israelites or Jews, by the other the literary records of this +Israelitish nation, and by the third a language which the Israelites +shared with the older population of Canaan. It is from the Old Testament +that we derive the term ‘Hebrew,’ and the use of the term is by no means +clear. + +Abram is called ‘the Hebrew’ before he became Abraham the father of +Isaac and the Israelites. The confederate of the Amorite chieftains of +Mamre, the conqueror of the Babylonian invaders of Canaan, is a +‘Hebrew’; when he comes before us as a simple Bedâwi shêkh he is a +Hebrew no longer. When Joseph is sold into Egypt it is as a ‘Hebrew’ +slave; and he tells the Pharaoh that he had been ‘stolen’ out of ‘the +land of the Hebrews.’ The oppressed people in the age of the Exodus are +known as ‘Hebrews’ to their Egyptian taskmasters. Moses was one of ‘the +Hebrews’ children’; and he declares to the Egyptian monarch that Yahveh +of Israel was ‘the God of the Hebrews.’ It would seem, therefore, as if +it were the name by which the people of Canaan, and more especially the +Israelites, were known to the Egyptians. + +And yet there is no certain trace of it on the Egyptian monuments. In +the Egyptian texts the south of Palestine is called Khar, perhaps the +land of the ‘Horites’; the coast-land is termed Zahi, ‘the dry’; and the +whole country is indifferently known as that of the Upper Lotan or +Syrians, and of the Fenkhu or Phœnicians. When we come down to the age +of the nineteenth dynasty we find the name of Canaan already established +in Egyptian literature. Seti I. destroyed the Shasu or Bedâwin from the +frontiers of Egypt to ‘the land of Canaan’; and in a papyrus of the same +age we hear of Kan’amu or ‘Canaanite slaves’ from the land of Khar. Of +any name that resembles that of the Hebrews there is not a trace. + +It is equally impossible to discover it in the cuneiform records of +Babylonia and Assyria. The Babylonians, from time immemorial, called +Palestine ‘the land of the Amorites,’ doubtless because the Amorites +were the dominant people there in those early ages when Babylonian +armies first made their way to the distant West. The Assyrians called it +‘the land of the Hittites’ for the same reason, while in the letters +from the Asiatic correspondents of the Pharaoh found at Tel el-Amarna, +and dating from the century before the Exodus, it is termed Kinakhna or +Canaan. How then comes Joseph to describe it as ‘the land of the +Hebrews,’ and himself as a ‘Hebrew’ slave? + +More than one attempt has been made to identify the mysterious name with +names met with in hieroglyphic and cuneiform texts. The Egyptian +monuments refer to a class of foreigners called ’Apuriu, who were +employed in the time of the nineteenth and twentieth dynasties to convey +the blocks of stone needed for the great buildings of Egypt from the +quarries of the eastern desert. We are told how they dragged the great +altar of the Sun-god to Memphis for Ramses II.; and how, at a much later +date, Ramses IV. was still employing eight hundred men of the same race +to transport his stone from the quarries of Hammamât. Chabas and some +other Egyptologists have seen in these ’Apuriu the Hebrews of Scripture, +and have further identified them with the ’Aperu mentioned on the back +of a papyrus, where it is said that one of them acted as a sort of +aide-de-camp to the great conqueror of the eighteenth dynasty, Thothmes +III. + +But there are serious objections to these identifications.[1] There are +reasons for believing that the ’Aperu and the ’Apuriu do not represent +the same name; and no satisfactory explanation has hitherto been +forthcoming as to why we should meet with Hebrews of the Israelitish +race still serving as public slaves in Egypt so long after the Exodus as +the reigns of Ramses III. and Ramses IV. Moreover, in one text it is +stated that the ’Apuriu belonged ‘to the ’Anuti barbarians,’ who +inhabited the desert between Egypt and the Red Sea. It is true that some +of the Semitic kinsfolk of the Israelites led a nomad life here in the +old times, as they still do to-day; nevertheless, ‘the ’Anuti +barbarians’ were for the most part of African origin, and the eastern +desert of Egypt is not quite the place where we should expect to find +the nearest kindred of a Canaanitish people. At present, at all events, +the identification of Hebrews and ’Apuriu must be held to be non-proven. + +Since the discovery of the cuneiform tablets of Tel el-Amarna another +attempt has been made to find the name of the Hebrews outside the pages +of the Old Testament. Ebed-Tob, the vassal-king of Jerusalem, in his +letters to Khu-n-Aten, the ‘heretic’ Pharaoh of the eighteenth dynasty, +speaks of certain enemies whom he terms Khabiri. They were threatening +the authority of the Egyptian monarch, and had already captured several +of the cities under Ebed-Tob’s jurisdiction. The Egyptian governors in +the south of Palestine had been slain, and the territory of Jerusalem +was no longer able to defend itself. If the Pharaoh could send no troops +at once, all would be lost. The Khabiri, under their leader Elimelech, +were already established in the country, and in concert with the Sutê or +Bedâwin were wresting it out of the hands of Egypt.[2] + +Some scholars, with more haste than discretion, have pronounced the +Khabiri of the cuneiform tablets to be the Hebrews of the Old Testament. +If that were the case, Hebrew and Israelite could no longer be +considered to be synonymous terms. In the age of the Khabiri the +Israelites of Scripture were still in Egypt, where the cities of Ramses +and Pithom were not as yet built, and their leader to the conquest of +Canaan was Joshua, and not Elimelech. When in subsequent centuries +Ramses II. and Ramses III. invaded and occupied Palestine, they found no +traces there of the children of Israel. They have left us lists of the +places they captured; we look in vain among them for the name of Israel +or of an Israelitish tribe. We look equally in vain in the Book of +Judges for any allusion to Egyptian conquests. + +The Khabiri, then, are not the Hebrews of Scripture, nor does the word +throw any light on the term ‘Hebrew’ itself. Khabiri is really a +descriptive title, meaning ‘Confederates’; it was a word borrowed by +Babylonian from the language of Canaan, but is met with in old +Babylonian and Assyrian hymns.[3] It may be that Hebron, the city of +‘the Confederacy,’ derived its name from these ‘Confederated’ bands; at +all events, the name of Hebron is nowhere mentioned by Ebed-Tob or his +brother governors, and it first appears in the Egyptian records in the +time of Ramses III. under the form of Khibur.[4] + +The Tel el-Amarna tablets, accordingly, give us no help in regard to the +name of the Hebrews, nor do any other cuneiform inscriptions with which +we are acquainted. Babylonian records do indeed speak of a people called +the Khabirâ, but they inhabited the mountains of Elam, on the eastern +side of Babylonia, and between them and the Hebrews of Scripture no +connection is possible.[5] In an old Babylonian list of foreign +countries we read of a country of Khubur, which was situated in northern +Mesopotamia in the neighbourhood of Harran; but Khubur is more probably +related to the river Khabur than to the kinsfolk of Terah and Laban.[6] +Moreover, a part of the mountains of the Amanus, overlooking the Gulf of +Antioch, from whence logs of pine were brought to the cities of Chaldæa, +was also known as Khabur.[7] + +Archæological discovery, therefore, has as yet given us no help. We must +still depend upon the Old Testament alone for an answer to our question, +Who were the Hebrews? And, unfortunately, the evidence of the Old +Testament is by no means clear. We have seen that on one side by the +Hebrews are meant the Israelites, and that from time to time the +Israelitish descendants of Abraham are characterised by that name. But +on the other side there are passages in which a distinction seems to be +made between them. Though Joseph is a Hebrew slave, it is because he has +been stolen out of ‘the land of the Hebrews.’ Canaan, accordingly, even +before its conquest by the Israelites, was inhabited by a Hebrew people. +So, too, in the early days of the reign of Saul, the Israelites and the +Hebrews appear to be still separate. While ‘the men of Israel’ hide +themselves in caves and thickets, ‘the Hebrews’ cross over the Jordan to +the lands of Gad and Gilead (1 Sam. xiii. 6, 7). Similarly we are told +that in Saul’s first battle with the Philistines ‘the Hebrews’ that were +with the enemy deserted to ‘the Israelites’ that were with Saul (1 Sam. +xiv. 21). + +Perhaps, however, all that is intended in these passages is to emphasise +the fact that among the Philistines, as among the Egyptians, the +children of Israel were known as ‘Hebrews.’ The difficulty is that such +a name is not found in the monumental records of Egypt. When Shishak +describes his campaign against Judah and Israel, it is not the Hebrews, +but the Fenkhu and the ’Amu whom he tells us he has conquered. + +In fact, the Egyptian equivalent of Hebrew is ’Amu. What Joseph calls +‘the land of the Hebrews’ would have been termed ‘the land of the ’Amu’ +by an Egyptian scribe. Joseph himself would have been an ’Amu slave. +’Amu signified an Asiatic in a restricted sense. It denoted the Asiatics +of Syria and of the desert between Palestine and Egypt. It included also +the nomad tribes of Edom and the Sinaitic Peninsula. It was thus larger +in its meaning than the Biblical ‘Hebrew’; but, at the same time, it +conveyed just the same ideas, and was used in much the same way. The +Hyksos conquerors of Egypt were termed ’Amu, and a famous Syrian oculist +in the days of the eighteenth dynasty is described as an ’Amu of Gebal. +The name is probably derived from the Canaanitish and Hebrew word which +signifies ‘a people.’ + +The name ‘Hebrew’ comes from a root which means ‘to pass’ or ‘cross +over.’ It has been variously explained as ‘a pilgrim,’ ‘a dweller on the +other side,’ ‘a crosser of the river.’ But the second explanation is +that which best harmonises with philological probabilities. We find +other derivatives from the same root. Among them is Abarim, the name of +that mountain-range of Moab on ‘the other side’ of the Jordan, from +whence Moses beheld the Promised Land (Numb. xxvii. 12), as well as +Ebronah, near the Gulf of Aqaba, one of the resting-places of the +children of Israel (Numb. xxxiii. 34). Hebrew genealogists indeed seem +to have connected the name with that of the patriarch Eber. But this is +in accordance with that spirit of Semitic idiom which throws geography +and ethnology into a genealogical form. It is probable that the name of +the patriarch is merely the Babylonian _ebar_, ‘a priest,’ which is met +with in Babylonian contracts of the age of Abraham. + +Professor Hommel, however, supplementing a suggestion of Dr. Glaser, has +recently drawn attention to certain facts which throw light on the early +use of the name ‘Hebrew,’ even if they do not remove all the +difficulties connected with it.[8] A Minæan inscription from the south +of Arabia, in which the name of ’Ammi-zadoq occurs, couples together the +countries of Misr or Egypt, of Aashur, the Ashshurim of Gen. xxv. 3, and +of ’Ibr Naharân, ‘the land beyond the river.’ In another Minæan +inscription of the same age, the name of ’Ibr Naharân is replaced by +that of Gaza. It is clear, therefore, that in ’Ibr Naharân we must see +the south of Palestine. But the Minæan texts are not alone in their use +of the term. A broken Assyrian tablet from the library of Nineveh[9] +also refers to Ebir-nâri, ‘the land beyond the river,’ in Canaan, and +associates it with Beth-el, Tyre, and Jeshimon. Professor Hommel is +probably right in assigning the inscription to the reign of +Assur-bel-Kala, the son of Tiglath-pileser I. (B.C. 1080). At all +events, the name seems to be of Babylonian origin, like most of the +geographical expressions adopted by the Assyrians, and it is +consequently very possible that Ebir-nâri primarily signified the +country on the western bank of the Euphrates, where Ur was situated, and +that it was subsequently extended to the country west of the Jordan when +Syria became a province of the Babylonian empire.[10] + +However this may be, the question with which we started remains +unanswered. We are still unable to define with exactness who the Hebrews +were. The origin and first use of the name are still a matter of doubt. +We must be content with the fact that it came to be applied—if not +exclusively, at all events predominantly—to the people of Israel in +their dealings with their foreign neighbours. It may be that this +special application of it was first fixed by the Philistines. In any +case it was a name which was accepted by the Israelites themselves, and +gradually became synonymous with all that was specifically Israelitish. +Even the old ‘language of Canaan,’ as it is still called by Isaiah (xix. +18), became ‘the Hebrew language’ of modern lexicographers. For us of +to-day the history of the Hebrew people means the history of the +descendants of Israel. It is with ‘Abram the Hebrew’ that the history +begins. Future ages looked back upon him as the ancestor of the Hebrew +race, ‘the rock’ from whence it was ‘hewn.’ He had come from the far +East, from ‘Ur of the Casdim’ or Babylonians. His younger brother Haran +had died ‘in the land of his nativity’; with his elder brother Nahor and +himself, his father Terah had migrated westward, to Harran in +Mesopotamia. There Terah had died, and there Abram had received the call +which led him to journey still further onwards into the land of Canaan. + +He was already married. Already in Babylonia he had made Sarai his wife, +who is also said to have been his step-sister; while the wife, Milcah, +whom his brother Nahor had taken to himself, was his niece. A time came +when both Abram and Sarai took new names in token of the covenant they +had made with God. Abram became Abraham, and Sarai became Sarah. + +Upon these beginnings of Hebrew history light has been thrown by the +decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions. The site of ‘Ur of the +Chaldees’ has been found. Geographers are no longer dependent on Arab +legends or vague coincidencies with classical names. Ur was one of the +most ancient and prosperous of Babylonian cities. The very name meant +‘the city’; it was, in fact, the capital of a district, and its kings at +one time had claimed sway over the rest of Chaldæa. Alone among the +great cities of Babylonia, it stood on the western bank of the Euphrates +in close contact with the nomad tribes of Semitic Arabia. More than any +other of the Babylonian towns it was thus able to influence and be +influenced by the Semites of the west; it was an outpost of Babylonian +culture, and its position made it a centre of trade. + +Its mounds of ruin are now known as Muqayyar or Mugheir. Highest among +them towers the mound which covers the remains of the great temple of +the moon-god. For it was to Sin, the moon-god, that the city had been +dedicated from time immemorial, and in whose honour its temple had been +built. There was only one other temple of Sin that was equally famous, +and this was the temple which stood at Harran in Mesopotamia, and which, +like that at Ur, had been erected and endowed by Babylonian kings. + +It was not only with the Semites of Northern Arabia that Ur carried on +its trade. It lay not very far from the mouth of the Euphrates, which in +early days flowed into the Persian Gulf nearly a hundred miles to the +north of the present coast. We hear in the cuneiform tablets of ‘the +ships of Ur,’ and these ships must have been used in the trade that was +carried on by water. The products of Southern Arabia could thus be +brought to the Chaldean city; perhaps also there was intercourse even +with Egypt. + +The kings of Ur grew in power, and a dynasty arose at last which gained +ascendency over the other states of Babylonia. We are beginning to learn +something about these kings and the society over which they ruled. +During the last few years excavations have been carried on by the +Americans, by the French, and even by the Turkish Government, which have +brought to light thousands of early cuneiform records, some of which are +dated in their reigns. A large proportion of these records are contracts +which throw an unexpected light on the commerce and law, the manners and +customs and social life of the inhabitants of Babylonia at the time. + +Among the last kings of the dynasty of Ur were Inê-Sin and Pûr-Sin, +whose names, it will be observed, are compounded with that of the +patron-god of the state. Inê-Sin not only invaded Elam, but the distant +west as well. His daughters married the High-Priests both of Ansan in +Elam and of Markhasi, now Mer’ash, in Syria.[11] But it was not the +first time that Babylonian armies had marched to the west. Centuries +before (about B.C. 3800) another Babylonian king, Sargon of Accad, had +made campaign after campaign against the land of the Amorites, as Syria +and Palestine were called, had set up images of himself on the shores of +the Mediterranean, and had united all Western Asia into a single empire, +while his son and successor had marched southward into the Sinaitic +Peninsula.[12] A predecessor of Inê-Sin himself, Gimil-Sin by name, had +overrun the land of Zabsali, which Professor Hommel is probably right in +identifying with Subsalla, from whence an earlier Babylonian prince +obtained stone for his buildings, and which, we are told, was in the +mountains of the Amorites. The stone, in fact, was the limestone of the +Lebanon.[13] + +Inê-Sin married his daughter to the High-Priest of Zabsali, but his +successor Pûr-Sin II. appears to have been one of the last of the +dynasty. Babylonia fell under Elamite domination, and a line of kings +arose at Babylon whose names show that they came from Southern Arabia. +The first of them was Khammu-rabi, whose reign lasted for fifty-five +years. He proved himself one of the most able and vigorous of Babylonian +monarchs. Before he died he had driven the Elamites out of the country, +and united it into a single monarchy, with Babylon for its capital. + +When Khammu-rabi first mounted the throne, he was a vassal of the king +of Elam. In Southern Babylonia, not far from Ur, though on the opposite +side of the river, was a rival kingdom, that of Larsa, whose king, +Eri-Aku or Arioch, was the son of an Elamite prince. His father +Kudur-Mabug is called ‘the Father of the land of the Amorites,’ implying +not only that Canaan was subject at the time to Elamite rule, but also +that Kudur-Mabug held some official position there. In one of his +inscriptions Eri-Aku entitles himself ‘the shepherd of Ur,’ and tells us +that he had captured ‘the ancient city of Erech.’ + +In Eri-Aku or Arioch, Assyriologists have long since seen the Arioch of +the book of Genesis, the contemporary of Abram; and their belief has +been raised to certainty by the recent discovery by Mr. Pinches of +certain fragmentary cuneiform tablets in which allusion is made not only +to Khammu-rabi, but also to the kings who were his contemporaries. These +are Arioch, Kudur-Laghghamar or Chedor-laomer, and Tudghula or Tid’al. +Khammu-rabi, accordingly, must be identified with Amraphel, who is +stated in the Old Testament to have been king of Shinar or Babylonia, +and we can approximately fix the period when the family of Terah +migrated from Ur of the Chaldees. It was about 2300 B.C. if the +chronology of the native Babylonian historians is correct.[14] + +There was at this time constant intercourse between Babylonia and the +West. The father of Eri-Aku, as we have seen, bore the title of ‘Father +of the land of the Amorites,’ and Khammu-rabi himself claimed +sovereignty over the same part of the world. So, too, did his +great-grandson Ammi-satana (or Ammi-dhitana), who in one of his +inscriptions adds the title of ‘king of the land of the Amorites’ to +that of ‘king of Babylon.’ Indeed, the kings of the dynasty to which +Khammu-rabi belonged bear names which are almost as much Canaanitish or +Hebrew as they are South Arabic in form. The Babylonians had some +difficulty in spelling them, and in the contract-tablets, consequently, +the same name is written in different ways. Thus we learn from a +philological tablet in which the names are translated into Semitic +Babylonian that Khammu and Ammi are but variant attempts to represent +the same word—that of a god whose name appears in those of South Arabian +princes as well as Israelites of the Old Testament, and from whom the +Beni-Ammi or Ammonites derived their name.[15] + +The founder of the dynasty had been Sumu-abi (or Samu-abi), ‘Shem is my +father,’ and his son had been Sumu-la-il, ‘Is not Shem a god?’ The +monarchs who ruled at Babylon, therefore, when Abram was born claimed +the same ancestor as did Abram’s family, and worshipped him as a god. +The father of Ammi-satana was Abesukh, the Abishua’ of the Bible; and +his son was Ammi-zaduq, where _zaduq_, ‘righteous,’ is a word well known +to the languages of Southern Arabia and Canaan, but not to that of +Babylonia. The kings who succeeded to the inheritance of the old +Babylonian monarchs of Ur were thus allied in language and race to the +Hebrew patriarch. + +But this is not all. We find in the contracts which were drawn up in the +reigns of the kings of Ur and the successors of Sumu-abi not only names +like Sabâ, ‘the Sabæan,’ which carry us to the spice-bearing lands of +Southern Arabia,[16] but names also which are specifically Canaanitish, +or as we should usually term it, Hebrew, in form. Thus Mr. Pinches has +discovered in them Ya’qub-il and Yasup-il, of which the Biblical Jacob +and Joseph are abbreviations, and elsewhere we meet with Abdiel and +Lama-il, the Lemuel of the Old Testament. Even the name of Abram +(Abi-ramu) himself occurs among the witnesses to a deed which is dated +in the reign of Khammu-rabi’s grandfather, and its Canaanitish character +is put beyond question by the fact that he is called the father of ‘the +Amorite.’[17] + +From other documents we learn that there were Amoritish or Canaanite +settlements in Babylonia where the foreigner was allowed to acquire land +and carry on trade with the natives. One of these was just outside the +walls of Sippara in Northern Babylonia, and a good many references to it +have already been detected. Thus in the reign of Ammi-zaduq a case of +disputed title was brought before four of the royal judges which related +to certain feddans or ‘acres’ of land ‘in the district of the Amorites,’ +‘at the entrance to the city of Sippara’;[18] and a contract dated in +the reign of Khammu-rabi’s father further describes the district as just +outside the principal gate of the city. It included arable and garden +land, pasturage and woods, as well as houses, and was thus like the land +of Goshen, which was similarly handed over to the Israelites to settle +in. An Egyptian inscription of the time of the eighteenth dynasty also +speaks of a similar district close to Memphis, which had been given to +the Hittites by the Pharaohs.[19] The strangers had their own judges. We +learn, for instance, from a lawsuit which was decided in the time of +Khammu-rabi that a Canaanite, Nahid-Amurri (‘the exalted of the Amorite +god’), who was defendant in a case of disputed property, was first +taken, along with the plaintiff, before the judges of Nin-Marki, ‘the +lady of the Amorite land,’ and then before another set of judges and the +assembled people of the city. It is clear from this that the judges who +were deputed to look after the interests of the settlers from the West +also acted when one of the parties was a native of Babylonia.[20] + +The migration of Terah and his family thus ceases to be an isolated and +unexplained fact. In the age to which it belonged Canaan and Babylonia +were in close connection one with the other. Babylonian kings claimed +rule over Canaan, and Canaanitish merchants were established in +Babylonia. The language of Canaan was heard in the Babylonian cities, +and even the rulers of the land were of foreign blood. Between Babylonia +and Canaan there was a highway which had been trodden for generations, +and along which soldiers and civil officials, merchants and messengers, +passed frequently to and fro. + +Midway, on a tributary of the river Belikh, was the city of Harran, so +called from a Sumerian word which signified ‘a high-road.’ Its name +pointed to a Babylonian foundation, as did also its temple dedicated to +the Babylonian moon-god. The temple, in fact, counted among its founders +and restorers a long line of Babylonian and Assyrian kings, and almost +the last act of the Babylonian Empire was the restoration of the ancient +shrine. Merodach, the god of Babylon, came in a dream to the last of the +Babylonian monarchs, and bade him raise once more from its ruins the +sanctuary of his brother-god. And Nabonidos tells us how he performed +the task laid upon him, how he disinterred the memorial-stones of the +older Assyrian kings, and how ‘by the art of the god Laban, the lord of +foundations and brickwork, with silver and gold and precious stones, +with spices and cedarwood,’ he built again Ê-Khulkhul, ‘the temple of +rejoicing.’ The moon-god, Sin, who was adored within it, was known +throughout the Aramaic lands of Northern Syria as Baal-Kharran, ‘the +Lord of Harran.’ + +But there was another city of the moon-god besides Harran. This was Ur +in Babylonia. In Babylonian literature it is commonly known as the city +of Sin. Between Ur and Harran there must have been some close +connection, and it may be that Harran owed its foundation to the kings +of Ur. At all events, there was good reason why an emigrant from Ur +should establish his abode in Harran. Both cities were under the same +divine patron, and that meant, in the ancient world, that both lived the +same religious and civil life. Harran obeyed the rule of the Babylonian +kings; its very name showed that it was of Babylonian origin, and its +culture was that of Babylonia. Law and religion, manners and customs, +all were alike in Harran and Ur. The migration from the one city to the +other did not differ from a change of dwelling from London to Edinburgh. + +The country in which Harran was built formed part of the vast tract +between the Tigris and Euphrates, which was known to the Babylonians in +early days as Suru or Suri, a name which perhaps survived in that of the +city Suru, the Suriyeh of modern geography. In Semitic times it was +called Subari or Suwari by the Assyrians, sometimes also Subartu. Suru +thus corresponded with our Mesopotamia, though it seems to have included +a part of Northern Syria as well. But to the district in which Harran +stood the Babylonians gave a more special name. It was Padan or Padin, +‘the cultivated plain,’ of which it is said in a cuneiform tablet that +it lies ‘in front of the mountains of the Aramæans,’[21] while an early +Babylonian sovereign entitles himself king of Padan as well as of +Northern Babylonia.[22] The name bore witness to the fertility of the +country to which it was applied. The Babylonian lexicographers make +_padan_ a synonym of words signifying ‘field’ and ‘garden’; it was, in +fact, originally the piece of ground which a yoke of oxen could plough +in a given period of time. Hence it came to mean an ‘acre,’ a sense +which still survives in the Arabic _feddân_. The Babylonian leases and +sales of land which were drawn up in the Abrahamic age repeatedly +describe the ‘feddans’ or ‘acres’ of which the property consists. The +fertile plain of Mesopotamia, accordingly, was not a plain merely; it +was also ‘the field’ or ‘acre’ of Aram where the Semites of the Aramæan +stock ploughed and harvested their corn.[23] + +In Egyptian its name was Naharina. The name had been borrowed from the +Aramæans, who called their country the land of Naharain, ‘the two +rivers.’ In Canaan, as we know from the cuneiform tablets of Tel +el-Amarna, it bore the Canaanitish form of Naharaim, Nahrima, the final +nasal of the Aramaic dialects becoming _m_. Aram-Naharaim was thus the +Egyptian and Canaanitish title of the country which the Babylonian spoke +of as Padan Arman, ‘Padan of the Aramæans.’ Both names go back to the +age before the Israelitish Exodus out of Egypt; the one belongs to Egypt +and Palestine, the other to Babylonia. + +Before the age of the Exodus, however, the Aramæan population of +Mesopotamia became the subjects of a people who seem to have come from +the north. Mitanni, on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, not far from +the modern Birejik, became the capital of a kingdom which extended over +Naharaim on the one side, and to the neighbourhood of the Orontes on the +other. The race which founded the kingdom spoke a language unlike any +other with which we are acquainted; it was, however, agglutinative, and +exhibits certain general resemblances to some of the languages of the +Caucasus. From the sixteenth century B.C. onwards, Mitanni and Naharaim +are synonymous terms, even though, at times, the Egyptian scribes still +observed the old distinction between them; even though also, it may be, +Naharaim had a larger meaning than Mitanni. But the kings of Mitanni +were vigorous and powerful. In the age of the Tel el-Amarna +correspondence we find them intriguing with the Hittites and Babylonians +in the Egyptian province of Canaan, and Ramses III. of the twentieth +Egyptian dynasty still counts the people of Mitanni among his enemies. +At an earlier date the royal families of Egypt and Mitanni had +intermarried with one another, and the marriages had introduced new +ideas and a revolutionary policy into the ancient monarchy of the Nile. +When the kingdom of Mitanni had been founded we do not know. There is no +trace of it in the earlier records of Babylonia, and we may safely say +that it arose long after the era of Khammu-rabi and Abram.[24] + +Terah, we are told, died in Harran, and there Nahor, his second son, +remained to dwell. Terah and Nahor are names which we look for in vain +elsewhere in the Old Testament or in the inscriptions of Babylonia. And +yet light has been thrown upon them by the cuneiform texts. Tablets have +been found in Cappadocia, written in archaic cuneiform characters and in +a dialect of Assyrian, which are at least as old as the the of the Tel +el-Amarna letters; according to some scholars, they are coeval with the +dynasty of Khammu-rabi. In one of these tablets we find the word, or +name, _Nakhur_; what its signification may be, we cannot, unfortunately, +tell; all we can be sure of is that it was known to the Semitic +inhabitants of eastern Cappadocia, not far from the Aramæan border.[25] +The name of Terah points in the same direction, Tarkhu was a god whose +name enters into the composition of Cappadocian and North-Syrian +princes; he was worshipped by the Hittites, and so belongs to the same +region as that in which we have found the name of Nahor. + +But neither Tarkhu nor Nakhur is Aramaic in the usual sense of the term. +Both seem to belong to that mixed dialect which has been revealed to us +by German excavation at Sinjerli, north of the Gulf of Antioch, and +about which scholars have disputed whether to call it Hebraised Aramaic +or Aramaised Hebrew. At any rate, it is a dialect which, though Aramaic +in origin, has been profoundly influenced by ‘the language of Canaan.’ +It bears witness to the existence of a Hebrew-speaking population in +that part of the world. It would be rash to affirm that this population +already existed there in patriarchal days, though words which seem to be +of Hebrew origin are met with in the Cappadocian tablets. But we now +know that Northern Syria was once the meeting-place of the northern +Semitic languages; that here they mingled with one another and with +other languages which were not Semitic in type, and that here alone, +outside the pages of the Old Testament, are the names of Terah and Nahor +to be found.[26] + +Nahor remained in Harran, but Abram moved on still further to the West. +The road was well known to his contemporaries, and probably followed the +later line of march which led past Carchemish, now Jerablûs, Aleppo, and +Hamath. From Hamath southward the land was in the possession of the +Amorites. Their chief seat was immediately to the north of the Palestine +of later days, but they had already occupied large portions of the +territory to the south of them as far as the Dead Sea and the limits of +the cultivated land. They had been for many centuries the dominant +people of the West. Already in the time of Sargon of Akkad they had +given their name among the Babylonians to Central Syria and Canaan. The +name, indeed, goes back to the pre-Semitic days of Babylonian history. +What the Semites called the land of the Amurrâ or Amorites, the +Sumerians had termed Martu. And the two names, Amurrâ and Martu, +continued to designate Syria and Palestine almost to the latest epoch of +Babylonian political life. + +The monuments of Egypt have shown us what these Amorites were like. They +belonged to the blond race, like the Libyans of Northern Africa. At +Abu-Simbel their skins are painted yellow—the Egyptian equivalent of +white—their eyes blue, and the beard and eyebrows red. At Medînet Habu +the skin, as Professor Flinders Petrie expresses it, is ‘rather pinker +than flesh-colour,’ while in a tomb of the eighteenth dynasty at Thebes +it is painted white, the eyes and hair being a light red-brown. At +Karnak the names of the places captured by Thothmes III. in Palestine +are surmounted by the figures of Amorites whose skin is alternately red +and yellow, the red denoting sunburn, the yellow what we term white. In +features the Amorites belonged to the Indo-European type. The nose was +straight and regular, the forehead high, the lips thin, and the +cheek-bones somewhat prominent, while they wore whiskers and a pointed +beard. So far as we can judge from the representations of the Egyptian +artists, they belonged to a dolichocephalic or long-headed race.[27] + +That they were tall in stature we know from the Old Testament. By the +side of them the Hebrew spies described themselves as grasshoppers. The +cities they built were strong and ‘walled up to heaven’; the thick walls +of one of them have been disinterred on the site of Lachish by Professor +Petrie and Mr. Bliss. But though the Babylonians continued to include +Canaan in the general term, ‘land of the Amorites,’ and spoke of the +Canaanite himself as an ‘Amorite,’ they nevertheless came to know that +there was a distinction between them. The Babylonian king, Burna-buryas, +whose letters to the Egyptian Pharaoh have been found at Tel el-Amarna, +distinguishes Kinakhkhi or Canaan from the land of the Amorites, which +had come to be confined to the country immediately to the north of +Palestine. From the seventeenth century B.C. downwards, Amorite and +Canaanite cease to be synonymous terms. It is only in certain parts of +the Pentateuch that the old Babylonian use of the name ‘Amorite’ still +survives. + +It was a use that never prevailed among the Assyrians. When Assyria +became a kingdom, and its rulers first led their armies to the West, the +Amorites were no longer the dominant power. Their place had been taken +by the Hittites. And it is the Khattâ or Hittites, therefore, who in the +Assyrian inscriptions, as distinguished from those of Babylonia, are the +representatives of Western Syria. On the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser +II., now in the British Museum, even Ahab of Israel and Ba’asha of Ammon +are included among the ‘kings of the country of the Hittites.’ But of +this Assyrian use of the term Hittite there are slight, if any, traces +in the Old Testament.[28] + +Abram, the Hebrew, first pitched his tent near the future Shechem, under +‘the terebinth of Moreh.’ Moreh is the Sumerian Martu, ‘the Amorite,’ in +Hebrew letters; and the fact gives point to the statement which follows +immediately, that ‘the Canaanite’—and not the Amorite—‘was then in the +land’ (Gen. xii. 6). ‘The mountain of Shechem’ is mentioned in an +Egyptian papyrus which describes the travels of an Egyptian officer in +Palestine, in the fourteenth century B.C.,[29] but the book of Genesis +represents the city as founded only in the lifetime of Jacob (Gen. +xxxiv. 6). Hence we are told that it was to ‘the place’ or ‘site’ of +Shechem that Abram made his way, not to the town itself. And after the +foundation of the town its Canaanite inhabitants are still called +Amorites, in accordance with ancient Babylonian custom (Gen. xlviii. +22). + +We next find the Hebrew patriarch in Egypt. There was famine in Canaan, +and Egypt was already the granary of the eastern world. In the Tel +el-Amarna tablets we hear of Egyptian corn being sent to the starving +population of Syria; and Meneptah, the son of the Pharaoh of the Exodus, +tells us that he had loaded ships with wheat for the Hittites when they +were suffering from a famine. The want of rain which destroyed the crops +of Canaan did not affect Egypt, where the fertility of the soil depends +upon the irrigating waters of the Nile. + +Egypt at the time must have been under the sway of the Hyksos kings. +They were Asiatic invaders who had overrun the country from north to +south, and established themselves on the throne of the Pharaohs. In +three successive dynasties did they govern the land, and the descendants +of the native monarchs sank into _hiqu_ or vassal ‘princes’ of Thebes. +At first, it is said, they laid Egypt waste, destroying the temples and +massacring the people. But the influence of Egyptian culture soon led +them captive. The Hyksos court became Egyptianised; the Hyksos king +assumed the titles and state of the ancient sovereigns; Sutekh, the +Hyksos god, was identified with Ra, the Sun-god of On, and the official +language itself remained Egyptian. A treatise on mathematics, one of the +few scientific works that have survived the shipwreck of Egyptian +literature, was written under the patronage of the Hyksos king, Apophis +I.[30] + +Nevertheless, with all this outward varnish of Egyptian culture, the +Hyksos rule continued to be foreign. Even the names of the kings were +not Egyptian, and up to the last the supreme object of their worship was +a foreign deity. According to the Sallier Papyrus, the war of +independence was occasioned by the demand of Apophis II. that Sutekh, +and not Amon, should be acknowledged as the god of Thebes, and a scarab +found at Kom Ombos in 1896 bears upon it, in confirmation of the story, +the name of Sutekh-Apopi.[31] Moreover, the Hyksos capital was not in +any of the old centres of Egyptian government. Zoan, it is true, now +Sân, in the north-eastern part of the Delta, was nominally their +official residence; but they preferred to dwell in the fortress of +Avaris, on the extreme eastern edge of Egypt, and within hail of their +Asiatic kinsmen. It was from Avaris that Apophis had sent his insolent +message to the terrified Prince of Thebes. + +The Hebrew visitor to Egypt, therefore, was among friends and not +strangers. Moreover, he had only to cross the frontier to find himself +in the presence of the Pharaoh’s court. Whether at Zoan or at Avaris, it +was alike close at hand to the traveller from Asia. + +After leaving Egypt, Abram established himself at Hebron. It would seem +that the name of Hebron, ‘the Confederacy,’ was not yet in existence, as +it was to the ‘terebinth’ of Mamre, and not of Hebron, that Abram +‘removed his tent.’ Indeed, it is more than doubtful whether Mamre and +Hebron occupied precisely the same site. It may be that Mamre was the +older fortress of the Amorites, whose place was taken in after times by +the town which gathered round the adjoining sanctuary of Hebron. + +In any case, its population was Amorite, though probably we should +understand ‘Amorite’ here in its Babylonian sense. ‘Abram the Hebrew,’ +it is declared, ‘dwelt under the terebinth of Mamre the Amorite, brother +of Eshcol and brother of Aner; and these were confederate with Abram.’ +In other words, the Hebrew settler in Canaan had formed an alliance with +the native chiefs. + +Then came an event upon which the cuneiform records of Babylonia are +beginning to cast light. Chedor-laomer, king of Elam, and the vassal +kings Amraphel of Shinar, Arioch of Ellasar, and Tid’al of ‘nations,’ +marched against the five Canaanitish princes of the Vale of Siddim at +the northern end of the Dead Sea, bent upon obtaining possession of the +naphtha springs that abounded there, and the produce of which had +already made its way to Babylonia. No resistance was made to the +invader; it is clear, in fact, that the invasion was no new thing, and +that the rest of Canaan was already subject to the lords of the East. +For ‘twelve years’ the five Canaanitish kings ‘served Chedor-laomer, and +in the thirteenth year they rebelled.’ Once more, therefore, the forces +of Elam and Babylonia moved westward. The revolt, it would appear, had +spread to other parts of the ‘land of the Amorites,’ and the invading +army marched southward along the eastern side of the Jordan. First, the +Rephaim were overthrown at Ashteroth-Karnaim, in ‘the field of Bashan,’ +as it was termed in the days of the Tel el-Amarna tablets; then followed +the turn of the Zuzim in the future land of Ammon, and of the Emim in +what was to be the land of Moab; and after smiting the Horites of Mount +Seir, the invaders penetrated into the wilderness of Paran, fell upon +the desert sanctuary of Kadesh, now called ’Ain el-Qadîs, and returned +northward along the western shore of the Dead Sea. They had thus +partially followed in the footsteps of an earlier Chaldæan king, +Naram-Sin, who centuries before had made his way to the Sinaitic +Peninsula, and there gained possession of the coveted copper-mines. + +The native princes in the Vale of Siddim were no match for the foe. A +battle was fought which ended disastrously for the Canaanitish troops. +The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah were slain, their men were driven into +the naphtha-pits of which the plain was full, or else fled to the +mountains. Their cities fell into the hands of the conquerors, who +carried away both captives and spoil. + +But Abram heard that among the captives was his ‘brother’ Lot. Thereupon +he started in pursuit of the Chaldæan army, with his three hundred and +eighteen armed followers and the forces of his Amorite allies. The +victorious army was overtaken near Damascus, and its rear surprised in a +night attack. The captives and spoil were recovered, and brought back in +triumph to the south of Canaan. Here at the ‘King’s Dale,’ just outside +the walls of Jerusalem, the new king of Sodom went to welcome him; and +Melchizedek, the priest-king of Jerusalem, blessed the conqueror in the +name of ‘the Most High God.’ + +The history of the campaign of Chedor-laomer reads like an extract from +the Babylonian chronicles. It is dated in the reign of the king of +Shinar or Babylon, as it would have been had it been written by a +Babylonian scribe, although the Babylonian king was but the vassal and +tributary of the sovereign of Elam. Even the spelling of the names +indicates that they are taken from a cuneiform document. ‘Ham’ for +Ammon, and ‘Zuzim’ for Zamzummim, can be explained only by the +peculiarities of the cuneiform system of writing.[32] + +The whole story, however, has been thrown into a Canaanitish form. The +king of Northern Babylonia, whose capital was Babylon, has become a king +of Shinar, that being the name given in the West to the northern half of +Chaldæa.[33] Larsa, the capital of Eri-Aku or Arioch, has been +transformed into Ellasar, perhaps through the influence of the +Babylonian _al_, city.’ Lastly, Tid’al, the Tudghula of the cuneiform +texts, is entitled the ‘king of nations.’ + +The fragmentary tablets discovered by Mr. Pinches, in which we hear of +Khammu-rabi, king of Babylon, of Eri-Aku or Arioch, and his son +Bad-makh-dingirene, and of Kudur-Laghghamar, the Chedor-laomer of +Genesis, refer to Tudghula or Tid’al as ‘the son of Gazza[ni].’ +Unfortunately, the words which follow, and which gave a description of +the prince, have been lost through a fracture of the clay tablet. But +there is another tablet from which we may supply the deficiency. On the +one hand we are told that Tudghula burned the sanctuaries of Babylonia +and allowed the waters of the Euphrates to roll over the ruins of the +great temples of Babylon; on the other hand we read: ‘Who is this +Kudur-Laghghamar who has wrought evil? He has assembled the Umman Manda, +has devastated the land of Bel, and [has marched] at their side.’ +Elsewhere Kudur-Laghghamar is called the king of Elam.[34] + +The Umman Manda were the barbarous tribes in the mountains which +adjoined the northern part of Elam and formed the eastern boundary of +Babylonia. The term means the ‘Nomad,’ or ‘Barbarous Peoples,’ and is +thus the Babylonian equivalent of the Hebrew Goyyim, ‘Nations.’[35] What +the ‘Gentiles,’ or Goyyim, were to the Hebrews, or the ‘Barbarians’ to +the Greeks, the Umman Manda were to the civilised population of Chaldæa. +The fact that the king of Elam summons them to his help when he invades +Babylonia implies that they acknowledged his suzerainty. It would seem, +therefore, that the ‘Nations’ over which Tid’al is said to have ruled +were the Kurdish tribes to the east of the Babylonian frontier. + +Khammu-rabi eventually succeeded in overthrowing the king of Elam, in +crushing his rival Eri-Aku and his Elamite allies, and in making himself +master of an independent Babylonia, which was henceforth a united +kingdom, with its centre and sovereign city at Babylon. Recent +excavations have brought letters of his to light which were written to +his faithful vassal Sin-idinnam, Sin-idinnam had been the king of Larsa +whom Eri-Aku and his Elamite troops had driven from the city of his +fathers, and he had found refuge and protection in the court of +Khammu-rabi at Babylon. When the great war finally broke out, which +ended in leaving Khammu-rabi sole monarch of Babylonia, Sin-idinnam +rendered him active service, and after the conclusion of the struggle he +was reinstated in his ancestral princedom. Khammu-rabi loaded him with +other honours as well; and one of the letters which have been recovered +refers to certain statues which were presented to him as a reward for +his ‘valour on the day of Kudur-Laghghamar’s defeat.’ This was an +Oriental anticipation of the statues which the Greek cities of a later +age bestowed upon those they would honour.[36] + +It has been suggested that the reverse sustained by Kudur-Laghghamar in +Palestine at the hands of the ‘Amorites,’ under the leadership of ‘Abram +the Hebrew,’ may have given the king of Babylon his opportunity for +successfully revolting from his liege lord. If so, the Hebrew patriarch +would have influenced the destinies of the country he had forsaken. What +is more certain is that his victory gave him a commanding position in +the country of his adoption. Syrian legend in after days made him a king +in Damascus;[37] and when he buys the rock-tomb of Machpelah, the owners +of the land tell him that he is no ‘stranger and sojourner’ among them, +but ‘a mighty prince,’ ‘a prince of Elohim.’ From henceforth the +‘Hebrew’ occupies a recognised place in ‘the land of the Amorites.’ + +The figure of Melchizedek, king of Salem, loomed large upon the +imagination of later ages out of the mists that enveloped the history of +Canaanitish Jerusalem. But the romance is now making way for sober +history. The letters on clay tablets in the Babylonian language and +writing, found at Tel el-Amarna in Upper Egypt, have come to our help. +Several of them were sent to the Pharaoh from Ebed-Tob, king of +Jerusalem, and they show that Jerusalem was already the dominant state +of Southern Palestine. Its strong position made it a fortress of +importance, and it was the capital of a territory which stretched away +towards the desert of the South. Its name was already Jerusalem or +Uru-Salim, ‘the city of Salim,’ the God of Peace, and the hieroglyphic +texts of Egypt accordingly speak of it simply as Shalama or Salem, +omitting the needless Uru, ‘city.’[38] + +Ebed-Tob reiterates that he was not, like the other governors of Canaan, +under Egyptian rule. They had been appointed to their offices by the +Pharaoh, or had inherited them by descent from the older royal lines of +the country whom the Egyptian Government had allowed to remain. He, on +the contrary, was the friend and ally of the Egyptian king. His kingly +dignity had not been derived from either father or mother, but from the +‘Mighty King,’ from the god, that is to say, whose temple stood on ‘the +mountain of Jerusalem.’ He was, therefore, a priest-king, without father +or mother, so far as his royal office was concerned.[39] + +That the king of Salem, the priest of the God of Peace, should have come +forth from his city and its temple to welcome the conqueror when he +returned in peace, was both natural and fitting. It was equally natural +and fitting that he should bless the Hebrew in the name of the ‘Most +High God’—the patron deity of Jerusalem, whom Ebed-Tob identifies with +the Babylonian Ninip—and that Abram should in return have given him +tithes of the spoil. From time immemorial, the _esrâ_ or tithe had been +exacted in Babylonia for the temples and their priests, and had been +paid alike by prince and peasant. It passed to the West along with the +other elements and institutions of Babylonian culture.[40] + +The destruction of the cities of the Vale of Siddim, which is +represented as occurring not long after the retreat of the king of Elam, +made a profound impression on the Western world. References are made to +the catastrophe up to the latest days of Hebrew literature; and the mist +caused by the evaporation of the salt on the surface of the Dead Sea was +popularly supposed to be the smoke which hung eternally over the ruins +of the doomed cities of the plain. The storm which burst from the +heavens set fire to the naphtha springs that oozed through the soil, and +houses and men alike were enveloped in a sheet of fire. Similar +catastrophes have happened in our own time at Baku on the Caspian, where +the petroleum, accidentally ignited, has blazed for days in columns of +fire. + +Ingenious Germans have connected with the destruction of Sodom and its +sister cities a passage in the Latin writer Justin (xviii. 3. 2, 3), in +which it is said that the Phœnicians were driven to the Canaanitish +coast by an earthquake which took place in their original home near ‘the +Assyrian lake.’ Instead of ‘Assyrian,’ some manuscripts read ‘Syrian,’ +and the lake has accordingly been imagined to be the Dead Sea, and the +earthquake to be the rain of fire which destroyed the cities of the +plain.[41] But there is no other instance in which the Dead Sea is +called ‘the Syrian lake,’ supposing this to be the true reading, nor is +there any trace of an earthquake in the catastrophe described in +Genesis. Moreover, the unanimous voice of classical antiquity declared +that the Phœnicians had come from the Persian Gulf, not from the valley +of the Jordan, and their seafaring propensities were explained by the +fact that they once lived in the islands of the Erythræan Sea. Whatever +the ‘Assyrian lake’ may have been, it was not the ‘Salt Sea’ of the Old +Testament. + +The Israelites traced back to Abram the rite of circumcision which they +practised. The rite, however, was not confined to Israel. So far as +Western Asia is concerned, it seems to have been of African origin. It +is to be found among most of the races and tribes of Africa, and in +Egypt the institution was of immemorial antiquity. According to +Herodotos (ii. 36), the Egyptians, the Ethiopians, and the Kolkhians +alone observed it ‘from the beginning,’ the Phœnicians and Syrians of +Palestine having learned it from the Egyptians, and the Cappadocians +from the people of Kolkhis. But the knowledge of the world possessed by +Herodotos was limited, and his anthropology is not profound. The +practice is met with in various parts of the world; it owes its origin +to considerations of chastity, its maintenance to sanitary reasons. It +is true that Africa was peculiarly its home, and that it seems to have +been common to the aboriginal tribes of that continent, but it is also +true that it was known to aboriginal tribes in other parts of the globe +among whom—so far as our evidence can tell us—the practice originated +independently.[42] + +Whether it was originally a Semitic as well as an African rite, we do +not at present know. We have as yet no certain evidence that it was +practised among the Babylonians. Indeed, the fact that Abraham was not +circumcised until after his arrival in Canaan would imply that it was +not. Even in Canaan itself there were tribes, apart from the Philistine +immigrants, to whom it was unknown, as we learn from the story of Hamor +and Shechem (Gen. xxxiv. 14, _sqq._). And though the inhabitants of +Northern Arabia were circumcised in their thirteenth year, as we are +told by Josephus, it is doubtful whether the same custom prevailed in +the southern half of the peninsula. So far as Midian was concerned, we +have express testimony (Exod. iv. 24-26, cf. ii. 19) that the rite was +regarded as peculiar to the stranger from Egypt. + +It seems probable, therefore, that Herodotos was right in declaring that +circumcision had been introduced into Palestine by the Egyptians. +Intercourse between Canaan and the Delta went back to the early days of +Egyptian history, and it would not be surprising if Egyptian influences +had found their way into Canaan at the same time. Canaanitish slaves +were carried into the valley of the Nile, and doubtless Egyptian slaves +were at times kidnapped into Canaan. + +The circumcision of Abraham and his household may, consequently, have +been in accordance with a custom which had already grown up among the +Amoritish population around him. But whether this were the case or not, +the rite received a new meaning and assumed a new form. It became the +sign and seal of a religious covenant. Those who had been circumcised +were thereby devoted to the God of Abraham and his descendants. +Henceforth there was not only a division between the circumcised and the +uncircumcised, there was also a division between those who had received +the circumcision of Abraham and those who had not. It is noticeable that +the narrative expressly includes among those who were thus outwardly +dedicated to the God of Israel not only the ancestor of the Ishmaelite +tribes of Northern Arabia, but also the foreign slaves who belonged to +the household of the patriarch. They had left the home of their fathers, +and his God accordingly had become theirs. The fact is paralleled by the +law relating to another seal of the covenant between Israel and its God; +the Sabbath had to be kept not only by the Israelite, but also by the +‘stranger’ within his gates. + +A change of name accompanied the rite which the patriarch performed. The +Babylonian Abram became the Palestinian Abraham. To the native of the +old Oriental world the name was not merely the representation of a +thing; it was, in a measure, the thing itself. Even Greek philosophy +failed at first to distinguish between an object and its expression in +speech. A thing was known only through its name, and in the name were to +be found its qualities and its essence. A name which brought with it +unlucky associations was itself the bringer of ill-luck, but the +ill-luck would turn to good if once the name were changed. The belief +has lingered on into our own times, and the change of the Cape of Storms +into the Cape of Good Hope is an illustration of its influence. The name +meant personality as well as a thing. The man himself was changed when +his name was changed. Hence it was that the Canaanites or Karians, who +settled in Egypt, and there became Egyptian citizens, at once assumed +Egyptian names. They had left Canaan and Karia behind them, with the +gods and the habits of their ancestors, and had adopted the religion and +manners of another country. They had, as it were, stripped themselves of +their old personality, and had clothed themselves with a new one. It was +thus a new personality that was assumed by the Babylonian Abram when he +became the Abraham of Western Asia. It cut him off, as it were, from the +land of his birth, and gave him a new birth in the country of his +adoption. The merchant-prince of Babylonia, who had overthrown the +rearguard of the host of Chedor-laomer, and whose maid had borne to him +the ancestor of the Ishmaelites, thus passed into the forefather and +founder of the Israelitish race. + +The etymology and meaning of the new name are unknown. It would seem +that they had been forgotten even at the time when the book of Genesis +was written. At all events, the explanation of the name given there +(xvii. 5) is one of those plays upon words of which the Biblical +writers, like Orientals generally, are so fond. ‘Ab-(ra)ham,’ it is +said, is Ab-ham(ôn), ‘the father of a multitude,’ in total disregard of +the second syllable of the name. It may be, however, that there was +still a tradition that in _raham_ we have a word which had a similar +signification to that of _hamôn_, ‘a multitude,’ though the attempts +that have been made to discover any word of the kind in the Semitic +languages have hitherto been unsuccessful. We must be content with the +fact that Ab-ram, ‘the exalted father,’ was transformed into the +Israelitish Ab-raham.[43] + +The change of name was followed by the birth of Isaac and the expulsion +of Ishmael from his father’s house. Closely allied in blood as the +Ishmaelites of north-western Arabia were to the house of Israel, it was +only in part that they shared in the covenant made with their common +father. Circumcision indeed they also possessed, but to Israel alone was +granted the Law. To Israel alone did God reveal Himself under His name +of Yahveh. + +The inscriptions of a later age, which have been found in the Ishmaelite +territory, show that the language then spoken by the Ishmaelitish tribes +was Aramaic rather than what we call Arabic.[44] From the borders of +Babylonia to the Sinaitic Peninsula, and as far north as the +mountain-ranges of the Taurus, Aramaic dialects were used. How far the +difference in language meant that the populations who spoke these +Aramaic dialects differed also in blood from the other members of the +Semitic family, we do not know, but it is probable that the difference +in blood was not great. The Semitic family seems to have been as +homogeneous in race as it was in speech, and the differences in speech +were comparatively slight. In fact, the Semitic languages do not differ +more from one another than the languages of modern Europe which claim +descent from Latin, and it is probable that the speaker of an Aramaic +dialect would not have had very great difficulty in making himself +intelligible to the speakers of what we term Hebrew. + +Hebrew was, as Isaiah tells us (xix. 18), ‘the language of Canaan.’ The +fact became clear to European scholars as soon as the Phœnician +inscriptions were deciphered. Between the Hebrew of the Old Testament +and the Phœnician of the older inhabitants of Canaan the differences are +less than those between one English dialect and another. Chief among +them is the absence in Phœnician of the Hebrew article and _waw +conversivum_. But the idiom to which grammarians have given the latter +name seems to have been an independent creation of Hebrew itself, and +even in Hebrew it disappeared in the later stage of the language. The +article is found in the so-called Lihyanian inscriptions of Northern +Arabia,[45] and we may regard it as one of the indications that the +Israelites had been Bedâwin before they entered Palestine and made their +way from the desert into the Promised Land. + +The Tel el-Amarna tablets have carried the history of Canaanitish or +Hebrew beyond the age of the Exodus. In some of the letters written from +Palestine the writers have added the Canaanitish equivalents of certain +Assyrian words and phrases. They show that from the pre-Mosaic epoch +down to the period of the Exile the language changed but little; the +words and phrases that have thus been preserved being substantially the +same as those which we find in the pages of the Old Testament.[46] + +The northern boundary between Canaanitish and Aramaic dialects was among +the mountains of Gilead. This is made clear by the narrative of the +covenant between Laban and Jacob. At Mizpah, the ‘Watch-tower,’ which +guarded the approaches to the south, a cairn was raised, called +Yegar-sahadutha in the language of Laban, Galeed in that of Jacob (Gen. +xxxi. 47, 48). The two names alike signified the ‘heap of witnesses,’ +but while the first was Aramaic, the second was Canaanitish. The fact +that the names survived into later history shows that the line of +demarcation between the two Semitic languages which they represent +continued to remain in the same place.[47] + +Jacob, despite his long residence in Aram and his relationship to an +Aramæan family, is nevertheless Canaanite in his language. It is a sign +and proof how completely the ancestors of the Israelites had identified +themselves with the country which their descendants were afterwards to +possess. The Canaanitish history of Israel begins long before the days +of Moses or Joshua; it already dates from the day when the Babylonian +Abram became the Abraham of Canaan, and when the field of Machpelah was +sold to him by the children of Heth. + +It is true that Jacob—or it may be, Terah—is once called in the Old +Testament (Deut. xxvi. 5) ‘a wandering Aramæan.’ But he was so only in a +secondary sense. It was not as an Aramæan, but as a wanderer out of +Aramaic lands, that the title is given him. Israel was closely connected +with Aram and Harran, but it was a relationship only. + +Discoveries recently made in Northern Syria by the German explorer, Dr. +von Luschan, have thrown some light on the matter. At Sinjerli, +twenty-five miles north-east of the Gulf of Antioch, and nearly midway +between Yarpuz and Aintab, he has excavated the ruins of the capital of +the ancient kingdom of Samâla, and found monuments which make mention of +the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser.[48] Most of them, in fact, were +erected by a prince who acknowledged the supremacy of the Assyrian +monarch, and whose father’s name is met with in the annals of the latter +sovereign. The inscriptions on them are in an Aramaic dialect; but the +dialect is so largely mixed with Hebrew words and idioms as to have made +scholars doubt at first whether it was not an Aramaised form of Hebrew +rather than an Hebraised form of Aramaic. In any case, it is plain that +the dialect was in close contact with a population which spoke ‘the +language of Canaan.’ Far away to the north, therefore, in the heart of +an Aramaic country, there must have been speakers of Hebrew or +Canaanite. Nor is this all. Two or three miles from the ruins of Samâla +are the ruins of another ancient town, the modern name of which is +Girshin. Here, too, the German excavators have found an inscription of +the same age as those of Samâla, and we may gather from it that Girshin +stands on the site of a city which was the capital of the land of +‘Ya’di.’ In the Tel el-Amarna tablets, written in the century before the +Exodus, Yaudâ are mentioned as living in the same part of the world.[49] +Now Yaudâ is also the Assyrian mode of spelling the name of the Jews, +and it would accordingly seem that a tribe which bore a name similar to +that of Judah existed in Northern Syria as far back as the Patriarchal +age.[50] + +All this is in singular harmony with the Scriptural narrative which +tells us that a part of Terah’s family lingered at Harran, and that the +wives of both Isaac and Jacob came from their Aramæan kindred in the +north. There were Hebrews in Northern Syria as well as in Canaan, and +Scripture and archæology are alike in agreement in testifying to the +fact. + +Even in Babylonia it may be that Abraham had been educated in ‘the +language of Canaan.’ There were colonies of Amorite (or, as we should +say, Canaanitish) merchants in Chaldæa who had special districts and +privileges assigned to them by the Babylonian kings. Reference is not +unfrequently made to them in the contracts of the Abrahamic age. The +proper names, which sometimes make their appearance in deeds of sale or +lease, or in legal suits in which the foreign merchants were involved, +are Canaanitish and not Babylonian. Thus we find names like Ishmael and +Abdiel, Jacob-el (Ya’qub-il), and Joseph-el (Yasup-il), and we even read +of ‘the Amorite the son of Abi-ramu’ or Abram, who appears as a witness +to a deed dated in the reign of the grandfather of Amraphel. + +Israel thus stood in close relation to almost all the chief linguistic +divisions of the Semitic world. Its first forefather had been born in +the land where Babylonian—or Assyrian, as we usually term it—was spoken, +and its contact with Aramaic had been early and intimate. Its desert +wanderings had led it into a region into which the Bedâwin tribes of +Central Arabia could make their way, and the Hebrew article seems to be +a relic of its intercourse with them and the Arabic they spoke. But with +all this contact with other Semitic tongues, Israel nevertheless +remained true to that of the land of its destiny: the language of the +Old Testament is the language which was spoken in Canaan before the days +of Moses, the language of the inscriptions of Phœnicia and Carthage, the +language of Hannibal as well as of Joshua. + +If Israel was connected by language with Canaan, it was connected by +blood as well as by language with Moab, and Ammon, and Edom. In fact, +Edom and Israel were brothers. While the relationship with Moab and +Ammon was comparatively distant, the relationship with Edom was +peculiarly close. The fact was never forgotten, and in the later days of +Jewish history the unbrotherly conduct of Edom caused a bitterness of +feeling towards it on the part of the Jews such as no other Gentiles +were able to excite. + +Moab and Ammon were the children of Lot, and had possessed themselves of +the mountain and fertile plains on the east side of the Dead Sea and +southern course of the Jordan long before Israel had entered into its +inheritance, or even Edom had carved out a possession for itself with +the sword. They were accused of being of incestuous origin, and it was +related how the ancestors of each had been born in hiding and in the +wild solitude of a cave. Moab was the eldest, Ben-Ammi, ‘the Ammonite,’ +being the younger of the two. + +The name of Moab (or Muab) is engraved among the conquests of the +Egyptian Pharaoh, Ramses II., on the base of one of the statues which +stand before the northern entrance of the temple of Luxor. Ammi, whose +‘son’ the ancestor of the Ammonites was called, was the supreme God of +Ammon, standing to the Ammonites in the same relation that Chemosh stood +to Moab, or Yahveh to Israel. Ammon, indeed, is but another form of +Ammi. The god was widely worshipped, as we may learn from the proper +names into which his own name enters. Thus the Old Testament knows of +Ammiel, ‘Ammi is god’; of Ammi-shaddai, ‘Ammi is the Almighty’; and of +Ammi-nadab, ‘Ammi is noble.’ Ammi-nadab was king of Ammon in the time of +the Assyrian king Assur-bani-pal; the early Minæan inscriptions of +Southern Arabia contain names like Ammi-zadoq and Ammi-zadiqa, ‘Ammi is +righteous,’ as well as Ammi-karib and Ammi-anshi; while among the kings +of the south Arabian dynasty which ruled over Babylonia in the age of +Abraham we find Ammi-zadoq, or Ammu-zadoq and Ammi-dhitana; and the +Kadmonite chieftain east of the Jordan, with whom the Egyptian fugitive +Sinuhit found a home in the time of the twelfth dynasty, bore the name +of Ammi-anshi.[51] Balaam the seer, moreover, was summoned by the king +of Moab from his city of Pethor, at the junction of the Euphrates and +the Sajur, in ‘the land of the children of Ammo,’—for such is the +correct translation of the Hebrew text. It may not be an accident that +one who thus belonged to the ‘Beni-Ammo,’ or ‘Ammonites’ of the north, +should have been called to the country which bordered on that of the +Beni-Ammi, or Ammonites of the south.[52] + +A few miles to the north of Pethor was Carchemish, now Jerablûs, which +was destined to become one of the most important strongholds of the +Hittite tribes. The Semites explained the name as ‘the fortified wall of +Chemosh’;[53] and whether this etymology were true or not, at all events +it indicates a belief that the worship of Chemosh extended as far +northward into Aram as did the worship of Ammi. Chemosh was the national +god of Moab. Like Yahveh of Israel and Assur in Assyria, he had neither +wife nor children; and on the Moabite Stone even the Babylonian goddess +Ashtar, whose cult had been carried to the West, is identified with him. +She ceases to have any independent existence or sex of her own, and is +absorbed into the one supreme deity of Moabite faith. It is probable +that Ammi also was similarly conceived of as standing alone in jealous +isolation, supreme over all other gods, and having no consort with whom +to share his power. + +Moab and Ammon were alike intruders in the lands which subsequently bore +their names. The older inhabitants of Moab were known as the Emim, ‘a +people great and many and tall, as the Anakim, which also were accounted +giants.’ Ammon too had been ‘accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt +therein in old time, and the Ammonites call them Zamzummim.’ The word +rendered ‘giants’ in the Authorised Version is Rephaim; and it is very +possible that a trace of it survives in the name On-Repha, ‘On of the +giant,’ the Raphon or Raphana of classical geography, which is coupled +by the Egyptian conqueror Thothmes III. with Astartu or +Ashteroth-Karnaim.[54] When Chedor-laomer made his campaign in Canaan +the Rephaim were still living at Ashteroth-Karnaim, and the ‘Zuzim’ or +Zamzummim in ‘Ham.’ The name of the latter seems to occur in the +inscriptions of the kings of Ur, who reigned some centuries before the +birth of Abraham; they mention hostile expeditions against the land of +Zavzala or the Zuzim; and a Babylonian high-priest who owned allegiance +to one of them brought blocks of limestone for his temples and palace +from the same district, which he tells us was situated ‘in the mountains +of the Amorites.’[55] + +Whether or not the Emim and Zamzummim were Amorite tribes, we cannot +tell. The physical characteristics ascribed to them in the Old Testament +would, however, seem to indicate that such was the case. Moreover, the +Amorites had at one time been the dominant population, not only in +Palestine itself, but also in the country east of the Jordan as well as +in the Syrian districts to the north. When the Babylonians first became +acquainted with Western Asia in the fifth or fourth millennium before +the Christian era, the inhabitants of Syria were mainly of the Amorite +race. Syria, accordingly, and more especially that part of it which is +known to us as Palestine, was called in the old agglutinative language +of Chaldæa ‘the land of Martu’ or ‘the Amorite,’ a word which has +survived in the book of Genesis under the form of Moreh.[56] When the +older language of Chaldæa made way for Semitic Babylonian, _Martu_ +became _Amurru_, and Hadad, the supreme Baal or sun-god of Canaan, +became known as ‘Amurru,’ ‘the Amorite.’ By the Egyptians the Amorites +were termed Amur; and, as has been already stated,[57] the Egyptian +artists have shown us that they were a fair-skinned people, with blue +eyes and reddish hair; that they were also tall and handsome, and wore +short and pointed beards. In fact, they resembled in features the +Libyans of Northern Africa, whose modern descendants—the Kabyles of +Algeria—offer such a striking likeness to the golden-haired Kelt. The +Amorite type may still be seen in its purity among the Arabs of the +El-Arîsh desert, who inhabit the district between the frontiers of +Palestine and Egypt: many of the latter, as we see them to-day, might +well have sat for the portraits of the Amorites depicted on the walls of +the old Egyptian temples and tombs. It would seem that the Amorite race, +fair and tall and energetic, once extended along the northern coast of +Africa into Asia itself, where they occupied the larger part of Southern +Syria. There they have left behind them cromlechs and dolmens which +remind us of those of our own islands. Indeed, if the Amorite were the +eastern branch of the Libyan race, it is probable that he could claim +kindred with the so-called red Kelt of Britain. The physiological +characteristics of the Libyan and fair-haired Kelt are similar; and many +anthropologists assume the existence of a Libyo-Keltic or ‘Eurafrican’ +family, which has spread northward through Spain and the western side of +France into the British Isles.[58] + +The Emim and Zamzummim, accordingly, whom the descendants of Lot partly +expelled, partly absorbed, may have been of Amorite origin, and +connected in race with a portion of the population of our own country. +At all events, when the Israelites entered Canaan, the Amorites were +already settled on the eastern side of the Jordan. At that time the land +was divided between the Amalekites or Bedâwin of the desert to the +south, the Hittites, Jebusites, and Amorites ‘in the mountains,’ and the +Canaanites on the coast of the Mediterranean and in the valley of the +Jordan (Numb. xiii. 29). As might have been expected in the case of a +fair-skinned people, the Amorites needed the bracing air of the +mountains in order to hold their own against the other populations of +the country; in the hot plains their vigour was in danger of being lost. + +The Egyptian rule, which the Pharaohs of the eighteenth and nineteenth +dynasties had maintained eastward of the Jordan, passed away with the +fall of the Egyptian empire, and its place was taken by the Amorite +kingdoms of Sihon and Og. Sihon had overthrown the Moabites in battle, +and had wrested their territory from them as far south as the Arnon +(Numb. xxi. 26). They had been driven out of their cities into the +barren mountains which overlooked the Dead Sea. A fragment of the +Amorite Song of Triumph which recorded the conquest has been preserved +to us. ‘Come unto Heshbon,’ it said, ‘let the city of Sihon be built and +fortified. For a fire has gone forth from Heshbon, a flame from the city +of Sihon; it hath consumed Ar of Moab, and the Baalim of the high places +of Arnon. Woe to thee, Moab! thou art undone, O people of Chemosh: +[Chemosh] hath given his sons that escaped [the battle], and his +daughters, into captivity unto Sihon king of the Amorites’ (Numb. xxi. +27-29). + +The southern half of Ammon also, as far north as the Jabbok, was in +Amorite hands. Here, however, the Ammonites had strongly fortified their +‘border’ (Numb. xxi. 24), so that neither Sihon himself, nor his +Israelitish conquerors, succeeded in passing it. But Rabbah, ‘the city +of waters,’ the future capital of Ammon, must have been held by the +Amorites, and the two intrusive populations of Ammon and Moab were +separated from one another by the Amorite conquest. + +If the older inhabitants of the country were Amorite by race, the +kingdom of Sihon will have represented an Amorite reaction against the +descendants of Lot. But we must remember that the Babylonians had given +the name of ‘Amorite’ to all the populations of Palestine and the +adjoining districts, whether they were Amorites in blood or not. The old +Babylonian usage is followed in several passages of the Pentateuch, and +points to their origin in those pre-Mosaic days when Babylonian +influence was still dominant in Western Asia. Thus in Gen. xv. 16, God +declares to Abraham that ‘the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full,’ +and Jacob reminded his sons (Gen. xlviii. 22) that he had wrested +Shechem ‘out of the hand of the Amorite’ with his sword and bow. Perhaps +the emphatic statement that ‘the Canaanite was then in the land,’ which +we read in Gen. xii. 6, is due to the previous mention of the terebinth +of Moreh’ or Martu, Martu being the primitive Babylonian equivalent of +the later ‘Amorite.’ The terebinth, indeed, was in the country of the +Amorites, but the country was already inhabited by Canaanitish +tribes.[59] + +We cannot, then, be certain that the aboriginal peoples of Moab and +Ammon were actually of the Amorite race. They were, it is true, included +by the Babylonians under the common name of ‘Amorites,’ but this was +because all the rest of the population of Southern Syria was known under +the same title. The fact, however, that the Hebrew writers have +described them as tall, like the Anakim, and that popular tradition +should have spoken of them as Rephaim or giants, is in favour of their +having been really of Amorite descent. In this case we may see in them +the easternmost representatives of the blond race, and the builders of +the cromlechs with which the hillsides of Moab are covered. + +Southward of Moab came other tribes which, like the Ishmaelites, were +said to have sprung directly from Abraham himself. These were the +Midianites and the merchant tribes of Sheba and Dedan, who possessed +stations on the great desert road that led from the spice-bearing +regions of Southern Arabia to the borders of Canaan. They claimed to be +the descendants of Keturah, or ‘Incence,’ the second wife of the Hebrew +patriarch, after Sarah’s death. Another genealogy (Gen. x. 7) placed +Sheba and Dedan in the extreme south of the Arabian peninsula, among the +children of Cush. Both genealogies, however, are correct. Sheba was the +kingdom of the Sabæans, whose centre was in Southern Arabia, but whose +power and commerce extended far to the north. Their trading settlements +and garrisons were to be found in the immediate neighbourhood of Midian, +at Tema, the modern Teimah, and elsewhere.[60] If Professor Hommel is +right in identifying Dedan with Tidanum, one of the names by which +Palestine was known in early days to the natives of Babylonia, it would +seem that the Dedanites also had become a leading people on the +frontiers of Canaan. At all events, it is clear that Abraham was claimed +as an ancestor by the tribes of Western Arabia from its northern to its +southern extremity, by the descendants of Keturah on the western coast +and caravan-road, as well as by the Ishmaelites further to the east. +They represented the trading and more cultured population of the +peninsula as opposed to the wild Amalekites or Bedâwin hordes, who had +their home among the mountains of Seir and the desert south of +Palestine. The connection between Midian and Israel, which found +expression in a common ancestry, was reasserted in later days when the +great legislator of Israel fled to Midian and married the daughter of +its high-priest. + +How nearly that connection had been lost through the death of the +forefather of the Israelitish people was recorded in the story of the +sacrifice of Isaac. A voice came to Abraham, which he believed to be +divine, bidding him offer ‘for a burnt-offering’ the son of his old age, +the heir of the covenant which had been made with him. It was a form of +sacrifice only too well known in Canaan. In time of pestilence or +trouble the parent was called upon to sacrifice to Baal that which was +dearest and nearest to him, his firstborn or his only son. The gods +themselves had set the example. Once when a plague had fallen upon the +land, El had clothed Yeud, his only son, in royal purple, and on one of +the high-places of Palestine had offered him up to the offended +deities.[61] The doctrine of vicarious sacrifice was deeply enrooted in +the minds of the Canaanitish people. But it needed to be a sacrifice +which cost the offerer almost as much as his own life. The fruit of his +own body could alone wipe away the sin of his soul. And the sacrifice +had to be by fire. Only through that purifying element could the stains +of sin and impurity be obliterated, and the offering made acceptable to +heaven. + +The practice, horrible as it seems to us, was nevertheless founded on a +truth. The victim, if he were to be accepted, must be the most precious +that the offerer could present. The gods did not require that which cost +him nothing. It needed to be the most costly that could be given; it +needed to be also, in the words of the prophet, the fruit of the +sinner’s own body. Nothing else would suffice: the gods demanded the +firstborn son, still more the only son. In no other way could Baal be +satisfied that the sinner had repented of his guilt or had made to him +an offering which was of equal value to his own life. + +The firstborn of all animals, of beasts as well as of men, was owed to +the gods. The belief was not confined to the Canaanites. We find traces +of it in Babylonian literature, and all the denunciations of the +prophets before the Exile failed to eradicate it from the mind of the +Jew. Up to the closing days of the Jewish monarchy, the valley of the +sons of Hinnom was defiled with the smoke of the sacrifices wherein, as +it is euphemistically said, the kings and people of Jerusalem made their +children to pass through the fire. The belief, indeed, was consecrated +by the Mosaic law itself. Human sacrifice, it is true, was forbidden, +but the firstborn, nevertheless, had to be redeemed (Exod. xxxiv. 20). +Like the firstfruits and the firstborn of beasts, Yahveh had declared +that the firstborn of the sons of Israel also belonged to Him (Exod. +xxii. 29). He could claim them, and it was of His own freewill that He +waived the claim. And along with this assertion of His claim to the +firstborn went the doctrine of vicarious punishment. It was not the +firstborn only in whose case a substitution was allowed: once a year the +sins of the whole people were laid upon the head of the scapegoat, which +was then driven like an evil spirit into the wilderness. The idea of +vicarious punishment, which lies at the foundation of historical +Christianity, had already found expression in the Mosaic law. + +The sacrifice of the firstborn was thus part of a larger conception +behind which there lay a profound truth. The sins of the father were +visited upon the child in more senses than one; the child, in fact, +could become an expiation for them, and divert to himself the anger of +the gods. Experience had shown how often the son must suffer for the +deeds of the parent, and the inference was drawn that if that suffering +were voluntarily offered to heaven by the parent, he would receive all +the benefits that flowed from it. Moreover, the gods had a right to the +firstborn, if they chose to exercise it; and in offering the firstborn, +accordingly, man was only giving back to them what was strictly their +own. + +The heathenism of the Mosaic age went no further. Israel was the first +to learn that the law of the substitution of the firstborn for the sins +of the father was subordinate to a higher and more general law—that of +vicarious punishment. As the firstborn of men could be substituted for +the parent, so, too, could a lower animal, or the price of a lower +animal, be substituted for the firstborn of men. It was not the +sacrifice which the God of Israel demanded, but the spirit of sacrifice; +not the blood of bulls and goats, or even men, but obedience and +readiness to give up all that was dearest and best at the command of +God. + +The story of the sacrifice of Isaac was a practical illustration of the +lesson. Abraham was called upon to slay with his own hand his only +child, the son through whom he had believed that he would become the +ancestor of a mighty nation. He was summoned to lead him to one of those +high-places of Canaan where the deity seemed nearer to the worshipper +than in the plain below, and there, like the Phœnician god El, to offer +him up to his God. We are told how he set forth from Beer-sheba, on the +borders of the desert, and on the third day reached the sacred mountain +on whose summit the Canaanitish rite was to be celebrated. It was in +‘the land of Moriah,’ according to the reading of the Hebrew text, a +name which the chronicler (2 Chron. iii. 1) transfers to the +temple-mount at Jerusalem. But the Septuagint changes the name in the +books of Chronicles into that of ‘the mountain of Amoria’ or the +Amorites; while in Genesis the Greek translators must have read Moreh, +since the Hebrew word is rendered by ‘Highlands.’ Moreh is the +Babylonian Martu, the land of the Amorites, so that we need not be +surprised at finding the Syriac version boldly substituting ‘Amorites’ +for the Masoretic ‘Moriah.’ + +In any case, the belief that the scene of Abraham’s sacrifice was the +spot whereon the Jewish temple afterwards stood went back to an early +date. When the book of Genesis assumed its present form it had already +become fixed in the Jewish mind. This is clear from the proverb quoted +to explain the name of Yahveh-yireh. ‘To this day,’ we are told, it was +said: ‘In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen.’ For the Jew there was +but one ‘mount of the Lord,’ that mountain whereon Yahveh revealed +Himself above the cherubim of the ark. It was ‘the hill of God,’ wherein +He desired to dwell (Ps. lxviii. 15), the seat of the sanctuary of +Yahveh the God of Israel. When the Samaritans set up on Gerizim their +rival temple to that of Jerusalem, it was necessary that the scene of +the sacrifice of the Hebrew patriarch should be transferred to the new +site. It was a proof how firm was the conviction that the temple-mount +had been consecrated to the sacrifice of the firstborn by the great +ancestor of the Israelitish family. The spot whereon the victims of the +Jewish ritual were offered up was the very spot to which Abraham had +been led by God that he might offer there the terrible sacrifice of his +only son. Its name had been given to it by Abraham, and this name found +its explanation in a saying that was current at Jerusalem about the +temple-mount. + +The actual meaning of the name is not certain, nor indeed is the +original signification of the proverb itself. Already in the time of the +Septuagint translation the meaning of the latter was doubtful, and the +Greek translators have made the divine name the subject of the verb, +reading, ‘In the mountain the Lord was seen.’ But the fact that the +Chronicler calls the temple-mount Moriah shows that such a rendering was +not accepted in Jerusalem. + +It may be that the name ‘mount of the Lord’ goes back, at all events in +substance, to patriarchal times. Among the places in Southern Palestine +conquered by the Egyptian Pharaoh, Thothmes III., of the eighteenth +dynasty, and recorded on the temple walls of Karnak, is Har-el, ‘the +mountain of God.’[62] The names found in immediate connection with +Har-el indicate that its site is to be sought in the neighbourhood of +Jerusalem; and as the name of Jerusalem itself does not occur in the +Pharaoh’s list of his conquests, it is probable that we are to see in it +the future capital of Judah. As we now know from the Tel el-Amarna +tablets, Jerusalem was an important city of Canaan long before the +Mosaic age; it was, moreover, the centre of a district which had been +conquered by the Egyptians, and its ruler was a vassal of the Egyptian +monarch. It is therefore difficult to account for the omission of any +reference to it in the catalogue of the conquests of the Pharaoh except +upon the supposition that it is really mentioned among them, though +under another name. + +The distance that separates Jerusalem from Beer-sheba would correspond +with the three days’ journey of Abraham to the destined place of +sacrifice. It was on the third day that Abraham lifted up his eyes ‘and +saw the place afar off.’ The main, in fact, the only, argument of any +weight that has been urged against the identification is the fact that +the place of sacrifice seems to have been a desert spot. No spectators +are mentioned as present, and close to it was a thicket in which a ram +was caught by the horns. How can such solitude, it is asked, be +reconciled with the existence of a city in the same spot? How can the +deserted high-place whereon the patriarch raised the altar of sacrifice +for his son be identical with the fortress-city of which Melchizedek was +king? + +At first sight the difficulty seems overwhelming. But we must remember +that nothing is said in the narrative about the place being desert and +remote from men, nor even that it was not within the walls of a city. +And we must further remember that the temple of Solomon itself was built +on what had been the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite. Before the +age of Solomon, therefore, the place must have been open and free from +buildings; it must, too, have been a level platform of rock on the +summit of the hill where the winds could freely play and scatter the +chaff when the grain was threshed. Such open spaces are not infrequent +in Oriental cities, and the visitor sometimes finds himself suddenly +emerging out of close and crowded lanes into a growth of rank brushwood +and weeds. + +It is true that in the books of Samuel, where we are told how the +threshing-floor of the Jebusite came to be chosen as the site of the +temple, no allusion is made to Abraham’s sacrifice. Another reason is +assigned for the choice of the spot. But Oriental modes of writing +history are not the same as ours, and the so-called argument from +silence is worthless when applied to them. Archæological discovery has +shown, time after time, that facts and references are passed over in +silence by the writers of ancient Oriental history, not because the +writers did not know them, but because their conception of history was +different from ours. + +Mount Moriah, then, may well have been the scene of that temptation of +Abraham when, in accordance with the fierce ritual of Syria, he believed +himself called upon to offer up in sacrifice his only son. At all +events, the belief that it was so can be traced back to an early date +among the Jews. The very fact that the Samaritans transported the place +of sacrifice to Mount Gerizim proves that it had already been associated +with the site of the temple, and the transference of the site was +necessary in support of the claim that the true centre of Hebrew worship +was at Samaria and not in Jerusalem. + +Light has been cast on the substitution of a ram for the human victim by +an acute observation of M. Clermont-Ganneau.[63] We know that human +sacrifice occupied a prominent place in the ritual of Phœnicia and +Carthage; and yet in the so-called sacrificial tariffs which have been +discovered at Carthage and Marseilles, and in which the price is stated +of each of the offerings demanded by the gods, there is absolute silence +in regard to it. The place of the human victim is taken by the _ayîl_, +the ‘ram’ of the book of Genesis.[64] The tariffs of Carthage and +Marseilles belong to that later period of Phœnician religion, when +contact with the Greeks had introduced Western ideas of the value of +human life, and a truer conception of what the gods required. The +merchants of Carthage had learned that Baal would be satisfied with a +victim less costly than man, and would accept instead of him the blood +of rams. + +The lesson which the Carthaginians learned from contact with the Greeks +had been taught the ancestors of the Hebrews by the Lord. The Law and +the Prophets alike protested against the old belief, hard as it was to +eradicate it from the Semitic mind. The sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter +stands alone, even in the troublous period of the Judges; the sacrifice +of his eldest son by the king of Moab (2 Kings iii. 27), though it +stayed the Israelitish attack, was the act of one who did not +acknowledge Yahveh of Israel as his God; and the Jewish children who +were burnt in the fire to Moloch were offered by renegades from the +national faith. Israelitish law and history bear upon them the traces of +the old Semitic custom, but they are traces only. The story of Abraham’s +sacrifice is an antitype of the future history of the religion of +Israel. The firstborn, indeed, belonged to Yahveh, if He chose to claim +them; but, unlike the gods of the heathen, He did not claim them when +they were the firstborn of man. + +Once again we have a picture of Abraham; but this time it is not as the +shêkh who conforms to the beliefs and practices of Canaan, but as a +foreign prince who acquires land in the country of his adoption. Sarah +is dead, and Abraham accordingly buys a field at Machpelah in the close +neighbourhood of Hebron. The field included a portion of the limestone +cliff which overlooked the city, and was pierced then, as now, by +numerous cavities, partly natural, partly excavated by the hand of man. +They were the burying-places of the inhabitants of the town, the +chambered tombs in which the dead were laid to rest. That Abraham should +choose Hebron as the future home and resting-place of his family was +perhaps natural. It was here that he had lived when he first came, as an +immigrant, into ‘the land of the Amorites’; it was here that he had been +confederate with its Amorite chieftains, and had led his forces against +the invading host of the king of Elam. Moreover, Hebron was one of the +old centres of Canaan. It had been built seven years before Zoan in +Egypt (Numb. xiii. 22), perhaps in the age when the Hyksos kings first +conquered Egypt and rebuilt Zoan, making it the capital of their new +kingdom. The sanctuary of Hebron rivalled that of Jerusalem in sanctity +and fame, at all events in the years immediately succeeding the +Israelitish conquest, and it was at Hebron that David first established +his power and his son Absalom matured his rebellion. + +In the age of Abraham the city had not yet received its later name of +Hebron, the ‘Confederacy.’ It was still known as Kirjath-Arba, and the +district in which it stood was that of Mamre. Amorites and Hittites +dwelt there side by side. Arba, we are told, was ‘a great man among the +Amorite Anakim’ (Josh. xiv. 15), but it was from ‘the sons of Heth’ that +the field of Machpelah was bought. + +Critics have raised the question who these Hittites of Southern +Palestine may have been. It has been asserted that they are the +invention of a later Hebrew writer, and that the Hittites of Northern +Syria were never settled in the south of Canaan. On the other hand, the +veracity of the Hebrew record has been admitted, but the identity of +‘the sons of Heth’ with the great Hittite tribes of the north has been +denied. + +The critics, however, have no grounds for their scepticism. The book of +Genesis does not stand alone in testifying to the existence of Hittites +in Southern Palestine. The prophet Ezekiel does the same. He too tells +us that the origin of Jerusalem was partly Amorite, partly Hittite. +Indeed, throughout the Pentateuch it is assumed that Hittites and +Amorites were mingled together in the mountainous parts of the country. +‘The Hittites and the Jebusites and the Amorites,’ it is said in the +book of Numbers (xiii. 29), ‘dwell in the mountains,’ and the same +combination of names in the same order is found in the geographical +table of Genesis (x. 15, 16). Between these Hittites and the Hittites of +the north no distinction is made in the Old Testament. ‘The land of the +Hittites,’ mentioned in Judg. i. 26, into which the Canaanite betrayer +of Beth-el made his way, was in the north, like the Hittite kingdoms +whose princes are referred to in 2 Kings vii. 6. + +Thanks to archæological discovery, we now know a good deal about these +Hittites of Northern Syria. Their name is found on the monuments of +Egypt, of Assyria, and of Armenia, and they are mentioned in Babylonian +tablets which go back to the age of Abraham. Cappadocia was their +earliest home; from hence they descended on the possessions of the +Aramæans and established their power as far south as the Lake of Homs. +The cuneiform inscriptions of Armenia in the ninth century B.C. describe +them as on the Upper Euphrates in the neighbourhood of Malatiyeh, and +the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser I. (B.C. 1100) tells us that +Carchemish was one of their capitals. In the Tel el-Amarna tablets we +hear of their growing power on the northern frontier of the Egyptian +empire, of their intrigues with the Amorites and the people of Canaan, +and of their steady advance to the south. Ramses II., the Pharaoh of the +Oppression, after twenty years of warfare, was glad to conclude peace on +equal terms with ‘the great king of the Hittites.’ The Hittite capital +was already so near the northern border of Palestine as Kadesh on the +Orontes ‘in the land of the Amorites.’ Here the Hittite monarch gathered +together his vassals and allies from Syria and Asia Minor; even the +distant Lycians and Dardanians came at his call. + +The Egyptian artists have left us portraits of the Hittite race. Their +features and dress were alike peculiar, and both reappear without change +on certain monuments which have been found in Asia Minor and Syria, thus +fixing the character of the latter beyond dispute. The monuments are +covered with a still undeciphered system of hieroglyphic writing, and +among the hieroglyphs are numerous human heads with the strange profile +of the Hittite face. The nose and upper jaw protrude, the forehead is +high and receding, the cheeks smooth, while we learn from the paintings +of Egypt that the skin was yellow and the hair and the eyes were black. +The hair was gathered together in a kind of ‘pig-tail,’ and the feet +were shod with the shoes of mountaineers, the toes of which rose upwards +into a point.[65] + +Why should not a body of Hittites have settled in Southern Palestine, +and there have been, as it were, interlocked with the older Amorite +inhabitants, as they were according to the testimony of the Egyptian +inscriptions at Kadesh on the Lake of Homs? Indeed, there is indirect +evidence that such was really the case. + +Thothmes III., who conquered Syria for the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty, +tells us that he received tribute from the king of ‘the greater Hittite +land.’ There was then a lesser Hittite land; and as the ‘greater Hittite +land’ was in the north, it is reasonable to look for the lesser land in +the south. Half a century later, at a time when the Tel el-Amarna +correspondence was being carried on, the Hittites were actively +interfering in the internal politics of Canaan; and in one of the +bas-reliefs of Ramses II. at Karnak the vanquished population of +Ashkelon—in the near neighbourhood of Hebron—is represented with the +peculiar Hittite type of face.[66] At a still earlier date, when the +Assyrians first became acquainted with Western Asia, the dominant people +there were the Hittites. In the Assyrian inscriptions, accordingly, the +whole of Syria, including Palestine, came to be known as ‘the land of +the Hittites.’ Shalmaneser II. even speaks of Ahab of Israel and Baasha +of Ammon as ‘Hittite’ kings.[67] ‘The land of the Hittites’ in the +Assyrian texts thus corresponds with the ‘land of the Amorites’ in the +texts of Babylonia. Just as Canaan was ‘the land of the Amorites’ to the +Babylonian of the age of Abraham, so too it was ‘the land of the +Hittites’ to the Assyrian of the age of Moses. Before Assyria had become +acquainted with the shores of the Mediterranean, the Hittites had taken +the place of the Amorites and become the leading power in the West. + +There is, therefore, nothing antecedently improbable in the existence in +Southern Palestine of Hittites of the genuine northern stock. But the +name may also be due to the Assyrian use of it at the time when the +narrative in the book of Genesis was written. The use of the term +‘Amorite’ in several passages of the Pentateuch is certainly of +Babylonian origin, and takes us back to the age when all the natives of +Palestine were alike included in it; it may be that the ‘Hittites’ of +Hebron and Jerusalem owe their title to a similar adoption of a foreign +term. If so, the Amorites and Hittites were equally one people; but +whereas the name of ‘Amorite’ comes from Babylonia and indicates an +earlier date for the sources of the narrative in which it occurs, the +name of ‘Hittite’ points to Assyria and the Assyrian epoch of Asiatic +history. + +Against this is the Babylonian colouring of the story of Abraham’s +dealings with the children of Heth. During the last few years thousands +of contract-tablets have been discovered in Babylonia which belong to +the age of Abraham or to a still earlier period. And these tablets show +that in the account of the purchase of the field of Machpelah we have a +faithful picture of such transactions as they were conducted at the time +in the cities of Babylonia. It reads, in fact, like one of the cuneiform +documents which have been unearthed from Babylonian soil. It is +conformed to the law and procedure of Babylonia as they were in the +patriarchal age. At a later date the law and procedure were altered, and +a narrative in which they are embodied must therefore go back to a +pre-Mosaic antiquity. It must belong to the Babylonian and not to the +Assyrian epoch. + +That the law and custom of Babylonia should have prevailed in Canaan is +no longer surprising. The same contract-tablets which have revealed to +us the commercial and social life of primitive Chaldæa have also shown +us that colonies of ‘Amorite’ or Canaanitish merchants were settled in +Babylonia, where they enjoyed numerous rights and privileges, and could +acquire land and other property. There were special districts called +‘Amorite’ allotted to them, one of which was just outside the walls of +the city of Sippara. They had judges of their own, and where disputes +arose between themselves and the native Babylonians the case was tried +before both the ‘Amorite’ and the native courts. These foreign settlers +could act as witnesses in trials that concerned only Babylonians, and +could even rise to high offices of state. It must be remembered, +however, that the Babylonian kings claimed to be kings also of ‘the land +of the Amorites,’ and that consequently the natives of Canaan were as +much subjects of the rulers of Chaldæa as the Babylonians themselves. + +Through the Canaanitish colonies in Babylonia a knowledge of Babylonian +law was necessarily communicated to the commercial world of the West. +Moreover, Babylonian rule brought with it Babylonian culture and law as +well. The ‘Amorites’ when the Babylonians first met with them were +doubtless in a semi-barbarous condition, and their subsequent culture, +as we now know, was wholly Babylonian. A very important part of this +culture, at all events in the eyes of the trading world, was the law of +Babylonia, more especially in its relation to contracts. That the +purchase of the field of Machpelah should have been conducted with all +the formalities to which Abraham had been accustomed in his Chaldæan +home, is consequently what archæological discovery has informed us ought +to have been the case. + +A simple form of contract for the sale and purchase of landed property +in Babylonia is to be found in one that was drawn up in the reign of +Eri-Aku or Arioch. It is written in Sumerian, the old legal language of +Chaldæa, as Latin was the legal language of Europe in the Middle Ages, +and runs as follows:—‘One and five-sixths _sar_[68] of a terrace with a +house upon it, bounded on three sides by the house of Abil-Sin, and on +the fourth side by the street, has been purchased by Sin-uzilli the son +of Tsili-Istar from Sin-illatsu the son of Nannar-arabit: 2-½ shekels of +silver he has weighed as its full price. In days to come Sin-illatsu +shall never make any claim in regard to the house or dispute the title. +The (contracting parties) have sworn by the names of Sin, Samas, and +king Eri-Aku. Witnessed by Abu-ilisu the son of Tsili-Istar, Abil-Sin +the son of Uruki-bansum, Nur-Amurri the son of Abi-idinnam, Ibku-Urra, +son of Nabi-ilisu, and Sin-semê his brother. The seals of the witnesses +(are attached).’[69] + +Still more insight into the character and procedure of Babylonian +commercial law is given by the record of a case of disputed property +which came before the judges in the reign of Khammu-rabi or Amraphel. +The following is a translation of it:—‘Concerning the garden of +Sin-magir which Naid-Amurri bought for silver, but to which Ilu-bani +laid claim on the ground that he had bred horses there. They went before +the judges, and the judges took them to the gate of the goddess +Nin-Martu (the mistress of the land of the Amorites), and to the judges +of the gate of Nin-Martu Ilu-bani thus declared in the gate of +Nin-Martu: I am indeed the son of Sin-magir; he adopted me as his son; +the sealed documents (recording the fact) he never destroyed. Thus he +declared, and under (king) Eri-Aku they adjudged the garden and house to +Ilu-bani. Then came Sin-mubalidh and claimed the garden of Ilu-bani; so +they went before the judges, and the judges (said): To us and the elders +they have been taken, and must stand in the gate of the gods Merodach, +Sussa, Sin, Khusa, and Nin-Martu the daughter of Merodach ... and the +elders who have already appeared in the case of Naid-Amurri have heard +Ilu-bani declare in the gate of Nin-Martu that “I am indeed the son (of +Sin-magir)”; accordingly, they adjudged the garden and house to +Ilu-bani. Sin-mubalidh cannot come again and make a claim. Oaths have +been sworn by the names of Sin, Samas, Merodach, and king Khammu-rabi. +Witnessed by Sin-imguranni the noble, Elilka-Sin, Abil-irzitim, Ubarrum, +Zanbil-arad-Sin, Akhiya, Bel-dugul (?), Samas-bani the son of +Abid-rakhas, Zanik-pisu, Izkur-Ea the major-domo, and Bau-ila. The seals +of the witnesses (are attached). The 4th day of the month Tammuz, the +year when Khammu-rabi the king offered prayers to Tasmit.’[70] + +It is needless to quote other documents of a similar nature, unless it +be to add that when a field or garden is sold, the palms and other trees +planted in it are carefully specified. So they were also in the case of +the field of Machpelah. Here, too, the transaction took place before the +‘elders’ of the city, at ‘the gate’ through which the people entered, +and it was duly witnessed by ‘the children of Heth.’[71] The fact that +‘a stranger and a sojourner’ could thus acquire landed property and hand +it down to his descendants was in strict accordance with Babylonian law. +As the Canaanite in Babylonia could buy land and leave it to his +children, so too the Babylonian in Canaan could do the same. Even the +technical words used in recording the deed of sale are of Babylonian +origin. The shekel is the Babylonian _siqlu_, and the Babylonian was the +first who spoke of ‘weighing silver’ in the sense of ‘paying money.’[72] +The statement that the shekels were ‘current with the merchant’ takes us +back to those Babylonian ‘merchants’ who played so great a part in the +early Babylonian world. It was for them that Dungi, king of Ur, long +before the birth of Abraham, had fixed the monetary standard which +remained in use down to the later days of the Chaldæan monarchy. He had +determined by law the weight and value of the maneh, of which the +sixtieth part was a shekel, and only those manehs and shekels which +conformed to it could be accepted by the Babylonian trader. The words of +Genesis are a curious indication of the period of society to which they +must belong.[73] + +There was evolution in Babylonian law as in the law of all other +countries; and though the early contracts remained a model for those of +a later epoch, their style and form underwent change. The Assyrian and +later Babylonian contracts resemble them, it is true, in their main +outlines; but they have become more complicated, and the older +phraseology is altered in many respects. The ‘elders’ no longer appear +as witnesses; it is no longer needful to try cases of disputed title at +the various gates of the city; and it is questionable whether foreigners +could claim the same rights in regard to possessions in land that they +did in the days of Amraphel and Arioch. The sale of the field of +Machpelah belongs essentially to the early Babylonian and not to the +Assyrian period. + +It is only fragments of the life of Abraham that are brought before us +in the pages of Genesis. They are like a series of pictures which have +been saved from the shipwreck of the past. And the pictures are not +always painted in the same colours. At one time the patriarch appears as +‘a mighty prince,’ as a rich and cultured Chaldæan immigrant, with armed +bands of warriors under him with whom he can venture to attack even the +army of the king of Elam. He is the confederate of the Amorite +chieftains, the prince whom the Hittites of Hebron hear with respect. +But at another time the colours on the canvas seem quite different. When +the angels warn the patriarch of the approaching overthrow of the cities +of the plain, they find him in the tent of a Bedâwi, leading the simple +life of an uncultured nomad, and preparing the food of his guests with +his own hands. Between this Bedâwi shêkh and the companion of the king +of Gerar or the Pharaoh of Egypt the contrast is indeed great. + +To the Western mind, however, the contrast is greater than it would be +to the Oriental. The traveller in the East is well acquainted with +wealthy Bedâwin shêkhs who live in the desert in barbaric simplicity, +but, nevertheless, have their houses at Cairo or Damascus, where they +indulge in all the luxury and splendour of Oriental life. Moreover, the +narratives which have been combined in the book of Genesis do not all +come from the same source. Some of them have been taken from written +historical documents which breathe the atmosphere of the cultured city, +of the educated scribe, and the luxurious court. Others, derived it may +be from oral tradition, are filled with the spirit of the wanderer in +the desert, and set before us the simple life and rude fare of the +dweller in tents. The history of the patriarchs is, in fact, like +Joseph’s coat of many colours. It is a series of pictures rather than a +homogeneous whole. The materials of which it is composed differ widely +in both character and origin. Some of them can be shown to have been +contemporaneous with the events they record; some again to have been +like the tales of their old heroes recounted by the nomad Arabs in the +days before Islam as they sat at night round their camp-fires. The +details and spirit of the story have necessarily caught the colour of +the medium through which they have passed. The life of Abraham, +doubtless, presented the contrasts still presented by that of a rich +Bedâwi shêkh; at one time spent in the wild freedom and privations of +the desert; at another amid the luxuries and culture of the town; but +the contrasts have been heightened by the difference in the sources +through which they have been handed down. Naturally, while the scribe +would record only those phases of Abraham’s history which brought him +into contact with the great world of kings and princes, of war and +trade, the nomad reciter of ancient stories would dwell rather on such +parts of it as he and his hearers could understand. For them Abraham +would become a desert-wanderer like themselves. + +This difference in the sources of the narrative explains why it is that +the figure of Abraham so largely overshadows that of his son Isaac. +Isaac seems almost swallowed up in that darkness of antiquity through +which the figure of his father looms so largely. Apart from his dispute +with Abimelech of Gerar, which reads like a repetition of the dispute +between Abimelech and Abraham, there is little told of the life of Isaac +which is not connected with his more famous father or son. Between +Abraham and Jacob, the great ancestors of Israel, Isaac seems to +intervene as merely a connecting link. + +But the life of Isaac was that of a Bedâwi shêkh. The other side of his +father’s life and character was lost. The forefather of Israel had +ceased to be a Chaldæan, and had become simply a dweller in the desert, +like the fugitive slaves from Egypt in after days. Even Hebron was left, +and the life of Isaac was mainly passed on the northern edge of that +desert in which his descendants were in later times to receive the Law. +If he approached Canaan, it was only to Beer-sheba and Gerar on the +southern skirts of Canaanitish territory, where the Bedâwin and their +flocks still claimed to be masters. But his chief residence was further +south, in the very heart of the wilderness. + +Isaac was thus essentially a Bedâwi, a fit type of the phase of life +through which the Israelites were destined to pass before their conquest +of the Promised Land. With the politics and trade of the civilised +world, accordingly, he never came into contact. There was nothing in his +existence for the historian to chronicle; nothing which could bring his +name into the written history of the time. If his memory were to be +preserved at all, it could be only through the unwritten traditions of +the desert, through the tales told of him among the desert tribes. + +Once indeed, it is said, he had relations with a king. The king was one +of those Canaanitish princelets with whose names the Tel el-Amarna +tablets are filled. The dominions of Abimelech of Gerar were of small +extent, and must have been barren in the extreme. The site of Gerar lies +two hours south of Gaza,[74] and the territory of its king extended +eastward as far as Beer-sheba. It was essentially a desert territory: +during the greater part of the year the whole country is bare and +sterile; only after rain does the wilderness break forth suddenly into +green herbage. + +In the story of Isaac’s dispute with Abimelech the writer of Genesis +calls him ‘king of the Philistines,’ and speaks of his subjects as +‘Philistines.’ This, however, is an accommodation to the geography of a +later day. In the age of the patriarchs the south-eastern corner of +Palestine has not as yet been occupied by the Philistine immigrants. We +have learned from the Egyptian monuments that they were pirates from the +islands and coasts of the Greek Seas who did not seize upon the frontier +cities of Southern Canaan until the time of the Pharaoh Meneptah, the +son of Ramses II. Up to then, for more than three centuries, the +frontier cities had been garrisoned by Egyptian troops, and included in +the Egyptian empire. It was not till the period of the Exodus that the +district passed into Philistine hands, and the old road into Egypt by +the sea-coast became known as ‘the way of the Philistines.’ + +In speaking of the ‘Philistines,’ therefore, the writer of the book of +Genesis is speaking proleptically. And in reading the narrative of +Isaac’s dealings with Abimelech by the side of that of Abraham’s +dealings with the same king, it is difficult to resist the conclusion +that we have before us two versions of the same event. Doubtless, +history repeats itself; disputes about the possession of wells in a +desert-land can frequently recur, and it is possible that two kings of +the same name may have followed one another on the throne of Gerar. But +what does not seem very possible is that each of these kings should have +had a ‘chief captain of his host’ called by the strange non-Semitic name +of Phichol (Gen. xxi. 22; xxvi. 26); that each of them should have taken +the wife of the patriarch, believing her to be his sister; or that +Beer-sheba should twice have received the same name from the oaths sworn +over it. + +When we compare the two versions together, it is not difficult to see +which of them is the more original. It is in the second that Abimelech +is called ‘king of the Philistines’; in the first he is correctly +entitled ‘king of Gerar.’ Abraham was justified in calling Sarah his +sister; there was no ground and no reason for Isaac doing the same in +the case of his own wife. Moreover, Beer-sheba had already received its +name from Abraham, who had planted there an _êshel_ or tamarisk, and +‘called on the name of the Lord, the everlasting God.’ + +The wife of Isaac was brought from Harran, from the members of Abraham’s +race who had settled in Northern Syria, and there become an Aramæan +family. She was the daughter of Bethuel, ‘the house of God,’ a proper +name which is found in the Tel el-Amarna letters, where it also belongs +to a native of Northern Syria.[75] Bethuel is the older form of Bethel, +that anointed stone which, according to Semitic belief, was the special +residence of divinity. There was something peculiarly appropriate in +such a name at Harran, where the great temple of the Moon-god, the ‘Baal +of Harran,’ was itself a Beth-el on a large scale. + +That Isaac should have lived all his life long in the southern desert, +and that his name should have been associated with none of the ancient +sanctuaries of Canaan, Beer-sheba alone excepted, is perhaps curious +when we bear in mind a passage in the prophecies of Amos (vii. 9), where +it is with Northern Israel and not with Judah that the name of the +patriarch is connected. Isaac, however, was as much the forefather of +the Israelites of Samaria as he was of those of Jerusalem; and the use +of his name by the prophet shows only that he was no mere Jewish hero, +but was regarded as an ancestor of the whole Israelitish nation. For the +whole of Israel, Isaac was no less historical than Abraham or Jacob. + +That Isaac’s dwelling-place should have been in the desert of the south +agrees well with the fact that he was the father of Edom as well as of +Israel. He thus lived on the borderland of the two peoples who +afterwards boasted of their descent from him. + +Esau, from whom the Edomites traced their origin, was the elder of his +two twin sons. The name has been connected with that of the Phœnician +deity Usous, but Usous is really the eponymous god of the city of Usu, +in the neighbourhood of Tyre. Esau took possession of the mountains of +Seir. Here he partly absorbed, partly destroyed the older races, the +Amalekites or Bedâwin whose descendants still prowl among the wadis of +Edom, and the Horites whom a somewhat doubtful etymology would turn into +Troglodytes or dwellers in caves. Edom itself, the ‘Red’ land, took its +name from the red hue of its cliffs. It was a name which went back to a +remote antiquity, for among the Egyptians also the desert-country which +stretched away eastward into Edom was known as Desher, ‘the Red.’ The +punning etymology in Genesis (xxv. 30) preserves a recollection of the +true origin of the name. + +The territories of Esau extended southward to the head of the Gulf of +Aqaba. Here were the towns of Elath and Eziongeber, through which the +merchandise of the Indian Ocean was conveyed northward, enriching the +merchants and princes of Edom in its passage through their land. To the +north Edom was in touch with the peoples of Canaan. The wives of Esau, +we are told, were ‘of the daughters of Canaan’ (Gen. xxxvi. 2); one of +them at least was Hittite, and another, according to one account (Gen. +xxvi. 34), bore the name of the ‘Jewess.’ But other wives were taken +from the tribes of Arabia. Bashemath was the daughter of Ishmael and +sister of a Nabathean chief, while Aholibamah was the daughter of a +Horite who belonged to the primeval race of Seir. + +Like the Ishmaelites, like the Israelites themselves, it was long before +the Edomites submitted to the rule of a king. At first they were divided +into tribes, each of them under a shêkh. In Israel the shêkhs were +entitled ‘judges,’ a title borrowed from the Canaanite population; in +Edom they bore the name of _alûphim_, which the Authorised Version +renders by ‘dukes.’[76] The old name still survived down to the time of +the Exodus, as we may gather from its use in the Song of Moses (Exod. +xv. 15). But when the wanderings in the wilderness were almost over, and +Israel was preparing to invade Palestine, the ‘dukes’ of Edom had +already been superseded by kings. It was a ‘king of Edom’ to whom Moses +sent messengers from Kadesh praying for a ‘passage through his border,’ +and it was a king of Edom who refused the request. But the ancient +spirit of independence still lingered; and, as we may gather from the +extract from the Edomite chronicles preserved in Gen. xxxvi., the +monarchy was elective. The son never succeeded the father on the throne, +the royal dignity passed from one division of the kingdom to the other, +and each city in turn became the capital.[77] + +Though Esau was the elder, the birthright passed to the younger brother. +Israelitish tradition knew of more than one occurrence which accounted +for this. It was told how Esau had sold his birthright for a mess of +pottage; it was also told how it had been stolen from him by the craft +of his brother Jacob. Naturally, the first tradition was more favoured +in Israel, the second in Edom, and the union of the two in the book of +Genesis is a proof of the diligence with which the writer of it has +gathered together all that was known of the past of his people as well +as the impartiality with which he has used his materials. Perhaps both +stories owed their preservation to the play upon words which was +connected with them. The ‘red’ pottage served to explain the name of +Edom, the craft of the younger son the name of Jacob.[78] + +Upon the real origin of the latter name, however, recent discovery has +thrown light. It is the third person singular of a verb, and is formed +like numerous names of the same class in Arabic and Assyrian. But the +third person singular of a verb implies a nominative, and the nominative +was originally a divine name or title. In familiar use the nominative +came to be dropped, and the shortened form of the name to be alone +employed. The older form of the name Jacob has now been recovered from +the monuments of Babylonia and Egypt. Among the Canaanites who appear as +witnesses to Babylonian contracts of the age of Khammu-rabi, Mr. Pinches +has found a Jacob-el and a Joseph-el, ‘God will recompense,’ ‘God will +add.’[79] The same names, though written a little differently,[80] are +met with in contracts earlier than the time of Moses, which have been +discovered near Kaisariyeh, in Cappadocia, and are inscribed on clay +tablets in cuneiform characters and in a Babylonian dialect. We can thus +trace them from the primitive home of Abraham to the neighbourhood of +that Aramæan district of Northern Mesopotamia in which his father +settled. + +But this is not all. Among the places in Palestine conquered by Thothmes +III. of the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty, and recorded on the walls of +his temple at Karnak, we find a Jacob-el and a Joseph-el. In Canaan, +therefore, the names were already current; it may even be that in the +town of Jacob-el we have a reminiscence of the patriarch, in Joseph-el a +connection with the ancestor of the ‘House of Joseph.’ At all events, +the name of Joseph-el follows immediately after that of the ‘Har’ or +‘Mountain’ of Ephraim, while that of Jacob-el is placed in the +neighbourhood of Hebron.[81] + +The name of Jacob-el can be carried still further back than the age of +Thothmes III., further back probably than the age of the patriarch +himself. There are Egyptian scarabs which bear the name of a Pharaoh +called Jacob-el. The first part of the name is written just as it would +be in Hebrew, and the Pharaoh is given all the titles of a legitimate +Egyptian king. On one he is ‘the good God,’ on another ‘the son of the +Sun,’ and ‘the giver of life.’ The scarabs belong to the period of the +Hyksos, and in the Pharaoh Jacob-el we must accordingly see one of those +Hyksos conquerors from Asia who ruled over Egypt for so many centuries. +There was thus a Jacob in Egypt before the patriarch migrated there, and +he belonged to that Hyksos race under whom Joseph rose to the highest +honours of the state.[82] + +The shortened form of the name is also found in the Babylonian texts; +and it is probable that Egibi, the founder of the great banking and +trading firm which carried on business in Babylonia down to the time of +the Persian kings, had a name which is identical with it. At any rate +the older forms of both ‘Jacob’ and ‘Joseph’ show that ‘Isaac’ too must +be an abbreviation from an earlier ‘Isaac-el’ (_Yitskhaq-êl_). ‘God +smileth’ would have been the primitive signification of the word. + +The craft of Jacob was the cause of his flight to his mother’s family in +Padan-Aram. He thus became that ‘wandering Aramæan’ of whom we read in +Deuteronomy (xxvi. 5). On his way he rested at the great Beth-el of +Central Palestine, and there in a vision beheld the angels of God +ascending and descending the steps of limestone that were piled one upon +the other to the gates of heaven.[83] There, too, he poured oil upon the +sacred stone and consecrated it to the deity, and future generations +revered it as a veritable Beth-el or ‘House of God.’ + +The name, in fact, we are told, was given to it by Jacob himself. ‘If I +come again to my father’s house in peace,’ he said, ‘then shall Yahveh +be my God: and this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s +house; and of all that Thou shalt give me, I will surely give the tenth +unto Thee.’ The vow was in accordance with a Canaanitish custom which +had originally come from Babylonia. From time immemorial the Babylonian +temples had been supported by the tenth or tithe, which was levied on +both king and people: it was not thought that the gods were asking too +much when they demanded the tenth of the income which had been given to +man by themselves. Among the Babylonian contract-tablets there are +several which relate to the payment of the tithe as well as to the gifts +that were made to a Bit-ili or Beth-el.[84] + +Jacob’s vow was performed, at least in part, when once more he returned +to Canaan. Then again ‘God appeared to him’ and changed the patriarch’s +name. Then again, too, ‘he set up a pillar of stone; and he poured a +drink-offering thereon, and he poured oil thereon. And Jacob called the +name of the place where God spake with him Beth-el.’ This second account +of the naming of the place doubtless comes from a different source from +that which recorded Jacob’s dream, and is the account which was known to +Hosea, the prophet of the northern kingdom. Modern critics have alleged +that it is inconsistent with the first, and that consequently neither +the one nor the other is historical. The compiler of the book of +Genesis, however, thought otherwise; he has made no attempt to smooth +over what the European scholar declares to be inconsistencies, and which +therefore cannot have seemed inconsistencies to him. The Oriental mode +of writing history, it must once more be remarked, is not the same as +ours; and as it is with the ancient East that we are now concerned, it +would be wiser to follow the judgment of the writer of Genesis than that +of his European critics. + +At Harran Jacob served his cousin Laban ‘for a wife, and for a wife he +kept sheep.’ Such contracts of voluntary service are to be found in the +Babylonian tablets of the age of Khammu-rabi and his predecessors. It +was not at all unusual for a slave to be hired out to another master for +a definite period of time; it sometimes happened that the master himself +hired out his own services in a similar way.[85] In Babylonia the work +was partly pastoral, partly agricultural; the semi-Bedâwi Jacob was a +herdsman only. His cousin Laban bore a name which was also that of an +Assyrian deity; and it may not be a mere coincidence that when +Nabonidos, the last king of Babylonia, restored the great temple of the +moon-god at Harran, he tells us that he began the task ‘by the art of +the god Laban, the god of foundations and brickwork.’[86] + +The two daughters of Laban bore names which had a familiar sound to the +ear of a herdsman. Rachel means ‘ewe’; Leah is the Assyrian _li’tu_, ‘a +cow.’ It is needless to recount the well-known story of the wooing of +the younger daughter, and of the efforts made by Laban to retain Jacob +in his service and marry both the sisters to him. Craft was met by +craft; but in the end the ancestor of Israel proved more than a match +for the wily Syrian. His cattle and riches multiplied like the children +who were born to him, and a time came when the sons of Laban began to +view with envy the poor relative who was robbing them of their +patrimony. So Jacob fled, before harm had come to him, carrying with him +his wives and children and all the wealth he had accumulated. Laban +pursued and succeeded in overtaking the heavily-weighted caravan at the +very spot where the frontiers of Aram and Canaan met together. There the +cairn of stones was raised in which later generations saw a memorial of +the pact that had been sworn between Jacob and his father-in-law. +Henceforth the tie with Aram was broken: the wives of Jacob forgot the +home of their father and looked to Canaan instead of Aram as the native +land of their race. Over the cairn of Gilead the forefathers of Israel +forswore for ever their Aramæan ties. + +But Rachel had carried with her her father’s teraphim, those household +gods on whose cult the welfare of the family seemed to depend. What they +were like we may gather from the teraphim of David, which Michal placed +on the couch of her husband, and so deceived the messengers of Saul (1 +Sam. xix. 13-16). They must have had the shape of a man, and, at all +events in the case of those of David, must have also been about a man’s +size. Like the ephod and the Urim and Thummim, they were consulted as +oracles (Zech. x. 2), and their use lingered among the Jews as late as +the period of the Captivity. When Hosea depicts the coming desolation of +Israel, he describes it as a time when ‘the children of Israel shall +abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a +sacrifice, and without a sacred pillar, and without an ephod and +teraphim’ (Hos. iii. 4). + +The final break between Jacob and the Aramæan portion of Terah’s family +was marked by a change of name. From henceforth Jacob was to be +distinctively the father of the children of Israel. He and his +descendants were severed from the rest of their kinsmen whether in +Padan-Aram, in Edom, or in the lands beyond the Jordan. Abraham had been +the ‘father of many nations’; Jacob was to be the father of but one—of +that chosen people to whom the character and worship of Yahveh were +revealed. + +We read of him in Hosea (xii. 3, 4), ‘By his strength he had power with +God: yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed.’ What the +Authorised Version translates ‘had power’ is _sârâh_ and _yâsar_ in +Hebrew. The story of the mysterious struggle is told in full in the book +of Genesis. The long caravan of Jacob had arrived at length at Mahanaim, +‘the two camps’ by the stream of the Jabbok, and from thence he sent +messengers to his brother, who had already established his power in the +mountains of Seir. In after days the name of the place was connected +with the strange occurrence that there befel the patriarch. He was +visited by the angels of God, nay, by God Himself. In the visions of the +night he wrestled with one whom, when morning dawned, he believed to +have been his God. He had seen God, as it were, face to face, and a +popular etymology saw in the fact an explanation of the name of Peniel. +When Hosea wrote his prophecies, the belief was too well established +that man cannot ‘see God’s face and live,’ and the angel of God +accordingly takes the place of God Himself. But when the narrative in +Genesis was composed, a more primitive conception of the Divine nature +still prevailed, and no reluctance was felt in stating exactly what the +patriarch himself had believed. It was God with whom he had struggled, +and from whom he had extorted a blessing, and a memory of the conflict +and victory was preserved in the name of Israel, which Jacob henceforth +bore. + +The etymology, however, is really only one of those plays upon words of +which the Biblical writers, like Oriental writers generally, are so +fond. It has no scientific value, and never was intended to have any. +Israel is, like Edom, not the name of an individual, but of the people +of whom the individual was the ancestor. The name is formed like that of +Jacob-el, and the abbreviated Jeshurun is used instead of it in the Song +of Moses.[87] If the latter is correct, the root will not be _sârâh_, +‘he fought,’ or _yâsar_, ‘he is king,’ but _yâshar_, ‘to be upright,’ +‘to direct’; and Israel will signify ‘God has directed.’ Israel, in +fact, will be the ‘righteous’ people who have been called to walk in the +ways of the Lord. + +While Jacob was keeping the sheep of his Aramæan father-in-law, Esau was +making a name for himself among the mountains of the Horites. Half +robber, half huntsman, he had gathered about him a band of followers, +and with their help had founded—if not a kingdom—at all events a nation +to the south of Moab. It is true that the ‘red’ land he had occupied was +rocky and barren, but the high-road of commerce from the spice-bearing +regions of Southern Arabia passed through it, and the plunder or tribute +of the merchants who travelled along it brought wealth to him and his +well-armed Bedâwin. What David did in later days, when he made himself +the head of a band of outlaws, and with their assistance eventually +raised himself to the throne of Judah, had already been accomplished by +Esau among the barbarians of Seir. + +The message of Jacob led him northward by the desert road which ran to +the east of Moab and Ammon. It is clear from the story that Jacob knew +little about his brother’s power. When news was brought that he was +coming with a troop of four hundred men, Jacob’s heart sank within him, +and his only thought was how to save himself and at least a portion of +his wealth from the powerful robber-chief. The event proved that his +precautions were needless. Esau behaved with a magnanimity which it must +have been hard for a Hebrew writer to describe, and pressed his brother +to accompany him to Seir. Jacob feared to accept the invitation, and +equally feared to refuse it. With characteristic caution and craft, he +promised to come, but urged that the cattle and children that were with +him made it necessary to follow slowly in Esau’s track. So the Edomite +chieftain departed, and Jacob took good care to turn westward across the +Jordan into the land of Canaan. There, among the cities and fields of +the civilised ‘Amorite,’ he felt himself secure from the pursuit of the +desert tribes. + +Was it fear of Esau which kept him in Central Palestine and prevented +him so long from venturing near that southern part of the country where +his father and grandfather had mainly dwelt? At all events, while +Abraham had bought land at Hebron, the land purchased by Jacob was near +Shechem. Moreover, it was the ‘parcel of a field where he had spread his +tent,’ not a burying-place for his family. It would seem, therefore, +that it was intended for a permanent residence; here the patriarch +determined to settle and to exchange the free life of the pastoral nomad +for that of a villager of Canaan.[88] + +The field was bought from Hamor the father of Shechem, the founder of +the city which was destined to become the seat of the first monarchy in +Israel, and on it was raised the first altar consecrated to the God of +Israel. El-elohê-Israel, ‘El is the God of Israel,’ the altar was +termed, a declaration that the El whom the Canaanites worshipped was the +God of Israel as well. But though the field was bought for one hundred +‘pieces of money’—an expression, be it noted, which is not Babylonian—we +are assured also that Jacob had gained land at Shechem by the right of +conquest. In blessing Joseph he declared to him that to the tribe of his +favourite son there was given ‘a Shechem above’ his ‘brethren which’ he +had taken ‘out of the hand of the Amorite with’ his ‘sword and bow’ +(Gen. xlviii. 22); and the story of the ravishment of Dinah recounts how +the sons of the patriarch massacred the men of the city, how they +enslaved their women and carried away their goods. The terrible tale of +vengeance was never forgotten; it is alluded to in the Blessing of Jacob +(Gen. xlix. 5-7), and the disappearance of Simeon and Levi as separate +tribes was looked upon as a punishment for the deed. It would seem that +after the Israelitish conquest of Canaan the population of Shechem +remained half Canaanite, half Israelite,[89] and the Canaanitish +population would naturally remember with horror and indignation the +crime of the sons of Jacob. That the deed should have been attributed to +the ancestors of two of the southern tribes instead of to those of +Issachar or some other tribe of the north is evidence in favour of its +truthfulness. + +The sons of Jacob were twelve in number, like the twelve sons of +Ishmael, and corresponded with the twelve tribes of Israel which were +called after their names. And yet the correspondence required a little +forcing. It is questionable whether, at any one time, there ever were +exactly twelve Israelitish tribes. In the Song of Deborah Judah does not +appear at all, Ephraim taking its place and, along with Benjamin, +extending as far south as the desert of the Amalekites, while Machir is +substituted for Manasseh and Gad. Levi never possessed a territory of +its own; had it done so, the tribes would have been thirteen in number +and not twelve. At the same time, it had just as much right to be +considered a separate tribe as Dan, whose cities were in the north as +well as in the south, where, however, they were absorbed by Judah; more +right perhaps than Simeon, which hardly existed except in name. The +territory of Reuben lay outside the boundaries of Palestine, and was +merely the desert-wadis and grazing-grounds of the kingdom of Moab; the +country can be said to have belonged to the tribe only in the sense that +the wadis east of the Delta belong to the Bedâwin, whom the Egyptian +government at present allows to live in them. Manasseh, lastly, was +divided into two halves, in order to bring the number of tribes up to +the requisite figure. + +It is clear that the scheme is an artificial one. Israel, after its +conquest of Canaan, could indeed be divided into twelve separate parts, +but such a division was theoretical only. There were no twelve +territories corresponding to the parts, while the parts themselves could +be reckoned as thirteen, eleven, or ten, just as easily as twelve. + +The conclusion to be drawn from this is obvious. History credited Jacob +with twelve sons, and it was consequently necessary to bring the number +of Israelitish tribes into harmony with the fact. Modern criticism has +amused itself with reversing the history, and assuming that the twelve +sons of the patriarch owed their origin to the twelve tribes. It has +accordingly drawn inferences from the fact that some of the sons of +Jacob are said to have been the offspring of concubines, and not of his +two legitimate wives, and that Joseph and Benjamin were the youngest of +all. But such inferences fall with the assumption that in the twelve +sons we have merely the eponymous heroes of the twelve tribes. It is a +cheap way of making history, and, after all, what we know of the tribes +does not fit in with the theory. There is nothing in the history of Dan +and Naphtali, or Gad and Asher, which would have caused them to be +regarded of bastard descent, if that bastard descent had not been a +fact; indeed, in the Song of Deborah, which is almost universally +allowed to go back to the early age of the Judges, Naphtali and Zebulun +are placed on exactly the same footing. The distinction between the sons +of Leah and those of Rachel does not answer to the real cleavage between +the tribes of the south and those of the north of Palestine: Benjamin, +after the age of Saul, followed Judah and Simeon, while the sons of +Joseph were joined with Zebulun and Issachar. Moreover, had the sons of +Jacob been mere reflections of the tribes, it would be difficult to +account for the existence of Joseph, or to understand why Machir takes +the place of Manasseh and Gad in the Song of Deborah. + +The critical theory is the result of introducing Greek modes of thought +into Semitic history. The Greek tribe, it is true, traced its origin to +an eponymous ancestor, but that ancestor was a god or a hero, and not a +man. Among the Semites, however, as the history of Arabia may still +teach us, the conception of the tribe was something wholly different. +The tribe was an enlarged family which called itself by the name of its +first head. It began with the individual, and to the last styled itself +his children. The Greek tribe, on the contrary, began with the clan, and +its theoretical ancestor, accordingly, was merely the divine personage +whose common cult kept it together. In the Semitic tribe there could be +no cult of its ancestor, for the ancestor was but an ordinary man, who +worshipped the same form of Baal and used the same rites as his +descendants after him. + +Nevertheless, there may be an element of truth in the ‘critical’ +assumption. The names of the ancestors of some of the Israelitish tribes +may have been the reflex of the later names of the tribes themselves. It +does not follow that the name by which one of the sons of Jacob became +known to later generations was actually the name which he bore himself. +Had Jacob been uniformly called Israel by the Hebrew writers, we should +never have known his original name. And it is possible that the name of +Asher is really a reflex of this kind. The _Travels of the Mohar_, +written in Egypt in the reign of Ramses II. before the Israelitish +conquest of Canaan, speak of ‘the mountain of User’ as being in the very +locality in which the tribe of Asher was afterwards settled. And in the +case of one tribe at least there is evidence that its name must have +been reflected back upon that of its progenitor. + +This is the tribe of Benjamin. In the book of Genesis (xxxv. 18) +Benjamin is represented as having received two different names at his +birth. The statement excites our suspicion, for such a double naming is +inconsistent with Hebrew practice, and our suspicion is confirmed when +we find that both names have a geographical meaning. Benjamin is ‘the +son of the South’ or ‘Southerner’; Ben-Oni, as he is also said to have +been called, is ‘the son of On,’ or ‘the Onite.’ On, or Beth-On, it will +be remembered, was an ancient name of Beth-el, the great sanctuary and +centre of the tribe of Benjamin, while ‘the Southerner’ was an +appropriate title for the lesser brother tribe which lay to the south of +the dominant Ephraim. It is of Ephraim that Deborah says, in her Song of +Triumph, ‘Behind thee is Benjamin among thy peoples’ (Judg. v. 14). + +The etymology suggested in Genesis for the name of Ben-Oni is a sample +of those plays upon words in which Oriental writers have always +delighted, and of which the Hebrew Scriptures contain so many +illustrations. They all spring from the old confusion between the name +and the thing, which substituted the name for the thing, and believed +that if the name could be explained, the thing would be explained also. +Hence the slight transformations in the form of names which allowed them +to be assimilated to familiar words, or their identification with words +which obviously gave an incorrect sense. Hence, too, the choice of +etymologies which was offered to the reader: where the real origin of +the name was unknown or uncertain, it was possible to explain it in more +than one way. Isaiah (xv. 9) changes the name of the Moabite city of +Dibon into Dimon in order to connect it with the Hebrew _dâm_, ‘blood,’ +and the writer of Genesis gives two contradictory derivations of the +name of Joseph (Gen. xxx. 23, 24). The latter fact is of itself a +sufficient proof of the true value of these etymologies, or rather, +popular plays upon words, and the sayings in which they are embodied can +still be matched by the traveller in the East. Similar embodiments of +popular etymologising are still repeated to explain the place-names of +Egypt.[90] + +The origin of some of the names of the sons of Jacob is as obscure to us +as it was to the writer of Genesis. We do not know, for instance, the +meaning and derivation of the name of Reuben. Equally doubtful is the +real etymology of the name of Issachar.[91] The name of Simeon is +already found among the places in Canaan conquered by the Egyptian +Pharaoh Thothmes III. before the age of Moses, and in Judah we have a +name which seems to be the same as that of a tribe in Northern +Syria.[92] Levi, like Naphtali, is a gentilic noun, and must be +connected with the _lau’â(n)_, or ‘priest’ of Southern Arabia.[93] Gad +was the god of good fortune, Dan ‘the judge,’ the title of certain +Babylonian deities, and Dinah is the feminine corresponding to Dan. + +Jacob, ever timorous, fled from Hivite vengeance after the destruction +of Shechem, forsaking the property he had acquired there by purchase and +the sword. He made his way southward to Beth-el, and there rested on the +edge of the great mountain block of Central Palestine. Hard by was the +city of Luz, soon to be eclipsed by the growing fame of the high-place +on the height above it. Here, at Beth-el, an altar was erected by the +patriarch to the God of the locality who had once appeared to him in a +dream. It was the prototype of the altar that was hereafter to arise +there when Beth-el had become a chief sanctuary of the house of Israel. +Whether the altar stood on the high-place on the summit of the mountain, +where the Beth-el or column of stone had been consecrated by Jacob, we +do not know; there are indications in the prophets, however, that the +high-place and the temple were separate from one another. Indeed, from +the words of Genesis, it would seem that the altar and future temple +were on the lower slope of the hill, close to the old Canaanitish town. +Here, at any rate, on the road to the city, was that Allon-bachuth, that +‘Terebinth of Tears,’ which is referred to by Hosea (xii. 4), and is +connected in the book of Genesis with the death of Deborah, the nurse of +Rachel. In later days another Deborah dwelt under the shadow of a +palm-tree on the same road (Judg. iv. 6), and modern critical ingenuity +has accordingly discovered that the terebinth and the palm were one and +the same tree. + +Beth-el, however, was still too near the Hivites of Shechem, and Jacob +continued his journey to the south. The death of Isaac called him to +Hebron, where, for the last time, he met his brother Esau, who came to +take part in his father’s burial. But his own residence was at +Beth-lehem, ‘the Temple of the god Lakhmu,’ called Ephrath in those +early days.[94] Here Rachel died, and here accordingly was raised the +tombstone which marked her grave down to the day when the book of +Genesis assumed its present form.[95] + +It was ‘beyond the tower of Edar,’ the tower of ‘the Flock,’ that Jacob, +we are told, ‘spread his tent.’ The tower of the Flock guarded the +city-fortress of Jerusalem (Mic. iv. 8), and it was therefore between +Jerusalem and Beth-lehem that the patriarch made his home. But his +flocks were scattered northwards as far as Shechem, grazing on the +mountain slopes under the charge of his sons. Jacob remained like a +Bedâwi of to-day living among the settled inhabitants of the country, +and yet keeping apart from them and sending his flocks far and wide +wherever there was fresh grass and free pasturage. + +It was while he thus lived that the disgraceful events occurred +connected with the marriage of Judah and the Canaanitish Tamar, which +throw an evil light on the manners and morals of the patriarch’s family. +The whole episode stands in marked contrast to the ordinary character of +the history, and its insertion is evidence of the impartiality of the +writer. It is clear that he has put together all that reached him from +the past history of his people, omitting nothing, modifying nothing. All +sides of the past are brought before us, the darker as well as the +lighter, and no attempt is made to spare or condone the forefathers of +Israel. It has indeed been asked by an over-sensitive criticism how the +recital of such abominations can be consistent with the sanctity claimed +for the Mosaic writings. But the question has troubled the minds only of +the critics themselves; and not more than three centuries ago the +compilers of the Anglican lectionary saw no harm in ordering the chapter +to be read publicly to men and maidens in church. + +The episode was inserted in the midst of the story of Joseph, one of the +most pathetic and touching ever told. We need not repeat its details, or +describe how Joseph, the spoilt darling of his father, dreamed dreams +which aroused the alarm and jealousy of his brothers, how he was sold by +them into Egypt, how there he became the vizier of the Pharaoh, and how +eventually Jacob and his family were brought into the land of Goshen, +there to enjoy the good things of the valley of the Nile. But the story +brings us back again to the great stream of ancient Oriental history; +once more the history of Israel touches the history of the world, and +ceases to be a series of idyllic pictures, such as the memory of +shepherds and Bedâwin might alone preserve. + +The story of Joseph forms a complete whole, distinguished by certain +features that mark it off from the rest of the book of Genesis. It +contains peculiar words, some of them of Egyptian origin,[96] and it +shows a very minute acquaintance with Egyptian life in the Hyksos age. +There are even words and phrases which seem to have been translated into +Hebrew from some other language, and the meaning of which has not been +fully understood: thus it is said that the cupbearer of Pharaoh ‘pressed +the grapes’ into his master’s goblet instead of pouring the wine; and +the word employed to denote an Egyptian official, and translated +‘officer’ in the Authorised Version, properly signifies ‘eunuch.’ Can +the story have been translated from an Egyptian papyrus? The question is +suggested by the fact that one of the most characteristic portions of it +has actually been embodied in an ancient Egyptian tale. This is the +so-called _Tale of the Two Brothers_, written by the scribe Enna for +Seti II. of the nineteenth dynasty while he was crown-prince, and +therefore in the age of the Exodus. Here we have the episode of Joseph +and Potiphar’s wife told in Egyptian form. The fellah Bata takes the +place of Joseph; his sister-in-law plays the part of Potiphar’s +wife.[97] + +This part of the story was therefore known among the literary classes of +Egypt in the days when Moses was learned in all their wisdom. And if it +has been preserved among the few fragments that have been saved from the +wreck of ancient Egyptian literature, may we not conclude that had the +whole of that literature come down to us, other portions of the story of +Joseph would have been preserved in it as well? There is a gentleness in +the character of Joseph which reminds us forcibly of Egyptian manners, +and offers a sharp contrast to the rough ways and readiness to shed +blood which distinguished the Hebrew Semite. + +At all events, the story must have been written by one who was well +acquainted with the age of the Hyksos. It is true that an attempt has +recently been made, on the strength of certain proper names, to show +that it is not the Egypt of the Hyksos that is described, but the Egypt +of Shishak and his successors. The names of Potipherah or Potiphar and +Asenath are said to have been unknown before that date. A couple of +proper names, however, is an insecure foundation on which to build a +theory, more especially when the argument rests upon the imperfections +of our own knowledge. That no names corresponding in formation to +Potipherah and Asenath should as yet have been met with earlier than the +time of Shishak is no proof that they did not exist. A single example of +each is sufficient to prove the contrary. And, as a matter of fact, such +examples actually occur. A stela of the reign of Thothmes III. records +the name of Pe-tu-Baal, ‘the Gift of Baal,’ as that of the sixth +ancestor of the Egyptian whose name it records;[98] while the Tel +el-Amarna tablets contain the name of Subanda, the Smendes of Greek +writers, which is an exact parallel in form to Asenath.[99] Pe-tu-Baal +must have lived at the close of the Hyksos period, and the Semitic deity +with whose name his own is compounded indicates that it has been formed +under Semitic influence. It was, in fact, as we learn from the Phœnician +inscriptions, an imitation of a Canaanitish name.[100] The Hyksos had +come from Asia, and had imposed their yoke upon Egypt, where they ruled +for more than five hundred years. Though they held all Egypt under their +sway, they had established their capital at Zoan, now called Sân, far to +the north on the eastern frontier of the Delta. Here they were near +their kinsfolk in Canaan, and could readily summon fresh troops from +Asia in case of Egyptian revolt. + +The court of the Hyksos Pharaohs, however, soon became Egyptianised. +They adopted the arts and science, the manners and customs, of their +more cultured subjects, and one of the few scientific works of ancient +Egypt that have come down to us—the famous _Mathematical Papyrus_—was +written for a Hyksos king. It was only in physiognomy and religion that +the Hyksos conqueror continued to be distinguished from the native +Egyptian. + +Besides Zoan, Heliopolis, or ‘On of the North,’ was a chief centre of +Hyksos power. It was the oldest and most celebrated sanctuary of Egypt, +where ancient schools of learning were established, and from whence the +religious system had been disseminated which made the Sun-god the +supreme ruler of the universe. The Hyksos had no difficulty in +identifying the Sun-god of On with their own supreme deity Sutekh, who +was a form of the Canaanitish Baal. On, consequently, once the chief +seat of the orthodox faith of Egypt, became the centre of foreign +heresy. The Sallier Papyrus, which describes the origin of the war that +resulted in the expulsion of the Hyksos, specially tells us that ‘the +Impure of (On), the city of Ra, were subject to Ra-Apopi,’ the Hyksos +Pharaoh, and the Egyptians changed into Ra, the Egyptian Sun-god, the +name of Sutekh, which a scarab of Apopi shows was really prefixed to +that Pharaoh’s name.[101] The great temple of the Sun-god of On, +accordingly, before which Usertesen of the twelfth dynasty had planted +the obelisks, one of which remains to this day, was transformed into a +temple of the foreign god; and though its high-priest still continued to +bear his ancient title, and perform the ceremonies of the past, it was +Sutekh and not the native divinity whom he served. Potipherah—in +Egyptian, Pa-tu-pa-Ra—was a literal translation of the Canaanitish +Mattan-Baal, ‘the gift of Baal,’ and implied of itself the foreign cult. + +Potiphar is an abbreviation of Potipherah, and reminds us of similar +abbreviations met with in the letters of the Canaanitish correspondents +of the Pharaoh in the Tel el-Amarna collection. It is an abbreviation +which points to long familiarity with the name on the part of the Hebrew +people. The titles, however, given to Potiphar are obscure. The second +seems to signify ‘captain of the bodyguard,’ but the first—_saris_ in +Hebrew—means an ‘eunuch.’ Ebers, it is true, has pointed out that +eunuchs in the East have not only held high positions of state, but have +married wives as well;[102] this, however, has been in Turkey, not in +ancient Egypt. Perhaps the word is the Babylonian _saris_, ‘an officer’; +at all events, the Rab-sarîs of 2 Kings xviii. 17 is the Assyrian +Rab-sarisi, or ‘chief officer.’ That Babylonian words should have made +their way into Egypt in the age of the Hyksos is by no means strange. We +have learned from the Tel el-Amarna tablets that Babylonian was for +centuries the literary language of Western Asia, and was studied and +written even on the banks of the Nile, while the monuments of Babylonia +itself have shown that Babylonian culture had made its way to the +frontiers of Egypt at a very remote age. The history of Joseph contains +at least one word which bears testimony to its influence. When Joseph +was made ‘governor over all the land of Egypt,’ the heralds who ran +before his chariot to announce the fact shouted the word ‘abrêk!’ For +this word no explanation can be found either in Hebrew or in Egyptian. +But the language of the Babylonian inscriptions has unexpectedly come to +our aid. In Chaldæa _abarakku_ was the title of one of the highest +officers of State, and _abriqqu_, borrowed from the earlier Sumerian +_abrik_, signified ‘a seer.’ + +We have said that the history of Joseph is marvellously true in all its +details to what archæology has informed us were the facts of Egyptian +life. Thus the prison in which ‘the king’s prisoners’ were confined is +called by the strange name of ‘the round house.’ Such, at least, would +seem to be the literal meaning of the Hebrew phrase, the second element +of which signifies ‘roundness.’ The word is written _sohar_, though +there is evidence of another reading, _sokhar_. _Sohar_ or _sokhar_, +however, is really an Egyptian word. The royal prison at Thebes, where +the State prisoners were kept under guard, was: called _suhan_, in which +we have the same interchange of final _r_ and _n_ that is still a +characteristic of Egyptian Arabic.[103] The term _bêth has-sohar_, ‘the +house of the Sohar,’ is found nowhere else in the Old Testament: it is, +in fact, one of the peculiarities which distinguish the story of Joseph, +and at the same time testify to the acquaintance of its writer with the +details of Egyptian life. + +The titles of the royal cupbearer and the chief of the bakers have been +found in the lists of Egyptian officials; the Pharaoh’s kitchen was +organised on an elaborate scale;[104] and the Egyptians were famed for +their skill in confectionery and in making various kinds of bread.[105] +On the monuments we may see depicted the cupbearer offering the goblet +of wine, and the baker carrying on his head the baskets filled with +round ‘white loaves.’ The ‘birthday of the Pharaoh’ was a general +festival, on which, as the decrees of Rosetta and Canopus have taught +us, the sovereign proclaimed an amnesty and released such prisoners as +were thought deserving of pardon.[106] The dreams that Pharaoh dreamed +are in full accordance with Egyptian mythology and symbolism. The seven +kine fitly represent the Nile, which from time immemorial had been +likened to a milch-cow. The cow-headed goddess Hathor or Isis watched +over the fertility of the country, and the fertilising water of the +river was called the milk that flowed from her breasts. The number seven +denotes the ‘seven great Hathors,’ the seven forms under which the +goddess was adored. The dreams themselves fall in with the Egyptian +belief of the age. Throughout Egyptian history they have been a power +not only in religion, but in politics as well. It was in consequence of +a dream that Thothmes IV. cleared away the sand from before the paws of +the Sphinx, and a thousand years later Nut-Amon of Ethiopia was summoned +by a dream to invade Egypt. The dreams usually needed an interpreter to +explain them, such as is mentioned in a Greek inscription from the +Serapeum at Memphis. Books, however, had been compiled in which the +signification of dreams was reduced to a science; and as in modern +Egypt, so yet more in the past, men spent their lives in pondering over +the signification of the dreams of the night.[107] + +Even the statement that the east wind had blasted the ears of corn (Gen. +xli. 6) betrays an acquaintance with the peculiarities of the Egyptian +climate. Those who have sailed up the Nile know that the wind feared +alike by the peasant and the sailor is that which blows from the +south-east; while the crops of spring are matured by the northern +breeze, they are parched and destroyed by the evil wind from the +south-east. + +The golden collar placed around the neck of the royal favourite is +equally characteristic of Egyptian customs, at all events in the age of +the Hyksos and the eighteenth dynasty. ‘Captain’ Ahmes, whose tomb is at +El-Kab, and who took a prominent part in the final struggle which drove +the Hyksos strangers out of the Delta, describes the rewards bestowed +upon him by the Pharaoh for his deeds of valour, and chief among the +rewards are the chains of gold. Before Joseph was allowed to enter the +presence of the monarch, he was not only clad in new raiment, but shorn +as well. This, too, was in accordance with Egyptian custom. None could +appear before Pharaoh unless they had been freshly shaven, and in the +eyes of the Egyptian not the least part of the ‘impurity’ of the Asiatic +Semite was his habit of growing a beard.[108] + +The change of name, moreover, which marked Joseph’s elevation was again +characteristic of Egypt. The monuments have told us of other cases in +which an Asiatic from Canaan, or a Karian from Asia Minor, became an +Egyptian official, and in so doing was required to adopt an Egyptian +name.[109] That the name of Zaphnath-paaneah is of Egyptian origin has +long been recognised, and that it contains the Egyptian _pa-ânkh_, +‘life’ or ‘the living one,’ is clear. It is only over its first elements +that discussion is possible. + +It is hardly necessary to notice further points which prove how +intimately the writer of the history of Joseph was acquainted with +Egyptian life and manners, language and soil. The Egyptians, he notes, +could not eat together with the Hebrews, for that would have been ‘an +abomination’ to them. It would, indeed, have defiled them ceremonially, +and have caused them to participate in the impurity of those whom they +termed ‘the unclean.’ So, too, we read, ‘every shepherd is an +abomination to the Egyptians,’ not indeed, as has been imagined, because +Egypt had been conquered by the ‘Shepherd’ kings, but because the flocks +of the Delta were tended partly by Bedâwin, partly by half-caste +Egyptians, whose unclean habits and unshorn faces were the butt of the +literary world. The ‘marshmen,’ as they were contemptuously called, were +looked upon as pariahs.[110] + +While, however, the narrative is thus thoroughly Egyptian in character, +the Egypt it brings before us is the Egypt of the age of the Hyksos. +Chariots and horses have already been introduced. It has been supposed +that the horse came with the Hyksos; at all events, there is no trace of +it before the conquest of the country by the Asiatic stranger. The +Pharaoh, moreover, holds his court in the Delta, not far from the +Canaanitish border and the land of Goshen; and the waggons which carried +Jacob and his family travelled easily from Beth-lehem to the Egyptian +capital. Zoan consequently must still have been the residence of the +Pharaoh; and Thebes, in Upper Egypt, had not as yet taken its place. + +There is one fact, furthermore, which stands out prominently in the +history of Joseph, and points unmistakably to the Hyksos age. We are +told that it was his policy which reduced the people of Egypt to the +condition of serfs. Pressed by famine, they were compelled by him to +sell their lands for corn, and to receive it again as tenants of the +Pharaoh, with the obligation of paying him a fifth part of the produce. +The priests, or rather, the temples, were alone allowed to retain their +old possessions; henceforward the land of Egypt was shared between them +and the king. In the language of modern Egypt, it became either +Government property or _waqf_. + +Now, this fact corresponds with a change in the tenure of land which the +monuments have informed us must have taken place under the dominion of +the Hyksos dynasties. When Egypt was conquered by the Asiatics, it was +divided among a number of feudal families who were landowners on a large +scale, and at times the rivals of the sovereign himself. By the side of +this higher aristocracy there was also a lower one, answering in some +measure to the yeomen farmers of the northern counties, but equally +owners of land. When, however, the Hyksos were finally driven out, a new +Egypt comes into view. The feudal aristocracy has disappeared—or almost +disappeared—along with the other landowners of the country, and the only +proprietors of land that are left are the Pharaoh and the priests, to +whom in after times the military caste was added. Only in Southern +Egypt, where the struggle against the foreigner first began, do we find +instances of private ownership of land, and this, too, only in the +earlier years of the eighteenth dynasty. Before long the Pharaoh had +absorbed into his own hands all the land that had not been given to the +gods; the old nobility had disappeared, and their place been taken by an +army of officials who derived all their wealth and power from the king. +The Pharaoh, the priests, and the bureaucracy henceforth are the rulers +of Egypt. + +This momentous change must have had a cause, but we look in vain for +such a cause in the Egyptian monuments. It has been suggested that the +War of Independence may have brought it about by increasing the power of +the king as leader in the struggle.[111] But this would not explain his +absorption of the land; and even if all the older families had perished +in the war, which is not very probable, the lesser landowners would have +remained. Moreover, the generals of the king would in this case have +claimed similar spoils to those of their leader. What their commander +had seized would have been seized also by the officers under him. + +However great may be our reluctance to accept the explanation offered by +the story of Joseph, certain it is that it is the only adequate +explanation forthcoming. And there is one strong argument in its favour. +Under Ahmes, the conqueror of the Hyksos and the founder of the +eighteenth dynasty, there are still instances of land being held by +private individuals. But this was at El-Kab, in Upper Egypt, where the +Hyksos rule had long been nominal rather than real, and where it had not +been obeyed at all for three generations previously.[112] As soon as the +eighteenth dynasty kings were established firmly on the throne of the +Hyksos Pharaohs in the north as well as in their ancestral homes in +Southern Egypt, even these instances of individual ownership in land +came to an end. It was only where the Hyksos supremacy had been weak +that they had lingered on. When once the Prince of Thebes had become in +all respects the successor of the foreign Pharaohs who had reigned at +Zoan, they cease altogether. + +The account of Joseph’s procedure is true to facts in another point +also. From the time of the eighteenth dynasty onwards we hear repeatedly +of the public _larits_ or granaries which were under State control.[113] +The peasantry were required to contribute to them yearly in a fixed +proportion, and the corn stored up in them was only sold to the people +in case of need. It was out of these granaries, furthermore, that many +of the Government officials were paid in kind, as well as the workmen +employed by the State. The office of ‘superintendent of the granaries’ +was therefore a very important one: once each year he presented to the +king an ‘account of the harvests of the south and the north’; and if the +account was exceptionally good, if the inundation had been abundant and +the harvest better than ‘for thirty years,’ his grateful sovereign would +throw chains of gold around his neck.[114] The origin of these royal +granaries and of the office of their superintendent which thus +characterise the ‘new empire’ of Egypt is explained by the history of +Joseph. + +Before the days when the conquests of the eighteenth dynasty had created +an Egyptian empire in Asia, and brought foreign supplies of food to +Egypt, the rise of the Nile was a matter of vital interest. The very +existence of the people depended upon it. Too high a Nile meant +scarcity, too low a Nile famine. It was only when the river rose to its +normal level and overflowed the fields at the stated time that the heart +of the agriculturist was gladdened, and he knew that the gods had given +him a year of plenty. + +The seven years’ famine of Joseph’s age is not the only seven years’ +famine which Egypt has had to endure. El-Makrîzî, the Arabic historian +of Egypt, describes one which lasted for seven years, from A.D. 1064 to +1071, and, like that of Joseph, was caused by a deficient Nile. A stela +discovered by Mr. Wilbour on the island of Sehêl, in the middle of the +First Cataract, and engraved in the time of the Ptolemies, similarly +records a famine that was wasting the country because ‘the Nile-flood +had not come for seven years.’[115] And it is possible that a memorial +of the famine of Joseph has been discovered by Brugsch in one of the +tombs of El-Kab. Here the dead man, a certain Baba, is made to say, +‘When a famine arose, lasting many years, I issued out corn to the +city.’ Baba must have lived in the latter part of the Hyksos domination, +so that the date of his inscription would agree with that of +Joseph.[116] + +Whether the power of Joseph and his master would still have extended as +far south as El-Kab in the age of Baba, we do not know. But we do know +that a famine which prevailed in Lower Egypt in consequence of a low +Nile would have equally prevailed in the Thebaid. It would not, however, +have prevailed in Canaan. In Canaan the ground is watered, not by the +Nile, but by the rains of heaven, and in Canaan, therefore, it was only +a want of rain that could have caused a scarcity of food. + +Famines, indeed, did occur in Palestine from time to time, and we hear +of Egyptian kings sending corn to that country to supply its needs.[117] +As Egypt was the granary of Italy in the days of the Roman Empire, so +too it had been the granary of Western Asia in an earlier age. A dry +season in Canaan brought famine in its train; and if that dry season +coincided with a deficient Nile in Egypt, there was no other land to +which its inhabitants could look for food. It is quite possible that one +of these famines in Canaan may have happened at the very time when the +Nile refused to irrigate the fields of Egypt. When, however, we read +that ‘the famine was over all the face of the earth,’ and that ‘all +countries came into Egypt to Joseph to buy corn because the famine was +sore in all lands,’ it is evident that the narrative has been written +from an Egyptian point of view. The Egyptians might have supposed that +when a low Nile produced a scarcity of food all other countries would +equally suffer—such, indeed, was the case with Ethiopia—but a +supposition of the kind is inconceivable in the mind of a Canaanite. An +inhabitant of Palestine knew that the crops of his country were +dependent on the rain, not on the waters of the Nile; it was only the +Egyptian who modelled the rest of the world after that part of it which +was known to him. + +Here, then, we have a clear indication that the story of Joseph must +have been written in Egypt, and further probability is added to the +theory that it has been translated into Hebrew from an Egyptian +original. But more than this. Is it likely that the Hebrew translator, +if he had been acquainted with the climate of Canaan, would have left +the words of the story just as we find them? Can we imagine that the +language he employed about the extent of the famine would have been so +definite, so comprehensive, so Egyptian in character? Like the Egyptian +words embodied in the narrative, it points to a writer or translator who +lived in Egypt, and not in Canaan. + +Who was the Pharaoh under whom Joseph became the first minister of the +State? Chronology shows that he must have been one of the kings of the +last Hyksos dynasty. George the Syncellus makes him Aphophis, Apopi +Ra-aa-kenen, or Apopi II. of the monuments, and the date would suit very +well.[118] Apopi II. was the last powerful Hyksos sovereign. His +authority was still obeyed in Upper Egypt, but it was in his reign that +the War of Independence broke out. According to the story in the Sallier +Papyrus, it was caused by his message to the _hiq_ or vassal prince of +Thebes, requiring him to renounce the worship of Amon of Thebes and +acknowledge Sutekh, the Hyksos Baal, as his supreme god.[119] The war +lasted for four generations, and ended in the expulsion of the +foreigner. + +But long before this took place the family of Israel was settled in the +land of Goshen, on the outskirts of Northern Egypt. The geographical +position of Goshen has been rediscovered by Dr. Naville. It corresponded +with the modern Wadi Tumilât, through which the traveller by the railway +now passes on his way from Ismailîyeh to Zagazig. It took its name from +Qosem or Qos, the Pha-kussa of Greek geography, and the capital of the +Arabian nome, the site of which is marked by the mounds of Saft +el-Hennah.[120] The very name of the ‘Arabian nome’ indicates that its +occupants belonged to Arabia rather than to Egypt. It was, in fact, a +district handed over to the Bedâwin by the Pharaohs, as it still is +to-day. Meneptah, the son of Ramses II., says in his great inscription +at Karnak that ‘the country around Pa-Bailos (now Belbeis, near Zagazig) +was not cultivated, but left as pasture for cattle, because of the +strangers. It was abandoned since the time of the ancestors.’[121] +Abandoned, that is to say, by the Egyptians themselves. But the Semitic +nomad pitched his tent and fed his flocks there, partly because it was +on the road to his own country and countrymen, partly because it was +fitted for grazing and not for agriculture. Here, too, he was not in +immediate contact with the Egyptian fellah, though the court of the +Hyksos Pharaoh at Zoan was nigh at hand. + +Joseph’s brethren were made overseers of the royal cattle, an official +post of which we also hear in the native Egyptian texts. After a while, +Jacob died, full of years, and his body was embalmed in the Egyptian +fashion. The actual process of embalming occupied forty days, the whole +period during which ‘the Egyptians mourned for him,’ being threescore +and ten. The statement is in accordance with other testimony as to the +length of time needed to embalm a mummy. Herodotos (ii. 86) states that +the corpse was kept in natron during seventy days, ‘to which period they +are strictly confined.’ According to Diodoros,[122] ‘oil of cedar and +other things were applied to the whole body for upwards of thirty days,’ +the full period during which the mourning for the dead and the +preparation of his mummy lasted being seventy-two days. Between the age +of Joseph and that of Diodoros it would seem that little change had +taken place in this part, at any rate, of the Egyptian treatment of +their dead. When, however, the Hebrew text states that the corpse was +embalmed by ‘the physicians, the slaves’ of Joseph; the word +‘physicians’ must be understood in a restricted sense. Pliny,[123] it is +true, avers that during the process of embalming physicians were +employed to examine the body of the dead man and determine of what +disease he had died. But the _paraskhistæ_, who made the needful +incision, were regarded with the utmost abhorrence; they were the +pariahs of society, who lived in a community apart. It was the embalmers +who were the associates of the priests, and whose persons, in the words +of Diodoros, were looked upon as ‘sacred.’ Nor is it easy to see who +could have been the physicians who were the ‘slaves’ of the Hebrew +vizier. The physician in Egypt was usually a free man, who followed a +profession which brought with it honour and respect. The doctor belonged +to the learned classes, and, like the scribe, had no mean opinion of his +worth and dignity. But such physicians were employed in healing the +sick, not in embalming the dead, and must have stood in a very different +position from that of Joseph’s ‘slaves.’ More light is still wanted on +the subject from monumental sources; in spite of the papyri which +describe the ceremonies attendant on the various acts of the embalmment, +we are still ignorant of its practical details. + +When at last the days of mourning were past, Joseph spoke, we are told, +to ‘the house of Pharaoh.’ The expression is purely Egyptian, and refers +to the signification of the word ‘Pharaoh’ itself. Pharaoh, the Egyptian +Per-âa, is the ‘Great House’; ‘the son of the Sun-god’ was too highly +exalted to be spoken of as a man, and it was therefore to ‘the Great +House’ that his subjects addressed themselves. Modern Europe is familiar +with a similar phrase; when we allude to the ‘Sublime Porte’ we mean the +Turkish Sultan, who once administered justice from the ‘High Gate’ of +his palace. + +Jacob was buried in the cave of Machpelah. A long procession of soldiers +and mourners, partly in chariots, partly on foot, accompanied the mummy +on its way out of Egypt. Such a procession was no unusual thing. The +wealthy Egyptian desired to be buried near the tomb of Osiris at Abydos, +and it was therefore not unfrequently the custom to convey his mummy in +solemn procession to that sacred spot, and then to carry it back once +more to its own final resting-place. The procession which accompanied +the body of the patriarch must have followed the high-road which led +through the Shur, or line of fortification on the eastern border of the +desert, and brought the traveller with little difficulty to Southern +Palestine. The reference in the narrative to the threshing-floor of +Atad, on the eastern side of the Jordan, is an interpolation, which +embodies merely a local etymology. The chariot-road from Egypt to +Palestine naturally never ran near the Jordan; and the threshing-floor +of Atad would have been far out of the way. But popular imagination had +seen in the name of Abel-Mizraim, where the threshing-floor was +situated, a ‘mourning of Egypt,’ and had accordingly connected it with +the great mourning that was made for Jacob. As a matter of fact, +however, Abel-Mizraim really signifies ‘the meadow of Egypt,’ _abel_, ‘a +meadow,’ being a not uncommon element in the geographical names of +ancient Canaan.[124] + +Two sons had been born to Joseph by his Egyptian wife, whom the +Israelites knew by their Hebrew names. They had been born before the +death of his father, and had thus received his blessing. Joseph himself +lived ‘an hundred and ten years.’ This was the limit of life the +Egyptian desired for himself and his friends, and in the inscriptions +the boon of a life of ‘an hundred and ten years’ is from time to time +asked for from the gods. It is the term of existence a court poet +promises to Seti II. ‘on earth,’ and Ptah-hotep, the author of ‘the +oldest book in the world,’ who flourished in the days of the fifth +dynasty, assures us that, thanks to his pursuit of wisdom he had already +attained the age.[125] + +Joseph was embalmed, but his mummy was not carried to Hebron for burial, +like that of his father. If Apopi II. had been the Pharaoh who had +transformed him from a Hebrew slave into the highest of Egyptian +officials, the War of Independence must have broken out long before his +death. The Hyksos dynasty was hastening to its decay. Its strength had +departed from it, and the Pharaohs of Zoan, who had lost all power in +Upper Egypt, would still more have lost all power in Asia. Their +soldiers were needed for other purposes than that of escorting the +coffin of the dead vizier across the desert of El-Arish. Moreover, +Joseph was an Egyptian official, and by his marriage into the family of +the high priest of Heliopolis had become as much of an Egyptian as his +Hyksos master. We are told that he made the Israelites swear to carry +his corpse with them should they ever return to Palestine; the triumph +of the Theban princes was growing more assured, and Joseph knew well +that the vengeance of the victorious party would be wreaked upon the +dead as well as upon the living. The history of Egypt had already shown +that the tomb and the mummy were the first to suffer. + +A change of sepulchre was no unheard-of thing. King Ai of the eighteenth +dynasty had two, if not three, tombs made for himself, and the mummy +could be transported from one place of burial to another. All knew where +it was interred; year by year offerings were made to the spirit of the +dead, and in many cases the estate of the deceased was taxed to support +a line of priests who should perform the stated services at the tomb. As +long as the sepulchre of Joseph was in the neighbourhood of his people +it would have been easy to protect his mummy from violence, and to carry +the coffin out of Egypt when the needful time should come. + +Footnote 1: + + See Brugsch, _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, Eng. tr., second edit., ii. + p. 134. + +Footnote 2: + + _Records of the Past_, new ser., v. pp. 66 _sqq._ + +Footnote 3: + + Thus in an Assyrian hymn (K 890), published by Dr. Brünnow in the + _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, July 1889, we have (line 8) _istu pan + Khabiriya iptarsanni âsi_, ‘from the face of my confederates he has + cut me off, even me.’ + +Footnote 4: + + _Records of the Past_, new ser., vi. p. 39. + +Footnote 5: + + Thus Kharbi-Sipak, a Kassite or Kossæan, from the western mountains of + Elam, is called a ‘Khabirâ’ (W. A. I. iv. 34, 2, 5). The name is + probably connected with that of Khapir or Âpir, originally applied to + the district in which Mal-Amir is situated, south-east of Susa, but + afterwards in the Persian period extended to the whole of Elam (see my + memoir on the _Inscriptions of Mal-Amir_ in the Transactions of the + Sixth Oriental Congress at Leyden, vol. ii.). Kharbi-Sipak himself, + however, seems to have been employed by the Assyrian king in Palestine + in the neighbourhood of the cities of Arqa and Zaqqal (Hommel in the + _Proceedings_ of the Society of Biblical Archæology, May 1895, p. + 203). + +Footnote 6: + + W. A. I. ii. 50, 51 (where Khubur is said to be a synonym of Subarti). + +Footnote 7: + + W. A. I. ii. 51, 4. + +Footnote 8: + + Hommel, _The ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the + Monuments_, pp. 196, 245-262, 323-327; Glaser in the _Mittheilungen_ + of the Vorderasiatische Gesellschaft, ii. 1897. + +Footnote 9: + + K 3500. + +Footnote 10: + + That _Ebir-nâri_ signified the country west of the Euphrates in the + later days of Babylonian history is shown by a contract-tablet, dated + in the third year of Darius Hystaspis, and translated by Peiser + (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, iv. p. 305), in which mention is + made of ‘Ustanni, the governor of Babylon and Ebir-nâri’ (line 2). + Meissner (_Zeitschrift für Alttestament_, _Wissenschaft_, xvii.) has + pointed out that Ustanni is the Tatnai of Ezra, v. 3, 6; vi. 6, 13, + who is there called the ‘governor of the land beyond the river’ + (_’Abar Nahara_). + +Footnote 11: + + See Hilprecht, _The Babylonian Expedition of the University of + Pennsylvania_, i. 2, p. 31. + +Footnote 12: + + An inscription of Sargon recently published by M. Dangin (_Revue + Sémitique_, April 1897) states that ‘the governor’ of the subjugated + Amorites was Uru-Malik, where the name of Malik or Moloch is preceded + by the determinative of divinity. Uru-Malik, which is an analogous + formation to Uriel, Urijah, Melchi-ur (or Melchior), etc., shows that + what we call Hebrew was already the language of Canaan. The + inscription has been found at Tello in Southern Chaldæa. + +Footnote 13: + + Zabsali, also written Savsal(la) or Zavzal(la), probably represents + the Zuzim or Zamzummim of Scripture. See my article in the + _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, February 1897, p. + 74. + +Footnote 14: + + We possess a list of the kings of Babylonia, divided into dynasties, + from the first dynasty of Babylon, to which Khammu-rabi belonged, down + to the time of the fall of Nineveh. The number of years reigned by + each king is stated, as well as the number of years each dynasty + lasted. But, unfortunately, the compiler has forgotten to say what was + the duration of the dynasty to which Nabonassar (B.C. 747) belonged; + and as the tablet is broken here, the regnal years of most of the + kings who formed the dynasty have been lost. There are, however, a + good many synchronisms between the earlier period of Babylonian + history and that of Assyria, and by means of these the chronology has + been approximately restored. We can also test the date of Khammu-rabi + in the following way. We learn from Assur-bani-pal that + Kudur-Nankhundi, king of Elam, carried off the image of the goddess + Nana from the city of Erech 1635 years before his own conquest of + Elam, and therefore 2280 B.C. As Eri-Aku boasts of his capture of + Erech, and as he was assisted in his wars by his Elamite kinsmen, it + seems probable that the capture of the image by Kudur-Nankhundi was + coincident with the capture of the city by Eri-Aku. + + The discovery of Mr. Pinches has been supplemented by that of Dr. + Scheil, who has found letters addressed by Khammu-rabi to Sin-idinnam + of Larsa, in which mention is made of the Elamite king + Kudur-Laghghamar. Sin-idinnam had been driven from Larsa by Eri-Aku + with the help of Kudur-Laghghamar, and had taken refuge at the court + of Khammu-rabi in Babylon. Fragments of other letters of Khammu-rabi + are in the possession of Lord Amherst of Hackney (see _inf._ pp. 27, + 28). + +Footnote 15: + + The name of Khammu-rabi himself is written Ammu-rabi in Bu. 88-5-12, + 199 (_Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum_, + Part 2). + +Footnote 16: + + _Records of the Past_, new ser., iii. p. xvi. + +Footnote 17: + + Hommel, _Geschichte des alten Morgenlandes_, p. 62, _The Ancient + Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, p. 96. + +Footnote 18: + + Published by Budge, _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, iii. 3, pp. 229, + 230. + +Footnote 19: + + The text, which is on a stela found in the ruined temple of Isis at + the south-east corner of the great pyramid of Gizeh, is now in the + Cairo Museum. It has been published by M. Daressy in the _Recueil des + Travaux relatifs à la Philologie et à l’Archéologie égyptiennes et + assyriennes_ (xvi. 3, 4, 1894), and is dated in the third year of king + Ai. It follows from the inscription that ‘the domain called that of + the Hittites’ lay to the north of the great temple of Ptah, and + immediately to the south of two smaller temples built by Thothmes I. + and Thothmes IV. In the time of Herodotos there was a similar district + assigned to the Phœnicians, and known as ‘the Camp of the Tyrians,’ on + the south side of the temple of Ptah (see my _Egypt of the Hebrews and + Herodotos_, p. 251). + +Footnote 20: + + Amurru, ‘the Amorite god,’ was a name which had been given by the + Sumerians, the earlier population of Chaldæa, to the Syrian Hadad whom + the Babylonians identified with their Ramman or Rimmon (cf. Zech. xii. + 11). A cuneiform text published by Reisner (_Sumerisch-babylonische + Hymnen nach Thontafeln griechischer Zeit_, p. 139, lines 141-144) + couples Amurru, ‘the lord of the mountains,’ with Asratu, the + Canaanitish Asherah, ‘the lady of the plain.’ Asratu is identified + with the Babylonian Gubarra. + +Footnote 21: + + W. A. I. v. 12, 47. + +Footnote 22: + + W. A. I. v. 33, i. 37. + +Footnote 23: + + _Padanu_ also had the meaning of ‘path.’ Whether this is derived from + the other or belongs to a different root is questionable. But in the + sense of ‘path,’ _padanu_ was a synonym of Kharran. + +Footnote 24: + + This does not imply that the population which founded the kingdom of + Mitanni, and probably came from the mountains of Komagênê or of Ararat + in the north, was unknown in early Babylonia. In fact, one of the + _Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets_, published by the British + Museum in 1896 (Bu. 91-5-9, 296), contains the names of ‘the governor’ + Akhsir-Babu and other witnesses to a contract, most of which are + Mitannian. + +Footnote 25: + + I have given the tablet in transliteration in the _Proceedings_ of the + Society of Biblical Archæology, Nov. 1883, p. 18. The passage reads: + ‘14-½ shekels of lead we have weighed in _nakhur_.’ + +Footnote 26: + + See Sachau, _Die altaramäische Inschrift auf der Statue des Königs + Panammu von Sam-al_ and _Aramäische Inschriften_ in the _Mittheilungen + aus den orientalischen Sammlungen d. K. Museums zu Berlin_, ix., and + the _Sitzungsberichte der K. preussischen Akademie der + Wissenschaften_, xli. (1896). + +Footnote 27: + + See my _Races of the Old Testament_, pp. 110-117, and H. G. Tomkins in + the _Journal_ of the Anthropological Institute, Feb. 1889. + +Footnote 28: + + In a report of an eclipse of the moon sent to an Assyrian king in the + eighth century B.C., the countries of ‘the Amorites and the Hittites’ + represent the whole of Western Asia (R. F. Harper, _Assyrian and + Babylonian Letters_, Part iv. p. 345). + +Footnote 29: + + The discovery of the name of Shakama or Shechem in the _Travels of the + Mohar_ is due to Dr. W. Max Müller (_Asien und Europa_, p. 394). + +Footnote 30: + + Or II., according to Maspero, who makes three Hyksos sovereigns of + this name. + +Footnote 31: + + It is in the possession of Mr. John Ward. + +Footnote 32: + + See my _Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monument_, pp. 160, + 161. + +Footnote 33: + + Recent discoveries have made it clear that the Amraphel of Genesis is + the Khammu-rabi of the cuneiform texts. Khammu-rabi is also written + Ammu-rabi (Bu. 88-5-12, 199, l. 17), and Dr. Lindl has pointed out + that the final syllable of Amraphel is the Babylonian _ilu_, ‘god,’ a + title which is frequently attached to the name of Khammu-rabi. We + learn from the Tel el-Amarna tablets that in the pronunciation of + Western Asia a Babylonian _b_ often became _p_. + +Footnote 34: + + Pinches, _Certain Inscriptions and Records referring to Babylonia and + Elam_, a paper read before the Victoria Institute, Jan. 7, 1896; see + also Hommel, _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition_, pp. 180 _sqq._ + +Footnote 35: + + Some Assyriologists interpret Manda as ‘much’ or ‘many’; in this case + Umman Manda, ‘much people,’ will be still more literally the Hebrew + _Goyyim_. + +Footnote 36: + + Dr. Scheil, the discoverer of the letters of Khammu-rabi to + Sin-idinnam which are now in the Museum at Constantinople, gives the + following translations of them (_Recueil de Travaux relatifs à la + Philologie et à l’Archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes_, xix. 1, 2, + pp. 40-44): (1) ‘To Sin-idinnam Khammu-rabi says: I send you as a + present (the images of) the goddesses of the land of Emutbalum as a + reward for your valour on the day (of the defeat) of Kudur-Laghghamar. + If (the enemy) trouble you, destroy their forces with the troops at + your disposal, and let the images be restored in safety to their (old) + habitations.’ (2) ‘To Sin-idinnam Khammu-rabi says: When you have seen + this letter, you will understand in regard to Amil-Samas and + Nur-Nintu, the sons of Gisdubba, that if they are in Larsa, or in the + territory of Larsa, you will order them to be sent away, and that a + trusty official shall take them and bring them to Babylon.’ (3) ‘To + Sin-idinnam Khammu-rabi says: As to the officials who have resisted + you in the accomplishment of their work, do not impose upon them any + additional task, but oblige them to do what they ought to have done, + and then remove them from the influence of him who has brought them.’ + All three letters were found at Senkereh, the ancient Larsa. Fragments + of some other letters of Khammu-rabi are in the possession of Lord + Amherst of Hackney. See above, p. 12. + +Footnote 37: + + Nicolaus of Damascus, in Josephus _Antiq._ i. 7, 2. + +Footnote 38: + + See my _Patriarchal Palestine_, pp. 160, 165. The figure and name of + the god Salimmu, written in cuneiform characters, are on a gem now in + the Hermitage at St. Petersburg. The same god, under the name of + Shalman, is mentioned on a stela discovered at Sidon, and under that + of Selamanês in the inscriptions of Shêkh Barakât, north-west of + Aleppo (Clermont-Ganneau, _Études d’Archéologie orientale_ in the + _Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études_, cxiii. vol. ii. pp. 36, + 48; Sayce in the _Proceedings_ of the Society of Biblical Archeology, + xix. 2. p. 74). + +Footnote 39: + + As Professor Hommel says (_Expository Times_, Nov. 1896, p. 95), ‘The + “Mighty King” cannot possibly be the Pharaoh.’ But he seems to me to + introduce an unnecessary element of complication into the subject by + supposing that in the Tel el-Amarna letters the epithet has been + transferred to the king of the Hittites from the supreme god of + Jerusalem, to whom it properly belonged. It is true that in a letter + of the governor of Phœnicia (Winckler und Abel, No. 76, l. 66) the + title is given to the king of the Hittites, but it does not follow + that the king of Jerusalem employs it in the same way. + +Footnote 40: + + It should be noticed that, according to Hesykhios (_s. v._), ‘the most + high God’ of the Syrians was Ramas, that is, Ramman or Rimmon, who was + identified with the sun-god Hadad, the supreme deity of Syria. The + Babylonians called him Amurru ‘the Amorite.’ + +Footnote 41: + + Pietschmann, _Geschichte der Phönizier_, p. 115. The suggestion was + first made by von Bunsen. + +Footnote 42: + + For a possible explanation of the origin of the practice, see H. N. + Moseley in the _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, vi. 4, p. + 396. Bastian gives another in his description of the practice among + the Polynesians (_Anthropologie der Naturvölker_, vi. pp. 40, 41). + +Footnote 43: + + A brilliant suggestion of Professor Hommel, however, may prove to be + the true explanation of the mysterious name. In the Minæan + inscriptions of Southern Arabia a long _â_ is constantly denoted in + writing by _h_; and Abraham, therefore, may be merely the Minæan mode + of writing Abram. If so, this would show that the Hebrew scribes were + once under the influence of the Minæan script, and that portions of + the Pentateuch itself may have been written in the letters of the + Minæan alphabet (Hommel, _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition_, pp. 275-277). + Dr. Neubauer has suggested to me that this also may be the explanation + of the name of Aaron (_Aharôn_), which, like Ab-raham, has no + etymology. Aaron would be the graphic form of Âron, an Arabic name + which appears as Aran in the genealogy of the Horites (Gen. xxxvi. + 28). + +Footnote 44: + + See Berger, _L’Arabie avant Mahomet d’après les Inscriptions_ (1885), + pp. 27, 28. + +Footnote 45: + + D. H. Müller, _Epigraphische Denkmäler aus Arabien_ (1889), p. 13. + +Footnote 46: + + Thus we have _anuki_ ‘I,’ Heb. _anochi_; _badiu_ ‘in his hand,’ Heb. + _b’yado_; _akharunu_ ‘after him,’ Heb. _akharono_; _rusu_ ‘head,’ Heb. + _rosh_; _kilubi_ ‘cage,’ Heb. _chelûb_; _har_ ‘mountain,’ Heb. _har_. + + See my _Patriarchal Palestine_, p. 247. + +Footnote 47: + + On the question of the site of Mizpah of Gilead, see G. A. Smith, _The + Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, pp. 586, 587. + +Footnote 48: + + _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_ in _Mittheilungen aus den orientalischen + Sammlungen_, xi. (1893). + +Footnote 49: + + _Records of the Past_, new ser., v. pp. vi, vii. + +Footnote 50: + + Dussaud (_Revue Archéologique_, iii. xxx. p. 346) states that + according to the Ansarîyeh of the Gulf of Antioch the ‘Yudi’ or + Hebrews formerly occupied their country, and constructed the ancient + monuments found in it, one of which is called after the name of + Solomon. For Neubauer’s suggestion that the Dinhabah of Gen. xxxvi. 32 + is identical in name with the Dunip or Tunip of Northern Syria, see + further on. + + Hoffmann (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xi. p. 210) maintains that + the origin of the Aramaic dialects is to be sought in a Bedâwin + language allied to that of the Arabs and Sabæans, which underwent + intermixture with Canaanitish (or Phœnician) through the settlement of + its speakers in a Canaanitish country. + +Footnote 51: + + In Assyrian letters of the Second Empire mention is made of the + Nabathean Â-kamaru, the son of Amme’te’, and the Arabian Ami-li’ti, + the son of Ameri or Omar (Harper, _Assyrian and Babylonian Letters_, + iii. p. 262; iv. p. 437). + +Footnote 52: + + It is stated in Deut. xxiii. 4 that Balaam was hired from ‘Pethor of + Aram Naharaim,’ not only by the Moabites, but by the Ammonites as well + (though it is true that in the Hebrew text the word _sâkar_, ‘hired,’ + is in the singular). It may be noted that the mother of Rehoboam, + whose name is compounded with that of Am or Ammi (compare Rehab-iah, 1 + Chron. xxiii. 17), was an Ammonitess (1 Kings xiv. 21). For a full + discussion of the name of ’Ammi or ’Ammu, and the historical + conclusions which may be deduced from it, see Hommel, _The Ancient + Hebrew Tradition_, pp. 89 _sqq._ + +Footnote 53: + + The name of Carchemish is usually written Gargamis in the cuneiform + inscriptions (Qarqamish in the Egyptian hieroglyphs), but + Tiglath-pileser I. (W. A. I. i. 13, 49) calls it ‘Kar-Gamis’ (the + Fortified Wall of Gamis) ‘in the land of the Hittites,’ and from the + Hebrew spelling in the Old Testament we may gather that Gamis was + identified with the Moabite Chemosh. In Babylonian tablets of the age + of Ammi-zadoq mention is made of a wood Karkamisû or ‘Carchemishian’ + (Bu. 88-5-12, 163, line 11; 88-5-12, 19, line 8). It may be noted that + the name ‘Jerabîs,’ sometimes assigned to the site of Carchemish + instead of Jerablûs, is, according to the unanimous testimony of + English and American residents in the neighbourhood, erroneous. + +Footnote 54: + + See _Records of the Past_, new ser., v. p. 45. + +Footnote 55: + + For the identity of the Zuzim with the Babylonian Zavzala, see my note + in the _Proceedings_ of the Society of Biblical Archæology, xix. 2, + pp. 74, 75. + +Footnote 56: + + See above, p. 21. + +Footnote 57: + + See above, p. 20. + +Footnote 58: + + We owe the term ‘Eurafrican’ to Dr. Brinton (see his _Races and + Peoples_, 1890, Lecture iv.). For the relationship of the Libyan and + the Kelt, see my Address to the Anthropological Section of the British + Association, 1887. + +Footnote 59: + + The expression ‘mountain of the Amorites,’ which we meet with in Deut. + i. 7, 19, takes us back to Abrahamic times. One of the campaigns of + Samsu-iluna, the son and successor of Khammu-rabi or Amraphel, was + against ‘the great mountain of the land of the Amorites’ (_kharsag gal + mad Martu-ki_, Bu. 91-5-9, 333; _Rev._ 19). + +Footnote 60: + + See my _Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_, p. 41; D. + H. Müller, _Epigraphische Denkmäler aus Arabien_, p. 8 (the Minæan + inscriptions of El-Oela, south of Teima, are given pp. 21 _sqq._). + +Footnote 61: + + Philo Byblius in his work ‘On the Jews,’ as quoted by Eusebius (_Præp. + Evang._ i, 10), stated that ‘Kronos, whom the Phœnicians call El, the + king of the country, who was afterwards deified in the planet Saturn, + had an only son by a nymph of the country called Anôbret. This son was + named Yeud, which signifies in Phœnician an only son. His country + having fallen into distress during a war, Kronos clothed his son in + royal robes, raised an altar, and sacrificed him upon it.’ In his + account of the Phœnician mythology, the same writer describes the + sacrifice a little differently: ‘A plague and a famine having + occurred, Kronos sacrificed his only son to his father the Sky, + circumcised himself, and obliged his companions to do the same’ + (Euseb. _l. c._). + +Footnote 62: + + _Records of the Past_, new ser., v. p. 49, No. 81. + +Footnote 63: + + _L’Imagerie Phénicienne_ (1880), p. 105. + +Footnote 64: + + Which may also be read _ayyal_ or ‘hart.’ + +Footnote 65: + + See my _Races of the Old Testament_, pp. 130 _sq._ + +Footnote 66: + + See my _Races of the Old Testament_, pp. 127, 132, where a photograph + is given of Professor Flinders Petrie’s cast of the Ashkelon profiles. + +Footnote 67: + + _Black Obelisk_, lines 60, 61, compared with _Monolith Inscription_, + ll. 90-95. + +Footnote 68: + + One _feddan_ or acre contained 1800 _sari_ (Reisner in the + _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xi. 4, p. 421). The area was not + great, though it was calculated that not more than 120 _sari_ could be + ploughed by a single ox. + +Footnote 69: + + Published by Strassmaier in the Transactions of the Fifth Oriental + Congress, ii. 1, _Append._ pp. 14, 15; a translation will be found in + Peiser’s _Altbabylonische Urkunden in the Keilschriftliche + Bibliothek_, iv. p. 7. The tablet was found at Tel-Sifr. + +Footnote 70: + + Published by Meissner, _Beiträge zum altbabylonischen Privatrecht_, + No. 43 (with corrections by Pinches); a translation is given by + Peiser, _Keilschriftliche Bibliothek_, iv. pp. 23-25. + +Footnote 71: + + Gen. xxiii. 18. The Hebrew expression ‘In the presence of’ is the same + as that which is translated ‘Witnessed by’ in the Babylonian + documents. + +Footnote 72: + + Babylonian _shaqâlu kaspa_, Hebrew _shâqal [eth-hak-] keseph_. + +Footnote 73: + + According to Professor Flinders Petrie, the heavy maneh or mina as + fixed by Dungi and restored by Nebuchadrezzar weighed 978,309 grammes. + An example of it is now in the British Museum. See Lehmann in the + _Verhandlungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft_, 1893, p. 27. + +Footnote 74: + + The identification is, however, doubtful, since only potsherds of the + Roman period are visible at Umm Jerâr, which, moreover, according to + Palmer (_Name-lists_ in the _Survey of Western Palestine_, p. 420), is + merely Umm el-Jerrâr, ‘the mother of water-pots.’ + +Footnote 75: + + Beti-ilu (Winckler’s _Tel el-Amarna Letters_, Nos. 51, 125) is + associated with Tunip and the country of Nukhassê. The reading of the + name is not quite certain, however, as it may be transcribed Batti-ilu + or Mitti-ilu. A Babylonian of the Abrahamic age also has the name of + Beta-ili. + +Footnote 76: + + The title seems to have been of Horite origin (see Gen. xxxvi. 21, 29, + 30). + +Footnote 77: + + It is noticeable that the Edomite leader who was carried captive to + Egypt by Ramses III. after he had destroyed ‘the tents’ of ‘the Shasu + in Seir,’ is entitled ‘chieftain,’ and not ‘king.’ There is a portrait + of him on the walls of Medînet Habu at Thebes. + +Footnote 78: + + For another explanation of the name, see Gen. xxv. 26; Hos. xii. 3. + +Footnote 79: + + Jacob-el is written Ya’akub-ilu; Joseph-el, Yasupu-ilu and Yasup-il, + which is found in a list of slaves of the same early age (Bu. 91-5-9, + 324). In the same list mention is made of land belonging to Adunum, + the Heb. _adon_, and to Nakha-ya, which is a parallel formation to the + Heb. Noah. In a tablet dated in the reign of Zabium, the founder of + the dynasty to which Khammu-rabi or Amraphel belonged, we find the + name of Ya-kh-ku-ub-il, _i.e._ Ya’qub-il (Bu. 91-5-9, 387). + +Footnote 80: + + Iqib-ilu and Asupi-ilu. + +Footnote 81: + + See _Records of the Past_, new ser., v. pp. 48, 51. + +Footnote 82: + + One of the scarabs of Ya’qob-el is in the Egyptian Museum of + University College, London. _El_ is written _h(a)l_. + +Footnote 83: + + On the summit of the hill above Beitîn, the ancient Beth-On or + Beth-el, the strata of limestone rock take the form of vast steps + rising one above the other. + +Footnote 84: + + Cf. the article of Mr. Pinches on ‘Gifts to a Babylonian Bit-ili’ in + the _Babylonian and Oriental Record_, ii. 6. + +Footnote 85: + + See, for example, Peiser, _Texte juristischen und geschäftlichen + Inhalts_ (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, iv.), p. 49, No. iii., + where Ubarum hires himself out to Ana-Samas-litsi for a month, for + half a shekel of silver. + +Footnote 86: + + _Records of the Past_, new ser., v. p. 169. + +Footnote 87: + + Deut. xxxii. 15. See also Deut. xxxiii. 5, 26; Isa. xliv. 2. + +Footnote 88: + + According to immemorial tradition, the site of the field is marked by + Jacob’s Well (S. John iv. 6). Dr. Masterman in the _Quarterly + Statement_ of the Palestine Exploration Fund, April 1897, gives for + the first time a satisfactory explanation why this deep well, which is + often dry in summer, should have been sunk in the neighbourhood of a + number of springs:—‘The springs have probably always belonged to the + townsfolk (since they became settled); and, in the case of any + wandering tribes with considerable flocks among them, it is + exceedingly probable that the more settled inhabitants would first + resent and then resist the new-comers marching twice daily into their + midst to water their flocks at their springs, Probably any experienced + nomad with such flocks, accustomed to such a country as this, would + know pretty surely where he might, from the conformation of the hills, + expect to find water. If, then, a quarrel arose, what more probable + than that he should seek to make himself independent of these + disagreeable neighbours. Further, if we can accept the tradition, we + have, in the story of Jacob, two special facts connected with this: + firstly, he bought a piece of ground on which he could make a well for + himself; and then we gather from Genesis xxxiv. that his family made + themselves sufficiently obnoxious to the Shechemites to make it very + necessary for Jacob to be independent of their permission to use their + springs.’ + +Footnote 89: + + Cf. Gen. xlix. 14, 15. The Hebrew word rendered ‘two burdens’ by the + Authorised Version in v. 14 should be translated ‘sheepfolds,’ as it + is in Judg. v. 16. + +Footnote 90: + + Thus the ancient Abshek, the Abokkis of classical geography, has + become Abu Simbel, or ‘father of an ear of corn’; and Silsila is said + to have derived its name from a ‘chain’ or _silsila_ stretched across + the Nile from the rocks on either bank, though it really has its + origin in the classical Silsilis, the Coptic Joljel or ‘barrier.’ + +Footnote 91: + + In the list of Thothmes III. the name of Nekeb of Galilee (Josh. xix. + 33) is followed by that of Ashushkhen, which may be compared with + Issachar, since the interchange of final _n_ and _r_ is not uncommon. + But the substitution of _kh_ for _k_ (_ch_) is difficult to account + for. + +Footnote 92: + + Shmâna is the thirty-fifth name in the Palestine list of Thothmes, and + follows the name of Chinnereth (Josh. xix. 35; comp. also Shmânau, No. + 18. See Tomkins in _Records of the Past_, new series, v. pp. 44, 46). + One of the Tel el-Amarna tablets (W. and A. ii., No. 39) mentions ‘the + Yaudu’ in the neighbourhood of Tunip, now Tennib, north-west of + Aleppo. The name of the Jews is written in the same way in the + cuneiform texts, though the Yaudu of the Tel el-Amarna tablets are + probably to be identified with the land of Ya’di, which the + inscriptions of Sinjerli place in Northern Syria. But it is noticeable + that the Tel el-Amarna correspondence makes Kinza a district near + Kadesh on the Orontes, close to the Lake of Homs, and Kinza is letter + for letter the Biblical Kenaz. The Kenizzites, it will be remembered, + formed an integral part of the later tribe of Judah. + +Footnote 93: + + Hommel, _Aufsätze und Abhandlungen sur Kunde der Sprachen, Literaturen + und der Geschichte des vorderen Orients_ (1890), p. 31. + +Footnote 94: + + The Rev. H. G. Tomkins (_Quarterly Statement_ of the Palestine + Exploration Fund, April 1885) first pointed out the true signification + of the name of Beth-lehem, Lakhmu was one of the primeval gods of + Chaldæan religion. + +Footnote 95: + + The village of Rachel, which was probably where the stone stood, is + referred to in 1 Sam. xxx. 29. + +Footnote 96: + + _E.g._ _Yeôr_, ‘river,’ Egyptian _aur_; _akhu_, ‘herbage on the river + bank’ (Gen. xli. 2), Egyptian _akhu_; _rebid_, ‘collar,’ Egyptian + _repit_. See Ebers, _Aegypten und die Bücher Mose’s_, pp. 337-339. + +Footnote 97: + + See my _Egypt of the Hebrews and Herodotos_, pp. 25 _sq._ + +Footnote 98: + + See Tomkins, _Life and Times of Joseph_, p. 184. + +Footnote 99: + + Asenath is probably Nes-Nit, ‘Attached to Neith,’ as Subanda is + Nes-Bandid, ‘Attached to Bandid.’ + +Footnote 100: + + Mattan-Baal. The corresponding Hebrew name is Mattaniah. + +Footnote 101: + + A translation of the Sallier Papyrus is given by Maspero in the + _Records of the Past_, new series, ii. pp. 37 _sq._ For the scarab of + ‘Sutekh-Apopi’ see Maspero’s _Struggle of the Nations_ (Eng. tr.), p. + vii. The names of Beth-On or Beth-el in Canaan, and of On near + Damascus (Amos i. 5), indicate a connection with the cult of the + Sun-god at On in Egypt. On in the ‘Beka’’ of Damascus is probably the + Heliopolis of Syria, to which the worship of Ra of Heliopolis of Egypt + was brought in the reign of the Pharaoh Senemures (Macrobius, + _Saturnal._ i. 23, 10). + +Footnote 102: + + _Aegypten und die Bücher Mose’s_, p. 299. + +Footnote 103: + + Maspero, _The Struggle of the Nations_, p. 271, note 5. + +Footnote 104: + + Cf. Brugsch, _Aegyptologie_, pp. 218 _sq._ + +Footnote 105: + + Ebers, _Aegypten und die Bücher Mose’s_, pp. 323-333. + +Footnote 106: + + Ebers, _l.c._, pp. 335, 336. + +Footnote 107: + + See Wiedemann, _Religion der alten Aegypter_, pp. 142-144. The + _khartummîm_ and _khakâmîm_ (Authorised Version, ‘magicians’ and ‘wise + men’) seem to correspond with the Egyptian _kherhebu_, ‘interpreters + of the sacred books,’ and _rekhu khetu_, ‘wise men.’ + +Footnote 108: + + See Tomkins, _Life and Times of Joseph_, p. 44; Erman, _Life in + Ancient Egypt_ (Eng. tr.), p. 439. + +Footnote 109: + + Mariette, _Abydos_, p. 421 (Ben-Mazan from Bashan becomes + Ramses-em-per-Ra); Daninos-Pasha and Maspero in the _Recueil de + Travaux relatifs à la Philologie et à l’ Archéologie égyptienne et + assyrienne_, xii. p. 214; and Sayce in the _Academy_, 1891, p. 461. + +Footnote 110: + + See Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_ (Eng. tr.), p. 439. + +Footnote 111: + + See Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_ (Eng. tr.), pp. 102, 103. + +Footnote 112: + + Thus ‘Captain’ Ahmes had land given him according to his biographical + inscription, ll. 22, 24; see Brugsch, _Egypt under the Pharaohs_ (Eng. + tr.), second edit. i. p. 249. + +Footnote 113: + + See Virey in _Records of the Past_, new ser., iii. pp. 7 _sqq._ There + were similar public granaries in Babylonia called _sutummi_, under the + charge of an officer who bore the title of _satammu_, and the + institution was probably introduced into Egypt from Asia. + +Footnote 114: + + Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_ (Eng. tr.), p. 108. + +Footnote 115: + + See Brugsch’s translation of the inscription in his _Die biblischen + sieben Jahre der Hungersnoth_ (1891). + +Footnote 116: + + See Brugsch, _Egypt under the Pharaohs_ (Eng. tr.), 2nd edit., i. pp. + 262, 263. ‘Captain’ Ahmes, who took part in the War of Independence + under Ahmes I., calls himself the son of Abana, and traces his descent + to his ‘forefather Baba.’ In Abana, Maspero (_The Struggle of the + Nations_, p. 85) sees the Semitic Abîna, ‘Our father.’ + +Footnote 117: + + Thus in the Tel el-Amarna tablets, Rib-Hadad, the governor of + Phœnicia, asks the Pharaoh to send corn to Gebal, as the crops there + had failed (Winckler and Abel, No. 48, ll. 8-19), and Meneptah sent + corn to the Hittites when they suffered from a famine (Brugsch, _Egypt + under the Pharaohs_, Eng. tr., 2nd edit., ii. p. 119). + +Footnote 118: + + According to Abulfarag (_Chron._ p. 14), Joseph became Vizier in the + seventeenth year of the reign of Apopi. Maspero (_Struggle of the + Nations_, pp. 59, 107) makes Apopi Ra-aa-kenen the third of the name. + +Footnote 119: + + See Maspero’s translation in _Records of the Past_, new ser., ii. pp. + 37 _sq._ + +Footnote 120: + + E. Naville, _Goshen and the Shrine of Saft el-Hennah_, Fourth Memoir + of the Egypt Exploration Fund (1887), pp. 14 _sq._ + +Footnote 121: + + See Naville, _Goshen_, p. 26. + +Footnote 122: + + _Bibl. Hist._, i. 91. + +Footnote 123: + + N. H. xix. 5. + +Footnote 124: + + Abel-Mizraim may be the Abel that is mentioned in connection with the + ‘gardens,’ the ‘tilth,’ and the ‘spring’ of Carmel of Judah in the + list of places in Canaan conquered by Thothmes III. (No. 92). Another + Abel is mentioned two names earlier (No. 90). + +Footnote 125: + + See Virey’s translation in _Records of the Past_, new ser., iii. p. + 34. + + + + + CHAPTER II + THE COMPOSITION OF THE PENTATEUCH + + + The Literary Analysis and its Conclusions—Based on a Theory and an + Assumption—Weakness of the Philological Evidence—Disregard of the + Scientific Method of Comparison—Imperfection of our Knowledge of + Hebrew—Archæology unfavourable to the Higher Criticism—Analysis of + Historical Sources—Tel el-Amarna Tablets—Antiquity of Writing in the + East—The Mosaic Age highly Literary—Scribes mentioned in the Song of + Deborah—The Story of the Deluge brought from Babylonia to Canaan + before the time of Moses—The Narratives of the Pentateuch confirmed + by Archæology—Compiled from early Written Documents—Revised and + re-edited from time to time—Three Strata of Legislation—Accuracy in + the Text—Tendencies—Chronology. + + +The book of Genesis ends with the death of Joseph. When the five books +of the Pentateuch were divided from one another we do not know. The +division is older than the Septuagint translation, older too than the +time when the Law of Moses was accepted by the Samaritans as divinely +authoritative. As far back as we can trace the external history of the +Pentateuch, it has consisted of five books divided from one another as +they still are in our present Bibles. + +An influential school of modern critics has come to conclusions which +are difficult to reconcile with this external testimony. Instead of the +Pentateuch it offers us a Hexateuch, the Book of Joshua being added to +those of Moses, and of the origin and growth of this Hexateuch it +professes to be able to give a minute and mathematically exact account. +Very little, if any of it, we are told, goes back to the period of +Moses, the larger part of the work having been composed or compiled in +the age of the Exile. It is true, the theories of criticism have changed +from time to time; what was formerly held, for instance, to be the +oldest portion of the Hexateuch being now regarded as the latest; but +each generation of critics has been equally confident that its own +literary analysis was mathematically correct. At present the +hypothetical scheme most in favour is as follows. + +The earliest part of the Hexateuch, at all events in its existing form, +is a document distinguished by the use of the name Yahveh, and sometimes +therefore termed Yahvistic or Jehovistic, but more usually designated by +the symbol J. The Yahvist is supposed to have been a Jew who made use of +older materials, and lived in the ninth century B.C. His work begins +with ‘the second’ account of the Creation, in the middle of the fourth +verse of the second chapter of Genesis, and the last trace of it is to +be found in the story of the death and burial of Moses at the end of +Deuteronomy. His style is said to be naïve and lively, and his +conceptions of the Deity grossly anthropomorphic. + +Next in order to the Yahvist comes the Second Elohist (symbolised by the +letter E), whose title is derived from the period, not very far distant, +in the history of criticism, when what is now known as the Priestly Code +was assigned to a First Elohist. The Elohist is characterised by the use +of the word Elohim, ‘God,’ rather than Yahveh, and the critics have +discovered in him a native of the northern kingdom. To him belong the +‘Ten Words’ which represent the original form of the Ten Commandments, +as well as the history of Joseph. He is said to have written with a +certain theological tendency, to which is due his predilection for +introducing dreams and angels into his narrative. His date is ascribed +to the eighth century B.C., and the combination of his narrative with +that of the Yahvist (J.E.) produced a composite work to which the name +of Prophetic or Pre-Deuteronomic Redaction has been applied. The +Redactor endeavoured to reconcile the contradictions between the two +narratives by various harmonistic expedients; his success was not great, +and the nineteenth century critic accordingly believes himself able not +only to separate the two original documents, but to point out the +additions of the Redactor as well. + +Contemporaneous with this work of redaction was the appearance of a new +book, the so-called Book of the Covenant. This was of small dimensions; +at any rate, all that remains of it is contained in a few chapters of +Exodus (xx. 24-xxiii. 33, xxiv. 3-8). It was added, however, to the +Prophetic Redaction, and the Mosaic Law for the first time was +introduced to the world. + +But now appeared a book which was of momentous consequences for both the +history and the religion of Judah. This was the book of Deuteronomy, or +rather the middle portion of the book of Deuteronomy (chaps. xii-xxvi.), +the rest of the book being a subsequent addition. This abbreviated +Deuteronomy, it is assumed, is ‘the book of the Law’ which Hilkiah the +high priest declared he had ‘found in the house of the Lord’ in the +reign of Josiah, and it is further assumed that the word ‘found’ is +intended to cover a ‘pious fraud.’ The Egyptian inscriptions mention +books of early date which had been similarly ‘found’ in the temples, and +some of these books really seem to have been forgeries of a later +date.[126] Modern criticism has determined that Hilkiah and his friends +imitated the example of the Egyptian priests in the case of Deuteronomy. +At all events, the results were instantaneous and revolutionary. The +king and his court believed that they had before them the actual +commands of their God to the great lawgiver of Israel, and the Jewish +religion underwent accordingly a radical reform. Nor did the effect of +the supposed discovery end here. Like the forged Decretals in mediæval +Europe, the book of Deuteronomy had a continuous and wide-reaching +influence upon Jewish thought. Its teaching was matured during the +Exile, and out of it grew that form of Jewish religion of which +Christianity was the heir. The book of Deuteronomy (symbolised by D) in +the first as well as in the second or enlarged edition belongs to the +latter part of the seventh century B.C. But the Hexateuch was still far +from complete. During the Exile a book of the Law, now contained in Lev. +xvii.-xxvi., was written and promulgated, the author, it appears, having +been incited to his work by Ezekiel’s ideal of a theocratic state. This +book of the Law was followed by a far more ambitious production, the +‘Priestly Code’ (generally known as P, and not unfrequently called the +‘Grundschrift’ by German writers). The Priestly Code embodies what +earlier critics knew as the work of the First Elohist; it not only in +the name of Moses shapes the ritual and religion of Israel to the +advantage of the priests, but it attempts to trace the history of the +revelation which resulted in that religion back to the Creation itself. +The name of Elohim is again a distinguishing feature in the narrative, +which is described by the ‘critics’ as formal and pedantic, as +affectedly archaistic, and as disfigured by a strong theological +tendency. Wellhausen and Stade assure us that it transforms the +patriarchs into pious Jews of the Exile. And yet it was just this +narrative, which we are now told bears so plainly on its face the marks +of its late age and sacerdotal character, that hardly twenty years ago +was declared by the critics themselves to be the oldest portion of the +Hexateuch! + +By this time the Hexateuch was nearly ready to become the Pentateuch, +which should be read by Ezra before the Jewish community as ‘the law of +God’ (Nem. viii. 8), and be accepted by the hostile Samaritans as alone +authoritative among the sacred books of Israel. All that was needed +further was to combine the existing books into a whole, smoothing over +the inconsistencies between them and supplying links of connection. The +‘final Redactor’ who accomplished this task lived shortly after the +Exile, and has been identified with Ezra by some of the critics. Whoever +he was, he was naturally more in harmony with the spirit and ideas of +the Priestly Code than he was with those of the Prophetic Redaction, or +even of Deuteronomy; indeed, it is hard to understand why he should have +troubled himself about the Prophetic Redaction at all. Between the +Jewish religion of the days of Asa or Jehoshaphat and that of the period +after the Exile a great gulf was fixed. + +It is clear that if the modern literary analysis of the Pentateuch is +justified, it is useless to look to the five books of Moses for +authentic history. There is nothing in them which can be ascribed with +certainty to the age of Moses, nothing which goes back even to the age +of the Judges. Between the Exodus out of Egypt and the composition of +the earliest portion of the so-called Mosaic Law there would have been a +dark and illiterate interval of several centuries. Not even tradition +could be trusted to span them. For the Mosaic age, and still more for +the age before the Exodus, all that we read in the Old Testament would +be historically valueless. + +Such criticism, therefore, as accepts the results of ‘the literary +analysis’ of the Hexateuch acts consistently in stamping as mythical the +whole period of Hebrew history which precedes the settlement of the +Israelitish tribes in Canaan. Doubt is thrown even on their residence in +Egypt and subsequent escape from ‘the house of bondage.’ Moses himself +becomes a mere figure of mythland, a hero of popular imagination whose +sepulchre was unknown because it had never been occupied. In order to +discredit the earlier records of the Israelitish people, there is no +need of indicating contradictions—real or otherwise—in the details of +the narratives contained in them, of enlarging upon their chronological +difficulties, or of pointing to the supernatural elements they involve; +the late dates assigned to the medley of documents which have been +discovered in the Hexateuch are sufficient of themselves to settle the +question.[127] + +The dates are largely, if not altogether, dependent on the assumption +that Hebrew literature is not older than the age of David. A few poems +like the Song of Deborah may have been handed down orally from an +earlier period, but readers and writers, it is assumed, there were none. +The use of writing for literary purposes was coeval with the rise of the +monarchy. The oldest inscription in the letters of the Phœnician +alphabet yet discovered is only of the ninth century B.C., and the +alphabet would have been employed for monumental purposes long before it +was applied to the manufacture of books. As Wolf’s theory of the origin +and late date of the Homeric Poems avowedly rested on the belief that +the literary use of writing in Greece was of late date, so too the +theory of the analysts of the Hexateuch rests tacitly on the belief that +the Israelites of the age of Moses and the Judges were wholly +illiterate. Moses did not write the Pentateuch because he could not have +done so. + +The huge edifice of modern Pentateuchal criticism is thus based on a +theory and an assumption. The theory is that of ‘the literary analysis’ +of the Hexateuch, the assumption that a knowledge of writing in Israel +was of comparatively late date. The theory, however, is philological, +not historical. The analysis is philological rather than literary, and +depends entirely on the occurrence and use of certain words and phrases. +Lists have been drawn up of the words and phrases held to be peculiar to +the different writers between whom the Hexateuch is divided, and the +portion of the Hexateuch to be assigned to each is determined +accordingly. That it is sometimes necessary to cut a verse in two, +somewhat to the injury of the sense, matters but little; the necessities +of the theory require the sacrifice, and the analyst looks no further. +Great things grow out of little, and the mathematical minuteness with +which the Hexateuch is apportioned among its numerous authors, and the +long lists of words and idioms by which the apportionment is supported, +all have their origin in Astruc’s separation of the book of Genesis into +two documents, in one of which the name of Yahveh is used, while in the +other it is replaced by Elohim.[128] + +The historian, however, is inclined to look with suspicion upon +historical results which rest upon purely philological evidence. It is +not so very long ago since the comparative philologists believed they +had restored the early history of the Aryan race. With the help of the +dictionary and grammar they had painted an idyllic picture of the life +and culture of the primitive Aryan family and traced the migrations of +its offshoots from their primeval Asiatic home. But anthropology has +rudely dissipated all these reconstructions of primitive history, and +has not spared even the Aryan family or the Asiatic home itself. The +history that was based on philology has been banished to fairyland. It +may be that the historical results based on the complicated and +ingenious system of Hexateuchal criticism will hereafter share the same +fate. + +In fact, there is one characteristic of them which cannot but excite +suspicion. A passage which runs counter to the theory of the critic is +at once pronounced an interpolation, due to the clumsy hand of some +later ‘Redactor.’ Thus ‘the tabernacle of the congregation’ is declared +to have been an invention of the Priestly Code; and therefore a verse in +the First Book of Samuel (ii. 22), which happens to refer to it, is +arbitrarily expunged from the text. Similarly passages in the historical +books which imply an acquaintance on the part of Solomon and his +successors with the laws and institutions of the Priestly Code are +asserted to be late additions, and assigned to the very circle of +writers to which the composition of the Code is credited. Indeed, if we +are to believe the analysts, a considerable part of the professedly +historical literature of the Old Testament was written or ‘redacted’ +chiefly with the purpose of bolstering up the ideas and inventions +either of the Deuteronomist or of the later Code. This is a cheap and +easy way of rewriting ancient history, but it is neither scientific nor +in accordance with the historical method, however consonant it may be +with the methods of the philologist. + +When, however, we come to examine the philological evidence upon which +we are asked to accept this new reading of ancient Hebrew history, we +find that it is wofully defective. We are asked to believe that a +European scholar of the nineteenth century can analyse with mathematical +precision a work composed centuries ago in the East for Eastern readers +in a language that is long since dead, can dissolve it verse by verse, +and even word by word, into its several elements, and fix the +approximate date and relation of each. The accomplishment of such a feat +is an impossibility, and to attempt it is to sin as much against common +sense as against the laws of science. Science teaches us that we can +attain to truth only by the help of comparison; we can know things +scientifically only in so far as they can be compared and measured one +with another. Where there is no comparison there can be no scientific +result. Even the logicians of the Middle Ages taught that no conclusion +can be drawn from what they termed a single instance. It is just this, +however, that the Hexateuchal critics have essayed to do. The Pentateuch +and its history have been compared with nothing except themselves, and +the results have been derived not from the method of comparison, but +from the so-called ‘tact’ and arbitrary judgment of the individual +scholar. Certain postulates have been assumed, the consequences of which +have been gradually evolved, one after another, while the coherence and +credibility of the general hypothesis has been supported by the +invention of further subordinate hypotheses as the need for them arose. +The ‘critical’ theory of the origin and character of the Hexateuch +closely resembles the Ptolemaic theory of the universe; like the latter, +it is highly complicated and elaborate, coherent in itself, and perfect +on paper, but unfortunately baseless in reality. + +Its very complication condemns it. It is too ingenious to be true. Had +the Hexateuch been pieced together as we are told it was, it would have +required a special revelation to discover the fact. We may lay it down +as a general rule in science that the more simple a theory is, the more +likely it is to be correct. It is the complicated theories, which demand +all kinds of subsidiary qualifications and assistant hypotheses, that +are put aside by the progress of science. The wit of man may be great, +but it needs a mass of material before even a simple theory can be +established with any pretence to scientific value. + +There is yet another reason why the new theory of the origin of the +Mosaic Law stands self-condemned. It deals with the writers and readers +of the ancient East as if they were modern German professors and their +literary audience. The author of the Priestly Code is supposed to go to +work with scissors and paste, and with a particular object in view, like +a rather wooden and unimaginative compiler of to-day. And so closely did +the minds and methods of the authors of the Hexateuch resemble those of +their modern European critics, that in spite of their efforts to conceal +the piecemeal nature of their work, as well as of the fact that it +actually deceived their countrymen to whom it was addressed, to the +European scholar of to-day it all lies open and revealed. When, however, +we turn to other products of Oriental thought, whether ancient or +modern, we do not find that this is the way in which the authors of them +have written history, or what purports to be history, neither do we find +their readers to be at all like those for whom the Hexateuch is supposed +to have been compiled. The point of view of an Oriental is still +essentially different from that of a European, at all events so far as +history and literature are concerned; and the attempt to transform the +ancient Israelitish historians into somewhat inferior German compilers +proves only a strange want of familiarity with Eastern modes of thought. + +But it is not only science, it is common sense as well, which is +violated by the endeavour to foist philological speculations into the +treatment of historical questions. Hebrew is a dead language; it is +moreover a language which is but imperfectly known. Our knowledge of it +is derived entirely from that fragment of its literature which is +preserved in the Old Testament, and the errors of copyists and the +corruptions of the text make a good deal even of this obscure and +doubtful. There are numerous words, the traditional rendering of which +is questionable; there are numerous others in the case of which it is +certainly wrong; and there is passage after passage in which the +translations of scholars vary from one another, sometimes even to +contradiction. Of both grammar and lexicon it may be said that we see +them through a glass darkly. Not unfrequently the reading of the +Septuagint—the earliest manuscript of which is six hundred years older +than the earliest manuscript of the Hebrew text—differs entirely from +the reading of the Hebrew; and there is a marked tendency among the +Hexateuchal analysts to prefer it, though the recently-discovered Hebrew +text of the book of Ecclesiasticus seems to show that the preference is +not altogether justified. + +How, then, can a modern Western scholar analyse with even approximate +exactitude an ancient Hebrew work, and on the strength of the language +and style dissolve it once more into its component atoms? How can he +determine the relation of these atoms one to the other, or presume to +fix the dates to which they severally belong? The task would be +impossible even in the case of a modern English book, although English +is a spoken language with which we are all supposed to be thoroughly +acquainted, while its vast literature is familiar to us all. And yet +even where we know that a work is composite, it passes the power of man +to separate it into its elements and define the limits of each. No one, +for instance, would dream of attempting such a task in the case of the +novels of Besant and Rice; and the endeavour to distinguish in certain +plays of Shakespeare what belongs to the poet himself and what to +Fletcher has met with the oblivion it deserved. Is it likely that a +problem which cannot be solved in the case of an English book can be +solved where its difficulties are increased a thousandfold? The +minuteness and apparent precision of Hexateuchal criticism are simply +due, like that of the Ptolemaic theory, to the artificial character of +the basis on which it rests. It is, in fact, a philological mirage; it +attempts the impossible, and in place of the scientific method of +comparison, it gives us as a starting-point the assumptions and +arbitrary principles of a one-sided critic.[129] + +Where philology has failed, archæology has come to our help. The needful +comparison of the Old Testament record with something else than itself +has been afforded by the discoveries which have been made of recent +years in Egypt and Babylonia and other parts of the ancient East. At +last we are able to call in the aid of the scientific method, and test +the age and character, the authenticity and trustworthiness of the Old +Testament history, by monuments about whose historical authority there +can be no question. And the result of the test has, on the whole, been +in favour of tradition, and against the doctrines of the newer critical +school. It has vindicated the antiquity and credibility of the +narratives of the Pentateuch; it has proved that the Mosaic age was a +highly literary one, and that consequently the marvel would be, not that +Moses should have written, but that he should not have done so; and it +has undermined the foundation on which the documentary hypothesis of the +origin of the Hexateuch has been built. We are still indeed only at the +beginning of discoveries; those made during the past year or two have +for the student of Genesis been exceptionally important; but enough has +now been gained to assure us that the historian may safely disregard the +philological theory of Hexateuchal criticism, and treat the books of the +Pentateuch from a wholly different point of view. They are a historical +record, and it is for the historian and archæologist, and not for the +grammarian, to determine their value and age. + +The investigation of the literary sources of history has been a +peculiarly German pastime. Doubtless such an investigation has been +necessary. But it is exposed to the danger of trying to make bricks +without straw. More often than not the materials are wanting for +arriving at conclusions of solid scientific value. The results announced +in such cases are due partly to the critic’s own prepossessions and +postulates, partly to the imperfection of the evidence. It is easy to +doubt, still easier to deny, especially where the evidence is defective, +and the criticism of the literary sources of a narrative has sometimes +meant an unwarrantable and unintelligent scepticism. To reverse +traditional judgments, to reject external testimony, and to discover +half-a-dozen authors where antiquity knew of but one, may be a proof of +the critic’s ingenuity, but it does not always demonstrate his +appreciation of evidence. + +Criticism of the literary sources of our historical knowledge is indeed +necessary, and a recognition of the fact has much to do with the advance +which has been made during the present century in the study of the past. +But it must not be forgotten that such criticism has its weak side. +Internal evidence alone is always unsatisfactory; it offers too much +scope for the play of the critic’s imagination and the impression of his +own idiosyncrasies upon the records of history. It resembles too much +the procedure of the spider who spins his web out of himself. It is +wanting in that element of comparison without which scientific truth is +unattainable. To determine the age and trustworthiness of our literary +authorities is doubtless of extreme importance to the historian, but +unfortunately the materials for doing so are too often absent, and the +fancies and assumptions of the critic are put in their place. + +The trustworthiness of an author, like the reality of the facts he +narrates, can be adequately tested in only one way. We must be able to +compare his accounts of past events with other contemporaneous records +of them. Sometimes these records consist of pottery or other products of +human industry which anthropology is able to interpret; often they are +the far more important inscriptions which were written or engraved by +the actors in the events themselves. In other words, it is to archæology +that we must look for a verification or the reverse of the ancient +history that has been handed down to us as well as of the credibility of +its narrators. The written monuments of the ancient East which belong to +the same age as the patriarchs or Moses can alone assure us whether we +are to trust the narrative of the Pentateuch or to see in it a confused +medley of legends the late date of which makes belief in them +impossible. + +As has been said above, Oriental archæology has already disclosed +sufficient to show us to which of these two alternatives we must lean. +On the one hand, much of the history contained in the book of Genesis +has been shown, directly or indirectly, to be authentic; on the other +hand, the new-fangled theory of the composition of the Hexateuch has +been decisively ruled out of court. Let us take the second point first. + +In 1887 a large collection of clay tablets inscribed with cuneiform +characters was found by the Egyptian fellahin among the ruins of the +ancient city now known as Tel el-Amarna, on the eastern bank of the +Nile, about midway between Minieh and Siût. The city had enjoyed but a +brief existence. Towards the close of the eighteenth dynasty, the +Pharaoh, Amenophis III., had died, leaving the throne to his son, +Amenophis IV., a mere lad, who was still under the influence of his +mother Teie. Teie was of Asiatic extraction, and fanatically devoted to +an Asiatic form of faith. This devotion was shared by her son, and soon +began to bear fruit. Amon of Thebes had to make way for a new deity, who +was worshipped under the visible form of the solar disk, and the old +religion of Egypt of which the Pharaoh was the official head was utterly +proscribed. It was not long before the Pharaoh and the powerful +hierarchy of Thebes were at open war; the very name of Amon was erased +from the monuments where it occurred, and the king changed his own name +to that of Khu-n-Aten, ‘the glory of the Solar Disk.’ But in the end, +Khu-n-Aten had to quit the capital of his fathers and establish himself +with his adherents and courtiers in a new city further north. This city, +Khut-Aten, as. it was called, is now represented by the mounds of Tel +el-Amarna. + +Here the Pharaoh was surrounded by his followers, a large proportion of +whom were Asiatics, chiefly from Canaan. The court of Egypt, as well as +its religion, became Asiatised. The revolution in religion was also +accompanied by a revolution in art. The old hieratic canon of Egyptian +art was cast aside, and an excessive realism was aimed at, sometimes +even to the verge of caricature. In the centre of the new city a temple +was raised to the new divinity of Egypt, and hard by the temple rose the +palace of the king. Its ornamentation was surpassingly gorgeous. Its +walls and columns were inlaid with precious stones, with coloured glass +and gold; even its floors were painted with scenes from nature which are +of the highest artistic excellence, and statues were erected, some of +which remind us of the best work of classical Greece.[130] + +But the glory of Khut-Aten was short-lived. The latter years of the +reign of its founder were clouded with religious and civil dissension. +Religious persecution at home had been followed by trouble and revolt +abroad in the Asiatic provinces of the Empire. When Khu-n-Aten died, his +enemies were already pressing around him, and the perils that threatened +him in Egypt obliged him to return no answer to the despairing appeals +for help that came to him from his governors in Palestine. Hardly had +the mummy of the king been deposited in the superb tomb that he had +carved out of a mountain amid the desolation and solitude of a distant +gorge, when the spoiler was at hand. The royal sarcophagus never reached +the niche in which it was intended to be placed; the enemies of the +‘Heretic King’ hacked to pieces its granite sides as it lay upon the +floor of the inner chamber, and scattered to the winds the remains of +its occupant. The destruction of Khut-Aten soon followed; one or two +princes of the family of Khu-n-Aten did indeed struggle for a brief +while to maintain themselves upon his throne, but before long Amon +triumphed over the Solar Disk. The great temple of Aten was razed to the +ground, and its stones carried away to serve as materials for the +sanctuaries of the victorious god of Thebes. The palace of Khu-n-Aten +was destroyed, the religion he had essayed to force upon his subjects +was forgotten, and the Asiatic officials who had filled his court were +driven into exile. The city he had built was deserted, never to be +inhabited again. + +The clay tablets found by the fellahin were discovered on the site of +the Foreign Office of the ‘Heretic King,’ the bricks of which were each +stamped with the words ‘The Record Office of Aten-Ra.’[131] It adjoined +the palace, and we learn from a clay seal found among its ruins by +Professor Petrie that it was under the control of a Babylonian. This, +however, was not extraordinary, since the foreign correspondence of the +Pharaoh was carried on in the Babylonian language and the Babylonian +system of writing. In fact, the Tel el-Amarna tablets have shown that +the Western Asia conquered by the Egyptian kings of the eighteenth +dynasty was wholly under the domination of Babylonian culture. All over +the civilised Oriental world, from the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates +to those of the Nile, the common medium of literary and diplomatic +intercourse was the language and script of Chaldæa. Not only the writing +material, but all that was written upon it, was borrowed from Babylonia. +So powerful was this Babylonian influence, that the Egyptians themselves +were compelled to submit to it. In place of their own singular and less +cumbrous hieratic or cursive script, they had to communicate with their +Asiatic subjects and allies in the cuneiform characters and the +Babylonian tongue. Indeed, there is evidence that the memoranda made by +the official scribes of the Pharaoh’s court, at all events in Palestine, +were compiled in the same foreign speech and syllabary.[132] That the +Babylonian language and script were studied in Egypt itself we know from +the evidence of the Tel el-Amarna tablets. Among them have been found +fragments of dictionaries as well as Babylonian mythological tales. In +one of the latter certain of the words and phrases are separated from +one another in order to assist the learner. + +The use of the Babylonian language and system of writing in Western Asia +must have been of considerable antiquity. This is proved by the fact +that the characters had gradually assumed peculiar forms in the +different countries in which they were employed, so that by merely +glancing at the form of the writing we can tell whether a tablet was +written in Palestine or in Northern Syria, in Cappadocia or Mesopotamia. +The knowledge of them, moreover, was not confined to the few. On the +contrary, education must have been widely spread; the Tel el-Amarna +correspondence was carried on, not only by professional scribes, but +also by officials, by soldiers, and by merchants. Even women appear +among the writers, and take part in the politics of the day. The +letters, too, are sometimes written about the most trivial matters, and +not unfrequently enter into the most unimportant details. + +They were sent from all parts of the known civilised world. The kings of +Babylonia and Assyria, of Mesopotamia and Cappadocia, the Egyptian +governors of Syria and Canaan, even the chiefs of the Bedâwin tribes on +the Egyptian frontier, who were subsidised by the Pharaoh’s government +like the Afghan chiefs of to-day, all alike contributed to the +correspondence. Letters, in fact, must have been constantly passing to +and fro along the high-roads which intersected Western Asia. From one +end of it to the other the population was in perpetual literary +intercourse, proving that the Oriental world in the century before the +Exodus was as highly educated and literary as was Europe in the age of +the Renaissance. Nor was all this literary activity and intercourse a +new thing. Several of the letters had been sent to Amenophis III., the +father of the ‘Heretic King,’ and had been removed by the latter from +the archives of Thebes when he transferred his residence to his new +capital. And the literary intercourse which was carried on in the time +of Amenophis III. was merely a continuation of that which had been +carried on for centuries previously. The culture of Babylonia, like that +of Egypt, was essentially literary, and this culture had been spread +over Western Asia from a remote date. The letters of Khammu-rabi or +Amraphel to his vassal, the king of Larsa, have just been recovered, and +among the multitudinous contract-tablets of the same epoch are specimens +of commercial correspondence. + +We have, however, only to consider for a moment what was meant by +learning the language and script of Babylonia in order to realise what a +highly-organised system of education must have prevailed throughout the +whole civilised world of the day. Not only had the Babylonian language +to be acquired, but some knowledge also of the older agglutinative +language of Chaldæa was also needed in order to understand the system of +writing. It was as if the schoolboy of to-day had to add a knowledge of +Greek to a knowledge of French. And the system of writing itself +involved years of hard and patient study. It consisted of a syllabary +containing hundreds of characters, each of which had not only several +different phonetic values, but several different ideographic +significations as well. Nor was this all. A group of characters might be +used ideographically to express a word the pronunciation of which had +nothing to do with the sounds of the individual characters of which it +was composed. The number of ideographs which had to be learned was thus +increased fivefold. And, unlike the hieroglyphs of Egypt, the forms of +these ideographs gave no assistance to the memory. They had long since +lost all resemblance to the pictures out of which they had originally +been developed, and consisted simply of various combinations of wedges +or lines. It was difficult enough for the Babylonian or Assyrian to +learn the syllabary; for a foreigner the task was almost herculean. + +That it should have been undertaken implies the existence of libraries +and schools. One of the distinguishing features of Babylonian culture +were the libraries which existed in the great towns, and wherever +Babylonian culture was carried this feature of it must have gone too. +Hence in the libraries of Western Asia clay books inscribed with +cuneiform characters must have been stored up, while beside them must +have been the schools, where the pupils bent over their exercises and +the teachers instructed them in the language and script of the +foreigner. The world into which Moses was born was a world as literary +as our own. + +If Western Asia were the home of a long-established literary culture, +Egypt was even more so. From time immemorial the land of the Pharaohs +had been a land of writers and readers. At a very early period the +hieroglyphic system of writing had been modified into a cursive hand, +the so-called hieratic; and as far back as the days of the third and +fifth dynasties famous books had been written, and the author of one of +them, Ptah-hotep, already deplores the degeneracy and literary decay of +his own time. The traveller up the Nile, who examines the cliffs that +line the river, cannot but be struck by the multitudinous names that are +scratched upon them. He is at times inclined to believe that every +Egyptian in ancient times knew how to write, and had little else to do +than to scribble a record of himself on the rocks. The impression is the +same that we derive from the small objects which are disinterred in such +thousands from the sites of the old cities. Wherever it is possible, an +inscription has been put upon them, which, it seems taken for granted, +could be read by all. Even the walls of the temples and tombs were +covered with written texts; wherever the Egyptian turned, or whatever +might be the object he used, it was difficult for him to avoid the sight +of the written word. Whoever was born in the land of Egypt was perforce +familiarised with the art of writing from the very days of his infancy. + +Evidence is accumulating that the same literary culture which thus +prevailed in Egypt and Western Asia had extended also to the peninsula +of Arabia. Dr. Glaser and Professor Hommel, two of the foremost +authorities on the subject, believe that some of the inscriptions of +Southern Arabia go back to the age of the eighteenth and nineteenth +Egyptian dynasties; and if they are right, as they seem to be, in +holding that the kingdom of Ma’n or the Minæans preceded that of Saba or +Sheba, the antiquity of writing in Arabia must be great.[133] The fact +that the Babylonian dynasty to which Amraphel belonged was of South +Arabian origin supports the belief in the existence of Arabian culture +at an early period, as do also the latest researches into the source of +the so-called Phœnician alphabet. We now know that in the Mosaic age it +was the cuneiform syllabary, and not the Phœnician alphabet, that was +used in Canaan, while the oldest inscription in Phœnician letters yet +found is later than the reign of Solomon. On the other hand, the South +Arabian form of the alphabet contains letters which denote sounds once +possessed by all the Semitic languages, but lost by the language of +Canaan; and though some of these letters may be derived from other +letters of the alphabet, there are some which have an independent +origin. The caravan-road along which the spices of the South were +carried to Syria and Egypt passed through the territory of Edom; +inscriptions of the kings of Ma’n have already been discovered near +Teima, not far from the frontiers of Midian; and it may be that we shall +yet find records among the ranges of Mount Seir which will form a link +between the early texts of Southern Arabia and the oldest text that has +come from Phœnician soil. + +The Exodus from Egypt, then, took place during a highly literary period, +and the people who took part in it passed from a country where the art +of writing literally stared them in the face to another country which +had been the centre of the Tel el-Amarna correspondence and the home of +Babylonian literary culture for unnumbered centuries. Is it conceivable +that their leader and reputed lawgiver should not have been able to +write, that he should not have been educated ‘in the wisdom of Egypt,’ +or that the upper classes of his nation should not have been able to +read? Let it be granted that the Israelites were but a Bedâwin tribe +which had been reduced by the Pharaohs to the condition of public +slaves; still, they necessarily had leaders and overseers among them, +who, according to the State regulations of Egypt, were responsible to +the Government for the rest of their countrymen, and some at least of +these leaders and overseers would have been educated men. Moses could +have written the Pentateuch, even if he did not do so. + +Moreover, the clay tablets on which the past history of Canaan could be +read were preserved in the libraries and archive-chambers of the +Canaanitish cities down to the time when the latter were destroyed. If +any doubt had existed on the subject after the revelations of the Tel +el-Amarna tablets, it has been set at rest by the discovery of a similar +tablet on the site of Lachish. In some cases the cities were not +destroyed, so far as we know, until the period when it is allowed that +the Israelites had ceased to be illiterate. Gezer, for example, which +plays a leading part in the Tel el-Amarna correspondence, does not seem +to have fallen into the hands of an enemy until it was captured by the +Egyptian Pharaoh and handed over to his son-in-law Solomon. As long as a +knowledge of the cuneiform script continued, the early records of Canaan +were thus accessible to the historian, many of them being +contemporaneous with the events to which they referred. + +A single archæological discovery has thus destroyed the base of +operations from which a one-sided criticism of Old Testament history had +started. The really strong point in favour of it was the assumption that +the Mosaic age was illiterate. Just as Wolf founded his criticism and +analysis of the Homeric Hymns on the belief that the use of writing for +literary purposes was of late date in Greece, so the belief that the +Israelites of the time of Moses could not read or write was the ultimate +foundation on which the modern theory of the composition of the +Hexateuch has been based. Whether avowed or not, it was the true +starting-point of critical scepticism, the one solid foundation on which +it seemed to rest. The destruction of the foundation endangers the +structure which has been built upon it. + +In fact, it wholly alters the position of the modern critical theory. +The _onus probandi_ no longer lies on the shoulders of the defenders of +traditional views. Instead of being called upon to prove that Moses +could have written a book, it is they who have to call on the disciples +of the modern theory to show reason why he should not have done so. And +it is always difficult to prove a negative. + +It may be said that the positive arguments of the modern hypothesis +remain as they were. That is possible, but their background is gone. And +how conscious the Hexateuchal analysts were of the importance of this +background, before the discovery of the Tel el-Amarna tablets, may be +seen from their desperate efforts to rid themselves of the counter +evidence afforded by the Song of Deborah. ‘Out of Machir,’ it is there +said (Judg. v. 14), ‘came down lawgivers, and out of Zebulun they that +handle the stylus of the scribe.’ In defiance of philology, the latter +words were translated ‘the baton of the marshal’! But _sopher_ is +‘scribe’ here, as elsewhere in Hebrew; and his _shebhet_, or ‘stylus,’ +is often depicted on the Egyptian monuments. In the Blessing of Jacob, +which is allowed to be of early date, like the Song of Deborah, the +_shebhet_ is associated with the _m’khoqêq_ or ‘lawgiver’ (Gen. xlix. +10). The word _m’khoqêq_, however, meant literally an ‘engraver,’ one +who did not write his laws on papyrus or parchment, as the scribe would +have done, but caused them to be engraved on stone, or metal, or +clay.[134] In either case they were written down; and written documents +are thus implied not only in the expression ‘the stylus of the scribe,’ +but in the word ‘lawgiver’ as well. The Song of Deborah, by general +consent, belongs to the oldest period of the Hebrew settlement in +Palestine; it belongs also to an age of anarchy and national depression; +and, nevertheless, it is already acquainted with Israelitish lawgivers +and scribes, with engravers of the laws and handlers of the pen. It is +little wonder that its evidence was explained away in accordance with a +method which is neither scientific nor historical. + +As historians, we are bound to admit the antiquity of writing in Israel. +The scribe goes back to the Mosaic age, like the lawgiver, and in this +respect, therefore, the Israelites formed no exception to the nations +among whom they lived. They were no islet of illiterate barbarism in the +midst of a great sea of literary culture and activity, nor were they +obstinately asleep while all about them were writing and reading. + +But even the analysis of the Hexateuchal critics fails to stand the test +of archæological discovery. Nowhere does there seem to be clearer +evidence of the documentary hypothesis than in the story of the Deluge. +Here the combination of a Yahvistic and an Elohistic narrative seems to +force itself upon the attention of the reader, and the advocates of the +disintegration theory have triumphantly pointed to the internal +contradictions and inconsistencies of the story in support of their +views. If anywhere, here, at any rate, the external testimony of +archæeology ought to be given on the side of modern criticism. + +And yet it is not. It so happens that among the fragments of ancient +Babylonian epic and legend which have come down to us is a long poem in +twelve books, composed in the age of Abraham, or earlier, by a certain +Sin-liqi-unnini, and recounting the adventures of the Chaldæan hero +Gilgames. It is based on older materials, and is, in fact, the last note +and final summing-up of Chaldæan epic song. Older poems have been +incorporated into it, and the epic itself has been artificially moulded +upon an astronomical plan. Its twelve books, in each of which a new +adventure of its hero is recorded, correspond with the twelve signs of +the zodiac, and the months of the year that were named after them. The +eleventh month was presided over by Aquarius, and was the month of ‘the +Curse of Rain’; into the eleventh book of the poem, accordingly, there +has been introduced the episode of the Deluge. + +The story of the Deluge had been the subject of many poems. Fragments of +some of them we possess, and the details of the story were not always +the same. But the version preserved in the epic of Gilgames became what +we may term the standard one; the very fact that it was embodied in the +most famous of the epics made it widely known. When it was discovered by +Mr. George Smith in 1872, its striking resemblance to the story of the +Flood in Genesis was at once apparent to every one. In details as well +as in general outline the two accounts agreed; even in the moral cause +assigned to the Deluge—the sin of man—the Babylonian story alone among +traditions of a Deluge was at one with the Biblical narrative. + +A comparison of the Chaldæan and Biblical accounts leads to the +following results. The resemblances between them extend equally to the +Elohistic and the Yahvistic portions of the Hebrew narrative. Like the +Elohist, the epic ascribes the Deluge to the sins of mankind, and the +preservation of Xisuthros, the Chaldæan Noah, and his family to the +piety of the hero; all living things, moreover, are involved in the +calamity, except such as are preserved in the ark; its approach is +revealed to Xisuthros by the god Ea, who instructs him how to build ‘the +ship’; Ea also, like Elohim, prescribes the dimensions of the ark, which +is divided into rooms and stories, and pitched within and without; ‘the +seed of life of all kinds’ is taken into it, together with the family of +Xisuthros; the waters of the Flood are said to cover ‘all the high +mountains,’ and to destroy all living creatures except those that were +in the ark; this latter, too, had a window; and when the Deluge had +subsided and Xisuthros had offered a sacrifice on the peak of the +mountain, Bel blessed him and declared that he would never again destroy +the world by a flood while Istar ‘lifted up’ the rainbow, which an old +Babylonian hymn calls ‘the bow of the Deluge.’[135] + +Like the Yahvist, on the other hand, the Babylonian poet sees in the +Flood a punishment for sin, and makes it destroy all living things +except those that were in the ark. He also states that Xisuthros sent +forth three birds, one after the other, in order to discover whether the +waters were subsiding, two of them being a dove and a raven, and that +while the dove turned back to the ark, the raven flew away. After the +descent from the ark, moreover, Xisuthros, we are told, built an altar +and offered sacrifice on the summit of the mountain whereon it had +rested, and there ‘the gods smelled the sweet savour’ of the offering. +In certain cases the epic even explains what is doubtful or obscure in +the Hebrew text. Thus it shows that in the account of the sending forth +of the birds one of the birds has been omitted; and that consequently, +in order to complete the number of times the birds were despatched from +the ark, the dove is sent forth twice, while the raven, instead of being +the last to leave the ark, has been made the first to do so. In the +Babylonian story the order is natural. First, the dove flies forth, then +the swallow or ‘bird of destiny,’ and lastly the raven who feeds on the +corpses that float upon the water, and accordingly does not return. But +the ‘bird of destiny’ carried with it heathen and mythological +associations. It has therefore been omitted by the Biblical writer, the +result being to throw the narrative into confusion.[136] + +The Babylonian origin of the Flood, again, alone explains the statement +that it was partly caused by ‘the fountains of the great deep’ being +broken up. The ‘great deep,’ called Tiamat in Babylonian mythology, had +been placed under guard at the Creation, according to Chaldæan belief, +and so prevented from gushing forth and destroying mankind. The whole +conception takes us back to the alluvial plain of Babylonia, liable at +any time to be inundated by the waters of the Persian Gulf, and is +wholly inapplicable to a mountainous country like Palestine, where rain +only could have produced a flood.[137] + +There are even indications that in the Biblical narrative the +mythological ideas and polytheistic phraseology of the Babylonian story +have been intentionally contradicted or suppressed. Thus, not only is +the whole colouring of the narrative sternly monotheistic, but God +Himself is made to reveal the approach of the Deluge to Noah, in +contrast with the Babylonian version, according to which the god Ea +announced the coming catastrophe to the Chaldæan Noah without the +knowledge of the supreme god Bel. And when the Flood was past, Bel was +enraged that any should have escaped living from it, and the other +deities had to intercede before he could be pacified. So, too, whereas +the Babylonian poet tells us that the Chaldæan Noah closed the door of +his ship, in the book of Genesis it is Yahveh Himself who does so. In +the view of the Biblical writer, nothing was to be allowed to lessen the +omnipotence of the God of Israel. + +It will be noticed that the coincidences between the Babylonian and +Hebrew narratives are quite as much in details as in general outlines, +and these coincidences cover the Hebrew narrative as a whole. It is not +with the Elohist or with the Yahvist alone that the Babylonian poet +agrees, but with the supposed combination of their two documents as we +now find it in the book of Genesis. If the documentary hypothesis were +right, there would be only two ways of accounting for this fact. Either +the Babylonian poet had before him the present ‘redacted’ text of +Genesis, or else the Elohist and Yahvist must have copied the Babylonian +story upon the mutual understanding that the one should insert what the +other omitted. There is no third alternative. + +As the Babylonian epic was composed in the age of Khammu-rabi or +Amraphel, neither of the two alternatives is likely to be accepted by +the advocates of the Hexateuchal theory, and the whole theory, +consequently, must be ruled out of court. It breaks down in the first +test case to which the results of archæological discovery can be +applied, a case, moreover, in which its plausibility is unusually great. +Henceforth the historian who pursues a scientific method may safely +disregard the whole fabric of Hexateuchal criticism. + +The story of the Deluge itself suggests what may be put in place of it. +With all its likeness to the Babylonian story, the Biblical narrative +has nevertheless undergone a change. It has been clothed not only in a +Hebrew, but also in a Palestinian dress. The ship of the Chaldæan Noah +has become an ark, as was natural in a country where there were no great +rivers or Persian Gulf; the period of the rainfall has been transferred +from Sebet or January and February, when the winter rains fall in +Babylonia, to ‘the second month’ of the Hebrew civil year, our October +and November, the time of the autumn or ‘former rains’ in Canaan, while +the subsidence of the waters is made to begin in the middle of ‘the +seventh month,’ when the ‘latter rains’ of the Canaanitish spring are +over; and the dove is said to have brought back in its mouth a leaf of +the olive, a tree characteristic of the soil of Palestine. Though the +Biblical narrative has been borrowed from Babylonia, it has been +modified and coloured in the West. Even the hero of the Babylonian poem +has become the Noah or Naham of Canaan. + +We have learned from the Tel el-Amarna tablets how this could have come +about. There was one period, and, so far as we know, one period only, in +the history of Western Asia, when the literature of Babylonia was taught +and studied there, and when the literary ideas and stories of Chaldæa +were made familiar to the people of Canaan. This was the period of +Babylonian influence which ended with the Mosaic age. With the Hittite +conquests of the fourteenth century B.C., and the Israelitish invasion +of Canaan, it all came to an end. The Babylonian story of the Deluge, +adapted to Palestine as we find it in the Pentateuch, must belong to a +pre-Mosaic epoch. And it is difficult to believe that the identity of +the details in the Babylonian and Biblical versions could have remained +so perfect, or that the Biblical writer could have exhibited such +deliberate intention of controverting the polytheistic features of the +original, if he had not still possessed a knowledge of the cuneiform +script. It is difficult to believe that he belonged to an age when the +Phœnician alphabet had taken the place of the syllabary of Babylonia, +and the older literature of Canaan had become a sealed book. + +But if so, a new light is shed on the sources of the historical +narratives contained in the Pentateuch. Some of them at least have come +down from the period when the literary culture of Babylonia was still +dominant on the shores of the Mediterranean. So far from being popular +traditions and myths first committed to writing after the disruption of +Solomon’s kingdom, and amalgamated into their present form by a series +of ‘redactors,’ they will have been derived from the pre-Mosaic +literature of Palestine. Such of them as are Babylonian in origin will +have made their way westwards like the Chaldæan legends found among the +tablets of Tel el-Amarna, while others will be contemporaneous records +of the events they describe. We must expect to discover in the +Pentateuch not only Israelitish records, but Babylonian, Canaanitish, +Egyptian, even Edomite records as well. + +The progress of archæological research has already in part fulfilled +this expectation. ‘Ur of the Chaldees’ has been found at Muqayyar, and +the contracts of early Babylonia have shown that Amorites—or, as we +should call them, Canaanites—were settled there, and have even brought +to light such distinctively Hebrew names as Jacob-el, Joseph-el, and +Ishmael.[138] Even the name of Abram, Abi-ramu, appears as the father of +an ‘Amorite’ witness to a contract in the third generation before +Amraphel. And Amraphel himself, along with his contemporaries, +Chedor-laomer or Kudur-Laghghamar of Elam, Arioch of Larsa, and Tid’al +or Tudghula, has been restored to the history to which he and his +associates had been denied a claim. The ‘nations’ over whom Tid’al ruled +have been explained, and the accuracy of the political situation +described in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis has been fully +vindicated. Jerusalem, instead of being a name first given to the future +capital of Judah after its capture by David, is proved to have been its +earliest title; and the priest-king Melchizedek finds a parallel in his +later successor, the priest-king Ebed-Tob, who, in the Tel el-Amarna +letters, declares that he had received his royal dignity, not from his +father or his mother, but through the arm of ‘the mighty king.’ If we +turn to Egypt, the archæological evidence is the same. The history of +Joseph displays an intimate acquaintance on the part of its writer with +Egyptian life and manners in the era of the Hyksos, and offers the only +explanation yet forthcoming of the revolution that took place in the +tenure of land during the Hyksos domination. As we have seen, there are +features in the story which suggest that it has been translated from a +hieratic papyrus. As for the Exodus, we shall see presently that its +geography is that of the nineteenth dynasty, and of no other period in +the history of Egypt. + +Thus, then, directly or indirectly, much of the history contained in the +Pentateuch has been shown by archæology to be authentic. And it must be +remembered that Oriental archæology is still in its infancy. Few only of +the sites of ancient civilisation have as yet been excavated, and there +are thousands of cuneiform texts in the Museums of Europe and America +which have not as yet been deciphered. It was only in 1887 that the Tel +el-Amarna tablets, which have had such momentous consequences for +Biblical criticism, were found, and the disclosures made by the early +contracts of Babylonia, even the name of Chedor-laomer itself, are of +still more recent discovery. It is therefore remarkable that so much is +already in our hands which confirms the antiquity and historical +genuineness of the Pentateuchal narratives; and it raises the +presumption that with the advance of our knowledge will come further +confirmations of the Biblical story. At any rate, the historian’s path +is clear; the Pentateuch has been tested by the comparative method of +science, and has stood the test. It contains history, and must be dealt +with accordingly like other historical works. The philological theory +with its hair-splitting distinctions, its Priestly Code and ‘redactors,’ +must be put aside, along with all the historical consequences which it +involves. + +But it does not follow that because the philological theory is +untenable, all inquiries into the character and sources of the +Pentateuch are waste of time. The philological theory has failed because +it has attempted to build up a vast superstructure on very imperfect and +questionable materials; because, in short, it has attempted to attain +historical results without the use of the historical method. But no one +can study the Pentateuch in the light of other ancient works of a +similar kind without perceiving that it is a compilation, and that its +author—or authors—has made use of a large variety of older materials. +Modern Oriental history has been written in the same manner; a book, for +instance, like the Egyptian history of El-Maqrîzî, though the production +of a single mind, nevertheless embodies older materials which have been +collected from every side. The Egyptian Book of the Dead, or the +Chaldæan Epic of Gilgames, bears the same testimony. The growth of the +Book of the Dead, the ritual which was needed by the souls of the +Egyptian dead in their passage to the next world, can actually be +traced.[139] It included and combined the doctrines of more than one +school of early Egyptian theological thought, and in later days was +extensively interpolated and modernised. Not only were glosses, once +intended to explain the obscurities of the archaic phraseology, +incorporated into the text, but even whole chapters were added to the +work. The Epic of Gilgames similarly embodies other poems or portions of +poems, of which the Episode of the Deluge is an example. Yet no +Assyriologist would dispute for a moment that from beginning to end it +is the work of one author. + +Archæology has already shown us that we are right in believing that the +Pentateuch also has been compiled out of earlier materials. The story of +the campaign of Chedor-laomer must have been derived from a cuneiform +tablet; the story of Joseph seems to have been taken from a hieratic +papyrus. The account of the Deluge has made its way from Babylonia to +Canaan in the days when the culture of Chaldæa extended to the +Mediterranean. We thus have narratives which presuppose an acquaintance +not only with Babylon and Egypt, but also with Babylonian and Egyptian +documents. + +So, too, the list of Edomite kings contained in the thirty-sixth chapter +of Genesis must have been extracted from the official annals of Edom. It +is a proof that such annals existed, that the Edomites, like the rest of +their neighbours, were acquainted with the art of writing, and that +their official records were accessible to a Hebrew scribe. + +We cannot doubt the authenticity of the list, even though the ancient +territory of Edom has not yet been explored, and no Edomite inscriptions +consequently have as yet been found to verify it. The list, therefore, +does not yet stand in the same fortunate position as the account of +Chedor-laomer and his allies, which has been verified by archæological +discovery. Here even the names of the foreign kings have been preserved +in the Hebrew text with marvellously little corruption. The whole +account must have come from a cuneiform document coeval with the event +it narrates. That is to say, we can here trace one of the Pentateuchal +narratives not only to a written source, but to a written source which +is at the same time a contemporaneous record. + +We may conclude, then, that the Pentateuch has been compiled from older +documents—some Babylonian, some Egyptian, some Edomite; others, as we +may gather from the nature of their contents, Canaanite and Aramæan—and +that many of these documents belong to the periods to which they refer. +This, however, is not all. In certain cases we can approximately fix the +latest date at which they could have been employed and combined in the +form in which we now find them. Thus in the geographical chart of +Genesis (x. 6), Canaan is made the brother of Cush and Mizraim. This +takes us back to the time when Canaan was a province of the Egyptian +empire; when that empire came to an end the description ceased to be +possible. After the epoch of the nineteenth dynasty and the Hebrew +Exodus, Canaan and Egypt were cut off from one another geographically +and politically, and Canaan could never again have been called in +Semitic idiom the brother of Mizraim. It became instead the brother of +Aram and Assur. + +Here, therefore, the limit of age prescribed by archæology forbids us to +pass beyond the Mosaic epoch. Moses, in short, is the compiler to whom +the archæological evidence indicates that the tenth chapter of Genesis +goes back in its original shape. But by the side of this evidence there +is other evidence also which tells a different tale. Gomer, or the +Kimmerians, as well as Madai, are named among the sons of Japhet, and +the Assyrian monuments assure us that neither the one nor the other came +within the geographical horizon of Western Asia before the ninth century +B.C. It was in the ninth century B.C. that the Assyrian kings first +became acquainted with the Medes, while the Gimirrâ or Kimmerians did +not descend upon Asia from their seats on the Sea of Azof until about +B.C. 680. The same reasoning which gives us the Mosaic age as that of +the geographical chart of Genesis in its primitive shape gives us the +seventh century B.C. or later for the date of another portion of the +same chapter. + +The list of the kings of Edom, again, is introduced by the remark that +‘these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there +reigned any king over the children of Israel.’ It was not inserted in +the book of Genesis, therefore, until after the age of Saul, a +conclusion which is supported by the fact that the first king named +seems to be Balaam, the son of Beor, who was a contemporary of Moses. +If, accordingly, the Pentateuch was originally compiled in the Mosaic +age, it must have undergone the fate of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, +and been enlarged by subsequent additions. Insertions and interpolations +must have found their way into it as new editions of it were made. + +That such was the case there is indirect testimony. On the one hand the +text of the prophetical books was treated in a similar manner, additions +and modifications being made in it from time to time by the prophet or +his successors in order to adapt it to new political or religious +circumstances. Isaiah, for instance, has copied a prophecy directed by +one of his predecessors against Moab; and after breaking it off in the +middle of a sentence, has adapted it to the needs and circumstances of +his own time. On the other hand, a long-established Jewish tradition, +which has found its way into the Second Book of Esdras (xiv. 21-26), +makes Ezra rewrite or edit the books of Moses. There is no reason to +question the substantial truth of the tradition; Ezra was the restorer +of the old paths, and the Pentateuch may well have taken its present +shape from him. If so, we need not be surprised if we find here and +there in it echoes of the Babylonish captivity. + +Side by side with materials derived from written sources, the book of +Genesis contains narratives which, at all events in the first instance, +must have resembled the traditions and poems orally recited in Arab +lands, and commemorating the heroes and forefathers of the tribe. Thus +there are two Abrahams; the one an Abraham who has been born in one of +the centres of Babylonian civilisation, who is the ally of Amorite +chieftains, whose armed followers overthrow the rearguard of the Elamite +army, and whom the Hittites of Hebron address as ‘a mighty prince’; the +other is an Abraham of the Bedâwin camp-fire, a nomad whose habits are +those of the rude independence of the desert, whose wife kneads the +bread while he himself kills the calf with which his guests are +entertained. It is true that in actual Oriental life the simplicity of +the desert and the wealth and culture of the town may be found combined +in the same person; that in modern Egypt Arab shêkhs may still be met +with who thus live like wild Bedâwin during one part of the year, and as +rich and civilised townsmen during another part of it; while in the last +century a considerable portion of Upper Egypt was governed by Bedâwin +emirs, who realised in their own persons that curious duality of life +and manners which to us Westerns appears so strange. But it is also true +that the spirit and tone of the narratives in Genesis differ along with +the character ascribed in them to the patriarch: we find in them not +only the difference between the guest of the Egyptian Pharaoh and the +entertainer of the angels, but also a difference in the point of view. +The one speaks to us of literary culture, the other of the simple circle +of wandering shepherds to whose limited experience the story-teller has +to appeal. The story may be founded on fact; it may be substantially +true; but it has been coloured by the surroundings in which it has grown +up, and archæological proof of its historical character can never be +forthcoming. At most, it can be shown to be true to the time and place +in which its scene is laid, and so contains nothing which is +inconsistent with known facts. + +Such, then, are the main results of the application of the archæological +test to the books of the Pentateuch. The philological theory, with its +minute and mathematically exact analysis, is brushed aside; it is as +little in harmony with archæology as it is with common sense. The +Pentateuch substantially belongs to the Mosaic age, and may therefore be +accepted as, in the bulk, the work of Moses himself. But it is a +composite work, embodying materials of various kinds. Some of these are +written documents, descriptive of contemporaneous events, or recording +the cosmological beliefs of ancient Babylonia; others have been derived +from the unwritten traditions of nomad tribes. The work has passed +through many editions; it is full of interpolations, lengthy and +otherwise; and it has probably received its final shape at the hands of +Ezra. But in order to discover the interpolations, or to determine the +written documents that have been used, we must have recourse to the +historical method and the facts of archæology. Apart from these we +cannot advance a step in safety. The archæological evidence, however, is +already sufficient for the presumption that, where it fails us, the text +is nevertheless ancient, and the narrative historical—a presumption, it +will be noticed, the exact contrary of that in which the Hexateuchal +theory has landed its disciples. + +But, these same disciples will urge, what becomes of those three strata +of legislation which we have so successfully disentangled one from the +other in the Hexateuch, and have shown to belong to three separate and +mutually exclusive periods of Israelitish history? Has not literary +criticism proved that no reconciliation is possible between the +enactments and point of view of the Book of the Covenant on the one +side, and those of the Deuteronomist on the other, or between the +legislation of the Deuteronomist and that of the Priestly Code? The +altar of earth or rough-hewn stones, which may be built on any high +place, makes way for the altar of the temple at Jerusalem, and this +again for the ideal altar of the tabernacle in the wilderness. One +sanctuary takes the place of many; the priesthood is confined first to +the tribe of Levi, and then more especially to the sons of Aaron; while +the simple feasts of harvest rejoicing, which were celebrated by early +Israel in common with its neighbours, are replaced by sacrifices for sin +and solemn festivals like the Day of Atonement. + +It is strange that these inconsistencies were left to European scholars +of the nineteenth century to discover, and that neither the +contemporaries of Ezra, who allowed themselves to be bound to the yoke +of a law which they believed to be divine, nor the Samaritan rivals of +the Jews, should have ever perceived them. The fact seems to the +historian to throw some doubt on their real existence, and he can leave +them to the tender mercies of Dr. Baxter, who has met the literary +critics on their own ground, and seriously damaged their house of +cards.[140] The historian can have nothing to do with a theory which not +only requires the whole of the historical books of the Old Testament to +be rewritten in accordance with it, but also declares at once every +passage which tells against it to be a gloss and interpolation. History, +like science, is not built on subjective judgments. + +At the same time, there is an element of truth in the work of the +‘literary analysis.’ Years of labour on the part of able and learned +scholars cannot be absolutely without result, even though the labourers +may have been led astray by the will-o’-the-wisp of a false theory and +have followed a wrong line of research. The minute examination to which +they have subjected the text has revealed much that had never before +been suspected; and they have made it clear that the historical books of +the Old Testament are compilations, not free, moreover, from later +interpolations, even though we cannot share the confidence with which +they separate and distinguish the different elements. They have made it +impossible ever to return to the old conception of the Hebrew Scriptures +and the old method of treating Hebrew history. Where they have been +successful has been on the negative rather than on the reconstructive +side. For reconstruction, the scientific instrument of comparison was +wanted, and this the literary analysts did not possess. + +The Old Testament books themselves make no secret of the fact that they +are compilations. The books of the Kings name the sources from which a +large part of them has been drawn, and the books of Samuel (2 Sam. i. +18) quote David’s ‘Song of the Bow’ from the book of Jasher. The same +work is referred to in the book of Joshua (x. 13), and in Numbers (xxi. +14) we have an extract from the lost Book of the Wars of the Lord. Old +poems are introduced into the text, like the Song of Deborah or the +Blessing of Jacob; even an Amorite song of triumph is cited in Numbers +xxi. 27-30. The so-called ‘Book of the Covenant’ of the literary critics +takes its name from a real ‘book of the covenant’ in which the first +legislation promulgated at Sinai was written down by Moses, according to +Exod. xxiv. 4, 7, and read by him ‘in the audience of the people;’ while +the Song of Deborah expressly states that the forces of Zebulun, which +took part in the war against Sisera, were accompanied by scribes, like +the armies of Egypt or Assyria. + +That Moses could not have written the account of his own death was +discovered even by the Jewish rabbis; and references to the ‘Book of the +Covenant’ and the ‘Book of the Wars of the Lord’ prove that the +Pentateuch in its present form has not come down to us from the Mosaic +age. The materials may be Mosaic; it may thus be substantially the work +of the great Hebrew lawgiver, but the actual work itself is of later +date. + +How far may we trust the accuracy of the traditional Hebrew text? Modern +criticism has been inclined to pronounce the text corrupt, not +unfrequently because the critic himself cannot understand it, and to +deal pretty freely in conjectural emendations. The Greek text of the +Septuagint is invoked against it, and undue weight is often given to its +variant readings or omissions, as, for instance, in the case of the +history of Saul. Doubtless the Septuagint text is of great value; it +goes back to a period centuries older than the oldest Hebrew MS. that +has survived to us; but it was made by Jews of Alexandria, whose +knowledge of the sacred language of their nation was not always complete +or exact. The recent discovery of the original Hebrew text of +Ecclesiasticus has gone far to shake our confidence in the readings of +the Septuagint, as a comparison of it with the Greek translation made +only two generations later has shown that passages are omitted in the +latter, through simple carelessness, or perhaps inability to understand +them. The discovery has also not been in favour of the emendations of +literary and philological criticism, not one of the many attempts made +to restore the lost Hebrew original having turned out to be +correct.[141] + +On the other hand, a comparison of the Hebrew Scriptures with the clay +books of Assyria is on the side of accuracy in the text. The scribes +employed in the libraries of Assyria, and presumably, therefore, in the +older libraries of Babylonia, were scrupulously exact in their copies of +earlier texts. Where the tablet which they copied was injured and +defective, it was stated to be so, and the scribe made no attempt to +fill up by conjecture, however obvious, what was missing in the document +before him. He even was careful to note whether the fracture was recent +or not. Where, again, he was not certain about the Assyrian equivalent +of a Babylonian character of unusual form, he gave alternative +representatives of it, or else reproduced the questionable character +itself. Perhaps the most striking example of the textual honesty of the +Assyrian and Babylonian scribes is, however, to be found in a +compilation known as the _Babylonian Chronicle_—a chronological abstract +in which the history of Babylonia is given from a strictly Babylonian +point of view. Here the author candidly confesses that he does ‘not +know’ the year when the decisive battle of Khalulê took place, which +laid Babylon at the feet of Sennacherib; his materials for settling the +matter failed him, and, unlike the modern Hexateuchal critics, he +abstained from conjecture. We are more fortunate than he was; for, as we +possess the annals of Sennacherib, in which the Assyrian king gives a +highly-coloured account of the battle, we are able to determine its +date. + +In the later days of the Jewish monarchy there was a library at +Jerusalem similar to those of Assyria and Babylonia, and we hear of the +scribes belonging to it in the days of Hezekiah re-editing the Proverbs +of Solomon (Prov. xxv. 1). There are indications that they were as +careful and honest in their work as the scribes of Assyria whose example +they probably followed. Thus the names of Chedor-laomer and his allies +are preserved with singular correctness, as well as the forms of two +geographical names which seem to imply translation from a cuneiform +original.[142] So, again, the Aramaic inscriptions of a contemporary of +Tiglath-pileser III. found at Sinjerli, north of the Gulf of Antioch, +show that in one case at least the spelling which we find in the books +of Kings has remained unchanged since the eighth century B.C. As in the +books of Kings, so at Sinjerli, the Assyrian name Tukulti-Pal-Esarra is +incorrectly written Tiglath-pileser, with _g_ instead of _k_, and even +the country over which he ruled is in both cases written _plene_ (with +the symbol of the vowel _u_). On the other hand, it cannot be denied +that there are many clear and unmistakable corruptions of the text. In +the fourteenth chapter of Genesis itself the name of the city Larsa has +been transformed into Ellasar;[143] elsewhere glosses have been received +into the text, while there are whole passages which are either +ungrammatical or unmeaning as they now stand. Ancient authors, whether +Hebrew or otherwise, did not write nonsense; and if the natural +rendering of a passage does not make sense, we may feel quite sure that +it is corrupt. + +The historian of the Hebrews, then, is bound to treat his authorities as +the Greek historian would treat Herodotos or Thucydides or any other +writer on behalf of whose character and age there is a long line of +external testimony. The results of the ‘literary analysis’ may be left +to the philologist, as well as the conjectures and theories that have +been substituted by scholars of the nineteenth century for early +Israelitish history. They have vanished like bubbles wherever they have +been tested by the archæological evidence, which, on the other hand, has +vindicated the substantial truthfulness of those Old Testament +statements which had been scornfully thrown aside. + +Where it is possible, the Biblical narratives must be compared with the +discoveries of archæological research; where this cannot be done, they +must be examined from the historical and not from the philological or +literary point of view. We are bound to assume their general credibility +and faithfulness, except where this can be historically disproved, and +to remember that while on the one hand inconsistencies in detail do not +affect the general historical trustworthiness of a document, the +agreement of such details with the facts of archæology or geography—more +especially when they are of the kind termed ‘undesigned coincidences’—is +a powerful argument in its favour. Above all, we must beware of that +favourite weapon of literary criticism, the argument from silence, which +is really merely an argument from the imperfection of our own knowledge, +and which a single instance to the contrary will overthrow. The literary +criticism of the Old Testament is full of examples of the argument that +have been demolished by the advance of Oriental archæology. + +Let this accordingly be the rule of the historian: to believe all +things, to hope all things, but at the same time to test and try all +things. And the test must be scientific, not what we assume to be +probable or natural, but external testimony in the shape of +archæological or geographical facts. The history of the past is not what +ought to have happened according to the ideas of the critic, but what +actually did happen. + +Such a manner of treating our authorities does not, of course, exclude +our recognition of what the literary critics call their several +‘tendencies.’ No history, worthy of the name, can be written without a +‘tendency’ of some sort on the part of the writer, even though it be not +consciously felt. We must have some kind of general theory within the +lines of which our facts may be grouped; and however much we may strive +to be impartial, our conception of the facts themselves, and our mode of +presenting them, will be coloured by our beliefs and education. The +historian cannot help writing with an object in view; the necessities of +the subject require it. + +That the historical books of the Old Testament should have been written +with a ‘tendency’ is therefore natural. And literary criticism has +successfully pointed out in the case of one of these books what the +‘tendency’ was. If we compare the books of Chronicles with those of +Samuel and Kings, the contrast between them strikes the eye at once. The +interest of the Chronicler is centred in the history of the Jewish +temple and ritual, of its priests and Levites, and the manifold +requirements of the Law. His history of Israel accordingly becomes a +history of Israelitish ritual; all else is put aside or treated in the +briefest fashion. The incidents of David’s reign narrated in the books +of Samuel are subordinated to elaborate accounts of his arrangements for +the services in the tabernacle or temple; the history of the northern +kingdom of Israel, which lay outside that of the temple at Jerusalem, is +passed over in silence; and the Passover held in Hezekiah’s reign, about +which not a word is said in the books of Kings, is dwelt upon to the +exclusion of almost everything else. Nor, had we only the Chronicler in +our hands, should we know that the pious Hezekiah had entered into an +alliance with the Babylonian king and boastfully displayed to his +ambassadors the treasures of the Jewish kingdom, thereby bringing upon +himself the rebuke of the prophet Isaiah. All that the Chronicler has to +say on the matter is that ‘in the business of the ambassadors of the +prince of Babylon, who sent to inquire of the wonder that was done in +the land, God left him, to try him, that he might know all that was in +his heart’; and even here a theological turn is given to the occurrence +by the motive assigned for the embassy. As a matter of fact, we know +from the cuneiform inscriptions that the real object of Merodach-baladan +was to form a league with the princes of the West against their common +Assyrian enemy, to which, as the books of Kings inform us, was naturally +added a polite inquiry after Hezekiah’s health. + +‘Tendencies’ there are, therefore, in the historical writings of the Old +Testament; they would not be human productions if there were not. The +authors have had one great object in view, that of showing from the past +history of the people that sin brings punishment with it, while a +blessing follows upon righteous action. They believed in the Divine +government of the world, and wrote with that belief clearly before them. +They believed also that Israel was the chosen nation in whose history +that Divine government had been made manifest to mankind, and that the +God of Israel was the one true omnipotent God. In this belief in a +theodicy they were theologians, like most other Oriental writers. But +their theological point of view did not prevent them from being +historians as well. It did not interfere with their honestly recording +the course of events as it had been handed down to them, or reproducing +their authorities without intentional change. Doubtless they may have +made mistakes at times, their judgment may not always have been strictly +critical or correct, and want of sufficient materials may now and then +have led them into error. But when we find that no attempt is made to +palliate or conceal the sins and shortcomings of their most cherished +national heroes, that even the reverses of the nation are chronicled +equally with its successes, and that the early period of its history is +confessed to have been one of anarchy and crime, and not the golden age +of which popular (and even historical) imagination loves to dream, we +are justified in according to them, in spite of their theological +‘tendencies,’ a considerable measure of confidence. + +It will have been noticed that chronology—the skeleton, as it were, on +which the flesh of history is laid—has been alluded to in the previous +chapter only in the vaguest possible manner. ‘The age of Abraham,’ ‘the +age of the Exodus,’ ‘the Mosaic age,’ are the phrases that have been +used in referring to Old Testament events. Israelitish chronology in the +true sense of the word does not begin till the reign of David, and even +then we have to deal with probabilities rather than with facts. Like +Egyptian history, which has to be measured by dynasties instead of dates +before the rise of the eighteenth dynasty, the early history of the +Hebrews has no chronological record. Before we can attach dates to the +events of the patriarchal period or the Exodus, it is necessary to find +synchronisms between them and the dated history of other peoples. + +It is a commonplace of Biblical students that numbers are peculiarly +liable to corruption, and that consequently little dependence can be +placed on the numbers given in the text of the Old Testament. But the +conclusion does not follow from the premiss. The later dates of +Israelitish history are for the most part reliable, and it would be +strange if the causes of corruption were fatal only to the dates of an +earlier period. Moreover, the numbers fit into a self-consistent system, +the several fractions of which agree with the whole summation. Such a +self-consistent system would perhaps demand acceptance were it not that +there are three such systems, rivals one of the other, and mutually +incompatible. One is that of the Massoretic Hebrew text, which makes the +period from the Creation to the call of Abraham exactly 2000 solar years +(or, 2056 lunar years), 1600 of which extend from the Creation to the +Deluge, and the remaining 400 from the Deluge to the call of Abraham. A +second is that of the Septuagint, according to which the period from the +Creation to the Flood is 2200 solar years (or, 2262 lunar years), 1600 +of these elapsing between the Creation and the birth of Noah, and 600 +from that event to the Flood, while 1200 are counted from the Flood to +the call of the patriarch. The third is that of the Samaritan text which +divides the period into two halves of 1200 years each; the first 1200 +comprising the time from the Creation to the birth of the sons of Noah, +and the second 1200 the rest of the period. + +It is obvious that all these systems are like the similar chronological +systems of the Egyptians, the Babylonians, or the Hindus, mere +artificial schemes of an astronomical character, and differing from the +latter only in their more modest computation of time. For historical +purposes they are worthless, and indicate merely that materials for a +chronology were entirely wanting. The ages assigned to the patriarchs +before the Flood, for example, stand on a level with the reigns of the +ten antediluvian kings of Chaldæa which are extended over 120 sari, or +432,000 years. The post-diluvian patriarchs are in no better position; +indeed, one of them, Arphaxad, is a geographical title, and the +Septuagint interpolates after him a certain Kainan, of whom neither the +Hebrew nor the Samaritan text knows anything. + +Even after the call of Abraham, Hebrew chronology is equally uncertain. +The length of life assigned to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is surprising, +though not quite impossible, but the dates connected with it do not +always agree together. How, for example, can Abraham have had six +children after the death of Sarah (Gen. xxv. 1, 2), when the birth of +Isaac nearly forty years before had been regarded as extraordinary on +account of the patriarch’s age? Or, again, to quote the words of +Professor Driver[144]: ‘Do we all realise that according to the +chronology of the Book of Genesis (xxv. 26, xxvi. 34, xxxv. 28) [Isaac] +must have been lying upon his deathbed for _eighty years_? Yet we can +only diminish this period by extending proportionately the interval +between Esau’s marrying his Hittite wives (Gen. xxvi. 34), and Rebekah’s +suggestion to Isaac to send Jacob away, lest he should follow his +brother’s example (xxvii. 46), which from the nature of the case will +not admit of any but a slight extension. Keil, however, does so extend +it, reducing the period of Isaac’s final illness to forty-three years, +and is conscious of no incongruity in supposing that Rebekah, +_thirty-seven_ years after Esau has taken his Hittite wives, should +express her fear that Jacob, then aged seventy-seven, will do the same!’ + +The length of the period during which the Israelites were in Egypt has +been the subject of endless controversy. The Old Testament statements in +regard to it are clear enough. Abraham is told (Gen. xv. 13) that his +descendants shall ‘serve’ the Egyptians and be ‘afflicted’ by them for +400 years. As a generation was counted at thirty years, this implies +that the whole period spent in Egypt was 430 years, though the statement +is not quite exact, since Joseph lived more than thirty years after the +settlement of his brethren in the land of Goshen, and their servitude +and affliction did not begin till after his death. In Exodus (xii. 40) +we are informed explicitly that ‘the sojourning of the children of +Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was 430 years.’ Four hundred and thirty +years, therefore, must have been the length of time during which Israel +was officially regarded as having lived in Goshen. + +But it is difficult to reconcile it with another statement in Gen. xv. +16, where it is said that ‘in the fourth generation’ the children of +Israel should return to Canaan. As the words were spoken to Abraham, the +fourth generation would be that of Joseph himself. Since this seems out +of the question, they are usually interpreted to refer to Moses and +Aaron, who are placed in the fourth generation from Levi. Moses and +Aaron, however, did not ‘come again’ to Palestine, and the genealogy of +the daughters of Zelophehad (Num. xxvii. 1) makes the generation that +did so the seventh from Joseph. Time, in fact, cannot be reckoned by +generations; we do not know how many links in the chain may have been +dropped, ‘son’ in Semitic idiom being frequently equivalent to +‘descendant,’ while the names are often merely geographical, like Gilead +and Machir in the genealogy of Zelophehad, and therefore have no +chronological value. It was, however, the mention of ‘the fourth. +generation’ which produced the rabbinical gloss, alluded to by S. Paul +(Gal. iii. 17), according to which the four hundred and thirty years of +Gen. xv. 13 did not mean the time during which the Israelites were +‘afflicted’ in Egypt, but—in spite of the definite assertion to the +contrary—a period which included the lives of the patriarchs as well as +the government of Joseph. + +If the statements in regard to the period of the Israelitish settlement +in Egypt are contradictory, the statements in regard to the lapse of +time from the conquest of Canaan to the building of Solomon’s temple are +still more so. In 1 Kings vi. 1 we read that the foundations of the +temple were laid in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign, and four hundred +and eighty years after the Exodus from Egypt. If we add together the +numbers given in the book of Judges, they amount to four hundred and ten +years, thus leaving only seventy years for the wanderings in the desert, +the judgeships of Eli and Samuel, the reigns of Saul and David, and the +first four years of Solomon! The endeavours that have been made to get +over the difficulty have all been fruitless. Wellhausen and others, for +instance, have conjectured that the four hundred and eighty years are +intended to represent twelve generations, each being reckoned at forty +years, and the seventy years assigned to the five ‘lesser judges’ being +overlooked. But the conjecture is destitute of support, and is contrary +to such notices as we have of the number of generations which covered +the period of the judges. Moreover, the five lesser judges do not +constitute a group by themselves. + +The period of four hundred and eighty years cannot be reconciled with +the genealogies any better than with the apparent chronology of the book +of Judges. Between Nahshon, who was a contemporary of Moses, and +Solomon, only five generations are given (Ruth iv. 20-22); and between +Phinehas and Zadok, whom Solomon removed from the priesthood, there were +only seven generations of priests (1 Chron. vi. 4-8). Doubtless some of +the links in the ancestry of David have been dropped, but that can +hardly be the case as regards the priests. Seven generations would give, +at the most, not more than two hundred and ten years. + +That the number four hundred and eighty, however, has really been based +on the number forty seems probable. Forty years in Hebrew idiom merely +signified an indeterminate and unknown period of time, and the Moabite +Stone shows that the same idiom existed also in the Moabite +language.[145] Thus Absalom is said, in 2 Sam. xv. 7, to have asked +permission to leave Jerusalem ‘after forty years,’ although the length +of time was really little more than two years (2 Sam. xiv. 28 _sqq._), +and Jewish tradition has supplied the lost record of the length of +Saul’s reign with a date of forty years. The period of forty years, +which meets us again and again in the book of Judges, is simply the +equivalent of an unknown length of time; it denotes the want of +materials, and the consequent ignorance of the writer. Twenty, the half +of forty, is equally an expression of ignorance; and the only dates +available for chronology are those which represent a definite space of +time, like the eight years of Chushan-rishathaim’s oppression of Israel, +or the six years of Jephthah’s judgeship. + +We can learn nothing, accordingly, from the books of the Old Testament +about the chronology of Israel down to the time of David. For David’s +reign we have the seven years of his rule at Hebron, followed by the +thirty-three years of his sway over the whole of Israel. For the reign +of Solomon we have again the indeterminate ‘forty years’; but since +Rezon of Damascus, like Hadad of Edom, was ‘an adversary to Israel all +the days of Solomon,’ it is probable that the reign did not actually +last more than thirty years at the most. Even the chronology of the +divided kingdom after the death of Solomon, in spite of the synchronisms +the compiler of the books of Kings has endeavoured to establish between +the kings of Judah and those of Israel, has been the despair of +historians, and scheme after scheme has been proposed in order to make +it self-consistent. The Assyrian monuments, however, have now come to +our help, and shown that between the time of Ahab and that of Hezekiah +it is forty years in excess. + +For Hebrew chronology, therefore, we must look outside the Bible itself. +At certain points Hebrew history comes into touch with the monumental +records of Egypt, Babylonia, and Assyria; and if we are to date the +events it records, it must be by their aid. Egypt can assist us only +after the rise of the eighteenth dynasty; before that period it is as +much without a chronology as the Israelites themselves. But the case is +different as regards Babylonia and Assyria. In Babylonia time was dated +by the reigns of the kings and the events of the several years of each +reign. The extensive commercial relations of the country, and the +contracts that were constantly being drawn up, made accurate dating a +matter of necessity. The Assyrians were even more exact than the +Babylonians; they were distinguished among Oriental nations by their +strong historical sense, and at an early epoch had devised an accurate +system of chronology. The years were reckoned by a succession of +officers called _limmi_, each of whom held office for a year and gave +his name to it, the king himself, during the earlier period of Assyrian +history, taking the office in the first year of his reign. Lists of the +_limmi_ were kept, and a reference to them would show at once the exact +age of a document dated by the name of a particular _limmu_. None of the +lists hitherto discovered are, unfortunately, older than the tenth +century B.C.; but, thanks to those that have been found, from B.C. 909 +to 666 we have a continuous and accurate register of time. + +Abraham was the contemporary of Chedor-laomer and Amraphel, and the +position of Amraphel among the Babylonian kings has been given us by the +native annalists. He was the sixth king of the first dynasty of Babylon, +and reigned fifty-five years. Unfortunately, the only copy we possess at +present of the native Babylonian list of dynasties is broken, and owing +to the fracture of the tablet, a doubt hangs over his precise date. The +most probable restoration of the text would make it about B.C. +2300.[146] Between this and the Exodus there would be an interval of +more than a thousand years. + +Dr. Mahler has attempted to fix astronomically the dates of the two +leading Pharaohs of the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties, Thothmes +III. and Ramses II., and his dates have been accepted by Brugsch and +other Egyptologists. If his calculations are correct, Thothmes III. will +have reigned from the 20th of March B.C. 1503 to the 14th of February +B.C. 1449;[147] and Ramses II., the Pharaoh of the oppression, from B.C. +1348 to 1281. The eighteenth dynasty, accordingly, would have commenced +about B.C. 1600, and the Exodus would have taken place subsequently to +B.C. 1280. + +If Apophis II. was the Hyksos king under whom Joseph governed Egypt, he +would have lived four generations before Ahmes, the founder of the +eighteenth dynasty.[148] The ‘four hundred years,’ therefore, during +which Israel was evil-entreated in Egypt (Acts vii. 6) will correspond +with the era of four hundred years mentioned on a stela discovered by +Mariette at San, the ancient Zoan.[149] The stela commemorates a visit +paid to Zoan in the reign of Ramses II. by Seti, the governor of the +frontier, on the fourth day of the month Mesori, and ‘the four hundredth +year of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Set-âa-pehti, the son of the +Sun, who loved him, also named Set-Nubti, beloved of Harmakhis.’ Since +Set or Sutekh was the Hyksos god, and Zoan the Hyksos capital, it is +clear that we have here a Hyksos era, the four hundredth anniversary of +which fell in the reign of Ramses II. It seems probable that it marked +the accession of the third and last Hyksos dynasty. According to +Manetho, as reported by Africanus, this lasted for one hundred and +fifty-one years, which would take us to about B.C. 1720, and the same +date is obtained if we calculate the four hundred years of the stela of +Sân, back from the thirtieth year of Ramses II. One generation more—the +thirty additional years given in Exod. xii. 40—will bring us to the +period of the Exodus, which, as we shall see hereafter, must have taken +place under Meneptah, the son and successor of Ramses II. + +The precise connection between the Hyksos and Hebrew eras must be left +to the future to discover. At present, the only reference found to the +first is that on the stela of Sân. Some connection, however, there must +be between them, like the connection between Zoan and Hebron indicated +in Numb. xiii. 22, where it is said that ‘Hebron was built seven years +before Zoan in Egypt.’ The Hyksos were invaders from Asia, and between +them and the Hebrews there may have been a closer relationship than we +now suspect. + +Two approximate dates have accordingly been found for early Hebrew +history. One results from the synchronism between Abraham and Amraphel, +and may be set down as about 2300 B.C.; the other is the synchronism +with Egyptian history, which gives us about B.C. 1720 for the settlement +of the Hebrew tribes in Goshen. We must now see what light can be thrown +by the Egyptian monuments on the date of the Exodus. + +Various reasons had led an increasing majority of Egyptologists to +regard Ramses II., the most prominent figure in the nineteenth dynasty, +if not in the whole history of the Pharaohs, as the Pharaoh of the +Oppression, and the question was finally settled by Dr. Naville’s +excavations at Tel el-Maskhûta on behalf of the Egypt Exploration +Fund.[150] Tel el-Maskhûta proved to be the site of Pi-Tum, the Biblical +Pithom, and to have had the civil name of Thuku or Thukut from the nome +of the district in which it was situated. Brugsch had already pointed +out that Thukut is the Succoth of the Old Testament, the Egyptian _th_ +corresponding to the Hebrew _’s_, and Succoth was the first stage in the +flight of the Israelites after their departure from Raamses (Exod. xii. +37). Pi-Tum was the sacred name of the city, which was dedicated to Tum, +the setting Sun. + +The monuments found on the spot showed that the founder of the city was +Ramses II.; and since the Pharaoh of the Oppression was also the builder +of Pithom (Exod. i. 11), those who attach any credit to the historical +character of the Biblical statement must necessarily see in him the +great Pharaoh of the nineteenth dynasty. The conclusion is further +supported by the name of ‘Raamses,’ or Ramses, the second of the two +cities which it is said the Hebrews were employed in building. Ramses +I., the founder of the nineteenth dynasty, and the grandfather of Ramses +II., was the first king of Egypt who bore that name; and the shortness +of his reign, which does not seem to have exceeded two years, as well as +the disturbed condition of the country, would have prevented him from +undertaking any architectural works. Ramses II., however, was +essentially a building Pharaoh; he covered Egypt from one end to the +other with his constructions; he founded cities, erected or restored +monuments, and not unfrequently usurped them. There was more than one +city or temple of Ramses which owed its existence to his architectural +zeal and was called after his name. As the date of the third Ramses of +the twentieth dynasty is too late to fit in with any theory of the +Exodus, there remains only Ramses II. for ‘the treasure-city’ mentioned +in Exodus. Ramses II. restored Zoan, and made it a seat of residence; +this will explain why, in Gen. xlvii. 11, Goshen is proleptically said +to have been situated in ‘the land of Rameses.’ Brugsch has made it +probable that ‘the city of Ramses’ referred to in an Egyptian papyrus +was Zoan itself.[151] + +If Ramses II. was the Pharaoh of the Oppression, the Pharaoh of the +Exodus will have been one of his immediate successors. The choice lies +between Meneptah II., who succeeded him, his grandson, the feeble Seti +II., and the usurper Si-Ptah, with whom the dynasty came to an +inglorious end. The Egyptian legend of the Exodus given by Manetho +places it in the reign of Meneptah; and a stela discovered at Thebes in +1896 by Professor Petrie makes any other dating difficult. Here the +‘Israelites’ are spoken of as having been brought low, ‘so that no seed +should be left to them’; and since their name alone is without the +determinative of locality which is added to the names of all the other +conquered populations associated with them, we may conclude that they +had already been lost in the desert, and, so far at any rate as was +known to the Egyptian scribe, had no fixed local habitation.[152] As +this was in the fifth year of Meneptah’s reign, B.C. 1276, according to +Dr. Mahler’s chronology, the Exodus from Egypt may be approximately +assigned to B.C. 1277. The period of oppression, according to the +calculation in Gen. xv. 13, would consequently have commenced in B.C. +1677, or nearly a hundred years before the expulsion of the Hyksos. + +It must be remembered, however, that the date is more precise in +appearance than in reality. It depends partly on the accuracy of Dr. +Mahler’s calculations, which is disputed by Professors Eisenlohr and +Maspero, partly on our regarding the round number 400 as representing an +exact period of time. If we knew in what year of Ramses II.’s long reign +of sixty-seven years the stela of Sân was inscribed, we should be better +able to check the reckoning. As it is, we have to be grateful for what +we have already learned from the excavated monuments of the past, and to +look forward with confidence to more light and certainty in the future. + +Footnote 126: + + This, however, is beginning to be doubtful, in view of the discoveries + made by Messrs. de Morgan and Amélineau in 1886-87. + +Footnote 127: + + For the logical goal of the ‘Higher Criticism,’ see Bateson Wright, + _Was Israel ever in Egypt?_ (1895.) + +Footnote 128: + + The theory of Jean Astruc, the French Protestant physician, was set + forth in his _Conjectures sur la Genèse_ published anonymously at + Paris in 1753. In this he assumes that Moses wrote the book of Genesis + in four parallel columns like a Harmony of the Gospels which were + afterwards mixed together by the ignorance of copyists. Astruc + intended his work to be an answer to those who, like Spinoza, asserted + that Genesis was written without order or plan. It is interesting to + note that Dr. Briggs in his able defence of the ‘critical’ hypothesis + (_The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch_, pp. 138-141) quotes with + approval Professor Moore’s appeal to Tatian’s _Diatessaron_—a mere + ‘patchwork’ of the Gospels—in support of the literary analysis of the + Pentateuch. + +Footnote 129: + + See Bissell, Introduction to _Genesis printed in Colours_ (1892), pp. + xi-xiii; also p. vii, where he says: ‘The argument from language + outside the divine names requires extreme care for obvious reasons. It + is admitted to be relatively weak, and can never have more than a + subordinate and supplementary value. There is no visible cleavage line + among the supposed sources.’ Professor Bissell’s work is an attempt to + represent by different colours the text of Genesis as it has been + analysed and disintegrated by the ‘higher critics,’ and the result at + which he arrives in his Introduction is that the analytical theory is + a house built upon sand. As regards the account of the Flood, in which + ‘it is claimed’ that two distinct narratives can be distinguished from + each other, he remarks: ‘Two flood-stories, originating, according to + the theory, hundreds of years apart, and literally swarming with + differences and contradictions ... are found to fit one another like + so many serrated blocks, and to form, united, a consecutive history + whose unity, with constant use for millenniums, has been undisputed + till our day. Is this coincidence, or is it miracle? But let us take a + closer look. We shall find no loosely joined, independent sections, + but mutually dependent parts of one whole. An occasional overlapping + of ideas, a repetition for emphasis, or enlargement, in complete + harmony with Hebrew style, there undoubtedly is. But there is also a + marked interdependence and sequence of thought wholly inconsistent + with the theory proposed. Let the reader test what J’s story would be + alone. Beginning it has none; no preliminary announcement of the + catastrophe; no command to make preparations; no report of Noah’s + attitude.... And so P’s story, taken by itself, would be equally + incomplete.... As to the alleged discrepancies in other respects, they + appear, as we have seen, to be true in other cases, only after the + text is rent asunder. The lighting system of the one does not exclude + the one window of the other; nor the covering for the roof, the door + in the side. Without the door, for which one document alone is + responsible, how is it supposed that the occupants of the ark got in + and out of it? If objects are thrown out of their due perspective, as + in a mirage, it need surprise no one if they appear distorted and + grotesque.... It is particularly in the matter of language and style + that resort is taken to this illogical and dangerous means of + text-mutilation. There are certain stylistic peculiarities of one or + the other document, it is claimed, which are fixed from the usage of + previous chapters. But unfortunately for the scheme, they appear not + unfrequently in the wrong place. For instance, the expression “male + and female” is held to be characteristic of P, J using another for it. + In vii. 3, 9, J uses this expression twice, and our critics must make + the redactor deny it. The oft-recurring formula, “both man, beast, and + creeping thing and fowl of the air,” is found in the first chapter of + Genesis, and so is said to be characteristic of P. Here J has it in + vi. 7 and vii. 23, and the redactor is called in to square the + document to the theory.... In all these changes we are supposed to + have the work of a redactor. How is it possible? What motive could a + redactor have had for it? It is claimed by our critics that he has + left the principal points of contrast between the two great documents + from which he compiled in their original ruggedness. The principal + changes made, with rare exceptions, are of single words, detached + phrases, verses or parts of verses,—every one of them changes in what + was originally homogeneous matter to what is now heterogeneous, from + what was once true, from the point of view of the document, to what is + now false!’ + +Footnote 130: + + Cf. the plates in Flinders Petrie’s _Tel el-Amarna_ (Methuen and Co., + 1894). + +Footnote 131: + + Literally, ‘Aten-Ra! the Record Office.’ Many of the bricks with the + inscription upon them still lay on the spot when I visited it in 1888. + +Footnote 132: + + See my _Patriarchal Palestine_, p. 222. + +Footnote 133: + + Hommel, _Aufsätze und Abhandlungen zur Kunde der Sprachen, Literaturen + und der Geschichte des vorderen Orients_, pp. 2 _sqq._ + +Footnote 134: + + See my _Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_, pp. 56 + _sq._ + +Footnote 135: + + The Elohist and the Chaldæan story further agree in making the hero of + the Deluge the tenth in descent from the first man. + +Footnote 136: + + See my _Archæological Commentary on Genesis_, in the _Expository + Times_, July and August, 1896. + +Footnote 137: + + Cf. Gunkel, _Schöpfung und Chaos_, p. 114. + +Footnote 138: + + See above, p. 13. + +Footnote 139: + + Naville, _Das aegyptische Todtenbuch der XVIII. bis XX. Dynastie_, + Einleitung; Maspero, _Études de Mythologie et d’ Archéologie + égyptiennes_, i. pp. 325-387. + +Footnote 140: + + _Sanctuary and Sacrifice_, by W. L. Baxter (Eyre and Spottiswoode, + 1895). + +Footnote 141: + + Cowley and Neubauer, _The Original Hebrew of a Portion of + Ecclesiasticus_, p. xviii. + +Footnote 142: + + Ham for Am or Ammon, and Zuzim for Zamzummim (Gen. xiv. 5); see my + _Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_, pp. 160, 161. + +Footnote 143: + + This probably stands for the Babylonian al-Larsa, ‘the city of Larsa.’ + +Footnote 144: + + _Contemporary Review_, February 1890, p. 221. + +Footnote 145: + + Mesha says in the inscription (l. 8): ‘Omri took the land of Medeba, + and [Israel] dwelt in it during his days and half the days of his son, + altogether forty years.’ The real length of time was not more than + fifteen years. + +Footnote 146: + + Oppert dates the reign B.C. 2394 to 2339; Sayce, B.C. 2336-2281; + Delitzsch, B.C. 2287-2232; Winckler, 2264-2210; and Peiser, 2139-2084; + while Hommel suggests that the compiler of the list of dynasties has + reversed the true order of the first two dynasties in it, and + accordingly brings down the date of Khammu-rabi or Amraphel three + hundred and sixty-eight years. This would better suit the Biblical + data, but so far nothing has been found on the monuments in support of + the suggestion. Dr. Hales’s date for the birth of Abraham was B.C. + 2153. + +Footnote 147: + + _Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache_, 1889, pp. 97-105. + +Footnote 148: + + The ‘prince’ of Thebes who revolted against Apophis was Skenen-Ra Taa + I., whose fourth successor was Ahmes. + +Footnote 149: + + _Revue Archéologique_, March 1865. + +Footnote 150: + + E. Naville, _The Store-city of Pithom and the Route of the Exodus_ + (1885). + +Footnote 151: + + _Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache_, 1872, p. 18; see also J. de + Rougé, _Géographie ancienne de la Basse-Égypte_, pp. 93-95. + +Footnote 152: + + Cf. the articles of Sayce and Hommel in the _Expository Times_ for + August, October, and November 1896, pp. 521, 18, and 89. + + + + + CHAPTER III + THE EXODUS OUT OF EGYPT + + + Goshen—The Pharaohs of the Oppression and Exodus—The Heretic + King at Tel el-Amarna—Causes of the Exodus—The Stela of + Meneptah—Moses—Flight to Midian—The Ten Plagues—The + Exodus—Egyptian Version of it—Origin of the Passover—Geography + of the Exodus—Position of Sinai—-Promulgation of the + Law—Babylonian Analogies—The Tabernacle—The Levitical Law—The + Feasts—Number of the Israelites—Kadesh-barnea—Failure to conquer + Canaan—The High-priest and the Levites—Edom—Conquests on the + East of the Jordan—Balaam—Destruction of the Midianites—Cities + of Refuge and of the Levites—The Deuteronomic Law—Death of + Moses. + + +‘There arose up a new king over Egypt which knew not Joseph.’ +Commentators on the passage have often imagined that this event followed +almost immediately upon the death of Joseph and his generation. So, too, +it was supposed before the decipherment of the Assyrian inscriptions +that the murder of Sennacherib took place immediately after his return +from Palestine. In both cases the student had been misled by the brevity +of the Hebrew narrative, and that foreshortening of the past which +causes events to be grouped together even though they may have been +separated by an interval of many years. In the present instance, +however, the Biblical writer has done his best to indicate that the +interval was a long one. Before the rise of ‘the new king which knew not +Joseph,’ the children of Israel had had time to ‘increase abundantly,’ +to ‘multiply’ so that ‘the land was filled with them.’ The family of +Jacob had become a tribe, or rather a collection of tribes. They had +become dangerous to their rulers; the Pharaoh is even made to say that +they were ‘more and mightier than’ the Egyptians themselves. In case of +invasion, they might assist the enemy and expose Egypt to another +Asiatic conquest. + +Hence came the determination to transform them into public serfs, and +even to destroy the males altogether. The free Bedâwin-like settlers in +Goshen, who had kept apart from their Egyptian neighbours, and had been +unwilling to perform even agricultural work, were made the slaves of the +State. They were taken from their herds and sheep, from their +independent life on the outskirts of the Delta, and compelled to toil +under the lash of the Egyptian taskmaster and build for the Pharaoh his +‘treasure-cities’ of Pithom and Raamses. + +Egypt is the most conservative of countries, and the children of Israel +still have their representatives in it. The Bedâwin still feed their +flocks and enjoy an independent existence on the outskirts of the +cultivated land, and in that very district of Goshen where the +descendants of Jacob once dwelt. Even when they adopt a settled +agriculturist life, like the villagers of Gizeh, they still claim +immunity from the burdens of their fellahin neighbours on the ground of +their Bedâwin descent. They are exempt from the conscription and the +_corvée_, the modern equivalents of the forced brickmaking of the Mosaic +age. The attempt to interfere with these privileges has actually led to +an exodus in our own time.[153] The Wadi Tumilât, the Goshen of old +days, was colonised with Arabs from the Nejd and Babylonia by Mohammed +Ali, who wished to employ them in the culture of the silkworm. Here they +lived with their flocks and cattle, protected by the Government, and +exempt from taxation, from military service, and the _corvée_. Mohammed +Ali died, however, and an attempt was then made to force them into the +army, and lay upon them the ordinary burdens of taxation. Thereupon, in +a single night, the whole population silently departed with all their +possessions, leaving behind them nothing but the hearths of their +forsaken homes. They made their way back to their kinsfolk eastward of +Egypt, and the Wadi remained deserted until M. de Lesseps carried +through it the Freshwater Canal. + +We owe to Dr. Naville the recovery of Goshen. In 1884 he excavated at +Saft el-Henna an ancient mound close to the line of railway between +Zagazig and Tel el-Kebîr. The monuments he found there showed that the +mound represents the ancient Qosem or Qos, called Pha-kussa by the Greek +geographers, which was the capital of the Arabian nome. The Septuagint, +with its Gesem instead of Goshen, implies that the site of Goshen was +still remembered in Alexandrine times.[154] + +The Arabian nome took its name not only from its proximity to Arabia, +but also from the fact that its inhabitants were mainly of the Arab +race. But the name did not come into existence until after the age of +the nineteenth dynasty. When Ramses II. was Pharaoh, the whole region +from the neighbourhood of Cairo to the Suez Canal was included in the +nome of On or Heliopolis. It was only at a subsequent date that the +nomes of Arabia and of Bubastis were carved out of that of On. + +Previously to this, Qosem was the name of a district as well as of its +chief city. It comprised not only the fertile fields immediately +surrounding Saft el-Henna, and stretching from the mounds of Bubastis, +close to Zagazig, on the west to Tel el-Kebîr on the east, but also the +Wadi Tumilât, through which the railway now runs eastward as far as +Ismailiya. Belbeis, south of Zagazig, was also included within its +limits. At the eastern extremity of the Wadi was Pithom, now marked by +the ruins of Tel el-Maskhûta. + +Meneptah II., the Pharaoh of the Exodus, thus refers at Karnak to the +arable land about Pi-Bailos, the modern Belbeis. ‘The country around +it,’ he says, ‘is not cultivated, but left as pasture for cattle because +of the foreigners. It has been abandoned (to them) since ancient times.’ +They had settled with their herds in the neighbouring-valley of Tumilât, +and the richer land which adjoined the valley was also assigned to them. +Here they were in the nome of Heliopolis, the daughter of whose +high-priest was married by Joseph, as well as in the near neighbourhood +of Bubastis, where Dr. Naville has found Hyksos remains. + +When the great inscription of Meneptah II. was engraved on the walls of +Karnak the Exodus would have already taken place. The ‘foreigners,’ +therefore, to whom he alludes must have been the Israelites, who had now +deserted the spot. The district accordingly would once more have needed +inhabitants, and the Pharaoh had the power of handing it over to the +first Bedâwin tribe who begged for pasturage in the Delta. He had not +long to wait. Among the papyri in the British Museum there is a letter +dated in the eighth year of Meneptah’s reign, and addressed to the king. +In this the scribe writes as follows:—‘Another matter for the +consideration of my master’s heart. We have allowed the tribes of the +Shasu from the land of Edom to pass the fortress of Meneptah in the land +of Thukut (Succoth), (and go) to the lakes of Pithom of Meneptah in the +land of Thukut, in order to feed themselves, and to feed their herds on +the great estate of Pharaoh, the beneficent sun of all countries. In the +year 8.’[155] + +The Wâdi Tumilât was accordingly regarded as crown-land, as indeed it is +to-day, and it was handed over to the Edomites by officers of the +Pharaoh, just as it had been to the Israelites several centuries before. +But now the Israelites had fled from it, and disappeared into the +wilderness, and it was necessary to fill their place. + +The Biblical writer distinguishes the Pharaoh of the Oppression from the +Pharaoh of the Exodus (Exod. ii. 23). It was after the death of the +great royal builder of Egypt that the Hebrews were delivered from their +bondage. The Pharaoh of the Oppression and not the Pharaoh of the Exodus +was ‘the new king which knew not Joseph.’ + +The full meaning of the phrase has been explained to us by the tablets +of Tel el-Amarna. They have made it clear that towards the end of the +eighteenth dynasty the Egyptian court became semi-Asiatic. The Pharaohs +married Asiatic wives; and eventually Amenophis IV., under the influence +of his mother Teie, publicly abandoned the religion of which he was the +official head, and avowed himself a convert to an Asiatic form of faith. +Amon, the god of Thebes, was dethroned by a new deity, Aten-Ra, ‘the +Solar Disk.’ The Solar Disk, however, was but the visible manifestation +of the one Supreme God, who was diffused throughout nature, and +corresponded in many respects with the Semitic Baal. The Egyptians +accordingly identified him with Ra, the ancient Sun-god of Heliopolis, +who in earlier times had similarly been identified with the Hyksos Baal. + +Amenophis, the cast of whose face taken immediately after death displays +the features and expression of a philosopher and enthusiast,[156] +endeavoured to force the new faith upon his unwilling subjects. The very +name of Amon was proscribed and was erased wherever it occurred, the +followers of the old religion of Egypt were persecuted, and the Pharaoh +changed his own name to that of Khu-n-Aten, ‘the radiance of the Solar +Disk.’ A violent struggle ensued with the powerful hierarchy of Thebes. +Khu-n-Aten was finally compelled to leave the capital of his fathers, +and build himself a new city further north, where its site is now marked +by the mounds of Tel el-Amarna. He carried with him the State-archives, +consisting mainly of foreign correspondence in the Babylonian language +and cuneiform script, and these were deposited in one of the public +buildings adjoining the palace, every brick of which was stamped with +the words, ‘Aten-Ra! the Record-Office.’[157] + +The palace itself was a marvel of art. Its walls and columns were +encrusted with precious stones, with gold and with bronze, and it was +adorned with painting and statuary, some of which reminds us of Greek +art in its best period. Even the floors were frescoed with pictures of +birds and animals, of flowers and trees. The new religion was +accompanied by a new form of art, which cast aside the traditions of +Egypt, and looked rather to Asiatic models. It strove after a realism +which was sometimes exaggerated, and was always in strange contrast to +the conventionalism of Egyptian art. Hard by the gardens of the palace +rose the temple of Aten-Ra in the centre of the city. Like the palace, +it was gorgeous with ornament. But it contained no image of the deity to +whom it was consecrated. His symbol, the Disk, was alone permitted to +appear. The pantheistic monotheism of the Pharaoh thus anticipated the +puritanism of the Israelitish Law. + +We learn from the inscriptions that Khu-n-Aten was not contented with +making himself the high-priest of the new faith. Daily in the morning he +gave instruction in it, expounding its mysteries to those who would +listen to him. Acceptance of its doctrines was naturally a passport to +the offices of State. Many of these had long been held by Asiatics, more +especially by Syrians and Canaanites, and under Khu-n-Aten these foreign +immigrants more and more usurped the highest functions of the +Government. The native Egyptians saw themselves excluded from the posts +which had brought them not only dignity, but wealth. Naturally, +therefore, the bitter feelings engendered by the war waged against the +old religion of Egypt were increased by this promotion of the stranger +to the offices of State which they had regarded as their own. The Canaan +they had conquered had revenged itself by conquering their king. Not +only religion, but self-interest also, urged the native Egyptian to put +an end to the reforming schemes of the Pharaoh, and to religious +animosity was added race hatred as well. + +The storm broke shortly before Khu-n-Aten’s death. His mummy indeed was +laid in the magnificent grave he had excavated in the recesses of a +desolate mountain-valley, but the granite sarcophagus in which it was +deposited was never placed in the niche prepared for it, but was hacked +to pieces by his enemies as it lay in the columned hall of the tomb, +while the body within it was torn to shreds. Nor was his mother Teie +ever laid by his side. Even the bodies of his dead daughters were +maltreated and despoiled. + +Khu-n-Aten was followed by one or two short-lived Pharaohs in the city +he had built. Then the end came. The city was destroyed, the stones of +its temple were transported elsewhere to furnish materials for the +sanctuaries of the victorious Amon, and such of the adherents of the new +faith as could not escape from the country either apostatised or were +slain. A new king arose who represented the national party and the +worship of the national god, and the Semitic strangers who had governed +Egypt as European strangers govern it to-day disappeared for a time from +the land. Their kinsfolk who remained, like the Israelites in Goshen, +were reduced to the condition of public slaves. + +Here, then, is the explanation of the rise of that ‘new king which knew +not Joseph.’ We must see in him, not the founder of the eighteenth +dynasty who expelled the Hyksos, but Ramses I., the founder of the +nineteenth dynasty, with whom all danger of Asiatic domination in Egypt +came finally to an end. The nineteenth dynasty represented the national +reaction against the Asiatic faith of Khu-n-Aten and the government of +the country by Asiatic officials. It meant Egypt as against Asia. And +the policy of the new rulers of Egypt was not long in declaring itself. +Ramses I. indeed reigned too short a time to do more than establish his +family firmly on the throne; but his son and successor, Seti Meneptah +I., once more overran Syria and made Palestine an Egyptian province; +while Ramses II., who followed him, took measures to prevent such of the +Asiatics as were still in Egypt from ever again becoming formidable to +the native population. + +The causes that led to the enslavement of the Israelites and to the +Exodus out of Egypt were the same as those which in our own day led to +the rebellion of Arabi. Religious and race hatreds were mingled +together, and the ‘national party’ which grudged to the foreigner his +share in the spoils of government aimed at destroying both him and his +religion. Ramses I., however, was more fortunate than Arabi. No foreign +power came to the help of the Syrian settlers on the Nile, and the +leader of the Egyptian patriots became the favourite of the Theban +priesthood and the sovereign of Egypt. From this time forward we hear no +more of the use of the Babylonian language and script in the public +correspondence of the Egyptians. + +The oppression of the Israelites, then, is a natural and necessary part +of the political history of the nineteenth dynasty. It fits in with the +policy which the dynasty was placed on the throne to carry out. And an +inscription discovered by Professor Flinders Petrie in 1896 supplements +the story in an unexpected way. It was engraved by order of Meneptah +II., the son and successor of Ramses II., on a large slab of granite, +and placed in a temple he built at Thebes, on the western bank of the +Nile. Its twenty-eight lines contain a song of triumph over the defeat +of the Libyans and their allies from the Greek seas which took place in +the fifth year of the king’s reign. Towards the end the poet sums up all +the glorious deeds of the Pharaoh. ‘The chiefs,’ he says, ‘are +overthrown and speak only of peace. None of the Barbarians (literally, +the Nine Bows) lifts up his head. Wasted (?) is the land of the Libyans; +the land of the Hittites is tranquillised; captive is the land of Canaan +and utterly miserable; carried away is the land of Ashkelon; overpowered +is the land of Gezer; the land of Innuam (in Central Syria) is brought +to nought. The Israelites are spoiled so that they have no seed, the +land of Khar (Southern Palestine) is become like the widows of Egypt.’ + +Here the Israelites alone are described as without local habitation. +They alone had no ‘land’ in which they dwelt, and which was called after +their name. It would seem, therefore, that when the song was composed +they had already fled from Egypt and been lost in the unknown recesses +of the eastern desert. But the poet knew that they were of Canaanitish +origin; that they were, in fact, the kinsmen of the Horites of Southern +Palestine. Their misfortunes, consequently, were equally the misfortunes +of ‘Khar,’ whose women had been made as widows since the male seed of +Israel had been cut off.[158] + +After the fashion of court-poets, the author of the hymn of victory is +not careful about ascribing to his royal master such successes as he +could himself really claim. He has skilfully combined the victories of +Meneptah with those of his father, and given him the credit of conquests +which he had not made. The Hittites had been ‘tranquillised’ by Ramses +II., not by Meneptah, and Canaan had been the conquest of Ramses and his +father Seti. We may accordingly conclude that in the case of the +Israelites also Meneptah is made to claim what does not properly belong +to him. According to the book of Exodus, it was the Pharaoh of the +Oppression rather than the Pharaoh of the Exodus who ordered that ‘every +son’ should be ‘cast into the river,’ and only the daughters saved +alive. + +The agreement, however, between the Biblical narrative and the +expression used on the stela of Meneptah is very remarkable. It is +almost as if the writer of Exodus had had the inscription before him. In +both it is the male seed which we are told was destroyed: the women were +left as widows, for all ‘the men children’ were cut off. The victory +over the Israelites, of which the poet boasts, was a victory obtained by +slaying, like Herod, all the children who were males. + +Nevertheless, ‘the people multiplied.’ It was impossible to carry out +literally the order of the Pharaoh, and there must have been many +children who were saved from death. Among these was Moses, the future +legislator of his race. The story of his preservation is familiar to +every one. We are told how his mother made ‘an ark of bulrushes, and +daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and laid +it in the flags by the river’s brink.’ Then the daughter of the Pharaoh +came to bathe, and taking compassion on the child, brought him up as her +own son. + +A similar story had been told centuries before of Sargon of Akkad, the +great Babylonian conqueror and lawgiver. He, too, it was said, had been +placed by his mother ‘in an ark of reeds, the mouth whereof she closed +with pitch,’ and then launched it on the waters of the Euphrates. The +child was carried to Akki the irrigator, who adopted him as his son, and +brought him up until the day came when, through the help of the goddess +Istar, the true origin and birth of the hero were made known, and he +became one of the mightiest of the Babylonian kings. + +A like destiny seemed in store for Moses. He was introduced into the +family of the Pharaoh, and took his place at court among the royal +princes. A punning etymology makes the princess who adopted him speak +Hebrew and give him the name of Mosheh or Moses, from the Hebrew +_mâshah_, ‘to draw out.’ Mosheh, however, is really the Egyptian +_messu_, ‘son,’ a very appropriate name for an adopted child. The name +was not uncommon in Egypt; and in the time of Meneptah, the contemporary +of Moses, it was actually borne by a ‘Prince of Kush,’ that is to say, +the Egyptian governor of Ethiopia.[159] The coincidence doubtless was +the origin of that Jewish tradition of the successful campaign of Moses +in Ethiopia as general of the Egyptian army, which is recorded in full +by Josephus. + +Conjecture, both ancient and modern, has played freely round the person +of Pharaoh’s daughter. Modern writers have pointed to the fact that the +favourite daughter of Ramses II. bore the Canaanitish name of Bint-Anat, +and had been born of a Syrian mother. That she should have adopted a +Hebrew child would have been nothing strange. Her own sympathies would +naturally have been on the side of her Semitic ancestry. Moses himself +belonged to the tribe of Levi, and future generations remembered that +his father was Amram and his mother Jochebed. He had a brother Aaron, +three years older than himself, and a sister Miriam. The names of all +three were never forgotten in Israel.[160] + +Nor did Moses, when he came to man’s estate, forget his own people. One +day, when he was of that unknown age which the Hebrew writers expressed +by the term of forty years, he saw one of his Israelitish brethren +ill-treated by the Egyptian taskmaster; and with the unrestrained +licence of a young Oriental prince, he forthwith remedied the injustice +by slaying the Egyptian with his own hand. The act was soon known and +discussed among the Hebrew slaves; and when he endeavoured to reconcile +two of them who were quarrelling with each other, he was told that +though he might be ‘a prince’ in the eyes of the Egyptians, he had no +authority over the Hebrew tribes. The suspicions of the Pharaoh had +already been aroused against him, and he now fled from Egypt in fear of +his life. An Egyptian papyrus, written in the time of the twelfth +dynasty, tells the story of a similar fugitive from the Pharaoh’s wrath. +This was Sinuhit, who seems to have been accused of conspiring against +the government, and who fled, accordingly, like Moses, alone and on +foot. He made his way to the eastern boundary of Egypt; and there, when +fainting from thirst, was rescued by the Bedâwin of the desert, and +finally reached in safety the land of the Kadmonites among the mountains +of Seir. The shêkh received him kindly, and Sinuhit in course of time +married the daughter of the Bedâwi chieftain, and became one of the +princes of the tribe. Children were born to him, and he possessed herds +and flocks in abundance. But his heart still yearned for his native +land; and when in his old age a new Pharaoh sent messengers to say that +his political offences were forgiven, and that he might return to Egypt, +Sinuhit left his Arab wife and children and went back once more to his +own country.[161] + +Like Sinuhit, Moses also fled to the eastern desert, beyond the reach of +the Egyptian power. He did not feel himself safe till he found himself +in Midian. The Sinaitic Peninsula—Mafkat, as it was called—was an +Egyptian province, and the mines of malachite and copper on its western +side were garrisoned by Egyptian troops. The ‘salt’ desert of Melukhkha, +moreover, which lay between Egypt and Palestine, was equally under +Egyptian control; and, as we learn from the Tel el-Amarna tablets, +supplied contingents to the Pharaoh’s army.[162] But in Midian Moses was +safe from pursuit; and the ‘priest of Midian,’ like the shêkh of Kedem +with whom Sinuhit had to do, gave him a kindly welcome, and married him +to Zipporah, one of his daughters. + +Government by a priest was a peculiarly Semitic institution. Assur, the +primitive capital of Assyria, had been governed by high-priests before +it had been governed by kings, and so too had Saba or Sheba in the south +of Arabia. There, as we learn from inscriptions, the Makârib, or +High-priests, had preceded the kings. + +Tradition has handed down more than one name for the high-priest of +Midian. In one part of the narrative in Exodus he is called Reuel, in +another part Jethro. Jethro is a distinctively north Arabian name, for +which there is monumental evidence, and it is probably more correct than +Reuel.[163] Whatever may have been his name, however, Moses remained +with him for some time; but instead of being treated like a prince, as +Sinuhit had been among the Kadmonites, he was set to keep the flocks of +his father-in-law. + +It was while thus shepherding the flocks of Jethro that Moses came one +day to Horeb, ‘the mountain of God,’ which rose into the sky at the back +of the desert. Here he beheld a _seneh_ or ‘thorn-bush,’ lighted up with +fire, which nevertheless did not consume it.[164] Approaching nearer, he +heard a voice which he believed was that of God Himself, and which told +him that the mountain whereon he stood was holy ground. Moses was then +ordered to return to Egypt, and there in the name of the God of Israel +to command Pharaoh to let His people go. Wonders and signs were to be +performed before consent would be wrung from the obdurate heart of the +Egyptian king, and ten sore plagues were to be sent upon the inhabitants +of the Delta who had joined with the Pharaoh in his oppression of the +Israelites. At the same time, God revealed Himself under a new name, +which was henceforth to be that of the national God of Israel. On the +slopes of Horeb the name of Yahveh was first made known to man.[165] + +Moses was met by Aaron ‘in the Mount of God,’ and the two brothers +returned to Egypt together, determined to deliver Israel from its +bondage, and to lead it to that sacred mountain whereon the name of its +national God had been revealed. Unlike Sinuhit, Moses took with him his +Midianitish wife and the children she had borne him. At this point in +the narrative there has been inserted the fragment of a story which +harmonises but ill with it, or with the general spirit of Old Testament +history. The anthropomorphising legend that ‘the Lord’ met Moses and +would have killed him had not Zipporah appeased the wrathful Deity by +circumcising her son, belongs to the folklore of a people still in a +state of crude barbarism, and is part of a story which enforced the +necessity of circumcision among the Hebrew worshippers of Yahveh. An +over-minute criticism might find a contradiction between the statement +that Zipporah had but one son to circumcise, and the fact that it was +the ‘sons’ of Moses who accompanied him to Egypt (Exod. iv. 20). Such +verbal criticism, however, is needless; it is sufficient for the +historian that the story is a mere fragment, almost unintelligible as it +stands, and in complete disaccord with the historical setting in which +it is placed. + +Moses and Aaron made their way to the court of the Pharaoh, and there +requested that the Israelites might be allowed to journey three days +into the desert, and hold a feast to their God. The gods of the Asiatic +nomads on the outskirts of the Delta were gods of the wilderness, whom +the Egyptians identified with Set, the enemy of Horus, the deity of the +cultivated land.[166] The Pharaoh refused the request. Once lost in the +desert, the royal slaves would be lost for ever, and would never turn +back to the line of fortifications which guarded the eastern frontier of +Egypt, and, at the same time, prevented the escape of those who dwelt +within them. The God of the Hebrews was no god whom the Pharaoh—himself +the offspring and incarnation of the Sun-god—could recognise; they were +the servants of the Egyptian king, and of none else. + +The embassy of the representatives of Israel was followed by severer +measures of repression. It indicated a rising spirit of rebellion, a +desire to return to the old free life of the desert, and to be quit for +ever of Egyptian burdens. Strikes were not unknown among the free +workmen of Thebes; but a strike among the royal slaves was a more +serious matter, and seemed to prove that the Bedâwi spirit of +independence and insubordination was still active among the settlers in +Goshen.[167] The Israelites were still employed in building cities and +fortresses, and they were now bidden to find for themselves the _tibn_ +or chopped straw, which they mixed with the clay of the bricks, and, at +the same time, to deliver the same number of bricks as before. The +_tibn_ was employed, as it still is, for binding the clay more closely +together, but it is not essential, and many of the ancient bricks of +Egypt, more especially those used in Upper Egypt, are made without it. +In the Delta, however, with its damper climate, the _tibn_ was more +necessary, and the Egyptian taskmasters, accordingly, required it, or +else some substitute for it.[168] The condition of the Israelites thus +became intolerable; they were scattered over the land, seeking for +‘stubble instead of straw,’ and beaten mercilessly in traditional +Egyptian fashion if the full tale of bricks was not delivered. The +‘stubble’ corresponded with the dry stalks of the durra, which are still +sometimes used for a similar purpose, and was obtained from the beds of +dry reeds which lined the marshes in the Eastern Delta. + +Once more Moses and Aaron appeared before the Pharaoh, this time +prepared to enforce their petition by signs and wonders. That they +should have had such ready access to the sovereign may seem strange to +the Western mind. But it is in full accordance with the traditions of +the Egyptian court, which have been maintained down to the reign of the +late Khedive. The ruler of the country was accessible to all who had a +complaint to make before him, or a petition to offer. _Bakshish_ might +be needful before the charmed circle of officials by which he was +surrounded could be broken through; but once it was broken, he was bound +to give audience to whosoever came to him. Moses and Aaron, moreover, +were the delegates and representatives of their people, and as such had +a right to be heard. The system they represented is still in full force +in modern Egypt. Each class of the community, each religion, each trade, +each nationality, has its recognised representative or ‘shêkh,’ who +stands between it and the government, and acts on its behalf in all +political and legal matters. He is as much its representative as an +ambassador or consul is the representative of the nation which has +accredited him, and the rights and privileges which belong to an +ambassador belong also to the ‘shêkh.’ The Pharaoh could not exclude +Moses and Aaron from his presence, even though the people they +represented were public slaves. + +The Hebrew wonder-workers were confronted by the magicians of Egypt. +Amon-Ra could not yield without a struggle to the God of the ‘impure’ +stranger. The miracles performed by the representatives of the +Israelitish people were not beyond the powers of his servants, and the +magical powers of the Egyptian priests had been famous from the +beginning of time. The Egyptian had an intense belief in magic—a belief +which still survives in the modern Egypt of to-day. Books had been +compiled which reduced this magic to a science, and enabled those who +would learn its formulæ and methods to reverse the order of nature and +work whatsoever wonder they desired.[169] To transform a rod into a +serpent, or a serpent into a rod, was a comparatively easy feat, and one +which the jugglers of Cairo can still perform. Equally easy was it to +turn the water of the river into blood, or even to multiply the frogs on +the wet land. It was only when the plague of lice touched themselves +that the power of the magicians failed, and that they confessed +themselves overcome by a stronger deity than those they owned. Their +magic could not remove the plague which had fallen upon them; their own +garments were defiled in spite of their charms and amulets, and they had +become more unclean than the ‘unclean’ foreigner himself. + +The account of the ten plagues of Egypt betrays an intimate acquaintance +with the characteristics and peculiarities of the valley of the Nile. +They are all plagues which still recur there; some of them indeed may be +said never to have left the country. Still, each year, the water of the +river becomes like blood at the time of the inundation. When the Nile +first begins to rise, towards the end of June, the red marl brought from +the mountains of Abyssinia stains it to a dark colour, which glistens +like blood in the light of the setting sun.[170] Each year, too, the +inundation brings with it myriads of frogs, which swarm along the banks +of the river and canals, and fill the night air with continuous +croakings. The lice, again, are an ever-present plague among the poorer +natives, while every spring the flies still swarm in the houses and open +air, and irritate the visitor to Egypt almost beyond endurance. Flies +and lice, frogs and blood-red water, are all as much a part of modern +Egypt as they were of the Egypt of the Mosaic age. Natives and strangers +alike suffered from them, and that the plague of flies did not reach to +Goshen must have seemed to the Egyptians a miracle of miracles. + +Those who have had experience of the flies of Egypt can sympathise with +the Pharaoh when he hastily summoned the leaders of Israel and bade them +offer sacrifice to the God who had thus shown himself a veritable ‘Lord +of Flies.’ The plague which followed—the murrain upon the cattle[171]—is +of rarer occurrence, though from time to time it still decimates the +cattle and horses of Egypt. A strict quarantine upon animals, however, +is now enforced at the Asiatic frontier, and some years, therefore, have +elapsed since the last outbreak of the cattle-plague. But the plague of +boils and blains is still endemic, and residents in the country seldom +wholly escape it. The plague of the thunder and hail is also not +unfrequent; as recently as the spring of 1895 a violent storm of the +kind swept along the valley of the Nile and destroyed three thousand +acres of cultivated land. The locusts, too, now and again, are carried +by the south-east wind from the shores of the Red Sea to devour the +rising crops, while the darkness that might be felt was but a heightened +form of the darkness occasioned by the _khamasin_ winds and sand-storms +of the spring. Even the death of the firstborn has its parallel in the +epidemic of cholera. In the space of a single year (1895-1896) the Egypt +of our own days has experienced most of the plagues of which we read in +the book of Exodus. Blood-red water, frogs and lice, flies and boils, +hailstorms and darkness, the scourge of cholera, have all visited the +land. + +There was nothing, consequently, in the plagues themselves that was +either supernatural or contra-natural. They were all characteristic of +Egypt, and of Egypt alone. They were signs and wonders, not because they +introduced new and unknown forces into the life of the Egyptians, but +because the diseases and plagues already known to the country were +intensified in action and crowded into a short space of time. The +magicians beheld in them ‘the finger’ of the God of the Hebrews, since +they came and went at the command of the Hebrew leader, and all the +magic of Egypt was powerless before them. Amon-Ra had found a mightier +than himself; and the books of Thoth contained no spells or mystical +incantations which could avail against the scourges that afflicted +priest and layman alike. The reluctant Pharaoh could no longer resist +the cries of his people. Egypt was perishing, and his own son had died +of the plague. It was better that his cities should remain unfinished +than that there should be none to fill them when they were built. In the +plagues that had descended on them, his subjects saw the hand of the +wrathful Hebrew Deity, eager for the sacrifices which His people had +been prevented from offering to Him in the desert, and the sceptical +Pharaoh himself at last became a convert to their belief. In fear lest a +worse evil might befall him, he gave the order that the Israelites +should be allowed to pass the fortresses that separated Goshen from the +wilderness beyond, and the royal slaves were free to depart. + +For how long a time Egypt had thus been stricken by plague after plague +is hard to determine. The impression left by the narrative is that they +followed quickly one upon the other, and that consequently the period +was of no great length. It is true that the Nile turns ‘red’ in July, +and that the wheat ripens in the spring; but, on the other hand, the +locusts, we are told, eat ‘all that the hail had left.’ At any rate, it +is clear that the Hebrew writer intended us to believe that less than a +year elapsed between the first visit of the Israelitish representatives +to the Pharaoh and the flight into the wilderness. All was over before +the end of March—‘the first month’ of the Hebrew year. + +The Egyptian monuments have given us a different version of the causes +which obliged Meneptah to consent to the exodus of his Asiatic serfs. In +the light of the stela discovered by Professor Petrie at Thebes, we can +now understand the mutilated inscription in which the Pharaoh records on +the walls of Karnak his victory over the barbarians in the fifth year of +his reign. Lower Egypt and its civilisation were never nearer to +destruction. The Libyans of Northern Africa had combined with the +populations of the Greek Seas, and the barbarians had overrun the Delta, +destroying its cities, massacring its population, and carrying away its +spoil. While Maraiu, the Libyan king, devastated the eastern banks of +the Nile, his northern allies—the Sardinians and Achæans, the Lycians +and Siculians—landed on the coasts of the Delta, and marched southward +until they joined him. + +It would seem that they found allies in Egypt itself. Meneptah tells us +that he endeavoured to save what was left of his dominions by throwing +up fortifications in front of Memphis and Heliopolis, ‘the city of Tum.’ +For Egypt was threatened not only on the west and on the north. Eastward +also, in the land of Goshen, there were enemies, pastoral nomads from +Asia, who had been allowed to live there for many generations. Their +‘tents,’ the Pharaoh declares, had been pitched ‘in front of the city of +Pi-Bailos,’ the modern Belbeis, at the western extremity of the region +in which the Israelites were settled. ‘The kings of Lower Egypt’ found +themselves shut up and isolated in their fortified cities, ‘cut off from +everything by the foe, with no mercenaries whom they could oppose to +them.’[172] + +But Meneptah had been ‘crowned to preserve the life’ of his subjects. In +the month of Epiphi, our July, the great battle was fought which +annihilated the hordes of the invaders and saved the inhabitants of +Egypt. Six thousand three hundred and sixty-five Libyan slain were +counted on the field of battle, and 2370 of the northern barbarians, +while 9376 prisoners fell into the hands of the conqueror. It was little +wonder that the Egyptian poets composed pæans in honour of the victory, +or that one of these hymns of triumph should have been engraved on a +stela of the temple which Meneptah raised at Thebes to Amon-Ra. + +It is in this latter hymn, as has been already said, that the name of +the ‘Israelites’ has been found. They are included among the enemies +over whom the Pharaoh had triumphed; but, unlike his other enemies, they +possessed no land which they could call their own. They had no fixed +habitation, there was no locality which was called after their name. But +the Egyptian poet knew that they had come originally from Southern +Palestine; the destruction of their male ‘seed’ had widowed the women of +‘Khar.’ + +It was the pressure of the Libyan invasion, therefore, which had placed +Meneptah at the mercy of his Israelitish slaves. With the Libyans and +their allies in the east and north, and a hostile population in the land +of Goshen, he had been forced to fortify Memphis and Heliopolis, and to +yield to those demands for freedom which he was not strong enough to +resist. To the ten plagues of which we have the record in the book of +Exodus there was added the more terrible plague of the Libyan invasion. +In his inscription Meneptah speaks not only of the barbarian enemy who +harassed the frontier and devastated the seaports, but also of the +‘rebels’ who were destroying the country from within, and in these +rebels whose tents were pitched ‘in front of Pi-Bailos’ we must see the +Israelites of the Old Testament. Crushed and unwarlike though they may +have been, they were nevertheless a source of danger, and, like Mohammed +Ali in the presence of the Bedâwin, the Pharaoh found it necessary to +agree to their demands. + +Meneptah’s victory was gained in the middle of the summer. It was in the +spring that the Exodus of the Israelites had taken place. Along with the +descendants of Jacob had gone ‘a mixed multitude,’ fragments, it may be, +of that wave of Libyan invasion which was rolling over the Delta. At any +rate, it was not the Israelites only who had made their way towards +Asia. There were other royal slaves also, like the ‘Apuriu who were +employed in drawing the stone that was quarried on the eastern bank of +the Nile. The resemblance between their name and that of the Hebrews may +have led to a confusion between the brickmakers of Pharaoh and the +transporters of his stone. + +There was an Egyptian legend of the Israelitish Exodus which was +embodied in the history of Manetho, from whom it has been quoted by +Josephus.[173] The Pharaoh Amenôphis, it was said, desired to see the +gods, as his predecessor Oros (or Khu-n-Aten) had done. On the advice of +the seer, Amenôphis the son of Paapis, he accordingly cleared the land +of the leprous and ‘impure,’ separating them from the rest of the +Egyptians, to the number of eighty thousand, and condemning them to +work, like the ’Apuriu of the monuments, in the quarries on the eastern +side of the Nile. But among them were some priests who were under the +special protection of the gods. When the seer heard of the sacrilege +that had been committed against their persons, he prophesied that the +impure people would find allies, and with their help rule over Egypt for +thirteen years. Not daring to tell the king of his prophecy, he +committed it to writing, and then destroyed himself. After a while the +workers in the quarries begged the Pharaoh to send them to Avaris, the +old fortress of the Hyksos, which lay on the Asiatic frontier of Egypt, +empty and uninhabited. The request was granted; but no sooner were they +settled in their new abode than they rose in rebellion, and chose as +their leader Osarsiph, a priest of On. He gave them new laws, forbidding +them, among other things, to revere the sacred animals, and set them to +rebuild the walls of Avaris. He also sent to the Hyksos at Jerusalem +asking them for their help. A force of two hundred thousand men was +accordingly despatched to Avaris, and this was followed by the invasion +of Egypt. Amenôphis fled to Ethiopia, with the bull Apis and other holy +animals, after ordering the images of the gods to be concealed. His son +Sethos, who was also called Ramesses, after his grandfather Ramesses the +Great, and who was at the time only five years of age, was placed in +charge of a friend. Amenôphis remained in Ethiopia for thirteen years, +while Osarsiph, who had assumed the name of Moses, and his Hyksos allies +committed innumerable atrocities. Temples and towns were destroyed, and +the priests and sacred animals were killed. But at last the fated term +of years was over; Amenôphis returned at the head of an army, and the +enemy was utterly overthrown and pursued to the borders of Syria. + +In this legend truth and fiction have been mingled together. The +foreigner, and more especially the Asiatic foreigner, was stigmatised as +‘impure’ by the Egyptians, and in the leprous people who were confined +in the quarries of the eastern desert we must, therefore, see simply a +stranger race. Osarsiph derives his name from Joseph, the latter name +being regarded (as in Psalm lxxxi. 6) as a compound of Yo or Yahveh, +which is identified with the Egyptian Osiris. Amenôphis,[174] the son of +Paapis, is Amenôphis (or rather, Amenôthes), the son of Hapi who erected +the colossal statues of ‘Memnon’ and its companion at Thebes during the +reign of Amenôphis III., and the Pharaoh Amenôphis, the son of Ramesses, +and father of Sethos, is Meneptah, the son of Ramses II., and father of +Seti II. + +The return of Amenôphis from Ethiopia was derived from a sort of +Messianic prophecy found already in a papyrus of the age of Thothmes +III. Here we read that ‘a king will come from the South, Ameni the +truth-declaring by name. He will be the son of a woman of Nubia, and +will be born in.... He will assume the crown of Upper Egypt, and will +lift up the red crown of Lower Egypt. He will unite the double crown.... +The people of the age of the son of man will rejoice and establish his +name for all eternity. They will be far from evil, and the wicked will +humble their mouths for fear of him. The Asiatics will fall before his +blows, and the Libyans before his flame. The wicked will wait on his +judgments, the rebels on his power. The royal serpent on his brow will +pacify the revolted. A wall shall be built, even that of the prince, so +that the Asiatics may no more enter into Egypt.’[175] + +With this prince of ancient prophecy who should save Egypt from its +Asiatic and Libyan foes, it was easy for popular tradition to identify +the Meneptah who had annihilated both Libyans and Asiatics, and to +combine his name with that of Ameni into the compound Amenôphis. At any +rate, the Egyptian legend bears witness to the fact that Meneptah was +the Pharaoh of the Exodus, and that the flight of the Israelites was +connected with the Libyan invasion of the valley of the Nile.[176] + +The Israelites themselves connected the flight with the institution of +the feast of the Passover. But the feast of the Passover seems to have +been a combination of two older festivals. One of these was commemorated +by eating for seven days unleavened bread; the other by the sacrifice of +a lamb, the blood of which was smeared on the doorposts and lintel of +the house, the lamb itself being roasted and eaten at midnight with +bitter herbs. The feast of unleavened bread followed immediately upon +the feast of the Passover, which lasted from the tenth to the fourteenth +day of the first month of the Hebrew sacred year. + +Dr. Clay Trumbull has shown that the Passover was but an adaptation of +the old rite which he terms the ‘Threshold Covenant.’[177] It was a rite +which went back to the earliest age of mankind, and of which we find +traces in many parts of the world. Even in the Egypt of to-day the +building of a new house or boat is not complete without the slaughter of +a sheep, the blood of which is allowed to fall on the threshold of the +house or the deck and side of a vessel. The blood was the mark of the +sacrifice by which the master of the house entered into covenant with +the stranger, or even with his god. Where it appeared the avenging deity +passed by, mindful of the covenant, and remembering that the house +contained a friend and not an enemy. The threshold became an altar, and +those who passed over it were made members of the family, and shared +with them their rights and their religion. When once the bride had +crossed the threshold of her new home, she left behind her all her old +ties and relations, and became a member of a new family. + +To quote the words of Dr. Clay Trumbull, ‘Long before’ the night of the +Exodus, ‘a covenant welcome was given to a guest who was to become as +one of the family, or to a bride or bridegroom in marriage, by the +outpouring of blood on the threshold of the door, and by staining the +doorway itself with the blood of the covenant. And now,’ on the eve of +the flight from Goshen, ‘Jehovah announced that He was to visit Egypt on +a designated night, and that those who would welcome Him should prepare +a threshold covenant, or a passover sacrifice, as a proof of that +welcome; for where no such welcome was made ready for Him by the family, +He must count the threshold as His enemy.’[178] + +The belief that sacrifice alone could secure the house from the wrath of +Heaven has been spread widely over the world. Numberless traces of it +are to be found in the folklore of Europe. Popular legend knows of +bridges and castles which refused to stand until the human victim had +been buried beneath their foundations, and even S. Columba was held to +have been unable to build his cathedral at Iona until his companion Oran +had been immured alive beneath its foundation-stones. We learn from the +Old Testament that the belief was strong among the Israelites also. When +Hiel of Beth-el rebuilt the ruined Jericho, we are told that ‘he laid +the foundation thereof in Abiram his firstborn, and set up the gates +thereof in his youngest son Segub’ (1 Kings xvi. 34). The Deity had a +right to the firstborn; and if this right were not recognised by the +sacrifice either of the firstborn himself or of a substitute, there +could be no covenant between the family and its gods. A new building +implied a new local habitation for the family and the gods it +worshipped; and where there was no covenant between them, the gods would +come as foes and not as friends. + +The Passover feast was therefore nothing new. The rite connected with it +and the ideas associated with the rite must have long been familiar to +the Israelites. What was new was the adaptation of the rite to the new +covenant that Yahveh was about to enter into with His people. It became +‘the Lord’s Passover,’ commemorating the deliverance from Egypt when +Yahveh smote the Egyptian firstborn, but ‘passed over the houses of the +children of Israel.’ Like the old springtide feast of unleavened bread, +it was given a new signification, and made a memorial of the first event +in the national life of Israel. A similar significance was given to a +change that was made in the calendar. The Hebrew year had begun in the +autumn with the month of September; but side by side with this +West-Semitic calendar there had also been in use in Palestine another +calendar, that of Babylonia, according to which the year began with +Nisan or March. It was this Babylonian calendar which was now introduced +for ritual purposes. While the civil year still began in the autumn, it +was ordained that the sacred year should begin in the spring. The sacred +year was determined by the annual festivals, and the first of the +festivals was henceforth to be the Passover. The beginning of the new +year was henceforth fixed by the Passover moon. + +It was at midnight that the angel of death passed over the land of +Egypt. The plague spared neither rich nor poor. The firstborn of Pharaoh +died like the firstborn of the captive in prison. Vain attempts have +been made to discover which among the sons of Meneptah this may have +been. But Meneptah lived many years after the overthrow of the Libyans, +and consequently after the Exodus of the Israelites, and it may not have +been till late in his reign that his successor, Seti II., became +crown-prince. More than one elder brother may have died meanwhile. +Moreover, none but the son of a princess of the royal solar race could +sit on the throne of the Pharaohs. The reigning king might have elder +sons born to him by foreign princesses, but his successor could not be +chosen from among them. He only who could trace his descent to the +Sun-god, who was, in short, a direct descendant of the Pharaohs, had any +right to the throne. + +Amid the terrors of the plague, and under cover of the darkness, the +Israelites and their companions, the ‘mixed multitude,’ departed from +the land of Goshen. They took with them their flocks and herds; they +took also such precious plunder as they could easily carry away from the +houses of their terrified masters. They ‘borrowed,’ according to the +euphemistic expression of the chronicler, ‘jewels of silver and jewels +of gold, and raiment,’ ‘and they spoiled the Egyptians.’ It was little +wonder that the Pharaoh subsequently determined to pursue the retreating +hordes. + +They first made their way from ‘Rameses to Succoth.’ Succoth is the +Thukut of the Egyptian texts, the district in which Pithom was situated, +and which extended from the land of Goshen to the line of fortifications +that enclosed Egypt on the East. It is mentioned in the letter sent to +Meneptah three years after the Israelitish Exodus, which we have already +had occasion to quote.[179] The flight of the Israelites had left the +district uninhabited, and it was not very long before it was again +handed over to some of their Edomite kinsmen, who wanted pasture for +their herds. + +The site of the town of Rameses is still uncertain. It is called +Pi-Ramses, ‘the House of Ramses,’ in the hieroglyphic texts, and, like +Zoan, it lay near the canal of Pa-shet-Hor. A long description is given +of it by the scribe Paebpasa, who was stationed at Zaru, on the eastern +frontier of Egypt, during the early part of Meneptah’s reign. He tells +us (according to Brugsch’s translation)[180] how he had ‘arrived at the +city of Ramses and found it excellent, for nothing can compare with it +on the Theban land and soil.... Its canals are rich in fish, its lakes +swarm with birds, its meadows are green with vegetables, there is no end +of the lentils; melons with a taste like honey grow in the irrigated +fields. Its barns are full of wheat and durra, and reach as high as +heaven.... The canal, Pa-shet-Hor, produces salt, the lake-region of +Pa-Hirnatron. Their sea-ships enter the harbour, plenty and abundance is +abundant in it.’ And then the scribe goes on to describe the annual +festivities of its inhabitants in honour of their founder Ramses II. + +In Thukut or Succoth were fortresses which protected the Delta from +Asiatic incursions, and at the same time prevented those who were in +Egypt from escaping out of it without the permission of the Government. +One of them was called ‘the Khetem,’ or ‘Fortress, of Thukut’; another +the Khetem of Ramses II. Both seem to be mentioned in a report sent to +Meneptah’s successor, Seti II. Here we read: ‘I set out from the hall of +the royal palace (in Zoan) on the 9th day of the month Epiphi, in the +evening, after the two (fugitive) slaves. I arrived at the Khetem of +Thukut on the 10th of Epiphi. I was informed that the men had resolved +to take their way towards the south. On the 12th I reached the Khetem. +There I was informed that grooms who had come from the neighbourhood +[had reported] that the fugitives had already passed the Wall to the +north of the Migdol of king Seti Meneptah.’[181] + +The runaway slaves must have taken the same road as that which had been +taken by the Israelites before them. The Israelites had avoided the +nearest and more usual road to Palestine, which ran along the edge of +the Mediterranean and passed through Gaza. The Philistines were already +threatening the southern coast of Canaan, and Gaza was garrisoned by +Egyptian troops. The undisciplined and unwarlike multitude which +followed Moses would have been cut to pieces had they ventured to force +their way through them, or else would have returned to Egypt. They +turned therefore southward towards the desert and ‘the way of the +wilderness of the Yâm Sûph.’ + +From Succoth, we are told, they marched to Etham ‘in the edge of the +wilderness.’ Brugsch was the first to see that in Etham we have a Hebrew +transcription of the Egyptian Khetem. The only question is, which of the +many Khetemu or ‘Fortresses’ which protected the Asiatic frontier of +Egypt this particular Etham may have been. We hear of ‘the Khetem of +Ramses II., which is in the district of Zaru,’ at the very point where +one of the roads to Asia passed through the great line of fortification, +and the report quoted above tells us of another Khetem, that of Thukut. +It was, however, the second Khetem mentioned in the report which is +referred to in the Old Testament narrative. This second Khetem lay +between Succoth and the lines of fortification, and might therefore be +described as ‘in the edge of the wilderness,’ which began on the eastern +side of the Shur or fortified wall. It was, in fact, the fortress which +guarded one of the roads out of Egypt at the point where it intersected +the lines. To the south of it came the Migdol or Tower of King Meneptah. + +It is possible that this may be the Migdol which is stated in the book +of Exodus to have been near the next camping-place of the Israelites. +From the fortress of Etham they had turned to the ‘sea,’ and had there +pitched their tents ‘before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, +over against Baal-zephon.’ In Baal-zephon, ‘Baal of the North,’ we have +the name of a Phœnician temple, which is alluded to in an Egyptian +papyrus;[182] and in place of Pi-hahiroth, the Septuagint and Coptic +versions read ‘the farmstead,’ reminding us of the _ahu_ or ‘estate’ of +Pharaoh in the district of Thukut, on which the Edomite herdsmen were +afterwards allowed to settle. + +But what is ‘the sea,’ by the side of which the Israelites encamped? Its +identification has been the subject of much controversy—a fact, however, +which ceases to astonish us when we find that the Hebrew writers +themselves were uncertain about it. While in the narrative of the Exodus +‘the sea’ crossed by the Israelites is carefully distinguished from the +‘Yâm Sûph’ or ‘Reedy Sea,’ at which they subsequently arrived, there are +other passages in the Old Testament, more especially of a poetical +nature, in which the two seas are confounded together. Two +irreconcileable systems of geography are thus presented to us which have +hitherto made the geography of the Exodus an insoluble problem. + +In the narrative, however, all is clear and exact. The children of +Israel, it was determined, instead of following the northern road to +Palestine, should march along that which led to ‘the wilderness of the +Yâm Sûph.’ But between them and this wilderness lay the Egyptian wall of +fortification, which extended from the marshes in the north to the Gulf +of Suez, or its prolongation, in the south. It was only when they had +turned the southern end of the wall by crossing ‘the sea’ that they +entered ‘the wilderness of the wall,’ where they wandered for three days +without finding water (Exod. xv. 22). Later they came to the palm-grove +of Elim, and then after that to the Yâm Sûph (Numb. xxxiii. 10). + +The Yâm Sûph was well known to Hebrew geography, and corresponded with +the modern Gulf of Aqaba. It was upon the Yâm Sûph, at Elath and +Ezion-geber, ‘in the land of Edom,’ that Solomon built his ships (1 +Kings ix. 26); and after the capture of Arad, in the extreme south of +Canaan, the Israelites marched ‘from mount Hor by the way of Yâm Sûph, +in order to compass the land of Edom’ (Numb. xxi. 4). Elim is but +another form of Elath, the ruins of which lie close to Aqaba, while the +town of Sûph lay ‘over against’ the wilderness in the plains of Moab +(Deut. i. 1). The Yâm Sûph, in fact, so erroneously rendered ‘the Red +Sea’ in the Authorised Version, was the Gulf of Aqaba. The sister Gulf +of Suez was called by the Hebrews ‘the Egyptian Sea’ (Isa. xi. 15), a +very appropriate name, since it was enclosed on either side by Egyptian +territory. From the days of the third dynasty to those of the Ptolemies, +Mafkat, the Sinaitic peninsula, was included among the provinces of +Egypt. + +In the list of the Israelitish stations given in Numb. xxxiii. a careful +distinction is made between the Yâm Sûph (ver. 10) and ‘the sea,’ +through the midst of which the fugitives from Pharaoh passed safely into +the wilderness. This ‘sea’ washed the southern extremity of the Shur or +‘Wall’ of fortification, the line of which was approximately that of the +Suez Canal. If Dr. Naville is right, in the days of the Exodus it would +have extended much further to the north than is at present the case; the +Bitter Lakes, in fact, marking its northern boundary. But there are +serious difficulties in the way of this hypothesis. The canal which, in +the time of Seti I., already united the Pelusiac arm of the Nile with +the Gulf of Suez, ran southward as far as the modern town of Suez, where +its mouth can still be traced. Only five miles north of Suez, moreover, +the fragments of a stela can still be seen, on which Darius commemorated +his reopening of the old canal of the Pharaohs. Had the gulf really +extended so far north as Ismailîya and the Bitter Lakes, this southern +prolongation of the canal would be hard to understand. + +However this may be, the poets and later writers of the Old Testament +came to forget what was meant by ‘the sea.’ It was confounded with the +Yâm Sûph, and the scene of the Exodus was accordingly transferred from +the Gulf of Suez to the Gulf of Aqaba. Dr. Winckler has recently +endeavoured to show that besides Muzri or Egypt, the Assyrian +inscriptions know of another Muzri or ‘borderland’ in the north-west of +Arabia. If so, this second Muzri or Egypt might help to explain the +confusion between the two seas. + +It is in the song of triumph over the destruction of the Egyptians that +the confusion first makes its appearance. Here (Exod. xv. 4) ‘the sea’ +and ‘the Yâm Sûph’ are used as equivalents, and the contents of the song +are summed up at the end in the statement that ‘Moses brought Israel +from the Yâm Sûph.’ But elsewhere in the Pentateuch the geography is +accurate, and it is not until we come to the speeches in the book of +Joshua that the two seas are once more confused together.[183] The same +geographical error is repeated in two of the later Psalms, as well as in +a passage of the book of Nehemiah.[184] The older Hebrew geography had +by this time been forgotten; with the loss of Edom and its seaports an +exact knowledge of the two arms of the Red Sea had faded from the +memories of the Jews. But in the historical narrative of the Pentateuch +all is still distinct and clear. + +Hardly had the Israelites left Goshen before the Pharaoh repented of his +permission for their departure. The retreating multitude, encumbered +with women and children, with flocks and herds, and with the booty that +had been carried off from the Egyptians, was still encamped within the +lines of fortification, near the southernmost Migdol or ‘Tower,’ and on +the shores of ‘the sea.’ Southward was a waterless desert; behind were +the hostile forces of Egypt. The situation seemed hopeless; ‘the +wilderness,’ as the Pharaoh said, had ‘shut them in,’ and there seemed +no escape from the Egyptian troops which had now been sent in pursuit of +them. + +But Israel was saved, as it were, by miracle. All night long the sky was +black with clouds, while a strong east wind drove the shallow waters of +‘the sea’ before it towards the western bank. The fugitives marched in +haste through its dried-up bed, and before morning dawned they had +reached the eastern shore. The Egyptian forces pursued, but it was too +late. The wheels of the chariots sank into the soft sand, and before +they could advance far the wind dropped and the waters returned upon +them. The chariots and host of Pharaoh were overwhelmed by the flowing +tide. + +Classical history knew of similar events. Diodoros (xvi. 46) tells us +that when Artaxerxes of Persia led his forces against Egypt, part of his +army perished, swallowed up in the ‘gulfs’ of the Sirbonian Lake on the +Mediterranean Sea. Alexander’s troops, moreover, narrowly escaped being +swallowed up by the waters of the Pamphylian Gulf, through which they +passed during the winter, and their escape was magnified by later +writers into a miracle.[185] + +The Pharaoh was not himself among the six hundred chariots which had +pursued the flying Israelites into ‘the sea.’[186] As in the great +battle against the Libyans, Meneptah, while taking the field in person, +nevertheless took care to avoid actual danger and to delegate his +authority to others when there was a prospect of fighting. He lived +several years after the Libyan victory, and therefore after the +Israelitish Exodus; and though his tomb in the Bibân el-Molûk at Thebes +was never finished, he was buried in it at a ripe old age. A dirge,[187] +probably composed at the time of his death, speaks of the king as dying +at an advanced period of life. + +With the waters of ‘the sea’ between themselves and Egypt, the +Israelites felt that they were at last free men. The fortified wall of +Egypt was behind them; they were already in the desert-home of their +Asiatic kinsmen, free to move whithersoever they desired. But there was +one road which they could not take. If the fear of ‘seeing war’ had kept +them back from the northern road to Palestine, it would still more keep +them from the road which led into the Egyptian province of Mafkat. Here +on the western side of the Sinaitic peninsula were the mines of copper +and malachite worked by Egyptian convicts, and strongly garrisoned by +Egyptian troops. To venture near them would have been to court again the +danger from which the fugitives had just escaped.[188] + +The road was well known. For centuries it had been trodden by Egyptian +troops and miners, by civil officials and the convicts of whom they had +charge. There was no difficulty, therefore, in avoiding it, and in +plunging instead into the desert which led to their kinsfolk in Edom and +that land of Canaan which was their ultimate goal. + +Old errors die hard, and the belief that the Sinaitic peninsula was the +scene of the wanderings of the Israelites still prevails among students +of the Old Testament. It originated in the wish of the early Christian +anchorites in the Sinaitic peninsula to find the localities of the +Pentateuch in their own neighbourhood, and has been fostered by the +geographical confusion between ‘the sea’ crossed by the Israelites and +the Yâm Sûph. But the belief is not only irreconcileable with the facts +of Egyptian history, it is also irreconcileable with the narrative of +the Pentateuch itself. It transports the Amalekites or Bedâwin of the +desert south of Judah to the western side of the Sinaitic peninsula, and +performs the same feat for the wilderness of Paran.[189] It makes +Jethro, the high-priest of Midian, cross the Gulf of Aqaba and make his +way through barren gorges and hostile tribes in order to visit his +son-in-law, and sets at defiance the express testimony of Hebrew +literature that Mount Sinai was among the mountains of Seir.[190] + +The wilderness into which the Israelites emerged is called indifferently +that of Shur and Etham. Shur was the Semitic equivalent of the Egyptian +Anbu or ‘Wall’ of fortification, while Etham took its name from one of +the Khetemu or ‘Fortresses’ which guarded the approach to the valley of +the Nile. It was a wilderness which stretched away to the shores of the +Gulf of Aqaba, and the Hebrew tribes accordingly marched along it. They +took, we are told, ‘the way of the wilderness of the Yâm Sûph,’ +following the Haj road, which is still traversed by the pilgrims from +Egypt to Mecca. But the caravan moved slowly, and for three days they +could find no water. Had they turned southward into the Sinaitic +peninsula, a few hours would have brought them to the Wells of Moses—now +a place of picnic for the visitors to Suez,—while the road to the +Egyptian mines was provided with cisterns and wells. But to have done so +would have been merely to exchange Egypt for one of its +strongly-garrisoned provinces. + +How long the wanderers were in crossing the desert we do not know; nor +do we know where Marah was, whose ‘bitter’ waters refreshed them after +three days of scarcity. But at last they reached the oasis of Elim, +which the itinerary in the book of Numbers (xxxiii. 10) couples with the +Yâm Sûph. Elim, in fact, is but a variant form of Elath,[191] and Elath +is the Aila of classical geography, of which Aqaba is the modern +successor. When the Israelites left Elim a whole month had elapsed since +their departure from Egypt (Exod. xvi. 1). + +Between Elim or the Yâm Sûph[192] and Mount Sinai lay the Wilderness of +Sin. Sinai and Sin alike derived their names from Sin, the moon-god of +Babylonia, whose worship had long since been brought by Babylonian +conquest to the West. More than two thousand years before the Exodus the +Babylonian conqueror, Naram-Sin, ‘the beloved of Sin,’ had carried his +arms as far as the Sinaitic peninsula, and the inscriptions of Southern +Arabia show that there also the Babylonian deity was adored.[193] It +would seem probable that a temple dedicated to his service stood on the +slopes of Mount Sinai. + +Numerous attempts have been made to identify the mountain which the +Israelites regarded as the scene of the first pronouncement of their +Law. Most of these attempts are based on the belief that it is to be +sought in the Sinaitic peninsula. The rival claims of Jebel el-’Ejmeh, +Jebel Umm ’Alawî, Jebel Zebîr-Katarîna, Jebel Serbâl, and Jebel Mûsa +have all been eagerly discussed. Jebel Mûsa alone can claim the support +of tradition, though this does not go back further than the third or +fourth century A.D., when the Christian hermits first settled in its +neighbourhood. The Sinai of S. Paul and Josephus was still in the Arabia +of Roman geography, the kingdom of which Petra was the capital. + +In the geography of the Old Testament, however, Mount Sinai was in Edom. +This is expressly stated in the Song of Deborah, one of the oldest +products of Hebrew literature. Here we read (Judg. v. 4, 5), ‘Lord, when +Thou wentest out of Seir, when Thou marchedst out of the field of Edom, +the earth trembled, and the heavens dropped, the clouds also dropped +water. The mountains melted from before the Lord, even that Sinai from +before the Lord God of Israel.’ Similar testimony is borne by the +blessing of Moses (Deut. xxxiii. 2), ‘The Lord came from Sinai, and rose +up from Seir unto them; He shined forth from the Mount of Paran,’ an +expression which appears in another form in Habakkuk (iii. 3), ‘God came +from Teman, and the Holy One from the Mount of Paran.’ Teman denoted +Southern Edom, and Paran was the desert which adjoined Edom on the west +and Judah on the south, and in whose midst was the sanctuary of +Kadesh-barnea.[194] In the Blessing of Moses the parallelism of Hebrew +poetry requires that Sinai and Seir should be equivalent terms. + +We must, then, look to the frontiers of Edom and the desert of Paran for +the real Sinai of Hebrew history. But it is useless to seek for a more +exact localisation until the mountains of Seir and the old kingdom of +Edom have been explored. Then, if ever, the Sinai of the Pentateuch may +be discovered. It would seem that it formed part of a range that was +known as ‘Horeb,’ the ‘desert’ mountains, and as late as the age of +Elijah it was still reverenced as ‘the Mount of God’ (1 Kings xix. +8).[195] + +Before the Israelites actually reached the sacred mountain, they had to +make more than one encampment in ‘the Wilderness of Sin.’ The itinerary +in the book of Numbers gives the names of three—Dophkah, Alush, and +Rephidim—the narrative mentions only the last. Rephidim, the +‘Encampments,’ was the scene of the first conflict the Israelites were +called upon to face. Here they were attacked by the Amalekites, the +Bedâwin tribes who still consider the desert as their own, and whose +hand is against all that pass through it. The attack was repulsed, but +not without loss, and the remembrance of it never faded from the minds +of the Hebrew people. There was henceforth to be war between Amalek and +Israel ‘from generation to generation,’ until the Bedâwin marauders of +the desert should be destroyed. The Song of Deborah (Judg. v. 14) tells +us how the struggle was continued after the settlement in Canaan, and +the first Israelitish king did his utmost to root out these pests of the +Hebrew borderland. Saul smote them, it is said, from Havilah to Shur (1 +Sam. xv. 7), from the ‘sandy’ desert of Arabia Petræa to the great Wall +of Egypt. And the Hebrew writer expressly adds that these were the same +Amalekites as those who had lain in wait for Israel ‘in the way when he +came up from Egypt.’ There were no Amalekites in the Sinaitic peninsula; +the desert in which they ranged was that which adjoined Edom, and was +known to the ancient Babylonians as the ‘land of Melukhkha.’ Hence it +was that Edomites and Amalekites were mingled together, and that Amalek +was counted by the genealogists a grandson of Esau. + +The battle at Rephidim was followed by the visit of the father-in-law of +Moses, Jethro, ‘the priest of Midian.’ The visit was natural, for the +real Sinai lay on the frontier of Midian. It was while Moses was feeding +the flock of Jethro that he had first come to it and received his +commission from Yahveh. Here, therefore, at ‘the Mount of God,’ he was +within hail of his old home. + +Jethro’s visit marked the first step in the organisation of Israel. +Under his guidance and counsel judges of various grades were appointed +before whom minor cases could be brought, and each of whom was invested +with a certain amount of power. The functions of the ‘judge’ were +administrative and executive as well as legal; what was meant by the +term we may learn from the book of Judges as well as from the Shophetim +or judges who at one time took the place of the kings at Tyre. They +corresponded closely with the higher officials in the Turkish provinces, +who possess an undefined and in some respects absolute authority, +subject only to the official who is immediately above them. The ‘judges’ +established by Moses on Jethro’s advice derived their titles from the +numerical extent of their jurisdiction. They were judges ‘of thousands,’ +‘of hundreds,’ ‘of fifties,’ and ‘of tens.’ The community was divided +into ideal units, of larger and smaller size, the basis of the +arrangement being the decimal system. The whole arrangement may have +been of Midianite origin; at all events, in the Assyrian texts we hear +also of a ‘captain of fifty’ and a ‘captain of ten.’[196] + +Moses remained the supreme ‘judge’ and lawgiver of his people. To him +alone all ‘great matters’ were referred, and from him came all the laws +and ordinances, the rules and regulations which they were called upon to +obey. The leader who had brought them safely out of ‘the house of +bondage’ now became their recognised head and legislator. Moses ‘was +king in Jeshurun,’ exercising all the authority in Israel which in later +times belonged to the king. + +Hardly was the political organisation of the new community completed +before the Israelitish tribes reached the venerated sanctuary of Sinai, +and encamped before ‘the Mount of God.’ The first object of their +journey was accomplished, and the promise of Yahveh was fulfilled that +they should ‘serve God’ on the mountain where He had appeared to their +leader. Here at Sinai the earlier portion of the Mosaic legislation was +promulgated. It was subsequently supplemented by the legislation at +Kadesh-Barnea, that second resting-place of the tribes, where by the +side of En-Mishpat, ‘the Spring of Judgment,’ they prepared themselves +in the security of the heart of the desert for the future invasion of +Canaan. + +It was amid the terrors of a thunderstorm that Yahveh declared His laws +to the people of Israel. While darkness rested on the summit of the +mountain, broken only by the flashes of the lightning and the voice of +the thunder, ‘the Ten Words’ were delivered to man. In their forefront +stood that stern, uncompromising declaration of monotheism which +henceforth marked the religion of Israel. They began with the +commandment that Israel should have ‘no other gods before’ the Lord. +Yahveh had brought them forth from Egypt, and Yahveh only must they +therefore serve. The commands which followed were partly general, partly +applicable to the Israelites alone. The prohibition to make ‘the +likeness of any thing in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in +the water under the earth,’ defined the character of the God before whom +no other was to be worshipped. He had no form or attributes which could +be represented by art; it was the gods of the Gentiles only of whom +images or pictures could be made. Egypt had been a land of idols, and in +leaving Egypt Yahveh required that the idols also should be left behind. +In the simple life of the desert there was no place for art: here man +was alone with his Creator, who revealed Himself in the light of the +burning bush or the thunderings of the storm, not under the forms of the +creatures He had made. The second commandment was part of the teaching +which the wanderings in the desert were intended to enforce; and if +Israel was to remain a ‘peculiar people,’ dedicated to the service of +Yahveh, and secure from absorption into the nations that surrounded it, +it was necessary that it should be fenced about with a law of +puritanical strictness, which forbade the introduction of art under any +shape. Art in the world of the Exodus was too closely interwoven with +the religions of Egypt and Canaan and Babylonia to be other than a +forbidden thing. The subsequent history of Israel proved how wise and +needful had been the prohibition. The art which adorned the temple and +palace of Solomon was followed by the erection of altars to the +divinities of the heathen, and even in the wilderness the golden calf +was worshipped in sight of Sinai itself. + +The third and fourth commandments were, like the second, Israelitish +rather than general in character. The third forbade taking in vain the +name of Yahveh; the name of the national God of Israel which had been so +specially revealed was too sacred to be lightly spoken of. The ‘name’ of +Yahveh, in fact, was equivalent to Yahveh Himself, and to deal lightly +with the name was to deal lightly with One of whose essence it was. The +obligation to keep the Sabbath was part of the culture which Western +Asia had received from Babylonia. Among the Babylonians the Sabbath had +been observed from early times, and the institution seems to have gone +back to a pre-Semitic period. At all events, it was denoted in Sumerian +by a term which a cuneiform tablet explains as ‘a day of rest for the +heart,’ and its Assyrian name of Sabattu or ‘Sabbath’ was even derived +by the native etymologists from the two Sumerian words _sa_, ‘a heart,’ +and _bat_, ‘to rest.’[197] In Babylonia and Assyria, as in Israel, the +Sabbath was observed every seventh day, perhaps in accordance with the +astronomical system which dedicated the seven days of the week to the +seven planets of Babylonian science. These seven-day weeks, however, +were based on the lunar months of the Babylonian year, the Sabbath or +rest-day being on the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th of each month. There +was, moreover, another Sabbath on the 19th of the month, that being the +end of the seventh week from the first day of the preceding month. On +these Sabbath days work of all kinds was forbidden to be performed. The +king, it was laid down, ‘must not eat flesh that has been cooked over +the coals or in the smoke, must not change the garments of his body, +must not wear white clothing, must not offer sacrifices, must not ride +in a chariot, must not issue royal decrees.’ Even the diviner was not +allowed to ‘mutter incantations in a secret place.’ Nor was it permitted +to take medicine. + +With the other elements of Babylonian culture the institution of the +Sabbath had made its way to the West. But at Sinai it was given a new +and special application. Not only was it to be observed each seventh day +of the week, irrespective of the beginning of the month, it became also +a sign and mark of the covenant between Israel and its national God. In +the book of Exodus, it is true, the reason given for keeping it is that +Yahveh had rested on the seventh day from His work of creation—a reason +which will hardly be accepted by the geologist—but in Deuteronomy (v. +15) it is more fittingly brought into direct connection with the +deliverance from Egypt: ‘Remember that thou wast a servant in the land +of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a +mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God +commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day.’ + +The sanction of the fifth commandment is also one which applied to +Israel alone: children were enjoined to honour their parents that their +days might be long in the land which Yahveh had promised to give them. +But the last five commandments are of general application, and +accordingly no reason is given for keeping them derived from the +accidents of Hebrew history. They apply to all mankind, at all times and +in all parts of the world. Murder, adultery, theft, false witness, and +covetousness are all crimes forbidden everywhere by the legal or moral +code. But it is strange that lying and deceit are not included among +them; in this respect the so-called negative confession, which the soul +of the dead Egyptian was called upon to make in the next world, was more +complete.[198] The lie, however, which does not involve false witness is +apt to be condoned among the nations of the East. + +The ten commandments were followed by a series of other laws, many of +which were probably re-enactments of laws or regulations already in +force. The law of retaliation, for instance (Exod. xxi. 23-25), is as +old as human society; so also is the law that murder should be punished +by death (xxi. 12). The law which punished the master for the murder of +a slave if he died on the spot, but allowed him to go scot-free if the +slave lingered for a day or two (xxi. 20, 21), had its parallel in +ancient Babylonia, and the death-penalty exacted from the ox which had +gored a man (xxi. 28-32) is a survival from the days when dumb animals +and even inanimate objects were regarded as responsible for the injuries +they had caused.[199] The regulations in regard to ‘a field or +vineyard,’ or ‘the standing corn’ of a field (xxii. 5, 6), belonged to +the land of Goshen or to Canaan, not to the life in the wilderness, and +the dedication of the firstborn to God (xxii. 29, 30) was one of the +most ancient articles of Semitic faith. + +Equally applicable to Egypt or Canaan only are the injunctions to let +the land lie fallow every seventh year (xxiii. 11), and to celebrate the +three great feasts of the year (xxiii. 14-19). They were all feasts of +the agriculturist rather than of the pastoral nomad. The year was +ushered in with the spring festival of unleavened bread; then in the +summer came the feast of harvest, and finally in the autumn—‘the end’ of +the old civil year—the feast of the ingathering of the fruits. + +Such were some of the laws promulgated under the shadow of the sacred +mountain, when Israel first encamped before Mount Sinai. They concluded +with an exhortation to march against Canaan. Yahveh declared that He +would send His Angel before His people to guide them in their way, like +the _sukkalli_ or ‘angels’ of the Babylonian gods. Yahveh would fight +for them, and they should drive out the older inhabitants of the land +and take their place. They were in no wise to mingle with them or +worship their gods; like the idolaters themselves, the idols they adored +were to be destroyed. ‘From the Yâm Sûph to the sea of the Philistines +and from the desert to the river’ were to be the bounds of their new +home, a promise which was fulfilled in the kingdom of David.[200] That, +too, extended to ‘the river’ Euphrates, and included the land of Edom +with its two ports on the Yâm Sûph. ‘The sea of the Philistines’ is a +new name for the Mediterranean, and bears testimony to the maritime fame +those pirates from the north had already acquired.[201] + +The laws thus promulgated at Sinai became the first code of Israel. They +rested on the covenant that had been made between Yahveh and His people, +of which the first clause was that they should worship none other gods +but Him. The book in which they were written by Moses was accordingly +called the Book of the Covenant, and its words were read aloud to the +assembled multitude (Exod. xxiv. 7). The audience, it must be +remembered, included not the Israelites only, but the ‘mixed multitude’ +as well (Numb. xi. 4). + +Once more Moses ascended the sacred mountain, to learn the ‘pattern’ of +the tabernacle in which Yahveh was henceforth to be worshipped. It was +to be a tent, moving along with the people, and containing all the +objects of Israelitish veneration. Chief among these was the ark of the +Covenant, surmounted by the mercy-seat and its two cherubim, between +which Yahveh sat enthroned when He revealed Himself to His worshippers. +Babylonia also had its arks, its mercy-seats, and its cherubim, and +Nebuchadrezzar speaks of ‘the seat of the oracles’ in the great temple +of Babylon ‘whereon at the festival of Zagmuku, the beginning of the +year, on the 8th and 11th days, Bel, the god, seats himself, while the +gods of heaven and earth reverently regard him, standing before him with +bowed heads.’[202] The cherubim, indeed, were of Babylonian origin, and +their presence in the tabernacle seems somewhat inconsistent with the +prohibition to make a carven image. But the Israelites were the heirs of +the ancient culture of Western Asia, and the tabernacle and its +furniture embodied familiar forms of architecture and older religious +conceptions. + +In Egypt, too, the gods had their shrines, though these were usually +boats which on the days of festival floated over the sacred lakes. Arks, +however, were not unknown, and, as in Babylonia, contained the images of +the gods. Sometimes, however, in Babylonia and Assyria, the ark, like +that of Israel, had no image within it: the stone coffer, for instance, +found by Mr. Hormuzd Rassam in the inner sanctuary of the little temple +of Balawât contained two tables of alabaster on which the annals of king +Assur-nazir-pal were engraved. The native workmen who discovered them +naturally saw in them the two tables of stone which had been similarly +placed by Moses in the ark (Deut. x. 5).[203] + +The parallelism between the temples and ritual of Israel and of +Babylonia is indeed close. The temple itself was of the same square or +rectangular form. Outwardly it presented the appearance of a huge box. +Within were the forecourt and court, while at the back came the Holy of +Holies, with its altar and ark. There was, however, one distinguishing +feature in the Babylonian temple which was lacking in the Hebrew +tabernacle. That was the great tower which mounted up towards heaven, +and the topmost stage of which seemed to approach the gods. In the +absence of a tower the Hebrew tabernacle agreed with the temples of +Canaan. + +The Israelitish altars found their counterpart in Babylonia. So, too, +did the table of shewbread, which similarly stood in the sanctuaries of +the Chaldæan deities. The sacrifices and offerings were also similar. +Babylonia had its daily sacrifice. its ‘meal-offering,’ and its +offerings for sin; the same animals that were sacrificed to Yahveh were +sacrificed also to Bel; and the Babylonian worshipper sought the favour +of his gods with the same birds and the same fruits of the field. Oil, +moreover, was used for purposes of anointing, and herein the ritual of +Babylonia and Israel differed from that of Egypt, where oil was not +employed.[204] + +The contrast between Egypt and Israel, indeed, in the details of +religious service was as great as the agreement in this respect between +Israel and Babylonia. The children of Israel had never forgotten their +Asiatic origin; throughout their long sojourn in Goshen they had +preserved their old culture and habits of thought as tenaciously as they +had preserved their language. Between them and the Egyptians, on the +contrary, there had been antagonism from the outset. And this antagonism +was accentuated by their lawgiver, who was naturally anxious to turn +their thoughts from ‘the fleshpots of Egypt,’ and to prevent them from +lapsing into Egyptian idolatries. Even the Egyptian legend of the Exodus +bears witness to this fact. + +In one detail, however, we find an analogy in Egypt. Professor +Hommel[205] has pointed out that the breastplate of the high-priest, the +mysterious Urim and Thummim, with its twelve engraved stones, is +pictured on the breast of an Egyptian priest. Thus Seker-Khâbau, a +high-priest of Memphis in the age of the nineteenth dynasty, wears upon +his breast a sort of double network with four rows of precious stones +set in it, each row consisting of three stones, alternately in the form +of crosses and disks.[206] The Hebrew breastplate was used as an oracle, +like the linen ephod which was worn under it, though how the future was +divined from it we do not know. But in moments of danger it was usual to +consult it; and the fact that ‘when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord +answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets,’ is +brought forward as a proof that he had been forsaken by his God (1 Sam. +xxviii. 6). Like the lawgiver himself, it was the mouthpiece of Yahveh, +and as such it bore the name of ‘the breastplate of judgment.’ + +The architects of the tabernacle and its adornment in precious metals +were Bezaleel of Judah and Aholiab of Dan.[207] Modern criticism would +hold them to be part of an elaborate fiction, of which the tabernacle +was the subject. But the fiction would be too elaborate, too detailed, +to be conceivable. Moreover, we have references to the tabernacle or +‘tent of meeting’ in the later history of Israel; and to declare these +to be interpolations or the products of the same pen as that which +invented the tabernacle itself may be an easy way of saving a theory, +but it is not scientific. How far the description of the tabernacle is +exact, how far it has not been coloured by the conceptions of a later +age, is, of course, a question that may be asked. Those who maintain +that the Pentateuch goes back in substance to the Mosaic age must +nevertheless allow that it has undergone many changes and modifications +before assuming its present shape. But, except in rare instances, it is +impossible to indicate these changes with the assurance that the +historian demands, and we must therefore be content with the probability +that in the description of the tabernacle we have the revised version of +an old story. + +It has been asked how the materials used in the construction of the +tabernacle could have been obtained in the desert, from whence came the +silver and gold, the bronze and precious stones, the rich embroideries +and cloths stained with Tyrian dye? Those who ask such questions have +forgotten that the Israelites were not wild Bedâwin, and that they were +laden with the spoils of Egypt. Like the invading hosts who attacked +Egypt in the reign of Ramses III., they carried with them in their +retreat the treasures of their late masters. And we are specially told +that the gold was obtained from the bracelets and earrings and rings +which were offered by the people and melted down. + +It was during the second absence of Moses, when the conception and form +of the tabernacle were being revealed to his mental vision, that his +followers showed how little they understood the spirit and character of +the legislation he was endeavouring to give them. They believed he had +deserted them, and with his departure his religious teaching departed +also. Israelitish religion was no slow growth: like Zoroastrianism or +Buddhism or Christianity itself, it implies an individual founder who +gave it the impress of his own individuality. Modern theories which +attempt to explain it as a process of evolution start with a false +assumption, and arrive consequently at false conclusions. None of the +great religions of the world has been a product of evolution except in +an indirect sense; they are all stamped with individualism, and owe +their existence to the genius or inspiration of an individual. The +religions of Babylonia and Egypt, as far as we know, were the results of +a slow development; but Mosaism and Zoroastrianism, Buddhism and +Christianity derived not only their names, but their essence also from +the individual founders who created them. We cannot understand the +religion of Israel without the Law in its background, and we cannot +understand the Law without the personality of its lawgiver. + +The declaration that Israel should serve no other gods before Yahveh +stood or fell with Moses, to whom Yahveh had revealed Himself. And Moses +seemed to have vanished among the clouds that enveloped the summit of +the sacred mountain. Their leader and his God had deserted them, and the +people required another. Aaron the priest was ready to take the place of +the lost lawgiver, and to provide them with a new deity and a new faith. +And, after all, it was but an ancient faith, the faith of the kindred +nations that surrounded them, their own faith, moreover, in the days +before the Exodus. A calf was fashioned out of their golden earrings, +and in it both priest and people beheld the god who had brought them out +of Egypt. Aaron proclaimed a feast in honour of the divinity whose +worship was celebrated with the same shameless rites as those which +characterised the cult of the Semitic populations of Babylonia, of +Canaan, and of Arabia. + +But in the midst of the festival Moses suddenly reappeared. The sons of +Levi rallied round their tribesman, and fell with him upon the rebels +against his laws. Some of the latter were slain, the rest were +terrorised, and the golden calf was ground to powder.[208] Aaron was +forgiven, perhaps because he too had gone over to the side of Moses, +perhaps because he was too powerful or too necessary to be removed.[209] +But in his wrath at the defection of his people Moses had dashed to the +ground the two stone tables on which the words of God had been written, +and it was needful that they should be replaced. Once more, therefore, +Moses left the camp and sought solitary communion with Yahveh on the +summit of Sinai. Two fresh tables of stone were hewn, and with these he +ascended the mountain. + +We must not picture to ourselves heavy stelæ of stone such as the kings +and princes of Egypt delighted to set up in their tombs and temples, or +the ‘great slab’ which Isaiah was bidden to engrave (Isa. viii. 1). They +were rather like the small alabaster slabs found in the ark of the +Assyrian temple at Balawât, which measure only twelve and a half inches +in length by eight in width and two and a half inches in thickness, and +nevertheless contain a long and valuable text. They were, in fact, stone +tablets cut in imitation of the clay tablets which served as books in +the Asiatic world of the Exodus, and, like the latter, were probably +inscribed with cuneiform characters. That these characters were used for +‘the language of Canaan’ we know from the existence of two seals of the +age of the Tel el-Amarna correspondence, now in the possession of M. de +Clercq, which record the names of two Sidonians.[210] It is probable +that the first draft of the Ten Commandments was also in the cuneiform +script. + +The book of Exodus ends fitly with the conclusion of the legislation +which was promulgated from Mount Sinai and with the building of the +tabernacle. Henceforward Yahveh was to reveal Himself to His people, not +amid the clouds of a mountain in the wilderness, but in the sanctuary +which they had raised in His honour. The first stage in the education of +Israel had been completed; the Israelites had become a nation with a +national God and a national sanctuary. Henceforth the sanctuary was to +be the centre of their religious faith, the place where the law and +judgment of God were to be declared, and to which the tribes were to +resort that they might ask counsel from Him. The tabernacle, nomad +though it still was, like the tribes themselves, had taken the place of +‘the mount of God,’ and with the legislation of Leviticus a new book of +the Pentateuch begins. + +We are not to suppose that this legislation has descended to us from the +age of Moses without addition and change. Such a belief would be +contrary to the history of other religious law-books, or indeed to +historical probability. As the utterances of the Hebrew prophets were +modified or enlarged according to the circumstances of the successive +ages to which they were applied, so too the Mosaic legislation must have +undergone revision and enlargement. Laws and regulations which suited +the life in the desert needed adaptation to the changed conditions of +life in Canaan; tribes fresh from their servitude in Egypt required +different guidance from that required by a nation of conquerors; and the +details of a legislation which was adapted to the period of Moses would +have been wholly unsuited to the period of the Judges, and still more to +the period of the Kings. So far as the change and modifications are +concerned, which all institutions in this world must necessarily +undergo, the Mosaic legislation was a matter of growth. But it was the +form and details that changed, not the substance of the legislation. The +spirit and conceptions of the legislator had imprinted themselves too +indelibly upon it ever to be obliterated. The reiteration of the same +law in various forms, and the confused arrangement of many of them, may +indeed show that later hands have been at work, but in essence and +origin they remain his. The book of Leviticus, modernised though it may +be, nevertheless goes back to the age of Moses. + +Even in the age of Moses many of its regulations were not new. We find +their parallels in Babylonia and Canaan, and they had doubtless long +been among the unwritten institutions of Israel. But Moses gave them a +new sanction and a new adaptation. The Israelites must have had priests +like the nations round about them; but it was Moses who defined the +priestly character of the sons of Aaron, and consecrated his own tribe +to the service of Yahveh. If Yahveh was the national God of Israel, He +was also in a special way the tribal God of Levi. + +We still know too little about the details of Babylonian ritual to be +able to compare it with the religious institutions of Israel. We know, +however, that the peace-offerings and trespass-offerings of the Mosaic +Law were represented in it, that even the heave-offerings found in it +their counterpart, and that solemn fasts and days of atonement were +observed in Babylonia and Assyria as well as among the Israelites. In +Babylonia, too, a distinction was made between clean and unclean +animals, and, as in Israel (Lev. xxi. 17-23), none who was maimed or +diseased was allowed to minister to the gods. Purification with water, +moreover, played much the same part in Babylonian ritual that it played +in the ritual of the Israelites, and tithes were exacted for the support +of the service in the temples. + +Similar regulations prevailed in Canaan, as we may learn from the +Phœnician sacrificial tariffs found at Carthage and Marseilles. Both are +mutilated, but the missing portions of the one can to a large extent be +supplied from the other. The text thus obtained is as follows:— + +‘In the temple of Baal the following tariff of offerings shall be +observed which was prescribed in the time of the judge ...-Baal, the son +of Bod-Tanit, the son of Bod-Ashmun, and in the time of Halzi-Baal, the +judge, the son of Bod-Ashmun the son of Halzi-Baal, and their comrades. +For an ox as a full-offering, whether it be a prayer-offering or a full +thank-offering, the priests shall receive ten shekels of silver for each +beast, and if it be a full-offering, the priests shall receive besides +this three hundred shekels’ weight of flesh. And for a prayer-offering +they shall receive besides the small joints (?) and the roast (?), but +the skin and the haunches and the feet and the rest of the flesh shall +belong to the offerer. For a bullock which has horns, but is not yet +broken in and made to serve, or for a ram, as a full-offering, whether +it be a prayer-offering or a full thank-offering, the priests shall +receive five shekels of silver for each beast, and if it be a +full-offering they shall receive besides this one hundred and fifty +shekels’ weight of flesh; and for a prayer-offering the small joints (?) +and the roast, but the skin and the haunches and the feet and the rest +of the flesh shall belong to the offerer. For a sheep or a goat as a +full-offering, whether it be a prayer-offering or a full thank-offering, +the priests shall receive one shekel of silver and two _zar_ for each +beast; and in the case of a prayer-offering they shall have besides this +the small joints (?) and the roast (?), but the skin and the haunches +and the feet and the rest of the flesh shall belong to the offerer. For +a lamb or a kid or a fawn as a full-offering, whether it be a +prayer-offering or a full thank-offering, the priests shall receive +three-fourths of a shekel of silver and two _zar_ for each beast; and in +the case of a prayer-offering they shall have besides this the small +joints (?) and the roast (?), but the skin and the haunches and the feet +and the rest of the flesh shall belong to the offerer. For a bird, +whether wild or tame, as a full-offering, whether it be _shetseph_ or +_khazuth_, the priests shall receive three-fourths of a shekel of silver +and two _zar_ for each bird, and [a certain amount of flesh besides]. +For a bird, or for the offering of the firstborn of an animal, or for a +meal-offering, or for an offering with oil, the priests shall receive +ten pieces of gold for each.... In the case of every prayer-offering +which is offered to the gods, the priests shall receive the small joints +(?) and the roast (?); and the prayer-offering ... for a cake and for +milk and for fat, and for every offering which is offered without +blood.... For every offering which is brought by a poor man in cattle or +birds, the priests shall receive nothing.... Anything leprous or scabby +or lean is forbidden, and no one as regards that which he offers shall +taste of the blood of the dead. The tariff for each offering shall be +according to that which is prescribed in this publication.... As for +every offering which is not prescribed in this table, and which is not +made according to the regulations which have been published in the time +of ...-Baal the son of Bod-Tanit, and of Bod-Ashmun the son of +Halzi-Baal, and of their comrades, every priest who accepts the offering +which is not included in that which is prescribed in this table shall be +punished.... As for the property of the offerer who does not discharge +his debt for his offering [it shall be taken from him].’[211] + +The general resemblances between these regulations and those of the +Levitical law are obvious. In both we have the same kind of sacrifices +and offerings—the ox, the sheep and the goat, the lamb and kid, birds +and cakes, meal and oil. Silver shekels were to be paid to the priests, +like the silver shekels of the sanctuary exacted in certain cases from +the Israelite (Lev. v. 15, xxvii. 25), and the blood and the fat were to +be offered to the gods. The necessities of the poor man were remembered +as they were in the Levitical law (Lev. v. 7, xii. 8, xiv. 21), and +whatever was ‘leprous or scabby or lean’ was forbidden to be brought to +the altar. The firstborn could be claimed by Baal as they were claimed +by Yahveh, and the offerer was not permitted to taste of the blood of +the slain beast (compare Lev. vii. 26, 27). The ‘full-offerings’ of the +Phœnician tariffs mean that the whole of the victim had been given to +the gods, and so correspond with the burnt sacrifices of the Mosaic +Code. It is unfortunate that we cannot fix with certainty the exact +signification of the words denoting the parts of the animal which were +the due of the priests, and consequently cannot be sure whether or not +they answer to the breast and shoulder of the peace-offering, which +under the Levitical legislation were assigned to the sons of Aaron (Lev. +vii. 33, 34). + +It is true that the tariffs of Carthage and Marseilles belong to a late +period. But they embody regulations and usages which were common to the +Semitic world of Western Asia, as we may gather from a comparison of +them with the ritual of Babylonia, and which therefore must have been—at +least in substance—of great antiquity. Two conclusions result from this +fact. On the one hand the Levitical legislation cannot have been the +invention of the Exilic age, as some adventurous critics have believed; +on the other hand, it is based on customs and ideas which must have been +prevalent in Israel long before the birth of Moses. The Hebrew +legislator did but develop, modify, and define existing rites; the +Levitical Code is not a new creation, but a body of religious and ritual +laws which has been formed deliberately and with individual effort out +of older customs and habits of thought. Doubtless there are laws and +regulations which were the immediate creation of the lawgiver; from time +to time new cases arose for which special legislation was needed, and of +which the cases of Nadab and Abihu (Lev. x. 1-3), of the son of +Shelomith and the Egyptian (Lev. xxiv. 10-16), and of the daughters of +Zelophehad (Numb. xxvii. 1-11) are examples. To assume that such cases +originated in the laws which they illustrated, and not the reverse, is a +gratuitous supposition which is contradicted by the history of modern +European law.[212] + +Whether the Day of Atonement, the Feast of Trumpets on the first of each +seventh month and the Year of Jubilee were also new creations of the +lawgiver, may be questioned. The special legislation connected with +them, as well as their association with the Exodus out of Egypt, was +certainly peculiar to the Levitical code, but the same is true of the +three older feasts of the Semitic calendar. These too were made to +illustrate the events of Israelitish history, and new regulations were +laid down for their observance. The Day of Atonement, however, had its +counterpart in Babylonia and Assyria. There also in periods of danger or +distress, days of humiliation and fasting were prescribed, and prayers +and offerings were made to the gods that they might forgive the sins of +the people. When at the beginning of Esar-haddon’s reign Assyria was +threatened by the Kimmerian invasion, ‘religious ordinances and holy +days’ were proclaimed by the priests for ‘a hundred days and a hundred +nights,’ and the sun-god was besought to remove the sin of his +worshippers.[213] So, again, after the suppression of the Babylonian +revolt, Assur-bani-pal tells us that ‘by the command of the prophets I +purified their sanctuaries and cleaned their streets which had been +defiled. Their wrathful gods and angry goddesses I tranquillised with +prayers and penitential hymns. Their daily sacrifice, which had been +discontinued, I restored in peace and established again as it had been +before.’ The Feast of Trumpets reminds us that in Babylonia the first +day of each month was kept as a Sabbath, and the Babylonian analogy is +still more manifest in the case of the Feast of Pentecost, on ‘the +morrow after the seventh Sabbath,’ after the offering of the +firstfruits. This ‘seventh Sabbath’ is the Babylonian Sabbath, on the +19th of the month, forty-nine days after the first Sabbath of the +preceding month. The Year of Jubilee was a Babylonian institution of +exceeding antiquity. We learn from classical writers[214] that once each +year in the month of July the feast of Sakea was held at Babylon, when +the slave changed places with his master, and for five days lived and +was clothed as a free man. We can now carry the history of the +institution back to the age of the third dynasty of Ur. Gudea, the +high-priest of Lagas, B.C. 2700, states in his inscriptions that after +he had finished building the temple of E-ninnu, he celebrated a +festival; and ‘for seven days no obedience was exacted; the female slave +became the equal of her mistress, and the male slave the equal of his +master; the subject became the equal of the chief; and all that was evil +was removed from the temple.’[215] + +The Year of Jubilee, it is clear, was but an adaptation and improvement +of one of the oldest institutions of Babylonian culture. To assert that, +together with the other holy days of the Levitical Code, it was borrowed +from Babylonia in the age of the Exile, is to assert what not only +cannot be proved, but is in the highest degree improbable. In the age of +the Exile, Babylonia had become a second Egypt to the Jews, and the +religious party among them regarded with abhorrence all that was +specifically Babylonian. The feasts consecrated to ‘Bel and Nebo,’ the +rites associated with the worship of the Babylonian gods, were the last +things that would be adopted or adapted by a pious Jew. Moreover, we now +know that the culture which had been carried from Chaldæa to the west +long before the period of the Exodus included the gods and sacred rites +of the Babylonians. So distinctive a characteristic of it as ‘the feast +of Sakea,’ or days of prayer and humiliation for ‘the removal of sin,’ +would not be forgotten when Anu and Moloch and Ashtoreth and Nin-ip made +their way to Canaan. + +There are passages in the Levitical Code which look back very distinctly +to Egypt. Thus marriage with a sister, whether a full sister or a +half-sister, is forbidden (Lev. xviii. 9). This was one of ‘the doings +of the land of Egypt’ (Lev. xviii. 3) which had been consecrated there +both by the civil and by the religious law, and continued in force down +to the time of the Roman conquest. So, too, tattooing the flesh, and +shaving the head or lacerating the flesh for the dead, were prohibited +(Lev. xix. 27, 28, xxi. 5), all of them practices which are still common +in the valley of the Nile. But, on the whole, it is remarkable how +entirely Egypt is ignored. The Mosaic legislation seems intentionally to +close its eyes to all things Egyptian, and, wherever it is possible, to +make enactments which tacitly contradict or set aside the beliefs and +customs of Egypt. Even the doctrine of the resurrection, as Bishop +Warburton long ago observed, is carefully dropped out of sight. There is +no reference to it, no sign that obedience to the laws of Yahveh will +benefit the Israelite in any other world than this. On any theory of the +age and authorship of the Levitical law such a silence is remarkable. +Indeed, if the law is as late as the epoch of the Babylonish exile the +silence would be more than remarkable, since the doctrine of a future +life and of the power of the god Merodach to raise the dead to life had +been firmly established for centuries among the Babylonians. A belief in +the resurrection, or at all events, in a life beyond the grave, could +not but have betrayed itself in the atmosphere of the Exile. For those, +however, who had the Egyptian house of bondage immediately behind them, +and who feared lest the tribes in the desert might again lust after the +flesh-pots and green pastures of the Delta, the silence is intelligible. +The doctrine was closely associated with Egyptian idolatry, with Osiris +and Anubis, with the assessors of the dead, and with the pictured +polytheism of the Egyptian monuments. + +The Levitical legislation was accompanied by a census of the people. +What credit we are to attach to the numbers which have been handed down +is a question that has been much debated. On the one hand it has been +shown that the vast multitude presupposed by them could not have moved +about in the desert, as it is represented to have done, and that many of +the regulations in the Levitical Code could not have been carried out +with a nomad population of over two millions.[216] On the other hand, +the 600,000 men above twenty years of age who were ‘able to go forth to +war’ are specified again and again, and the same number is implied in +all the calculations that are made of the numerical strength of Israel. +It is also the sum of the numbers assigned to the fighting men of the +individual tribes. Throughout the history the ciphers are consistent +with one another. If the number is exaggerated, it it is an exaggeration +which has been consistently adhered to. We must either accept it, or +believe that it belongs to an artificial system which has been framed +with deliberate intention. But the same may be said of the chronology of +the early patriarchs as well as of the chronology of the kings of Israel +and Judah, and in both instances we know that the system is wrong. In +the case of the chronology of the early patriarchs, indeed, there are at +least three rival systems, all equally complete and self-coherent, while +the chronology of the kings involves such hopeless anachronisms as have +long since caused it to be rejected by the historian. The difficulties +presented by the census of the Israelites in the wilderness are similar +in character to the anachronisms presented by the chronology of the +kings, and the same reasons which lead us to reject the one ought +equally to induce us to reject the other. + +Nevertheless, the chronology of the kings is not wholly incorrect. The +length of reign assigned to the several kings is usually right. It is +only the system into which it has been fitted that is at fault. And +probably this is also the case as regards the numbering of the tribes of +Israel. It may be that the 8580 Levites and the 22,273 firstborn males +are authentic, and that the increase of the population by 3550 (Exod. +xxxviii. 26; Numb. i. 46) a few months after the flight from Egypt, and +its decrease by 1820 at the end of the wanderings (Numb. xxvi. 51), rest +on a foundation of fact. Even the traditional number of 600,000 may have +better support than its being a multiple of the Babylonian _soss_ and +_ner_.[217] Perhaps it originally represented the whole body of +fugitives from Egypt. + +At all events, some light may be thrown on the matter by a comparison of +the numbers given in the Pentateuch with those of the Libyans and their +allies as recorded in the inscription of Meneptah. Of the Libyans, 6365 +men were slain and 230 (including 12 women) were captured; of their +allies, 2370 fell on the field of battle, and 9146 were taken prisoners, +while no less than 9111 bronze swords were taken from the Maxyes. We +gather from the history of the battle that few, if any, of the enemy +escaped. The whole force of fighting men, therefore, would not have +amounted to very much over 25,000. And yet this was one of the most +formidable hosts that had invaded Egypt; and its male population had not +been decimated by the tyranny of an Egyptian king. On the other hand, a +population of 2,000,000 in the land of Goshen is inconceivable, and +there would hardly have been room in the eastern Delta for 600,000 +able-bodied brickmakers. The Sweet-water Canal was dug by only 25,000 +fellahin, though 250,000 worked at the Mahmudîya Canal, and for some +years 20,000 fresh labourers were sent monthly to excavate the Suez +Canal. Even in the desert, moreover, the Egyptians required a +considerable number of troops to guard the serfs or convicts who worked +for them. At Hammamât, for example, in the reign of Ramses IV., the 2000 +bondservants of the temples who effected the transport of the stone were +attended by 5000 soldiers, 800 mercenaries, and 200 officers; and +provisions for this large body of men were carried across the desert in +ten waggons, each drawn by six pairs of oxen, and laden with bread, +meat, and cakes.[218] For 600,000 Israelites the whole Egyptian army +would not have sufficed. According to Manetho, the Hyksos, when driven +from Egypt, did not number more than 240,000 in all. + +We cannot, then, look upon the numbers that have come down to us as +exact. The occupants of the Israelitish camp, continually under the +personal supervision of Moses, and constantly required to assemble +before the tabernacle, could not have been a very large body of men. Had +the fighting population amounted to anything like the number recorded, +there would have been no need of avoiding ‘the way of the land of the +Philistines,’ lest the people should ‘see war,’ or of doubting the issue +of the combat at Rephidim with the Bedâwin tribes. + +The year after the flight from Egypt, Sinai, ‘the mount of God,’ was +left behind. The service that Yahveh required had been performed, the +legislation revealed there had been completed, and the tabernacle and +ark had been made. Israel had henceforth another religious centre than +the sacred mountain of the desert, which had now fulfilled its part in +the religious training of the tribes. Canaan, and not the wilderness, +was the destined home of the descendants of Jacob, and to Canaan the ark +and the tabernacle were to accompany them. + +The guiding column of cloud moved accordingly from the wilderness of +Sinai to that of Paran (Numb. x. 12). This is in harmony with the rest +of Old Testament geography. In the blessing of Moses (Deut. xxxiii. 2) +it is said that when God came from Sinai, ‘He shined forth from the +mount of Paran,’ and in Habakkuk (iii. 3) the mount of Paran takes the +place of Sinai itself. Paran, in fact, was the desert which formed not +only the southern boundary of Canaan, but also the western frontier of +Edom. The real Mount Sinai of Hebrew geography, therefore, was upon the +Edomite border; and since Paran was the home of Ishmael (Gen. xxi. 21), +it is not surprising that Esau should have taken one of Ishmael’s +daughters to wife (Gen. xxxvi. 3). + +Before Sinai was left, however, Hobab the Midianite, the brother-in-law +of Moses, proposed to return to his own land. Sinai adjoined Midian, if +indeed it was not included in Midianitish territory, and here, +therefore, if at all, it was needful for the Midianite chief to quit the +Israelitish camp. But his knowledge of the district was too valuable to +be lost, and Moses persuaded him to remain with the Israelitish tribes +and guide them to the places where they should encamp. The Kenites in +later days traced their descent to him (Judg. i. 16, iv. 11), and the +rocky nest of the Kenites was visible from the heights of Moab, perhaps +in Petra itself (Numb. xxiv. 21). + +The geographical details which follow are confused. In the itinerary +(Numb. xxxiii. 15, 16) the camp is transported at once from the +wilderness of Sinai to Kibroth-hattaavah. In the narrative, however, we +are told that the people first went ‘three days’ journey,’ and then +rested at Taberah, which seems to be identified with Kibroth-hattaavah; +from thence they travelled to Hazeroth, and then pitched their tents ‘in +the wilderness of Paran.’ On the other hand, the book of Deuteronomy +(ix. 22) distinguishes between Taberah and Kibroth-hattaavah, and +interpolates Massah between them, which, according to Exod. xvii. 7, was +visited before Sinai. If we follow the official record, we must suppose +that the incident connected with Taberah has been inserted in the wrong +place, or else that Taberah and Kibroth-hattaavah are, like Massah and +Meribah, one and the same. At all events, all these encampments must +have lain on the outskirts of the desert of Paran. Hazeroth, ‘the +enclosures,’ was a common name for the Bedâwin encampments in the desert +south of Judah, and the Hazeroth mentioned here is doubtless that of +which we read in Deut. i. 1. It lay near Paran on the borders of the +plains of Moab. + +Taberah, it was said, derived its name from the fire which had here +consumed some of the people, while Kibroth-hattaavah marked the ‘graves’ +of the murmurers who had died from a surfeit of quails. Similar flights +of quails still visit the Egyptian Delta in the early spring, when the +sky is sometimes overshadowed by myriads of birds. Hazeroth was +remembered for the rebellion of Aaron and Miriam against their brother +Moses, and the punishment that Miriam the prophetess had in consequence +to endure. The authority of Moses was disputed because he had married an +Ethiopian wife. It is the only passage in the Pentateuch where this +‘Cushite’ wife is alluded to; elsewhere we hear only of Zipporah the +Midianitess. But it points to a traditional recollection of the days +when Moses was still Messu, the Egyptian prince, and when, like that +other Messu, his contemporary, he might have been the Egyptian governor +of Ethiopia.[219] The objection to the Ethiopian wife came but ill from +Aaron, whose grandson bore the Egyptian name of Phinehas, Pi-nehasi, +‘the negro.’ But Yahveh declared that the Cushite affinities of Moses +were no bar to his being a true servant of the God of Israel and the +divinely-appointed leader of the tribes. To him Yahveh had revealed His +will openly, and as it were face to face; not, as to other prophets, in +waking visions and dreams. + +In the heart of the wilderness of Paran was the venerable sanctuary of +Kadesh-barnea. Centuries before, the army of Chedor-laomer had swept +through it, slaughtering its Amalekite inhabitants, and drinking the +water of En-Mishpat, ‘the Spring of Judgment,’ where the shêkhs of the +desert had given laws to their people. Its site has been found again in +our own days by Dr. John Rowlands and Dr. Clay Trumbull.[220] The spring +of clear water which fills the oasis with life and verdure is still +called ’Ain Qadîs, the ‘Spring of Kadesh.’ It rises at the foot of a +limestone cliff, in which a two-chambered tomb has been cut in early +times, in the hollow of an amphitheatre of hills. The hills form a block +of mountains which occupy the central part of the desert, midway between +El-Arîsh and Mount Hor, and more than forty miles to the south of +Sebaita, the supposed site of Hormah. + +Kadesh, the ‘Sanctuary,’ was destined to be the second resting-place and +scene of Israelitish legislation. The work which had been left +unfinished at Sinai was completed here. The will of Yahveh, which had +first been declared on the summit of the mountain, was now to be more +fully unfolded among the soft surroundings of the oasis in the valley. +Sinai and Kadesh-barnea were the two schools of the desert in which +Israel was trained. + +But Kadesh-barnea had other advantages as well. It was on the high-road +from the desert to Canaan, it commanded the approach to the latter +country, and nevertheless within its rocky barriers the Israelites were +safe from attack. Here, therefore, at Kadesh-barnea, the first +preparations were made for the invasion of Palestine. Twelve scouts were +sent, in Egyptian fashion, to explore the land, and bring back a report +of its capabilities for defence. They made their way as far as +Hebron,[221] where a popular etymology derived the name of the valley of +Eshcol from the cluster of grapes they had cut there.[222] But the +report with which they returned was discouraging. The Amorites were tall +and strong; by their side the children of Israel appeared but as +grasshoppers; while the cities in which they dwelt were ‘very great,’ +and walled, as it were, to heaven. It was folly for the desert tribes to +dream of assaulting them; that would need the disciplined army of a +Pharaoh, with its chariots and horses and machines for scaling the +walls. ‘We be not able to go up against the people,’ they declared, ‘for +they are stronger than we.’ + +Here, then, was an end to all the promises of Moses. The Promised Land +was in sight, and they were excluded from it for ever. ‘Let us make +another captain,’ they cried, ‘and return to Egypt.’ The leader who had +brought them thus far had failed on the very threshold of their goal. +The Hyksos, when they forsook Egypt, had found a refuge in Canaan; but +the barren wastes of the wilderness were all that the Israelites could +expect. It was little wonder that a rebellion broke out in the +Israelitish camp, and that the supporters of Moses were threatened with +stoning. + +But experience soon showed that the Israelitish tribes were as yet no +match for the people whose possessions they desired to seize. Despite +the report of the spies, they climbed the cliff which formed the +northern boundary of the oasis, and attempted to force their way beyond +the frontiers of Canaan. But their enemies proved the stronger. When +Seti I. had attacked the frontier fortress of Canaan, not far from +Hebron, he had found it defended by Shasu or Bedâwin, and so, too, the +Israelites now found themselves confronted not by the Canaanites only, +but also by their Amalekite or Bedâwin allies. The assailants were +utterly defeated and ‘discomfited even unto Hormah.’ + +Hormah was more usually known as Zephath (Judg. i. 17), and its site +must be looked for south of Tell ’Arad. It was one of the cities of +Palestine which Thothmes III. claims to have captured, and it lay +towards the southern end of the Dead Sea, on the road to Hazezon Tamar +(Gen. xiv. 7). The mention of it makes it clear that the Israelitish +invasion of Canaan had been a serious attempt. The invaders had marched +along the same military road as that followed by Chedor-laomer, and had +penetrated as far as the hill country of what was afterwards Judah. But +they did not succeed in getting further, and their shattered relics must +have made their way with difficulty back to the fastness of Kadesh. The +first attempt to conquer Palestine had failed.[223] + +The disaster was never forgotten. It was some years before the +Israelites again attempted to cross the Canaanitish boundary, and when +they did so it was from a different quarter. A new generation had to +grow up before they were strong enough to renew the attack; indeed, it +is probable that most of the fighting men had been lost in the earlier +expedition. When at last Israel felt able once more to march against +Canaan, it was already in possession of land on the east of the Jordan, +but its great ‘captain’ and lawgiver was dead. Israelitish history found +its leader to the conquest of Palestine not in Moses, but in Joshua. + +The history of the period that followed the disaster left little that +was worth recording. The chief incidents of the life in the desert had +been crowded into the first few months of the wanderings. But it was +during this later period that trouble arose with Moses’ own tribesmen, +the Levites. It was again a question of authority. The democratic spirit +of the Israelites resented claims to superior power; and just as Aaron +and Miriam had disputed the authority of Moses, so now the Levites +disputed that of Aaron. It was a dispute which, if we are to believe +modern criticism, was continued into later Jewish history, when it +ended, as it did in the desert, in the triumph of the high-priest. + +Aaron and his sons, like Moses, were at the outset Levites, and as such +doubtless had no claim to superior sanctity and power. But circumstances +had placed them at the head of their tribe; and when that tribe became +the ministers of the sanctuary, Aaron and his descendants necessarily +occupied the foremost place in its services. They were in a special +sense the guardians of the ark, and thus alone privileged to enter the +Holy of Holies, where Yahveh revealed Himself above the cherubim. As +long as there was but one sanctuary, it was easy to maintain the +distinction between the priest of the house of Aaron and the ordinary +Levite. But with the conquest of Canaan all this was changed. +Sanctuaries were multiplied all over the land; the old high-places +became seats of the worship of Yahveh, and there were rival centres of +religious authority, like that of Baal-berith at Shechem, or that of the +graven image at Dan (Judg. xviii. 14, etc.). Local temples or +tabernacles took the place of the one that was hallowed by the presence +of the ark, and the line of Aaron fell into the background. In the age +of national trouble and disintegration which preceded the accession of +Saul, the character of the high-priestly family itself had much to do +with the loss of its power and influence. Eli, its representative at +Shiloh, was old and feeble, and his sons set at defiance the Mosaic law, +which required that Yahveh’s portion of the sacrifice should be burned +on the altar before the priests received their share, and so they made +‘the offering of the Lord’ to be ‘abhorred.’ The capture of the ark by +the Philistines and the massacre of the priests at Nob by order of Saul +completed the dissolution of the high-priestly authority; and when the +temple at Jerusalem was built under Solomon, a new branch of the family +of Aaron was appointed to minister in it, and his descendants became +little more than hereditary court-chaplains. It has even been doubted +whether there was any high-priest, properly so called, under the kings; +if there were, he had been divested of the power and position which had +been given him by the Levitical law. + +To conclude, however, as has sometimes been done by modern criticism, +that because the priests of Solomon’s temple were no longer the +high-priests of the Pentateuchal law, therefore there had been no such +high-priests at all, is contrary to the evidence of archæology. +Monumental discovery has disclosed the fact that among the Semitic +kinsmen of the Israelites as well as in Chaldæa the high-priest preceded +the king. Not to speak of the _patesis_ or high-priests of the +Babylonian cities who exercised royal sway within the limits of their +territories, like the Popes within the limits of the Romagna, the +earliest rulers both of Assyria and of Saba or Sheba in Southern Arabia +were high-priests. The Assyrian kings followed the high-priests of the +god Assur, and the Makârib or ‘high-priests’ of Saba came before the +kings. Israel also had the same experience. The Israelitish kings +appeared at a comparatively late period on the scene of Hebrew history, +and Saul was preceded by the high-priest Eli. + +In the book of Deuteronomy, it is true, we do not find the distinction +between ‘the priests, the sons of Aaron,’ and the rest of the Levites +that is made in the Levitical law. Here the priests are all alike called +Levites; it is not ‘the priests, the sons of Aaron,’ but ‘the priests +the Levites’ who are appointed to perform the highest offices of the +sanctuary. How far the phraseology is due to a different conception of +the Mosaic law, or how far it testifies to an older usage of language, +is a question which need not concern us; what is important to observe is +that the difference of expression is linguistic and not historical. +Historically all the priests were Levites, though from the outset some +of them must have been assigned higher positions than others, and have +been invested with more sacred functions. The Levitical law draws the +distinction which the book of Deuteronomy is not so careful to do. In +fact, there was not the same necessity for doing so in the case of the +Deuteronomic retrospect. + +The tabernacle had been constructed, its services arranged, and the +grades and duties of its ministers appointed. Now, therefore, +disappointed in their hope of invading Canaan from the south, the +Israelites settled themselves tranquilly at Kadesh, in the heart of the +wilderness of Zin, and slowly developed into a strong and united +community. Here it was, by the waters of En-Mishpat, that the +legislation of Moses was completed, and the undisciplined horde of +fugitive serfs from Egypt was moulded into a formidable band of warriors +knit together by a common religion and worship, and continually +gathering increased confidence in its own strength.[224] + +How long the Israelites remained in their desert fastness we do not +know. A time came when they once more resumed their wanderings, or at +all events a portion of them must have done so. The Itinerary in Numb. +xxxiii. gives a long list of their encampments before they again found +themselves in the oasis of Kadesh. One of the places at which they +rested was Mount Shapher, another was Moseroth, of which we hear in the +book of Deuteronomy (x. 6). Moseroth was in the territory of the Horite +tribe of Beni-Yaakan,[225] and it was from the Beeroth or ‘Wells’ of the +Beni-Yaakan—Hashmonah, as it is called in the Itinerary—that they had +made their way to it. + +At Mosera or Moseroth, according to Deuteronomy, Aaron died, and was +succeeded in his office by his son Eleazar. The statement, however, is +not easily reconcileable with what we are told in the book of Numbers. +There it is said that the death of the high-priest took place on the +summit of Mount Hor after the departure from Kadesh.[226] The fact that +Gudgodah was also called Hor-hagidgad, ‘the mountain of clefts,’ may +have been the cause of the transference. + +But it must be remembered that Kadesh was merely the headquarters of +Israel during its weary years of waiting in the wilderness. The scanty +notice of the unsuccessful invasion of Southern Palestine shows that it +was only the camp as a whole which remained fixed there. Like the +Bedâwin of to-day, portions of the tribes made distant expeditions, and +the Itinerary may relate rather to their encampments than to that of the +stationary part of the people. Kadesh was a sort of centre from which +fragments of the main body could be sent forth to scour the frontiers of +Seir and Edom, or to encamp at the foot of Ezion-geber on the Yâm Sûph. + +In the book of Numbers (xxi. 14, 15) there is a quotation from ‘the Book +of the Wars of the Lord,’ one of the old documents on which the history +of Israel in the wilderness is based. The introductory words are +unintelligible as they stand, thus testifying to the antiquity of the +passage; all that can be made out of them is that they relate not only +to the struggle between Israel and the Amorites at ‘the brooks of +Arnon,’ but also to a previous war carried on by the Israelites ‘in +Suphah,’ near the gulf of Aqaba.[227] Here the Israelites would have +been on the borders of Edom, if indeed they were not in Edom itself; and +it is therefore noticeable that the Egyptian Pharaoh, Ramses III., whose +reign coincided with the period of the wanderings of the Israelites in +the desert, declares that he had ‘smitten the Shasu (or Bedâwin) tribes +of Seir and plundered their tents’ (_ohélu_). Ramses III. was the only +Pharaoh of Egypt who had ventured to attack the Edomite Bedâwin in their +mountain strongholds; while Canaan and the plateau east of the Jordan +had been Egyptian provinces the inhabitants of Mount Seir had retained +their independence. The synchronism, therefore, of this Egyptian +expedition against, not the Edomites only, but ‘the Bedâwin of Seir’ and +the war in which Israel was engaged ‘in Suphah,’ is, at least, worthy of +notice. It may be that part of the training undergone by the Israelites +in the desert for their future conquest of Canaan was the help they had +rendered their kinsfolk of Edom in their contest with the old +taskmasters of the Hebrew tribes. + +However this may be, of the three leaders who had brought Israel out of +the house of bondage, Moses alone survived the long sojourn at Kadesh. +Miriam had died there; the death of Aaron also, if we may trust +Deuteronomy, had taken place before the final departure from the great +desert sanctuary. In any case, it had happened in sight of Kadesh, and +before the march had commenced which was to lead the Israelitish tribes +to the Promised Land. The time had now arrived when Israel felt strong +enough once more to attempt its conquest; not, this time, by the road +through the mountains of the south along which Chedor-laomer had marched +to Kadesh, but from the plateau eastward of the Jordan where the kindred +nations of Moab and Ammon had already established themselves. Here, too, +the Israelites made their first permanent settlements in the land which +they had marked out for their own. + +The Canaanite population east of the Jordan was sparse and weak compared +with that to the west. It had been further weakened by foreign conquest. +Between the fall of the Egyptian empire and the Israelitish invasion the +Amorites under Sihon had formed a kingdom and occupied the territory of +Moab as far south as the Arnon. As in the age of the eighteenth dynasty, +so too under the kings of the nineteenth dynasty, Egyptian rule extended +over what is called in one of the Tel el-Amarna tablets ‘the field of +Bashan.’ The so-called Sakhret Eyyûb, or ‘Stone of Job,’ a little to the +north of Tell ’Ashtereh, eastward of the Jordan, has been discovered by +Dr. Schumacher to be a monument of Ramses II.[228] The figure of the +Pharaoh is engraved upon it, with his name beside him, as well as the +figure of a deity who wears the crown of Osiris, and is represented with +a full face, while his Canaanitish name is written in hieroglyphs.[229] +At Luxor[230] Ramses claims Moab among his conquests, and we may +therefore gather that up to the time of the Exodus the authority of +Egypt had been restored throughout the country east of the Jordan. But +the Libyan invasion shattered the strength of Egypt, and long before the +close of the nineteenth dynasty its possessions in Palestine passed from +it forever. This is precisely the period to which the Pentateuch refers +the kingdom of Og in Bashan and the conquests of Sihon in Moab, and the +Biblical and monumental evidence thus stand in complete agreement. + +Moses had requested permission from the Edomite king to pass through his +dominions. The Song of Moses (Exod. xv. 15) still speaks of the +_alûphim_, or ‘dukes,’ of Edom, who had originally governed the country; +but while the Israelites had been lingering in the desert, the ‘dukes’ +had made way for an elective monarchy. The dissolution of the Egyptian +power may have had something to do with this; possibly the invasion of +Mount Seir by Ramses III. had produced the same result in Edom that the +Philistine invasion produced among the Israelites, and had obliged them +to elect a king. At all events, the first king of Edom, we read, was +‘Bela, the son of Beor.’ Bela, however, is merely a contracted form of +Balaam, and in the first Edomite king we must therefore see Balaam, the +son of Beor. What relation he bore to the seer from Pethor will have to +be considered later on.[231] + +It is not surprising that the Edomite king refused the request that had +been made to him. To have admitted within his frontiers a large body of +emigrants like the Israelites, many of whom were armed, might have been +as dangerous as the passage of the Crusaders through the Eastern Empire +proved to Constantinople. The Israelites were not strong enough to force +their way through a hostile country, and very reluctantly, therefore, +they once more turned southward to the Gulf of Aqaba, and from thence +marched northward again to the east of Edom. Their route brought them to +the southeastern part of Moab. + +The people, we are told, bitterly complained of the length of ‘the way.’ +It was not strange. The Promised Land, so constantly in sight, seemed +always to recede as soon as it was approached. They had vainly attempted +to enter it from the south; the Philistines kept garrison in the cities +on the Mediterranean coast; and now, when a third and last mode of +approach was undertaken, their brethren of Edom closed the path. The +road, too, which they were thus forced to adopt led them through a +desert, which the Assyrian king Esar-haddon describes as a land of +drought, inhabited only by ‘snakes and scorpions, which filled the +ground like locusts.’[232] These were the ‘fiery serpents’ that bit the +Israelites and increased their miseries. A memorial of their sufferings +lasted down to the age of Hezekiah. The brazen ‘seraph’ or ‘fiery +serpent’ which had been wrought by order of Moses, and planted on the +top of a pole, was religiously preserved in the chief sanctuary of the +nation. Incense was burned before it, for it had been the means of +preserving the people from the fiery poison of the snakes. But the +idolatry of which it was the object brought about its destruction. The +relic, which had been spared by the earlier kings and priests of Judah, +was destroyed by Hezekiah, who realised at last that it was but ‘a piece +of brass.’ It is true that doubts have been cast upon its having +actually been a monument of the life in the wilderness; but it is +difficult for the historian to understand how a modern critic can be +better informed on such a point than the contemporaries of +Hezekiah.[233] + +Zalmonah, Punon, and Oboth were the next stages on the journey after +Mount Hor. Then came Iye-ha-Abârim, ‘the Ruins of the Hebrews’—a name, +it may be, which contained a reminiscence of the settlement of the +Israelites in the country.[234] Iye-ha-Abârim was in the plain east of +Moab, under the shadow of the mountain-range of Abarim. Then the stream +of the Zered was crossed, and the emigrants found themselves in Moab. +The banks of the Arnon were the next resting-place. + +The nation retained but little recollection of the dreary years that had +been passed in the wilderness. A few incidents alone were recorded which +had broken the monotony of their desert life. But here, on the verge of +Canaan and of conquest, the national consciousness awakened into new +life. The song was handed down which had been sung when at some station +in the desert the ground had been pierced and water found. ‘Spring up, O +well!’ it said; ‘sing ye unto it. O well that hast been dug by princes, +that hast been pierced by the nobles of the people, by (the direction +of) the lawgiver, with their staves!’ Similar songs, according to +Professor Goldziher, were sung in old days by the Arab kinsmen of the +Israelites when they too dug wells in the desert and the refreshing +water bubbled up from below.[235] + +Arnon was now the boundary between Moab and the new kingdom of Sihon the +Amorite. Sihon refused permission to the Israelites to pass through his +territories, along the ‘royal highway,’ and endeavoured to stop their +advance. But the tribes were no longer the undisciplined rabble who had +fled from the Canaanites of Zephath, and the result of the struggle was +the complete overthrow of the Amorite forces. The district between the +Arnon and the Jabbok, which had been taken by Sihon from ‘the former +king of Moab,’ was occupied by the Israelites, who accordingly +established themselves midway between Moab and Ammon. It is on the +occasion of this conquest that the Hebrew historian has preserved the +fragment of an Amorite song of triumph which had celebrated the capture +of Ar, the Moabite capital, and which was now embodied by the Israelites +in a similar song of triumph for their own victory over Sihon. + +Ammon was too strong to be attacked (Numb. xxi. 24), but ‘Moses sent to +spy out Jaazer,’ not far from Rabbah, the future capital of the +Ammonites, and the fall of the Amorite city of Jaazer brought with it +the conquest of Gilead. The tribes of Reuben and Gad were settled in the +newly-acquired districts, on condition, however, that they should +acknowledge their relationship to the rest of the tribes, and help the +latter in case of necessity (Numb. xxxii. 29-32; Judg. v. 15-17). Gilead +had been conquered by Machir, a branch of the tribe of Manasseh (Numb. +xxxii. 39; Deut. iii. 15; Judg. v. 14), and the conquest was +subsequently extended further by armed bands under chieftains, like Jair +and Nobah, who occupied outlying districts on their own account.[236] + +The Havoth-Jair, or ‘Villages of Jair,’ were in the ‘stony’ region of +Argob, the Trachonitis of Greek geography, which extended northward to +the Aramaic kingdoms of Geshur and Maachah. It formed part of the ‘Field +of Bashan,’ which in the Mosaic age was ruled by Og ‘of the remnant of +the Rephaim.’ Like Sihon, he is called an Amorite, and his two capitals +were at Edrei and Ashtaroth-Karnaim.[237] His rule was acknowledged from +the Haurân in the south to Mount Hermon in the north, and he must thus +have been one of the native princes who arose out of the ruins of the +Egyptian empire. But his power was shortlived. He was unable to +withstand the shock of the invaders from the desert, and his dominions +became Israelitish territory. It would seem that what was afterwards the +eastern side of Ammon was included in his kingdom, since in after ages a +huge sarcophagus of black basalt, which was preserved in Rabbah of +Ammon, was pointed out as his ‘iron bed’ (Deut. iii. 11). + +These conquests of the Israelites doubtless occupied a considerable +space of time. Some of them, indeed, were made after the Mosaic age, and +were merely extensions of the conquests made at that time. But the +overthrow of Og must have followed quickly on that of Sihon. A year or +two would have sufficed to allow the Israelitish bands to overrun the +districts to the north-east of the Arnon. + +It is not wonderful that the Moabites should have wished to rid +themselves of such dangerous neighbours. But their king, Balak the son +of Zippor,[238] was uncertain how to act. The Moabite forces were no +match for the fierce desert-tribes who had overthrown Sihon and burnt +his towns. An embassy was accordingly sent to the seer, Balaam the son +of Beor, who lived at Pethor on the Euphrates, in ‘the land of the +children of Ammo.’ The site of Pethor has been recovered from the +Assyrian monuments. It lay on the west bank of the Euphrates, a little +to the north of its junction with the Sajur, and consequently only a few +miles south of the Hittite capital Carchemish, now Jerablûs. The +Beni-Ammo must have claimed the same ancestry as the Beni-Ammi or +Ammonites, and the name is probably to be found in that of the country +of Ammiya or Ammi, which is mentioned in the Tel el-Amarna tablets.[239] + +The fame of Balaam must have been widespread. But it is permissible to +ask whether the only object of the embassy was that the seer should +‘curse’ the descendants of Jacob. A curse usually meant something more +substantial than a form of words; and, as we have already seen, the +first Edomite king given in the extract from the chronicles of Edom +bears the same name and has the same father as Balaam. Did Balaam end by +becoming elected king of Edom, and finally falling in battle against the +Israelites, along with his allies the Midianitish chiefs?[240] The +materials for an answer are not yet before us. + +The story of Balaam seems to form an episode by itself. The narrative +and the prophecies constitute a single whole, which cannot be torn +apart. It is the first example in the Old Testament of a written +prophecy, and that the prophet should have been a Gentile diviner is of +itself significant. Nothing can be more vivid and lifelike than the +picture that is presented to us. We see the ambassadors of Balak +persuading the half-reluctant seer to accompany them; we read of the +strange miracles that accompanied the journey, and of the altars that +were reared, and the sacrifices that were offered in the hope that his +enchantments might prevail over those of Israel. He was taken from +high-place to high-place, whence he could look down upon the distant +hosts of the enemy, and upon each, in Babylonian fashion, seven altars +were erected. But all was unavailing. The God of Jacob refused to be +turned from His purpose by the bullocks and the rams that were offered +Him, and the curses of the Aramæan seer were turned into blessings. When +Balaam fell into the prophetic trance, seeing ‘the vision of the +Almighty, but having his eyes open,’ the words which were put into his +mouth were words which predicted the future glories of Israel. ‘A star +should come out of Jacob, and a sceptre should arise out of Israel, +which should smite the corners of Moab and destroy all the children of +Sheth.’[241] Edom, too, should at last become the possession of his +younger brother, and the Amalekites of the desert should perish for +ever. + +The age of the episode has been often disputed. Much depends on the +question whether the references in the last prophecy to the Kenites and +others belong to the original document, or are later insertions. The +Assyrians did not penetrate into the desert south of Judah, where the +Kenites lived, until the time of Tiglath-pileser III. and Sargon in the +eighth century B.C. The Amalekites were destroyed by Saul; Moab and Edom +were conquered by David. But the concluding verse of the prophecy is at +present difficult to explain. When was it that ships came from Cyprus +and ‘afflicted’ Assyria and the Hebrews, so that they too perished for +ever? In the age of the Exodus, the pirates of the Greek seas joined +their forces with those of the Libyans in the invasion of Egypt, and the +Philistines and their allies sailed from Krete and other islands of the +Mediterranean, and established themselves on the coast of Palestine. Was +it here that the Hebrews lived who were to perish for ever? It is, at +any rate, worthy of note that it was the Philistines more especially +among whom the Israelites were known as the ‘Hebrews.’ In the time of +the Tel el-Amarna tablets we already hear of Assyrian intrigues in the +far West. The Babylonian king asks the Pharaoh why the Assyrians, his +‘vassals,’ have been allowed to come to Canaan and enter into relations +with the Egyptian court.[242] At a later period, while Israel was ruled +by judges, more than one Assyrian monarch actually made his way to the +Mediterranean coast.[243] + +As the historical chapters of the book of Isaiah, including the +prophecies contained in them, have been embodied in the book of Kings, +so, too, the history of Balaam and Balak has been embodied in the book +of Numbers. There is no reason for denying its substantial authenticity. +Written prophecies were already known both in Egypt and in +Babylonia,[244] and it is almost inconceivable that a Jewish fabricator +of prophecies would have made a Gentile diviner the mouthpiece of +Yahveh. Moreover, there is nothing in the narrative or the prophecies +themselves which is inconsistent with the date to which they profess to +belong, unless indeed it is maintained that the conquest of Moab and +Edom by the Israelites could not have been predicted at the time. But, +apart from theological considerations which lie outside the province of +the historian, it did not require much political foresight to conclude +that a people which had begun by destroying the power of Sihon was +likely to end by conquering the nations surrounding them. In fact, it +would seem from the enumeration of the cities occupied by Reuben and Gad +(Numb. xxxii. 34-38) that at one time little, if any, territory was left +to the Moabite king. + +In the embassy to Balaam ‘the elders of Midian’ are united with those of +Moab. In fact, it is to the ‘elders of Midian,’ and not to those of +Moab, that Balak first addresses himself (Numb. xxii. 4). It is the +Midianites, moreover, and not the Moabites, who tempted Israel to sin +‘in the matter of Baal-Peor,’ and who were accordingly massacred in the +war that followed, although ‘the people had begun to commit whoredom’ +with ‘the daughters of Moab’ (Numb. xxv. 1). It is clear, therefore, +that Moab was at the time occupied by the Midianites, just as the +eastern portion of Israelitish territory was occupied by them in later +days before it was freed by Gideon. Then they had swarmed up from the +south along with the Amalekite Bedâwin and the Kadmônim of the +south-east, and under their five shêkhs had overrun the land of Israel. +Moab had now undergone the same fate, perhaps in consequence of its +weakened condition after the unsuccessful war against Sihon. At any +rate, it is probable that the Moabites had eventually to thank their +Edomite neighbours for their deliverance from the invaders, since in the +list of the Edomite kings we are told that the fourth of them, Hadad, +the son of Bedad, ‘smote Midian in the field of Moab’ (Gen. xxxvi. 35). +The age of Hadad and that of Gideon could not have been far apart, and +Gideon’s success may therefore have been one of the results that +followed upon the Midianite defeat in Moab. The losses sustained by the +Midianites, however, in their struggle with the invading Israelites, +must have weakened their hold upon the territories of the Moabite king. +The storm-cloud which had terrified Balak passed over him to his +Midianite foes. + +The conquest of the Moabite cities brought with it intermarriages +between the Israelites and their inhabitants as well as an adoption of +the native forms of faith. Yahveh was deserted for Baal-Peor, the +Moabite Baal of Mount Peor, but it was not long before He avenged +Himself. Pestilence broke out in the camp, and the people saw in it the +finger of God. By command of Moses ‘all the heads of the people’ were +‘hanged before the Lord in face of the sun’; while Phinehas, the son of +the high-priest, jealous of the rights of Yahveh, stabbed to the death +an Israelite and his Midianitish wife who had dared to show themselves +before the sanctuary of the Lord. The time had passed when Moses was +justified in marrying a wife of Midianitish race; Israel had now become +a peculiar people, dedicated to Yahveh, who would allow ‘no other god’ +to share His place. The Midianitish wife was a sign and evidence that +Yahveh of Israel had been forsaken for a Midianitish Baal. + +Thus far, it would seem, Israel and Midian had mixed together on +friendly terms. Both were desert tribes, both were connected together by +old traditions and intercourse, and claimed descent from a common +ancestor. But it was now a question of rival deities and forms of faith. +The very existence of the Law that had been promulgated from Sinai and +Kadesh was at stake; and if Israel and its religion were not to be +absorbed into the world of heathenism around them, it was time for the +tribe of Levi—the keepers of the sanctuary—to awake. Moses and Phinehas +saw the danger, and swift punishment descended on the backsliders within +Israel itself. How formidable, however, the danger had been may be +gathered from the statement that ‘all the heads of the people’ were put +to death. + +The turn of Midian came next. The Midianite tribes were overthrown, and +their five shêkhs slain, one of whom, Rekem, gave his name to the city +which is better known as Petra. ‘Balaam also, the son of Beor, they slew +with the sword.’ The Midianite villages and forts were burned to the +ground, and the captives and spoil were brought to the Israelitish camp. +Here they were divided among the people, Yahveh and His priests +receiving their share. Out of a total of 16,000 captives, thirty-two +slaves were given to the Lord. Henceforth it became the rule that the +spoil taken in war should be divided into two equal parts, one-half for +the fighting men, the rest for the people as a whole; and that while the +fighting men had to deliver up only one share in five hundred to the +Levites, the priestly tribute levied on the rest of the ‘congregation’ +was as much as one in fifty. The regulation was reinforced by David +after his defeat of the Amalekites when his companions clamoured for the +whole of the spoil (1 Sam. xxx. 24, 25), at all events in so far as the +equal division of it was concerned between the combatants and those who +remained at home. + +The Midianites were driven from Moab and its frontiers. Their overthrow +meant the triumph of the priestly tribe in Israel. The war had been +waged not against Midian only, but against the allies and kinsmen of +Midian in Israel itself. The old relationship between Israel and Midian +had been severed on the confines of the Promised Land; the supremacy of +Yahveh in Israel had been once more asserted, and Israel had become more +than ever His peculiar people. Before they entered Canaan, it was +needful that the last links that bound them to the wild tribes of the +desert should be cut in two. + +The work of Moses was completed. He had led Israel from the house of +bondage, had given it laws and made it a nation in the wilderness, and +had fitted it for the conquest of Canaan. The land flowing with milk and +honey, which the Semitic settlers in Egypt seem always to have regarded +as a home of refuge to which they should ultimately return, was now +within their grasp. Egyptian troops no longer garrisoned it, and its +population was weakened by intestine troubles, by the long war between +Egypt and the Hittites, and, above all, by the invasion of the +Philistines and other pirates from the Greek seas. A large portion of +the cultivated territory on the east side of the Jordan was already in +Israelite hands; all that was needed was to cross the river and take +possession of ‘the land of promise.’ Israel never forgot that it was +from hence that its ancestors had come, and tradition recorded that the +bodies of the patriarchs still lay in the rock-tomb of Machpelah. Even +now the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh carried with them the mummy of +Joseph, from whom they claimed their origin, ready to deposit it +wherever they could gain a permanent foothold and build for themselves a +central sanctuary. + +The scene of the last legislation of Moses is laid in the plains of +Moab, in the newly-won territory of Israel, and almost within sight of +the mountains of Canaan. The additional laws and regulations which +needed to be made were not many. Reuben and Gad were settled in the +districts which subsequently bore their names, the Reubenites pasturing +their flocks like nomad Bedâwin among the northern wadis of Moab, while +Gad occupied the greater portion of the Amorite kingdom of Sihon. Part +of the tribe of Manasseh also made its home in the districts of Gilead +and Bashan, which it had won by the sword. + +The institution of the six cities of refuge, moreover, as well as of the +forty-eight cities of the Levites, is assigned to the same period. +Modern criticism, however, has shown itself unwilling to accept its +Mosaic authorship. But sacred cities, to which the homicide could flee +for refuge, were an ancient institution in both Syria and Asia Minor. We +find them also in the region of the Hittites. Such _asyla_, as the +Greeks called them, lasted down to the classical period, and played a +considerable part in the local history of Asia Minor. Wherever we find a +Kadesh or a Hierapolis, there we may expect to find also an asylum in +which the gods and their ministers would protect the unintentional +shedder of blood from the vengeance of man. It was a means of checking +the _vendetta_ or blood feud, which was in full harmony with primitive +law.[245] + +In establishing the cities of refuge, therefore, the Israelites did but +carry on the traditions of the past. And two at least of the cities, +which were subsequently set apart for the purpose, were sanctuaries, and +consequently ‘asyla,’ long before the children of Jacob entered +Palestine. These were Kadesh in Galilee and Hebron (Josh. xx. 7). The +name of Kadesh declares its sacred character, and the sanctuary of +Hebron had been famous for centuries. + +The institution of the Levitical cities, again, was a result of the new +position assigned to the tribe of Levi as the priests and +representatives of the national God. The overthrow of the Midianites and +their Israelitish allies had definitely settled the place of the tribe +in Israel. Yahveh had prevailed over all other gods, and those who +worshipped another god had been put to the sword. It had been the work +of Levi, of those who had been chosen to be the ministers of Yahveh or +had voluntarily devoted themselves to the service of the sanctuary. On +the day that the spoil of Midian was divided it was recognised that Levi +was not a tribe in the sense that the other tribes were so; it +represented the priests and ministers of Yahveh, whoever and wheresoever +they might be. And as, in the division of the spoil, due care was taken +of Yahveh and His priests, so, too, in the division of the land, it was +needful that similar care should be taken for them. The priests of Egypt +had their lands, out of the revenues of which the temples were +supported, and Egypt was not the only country of the Oriental world in +which the same practice prevailed. Indeed, while Canaan was an Egyptian +province temples had been built in it by the Pharaohs, and doubtless +endowed in the same way as the temples of Egypt itself. The revenues of +Syrian towns, moreover, had been given to Egyptian temples; Thothmes +III., for example, immediately after the conquest of Syria, settled +three of its towns (Anaugas, Innuam, and Harankal) upon Amon of +Thebes.[246] The custom lingered on into late times; the Persian king +assigned the three cities of Magnesia, Myos, and Lampsacus for the +maintenance of Themistoklês,[247] and the taxes of the Fayyûm in Egypt +formed the ‘pin-money’ of Queen Arsinoê Philadelphos.[248] + +Later ages misunderstood the regulations that related to the Levitical +cities, and, misled by the belief that the tribe of Levi was constituted +like the other tribes of Israel, imagined that they were intended to be +places where the Levites should dwell and none else. This misconception +has coloured the existing text of Numb. xxxv. 2-8, but we have only to +turn to the list of the cities given in Josh. xxi. to see how unfounded +it is. In fact, the Levites, as ministers of the national God, lived +wherever there was a sanctuary of Yahveh to be served; in the days of +the Judges we find a Levite even in the private house of Micah, on Mount +Ephraim, from whence he is taken by the Danite raiders along with the +image of his God (Judg. xviii.). There was no intention of shutting up +the Levites in certain cities apart from the rest of the people; on the +contrary, they were to be ‘scattered’ throughout Israel, the priests and +representatives everywhere of the national God. + +The book of Deuteronomy is the testament of Moses. Even the most +sceptical criticism admits that such was already the belief in the age +of Josiah, so far, at any rate, as regards the main portion of the book. +At the same time, the stoutest advocates of the Mosaic authorship of the +Pentateuch also admit that it cannot all have come from his hand. The +account of his death, which forms the close of the book, cannot have +been written by the great legislator himself. Here, as elsewhere, it is +for the historian to decide where the narrative may belong to the Mosaic +age, and where it transports us to the atmosphere of a later period. + +The original Deuteronomy of philological criticism begins with the +twelfth chapter, without introduction or even explanation. The +Deuteronomy of Hebrew tradition is the fitting conclusion of the +Pentateuch. Moses, worn out with years and labour, addresses his people +for the last time. They are about to cross the Jordan and enter Canaan; +here on the threshold of the Promised Land his task is done, and he must +leave the work of conquest to other and younger hands. He has been the +legislator of Israel, Joshua must be its general. + +We have, first, a recapitulation of the chief events of the wanderings +in the wilderness from the day that the Covenant was made in Horeb, the +mount of God.[249] They are intermingled with antiquarian notes, which +may, or may not, be of the Mosaic age, as well as with exhortations to +obedience to the Law. Then follows a series of enactments which +constitute the Deuteronomic Law itself. The enactments necessarily go +over some of the ground already traversed by the previous legislation; +in some points they even seem to contradict it. But the contradictions +are more apparent than real, like the reason assigned for observing the +Sabbath. Sometimes they are supplementary to the Levitical laws, +sometimes are supplemented by the latter; at other times the same +regulation is repeated from a different point of view.[250] + +A special characteristic of the Deuteronomic Law is its tenderness and +care for animals as well as for the poor, ‘the stranger, the fatherless, +and the widow.’[251] Even the Egyptian is not to be ‘abhorred’ (Deut. +xxiii. 7), and all Hebrew slaves are to be released every seventh year. +Along with this, however, we find the ferocity which distinguished the +Semites in time of war. If the enemy lived afar off, all the males of a +vanquished city were to be mercilessly slain, and the children and women +spared, only to become the slaves and concubines of the conquerors. But +even this amount of mercy was forbidden in the case of the Canaanitish +cities; here the massacre was to be universal, lest the Israelites +should take wives from the conquered population and fall away from the +worship of Yahveh. A similar spirit of ferocity breathes through the +Assyrian inscriptions, where the kings boast of the multitudes of the +vanquished whom they had tortured and slain in honour of their god +Assur. Alone of the ancient nations of the East the Egyptians seem to +have understood what we mean by humanity in war. + +Like the poor, the Levite is commended to the care and support of the +people. He has no land or property of his own—much less a ‘Levitical +city,’—the Lord alone ‘is his inheritance,’ and consequently those who +remember the Levite remember at the same time the Lord whom he serves. +The portion of the offering is defined which is to be the due of the +Levites, and tithe is to be paid to them upon all the produce of the +land. No distinction is drawn in the book of Deuteronomy between the +Levites and the priests, ‘the sons of Aaron,’ and therefore the laws +relating to the Levites apply to all the priests alike. + +Another characteristic of the Deuteronomic Law is its insistence on a +central sanctuary. It was to this central sanctuary that the God-fearing +Israelite was commanded to ‘go up’ three times in the year at each of +the great feasts, and there offer his firstlings and sacrifices to the +Lord. This central sanctuary, however, did not exclude the existence of +local altars or shrines. The Levite is described as living in the +families of the other tribes throughout the land (xii. 19, xiv. 27), and +as deciding cases at law, wherever they might occur, along with the +judges (xvi. 18, xvii. 9, xix. 17, xxi. 6). Nor was it necessary when an +animal was slaughtered, and its life-blood poured out before Yahveh, +that this should be done in the one chief temple of the nation. It was +only such offerings as had been specially vowed to the national God that +were required to be brought there. They had been dedicated to Yahveh as +God of the whole nation, and it was therefore to that sanctuary in which +Yahveh was worshipped by the nation as a whole that they had to be +taken. In his individual or local capacity the Israelite was free to +offer his sacrifices where he would. For, it must be remembered, the +very fact that the life-blood was shed made the death of the animal a +sacrifice to the Lord, and the feast on its flesh which followed was a +feast eaten in the presence of the Lord. + +The insistence on the central sanctuary implied an equal insistence on +the absolute supremacy of Yahveh in Israel. Idolaters and enticers to +idolatry were to be cut off without pity; even the prophet who spoke in +the name of another god, and whose words came to pass, was to be stoned +to death. The fulfilment of a prediction guaranteed its truth only if +the prophet was the messenger of Yahveh. Yahveh would suffer no other +gods to be worshipped at His side, and the Deuteronomic Law accordingly +forbids all such practices as were connected with the heathenism of the +neighbouring peoples. The Israelites were forbidden to tattoo themselves +like the Syrian worshippers of Hadad, to scarify their flesh like the +Egyptians in mourning for the dead, far less like the Canaanites around +them to sacrifice their firstborn by fire. Every effort was made to +preserve them from contact with their neighbours; their king was +forbidden to ‘multiply’ horses and wives; for the one would lead to +intercourse with Egypt, the other would introduce into Israel the +worship and the images of foreign deities. The sacred trees which from +time immemorial had been planted near the altars of the gods, some of +them by the patriarchs themselves, were to be destroyed like the conical +pillar of the goddess Asherah and the upright column which symbolised +the sun-god. + +Few aspects of Hebrew life are left untouched by the enactments of +Deuteronomy. Marriage and divorce, murder and other crimes, the +institution of the cities of refuge, the observance of the great feasts, +the election and duty of a king, sanitary laws including the distinction +between clean and unclean meats, slavery, commerce, and usury, are all +alike subjects of the Deuteronomic legislation. And the whole +legislation is marked by a spirit of compassion for the poor and +suffering, at all events if they belong to the house of Israel, or have +been allowed to share some of its privileges. The creditor is enjoined +to give back to the poor man before nightfall the raiment he had taken +in pledge, and the master is bidden to pay at the close of the day the +wages of ‘the hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy +brethren or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates.’ +Even the curious prohibition to mix like and unlike together, as in the +case of a garment of wool and linen (xxii. 11), seems to be a reduction +from the principle which forbade the yoking together of the ox and ass. + +The legislation relating to the king is perhaps somewhat striking, +especially when we bear in mind the protest raised by Samuel against the +election of one (1 Sam. vii. 6-18). Samuel, however, was not altogether +disinterested in the matter; and it was obvious that as soon as the +conquest of Canaan was completed, there could be no national unity +without a monarch who could represent the people and lead them in war. +Before the time of Samuel, Abimelech had established a kingdom in +Central Palestine, and tradition spoke of Moses also as ‘king in +Jeshurun’ (Deut. xxxiii. 5). The Israelites, if ever they were to form a +nation, were destined to follow the example of their neighbours; even in +the wild fastnesses of Mount Seir the ‘dukes’ of Edom had been succeeded +by kings. The idea of kingship was so familiar to the Mosaic age, that +it is difficult to conceive of any legislation which did not contemplate +it. Whether the legislation would have taken precisely the same form as +that which we find in Deuteronomy is another question. + +The commandments enjoined by Moses were ordered to be written on the +stuccoed face of ‘great stones.’ Whether the whole of the Deuteronomic +legislation is meant is more than doubtful. But that the chief +enactments of the code should be thus placed before the eyes of the +people was in accordance with the customs of the age. The acts and +events of the reign of Augustus engraved on the marble slabs of Ancyra +are a late example of the same usage; and the great inscription of +Darius on the cliff of Behistun has similarly preserved to us the +history of the foundation of the Persian empire. To cover stone or rock +with stucco, which was then painted white and written upon, was a common +practice in Egypt. It seems to imply, however, that the writing could be +painted with the brush, and thus to exclude the use of cuneiform +characters. At the same time, these characters could be cut in stucco as +well as in stone, and it is possible that the stucco was intended to be +a substitute for clay, where a large surface had to be covered. However +this may be, the monument was ordered to be erected on Mount Ebal, by +the side of an altar of unwrought stones. + +On Ebal, moreover, and the opposite height of Gerizim, it was prescribed +that a strange ceremony should be performed. While half the tribes stood +on the one mountain, and the other half on the other mountain, the +Levites were to curse from Ebal all those who disobeyed the law, and to +bless from Gerizim those who obeyed it.[252] Unfortunately, as might +have been expected, the curses much predominated over the blessings. We +hear afterwards in the book of Joshua that the ceremony was duly +performed, excepting only that Joshua read the words of cursing and +benediction in place of ‘the priests the Levites.’ Critics have doubted +the historical character of the occurrence, but it is inconsistent with +no known fact, and it is difficult to find a reason for its gratuitous +invention. + +The latter part of the book of Deuteronomy brings the life of Moses to +an end. It includes the final covenant made between himself on behalf of +Yahveh and the people of Israel, to which are attached the various +calamities that would await the breaking of it. It also tells us that +the law contained in Deuteronomy was really written by the legislator, +and delivered to the priests the sons of Levi with an injunction that it +should be read every seventh year (xxxi. 9-11). Like the ‘witness’ to S. +John’s Gospel, therefore, the compiler of the Pentateuch in its present +form wishes to add his testimony to the belief that the Mosaic law was +written by Moses himself. + +Two songs, attributed to Moses, are also incorporated in the book. They +seem to be a reflection of the curses and blessings pronounced +respectively on Ebal and Gerizim. The one paints the sufferings which +forgetfulness of Yahveh was to bring upon Israel; the other describes +the future happiness and glory of the several tribes. Chiefest among +them are Levi and the house of Joseph; ‘the precious things’ of the +Promised Land are reserved for Ephraim and Manasseh, whose warriors +shall drive the enemies of Yahveh to the ends of the earth. Levi shall +be the lawgiver and instructor of Israel, while Benjamin shall be the +‘beloved of the Lord,’ who shall ‘dwell between his shoulders’ at +Shiloh. Judah, on the other hand, stands in the background; little is +said of him except a prayer that he should be delivered from his +enemies. And Simeon is passed over altogether. It is plain that this +second song or ‘blessing’ must be of early date. It cannot be later than +the early days of the conquest of Canaan, when Ephraim and Manasseh were +still the most powerful of the tribes, and when the tabernacle of Yahveh +was erected at Shiloh. The tribes were still united among themselves; +they still recognised a common God and a common worship, and had not as +yet fallen upon the evil days depicted in the book of Judges. The tone +of the song throughout is that of triumph and success; the Israelites +must have still been in their first flush of victory, and the house of +Joseph have still been their leader in war. But history knows of only +two periods when such was the case; the one period that which followed +the conquest of the Amorite kingdoms east of the Jordan, the other +period that which saw Joshua the Ephraimite at the head of the armies of +Israel. Hebrew antiquity decided that it was to the first period that +the song belonged.[253] + +The death of Moses was placed on the summit of one of the mountains of +Abarim—the mountains of the ‘Hebrews’—in the land of Moab over against +the temple of Baal-Peor. On the one side he looked down upon the scene +of his last victory over the opponents of his law, on the place where +the Midianites and their Israelitish sympathisers had been slain; on the +other side lay the Land of Promise, to the borders of which he had led +his people. The peak of Pisgah on which he stood had been dedicated in +old days to the worship of Nebo, the Babylonian god of prophecy and +literature, the interpreter of the will of Merodach, the supreme +divinity of Babylon. It was no accident that the prophet and legislator +of Israel, the interpreter of the will of Yahveh, should die on the same +mountain-peak. + +The high-places which the kindred Semitic nations dedicated to the gods +become in the history of Israel the scenes of the death of its great +men. Aaron dies on the summit of Mount Hor, and even to-day the tomb of +the prophet Samuel is pointed out on the lofty top of Mizpah. But no +tomb marked the spot where Moses died; alone among the heroes of Hebrew +history he was buried in a foreign land, and the place where he was +buried was unknown. The legislator of Israel, he who had made Israel a +nation, and with whom Israelitish history began, vanished utterly out of +sight. The fact is a strange one, whatever be the explanation we attempt +to give of it. Can it be that Moab had been more completely conquered by +Israel than the narrative in the Pentateuch would lead us to suppose, +but that with the death of Moses the dominion of Israel passed +away?[254] In that case Moab would have had little interest in +preserving a memory of the last resting-place of its conqueror, and the +time would soon have come when its site was forgotten. + +Footnote 153: + + See Sayce, _The Higher Criticism and the Monuments_, p. 249. + +Footnote 154: + + E. Naville, _Goshen and the Shrine of Saft el-Hennah_, Fourth Memoir + of the Egypt Exploration Fund (1887). + +Footnote 155: + + Brugsch, _Egypt under the Pharaohs_ (Eng. tr.), second edit., ii. p. + 133. + +Footnote 156: + + Flinders Petrie, _Tel el-Amarna_, pp. 40-42. + +Footnote 157: + + See above, p. 115. + +Footnote 158: + + For Khar, the Horites of the Old Testament, see Maspero, _Struggle of + the Nations_, p. 121. + +Footnote 159: + + On the road from Assuan to Shellâl, ‘Messui, the royal son of Kush, + the fan-bearer on the right of the king, the royal scribe,’ has left + his name and titles on a granite rock (Petrie, _A Season in Egypt_, + No. 70). Below the inscription is Meneptah in a chariot, with Messui + holding the fan and bowing before him. + +Footnote 160: + + For Dr. Neubauer’s suggestion that the name of Aaron, otherwise so + inexplicable, is the Arabic Âron or Âran written in the Minæan + fashion, see above, p. 34, note 1. If the suggestion is right, it was + specially appropriate that Aaron should have met Moses in ‘the Mount + of God,’ on the frontiers of Midian (Exod. iv. 27). + +Footnote 161: + + A translation of the papyrus has been given by Professor Maspero in + _The Records of the Past_, new series, ii. pp. 11-36. + +Footnote 162: + + See Preface to Maspero’s _Dawn of Civilisation_, p. v. + +Footnote 163: + + Reuel, ‘Shepherd of God,’ was a son of Esau, according to Gen. xxxvi. + 4. It may have been a title of the high-priest, since _rêu_, + ‘shepherd,’ is one of the titles given to the kings and high-priests + of early Babylonia. The high-priest Gudea, for instance, calls himself + ‘the shepherd of the god Nin-girsu.’ On the other hand, Hommel (_The + Ancient Hebrew Tradition_, p. 278) compares the name Reuel-Jethro with + the Minæan Ridsvu-il Vitrân. + +Footnote 164: + + In the word _seneh_ a popular etymology seems to have been found for + the name of Mount Sinai. Hence it is that in Deut. xxxiii. 16, Yahveh + is described as ‘him that dwelt in the _seneh_.’ The _seneh_ was + probably the small prickly _acacia nilotica_. + +Footnote 165: + + No satisfactory etymology of the name Yahveh has yet been found. This, + however, is not strange, considering that the etymology was unknown to + the Hebrews themselves, as is shown by the explanation of the name in + Exod. iii. 14, where it is derived from the Aramaic _hewâ_, the Hebrew + equivalent being _hâyâh_, with _y_ instead of _w_ (or _v_). The + Babylonians were also ignorant of the original meaning of the word, + since one of the lexical cuneiform tablets gives _Yahu_ or Yahveh as + meaning ‘god’ (in Israelitish), and identifies it with the Assyrian + word _yahu_, ‘myself’ (83, 1-18, 1332 _Obv._; Col. ii. 1). No certain + traces of the name have been found except among the Israelites. It is + a verbal formation like _Jacob_, _Joseph_, etc. + +Footnote 166: + + Maspero, _Dawn of Civilisation_, pp. 132-134. + +Footnote 167: + + For ‘strikes’ among the Egyptian artisans, see Spiegelberg, _Arbeiter + und Arbeiterbewegung im Pharaonreich unter den Ramessiden_ (1895). + +Footnote 168: + + At Tel el-Maskhuta, or Pithom, however, the bricks were not mixed with + straw. + +Footnote 169: + + See Wiedemann, _Religion der alten Aegypter_, pp. 142 _sq._ + +Footnote 170: + + Exod. vii. 19 contains an exaggeration which could easily be omitted + without any injury to the sense of the narrative. The change of water + in the river would affect the canals and such pools and ponds as were + fed from the Nile, but nothing else. The river-water is not considered + fit for drinking in the early days of the inundation. The green and + slimy vegetation brought from the Equatorial regions renders it quite + poisonous, and it is not until some days after it has become ‘red’ + that it is again fit to drink. + +Footnote 171: + + The ‘camels’ mentioned along with the cattle in Exod. ix. 3 have been + inserted from an Israelitish point of view. The Egyptians had no + camels; and though the Bedâwin doubtless used them from an early + period, none were employed by the Egyptians themselves until the Roman + or Arab age. + +Footnote 172: + + The passage is, unfortunately, mutilated. What remains reads thus: + ‘... the tents in front of the city of Pi-Bailos, on the canal of + Shakana; ... [the adjoining land] was not cultivated, but had been + left as pasture for cattle for the sake of the foreigners. It had been + abandoned since the time of (our) ancestors. All the kings of Upper + Egypt sat within their entrenchments ... and the kings of Lower Egypt + found themselves in the midst of their cities, surrounded with + earthworks, cut off from everything by the (hostile) warriors, for + they had no mercenaries to oppose to them. Thus had it been [until + Meneptah] ascended the throne of Horus. He was crowned to preserve the + life of mankind.’ The word translated ‘tents’ is _ahilu_, the Hebrew + _ôhêl_, which is used by Ramses III. of the ‘tents’ of the Shasu or + Edomites of Mount Seir. For translations of the text, see E. de Rougé, + _Extrait d’un Mémoire sur les Attaques dirigées contre l’Égypte_, pp. + 6-13 (1867); Chabas, _Recherches pour servir à l’histoire de la + ^{xix}e Dynastie_, pp. 84-92 (1873); Brugsch, _Egypt under the + Pharaohs_, Eng. tr. (2nd edit.), ii. pp. 116-123; Maspero, _The + Struggle of the Nations_, pp. 433-436. + +Footnote 173: + + _Cont. Apion._ i. 26. + +Footnote 174: + + This name, however, varied in different versions of the legend. + Chærêmôn makes it Phritiphantes, which may represent Zaphnath-paaneah, + the dental (_t_) taking the place of _z_, and _pa-Ra_, ‘the sun-god’ + of _pa-Ankhu_, ‘the living one.’ + +Footnote 175: + + The papyrus is in the Hermitage at St. Petersburg (Golénischeff, + _Recueil de Travaux relatifs à la Philologie et à l’Archéologie + égyptiennes et assyriennes_, xv. pp. 88, 89). + +Footnote 176: + + Dr. Wilcken has pointed out (_Zur Aegyptisch-hellenistischen + Literatur_ in the _Festschrift für Georg Ebers_, 1897, pp. 146-152) + that two fragments of a Greek papyrus published by Wessely in the + _Denkschriften der Wiener Akademie_, 42, 1893, pp. 3 _sqq._, contain a + legend which closely resembles that of the Egyptian version of the + Exodus. In this, however, a potter takes the place of the seer + Amenôphis, the desire of the king to see the gods is explained by his + wish to know the future, the ‘impure people’ are called the + ‘girdle-wearers,’ and the beginning of a Sothic cycle is apparently + combined with the story. Moreover, it would seem that the papyrus does + not yet know of the identification of the ‘impure people’ with the + Jews. + +Footnote 177: + + _The Threshold Covenant or the Beginning of Religious Rites_ (New + York, 1896). + +Footnote 178: + + _The Threshold Covenant_, pp. 203, 204. + +Footnote 179: + + See above, p. 155. + +Footnote 180: + + _Egypt under the Pharaohs_ (Eng. tr.), second edit., ii. pp. 96-98. + +Footnote 181: + + _Anastasi_, v. 19. For the translation, see Brugsch, _Egypt under the + Pharaohs_ (Eng. tr.), second edit., ii. p. 132. + +Footnote 182: + + First pointed out by Goodwin in the Sallier Papyrus, iv. 1, 6. + +Footnote 183: + + Josh. ii. 10; iv. 23; xxiv. 6-8. + +Footnote 184: + + Ps. cvi. 7-9, 22; cxxxvi. 13-15; Neh. ix. 9; see also Acts vii. 36. + +Footnote 185: + + The event was first recorded by Kallisthenes, and Plutarch (_Alex._ + 17) states that ‘many historians’ had described it. Arrian (i. 27) + alludes to it, and Menander introduced a scoffing reference to the + miracle in one of his plays. The actual facts are given by Strabo + (_Geog._ xiv. 3, 9), who says that near Phasêlis Mount Klimax juts out + into the sea, but that in calm weather a road runs round its base on + the seaward side. If the wind rises, however, the road is submerged by + the waves. Alexander ventured to march along it while still covered by + the sea, and though the water was up to the waists of the soldiers, + passed safely through it, the wind not being very strong. His success + came to be regarded as a miracle, and the miraculous passage of the + sea by his army is narrated with many embellishments in the fragment + of an unknown historian in a lexicon discovered by Papadopoulos in + 1892. + +Footnote 186: + + The narrative is careful to indicate that this was the case (Exod. + xiv. 23, 28). It is only in the Song of Moses (Exod. xv. 19) that + ‘Pharaoh’s horses’ are changed into ‘the horse of Pharaoh,’ a change + which, like the confusion between ‘the sea’ and the Yâm Sûph, shows + either that the Song is of later date or that its language has been + modified and interpolated. + +Footnote 187: + + _Pap. Anastasi_, iv. A translation of it by Dr. Birch will be found in + _Records of the Past_, first series, vol. iv. pp. 49-52. The poet says + of the king: ‘Amon gave thy heart pleasure, he gave thee a good old + age.’ The name of the king, however, is not given, and it is therefore + possible that Seti II. rather than Meneptah is referred to. + +Footnote 188: + + The last Pharaoh whose monuments have been found in the Sinaitic + peninsula is Ramses VI. of the twentieth dynasty (De Morgan, + _Recherches sur les Origines de l’Égypte_, p. 237). + +Footnote 189: + + The Amalekites adjoined Edom (Gen. xxxvi. 12) and southern Israel + (Judg. v. 14), and extended from Shur, or the Wall of Egypt, to + Havilah, the ‘sandy’ desert of Northern Arabia (1 Sam. xv. 7; see Gen. + xiv. 7). That these Amalekites were the same as those conquered by + Moses is expressly stated in 1 Sam. xv. 2 (cf. Exod. xvii. 16). The + latter, therefore, lived miles to the north of the Sinaitic peninsula. + The wilderness of Paran lay on the southern side of Moab (Deut. i. 1) + and Judah (Gen. xxi. 14, 20, 21). Kadesh, now ’Ain Qadîs, was situated + in it (Numb. xiii. 26). The geography of the Exodus is treated with + great ability and logical skill in Baker Greene’s _Hebrew Migration + from Egypt_ (1879). + +Footnote 190: + + Judg. v. 4, 5; Deut. xxxiii. 2; Hab. iii. 3. + +Footnote 191: + + First pointed out by Baker Greene, _The Hebrew Migration from Egypt_, + p. 170; Elim is the masculine, and Elath the feminine plural. Compare + El-Paran, perhaps ‘El(im) of Paran,’ in Gen. xiv. 6, as well as Elah + in Gen. xxxvi. 41. + +Footnote 192: + + Exod. xvi. 1 compared with Numb. xxxiii. 11. + +Footnote 193: + + The name is found in an inscription of Hadramaut (Osiander, + _Inscriptions in the Himyaritic Character_, p. 29), where the god is + called the son of Atthar or Istar instead of her brother, as in + Babylonia, as well as in a Sabæan text from Sirwaḥ. + +Footnote 194: + + Numb. xiii. 26. The sanctuary had originally been Amalekite (Gen. xiv. + 7). + +Footnote 195: + + Unfortunately, no calculation of distance can be made from the + statement that Elijah was ‘forty days and forty nights’ on his way + from Jezreel to Horeb, since ‘forty’ merely denotes an unknown number. + +Footnote 196: + + In the early days of the monarchy the armies of both the Israelites + and the Philistines were similarly divided into companies of a hundred + and a thousand (1 Sam. xxii. 7; xxix. 2; 2 Sam. xviii. 1). The system + could not have been derived from Babylonia, where sixty was the unit + of notation. + +Footnote 197: + + See my _Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_, pp. 74-77, + and Hibbert Lectures on the _Religion of the Ancient Babylonians_, pp. + 70-77. + +Footnote 198: + + The text of this is given in the 125th chapter of the Book of the + Dead. A translation of it will be found in Wiedemann’s _Religion der + alten Aegypter_, pp. 132, 133. + +Footnote 199: + + The conceptions which underlay this were embodied in the mediæval + jurisprudence of Europe, and curious reports exist of the trials of + cocks, rats, flies, dogs, and even ants, which lasted down to the + eighteenth century (see Baring-Gould, _Curiosities of Olden Times_, + second edit., pp. 57-73). + +Footnote 200: + + The exhortation, together with some of the laws, is given again in a + somewhat changed form in Exod. xxxiv. 10-26. + +Footnote 201: + + The name belongs to the period when the Philistines were infesting the + sea, before they had settled on the coast of Palestine, and indicates + the early date of the passage in which it occurs. Perhaps the Greek + tradition of the command of the sea by the Kretan Minos is a + reminiscence of the same period. + +Footnote 202: + + W. A. I. i. 54, Col. ii. 54 _sqq._ + +Footnote 203: + + _Transactions_ of the Society of Biblical Archæology, vii. 1, pp. 53, + 54. + +Footnote 204: + + A contract-tablet dated in the 32nd year of Nebuchadrezzar, and + published by Dr. Strassmaier (_Inschriften von Nabuchodonoser_, No. + 217), gives us an insight into the details of Babylonian sacrifices, + though, unfortunately, the signification of many of the technical + words employed in it is doubtful or unknown. The tablet begins as + follows: ‘Izkur-Merodach the son of Imbiya the son of Ilei-Merodach of + his own free will has given for the future to Nebo-balásu-ikbi the son + of Kuddinu the son of Ilei-Merodach the slaughterers of the oxen and + sheep for the sacrifices of the king, the prescribed offerings, the + peace-offerings (?) of the whole year, viz., the caul round the heart, + the chine, the covering of the ribs, the ..., the mouth of the + stomach, and the ..., as well as during the year 7000 sin-offerings + and 100 sheep before Iskhara who dwells in the temple of Sa-turra in + Babylon (not excepting the soft parts of the flesh, the trotters (?), + the juicy meat and the salted (?) flesh), and also the slaughterers of + the oxen, sheep, birds, and lambs due on the 8th day of Nisan, (and) + the heave-offering of an ox and a sheep before Pap-sukal of + Bit-Kidur-Kani, the temple of Nin-ip and the temple of Anu on the + further bank of the New Town in Babylon.’ + +Footnote 205: + + _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition_, pp. 282-284. + +Footnote 206: + + See the illustration in Erman’s _Life in Ancient Egypt_ (Eng. tr.), p. + 298. + +Footnote 207: + + Mr. G. Buchanan Gray (_Studies in Hebrew Proper Names_, p. 246, note + 1) suggests that Aholiab is a foreign name. At all events, while we + find names compounded with _ohel_, ‘tabernacle,’ in Minæan and + Phœnician inscriptions, no other name of the kind is found among the + Israelites. + +Footnote 208: + + Sir Thomas Browne, in his _Religio Medici_ (Part i.), remarks on this: + ‘I would gladly know how Moses, with an actual fire, calcined or burnt + the golden calf into powder; for that mystical metal of gold, whose + solary and celestial nature I admire, exposed unto the violence of + fire, grows only hot and liquefies, but consumeth not.’ + +Footnote 209: + + An interpolation (Exod. xxxiii. 1-5) makes the worship of the golden + calf account for the fact that, as declared in Exod. xxiii. 20, an + angel should lead Israel into Canaan, and not Yahveh Himself. But it + ignores the further fact that Yahveh was really present in the Holy of + Holies as well as in the pillar of fire and cloud. + +Footnote 210: + + Hadad-sum and his son Anniy (see my _Patriarchal Palestine_, p. 250). + Small stone tablets like those of Balawât, engraved with cuneiform + characters, are in the museums of Europe. + +Footnote 211: + + Sayce, _Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments_, pp. 79-83. + +Footnote 212: + + The contrast between such cases, where the names and details are as + circumstantially stated as in the legal tablets of early Babylonia, + and cases which rest merely upon the memory of tradition, will be + clear at once from a reference to Numb. xv. 32-36. Here we have to do + with tradition only, and accordingly no name is given, and the story + is introduced with the vague statement that it happened at some time + or other when the Israelites ‘were in the wilderness.’ The whole of + the chapter is an interpolation which is singularly out of place in + the narrative, and seems to have been substituted for a description of + the disasters which followed on the abortive attempt of the Israelites + to invade Canaan. + +Footnote 213: + + Sayce, _Babylonian Literature_, pp. 79, 80; Knudtzon, _Assyrische + Gebete an den Sonnengott_, pp. 73 _sqq._ + +Footnote 214: + + Athenæus, _Deipn._ xiv. 639 c. + +Footnote 215: + + Amiaud’s translation of the Inscriptions of Telloh in the _Records of + the Past_, new ser., ii. pp. 83, 84. + +Footnote 216: + + This was clearly shown by Colenso, _The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua + critically examined_, Pt. i. + +Footnote 217: + + The _soss_ was 60, the _ner_ 600. + +Footnote 218: + + Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_ (Eng. tr.), p. 475. + +Footnote 219: + + So in Josephus, _Antiq._ ii. 10. + +Footnote 220: + + Trumbull, _Kadesh-barnea_ (1884). + +Footnote 221: + + Numb. xiii. 21 seems to be a later exaggeration when compared with the + following verse. No argument, however, can be drawn from the statement + that the spies were absent only ‘forty days,’ since here, as + elsewhere, ‘forty’ merely means an unknown length of time. + +Footnote 222: + + Eshcol, however, was already the name of an Amorite chieftain of Mamre + in the time of Abraham (Gen. xiv. 13). + +Footnote 223: + + Numb. xxi. 1-3 is a combination of this abortive attempt and the + subsequent conquest of Arad and Zephath by Judah and Simeon (Judg. i. + 16, 17), and is intended to resume the thread of the history which had + been broken by the insertion of chapter xv. + +Footnote 224: + + In Numb. xx. 1-13 a tradition about the waters of Meribah takes the + place of a history of the long period that elapsed between the first + and the second arrival at Kadesh, during which the numerous series of + stations mentioned in Numb. xxxiii. 19-36 was passed. A comparison + with Exod. xvii. 1-7 and Deut. xxxiii. 8 seems to show that the story + of ‘the water of Meribah’ has been transferred from Rephidim to + Kadesh. At Kadesh, indeed, there would have been no want of water (see + Gen. xiv. 7), and it may be that the meaning of the word Meribah, + ‘contention,’ has been the cause of the transference. En-Mishpat, ‘the + Spring of Judgment,’ where contentions were decided, had been for + centuries the name of the spring at Kadesh-barnea. As for the name of + Zin, it possibly signifies ‘the dry place.’ + +Footnote 225: + + Gen. xxxvi. 27; 1 Chron. i. 42. + +Footnote 226: + + In Deut. x. 6, 7 (which has been interpolated in the middle of the + narrative of the legislation at Mount Sinai), the order of events is: + (1) Departure from Beeroth of Beni-Yaakan to Mosera, (2) death of + Aaron at Mosera, (3) departure to Gudgodah, (4) departure to Yotbath. + In Numb. xx., xxxiii. 30-39 it is, on the contrary: (1) Departure from + Hashmonah to Moseroth, (2) departure to Beni-Yaakan, (3) departure to + Hor-hagidgad, the Gudgodah of Deuteronomy, (4) departure to Yotbathah, + (5) departure to Ebronah, (6) departure to Ezion-geber, (7) departure + to Kadesh, (8) departure to Mount Hor, (9) death of Aaron on Mount + Hor. + +Footnote 227: + + The passage was already corrupt in the time of the Septuagint + translators. But instead of _eth-wâhab_, their text reads _eth-zâhâb_. + If this was correct, the reference would probably be to Dhi-Zahab, + ‘(the mines) of gold’ which, according to Deut. i. 1, was not far from + Sûph. + +Footnote 228: + + _Zeitschrift des Palästina Vereins_, xiv. pp. 142 _sq._ Tell ’Ashtereh + is the Ashteroth-Karnaim of Gen. xiv. 5. + +Footnote 229: + + Professor Erman reads them Akna-Zapn, perhaps Yakin-Zephon, ‘Jachin of + the North.’ Above the figures is the winged solar disk (Erman, _Der + Hiobstein_ in the _Zeitschrift des Palästina Vereins_, xiv. pp. 210, + 211). + +Footnote 230: + + On the left side of the base of the second statue in front of the + pylon, where it follows the name of Assar, the Asshurim of Gen. xxv. + 3; see Daressy, _Notice explicative des Ruines du Temple de Louxor_, + p. 19. + +Footnote 231: + + Bela’s city is stated to have been Dinhabah (Gen. xxxvi. 32), which + Dr. Neubauer has identified with Dunip, now Tennib, north-west of + Aleppo, which played an important part in the history of Western Asia + during the fifteenth century B.C. + +Footnote 232: + + W. A. I. i. 46; Col. iii. 29, 30. In another passage Esar-haddon + describes them as ‘serpents with two heads’ (Budge, _History of + Esar-haddon_, p. 120). + +Footnote 233: + + Bronze serpents were regarded in Babylonia as divine protectors of a + building, and were accordingly ‘set up’ at its entrance. Thus + Nebuchadrezzar says of the walls of Babylon, ‘On the thresholds of the + gates I set up mighty bulls of bronze and huge serpents that stood + erect’ (W. A. I. i. 65, i. 19-21). + +Footnote 234: + + It is called simply Iyîm in the official itinerary (Numb. xxxiii. 45). + Punon is the Pinon of Gen. xxxvi. 41, where it is coupled with Elah, + the El-Paran of Gen. xiv. 6. + +Footnote 235: + + Those who wish to see what can be done by ingenious philological + conjectures which satisfy none but their authors may turn to a paper + by Professor Budde in the _Actes du Dixième Congrès Internationale des + Orientalistes_, iii. pp. 13-18, where they will find a ‘revised’ + version of Numb. xxi. 17, 18. The two last lines are changed into + ‘With the sceptre, with their staves: From the desert a gift!’ + +Footnote 236: + + Numb. xxxii. 41, 42; Deut. iii. 14. We learn from Judg. x. 3, 4, that + Jair was one of the judges, so that the conquest of Havoth-Jair must + have taken place long after the death of Moses. + +Footnote 237: + + Now Dar’at (pronounced Azr’ât by the Bedâwin) and Tell-Ashtereh. + +Footnote 238: + + Zippor of Gaza was the name of the father of a certain Baal- ... whose + servant carried letters in the third year of Meneptah II. from Egypt + to Khai, the Egyptian governor of the fellahin or Perizzites of + Palestine, and the king of Tyre (Brugsch, _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, + Eng. tr., second edit., ii., p. 126). + +Footnote 239: + + Ammiya is said to have been seized by Ebed-Asherah the Amorite (_The + Tel el-Amarna Tablets in the British Museum_, 12. 25., 15. 27). It is + also called Amma (_ib._ 17. 7., 37. 58, where it is associated with + Ubi, the Aup of the Egyptian inscriptions) and Ammi (W. and A. 89. + 13). + +Footnote 240: + + If the two Balaams, ‘son of Beor,’ are really the same person, Edomite + and Israelitish history will have handed down two different + conceptions of him. The Israelitish chronology, moreover, would make + it impossible for him to have been the _first_ Edomite king (see Numb. + xx. 14). + +Footnote 241: + + Sheth are the Sutu of the Assyrian inscriptions, the Sittiu or + ‘Archers’ of the Egyptian hieroglyphs, the Bedâwin of modern + geography. The Beni-Sheth will be the Midianite Bedâwin who are + associated with the Moabites in the Pentateuch (Numb. xxii. 4, 7; xxv. + 1-18; xxxi. 8). + +Footnote 242: + + _Records of the Past_, new ser., iii. pp. 61-65. + +Footnote 243: + + Tiglath-pileser I. (B.C. 1100) boasts of having sailed upon the + Mediterranean in a ship of Arvad, and of there killing a dolphin, + while his son, Assur-bil-kala, erected statues in the cities of ‘the + land of the Amorites’ (W. A. I. i. 6, No. vi.). A little later + Assur-irbi carved an image of himself on Mount Amanus, near the Gulf + of Antioch, but the capture by the king of Aram of Mutkina, which + guarded the ford over the Euphrates, subsequently cut him off from the + west. Palestine is already called Ebir-nâri, ‘the land beyond the + river,’ in an Assyrian inscription which Professor Hommel would refer + to the age of Assur-bil-kala, the son of Tiglath-pileser I. (_The + Ancient Hebrew Tradition_, p. 196). Professor D. H. Müller (_Die + Propheten_, p. 215) conjecturally emends the Hebrew text of Numb. + xxiii. 23, 24, and sees in it a reference to the kingdom of Samalla, + to the north-east of the Gulf of Antioch. The two verses become in his + translation, ‘[And he saw Samalla], and began his speech, and said, + Alas, who will survive of Samalla? And ships [shall come] from the + coast of Chittim, and Asshur shall oppress him, and Eber shall oppress + him, and he himself is destined to destruction.’ Samalla, however, was + only the Assyrian name of a district called by natives of Northern + Syria Ya’di and Gurgum; nor is it easy to understand how Balaam could + have ‘seen’ the north of Syria from Moab. Professor Hommel is more + probably right in his view that Asshur here does not signify the + Assyrians, but the Asshurim to the south of Palestine (Gen. xxv. 3, + 18). + +Footnote 244: + + For the Messianic prophecy of Ameni, see above, p. 175. + +Footnote 245: + + Similar cities of refuge, called _puhonua_, existed in Hawaii. ‘A + thief or a murderer might be pursued to the very gateway of one of + those cities; but as soon as he crossed the threshold of that gate, + even though the gate were open and no barrier hindered pursuit, he was + safe as at the city altar. When once within the sacred city, the + fugitive’s first duty was to present himself before the idol and + return thanks for his protection’ (Trumbull, _The Threshold Covenant_, + p. 151, quoting Ellis, _Through Hawaii_, pp. 155 _sq._, and Bird, _Six + Months in the Sandwich Islands_, pp. 135 _sq._). For the _asyla_ of + Asia Minor see Barth, _De Asylis Græcis_ (1888); Daremberg et Saglio, + _Dictionnaire des Antiquités, Grecques et Romaines_, i. pp. 505 + _sqq._; Pauly’s _Real-Encyclopädie_ (ed. Wissowa), iv. pp. 1884-5. + +Footnote 246: + + Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_ (Eng. tr.), p. 299. + +Footnote 247: + + Cornelius Nepos, _Them._ ii. 10. + +Footnote 248: + + Mahaffy, _The Empire of the Ptolemies_, pp. 144, 156-158. For the + _hiera_ or priestly cities of Asia Minor, see Ramsay, _The Cities and + Bishoprics of Phrygia_, pp. 101 _sqq._; their constitution resembled + very closely that of the Levitical cities in Israel. Examples of such + cities in the history of Israel are Nob in the time of Saul and + Anathoth in the age of Jeremiah. + +Footnote 249: + + The order of events is in many places confused, which probably points + to later insertions in the text. See, for example, Deut. x. 6-9, which + interrupts the context, and has nothing to do either with what + precedes or with what follows. + +Footnote 250: + + _E.g._ Deut. xiv. 21, compared with Lev. xvii. 14-16. + +Footnote 251: + + In this respect it resembles the ‘Negative Confession’ of the Egyptian + Book of the Dead, which the soul of the dead man was required to make + before the judges of the other world (Wiedemann, _Religion der alten + Aegypter_, pp. 132, 133). + +Footnote 252: + + Levi is included among the six tribes which stood on Mount Gerizim to + bless. This is an inadvertency, as the Levites were placed on both + mountains, it being their duty to utter the curses as well as the + blessings. + +Footnote 253: + + If it did so, xxxiii. 4 can hardly be original. Perhaps Yahveh rather + than Moses was described as ‘king in Jeshurun’ (cf. _v._ 26). A very + ingenious attempt has been made by Dr. Hayman to explain the + corruptions of the text in the song by the theory that it was + originally written on a clay tablet, a fracture of which has caused + some of the words at the ends of the lines to be lost. + +Footnote 254: + + Cf. 1 Chron. iv. 22. + + + + + CHAPTER IV + THE CONQUEST OF CANAAN + + + Joshua not the Conqueror of Canaan—The Conquest gradual—The Passage + of the Jordan—Jericho, Ai and the Gibeonites—Battle of + Makkedah—Lachish and Hazor—The Kenizzites at Hebron and + Kirjath-Sepher—Shechem—Death of Joshua. + + +Hebrew tradition ascribed the conquest of Canaan to Joshua the son of +Nun. But when we come to examine the book of Joshua or the book of +Judges, we find that the extent of his work has been greatly magnified +in the imagination of later ages. The Ephraimitish chieftain +successfully established Israel on the western side of the Jordan, +gained permanent possession of Mount Ephraim, and defeated the +Canaanitish princes to the south and north. But the conquest of Canaan +was a longer work, which was not completed till the days of David and +Solomon. + +The first chapter of Judges tells us in outline what the map of +Palestine was like after the settlement of the Israelitish tribes. In +the south the mountainous country was held by the Edomite tribe of Caleb +as well as by the more strictly Israelitish tribe of Judah. But it was +only ‘the mountain’ that was thus held. Though ‘the Lord was with +Judah,’ he ‘could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because +they had chariots of iron.’ Further south, however, Judah and Simeon in +combination succeeded in making themselves masters of the Negeb or +desert plain as far as Zephath, where a mixed population, partly +Israelitish, partly Edomite, and partly Kenite, took the place of the +older inhabitants. + +Jerusalem remained in the hands of the Jebusites until it was captured +by David. It is true, we read (Judg. i. 8) that ‘the children of Judah +had fought against Jerusalem, and had taken it and smitten it with the +edge of the sword.’ But if so, it must soon have been again fortified by +its former possessors, since we are expressly told (Judg. i. 21) that +the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited +Jerusalem; but the Jebusites ‘dwell with the children of Judah in +Jerusalem unto this day.’[255] Modern critics have been in the habit of +dismissing the alleged capture of the city as unhistorical, but it is +quite possible that Jerusalem really suffered momentarily from a sudden +raid. The capture of the city is not ascribed to Joshua—indeed, though +he defeated its king and his allies, he seems to have made no effort to +reduce the city itself—and it is said to have been effected by Judah +after Joshua’s death. This may have been at any time during the period +of the Judges. The Tel el-Amarna tablets show us how easily the cities +of Canaan could be taken and retaken in the course of local quarrels, +and the fact that Jerusalem was for a while in Jewish hands seems to +form an integral part of the story of the conquest of Bezek. + +Even the great sanctuary of Beth-el, destined to be the possession of +Benjamin as well as of Ephraim,[256] had not fallen into the hands of +‘the house of Joseph’ when Joshua died, though the ‘ruined heap’ of Ai +which lay near it was one of the first of the Israelitish conquests. All +the chief towns in the territory of Manasseh—Megiddo and Taanach, Dor +and Beth-Shean—remained Canaanite, the utmost that Israel could do in +the days of its strength being to exact tribute from them. Gezer defied +the power of Ephraim down to the time when it was given to Solomon by +the Egyptian Pharaoh; while the great cities of Zebulon and Naphtali, +like those of Manasseh, never became Israelitish, but paid tribute to +the Hebrews whenever the latter were ‘strong.’ Asher failed to secure +the territory that had been assigned to him, where Moses in his song had +promised that his foot should be dipped in oil and his sandals should be +of iron and bronze. The Phœnicians continued to hold the coast long +after the Israelitish tribes had been carried into Assyrian captivity, +and even in the mountains that overlooked the shore the Asherites were +forced to live and be lost among the older Canaanites (Judg. i. 32). +‘The children of Dan’ were in even worse case; the Amorites drove them +into the mountains and ‘would not suffer them to come down to the +valley.’ When at last their enemies were made tributary by ‘the house of +Joseph,’ it was too late; the tribe of Dan was merged into that of +Judah, or had found a refuge in the city of Laish in the extreme north. + +Joshua, therefore, was not the conqueror of Canaan in any exact sense of +the term. The districts east of the Jordan had been occupied by the +Israelites before the death of Moses, and north of Moab the occupation +had been fairly complete. In Canaan itself the amount of territory won +by Joshua was practically confined to the passage over the Jordan and +the mountainous region of the centre. Few of the Canaanitish cities were +captured by him; and with the exception of Jericho and Lachish, and +perhaps Hazor, none of them was of primary importance. But he succeeded +in doing what had been attempted in vain in earlier days; he led his +people into Palestine, and planted them there so firmly that the future +conquest of the whole country became merely a matter of time. + +It was at Jericho, ‘the city of palms,’ that the passage into Canaan was +forced. The army of Israel crossed the Jordan dry-shod, for ‘the waters +which came down from above stood and rose up upon an heap very far from +the city Adam, that is beside Zaretan; and those which came down towards +the sea of the plain, even the Salt Sea, failed, and were cut off.’ A +similar phenomenon is recorded as having occurred in the Middle Ages. M. +Clermont-Ganneau has pointed out a passage in the Arabic historian +Nowairi, in which an account is given of the construction in A.D. 1266 +of a bridge across the Jordan by the Sultan Beybars I. of Egypt, when in +consequence of a landslip the bed of the river was for a time left dry. +The bridge was built on five arches between the stream of the Qurawa and +Tel Damieh, perhaps the Adam of the Old Testament. But no sooner was it +completed than ‘part of the piers gave way. The Sultan was greatly +vexed, and blamed the builders, and sent them back to repair the damage. +They found the task very difficult, owing to the rise of the waters and +the strength of the current. But in the night preceding the dawn of the +17th of the month Rabi the First of the year of the Hijra 666 (_i.e._ +the 8th of December, A.D. 1267) the water of the river ceased to flow so +that none remained in its bed. The people hurried and kindled numerous +fires and cressets, and seized the opportunity offered by the +occurrence. They remedied the defects in the piers, and strengthened +them, and effected repairs which would otherwise have been impossible. +They then despatched mounted men to ascertain the nature of the event +that had occurred. The riders urged their horses, and found that a lofty +mound (_Kabâr_) which overlooked the river on the west had fallen into +it and dammed it up. A _Kabâr_ resembles a hill, but is not actually a +hill, for water will quickly disintegrate it into mud. The water was +held up, and had spread itself over the valley above the dam. The +messengers returned with this explanation, and the water was arrested +from midnight until the 4th hour of the day. Then the water prevailed +upon the dam and broke it up. The water flowed down in a body equal in +depth to the length of a lance, but made no impression upon the building +owing to the strength given to it.’[257] + +The megalithic ‘circle’ of Gilgal commemorated the passage of the +Jordan. The camp was fixed there, and a popular etymology explained the +name by the circumcision that had ‘rolled away the reproach of +Egypt.’[258] Jericho, the city of the ‘Moon-god’ Yârêakh, was next +invested and captured in spite of its strong walls. All its inhabitants +were put to the sword, Rahab only being spared to become the founder of +a family in Israel because she had sheltered the Israelitish spies. The +city was razed to the ground, and was not again rebuilt till the reign +of Ahab. + +We can still trace the site of Jericho in the hollow of the deep valley +through which the Jordan flows into the Dead Sea. Its ruins lie round +about the ’Ain es-Sultân, a spring of warm water which gushes into an +ancient basin, overgrown with reeds and brushwood, among which the birds +flutter and watch the fish in the water below. Above towers the huge +mass of Mount Qarantel, while the black soil which forms the floor of +the hollow is covered with small artificial mounds of earth, and is +thick with the decayed relics of a tropical vegetation. In the coldest +weather it is still warm at Jericho; in summer the damp heat is +stifling, and the mosquitoes are innumerable. Now it is given over to +idle Bedâwin, but in the old days when the country was filled with an +industrious population, it was as ‘the garden of the Lord.’ No place in +Palestine was more fertile, and it commanded the ford that led across +the Jordan from the east. + +The destruction of Jericho opened to Joshua the way into Canaan. Laden +with its spoil, the Israelites matched westward, up into the mountains +and through the pass of Michmash towards Beth-el. Beth-el itself was too +strong to be attacked. But a neighbouring town, whose later name of Ai, +‘the ruined heap,’ was a lasting record of its fate, was not so +fortunate. The Israelites took it by means of an ambuscade, and the same +merciless treatment was dealt out to it that had been dealt to Jericho. +The inhabitants were all massacred, ‘only the cattle and the spoil +Israel took for a prey unto themselves.’ + +The conquest of Ai, however, had not been easy. The Canaanites had made +a brave defence, and the invaders had at first suffered a check. The +cause was discovered in the Israelitish camp. A Jew, Achan or Achar, had +hidden under his tent some of the booty of Jericho which ought to have +been either destroyed or dedicated to Yahveh. ‘A goodly Babylonish +garment,’ two hundred shekels of silver, and a tongue-like wedge of gold +fifty shekels in weight, were the objects which he had coveted and +concealed. But the order had been issued that all objects of metal +should be given to the tabernacle, and that all things else should be +burned with fire. Achan accordingly was condemned to be stoned to death, +and along with him the rest of his family as well as his oxen, his +asses, and his sheep. Then the bodies were burnt, and a heap of stones +piled over them in memory of the event. + +The mention of the ‘goodly Babylonish garment’ takes us back to the time +when Assyria had not as yet supplanted Babylonia in the west. For +centuries Babylonia had been the home of weavers and embroiderers whose +fabrics were famous all over the east. The cuneiform tablets contain +long lists of articles of clothing, each of which had its own name; and, +as we learn from the Tel el-Amarna correspondence, the merchants of +Babylonia found a ready market for their goods in the cities of Canaan. +The age of the Exodus marks the period when the old peaceful intercourse +with Babylonia was coming to an end; alien peoples had barred the road +across the Euphrates, and Babylon itself was about to fall into the +hands of an Assyrian conqueror. Henceforth it was Assyria, and not +Babylonia, whose name was known or feared in Palestine, and the writer +of a later day would have spoken of the wares of Assyria rather than +those of the Babylonians.[259] + +The destruction of Ai gave Joshua a foothold in the mountain of Ephraim. +Then came the league with the Gibeonites, secured, so we are told, by +craft. Modern criticism, with needless scepticism, has seen in the +narrative merely a popular legend to account for the fact that the four +cities which formed the western half of the future territory of Benjamin +were laid under tribute, and not destroyed. But the extermination of the +Canaanites was relative, not absolute; their utter destruction, like +that of the Britons by the Saxon invaders, was the dream of a later day. +As we have seen, the Hebrew occupation of Canaan was a slow and gradual +process, and in the more important cities the older population remained +to the end. Even the temple of Solomon was built on the threshing-floor +of a Jebusite, and the heads of the prisoners which surmount the names +of the places captured by Shishak in the south of Palestine are Amorite +rather than Jewish. The Amorite population was still predominant there; +and the fellahin of to-day, as has been pointed out by M. +Clermont-Ganneau, are the lineal descendants of the old races.[260] + +Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjath-jearim are not the only cities +of which we hear as having been made tributary. This was also the case +with Megiddo and Taanach, Beth-shean, Dor, and Ibleam (Judg. i. 27), as +well as with the chief cities in the territories of Zebulon and Naphtali +(Judg. i. 30, 33); while, on the other hand, the tribe of Issachar +became tributary to its Canaanitish neighbours (Gen. xlix. 15).[261] It +is more profitable to exact tribute from a wealthy and industrious +population than to exterminate it, as Mohammed found; and the near +neighbourhood of the central sanctuaries of Israel, first at Shiloh, +then at Jerusalem and Beth-el, afforded a special reason why the +Gibeonites should be made ‘hewers of wood and drawers of water for the +house of God.’ + +The greater part of the future territory of Benjamin was now in +Israelitish hands. The destruction of Jericho had secured the ford +across the Jordan and communication with the Israelitish settlers on the +east side of the river. But it must be remembered that the tribe of +Benjamin as distinct from that of Ephraim did not as yet exist. Its +territory formed the southern part of Mount Ephraim, and for military +and political purposes the two tribes constituted a single whole. This +was still the case as late as the age of Deborah and Barak, when the +power of Ephraim, ‘behind’ Benjamin, is said to extend as far as the +desert of the Amalekites to the south of Judah (Judg. v. 14). The name +of Benjamin, in fact, means ‘the southerner’; the tribe lay southward of +Ephraim; and the second name by which it was known—that of Ben-Oni, ‘the +Onite’—indicated that it was settled round the great sanctuary of +Beth-On. And such indeed was the case when the tribe had vindicated its +individual existence and been definitely separated from Ephraim. Beth-On +or Beth-el was then included within its boundaries (Josh. xviii. 22). +Originally, however, Beth-el belonged to Ephraim, and had been an +Ephraimitish conquest (Judg. i. 22-26). + +The conquest of Beth-el did not take place until after Joshua’s death, +and as long as it remained independent it must have been a constant +menace to the Israelitish settlers in Mount Ephraim. With its capture +all danger passed away, and Mount Ephraim—the heart of Palestine—became +at last the secure possession of the ‘house of Joseph.’ From hence, as +from an impregnable fortress, they were able to make descents upon the +fertile lands to the west and attack the cities which stood there. The +powerful city of Gezer was eventually compelled to pay them tribute +(Josh. xvi. 10), and the territory which had been assigned to Dan became +tributary to ‘the house of Joseph’ (Judg. i. 35). + +But all this was after Joshua had passed away. Besides crossing the +Jordan and securing a footing in Mount Ephraim, Joshua had made a +successful raid into those mountains in the ‘Negeb’ of Judah which had +been so fatal to the first Israelitish invaders of Canaan. The +destruction of Ai had excited the fears of Adoni-zedek of Jerusalem, and +in the league that had been made between Gibeon and the invaders he saw +danger to his own state. Gibeon lay only a few miles to the north of +Jerusalem, and the Tel el-Amarna tablets have shown us that the +neighbourhood of two Canaanitish cities was a quite sufficient cause of +war between them. When the tablets were written, Ebed-Tob was king of +Jerusalem, and his letters to the Pharaoh are filled with imploring +appeals for help against his enemies. These were partly the neighbouring +‘governors,’ partly the Khabiri or ‘Confederates,’ who seem to have been +of foreign origin, and who had already captured some of his cities. The +situation, therefore, was very much like what it was in the later days +of Adoni-zedek, the place of the Egyptian ‘governors’ being taken by +Gibeon, while the Khabiri were represented by the Israelites. But +Adoni-zedek had no suzerain lord in Egypt to whom he could apply for +aid. He was therefore forced to turn to the Canaanitish princes around +him and form a league with them against the invading hordes from the +desert. Hoham of Hebron, Piram of Jarmuth, Yaphia of Lachish, and Debir +of Eglon rallied to his summons, and the combined forces marched against +Gibeon and besieged the town.[262] The Gibeonites at once sent +messengers to Joshua, who accordingly left the camp at Gilgal and fell +suddenly on the besieging army. The Canaanites were utterly routed, and +fled towards Beth-horon and Makkedah, a hailstorm adding to their +discomfiture. The five kings were discovered hiding in a cave at +Makkedah, and dragged before Joshua, who pitilessly put them all to +death. The bodies were buried in the cave and great stones laid upon its +mouth, which, the compiler of the book of Joshua states, remained there +unto his day (Josh. x. 27). + +The defeat of the Canaanite army was followed by the capture of Makkedah +and Libnah, which opened the road to Lachish. The site of Lachish was +rediscovered by Professor Flinders Petrie in 1890 at Tell el-Hesy, +sixteen miles eastward of Gaza. The great mound that covers its ruins +has been excavated partly by him, partly by Dr. Bliss, and the huge wall +that surrounded it in the days of the Amorites, and before which the +Israelites encamped, has been explored and measured.[263] + +The city stood on a natural eminence some forty feet in height. Close to +it rises the only good spring of water in the district, which when +swollen by the winter rains becomes the torrent of the Hesy. The stream +ran past the eastern side of the city, and has eaten away part of the +remains of the successive cities which rose upon the site, one above the +ruins of the other. Fragments of the pottery used by the Amorite +defenders of the city in the days of Joshua can now be seen in the rooms +of the Palestine Exploration Fund. + +The walls of Lachish, like those of the cities of Egypt, were built of +crude brick, and were nearly thirty feet in thickness. It had, in fact, +long been one of the principal fortresses of Southern Palestine. Among +the Tel el-Amarna tablets are letters from two of its governors Zimrida +and Yabniel, the first of whom was murdered, and who is mentioned on +another tablet found by Dr. Bliss among the ruins of Lachish itself. Its +capture, therefore, by the Israelites was a serious blow to the +Canaanites in the southern part of the country. But, though Horam king +of Gezer came to its assistance, all was no avail; the strong fortress +fell at last before the invaders, and ‘all the souls’ that were in it +were massacred.[264] For at least a century its site lay desolate and +uninhabited; and the explorers found in the soil that accumulated above +the ruins of the Amorite city nothing but the ashes of the camp-fires of +Bedâwin nomads. + +Eglon, now probably Tell Ejlân, close to Tell el-Hesy, naturally shared +the fate of the neighbouring city. According to the compiler of the book +of Joshua, the fall of Hebron and Debir followed immediately after that +of Eglon. But this cannot be correct. Debir, as we afterwards learn, was +taken at a later date by Othniel (Josh. xv. 16, 17; Judg. i. 12, 13), +not by Joshua, and the error seems to have been due to the fact that +Debir was the name of the king of Eglon. It was the king and not the +town of that name who fell before the arms of Joshua. + +It is, moreover, difficult to reconcile the statement that Hebron was +captured by Joshua after the defeat of the five kings with the narrative +of its capture by Caleb, which is given in detail elsewhere (Josh. xv. +13, 14; Judg. i. 9, 10). Here, as in other parts of the book of Joshua, +we find a tendency to ascribe the gradual occupation of Canaan to a +single point of time, and to assign all the successive conquests made in +it by the Israelites to the general who first led them across the +Jordan. The individual hero has absorbed all the victories gained by his +people, and the past has been foreshortened in the retrospect of the +later historian. As in the books of Kings the murder of Sennacherib is +made to follow immediately after his flight from Judah twenty years +before, so in the book of Joshua, the conquest of Canaan is all placed +in one age, the lifetime of the hero himself. As Moses was the lawgiver +of Israel and its deliverer from the house of bondage, posterity saw in +his successor the conqueror of Canaan. + +It is noticeable, however, that neither Jerusalem nor Gezer is said to +have been taken after the battle of Makkedah. Both cities were doubtless +too strong to be attacked; and though Gezer was subsequently forced to +become the vassal of Ephraim, Jerusalem was destined to fall before a +Jewish and not an Ephraimitish leader. + +The battle of Makkedah became the subject of a national song. It was +embodied, like David’s dirge over Saul and Jonathan, in the book of +Jashar, a fragment of which is quoted by the compiler of the book of +Joshua. ‘Sun, be thou still upon Gibeon, and thou, moon, in the valley +of Ajalon!’ cried Joshua, ‘in the sight of Israel,’ ‘when the Lord +delivered up the Amorites’ before them: ‘and the sun was still, and the +moon stayed until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies.’ +So ran the words of the poem, and the prose historian seems to have +taken them literally. + +The alliance with Gibeon and the destruction of Lachish opened the way +to the south. Westward, the sea-coast was in the hands of the +Philistines, whom the Israelites would have found more formidable +enemies than the disunited and effeminate Canaanites. The five +Philistine cities, accordingly, which had been but recently wrested from +Egyptian hands, were left untouched, and the Israelitish raiders made +their way into the Negeb towards the south-east, where they succeeded in +penetrating as far as Arad and Zephath. They had thus reached the very +spot where the first attempt to invade Canaan had failed, and from which +the disappointed tribes had been driven back again into the wilderness. +Zephath was not far distant from Kadesh-barnea, so that it is with a +pardonable exaggeration that the Jewish historian describes Joshua as +smiting his enemies ‘from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza’ (Josh. x. 41). + +It is true that his victories in this part of Canaan have been +questioned. No detailed account is given of them, and it is only in the +list of the ‘kings’ who were overthrown by ‘Joshua and the children of +Israel’ on the western side of the Jordan that the names of Arad and +Zephath, or Hormah, appear (Josh. xii. 14). Moreover, we are told in the +book of Judges (i. 17) that Zephath was destroyed by Judah and Simeon +after the death of the Ephraimitish leader (_v._ 1), a memorial of the +destruction being preserved in the change of name to Hormah. But it must +be noted that it is only the ‘kings’ of Arad and Zephath who are said to +have been ‘smitten’ by Joshua, not the cities over which they ruled. The +expedition to the Negeb was merely a raid, such as the possession of +Lachish and the mountainous country to the north-west of it enabled the +Israelitish chieftain to make with impunity. Indeed, such raids into the +fertile land to the south would have been natural, if not inevitable. + +No detailed account was preserved of them, since they were connected +with no striking and important event, like the capture and destruction +of a Canaanitish city. The four military deeds with which history +associated the name of Joshua centered each of them round the overthrow +of a Canaanitish stronghold and gave the Israelites the command of the +surrounding country. They were campaigns which led to the permanent +possession of territory, not mere raids or barren victories. The capture +of Jericho secured the passage across the Jordan, that of Ai planted +Ephraim and Benjamin in the mountains of central Palestine, the +destruction of Lachish opened up communication with that desert of the +south in which the Israelites had received the legislation of +Kadesh-barnea, while the overthrow of the king of Hazor gave them a +foothold in the north. The alliance with the Gibeonites was of equal +importance, for it secured friends and allies in the very heart of the +enemy’s country, and its firstfruits were the victory at Makkedah and +the destruction of Lachish. Jericho, Ai, Lachish, Hazor, and +Gibeon,—these were the names which guaranteed to Joshua his claim to +have been the conqueror of Canaan. + +The victory at Hazor seems to have been his last. Hazor stood near +Kadesh of Galilee, now represented by the ruins of Qedes, to the north +of Safed, and on the western side of the marshes of Hûleh, the Lake +Merom of the Old Testament.[265] In the age of the Tel el-Amarna letters +it was still governed by its native kings, and in one of them an +Egyptian officer complains that the king had joined with Sidon in +intriguing with the Bedâwin.[266] When the Israelites entered Palestine +it was the leading city of the northern part of the country. While +Megiddo was the capital of the centre of the country, Hazor was the +capital of the north. Its king, Jabin, now put himself at the head of a +great confederacy which extended from Sidon to Dor on the sea-coast, and +from the slopes of Hermon to the Sea of Galilee in the inland region. +Among the confederates history remembered the names of Jobab, the king +of Madon, and the kings of Shimron and Achshaph. Achshaph is the +Phœnician Ekdippa, now Zîb, on the sea-coast, which is called Aksap by +Thothmes III. But Madon is written Marôn in the Septuagint, though the +reading of the Hebrew text seems to be confirmed by the modern name of +Khurbet Madîn, ‘the ruins of Madîn.’ Shimron, moreover, is Symoôn in the +Septuagint, and this form of the name finds support in the Simônias of +Josephus, Simonia in the Talmud, now Semûnieh, sixteen miles from +Khurbet Madîn. Mr. Tomkins would identify it with the Shmânau of +Thothmes III.[267] + +But, again, the reading of the Hebrew text is probably the more correct. +In what may be termed the official list of Joshua’s victories (Josh. +xii. 20), the name appears as Shimronmeron, and this reminds us of +Samsi-muruna (‘the Sun-god is lord’), which is given by the Assyrian +inscriptions as the name of a town in this very neighbourhood. It was +from ‘Menahem, king of Samsi-muruna,’ that Sennacherib received tribute +during his campaign against Hezekiah, and it is possible that Shimron +may be a contracted form of Shem[esh-me]ron or Sam[si-mu]runa. + +Once more criticism has raised doubts as to the truth of the narrative. +We hear of another Jabin of Hazor, at a later date, in the time of +Deborah and Barak, and we hear also of another great victory gained by +Israel over Jabin’s troops. It is urged that if Hazor had been burnt to +the ground by Joshua, and all its inhabitants put to the sword, it could +hardly have risen so soon again from its ashes and have assumed a +leading position in the north. Had Joshua’s conquest been as complete as +it is represented to have been, the country would have been Israelitish, +and not Canaanite. + +But it does not follow that because there was one king of Hazor called +Jabin, there should not have been another of the same name. Such +repetitions of name have been common in other countries of the world, +and it is difficult to see why the rulers of Hazor should not be allowed +a similar privilege. That a city should rise from its ruins and recover +its former power is again no unique event. Much depends upon its +position and the character of its inhabitants. We gather from the +Egyptian annals that the towns of Canaan were accustomed to capture and +temporary destruction. But they soon recovered themselves, the old +population flocked back, and their ruined walls were again repaired. + +It is true that the conquest of the country by Joshua could not have +been as thorough as the narrative describes. But that we already knew +from the first chapter of Judges (vv. 30-33). Oriental expressions and +modes of thought are not to be measured by the precise terminology of +the modern West, and an Eastern writer speaks absolutely where we should +speak relatively. When it is said that ‘all the earth sought to Solomon, +to hear his wisdom’ (1 Kings x. 24), the universality of the statement +must be very considerably limited, and so too when it is said that +‘Joshua took all that land’ (Josh. xi. 16), the expression admits of a +similarly liberal discount. In fact, the narrative itself contains its +own corrective. The words, ‘All the cities of those kings ... did Joshua +take, and smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed +them’ (ver. 12), are followed immediately by the conditioning clause, +‘Only the cities which were built upon _tels_, Israel burned none of +them: Hazor alone did Joshua burn.’ + +Between the story of Joshua’s campaign and that of the rising under +Barak there is no resemblance whatever. In the time of the Hebrew judge +the army of Jabin was commanded by Sisera, not by Jabin himself. The +decisive battle took place on the banks of the Kishon, not on the shores +of Lake Hûleh, miles away to the north, and the city of Hazor was +neither captured nor destroyed. Kadesh of Galilee and other districts +were already in the hands of the Israelites, and must therefore have +been occupied by them at some earlier period. The account in the book of +Joshua, brief as it is, tells us when the occupation took place. + +Jabin had summoned his allies and vassals to oppose the northward march +of the Israelites. The Canaanites stood upon the defensive, and the +Israelites therefore must have been the attacking party. That they did +not cross the Jordan from the plains of Bashan we may gather from the +list of the kings vanquished by Joshua.[268] Among them we find the +kings of Taanach and Megiddo, Kadesh of Naphtali and Jokneam, Dor, +Gilgal, and Tirzah.[269] Tirzah would have been the first stage +northward of Shechem; the fortress of Megiddo commanded the plain of +Jezreel. A common danger would thus have forced the kings of the centre +and the north of Canaan to fight together, and the confederacy would +have covered much the same extent of territory as that which confronted +Barak on the banks of the Kishon. But instead of advancing upon the +enemy from the north, as was the case with Barak, Joshua would have +moved up from the south. + +It was on the shore of Lake Merom that the Israelites fell suddenly upon +the Canaanitish encampment. The Canaanites were taken by surprise and +fled in all directions. Some made their way across the narrow gorge of +the Jordan towards Mizpeh of Gilead;[270] the larger body was pursued as +far as Sidon, where they at last found a shelter behind the strong walls +of the city. The chariots of their cavalry, useless to mountaineers, +were burned, and their horses were maimed. The flight of the army had +left Hazor undefended; the Israelites accordingly turned back from the +pursuit, and took the city by assault. Its houses were burned, its spoil +carried away, and ‘every man’ was smitten with the edge of the sword, +‘neither left they any to breathe.’ The merciless ferocity of Joshua +finds a close parallel in that of the Assyrian kings. + +The life of Joshua was drawing to an end. He was an old man; it was said +he was 110 years of age at his death, the length of time the Egyptian +wished his friends to live. He had brought his people into the Promised +Land, had shown them how to take cities and defeat their adversaries, +and had planted Israel firmly in the mountainous part of Canaan. Before +his death the tribes were provisionally established in the territories +subsequently called after their names. We are not bound to believe that +the division of the land was made with the mathematical precision which +had become possible in the days of the compiler of the book of Joshua, +but to deny that it was made at all is merely an abuse of criticism. In +the period of the Judges we find most of the tribes actually settled in +the very districts which we are told were given to them, and the fact +that in one or two instances—Dan and Simeon, for example—the tribe never +gained possession of the larger part of the territory said to have been +assigned to it, shows that the story of the division could not have been +based on the later geographical position of the tribes. The doctrine of +development may have no limitations in the domain of organic nature, but +history has to take account of individual action and the arbitrary +enactments of great men. To suppose that the tribal division of +Palestine was the result of a process of development has little in +support of it, and fails to explain the geographical position +traditionally assigned to a tribe like Dan. + +There was one tribe, however, to whose history the theory of development +is to some extent applicable. This was the tribe of Judah. The tribe was +only partly of Israelitish descent. Its most important family, that of +Caleb and Othniel, belonged to the Edomite tribe of Kenaz; while another +Edomite tribe, that of Jerahmeel, occupied the southern part of the +Jewish territory (1 Chron. ii. 25-33, 42). Even ‘the families of the +scribes which dwelt at Jabez’ were Kenites from Midian (1 Chron. ii. +55).[271] Down to the time of the kings the Israelitish members of the +tribe of Judah mixed freely with their neighbours; David himself was +descended from Ruth the Moabitess, and Bath-sheba, the mother of his +successor, had been the wife of a Hittite. As has been already noticed, +the prisoners whose figures surmount the names of Shishak’s conquests in +Judah have the features of the Amorite and not of the Jew. In the Song +of Deborah the tribe of Judah, like those of Dan and Simeon, is unknown. +It is Ephraim and Benjamin who form the Israelitish vanguard against the +Amalekites of the southern desert. And the deliverers of southern Israel +from its two first oppressors were Othniel the Kenizzite and Ehud the +Benjamite. + +The tribe of Judah as a compact and definite whole first makes its +appearance at a later period, and, unlike the other tribes of Israel, +represents a geographical rather than an ethnographical unity.[272] Jews +were commingled in it with Edomites, as well as with other tribes—Dan, +Simeon, and Levi. Its cities were only partly Israelitish; even the +future capital, Jerusalem, retained its Jebusite population, and the +temple was built on land that had been bought from a Gentile owner. + +Nevertheless, the fact that both tribe and territory bore to the last +the name of Judah indicates that in this mixture of nationalities the +Hebrew element remained the stronger and more predominant. It is true +that Hebron, the first centre and capital of Judah, had been conquered, +not by a Jew, but by the Kenizzite Caleb, and that his brother Othniel +was the first ‘Judge’; but it is also true that the settlement of the +country was in the main due to an amalgamation of Hebrew and Edomite +elements. Gedor, Socho, Zanoah, Keilah, and Eshtemoa traced their second +foundation to a Kenizzite father and a Jewish mother (1 Chron. iii. 18, +19), and Hebron itself soon ceased to be distinctively Kenizzite and +became Jewish. + +Caleb the Kenizzite had been one of the spies sent out from +Kadesh-barnea when the Israelites made their first, and unsuccessful, +attempt to invade Canaan. He consequently belonged to the generation +which had escaped from the bondage of Egypt, of which he and Joshua were +said to have been the only survivors at the time of the passage of the +Jordan. Hebron had been the chief point and goal of exploration on the +part of the spies, and it was from its neighbourhood that the grapes +were brought which testified to the fertility of the land. It was +natural, therefore, that Hebron should again be the object of Caleb’s +aim, and that while the Ephraimitish general was establishing himself in +the north Caleb should lead his followers to its assault. The +destruction of Lachish had opened the way; and the steep path which led +up the limestone hills from Lachish to Hebron was left undefended. + +Modern writers have seen in the name of Caleb a mere tribal designation +denoting the ‘Calebites’ or ‘Dog-men.’ But the cuneiform inscriptions +show us that Caleb or ‘Dog’ was the name of an individual, and they also +explain how it came to be so. In the Tel el-Amarna tablets, as well as +in later Assyrian letters, the word _Kalbu_ or ‘Dog’ is used in the +sense of ‘officer’ or ‘messenger’; the king’s officer was his ‘faithful +dog,’ and the term was an honourable one.[273] It conveyed none of those +ideas of contempt or abuse with which it was afterwards associated in +the Semitic mind, and which may have had their origin in Arabia. It is +possible that Caleb had been an ‘officer’ of the Pharaoh before he +became a Hebrew spy. + +The capture of Hebron is said to have taken place five years after the +passage of the Jordan (Josh. xiv. 10). At any rate, it was before the +death of Joshua (notwithstanding Judg. i. 1, 10). It was after that +event, however, that the further conquests of the Kenizzites were made. + +Somewhere near Hebron, but higher in ‘the mountains,’ was the +Canaanitish city of Debir. Debir signified the ‘Sanctuary’; and it was +here, as in Babylonia and Assyria, that a great library of books was +stored in one of the chambers of the temple. Like the Babylonian cities, +moreover, Debir had more than one name. It was also called +Kirjath-Sannah, ‘the city of Instruction,’ from the schools which +gathered round its library,[274] and in the Old Testament it is further +known as Kirjath-Sepher or ‘Booktown.’ In _The Travels of the Mohar_, +however, a satirical account of a tourist’s adventures in Palestine, +which was written by an Egyptian in the reign of Ramses II., it is +termed Beth-Sopher, ‘the house of the scribe,’ and is coupled with +Kirjath-Anab. It is plain, therefore, that the Massoretic punctuation +Sepher ‘book’ is erroneous, and must be corrected to Sopher or ‘scribe.’ +Whether Kirjath, ‘city,’ should also be corrected into Beth, ‘house’ or +‘temple,’ is more doubtful. _Beth_ would be the more appropriate term in +the case of a town which possessed a sanctuary, and it may be that the +word Kirjath has been derived from the neighbouring town of [Kirjath-] +Anab, which is called simply Anab in Josh. xv. 50. But it is also +possible that the Egyptian writer has made a mistake, and has +interchanged the words ‘city’ and ‘house,’ the true names of the two +cities having been Kirjath-Sopher and Beth-Anab.[275] + +However this may be, Caleb promised his daughter Achsah as a reward to +the conqueror of Debir. The prize was won by his ‘younger brother’ +Othniel, and the Canaanitish city was so completely destroyed that its +very site is still unknown. Its library perished in the ruins, though +the clay tablets with which it was doubtless filled must still be lying +beneath the soil, awaiting the discoverer who shall with their aid +reconstruct the ancient history of southern Canaan. Hebron was more +fortunate. The city was spared after its capture, and became the chief +seat of the Kenizzites, and subsequently, when the Kenizzites were +merged in Judah, the capital of Judah itself. + +The Hebrew tribe of Judah was slow in following the example of its +Edomite comrades. The ‘children of Judah,’ it is said, had at first been +content to live with the Midianitish Kenites in the neighbourhood of +Jericho, and when the Kenites returned to the desert of Kadesh-barnea to +settle there along with them (Judg. i. 16). But there were other Jews +who remained behind in Canaan, and there carved out a patrimony for +themselves. Judah and Simeon, we are told, ‘went up’ together into the +country which had been allotted to them, and eventually succeeded in +occupying the greater part of it. The expression is a curious one, and +seems to imply that the invaders started from the desert of +Kadesh-barnea, though Lachish and its neighbourhood may be meant. At all +events, Adoni-bezek, ‘the lord of Bezek,’ was defeated and captured, and +his thumbs and great toes cut off, like those of the seventy vassal +princes who had ‘picked up their meat’ under his own table. It is added +that he was brought to Jerusalem, where he died. + +That he was brought there by the Hebrews is not certain. However, the +compiler of the book of Judges seems to have thought so, as he goes on +to say, ‘And the children of Judah fought[276] against Jerusalem, and +took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on +fire.’ It is difficult to reconcile this with the very definite +statement in the book of Joshua (xv. 63), ‘As for the Jebusites, the +inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them +out: but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem +unto this day’; or with the equally explicit statement in the first +chapter of Judges itself (verse 21), ‘The children of Benjamin did not +drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites +dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day.’[277] +The latter passage belongs to the period when Judah had not yet become a +corporate whole, and when, therefore, as in the Song of Deborah, +Benjamin was still regarded as forming the southern boundary of the +tribes of Israel; but the first passage takes us down to the time when +Benjamin had been supplanted by Judah, and Israel was being prepared to +receive a king. It was during the earlier period that the Levite of +Mount Ephraim, when returning from Beth-lehem, would not lodge in +‘Jebus’ because it was a ‘city of the Jebusites’ (Judg. xix. 10, 11); +the later period extended to the time when Jerusalem was taken by David, +and when the Jewish king, so far from massacring its inhabitants and +setting it on fire, allowed the Jebusites in it to retain their property +(2 Sam. xxiv. 18-24), and made it the capital of his empire. Doubtless +Jerusalem might have been captured by the ‘children of Judah,’ and +nevertheless have continued to exist. We may gather from the Tel +el-Amarna tablets that such an occurrence actually took place at the +close of the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty, and one of the cities of +southern Canaan taken by Ramses II. was Shalama or Salem. But if so, +there could have been no massacre of the population and burning of the +town; the passages of the Old Testament which describe the Jebusites as +living uninterruptedly in their city are too clear and definite to admit +of such a supposition. On the contrary, the Jebusites lived in peace and +harmony along with both Jews and Benjamites; and were it not for the +words of the Levite (Judg. xix. 11), that Jerusalem was still ‘the city +of a stranger,’ we could well believe that the fate which overtook it in +the time of David had been anticipated in an earlier century. But +neither Benjamin nor Judah could ‘drive out the Jebusites that +inhabited’ the great fortress-city of Southern Palestine. + +The rise of Judah dated from the overthrow of Adoni-bezek, ‘Afterwards,’ +we read, ‘the children of Judah went down to fight against the +Canaanites that dwelt in the mountain, and in the Negeb of the south, +and in the plain.’ It was all long subsequent to the death both of +Joshua and of Caleb. The last survivors of the first attempt to +penetrate into that part of Canaan had passed away before it at last +fell—if only partially—into Israelitish hands. The first dreams of +conquest had long since made way for a sober and disappointing reality. +Canaan had proved for Israel a more difficult prize to secure than +Britain proved for the Saxons. It was only in the mountains and a few +isolated cities that the invaders succeeded in holding their own. +Elsewhere the walls and chariots of the Canaanites kept them at bay, +while the strongholds of the Philistines and Phœnicians barred them from +the coast. The children of Israel were compelled to dwell ‘among the +Canaanites, Hittites, and Amorites, and Perizzites, and Hivites, and +Jebusites,’ and there was little cause for wonder that ‘they took their +daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons, and +served their gods’ (Judg. iii. 5, 6). + +Before Joshua died the tabernacle was set up at Shiloh, on the slopes of +Mount Ephraim, in the heart of the newly-conquered land. That the +central sanctuary should thus be under the protection of Ephraim was a +token that ‘the house of Joseph’ was paramount among the tribes of +Israel. A further token was the burial of the mummy of Joseph at +Shechem. Here, too, at Shechem were the two mountains Ebal and Gerizim, +on which the curses and the blessings of the Law had been ordered to be +pronounced. History has left no record of the conquest of the place, and +the name of the king of Shechem is not even found in the list of the +kings vanquished by Joshua. But the city must have fallen during the +early period of the invasion, and the narrative in Josh. viii. 33 would +imply that its capture followed closely upon the destruction of Ai. + +We may gather from the silence of history that there was neither siege +nor massacre to make an impression on the memory of posterity. And the +inference is confirmed by what we know of the subsequent history of +Shechem. In the time of Gideon and Abimelech its population was still +half-Amorite (Judg. ix. 28). As at Jerusalem, the older inhabitants +cannot have been destroyed or driven out. Like the Gibeonites, they must +have made terms with the invaders, or mixed peaceably with them in the +course of years. + +At the outset, however, Shechem would have been the capital of Ephraim. +Here was the sepulchre of the founder of ‘the house of Joseph,’ here +were the two sacred mountains of the Law, and here, too, it was that +Joshua gathered the people together to hear his last words. Like Moses +at Sinai and Kadesh-barnea, ‘Joshua made a covenant with the people ... +and set them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem. And Joshua wrote +these words in the book of the Law of God, and took a great stone, and +set it up there under the terebinth that was in the sanctuary of the +Lord.’ Here, therefore, was the local sanctuary of Ephraim, separate +from the central one at Shiloh, and a sacred terebinth stood within its +precincts. Criticism finds no reason to doubt that ‘the great stone’ +spoken of in the text was actually set up, like a ‘Beth-el,’ under the +shadow of the tree, and it is hard to see why it should be more +sceptical towards the further statement that the covenant which the +stone commemorated was written by Joshua ‘in the book of the Law of +God.’ + +While Shechem was thus the local sanctuary of Ephraim, the tribes east +of the Jordan had consecrated a ‘great altar’ of their own on the banks +of the river. The altar was the occasion of a dispute between the two +branches of the house of Israel, which nearly resulted in war. But the +danger was averted through the mediation of the priests; and although +the tribes east and west of the Jordan necessarily had different +interests, it was long ere this led to open hostility, or even to +forgetfulness of their common ancestry and common God. Deborah +reproaches Reuben and Gilead for having stood aloof while Zebulon and +Naphtali were hazarding their lives in the field, and the son of Gideon +had his kingdom on the eastern side of the Jordan. + +Joshua was buried at Timnath-serah or Timnath-heres[278] in Mount +Ephraim, in a piece of ground which had become the property of himself +and his family. The Israelites of a later day looked back upon his +memory with gratitude and veneration; he had been the hero who had +succeeded in doing what Moses had failed to accomplish, and had led his +people into the Promised Land. But history judges somewhat differently. +He was not a lawgiver or a leader of men like Moses, and even from a +military point of view the conquest of the Amorite kingdoms of Sihon and +Og was a greater achievement than securing a foothold in the mountains +of central Palestine. Joshua was not the conqueror of Canaan, as the +pious imagination of a later age supposed him to be: he merely opened +the way to it. He taught the Israelites how to defeat the Canaanites, +and he succeeded in destroying a few of their cities. But that was all; +and the wholesale massacres which marked his progress, the wanton +destruction of everything which could not be carried away as spoil, and +the barbaric extermination of the elements of culture, find their match +only in the sanguinary campaigns of some of the Assyrian kings and the +Saxon invasion of Britain. + +Footnote 255: + + This passage must have been written at a time when Judah had not yet + come to occupy a definite place among the tribes in Canaan, and when, + as in the Song of Deborah, the territory of Benjamin was regarded as a + sort of appendage of that of Ephraim, and as extending as far south as + the desert of the Amalekites. (See also Josh. xv. 63.) + +Footnote 256: + + Josh. xviii. 22. + +Footnote 257: + + Colonel Watson in the _Quarterly Statement_ of the Palestine + Exploration Fund, July 1895, pp. 253-261; see also Quatremère, + _Histoire des Sultans Mamluks_, ii. p. 26; and Mr. Stevenson in the + _Quarterly Statement_ October 1895, pp. 334-338. + +Footnote 258: + + The play is on the verb _gâlal_, ‘to roll.’ Gilgal, however, means the + ‘circle’ of stones, or ‘cairn.’ Moreover, the Egyptians were + circumcised, so that uncircumcision could not correctly be called ‘the + reproach of Egypt.’ Some of the Israelites may have been circumcised + at Gilgal, but it is incredible that none of the males born in the + desert had been so. This would have been a flagrant violation of the + Mosaic law (see Lev. xii. 3; Gen. xvii. 14). + +Footnote 259: + + The tongue-like wedge of gold finds its parallel in six tongue-like + wedges of silver discovered by Dr. Schliemann in the ‘Third + prehistoric City’ of Hissarlik or Troy, and figured by him in _Ilios_, + pp. 470-472. Mr. Barclay V. Head has shown that they each represent + the third of a Babylonian maneh. + +Footnote 260: + + See my _Races of the Old Testament_, pp. 75-77; _Quarterly Statement_ + of the Palestine Exploration Fund, July 1876 and July 1877. + +Footnote 261: + + Gezer was similarly laid under tribute by Ephraim (Josh. xvi. 10). + +Footnote 262: + + The Septuagint has Elam instead of Hoham, from which we may perhaps + infer that the older reading of the Hebrew text was Yeho-ham. If so, + we should have an example of the use of the name of the national God + of Israel among the Hebronites. The substitution of El for Yeho would + be parallel to the fact that in the inscriptions of the Assyrian king + Sargon the contemporary king of Hamath is called both Yahu-bihdi and + Ilu-bihdi. Cf. also Joram and Hado-ram (2 Sam. viii. 10; 1 Chron. + xviii. 10). Piram resembles the Egyptian Pi-Romi; the name was also + Karian (Sayce, _The Karian Language and Inscriptions_ in the + _Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology_, ix. 1, No. ii. + 3). The Jarmuth of which Piram was king cannot be the same as the + Yarimuta of the Tel el-Amarna tablets, as that seems to have been in + the north, though Karl Niebuhr makes it the Delta. For Piram the + Septuagint has Phidôn; and it changes Yaphia into Jephthah and Eglon + into Adullam. + +Footnote 263: + + See Flinders Petrie, _Tell el-Hesy (Lachish)_ (1891) and Bliss, _A + Mound of Many Cities_. + +Footnote 264: + + For Horam the Septuagint again has Elam. Perhaps the original reading + was Yehoram. There is no ground for supposing that Hoham of Hebron and + Horam of Gezer are one and the same. + +Footnote 265: + + It is called Huzar in the list of the conquests of Thothmes III. at + Karnak, where it follows Liusa or Laish, and precedes Pahil, + identified with Pella by Mr. Tomkins, and Kinnertu or Chinnereth. + +Footnote 266: + + _Records of the Past_, new ser., v. p. 89. + +Footnote 267: + + _Records of the Past_, new ser., v. p. 44, No. 18. + +Footnote 268: + + See also Josh. xi. 2. + +Footnote 269: + + Josh. xii. 21-24. Probably the kings of Tappuah, Hepher, Aphek, and + Sharon are to be included in the confederacy (verses 17, 18). We do + not know where Tappuah was (though it is usually placed in the Wadi + el-Afranj; G. A. Smith, _Hist. Geog. of the Holy Land_, p. 202). + Hepher can hardly be the southern Hepher referred to in 1 Kings iv. + 10, but is probably Gath-Hepher west of the Sea of Galilee. Aphek (1 + Sam. xxix. 1) was a few miles to the south of it, and the plain of + Sharon began at Dor. Cf., however, Beth-Tappuah (in the Wadi + el-Afranj) and Aphekah near Hebron, in Judah (Josh. xv. 53). + +Footnote 270: + + In Josh. xi. 3, ‘the land of Mizpeh’ is said to include ‘the + Hittite’—so we should probably read instead of ‘Hivite’—‘under + Hermon.’ + +Footnote 271: + + The main body of the Kenites, however, who, like ‘the children of + Judah,’ had settled in the neighbourhood of Jericho after its capture, + moved afterwards into the desert south of Arad (Judg. i. 16; 1 Sam. + xv. 6), and lived here along with a portion of the tribe of Judah. + +Footnote 272: + + Beth-lehem has been supposed to have been the original headquarters of + the tribe, as it is called Beth-lehem-Judah (xix. 1). But this was + merely to distinguish it from another Beth-lehem in Zebulon. + +Footnote 273: + + Thus, in a despatch sent to one of the later Assyrian kings, the + writer says, ‘I am a dog, a dog of the king his lord’ (Harper, + _Assyrian and Babylonian Letters_, iv. p. 460). + +Footnote 274: + + Josh. xv. 49. In one of the Tel el-Amarna tablets Ebed-Tob of + Jerusalem, when referring to the Khabiri or ‘Hebronites,’ speaks of + Bit-Sâni, which may be the Kirjath-Sannah of the Old Testament. + Winckler (_Tell el-Amarna Letters_, 185) has given a wrong translation + of the passage, which is partly based on an incorrect copy of the + text. The translation should be, ‘Behold Gath-Carmel has fallen to + Tagi and the men of Gath. He is in Bit-Sâni, and we will bring it + about that they give Labai and the land of the Sutê (Bedâwin) to the + district of the Khabiri.’ + +Footnote 275: + + The determinative of ‘writing’ is attached to the word Sopher, showing + that the Egyptian scribe was acquainted with its meaning. The name of + Beth-Sopher (_Baitha-Thupar_) was first deciphered on the papyrus by + Dr. W. Max Müller, and published in his _Asien und Europa_. + +Footnote 276: + + Not the pluperfect, as in the Authorised Version. + +Footnote 277: + + See above, p. 247. + +Footnote 278: + + The latter reading (Judg. ii. 9) is probably the more correct. The + name of Timnath-heres, ‘the portion of the Sun-god,’ may have been + changed to Timnath-serah, ‘the portion of abundance,’ on account of + its idolatrous associations. Perhaps it is the modern Kafr Hâris, nine + miles south of Shechem. + + + + + CHAPTER V + THE AGE OF THE JUDGES + + + The Condition of Israel—The Destruction of the Benjamites—Story of + Micah and the Conquest of Dan—Chushan-rishathaim- and Ramses + III.—Office of Judge—Eglon of Moab—The Philistines—Deborah and + Barak—Sisera and the Hittites—The Song of Deborah—Gideon—Kingdom of + Abimelech—Jephthah—Sacrifice of his Daughter—Defeat and Slaughter of + the Ephraimites—Samson—Historical Character of the Book of Judges. + + +Israel has at last forced its way into the Promised Land. Mount Ephraim +is in its hands, and it has already planted itself in other parts of +Palestine. Joshua, the leader who taught it how to cross the Jordan and +defeat the princes of Canaan, is dead. The age of wandering is over; the +age of settlement has begun. + +But the age of settlement was a stormy one. The Canaanites were but +partially subdued; the Israelites themselves were little better than a +collection of raiding bands. They had brought with them, moreover, the +nomadic habits of the desert, and were but little inclined to rebuild +the cities which they had so ruthlessly destroyed. And in almost every +direction they were encircled by enemies, better organised, better +armed, or more numerous than themselves, who from time to time succeeded +in overrunning their fields and reducing them to subjection. The tribes +who had dreamed of conquering Canaan found themselves, instead, the prey +of others. + +It was a period of anarchy and perpetual war. Without a head, and +without cohesion, it seems strange that they did not perish utterly or +become absorbed by the older population of the land. That the nation +should have survived admits of only one explanation. It possessed a +common faith, a common sanctuary, and a common code of sacred laws. As +in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire the Church preserved the +fabric of society, and eventually brought order out of chaos, so, too, +in ancient Israel, the nation owed its continued existence to the law +which had been given by Moses. Only the iron fetters of a written law, +with its organised priesthood and sanctions, and, above all, the +knowledge that it existed, could have prevented the process of political +and social disintegration from rapidly running its course. Had the +religion of Israel been merely that result of evolution which is dreamed +of by some modern writers, and the law of Moses the invention of a later +age, there would have been no Israel in which a religion could have +developed, or a code of laws have been compiled. The outward unity of +the tribes in Egypt and the desert was shattered by the settlement in +Canaan, and all that remained was the inward and religious unity that +had been forced upon them by the genius of an individual legislator. The +place of the political head and leader was supplied by the organised +cult and elaborate code of laws which he had bequeathed to the nation. +To all external appearance, indeed, Israel had ceased to be a nation, +and had been reduced to a scattered and anarchical collection of +marauding tribes; but the elements which could again bind them together +still existed—the belief in the same national God, the rites with which +He was worshipped, and the priesthood and sanctuary where the tradition +of the law was preserved. + +That this is no imaginary picture is proved by the Song of Deborah. The +Song is admitted by the most sceptical of critics to belong to the age +to which it is assigned, and consequently to reflect the ideas of the +Israelite shortly after the settlement in Canaan. No composition of the +Exilic period could be more uncompromising in its monotheism, and its +assertion that Yahveh alone is the God of Israel. And the Song further +assumes that the tribes of Israel, disunited though they otherwise may +be, are nevertheless bound together by a common faith in the one +national God. Nor is this all. Israel still possesses, even among its +northern tribes, ‘legislators’ like Moses, and scribes who handle the +pen (Judg. v. 14). Writing, therefore, is still known and practised even +among a people so oppressed by their enemies that ‘the highways were +unoccupied,’ and the fellahin of the villages had ceased to exist. Laws, +too, were still promulgated in continuation of the laws of Moses, and +the people of Israel are ‘the people of the Lord.’ + +And yet there was another side to the picture. While Zebulon and +Naphtali were hazarding ‘their lives unto the death’ ‘on behalf of +Yahveh,’ there were tribes and cities which forgot their duty to their +God and their brethren, and ‘came not to the help of the Lord.’ Such was +the case with the inhabitants of Meroz; such, too, was the conduct of +Reuben and Gilead, of Dan and Asher. The description given by the +compiler of the Book of Judges of the condition of the tribes after the +death of Joshua cannot be far from the truth. They were planted in the +midst of enemies whom they had found too strong to be destroyed or +driven out. On all sides of them were ‘the Philistines, and all the +Canaanites, and the Sidonians, and the Hittites that dwelt in Mount +Lebanon from Mount Baal-Hermon unto the entering in of Hamath.’[279] +‘And the children of Israel,’ we are told, dwelt among them, and ‘took +their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their +sons, and served their gods. And the children of Israel did evil in the +sight of the Lord, and forgot the Lord their God and served the Baals +and the Ashêrahs.’[280] Even more expressive are the words with which +the Book of Judges ends: ‘In those days there was no king in Israel; +every man did that which was right in his own eyes.’ It was an age of +individual lawlessness; the bands of society were unloosed, and none was +strong enough to lead and control. Outside the influence of the +representatives of the Mosaic law there was neither curb nor order. + +Two incidents have been recorded which throw a lurid light on the +manners and character of the age which immediately followed the +settlement in Canaan. In one of them we hear of a Levite of Mount +Ephraim ‘who took to him a concubine out of Beth-lehem in Judah.’ +Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, had succeeded his father Eleazar as +high-priest at Shiloh (Judg. xx. 28), where ‘the ark of the covenant’ +had been placed. The concubine proved unfaithful to the Levite, and +eventually fled to her father’s house in Beth-lehem. Thither the Levite +followed her, and persuaded her to return with him to his home. The +woman’s father, however, highly pleased at the reconciliation, continued +to press his hospitality upon his guest, and it was not until the +afternoon of the fifth day that the Levite succeeded in getting away. +The evening soon fell upon him, and, rejecting the advice of his slave +that he should spend the night in Jerusalem, on the ground that it was +‘the city of a stranger,’ he pressed on with his concubine to Gibeah, +which belonged to Benjamin. It had been better for him, however, to have +sought hospitality from ‘the stranger’ rather than from his own people; +for, in spite of the fact that he had with him food in plenty both for +himself and for his asses, he was left to spend the night in the street. +But at the last moment an old man, who was not a native of Gibeah, came +in from his work in the fields, and seeing the Levite in the street, +asked him and his companions into the house. While they were eating and +drinking, the rabble gathered about the house and demanded that the man +should be brought out to them that they might ‘know him.’ It was a +repetition of the scene enacted in Sodom when the angels visited the +house of Lot, with the difference that the actors were Israelites +instead of Canaanites, whom the Hebrews had been called upon to destroy +for their sins. In vain ‘the master of the house’ intreated his +fellow-townsmen not to act ‘so wickedly,’ offering them his own daughter +as well as his guest’s concubine in place of the guest himself. Finally, +however, they were satisfied with the unfortunate concubine, whom they +‘abused’ all night, and then left dead on the doorstep of the house. The +first thing ‘her lord’ saw when he opened the door in the morning was +the woman’s corpse. This he placed on his ass and carried to his home, +where he divided it into twelve pieces, which he sent ‘into all the +coasts of Israel.’[281] The horror of the deed, or perhaps of the +visible proofs with which it was announced, aroused the Israelites, and +they demanded the punishment of the guilty. The crime had been committed +against a Levite, whose brethren were to be found wherever the +Israelites were settled, and who had on his side the priesthood of the +central sanctuary at Shiloh. He was, too, a Levite of Mount Ephraim, and +the sympathy of the powerful tribe of Ephraim was accordingly assured to +him. The Benjamites, however, refused to hand over their +fellow-tribesman to justice, and the result was an inter-fraternal war. +Before the tribes had conquered half the country which had been promised +them, they were already fighting among themselves. + +The Benjamites at first were successful, and their opponents were +defeated with considerable slaughter in two successive battles. Then +they fell into an ambuscade: the main body of their troops being drawn +away after the retreating enemy towards the north, while an ambush rose +up from ‘the meadows of Gibeah’ in their rear, and set fire to the city. +The retreating foe now turned back; and the Benjamites, enclosed as it +were between two fires, were cut to pieces almost to a man. Six hundred +only escaped ‘towards the wilderness unto the rock of Rimmon,’ where +they maintained themselves for four months. Meanwhile ‘the men of +Israel’ treated their Benjamite brethren like Canaanitish outcasts, +smiting ‘them with the edge of the sword, from the men of each city even +unto the beasts and all that was found; and all the cities they came to +did they set on fire.’ + +Benjamin was almost exterminated. A few men alone survived. But at the +outset of the war they had been placed under the same ban as the +Canaanites, and a solemn vow had been made that no Israelitish woman +should be married to them. When peace was restored with the practical +annihilation of the guilty tribe, the prohibition was evaded by a +stratagem, which, however inconsequent it may appear to the European of +to-day, was fully in keeping with the ideas of the ancient East. +Jabesh-Gilead had refused to take part in the war against Benjamin, and +the victors accordingly resolved to take summary vengeance upon it. The +city was taken by surprise, and every male in it massacred in cold +blood, as well as ‘every woman that had lain by man.’ About four hundred +unmarried maidens were carried off to Shiloh, and there forcibly married +to the surviving Benjamites. But even these did not suffice, and the +Benjamite youths were consequently encouraged to hide in the vineyards +near Shiloh, and there capture and make wives of the maidens of the +place who came out to dance at the yearly ‘feast of the Lord.’ The +place, we are told, was northward of Beth-el, ‘on the east side of the +highway that goeth up from Beth-el to Shechem, and on the south of +Lebonah.’ + +Recent critics have seen in this story merely a popular legend intended +to account for the fact that marriage by capture was practised among the +Benjamites. We might just as well assert that the story of Gunpowder +Plot is a legend which has grown out of the customs of the 5th of +November. The critics have not even the justification that marriage by +capture was common among the Israelites. In fact, this is the only +instance of it which we meet with in the Old Testament history of +Israel—an instance so exceptional as to be inexplicable unless it had +originated under special circumstances. It was certainly not the +survival of an earlier custom common to the rest of the tribes, nor is +there any trace of its having been general in the tribe of Benjamin +itself. In fact, we look in vain for any other example of it alike among +Israelites and Canaanites, or even among the Benjamites in any other +period of their history. + +It is true, however, that the account of the war between Benjamin and +its brother tribes has passed through the magnifying lenses of later +history. The exaggerated numbers of the combatants and the slain, like +the use of the universal ‘all’ and ‘every’ where the partial ‘some’ is +intended, are in thorough accordance with Oriental habits of expression. +The modern resident in the East is only too familiar with such +exaggerations of language, and in studying Oriental history due +allowance must always be made for them. In the account of the war, +moreover, its real character has been somewhat obscured. Benjamin has +been regarded too much as a separate entity, distinct and cut off from +the rest of Israel, rather than as the tribe which had once gathered +round the sanctuary of Beth-On, and which continued to form the +‘southern’ frontier of the house of Joseph. The war against Benjamin, in +fact, was like the war against Jabesh-Gilead—a quarrel not with a tribe, +but with certain Israelitish cities. It is even possible that in this +quarrel Jabesh-Gilead was from the beginning associated with Gibeah and +the other cities of Benjamin. At all events, we find it so allied in the +age of Saul. Saul’s first act as king was to rescue Jabesh-Gilead from +the Ammonites, and it was the men of Jabesh-Gilead who took down the +bodies of Saul and Jonathan from the walls of Beth-Shan and gave them +honourable burial.[282] + +The second incident, which tells us something of the manners of Israel +in the years that immediately followed the invasion of Palestine, is +recorded in language which has been little, if at all, altered by the +compiler of the Book of Judges. The gruesome horror of the story of the +Levite’s concubine is absent from it, but it equally shows how far from +the truth is the idyllic picture sometimes painted of the first +Israelitish conquerors of Canaan. It is again a Levite who is the +central personage of the story. An Ephraimite named Micah, we are told, +stole eleven hundred shekels of silver from his mother, but, terrified +by her imprecations upon the thief, confessed the deed and restored the +money. His mother thereupon informed him that the treasure had been +dedicated to Yahveh by her on his behalf, in order that a graven and a +molten image might be made out of it for him. Two hundred of the shekels +were accordingly taken, and the silver employed to make the images. +These were set up in the house of Micah, along with ‘an ephod and +teraphim,’ and one of his sons was consecrated as priest. This, however, +was recognised as contrary to the law, and when therefore a wandering +Levite from Beth-lehem, ‘of the family of Judah,’ came seeking +employment, he was welcomed by Micah, who asked him if he would be his +priest. His wages for undertaking the office were to be ten shekels of +silver each year, as well as ‘a suit of apparel’ and food. The terms +were accepted, and ‘Micah consecrated’ him his priest. The provisions of +the Mosaic law had been satisfied, and the Ephraimite complacently +remarked, ‘Now know I that the Lord will do me good, seeing I have a +Levite to my priest.’ + +His complacency, however, was of no long duration. The Danites, unable +to establish themselves in the south of Canaan, sent out five spies from +their camp near Kirjath-jearim[283] who on their way northward were +hospitably received in Micah’s house. Here they found the Levite, with +whom, it would appear, they had been previously acquainted, and asked +him to inquire ‘of God’ whether their journey would be prosperous or +not. The priest’s reply was favourable: ‘before Yahveh is your way +wherein you go.’ + +Far away, to the north of the other Hebrew settlements, the spies found +the Phœnician city of Laish, already mentioned in the geographical lists +of the Egyptian conqueror Thothmes III. Its inhabitants were living in +peaceful security, ‘after the manner of the Zidonians,’ with no one to +interfere with them, and no enemy of whom they could be afraid. The +spies saw at once that the city was unprepared for a sudden attack by +armed men; that, in short, ‘God had given it into’ their hands. They +returned therefore to Mahaneh-Dan, the Camp of Dan, and reported what +they had seen. Thereupon the Danites determined to seize an inheritance +for themselves in the north, and six hundred men ‘girded with weapons of +war,’ along with their families and cattle, started for Laish.[284] On +the road the spies led them to the house of Micah, whom they robbed of +his images, ephod and teraphim, as well as of his priest. The latter at +first protested; but on being told that he would be the priest of ‘a +tribe,’ his ‘heart was glad,’ and ‘he took the ephod and the teraphim +and the graven image and went into the midst of the people.’ Micah and +his friends on discovering the robbery pursued after the Danites, but +finding they were too strong for him he judged it prudent to return +home. + +The Danites continued their march, and had little difficulty in +capturing the unguarded Laish, in massacring its inhabitants, and +burning the houses with fire. On the ruins they built a new city, the +Dan of future Israelitish history. Here the graven image of Micah was +erected, and worship carried on ‘all the time that the house of God was +in Shiloh.’ The Levite who presided over the sanctuary became the +ancestor of a long line of priests who continued to be ‘priests to the +tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land.’[285] The +compiler of the Book of Judges adds that his name was Jonathan, the +grandson of Moses, whose name has been changed to Manasseh in the +majority of Hebrew manuscripts.[286] The statement fixes the date of the +conquest of Laish, and shows that, like the war against Benjamin, it +took place only two generations after the great legislator’s death. + +The picture presented to us by the narrative stands in sharp contrast to +the ideal aimed at in the legislation of the Pentateuch. The golden calf +has been revived in an intensified form, and the ordinary Israelite, +including a Levite who was the grandson of Moses, takes it for granted +that Yahveh must be adored in the shape of a twofold idol. Nay, more; by +the side of the graven and molten images which were meant to represent +the God of Israel in defiance of the second commandment, we find also +the images of the household gods or teraphim, whose cult forms part of +that which was paid to the national deity. The cult, in fact, survived +to the latest days of the northern kingdom; it was practised in the +household of David (1 Sam. xix. 13), and is even regarded by a prophet +of Samaria as an integral portion of the established religion of the +state (Hos. iii. 4). The priestly powers of the Levite, however, +suffered in no way from the idolatrous nature of the worship over which +he presided. Like David in a later age (1 Sam. xxiii. 2, 4, 9, xxx. 8; 2 +Sam. v. 19, 23) when the men of Dan inquired through him whether their +journey would be successful, he was able to answer them in the name of +the Lord. + +But this is not all. Micah, the Ephraimite, consecrates his own son as +priest, while the Levite wanders through the land, seeking employment +and begging his bread. There is no endowment that is his by right; no +Levitical city where he can claim a shelter and a field; no central +sanctuary where his services are required. He is said to be ‘of the +family of Judah,’ not a descendant of Levi, though the compiler implies +that the expression must not be understood in a literal sense. And the +priesthood which he established at Dan continued to be a rival of that +of ‘the sons of Aaron’ through nearly five centuries of Israelitish +national life. + +Criticism has drawn the conclusion that the Pentateuchal legislation +could not have been in existence at the time when the city of Laish was +taken by the tribe of Dan. The conclusion, however, by no means follows. +It is quite certain that it was not drawn by the compiler of the Book of +Judges, who has preserved the narrative for us; and, after all, he is +more likely to have understood the ideas and feelings of the Israelites +of an earlier generation than is a European critic of the nineteenth +century. In fact, he has given us an explanation of the contradiction +between the Mosaic law and early Israelitish practice, which not only +satisfies all the conditions of the problem, but is on the whole more +probable than the rough-and-ready solution of modern criticism. Israel +in Canaan in the first throes of the invasion was a very different +Israel from that which had lived in the desert under the immediate +control and superintendence of the legislator. It was disorganised, it +was lawless, it was broken up into fragments which were surrounded on +all sides by an alien population whose superior culture and wealth, when +it could not be seized or destroyed, necessarily exercised a profound +influence over the ruder tribes of marauders from the desert. The +Israelites inevitably fell under the spell; they intermarried with the +natives, and adopted their gods and religious ideas. + +The proof that this is the true explanation of the disregard or +forgetfulness of the Mosaic law which characterised the age of the +Judges is furnished by the fact that this disregard or forgetfulness was +not universal. Throughout the age of the Judges Israel possessed a +central sanctuary, little though it seems to have been frequented, and +in this central sanctuary the worship of Yahveh was conducted by ‘the +sons of Aaron,’ who kept alive the memory of the legislation in the +wilderness. At Shiloh there was no image, whether graven or molten, no +figures of the teraphim, no idolatrous rites. Instead of an image there +was the ark of the covenant, with nothing within it except the tables of +the law.[287] Shiloh was the only place in Israel where the Pentateuchal +enactments could be observed, and it is only at Shiloh that we find them +to have been so. + +But the influence of Shiloh did not extend far. It did not even become +the central sanctuary of Ephraim. The history of Micah is alone +sufficient to prove this. Ephraimite as he was, Shiloh and its +priesthood had no existence for him; his gods and his priests were part +of his own household. Equally conclusive is the history of Gideon. + +The ephod after which Israel went ‘a whoring,’ was not dedicated at +Shiloh but at Ophrah, a few miles to the north; and Baal-berith in the +Ephraimitish city of Shechem had more worshippers than Yahveh of Shiloh. +Just as the spirit of Judaism was kept alive in the age of the Maccabees +among a small remnant of the people, amid the obscurity of a country +town, so in the time of the Judges the spirit of the law was preserved +among the mountains of Ephraim in the midst of an insignificant body of +priests. + +It was not only with the Canaanites and with its own internal +disorganisation and dissensions that the infant nation of Israel was +called upon to contend. Foreign invasion followed quickly on the +settlement in Palestine. We have learnt from the tablets of Tel +el-Amarna that already before the days of the Exodus the kings of +Mesopotamia had cast longing eyes upon Canaan. To the Semites of the +west Mesopotamia was known as Naharaim, or Aram Naharaim, ‘Aram of the +Two Rivers,’ the Euphrates and Tigris, and the name was borrowed by the +Egyptians under its Aramaic form of Naharain or Nahrina.[288] The +leading state of Mesopotamia had for some centuries been Mitanni, on the +eastern bank of the Euphrates, not far from Carchemish, and the rulers +of Mitanni had made themselves masters not only of the district between +the Euphrates and the Tigris, but also of the country westward to the +Orontes. In the age of the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty Mitanni was the +most powerful of the Asiatic kingdoms, and the Pharaohs themselves did +not disdain to unite their solar blood with that of its royal family. + +From time to time, the Tel el-Amarna correspondence teaches us, the +princes of Mitanni had interfered in the affairs of Palestine. +Rib-Hadad, the governor of Phœnicia, declares that ‘from of old’ the +kings of Mitanni had been hostile to the ancestors of the Pharaoh, and +his letters are filled with complaints that the Amorites to the north of +Palestine had revolted against Egypt with the help of Mitanni and +Babylonia. Ebed-Tob of Jerusalem, who uses the name Nahrina or Naharain +like the writers of the Old Testament, refers to the struggles that had +taken place on the waters of the Mediterranean when Nahrina and +Babylonia held possession of Canaan. ‘When the ships,’ he says, ‘were on +the sea, the arm of the Mighty King (the god of Jerusalem) overcame +Nahrima and Babylonia; yet now the Khabiri have overcome the cities of +the king’ (of Egypt in Southern Palestine).[289] + +It was not the last time that Mitanni and Egypt were ranged on opposite +sides. Ramses II. claims to have defeated the forces of Mitanni, and the +name of the same country appears among the conquests of Ramses III. of +the twentieth dynasty.[290] It is coupled with Carchemish the Hittite +capital among the kingdoms over which the last of the conquering +Pharaohs had gained a victory. In the great struggle which Egypt had to +face against the Philistines and other piratic hordes from the Greek +seas, the northern invaders had carried with them in their train +contingents from the various peoples of Northern Syria through whose +lands they had passed. The Hittites and Amorites, the inhabitants of +Carchemish and Arvad, even the people of Elishah or Cyprus, joined the +invaders of Egypt, and among the captured leaders of the enemy recorded +on the walls of Medinet Habu are the kings of the Hittites and Amorites. +The king of Mitanni, however, is wanting; enemy though he was of the +Pharaoh, he never ventured into Egypt, and his name therefore does not +appear among the conquered chiefs. All that the Pharaoh could do was to +include the name of his kingdom among those whose forces he had +overthrown.[291] + +The reign of Ramses III. brings us to the moment when the Israelites +under Joshua were about to enter Canaan. Egypt had annihilated the +enemies who had invaded it, and had carried a war of vengeance into +Palestine and Syria. The Israelite had not as yet crossed the Jordan. +Among the places in Southern Palestine subdued by Ramses are Beth-Anoth +(Josh. xv. 59), Carmel of Judah, Hebron, Ir-Shemesh, Hadashah (Josh. xv. +37), Shalam or Jerusalem, the districts of the Dead Sea and the Jordan, +even Korkha in the land of Moab.[292] There is as yet no trace of +Israel, and Hebron had not as yet become the spoil of the Kenizzite. + +The chronology, however, makes it certain that though the Israelites had +not entered Palestine at the time of the Egyptian campaign in that +country, it could not have been very long before they actually did so. +The campaign of Ramses III., in fact, prepared the way for the +Israelitish invasion by weakening the forces of the Canaanites. In any +case, the victory over the northern nations and their allies, +commemorated in the temple of Medinet Habu, must have taken place only a +few years before the Israelitish conquest of southern Canaan.[293] + +The king of Mitanni was numbered among the enemies of Egypt; +nevertheless he had not joined the invading hordes in their attack upon +the valley of the Nile. Can it have been that he lingered in what had +once been an Egyptian province, that land of Canaan which his +forefathers had coveted before him? The Egyptian Empire had fallen, the +very existence of Egypt itself was at stake, and the favourable +opportunity had come at last when Naharaim might make herself the +mistress of Western Asia. Babylonia was powerless like Egypt, Assyria +had not yet put forth its strength, and the Hittites barred the old road +which had led from Chaldæa to the West. + +The armies of Chushan-rishathaim[294] of Naharaim, accordingly, made +their way through Syria to the southern frontiers of Palestine. They +were no longer associated with those of Babylonia, as in the days of +Ebed-Tob; for a short while Naharaim ruled supreme on the eastern coasts +of the Mediterranean. For eight years both the Canaanites and their +Israelite and Kenizzite invaders were forced to submit to its sway. The +work of conquest was checked by the stronger hand of the foreign power. + +How soon after the Israelitish settlement in Canaan the invasion of +Chushan-rishathaim must have been is shown by the fact that Othniel, the +Kenizzite, the brother of Caleb, and the conqueror of Kirjath-Sepher, +was the hero who ‘delivered’ Israel from the foreign yoke. How the +deliverance was effected we do not know, whether through the death of +the king of Naharaim, or through a revolt of the Canaanites and Syrians, +or whether it was only the Israelitish tribes and not the Canaanitish +cities to which it came. What is certain is that both the ‘oppression’ +and the deliverance followed closely on the occupation of Palestine by +the Israelites. Caleb belonged to the same generation as Moses and +Joshua, and though Othniel was his ‘younger brother,’ he too must be +counted in it. Joshua can hardly have been dead before Israel had passed +under the yoke of Naharaim. + +The supremacy of Naharaim extended to the southernmost borders of +Palestine. It was not an Ephraimite who ‘delivered’ Israel, but the +Edomite chief at Hebron, where the tribe of Judah had not yet +established itself. The fact is noteworthy: the first of the ‘Judges’ +was a Kenizzite of Edomite origin, and the yoke which he shook off was +one which pressed equally upon Israelites and Canaanites. In the very +act of conquering and exterminating the Canaanites, Israel was forced to +sympathise and join with them against a common foe. + +The sign which gave Othniel the right to be a _Shophêt_ or ‘Judge’ was +twofold. ‘The spirit of Yahveh came upon him,’ and he delivered Israel +from its oppressor. The Shophêt was thus marked out by Yahveh for his +office, and his success in war was a visible token that he had been +called to be the leader of his people. The office was a peculiarly +Canaanitish institution. When Kingship was abolished at Tyre in the time +of Nebuchadrezzar, the kings were replaced by ‘Judges,’ and at Carthage +the ‘Sufetes’ or ‘Judges’ were the chief magistrates of the state.[295] +Whether the institution existed elsewhere in the Semitic world we do not +know. But it was as it were indigenous to the soil of Canaan, and in +submitting themselves to the rule of the Judges, the Israelites +submitted themselves at the same time to Canaanitish influence. It was a +step backward, a step towards absorption into the population around +them, and it is therefore not without reason that the period of the +Judges is a synonym for the period when the religion and manners of +Canaan were dominant among the Israelitish tribes. The Pentateuch +recognised the priest, the lawgiver, and the king; the judge was the +creation of an age in which the Baalim seemed to have gained the mastery +over Yahveh. + +That the first of the Judges should have been of Edomite descent is a +striking commentary on what may be termed the catholicity of pre-exilic +Israel. It was not race so much as participation in the worship and +favour of Yahveh, that gave a right to be included among ‘the chosen +people.’ The ancestress of David was a Moabitess, and the Deuteronomic +law lays down that the children of an Edomite, or even of an Egyptian, +‘shall enter into the congregation of the Lord in their third +generation’ (Deut. xxiii. 7, 8).[296] A ‘mixed multitude’ accompanied +the Israelites in their flight from Egypt, and the Kenites, with whom +Moses was allied, shared like the Kenizzites in the conquest of Canaan. +Hebron, the future capital of Judah, and a Levitical city, was a +Kenizzite possession, and the Judah of later days was itself a mixture +of Israelitish and Edomite elements. + +How far the authority of Othniel extended it is difficult to say. But +the fact that the enemy, whose yoke he had broken, was an invader from +the north makes it probable that his rule was acknowledged in Mount +Ephraim as well as among the northern tribes. That it was also +acknowledged on the east side of the Jordan there is no proof. Though +the Song of Deborah shows that the solidarity of Israel was recognised, +it also shows that this feeling of a common God and of a common history +had but little political effect. The eastern tribes lived apart from +those of the west, and the judges whom we hear of as rising among them +had purely local powers. Indeed, between Jephthah and the Ephraimites +there was internecine war. + +The rule of Othniel could not have lasted long. If he belonged to the +generation which had witnessed the Exodus out of Egypt, he would have +been already an old man at the time of the war with Chushan-rishathaim. +Hardly was he dead before Israel was again under the yoke of an +oppressor. Moab had recovered from its reverses at the hands of the +Amorites and Israelites, the Reubenites had degenerated into mere +Bedâwin squatters in the wadis of the Arnon,[297] and Eglon, the Moabite +king, now prepared to possess himself of southern Canaan. Jericho was +seized, or rather ‘the city of palm-trees’ which had succeeded to the +Canaanitish Jericho, and the ford over the Jordan was therefore secure. +Eglon was followed by bands of Amalekite Bedâwin, eager for spoil, like +the Sutê who in the age of the Tel el-Amarna correspondence were hired +by the rival princes of Canaan in their quarrels with one another. He +was also allied with the Ammonites, from which we may infer that the +Israelites north of the Arnon, between Moab and Ammon, had been either +expelled or brought into subjection. + +The capture of Jericho opened the road to Mount Ephraim to Eglon as it +had done a few years previously to Joshua. But the Israelites were +treated more mercifully than Joshua had treated the Canaanites. Perhaps +they lived in unwalled villages rather than in fortified towns, and +their culture was not high enough to tempt an enemy with the prospect of +a rich booty. At all events we hear of no massacres or burnt cities; the +Israelites are laid under tribute, that is all. + +For eighteen years they served Eglon. Then Ehud, the Benjamite, who like +so many of his tribe was left-handed,[298] was chosen to carry the +yearly tribute to the conqueror. Eglon was encamped at Gilgal, in the +very spot where the Israelitish camp had so long stood, and received the +envoys in the upper story of his house, immediately under the roof. When +the tribute-bearers had been dismissed, Ehud, who had gone as far as the +sacred ‘circle’ of hallowed stones,[299] turned back with the excuse +that he had a secret message for the king, which demanded the utmost +privacy. Taking advantage of his solitude, Ehud seized his sword with +his left hand and plunged it into the body of Eglon, then, locking the +door of the room behind him, he escaped through the columned verandah. +Before the murder was discovered he had made his way to Seirath, and +gathered around him the Israelites of Mount Ephraim. The fords across +the Jordan were occupied, and the flying Moabites slain at them to a +man. + +It would seem that the Moabite ‘oppression’ did not extend beyond Mount +Ephraim. Ephraim and Benjamin were the tribes who had suffered from it, +and it was over them accordingly that Ehud was judge. His authority does +not appear to have been recognised further to the north or to the south. + +In the south, indeed, there were other enemies to be contended against, +and there was another hero who had risen up against them. The Edomite +and Jewish settlers found themselves confronted by those formidable +sea-robbers who had once dared the whole power of Egypt, and were now +established on the southern coast of Palestine. The Philistines, called +Pulista by the Egyptians, Palastâ and Pilistâ by the Assyrians, were +new-comers like the Israelites. They had come from Caphtor, which modern +research tends to identify with the island of Krete, and, along with +their kinsfolk the Zakkal, had taken part in the invasion of Egypt by +the barbarians of the north at the beginning of the reign of Ramses +III.[300] It is the first time that their name is mentioned in the +Egyptian annals. But the Zakkal, who afterwards settled on the +Canaanitish coast to the north of them, and whom they resembled in dress +and features, are mentioned among the invaders against whom Meneptah II. +had to contend, and it is therefore possible that the Philistines also +were included in the host whose assault upon Egypt seems to have been +connected with the Hebrew Exodus. At any rate, at the very moment when +the Israelites were making ready to enter Canaan, the Philistines had +already possessed themselves of the five cities which guarded its +southern frontier. The date of the conquest can be fixed within a few +years. Ramses III. tells us that the barbarians had swept through Syria, +where they had established their camp in the ‘land of the Amorites’ +northward of Canaan. Then they fell upon Egypt partly by land, partly by +sea. This may be the time when the five cities of Gaza, Ashkelon, +Ashdod, Ekron, and Gath were captured by the Philistines; if so, Gaza +must have again become Egyptian after the overthrow of the invading +hordes, since Ramses III. includes it among the conquests of his +campaign in southern Palestine. But it could not have remained long in +his hands. The key of Syria, the frontier town which had so long been +garrisoned by Egyptian troops, at last ceased to be Egyptian, and became +Philistine. Henceforth Egypt was cut off from Asia; ‘the way of the +Philistines’ was guarded by the Philistines themselves.[301] + +The actual occupation of ‘Philistia’ was doubtless preceded by piratical +descents upon the coast. This, in fact, seems to be indicated by the +statement in the book of Exodus that the Israelitish fugitives were not +led by ‘the way of the Philistines’ lest they should ‘see war.’ From the +time when the northern barbarians first attacked Egypt in the reign of +Meneptah II. down to the final settlement of the Philistines on the +Syrian coast after the Asiatic campaign of Ramses III., the conquest of +the Canaanitish coast was slowly going on. All the while that the +Israelites were in the desert, the Philistines of Caphtor were creating +their new kingdom for themselves. They were one of the ‘hornets’ which +Yahveh had sent before Israel into the Promised Land. When Judah and +Simeon eventually took possession of southern Canaan, they found the +Philistines too firmly established to be dislodged.[302] + +It was not only from their walled cities in Palestine that the +Philistines derived their strength. They were within easy reach of their +kinsmen in Krete, and fresh supplies of emigrants were doubtless brought +to them from time to time in Kretan ships. Greek tradition knew of a +time when Minôs, the Kretan king, held command of the sea, and it is +said that the sea between Gaza and Egypt was called ‘the Ionian.’[303] +In the reign of Hezekiah we learn from the Assyrian king Sargon that +when the people of Ashdod deposed their prince the usurper whom they +placed on the throne was still a ‘Greek’ (_Yavani_). + +The features of the Philistine are known to us from the Egyptian +sculptures. They offer a marked contrast to those of his Semitic +neighbours. They are, in fact, the features of the typical Greek, with +straight nose, high forehead, and thin lips. Like the Zakkal he wears on +his head a curious sort of pleated cap, which is fastened round the chin +by a strap. Besides the cap, and sometimes a cuirass of leather, his +dress consisted of a kilt, or perhaps a pair of drawers, similar to +those depicted on objects of the ‘Mykenæan’ period, and he was armed +with a small round shield with two handles, a spear, and a short but +broad sword of bronze. The kilt and arms were the same as those of the +Shardana or Sardinians.[304] + +The Philistines were thus aliens on the soil of Canaan. Their Hebrew +neighbours stigmatised them as the ‘uncircumcised,’ and in the +Septuagint they are called the Allophyli or ‘Foreigners.’ But they mixed +in time with the Avim whom they had displaced.[305] The Amoritish Anakim +survived at Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod (Josh. xi. 22), and Goliath of Gath +was reputed one of their descendants. The Philistines borrowed, +moreover, numerous words from the Semitic vocabulary, if indeed they did +not adopt ‘the language of Canaan’ altogether. Their five ‘lords’ took +the Semitic title of _seren_, and the supreme god of Gaza was called by +the Semitic name of Marna or ‘Lord.’ Dagon, whose temple stood at Gaza, +was a Babylonian god whose name and worship had been brought to the West +in early days.[306] + +The Israelites soon found that the Philistines were dangerous +neighbours. From their five strongholds in the south they issued forth +to plunder and destroy. Judah and Simeon were the first to suffer, while +such parts of the heritage assigned to Dan as had not been annexed to +Ephraim or Benjamin passed into Philistine hands.[307] But the central +and northern tribes did not escape. We learn from an unpublished +Egyptian papyrus in the possession of M. Golénischeff that Dor, a little +to the south of Mount Carmel, had been occupied by the Zakkal, the +kinsmen of the Philistines, so that the whole coast from Gaza to Carmel +may be said to have become Philistine. From hence their raiding parties +penetrated into the interior, and depopulated the villages of Ephraim +and Manasseh, of Zebulon and of Naphtali. + +Such at least is the conclusion to be drawn from a comparison of the +Song of Deborah with the statement that the Shamgar ben Anath, Shamgar +the son of Anath, ‘delivered Israel,’ by slaying six hundred Philistines +with an ox-goad. Shamgar, as we gather from the Song, lived but a short +while before Deborah herself, and it was in his days, we further read, +that the Israelitish peasantry were almost exterminated by their +enemies. The Philistine invasion in the time of Samuel was but a +repetition of earlier raids. + +The name of Shamgar testifies to the survival of Babylonian influence in +Canaan. It is the Babylonian Sumgir, while Anath is the Babylonian +goddess Anat, the consort of Anu, the god of the sky. In one of the Tel +el-Amarna tablets two Syrians are referred to, who bear the names of +Ben-Ana and Anat.[308] Does this survival of Babylonian names imply a +survival also of the Babylonian script and language? At all events the +worship of Babylonian deities still survived, and an Israelite and a +‘judge’ was named after one of them. + +Deborah couples with Shamgar the otherwise unknown Jael. The reading is +possibly corrupt, another name having been assimilated to that of the +wife of the Kenite. But it is also possible that it is due to a marginal +gloss which has crept into the text. + +However this may be, the age of Shamgar overlapped that of the +prophetess Deborah. ‘In the days of Shamgar,’ she says, ‘the highways +were unoccupied ... until that I, Deborah, arose—that I arose a mother +in Israel.’ It was not only from the incursions of the Philistines that +the Israelites suffered. In the north the tribes were called upon to +face a confederacy of the Canaanitish states. It was the last effort of +Canaan to stem the gradual advance of Israel, and the struggle was +decided in the plain of Megiddo, as it had been in the older days of +Egyptian invasion and conquest. + +Megiddo and Taanach were still Canaanitish fortresses; so, too, was +Beth-shean, in the valley of the Jordan,[309] and the Israelites of +Mount Ephraim were thus cut off from their brethren in the north. Here +Jabin, the king of Hazor, was the dominant Canaanite prince, whose +standard was followed by the other ‘kings of Canaan.’ Twenty years long, +we are told, ‘he mightily oppressed the children of Israel,’ ‘for he had +nine hundred chariots of iron.’[310] Two accounts of the ‘oppression’ +and the war that put an end to it have been handed down, one a prose +version, which the compiler of the book of Judges has made part of his +narrative, while the other is contained in the song of victory composed +by Deborah after the overthrow of the foe. + +Critics have found discrepancies between the two accounts, and have +maintained that where they differ the prose version is unhistorical. In +the latter the Canaanitish leader is the king of Hazor, Sisera being his +general, who ‘dwelt in Harosheth of the Gentiles,’ whereas in the song +there is no mention of Hazor, and Sisera appears as a Canaanitish king. +Moreover, it is alleged that, according to the Song (v. 12), Barak seems +to have belonged to the tribe of Issachar, while in the prose narrative +he is said to have come from Kadesh of Naphtali, and it is further +asserted that Hazor had already been taken and destroyed in the time of +Joshua. + +The author of the book of Judges, however, failed to see the +discrepancies which have been discovered by the modern European critic, +and he has accordingly set the prose narrative by the side of the Song +without note or comment. As the king of Hazor did not personally take +part in the battle on the banks of the Kishon, there was no occasion for +any reference to him in the Song, and that the commander of his army +should have been one of his royal allies is surely nothing +extraordinary. In the Song, Barak is expressly distinguished from ‘the +princes of Issachar,’[311] and the question of the destruction of Hazor +by Joshua has already been dealt with. It is a gratuitous supposition +that the introduction of Jabin into the narrative, and the reference to +Harosheth, are the inventions of popular legend or interested +historians. + +The prophetess Deborah, the wife of Lapidoth, ‘judged Israel’ at the +time of the war. Her name means ‘Bee,’ and a connection has been sought +between it and the fact that the priestesses of Apollo at Delphi, of +Dêmêter, of Artemis, and of Kybelê, were called ‘bees,’ while the high +priest of Artemis at Ephesus bore the title of the ‘king-bee.’[312] We +might as well look for a connection between the name of her husband and +the ‘lamps’ of the sanctuary. Deborah ‘judged Israel’ because she was a +prophetess, because she was the interpretress of the will of Yahveh, +whose spirit breathed within her. The ‘judgments’ she delivered were +accordingly the judgments of Yahveh Himself, and the indwelling of His +spirit was the sign of her claim to the office of ‘judge.’ We hear of +other prophetesses in Israel besides Deborah; Huldah, for example, who +was consulted by the king and the priests in the reign of Josiah. The +position held by the prophetess prevented the Israelitish women from +sinking into the abject condition of the women among some of the Arab +and other Semitic tribes. In fact, women have played a leading part in +Hebrew history. It has long ago been noticed that the mother had much to +do with the character of the successive kings of Judah, and Athaliah of +Samaria filled a prominent place in the history of the northern kingdom. +Prophecy was no respecter of persons; it came to rich and poor, to +learned and simple, to men and women alike, and upon whomsoever the +spirit of prophecy fell, it made him fit to be the leader and the +counsellor of his people. Deborah had been marked out by Yahveh Himself +to be the judge of Israel. + +She dwelt, we are told, under the palm-tree of Deborah, between Ramah +and Beth-el in Mount Ephraim. She was, therefore, presumably of +Ephraimitish descent, though the conclusion does not necessarily follow, +and the palm-tree which was called after her continued to be a landmark +on the high-road down to the time when the narrative in the book of +Judges was written. There was another tree, a terebinth, and not a palm, +which stood within the sacred precincts of Beth-el itself, and also bore +the name of Deborah, but this Deborah was said to have been Rebekah’s +nurse, whose tomb was pointed out under the branches of the tree.[313] +The writers of the Old Testament have carefully distinguished between +the two trees; it has been reserved for modern criticism to confound +them. + +With a woman’s insight and enthusiasm, Deborah perceived that the time +had come when the highways should no longer be deserted, and when the +northern tribes of Israel should be freed from their bondage to the +Canaanite, and she also perceived who it was that was destined to lead +the Israelitish troops to victory. This was Barak of Kadesh in Naphtali, +the near neighbour of Jabin and Sisera. Like the Carthaginian Barcas, he +bore a name—‘the Lightning’—which fitly symbolised the vengeance he was +born to take on the enemies of Israel.[314] But Barak shrank from the +undertaking at first, and it was not until the prophetess had consented +to go with him to Kadesh that he summoned his countrymen together, and +occupied the summit of Mount Tabor. Here, protected by the forests which +clothed its slopes, he trained and multiplied his forces until he felt +strong enough to attack the foe. Then he descended into the plain of +Megiddo, where the Canaanitish host was marching from Harosheth to meet +him. It was the old battlefield of Canaan; it was there that in the days +of the Egyptian conquerors the fate of the country had been decided and +the Canaanitish princes under Hittite commanders from Kadesh on the +Orontes had been utterly overthrown. + +In the camp on the lofty summit of Tabor, Barak had done more than train +his men. Time had been given them in which to provide themselves with +arms. Deborah declares that in the days of the oppression a shield or +spear had not been seen ‘among forty thousand in Israel.’[315] The +statement receives explanation from what we are told of the policy of +the Philistines at a later date. When they had laid the Israelites under +tribute in the time of Samuel, they banished all the smiths from the +land of Israel, to prevent ‘the Hebrews’ from making themselves ‘swords +and spears’ (1 Sam. xiii. 19). Agricultural implements alone were +allowed (ver. 20). It would seem that a similar policy had been pursued +by the Philistines and Canaanites in the earlier age of Deborah, though +probably with less success. At all events Heber the Kenite, or itinerant +‘smith,’ still pitched his tent in Israelitish territory, and his wife +Jael sympathised with the Israelites rather than with their Canaanitish +lords. + +When Thothmes III. of Egypt met the confederated kings of Canaan in the +plain of Megiddo, they were led by the Hittite sovereign of Kadesh on +the Orontes. It is possible that Barak was called upon to meet a similar +combination of forces. Sisera is not a Semitic name, while, as Mr. +Tomkins has pointed out, it finds striking analogies in such Hittite +names as Khata-sar, Khilip-sar, and Pi-siri[s]. The Hittite power at +Kadesh on the Orontes had not yet passed away. It still existed in the +time of David, when it formed one of the frontiers of the Israelitish +kingdom.[316] In the age of the Tel el-Amarna letters we find the +Hittites intriguing in Palestine along with Mitanni or Naharaim, and it +is not likely that they would have been less disposed to resume their +old influence in that country when Egypt was no longer to be feared. +Sisera may not only have been the commander of the Canaanitish forces, +but also a Hittite prince, nominally the ally of Jabin, but in reality +his suzerain lord. He dwelt, we are told, in ‘Harosheth of the +Gentiles,’ an otherwise unknown place. It may have been in ‘Galilee of +the Gentiles’ (Is. ix. 1), but it may also have been further north among +the Gentile Hittites of Kadesh.[317] + +The battle took place on the banks of the Kishon, and ended in a +complete victory for the Israelites. The nine hundred iron chariots of +Sisera availed him nothing; ‘the stars in their courses’ had fought +against him. He escaped on foot to the tent of Heber the Kenite, whose +wife Jael received him as a guest, and then murdered him by driving a +peg of the tent through his temples while he lay asleep. When Barak +arrived in pursuit, Jael showed him the corpse of his enemy. + +The pæan of triumph, ‘sung by Deborah and Barak’ on the day of the +victory, is one of the oldest fragments of Hebrew poetry. To its +antiquity and the archaic character of its language are due the many +corruptions of the text. Some of the passages in it are quite +unintelligible as they stand, and the conjectural emendations that have +been proposed for them are seldom acceptable except to their +authors.[318] But, as a whole, the pæan is not only a magnificent relic +of ancient Hebrew song, full of fire and vivid imagery, it is also a +document of the highest value for the historian. It gives us a picture +of Israelitish life and thought in the age of the Judges, untouched by +the hands of compilers and historians, and few have been hardy enough to +question its genuineness. It is a solid proof that the traditional view +of Israelitish history is more correct than that which modern criticism +would substitute for it, and that the ‘development’ of Israelitish +religion, of which we have heard so much, is a mere product of the +imagination. The belief in Yahveh displayed in the Song is as +uncompromising as that of later Judaism; Yahveh is the God of Israel, +who has fought for His people, and beside Him there is no other god. The +monotheism of Deborah is the monotheism of the Pentateuch. Nor is the +song less of a witness to the truth of the history which we have in the +Pentateuch and the book of Joshua. It tells us that Yahveh revealed +Himself to Israel on Mount Sinai, and it distinguishes the tribes one +from the other, and assigns to them the territories which bore their +names. + +The Song began with words which, as we see from Deut. xxxiii. 2, Ps. +lxviii. 7, were a common property of Hebrew poetry. + + ‘For the avenging of Israel, + When the people gave themselves as a freewill offering, + Praise ye Yahveh! + Hear, O ye kings, give ear, O ye princes, + I will sing unto Yahveh, even I, + I will make music to Yahveh the God of Israel. + O Yahveh, when thou wentest forth from Seir, + When thou marchedst out of the field of Edom, + The earth trembled, the heavens also dropped water.[319] + The mountains melted from the face of Yahveh, + Even Sinai itself from before Yahveh the God of Israel. + In the days of Shamgar ben-Anath, + [In the days of Jael][320] the roads were deserted, + And the travellers walked along by-paths. + The peasantry failed, in Israel did they fail, + Until I, Deborah, arose, + I arose a mother in Israel. + + Then was war (in) the gates (?):[321] + A shield was not seen, or a spear, + Among forty thousand in Israel. + My heart (saith) to the lawgivers of Israel, + Who gave themselves as a freewill offering among the people: + Praise ye Yahveh! + Ye that ride on white asses, + Ye that sit on cloths, + And ye that walk on the road, shout ye! + Above the voice of the [noisy ones] at the places of drawing water, + There[322] shall they rehearse the righteous acts of Yahveh, + Even righteous acts towards his peasants in Israel, + (Saying), “Then to the gates descended the people of Yahveh.” + Awake, awake, Deborah, + Awake, awake, utter a song![323] + Arise, Barak, + And capture thy capturers,[324] + O son of Abinoam! + Then to the nobles descended the people of Yahveh (?),[325] + They descended unto me among the heroes. + Out of Ephraim (came they) whose roots[326] (are) in Amalek, + Behind thee, O Benjamin, among thy clans. + Out of Machir descended lawgivers, + And out of Zebulon they that handle the staff of the scribe. + And the princes of Issachar were with Deborah, + For Issachar was as Barak; + In the valley (of the Kishon) were they sped on the feet, + Among the wadis of Reuben great were the searchings of heart. + Why didst thou stray among the sheep-folds + To hear the bleatings of the flocks? + For the wadis of Reuben great were the searchings of heart. + Gilead abode beyond the Jordan; + And Dan, why does he sojourn in ships? + Asher stayed on the sea-shore, + And abides in his havens. + Zebulon is a people that has jeopardied its life unto the death, + And Issachar also on the heights of the plain. + Kings came and fought, + Then fought the kings of Canaan + At Taanach on the waters of Megiddo; + They took no spoil of silver. + From heaven fought the stars, + In their courses they fought against Sisera.[327] + The torrent of Kishon swept them away; + A torrent of slaughters is the torrent Kishon. + Thou hast trodden down the strong ones, O my soul![328] + Then did the horse-hoofs strike (the ground) + Through the prancings of his steeds. + Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of Yahveh, + Curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof + Because they came not to the help of Yahveh, + To the help of Yahveh among the heroes. + Blessed above women be Jael, + The wife of Heber the Kenite, + Above women in the tent may she be blessed! + Water he asked, milk she gave, + In a lordly dish she brought forth butter: + Her hand she put to the tent-pin + And her right-hand to the workman’s hammer, + And with the hammer she smote Sisera, she shattered his head, + And struck and pierced his temples. + At her feet he bowed, he fell, he lay down, + At her feet he bowed, he fell; + Where he bowed, there lay he dead. + Behind the window looked and cried + The mother of Sisera behind the lattice: + “Why is his chariot so long in coming? + Why tarry the wheels of his cars?” + The wisest of her waiting-women answered her, + Yea, she returned answer to herself: + “Have they not found and divided the spoil, + A damsel or two to each man, + A spoil of many-coloured garments to Sisera, + A spoil of garments of many-coloured needlework, + Two garments of many-coloured needlework for the neck of the + spoiler.”[329] + So may all thine enemies perish, O Yahveh; + But may those who love him be as the rising of the sun in his + might!’ + +Of Barak and Deborah we hear no more. The next judge and deliverer who +appears upon the canvas is an Abi-ezrite of Manasseh, who came from the +northern borders of Ephraim between Ophrah and Shechem. His father was +Joash, the head, it would seem, of the clan. But he himself bears a +double name. It is as Gideon, the ‘cutter-down’ of his father’s idol, +that he is first introduced to us. In later history his name is +Jerubbaal. The latter name is said to have been given him because he had +thrown down the altar of Baal, and is interpreted to mean ‘Let Baal +plead against him.’[330] But the other Old Testament examples we have +met with of the interpretation of proper names may well make us hesitate +about accepting this. They are all mere plays upon words, mere ‘popular +etymologies,’ which have no claim to be regarded as history. Whether the +philology is that of an ancient Hebrew writer or of a modern critic, its +conclusions do not belong to the domain of the historian. + +Jerubbaal signifies ‘Baal will contend,’ not ‘Baal will plead against +him,’ and therefore really has a meaning exactly the reverse of that +ascribed to it in the narrative. The name seems substantially identical +with that of Rib-Hadad, the governor of Phœnicia in the age of the Tel +el-Amarna tablets. Joash, the father of Jerubbaal, was a worshipper of +Baal, and consequently there was nothing strange in his calling his son +after his god. It is only as Jerubbaal that the future judge was known +to the generation that followed him,[331] and his successor in the +kingdom of Manasseh was called even in his own day ‘Abimelech the son of +Jerubbaal.’[332] It has been suggested that Jerubbaal and Gideon were +two different personages, whom tradition has amalgamated together,[333] +but double names of the kind were not unknown in Oriental antiquity. +Solomon himself also bore the name of Jedidiah (2 Sam. xii. 25), and +Gideon, ‘the cutter-down,’ was not an inappropriate epithet for the +conqueror of the Midianites. There was a good reason why the pious +Israelite of a later generation should shrink from admitting that one of +his national heroes had borne a name compounded with that of Baal.[334] + +The tribes of the desert, Amalekites, Midianites, and those Benê-Qedem +or ‘Children of the East,’ whom an Egyptian papyrus of the twelfth +dynasty places in the neighbourhood of Edom,[335] had fallen upon the +lands of the settled fellahin, as their Bedâwin descendants still do +whenever the Turkish soldiery are insufficient to keep them away. Year +by year bands of raiders swarmed over the cultivated fields, murdering +the peasants and carrying off their crops. At first it was Gilead that +suffered, but the Hebrews were weak and divided, and the robbers of the +desert were soon emboldened to cross the Jordan, and extend their raids +as far as the western frontiers of Israel. ‘They destroyed the increase +of the earth, till thou come unto Gaza, and left no sustenance for +Israel, neither sheep, nor ox, nor ass.’ + +At last the Lord sent a prophet to the people and an angel to Gideon the +Abi-ezrite. Gideon was threshing wheat by the winepress near the sacred +terebinth of Ophrah. Here, under the shadow of the tree, was an altar of +Baal, and by the side of it the cone of stone which symbolised the +goddess Asherah. The angel summoned Gideon to rise and deliver Israel, +and as a sign that he was indeed the angel of Yahveh he touched with his +staff the offerings of flesh and unleavened cakes that Gideon had made +to him, so that fire rose out of the rock and consumed them all. On the +threshing-floor Gideon built an altar to Yahveh, like that more stately +sanctuary which David raised in later days on the threshing-floor of +rock which had belonged to Araunah the Jebusite. + +Recent criticism has discovered in the history of Jerubbaal two +different and mutually inconsistent narratives, which are again +subdivided among a variety of writers. To these some critics would add a +third version of the story, which is supposed to be referred to in Is. +x. 26, though others maintain that the reference in the book of Isaiah +is to the first of the two narratives. It cannot be denied that the +history of the war against the Midianites in its present form is +confused, and that it is difficult to construct from it a clear and +intelligible picture of the course of events. That the compiler of the +book of Judges should have made use of more than one narrative, if such +existed, is indeed only natural, and what a conscientious historian +would be bound to do. But to distinguish minutely the narratives one +from the other, much more to analyse them into still smaller fragments, +is the work of Sisyphus. It is even more impossible than to distinguish +between Rice and Besant in _The Golden Butterfly_ or _Celia’s Arbour_. +The historian must leave all such literary trifling to the collectors of +lists of words, and content himself with comparing and analysing the +facts recorded in the story.[336] + +The altar raised by Gideon was dedicated to Yahveh-shalom, ‘the Yahveh +of Peace,’ and it was still standing at Ophrah when the narrative +relating to it was written.[337] Its name shows that it could hardly +have been built before Gideon had returned in peace from the Midianitish +war. There was much that had first to be done. + +Gideon’s first task was to destroy the symbol of Asherah and the altar +of Baal. The revelation made to him had been made in the name of Yahveh, +and it was in the name of Yahveh alone that he was about to lead his +countrymen to victory. It is true that between Yahveh and Baal the +Israelite villager of the day saw but little difference. Yahveh was +addressed as Baal or ‘Lord,’[338] and the local altars that were +dedicated to Him in most instances did but take the place of the older +altars of a Canaanitish Baal. Mixture between Israelites and Canaanites, +moreover, had brought with it a mixture in religion. Along with the +title, Yahveh had assumed the attributes of a Baal, at all events among +the mass of the people. Joash and the villagers, who demanded that +Gideon should be put to death for destroying the altar of Baal, +doubtless thought that they were zealous for the God of Israel. It was +the symbol of Asherah only which was the token of a foreign cult. + +Perhaps the answer made by Joash to the charge against his son has been +coloured by the theology of the later historian. It breathes rather the +spirit of an age when the antagonism between Yahveh and Baal had become +acute than that of one who was himself a worshipper of Baal and Asherah, +and whose son in the hour of victory made an idol out of the enemy’s +spoil. The Baal worshipped by the villagers of Abi-ezer was regarded as +Yahveh himself, and hence it was that the offence committed by Gideon +against him was an offence committed against the national God, and +therefore punishable with death. To set him up as another god in +opposition to the God of Israel carries us down to the age of Elijah, +when the subjects of Ahab were called upon to choose between the Yahveh +who had led them out of Egypt and the Phœnician Baal. It belongs to the +same period as the etymological play on the name of Jerubbaal. + +There was a special reason why Jerubbaal should thus have come forward +to deliver his countrymen from the Midianites. The Bedâwin raiders had +slain his brothers in a previous struggle at Mount Tabor (viii. 18-21). +Jerubbaal thus had a blood-feud to avenge. He was the last and +presumably the youngest of his family, and upon him therefore devolved +the duty of revenging his brothers’ death. Moreover, it would appear +from the words of the Midianite chiefs that Joash and his sons were not +only the heads of their clan, but that they also exercised a sort of +kingly authority in Ophrah and its neighbourhood. The history of +Abimelech seems to imply that the family of Abi-ezer had succeeded to +the power and even the name of the Canaanitish ‘kings’ of Shechem, and +that the subsequent ingratitude of the inhabitants of Shechem to the +house of Jerubbaal was due to jealousy of the preference displayed by it +for Ophrah. Shechem contained a large Canaanitish element which was +wanting at Ophrah, where the population was more purely Israelitish. If +Joash were thus king of a mixed population, recognised by Canaanites and +Israelites alike, we can understand why by the side of the altar of Baal +there stood also the symbol of the Canaanitish goddess. The very fact +that the sanctuary of Ophrah belonged to him (vi. 25) indicates that he +possessed royal prerogatives. Even at Jerusalem the temple of Solomon +was as it were the chapel of the kings.[339] + +It has been suggested that the Baal whose altar stood on the land of +Joash at Ophrah was the Baal-berith or ‘Baal of the Covenant,’ +worshipped at Shechem,[340] and that the ‘covenant’ over which the god +presided was that made between the Canaanites of Shechem and their +Hebrew master. Doubtless the two elements in the population would have +interpreted the name in a different way. For the Hebrews the ‘Baal of +the Covenant’ would have been Yahveh; for the Canaanites he would have +been the local sun-god. But there is nothing to prove that the +attributes of the Baals of Ophrah and Shechem were the same, or that +they were adored under the same form. Indeed, the fact that the altar +erected by Jerubbaal at Ophrah was dedicated to the ‘Yahveh of Peace’ +tells rather in a contrary direction. Shechem had its Baal-berith, while +Ophrah may have had its Baal-shalom. While the one commemorated the +covenant that had been entered into between the two parts of the +population, the other would have commemorated its ‘peaceful’ settlement. +For the Canaanite it was a covenant, for the Hebrew it was peace. + +The struggle at Mount Tabor, in which the brothers of Jerubbaal had +fallen, laid the fruitful valley of Jezreel at the feet of the Bedâwin +plunderers. The plain of Megiddo was now in the hands of the Israelites. +The battle on the banks of the Kishon had broken for ever the power of +the Canaanites and their ‘chariots of iron,’ and they were now tributary +to Manasseh.[341] The Canaanite townsman and the Israelitish peasant +were now living in peaceful intermixture, and the torrent of raiders +from the desert fell upon both alike. We hear no more of any attempts +made by the older population to shake off the Hebrew yoke; it suffers +from the Midianite invasion equally with its Hebrew masters, and the +family of Joash govern it as much as they govern the Israelites +themselves. Jerubbaal is the deliverer of the Canaanite as well as of +the Israelite. + +From Ophrah he sends messengers throughout Manasseh, as well as to the +tribes of Asher, Zebulon, and Naphtali, and their fighting-men gather +together at his summons. He thus acts like a king, and is obeyed like a +king. Though he may not have actually borne the royal title, he was more +than a mere ‘judge.’ Barak may have assumed the name and prerogatives of +the Canaanitish kings he had conquered, and have passed them on to the +family of Ebi-ezer. At any rate the power of Joash must have extended +beyond Shechem and Ophrah; all Manasseh obeys the call of his son, and +even the more distant northern tribes come at his bidding. The +subjugation of the Canaanites had demanded a head to the state, and +their union with their conquerors implied an organised community under a +common king. + +It was, however, with three hundred chosen followers that Jerubbaal made +his first attack upon the foe. Encouraged by a dream, he fell upon their +camp by night, and his followers, breaking the pitchers they carried +with them, and waving torches in their left hands, caused such a panic +among the undisciplined hordes of the desert that they fled in all +directions.[342] The rout of the enemy was completed by the rest of the +Israelitish army, which pursued the Midianites eastward towards the +Jordan. Part of them under the shêkhs Oreb and Zeeb made for the ford at +Beth-barah, where, however, they were intercepted by the Ephraimites, +and their chiefs slain at ‘the rock of Oreb’ and the ‘winepress of +Zeeb.’[343] + +Meanwhile Jerubbaal was already on the eastern side of the Jordan, +following in hot haste a detachment of the Midianites under two other of +their shêkhs, Zebah and Zalmunna. His road led past Succoth and Penuel, +but their Israelitish inhabitants refused all help, and even bread, to +their brethren of Manasseh. It is clear that between Gilead and the +western tribes there was now a diversity of interests and feelings, and +that the half-nomad Israelites on the eastern side of the Jordan had +more sympathy with the heathen of the desert than with the ruler of the +organised state on the other side of the river. Perhaps they feared that +his arms would next be turned against themselves, and that they too +would be forced to become part of a kingdom of Manasseh. + +But if they had hoped that the Midianites would have freed them from all +fears upon this score they were doomed to disappointment. Once more ‘the +sword of Yahveh and of Gideon’ prevailed, and Zebah and Zalmunna were +slain. The claims of the blood-feud were satisfied, and Jerubbaal now +returned to his old home. Condign vengeance was taken on ‘the elders’ of +Succoth and ‘the men’ of Penuel. The first were scourged with the thorns +of the wilderness, the others were put to death, and their tower, which +guarded the approach from the desert, was razed to the ground. + +Now, however, Jerubbaal had to meet with more formidable adversaries. +The house of Joseph was divided against itself, and the Ephraimites +resented his conduct in acting independently of the elder tribe.[344] In +the earlier days of the occupation of Palestine it had been Ephraim +which took the leading part; Joshua, who first opened the path into +Canaan, had been an Ephraimite, and Mount Ephraim had been the first +stronghold of Israel on the western side of the Jordan. In the time of +Barak Ephraim had still been the dominant tribe, at least such is the +impression we gather from the Song of Deborah; but it had begun to live +on its past glories rather than on its present achievements. The +Benjamites had definitely separated from it, and become a separate +tribe, and Issachar, Zebulon, and Naphtali had carried on the war +against Jabin and Sisera. Manasseh, however, had not yet appeared on the +political scene; its place was taken by Machir, whose territory lay in +Gilead, not to the west of the Jordan. But between the age of Barak and +that of Jerubbaal a change had occurred. The Canaanitish towns, which +the victory on the banks of the Kishon had laid at the feet of the +northern tribes, passed into the possession of the younger branch of the +house of Joseph, and Issachar had to be content that Shechem also should +become a part of its territory.[345] Manasseh grew at the expense of its +neighbours. It is possible that the clan of the Abi-ezrites at Ophrah +had, by their conquest of Shechem, paved the way for the rise of +Manasseh; if so, the dominant position they occupied in the tribe would +become intelligible. Ophrah would have been the first home and +gathering-place of the tribe. The treaty with Shechem, which united that +city with Ophrah, may have been the beginning of Manasseh’s rise to +power. + +But Ephraim could ill brook the growing ascendency of the younger tribe. +Manasseh had become wealthy from the tribute levied on its Canaanitish +subjects; it had united itself with the older inhabitants of the land, +and had borrowed their habits and their culture, and therewith their +idolatries as well. The mountaineers of Ephraim, on the other hand, had +retained much of the roughness and the virtues of the first invaders of +Palestine. They were still warlike and hardy; they held the fortress of +the Israelitish possessions in Canaan; and Shiloh, with its Aaronic +priesthood, its traditions of the Mosaic law, and its purer worship of +Yahveh was in their midst. Jerubbaal was forced to temporise with them. +He pointed out that the destruction of the main body of the Midianites +at the fords of the Jordan was a greater achievement than his own +successful pursuit of the remaining bands. He had slain Zebah and +Zalmunna in revenge for the death of his brothers; the slaughter of Oreb +and Zeeb had been for the sake of all Israel. ‘Is not the gleaning of +the grapes of Ephraim better than the vintage of Abi-ezer?’ + +Jerubbaal was fitted to rule, for he possessed statecraft as well as +military ability. His statecraft was shown not only in his answer to the +Ephraimites, but also in his refusal to accept the title of king. It was +pressed upon him, we are told, by ‘the men of Israel’—that is to say, by +the northern tribes. Whether his father had actually borne the title we +cannot say, though it would seem from the subsequent history of +Abimelech, as well as from the words of Zebah and Zalmunna (viii. 18), +that he must have done so. But at any rate he had exercised the +authority of a king, like his son Jerubbaal, at the outset of the +Midianite war, and it may be that among the Canaanites of Shechem he had +also the name of king. Jerubbaal, however, if we are to regard the +passage as historical, rejected the crown offered him by the Israelites, +declaring that their king was Yahveh alone. + +That the passage is historical seems to admit of little doubt. +Jerubbaal’s words were in harmony with the feelings of the time among +the stricter adherents of Yahveh, as we learn from the language of +Samuel when the people demanded of him a king. How different were the +feelings of the compiler of the book of Judges may be gathered from the +words with which it ends. Moreover, Jerubbaal’s refusal of the royal +title was politic. He had already realised that he had powerful enemies +in Ephraim, who viewed his success and claims to power with suspicion +and hostility, and he also knew that it was in Ephraim and among the +priesthood of Shiloh that the belief in the theocratic government of +Israel was strongest. As in Assyria, in Midian, and in Sheba, so too in +Israel, the high priest preceded the king; it was not until the need for +a single head and a leader in war became too urgent to be resisted that +the national God made way for a national king.[346] + +Phœnician tradition remembered that Jerubbaal was a priest of Yahveh, +not that he was a king.[347] It was as a priest that he exacted from the +people the golden earrings they had won from the Midianites in order +that he might make with them an image of his God. The Hebrew text has +substituted for the image the ephod which accompanied it.[348] But the +ephod was the linen garment of the priest, which he wore when +ministering, and with the help of which the future was divined.[349] It +was not the vestment but the image, in whose service the vestment was +used, that Jerubbaal set up in Ophrah, and after which ‘all Israel went +a whoring.’ Like his father, Jerubbaal saw no idolatry where it was +Yahveh of Israel who was represented by the idol. The religious beliefs +and practices of Canaan had entered deeply into the soul of Israel; at +Shiloh alone was no image of its God. + +High priest among the Israelites, king among his Canaanitish subjects, +Jerubbaal lived long in his father’s home at Ophrah. He acted like a +king, even if he did not take the royal title. Like Solomon, he had +‘many wives,’ and like Solomon also, he built a sanctuary attached to +his own house.[350] The Bedâwin spoilers came no more: there was now a +strong hand ruling over the northern tribes of Israel, checking all +tendency to disunion, and building up an organised community. + +But the kingdom of Jerubbaal contained within it those seeds of +dissolution which have brought about the fall of so many Oriental +monarchies. They spring up, not among the people, but in the family of +the ruler. Polygamy brings with it a curse, and the king is hardly dead +before the children of his numerous wives are murdering and fighting +with one another. Even during his lifetime the palace is honeycombed +with the intrigues of the harîm, which break out into open war as soon +as he has passed away. The family of Jerubbaal was no exception to the +rule. Abimelech, the son of his concubine, a Canaanitess of +Shechem,[351] conspired with his mother’s kinsmen in Shechem, and taking +seventy shekels of silver from the temple of Baal-berith, hired with +them a band of mercenaries, who fell upon the other sons of Jerubbaal at +Ophrah and murdered them all save one. Alone of the ‘seventy’ brethren +of Abimelech, Jotham, the youngest, hid himself and escaped. The rest +were slaughtered like oxen on a block of stone. Abimelech then returned +to Shechem, and there under the sacred terebinth, which stood by the +consecrated ‘pillar’ or Beth-el of the city, he was anointed king. The +garrison of the Millo, or fortress, of Shechem took part in the +ceremony. + +The report of Abimelech’s usurpation was brought to Jotham. He left his +place of concealment, and, standing on the top of Mount Gerizim, +upbraided the men of Shechem with ingratitude towards Jerubbaal. He +clothed his words in one of those parables of which the East is the +home. ‘The trees went forth,’ he told them, once on a time, ‘to anoint a +king over them; and they said unto the olive-tree, Reign thou over us. +But the olive-tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith +by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees? And +the trees said unto the fig-tree, Come thou and reign over us. But the +fig-tree said unto them, Should I forsake my sweetness and my good +fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees? Then said the trees unto +the vine, Come thou and reign over us. And the vine said unto them, +Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be +promoted over the trees? Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come +thou and reign over us. And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth +ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow; +and if not, let fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of +Lebanon.’ + +The moral of the parable was so obvious that it did not need Jotham’s +explanation to make it clear. He had been bold in venturing near his +enemies, and as soon as he had finished speaking, he fled to a place of +safety. Beer, ‘the well,’ where he found a refuge, may have been the +place of that name in the extreme north of Naphtali.[352] Here at least +he would have been secure from pursuit. + +The usurpation of Abimelech was the revolt of the older Canaanitish +population against their Israelitish masters. It marked the successful +rising of the native element. Ophrah has to make way for Shechem, and +‘the men of Hamor the father of Shechem’ take the place of the children +of Jacob. Yet the deliverance from the Midianites wrought by Jerubbaal +had been achieved as much for the benefit of the Canaanitish part of the +population as for the Israelites themselves. The murder of his sons and +the destruction of his family was a poor requital for all that he had +done for them. Jotham was justified in prophesying that their own god +Baal-berith would avenge the broken ‘covenant,’ and that Abimelech and +his Shechemite conspirators would fall by one another’s hand. + +Before three years were ended the prophecy was fulfilled. The ‘god’ of +Shechem ‘sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the Shechemites,’ who +began a plot against his rule. Abimelech had withdrawn from the city and +was living at the otherwise unknown Arumah, the garrison and government +of Shechem being placed under the command of a certain Zebul.[353] +Perhaps the king had already begun to be suspicious of his subjects; +perhaps his retirement to another town had aroused their jealousy. +However it may have been, the Shechemites openly set at naught his +authority. Bands of brigands left the city and infested the neighbouring +mountains, where they robbed all who passed that way. They were soon +joined by another band of bandits, under the leadership of Gaal the son +of Jobaal.[354] Under him the disaffection towards Abimelech came to a +head, and Gaal proposed that the citizens should revolt against +Abimelech and Zebul. Zebul, however, while professing to be upon their +side, sent messengers to Abimelech and urged him to march against +Shechem before it was too late. Abimelech gave heed to the message, and +Gaal’s forces were defeated outside the city, and driven back within its +gates. Abimelech then pretended to retire to Arumah, and the citizens +accordingly once more went out to their work in the fields. But the +royal troops were really lying in ambush, divided into three companies, +two of which fell upon the fellahin in the fields and massacred them; +while the third, with Abimelech himself at their head, rushed into the +city through the open gate. All day long the battle raged in the +streets; then the survivors fled to the ‘crypt’ of the temple of +Baal-berith which adjoined the Millo or fort.[355] By the orders of +Abimelech brushwood was brought from the neighbouring Mount Zalmon, +piled up over the entrance to the crypt and set on fire. All who were +inside, men and women, to the number of about a thousand, perished in +the flames. Shechem itself was razed to the ground, and its site sown +with salt. For a time the old Canaanitish city disappeared from the soil +of Palestine. + +The destined punishment had now fallen upon Shechem; it was not long +before it fell also upon its destroyer. The town of Thebez had shared in +the revolt of Shechem, and Abimelech’s next action was to besiege it. +The town itself offered little resistance, but there was a ‘strong +tower’ within it, to which its defenders fled for refuge. Abimelech +again had recourse to fire. But while the wood was being laid against +the gate of the tower, a woman on the parapet above threw a broken +millstone upon his head and shattered his skull. The king felt himself +dying, and besought his armour-bearer to thrust a sword through his +body, lest it might be said that he had been slain by the hand of a +woman. But the request was made in vain, and future generations +remembered that the last king of Shechem, the murderer of his brethren, +had perished ignominiously by a woman’s hands.[356] With Abimelech the +sovereignty of the house of Joash seems to have come to an end. We hear +no more of Jotham, or of any other attempt to found a monarchy among the +northern tribes. The first endeavour to organise Israel into a state had +but little success. Once more the old elements of disorder and disunion +reigned supreme. The tribes stood further and further apart from each +other, and mutual jealousies led to intestine wars. The influence of +Ephraim and of the sanctuary of Shiloh grew daily less, and the power of +the northern tribes waned at the same time. The Israelites on the +eastern side of Jordan began to forget that they had brethren on its +western bank; Reuben is lost among the Bedâwin of Moab, and Gilead and +Ephraim engage in interfraternal war. Meanwhile a new tribe is rising in +the south. Judah has absorbed Simeon and the Kenizzites of Hebron; the +few relics of Dan which have been left in the neighbourhood of Zorah +have become Jews in all but name, and the Kenites and the Jerahmeelites, +and the other foreign settlers in the Negeb have followed the example of +the Kenizzites. A common enemy and a common danger has thus forced them +together. + +The enemy were the Philistines. In the early days of the Hebrew +settlement in Canaan the Philistines had already made the raids inland +which had been checked, if not suppressed, by Shamgar ben-Anath. For a +time they had remained quiet in their five cities of the coast. But +fresh immigrants from Krete or other Ægean lands introduced new blood +and warlike energy. Once more their armed bands marched forth to plunder +and destroy. This time they are no longer contented with mere raids; +they now aim at conquest. Hardly have the Canaanites been subjugated +after long generations of struggle, when the Israelites are called upon +to meet a new foe. It is a foe, moreover, which is not enervated by +centuries of luxury and culture, not accustomed to foreign rule or +divided within itself, but a hardy nation of pirates whose whole life +has been passed in fighting, and in seizing the possessions of others. + +The first brunt of the Philistine attack was borne by Judah. But it was +not long before the armies of the Philistines made their way northwards, +and even penetrated into the fastnesses of Mount Ephraim.[357] Of all +this, however, the record has been lost. The compiler of the book of +Judges failed to find it in the fragmentary annals of the past, and has +been compelled to fill up the interval between the fall of the kingdom +of Manasseh and the supremacy of the Philistines in Palestine with +notices of judges and events whose exact place in Hebrew history was +uncertain. + +It is here, accordingly, that we have the names of the so-called lesser +Judges, of whom little more was known than the names. Two of them, Tola +the son of Puah, and Elon, belonged to Issachar and Zebulon; and it is +somewhat singular that while the book of Numbers makes Tola and Puah the +heads of families in Issachar, it makes Elon the head of a family in +Zebulon.[358] Of Tola we are told that he lived and died at Shamir in +Mount Ephraim, which at that time therefore must have been in the hands +of Issachar, and that he judged Israel twenty-three years. The account +of Elon is equally laconic; he judged Israel ten years, and was buried +at Aijalon in Zebulon. Another judge in Zebulon was Ibzan of +Beth-lehem,[359] who was judge for seven years only, but of whom it was +recorded that he had thirty sons and thirty. daughters. A similar record +has been handed down of another of these minor judges, Abdon the son of +Hillel. He, it is said, had forty sons and thirty grandsons, who rode on +seventy colts. Abdon was judge for eight years, and ‘was buried at +Pirathon in the land of Ephraim, in the mount of the Amalekites.’ This +statement seems to push back the date of Abdon to an early period when +Benjamin had not yet separated from the ‘House of Joseph,’ and ‘the land +of Ephraim’ accordingly extended southwards into the Amalekite region. +It would be of the same age as that of the Song of Deborah. + +Gilead also had its judges, though the names of only two of them have +been preserved. One was Jair, who ruled as judge for twenty-two years, +and who ‘had thirty sons that rode on thirty ass-colts, and they had +thirty cities which are called the villages of Jair.’ We hear something +more of this Jair in the Pentateuch. He had taken the villages which +were called after his name, and must have lived not long after the +Israelitish conquest of Bashan.[360] He belongs, therefore, to the +earliest period of Israelitish history in Canaan, and may have been a +contemporary of Joshua himself. + +The second judge left a more famous record behind him. This was +Jephthah, who delivered Gilead from its bondage to the Ammonites. His +father’s name was doubtful, his mother was a harlot, and ‘the elders’ of +Gilead accordingly expelled him from what he claimed to be his father’s +house.[361] He fled to the desert land of Tob,[362] and there gathering +a band of bandits around him, lived on the spoils of brigandage. He soon +became known, like David in later days, for his skill and courage in +deeds of arms. For eighteen years the Ammonite domination had lasted, +and the Gileadites sighed for independence. But it was long before a +champion could be found. At last the fame of the bandit captain in Tob +reached the ears of the Israelitish elders, and they begged him to come +to their help. Jephthah taunted them with their conduct towards him, but +feelings of patriotism finally prevailed, and he agreed to lead his +followers against the national enemy if the Gileadites would promise to +make him their ‘head.’ The representatives of the people had no choice +but to agree to his terms, and the struggle for independence began. It +ended in the deliverance of the Israelites; the Ammonites were again +driven from the land which had once been theirs, and Gilead was +free.[363] + +The rejoicings over the victory, however, were clouded by the rash vow +of the Israelitish chieftain. Before marching forth to attack the +Ammonites, Jephthah had vowed to sacrifice as a burnt-offering to Yahveh +whatever first came out of his house at Mizpeh to meet him should he +return ‘in peace.’ It was his own daughter, his only child, who thus +came forth to meet him, and to celebrate his victory with timbrels and +dances. The spirit of the Gileadites was very far removed from that +which had taught Abraham a newer and better way; the Canaanite belief +was strong in them that their firstborn could be claimed by their God; +and none questioned that Yahveh Himself had selected the victim and led +her forth from the house to welcome the conqueror. The vow had to be +fulfilled; Yahveh had claimed that which was nearest and dearest to the +Gileadite chief in return for the victory He had given him. All Jephthah +could do was to grant his daughter’s request that she might wander for +two months in the mountains with her comrades, bewailing ‘her +virginity,’ before the day of sacrifice arrived. + +The memory of the sacrifice was never forgotten. It became a custom in +Israel, we are told, for the Israelitish maidens year by year to +‘lament’ for four whole days the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite. It +has been maintained that this custom was the origin of the story, and +that the lamentation was not for the daughter of a Hebrew judge, but for +some mountain goddess who corresponded with the Phœnician god Adonis. As +the maidens of Phœnicia once each year mourned the death of Adonis, so +the maidens of Gilead bewailed the untimely death of a virgin goddess. +But the theory is part of that reconstruction of ancient Israelitish +history, one of the postulates of which is that a custom has never +arisen out of a historical incident. The historian, on the other hand, +finds in the story evidences of its truth. There is no trace elsewhere +of such a goddess as the story demands, or of an anniversary of +lamentation in her honour, while the account of the vow and its +fulfilment is in thorough harmony with the beliefs and customs of the +time. It is wholly contrary to the spirit of later Israel as well as to +the feelings of those who adhered faithfully to the Mosaic Law. If the +story were an invention, it must have originated either in the days when +human sacrifice was still practised, or else in the later period when it +was regarded with abhorrence. In either case, its invention would be +inconceivable. In the earlier period there would have been no reason to +invent what actually took place; in the later period, the character of a +judge and deliverer of Israel would never have been needlessly +blackened. Moreover, the belief that the first thing met with on leaving +or entering a house is unlucky and devoted to the gods, is a belief +which is probably as old as humanity. It still survives in our own +folklore, and testifies to a time when he who first left the protection +of the hearth and threshold could be claimed by the powers of the other +world. + +Jephthah’s term of office as ruler of Gilead was only six years. He +seems to have been already advanced in years when he was called upon to +oppose the Ammonites. But his rule was signalised by a war with Ephraim. +The ever-increasing dissensions between the tribes on the eastern and +western sides of the Jordan came openly to a head, and the elder and +younger branches of the house of Joseph engaged in a struggle to the +death. Ephraim, it seems, still claimed predominance, and asserted its +right to interfere in the concerns of its eastern brethren. ‘Ye +Gileadites,’ it was said, ‘are fugitives of Ephraim among the +Ephraimites and among the Manassites.’ But the ‘fugitives’ soon proved +that they were the stronger of the two. The Ephraimites invaded Gilead, +but were compelled to retreat. Before they could reach the Jordan +Jephthah had seized the fords across it, and the retreat of the +Ephraimites was cut off. A terrible massacre took place; whoever said +_sibboleth_ for _shibboleth_, ‘river-channel,’ was thereby known to +belong to the western bank, and was at once put to death. Altogether +42,000 men of Ephraim perished, and the power of the tribe was broken. +Jephthah, however, did not follow up his success; that would have +brought upon him the hostility of the other western tribes, and he seems +to have returned to Gilead. There he died and was buried in one of its +cities, the name of which was not stated in the sources used by the +compiler of the book of Judges.[364] + +The date of Jephthah it is impossible to fix. That the author of the +book of Judges was ignorant of it would appear from his making Jephthah +follow immediately after Jair. But it is clear that he believed it to +have been towards the close of the period of the Judges. This, too, +would agree with the fact that it corresponded with the fall of the +power of Ephraim. In the time of Jerubbaal, the Ephraimites were still +strong enough to command the respect of the conqueror of the Midianites; +when the light once more breaks upon the history of central Israel we +find the Philistines in possession of the passes that led into Mount +Ephraim, and threatening Shiloh itself. The destruction of the +Ephraimite forces at the fords of the Jordan can best explain the +Philistine success. + +With the period of the Philistine supremacy the history of the Judges +comes to an end. That supremacy forced Israel to the conviction that +they must either submit to the organised authority of a king or cease to +be a nation at all. The kingdom of Israel was born amid the struggle +with the Philistines; and though the first king perished in the +conflict, his successor succeeded in founding an empire. + +The Philistine wars lasted for many years. They began with raids on the +Israelitish territory immediately adjoining that of the Philistines. +Perhaps the conquest of the plain at the foot of the mountains of Judah +first roused their hostility against Judah; at all events, it brought +them into contact with the conquering tribe. A desultory warfare was +carried on for some years; then the plans of the Philistines became more +definite, and they aimed at nothing less than the conquest of the whole +of Canaan. The sea-robbers had been gradually changed into a nation of +soldiers. + +Samson, the hero of popular tradition, belongs to the earlier part of +the Philistine wars. The last relics of the tribe of Dan in the +neighbourhood of Zorah and Eshtaol have not as yet been absorbed by +Judah; the Philistines, on the other hand, have gained possession of the +whole plain. Between them and the Israelites there is constant +intercourse, partly friendly, partly hostile; at one time the two +peoples intermarry, visit, and trade with one another; at another time +they carry on a guerilla warfare. + +Of late years it has been the fashion to transform Samson into the hero +of a myth.[365] It is true that his name is derived from _Shemesh_, ‘the +sun,’ and it cannot be denied that the stories relating to him have come +rather from popular tradition than from written records. His hair, in +which his strength lay, reminds us of the face of the sun-god engraved +on the platform of the Phœnician temple of Rakleh on Mount Hermon, where +the flaming rays of the sun take the place of human hair. But it must be +remembered that Samson is represented as a Nazarite—a purely Israelitish +institution between which and a solar myth there is no connection—and +that his strength was dependent on the keeping of the vow which +consecrated him to Yahveh as a Nazarite from the day of his birth. With +the loss of the hair the vow was broken, the consecration at an end; the +strength had been given by Yahveh, and Yahveh took it away. Between this +and the fiery locks of the sun-god there is but little connection. + +The character of Samson, however, is that of a hero of popular +tradition. His utter ignoring of moral principles, his hankering after +foreign women, his riddle, his devices for deceiving and slaying his +enemies, belong to the tales told by the Easterns at the door of a +_café_, or around the camp-fire, rather than to sober history. When we +hear that Ramath-lehi was so called from the ‘jawbone’ of an ass which +Samson had ‘flung away’ after slaying a thousand men with it, or that +Ên-hakkorê received its name from the water which flowed from the bone +to quench the hero’s thirst, we find ourselves in the presence of those +etymological puns with which the historian has nothing to do.[366] + +The compiler of the book of Judges has turned this hero of popular +story, this lover of Philistine women, into a Judge of Israel. He was, +however, merely a Danite champion, the one hero of Danite tradition, of +whom indeed the tribe had little reason to be proud. Even in Judah his +achievements gained him no honour. When the Philistines sought to seize +him after he had burnt their corn, ‘three thousand men of Judah’ +ascended to his place of refuge ‘on the top of the rock Etam’ and handed +him over to his enemies. The wiles of a Philistine harlot deprived him +of his strength and his eyes, and he ended his days as a fettered slave +at Gaza, grinding wheat for his Philistine lords. The glory of his +death, however, in the eyes of his fellow-tribesmen redeemed the rest of +his life. Called to make sport for his masters in the temple of Dagon, +while they feasted in honour of their god, he laid hold of the two +central columns on which the building was supported, and brought it down +on the assembled crowd. Samson and the Philistines alike were buried +under its ruins. And ‘so,’ the chronicler adds, ‘the dead which he slew +at his death were more than they which he slew in his life.’ + +In the story of Samson we hear for the first and the last time in the +book of Judges of ‘the men of Judah.’ It is the first time that they +appear in history. Judah produced no Judges, for Othniel was a +Kenizzite, and throughout the epoch of the Judges its history is a +blank. Nothing can show more clearly how modern a tribe it was as +compared with the other tribes of Israel, and how insignificant was the +power which it possessed. The original Judah had its home at Beth-lehem, +shut in between the Jebusite Jerusalem and the Edomite Hebron, and it +was not until it had absorbed and coalesced with the other occupants of +its future territory that the Judah of history was born. It is possible +that the union was brought about, or at all events completed, by the +Philistine wars; at any rate we find no traces of it at an earlier date. +Even Lachish had been an Ephraimitic conquest, and in the time of +Deborah it must still have been reckoned among the cities of +Ephraim.[367] + +Ephraim was yet to have a judge, the last of the race. Though the title +must be denied to Samson, it must be given to Samuel the seer. In Samuel +the judges and the prophets of Israel met together, and the spirit of +Yahveh which had marked out the judge now passed over into the prophet. + +But the history of Samuel is not contained in the book of Judges. We +have to look for it in a new book which records the foundation of the +Israelitish kingdom. The books of Samuel take their name from that of +the prophet which appears on their first page. They begin, however, with +the conjunction ‘And,’ and thus presuppose an earlier volume. They are, +in fact, merely the continuation of the book of Judges. Whether or not +the same compiler has worked at the two books we cannot tell; that is a +question which must be left to the philological critics who have long +since settled his character and date, and determined exactly the limits +of his work. + +There is one fact, however, connected with the compilation of the book +of Judges which the historian cannot but notice. The narratives embodied +in it differ from one another in tone and character. The religious point +of view of the stories of Jephthah or Micah is wholly different from +that of the stories of Barak or Jerubbaal. Between the account of the +overthrow of the Canaanites on the Kishon and the stories narrated of +Samson, there is the contrast between written history and folklore. Each +narrative preserves its own individuality, its own point of view, its +own reflection of the age and locality to which it belongs. + +Here and there, indeed, the pen of the historian who has collected and +combined these fragments of the past history of Israel can be clearly +traced. The speeches sometimes remind us of those in Thucydides, and +exhibit the colouring of a later age. The framework of the narrative, +moreover, is the writer’s own; in fact, he shows himself to be more than +a compiler; he is a historian as well. But with all this, the narratives +he has collected differ as much in character and tone as they do in the +events they record. + +What more convincing proof can we have of the faithfulness with which he +has reproduced his materials? In most cases they have not even passed +through the assimilating medium of his own mind; instead of using his +privilege as a historian he has given them to us unchanged and +unmodified. And yet in many cases they must have shocked both his +religious and his patriotic sense. Whatever else he may have been, the +author of the book of Judges possessed a historical restraint and +honesty which is rare even among the modern writers of Europe. He has +given us the older records of his country just as he found them. + +They were for the most part written records. The scribes of Zebulon are +alluded to in the Song of Deborah, and the notices of the ‘lesser’ +Judges have the same annalistic character as the notices of the early +kings of Egypt in the fragments of Marretho. The Canaanites of Shechem, +from whom Abimelech was sprung, had been acquainted with the art of +writing from untold centuries, and the Canaanitish cities which were +laid under tribute by Manasseh and the neighbouring tribes contained +archive-chambers and libraries where the older literature of the country +was stored. It is only in the future territory of Judah that we hear of +a Kirjath-Sepher, ‘a town of books,’ being destroyed, and it is just +this part of the country whose history in the age of the Judges is a +blank. Between Othniel the destroyer of Kirjath-Sepher and David the +conqueror and embellisher of Jerusalem, the name of no single Judge or +hero has been preserved. Samson belonged to the feeble relics of the +tribe of Dan, and the story of his deeds is the one narrative in the +book of Judges which betrays an origin in folklore instead of written +history. + +Footnote 279: + + Judg. iii. 3. The ‘Hivites’ of the Hebrew text should probably be + corrected into ‘Hittites.’ The Sidonians are mentioned to the + exclusion of the Tyrians, as in Gen. x. 15-18. This takes us back to + the period before that of David, when Tyre was still a place of small + importance, and Sidon was the leading city on the Phœnician coast. + Cp., however, 1 Kings xvi. 31. + +Footnote 280: + + Judg. iii. 6, 7. + +Footnote 281: + + As Israel was theoretically considered to be divided into twelve + tribes, there is no reason for doubting the cypher, even though there + were not actually twelve tribes at the time in Canaan, and one of + tribes, Benjamin, can hardly have had a piece sent to it. The text + carefully avoids saying that the pieces were sent to each of the + tribes. In chap. xx. 2, the word ‘all’ is used in that restricted + sense to which western students of Oriental history have to accustom + themselves, since one at least of the tribes, Benjamin, was absent. + +Footnote 282: + + The value of modern philological criticism of the Old Testament may be + judged from the fact that Stade pronounces the narrative of the war + against Benjamin to be unhistorical, because the first king of Israel + was a Benjamite! (_Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, p. 161). + +Footnote 283: + + Judg. xviii. 12, 13, where it is said to be ‘behind’ or west of + Kirjath-jearim. In xiii. 25 the Camp of Dan is placed between Zorah + and Eshtaol, which were west of Kirjath-jearim. See G. A. Smith, + _Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, pp. 220, 221. + +Footnote 284: + + We hear on other occasions of a regiment of six hundred men among the + Israelites (Judg. xx. 47; 1 Sam. xiii. 15, xxiii. 13), and it would + seem, therefore, that in the division of the troops a memory of the + culture of Babylonia was preserved. Six hundred men represented the + Babylonian _ner_. + +Footnote 285: + + Judg. xviii. 30. ‘The captivity of the land’ is of course that + described in 2 Kings xv. 29, and shows that the compilation of the + Book of Judges must be subsequent to the conquest of Northern and + Eastern Israel by Tiglath-pileser. + +Footnote 286: + + Kennicott, _Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum_, i. p. 509. ‘Moses’ is also + the reading of the Vulgate and a few Greek MSS. + +Footnote 287: + + See 1 Kings viii. 9. The addition of the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod + in the Epistle to the Hebrews (ix. 4) is due to a misunderstanding of + Ex. xvi. 33, 34, and Numb. xvii. 10. + +Footnote 288: + + The identity of Mitanni and Nahrina is stated in one of the Tel + el-Amarna letters (W. and A. 23) from Mitanni, a hieratic docket + attached to it stating that it came from Nahrina. In one place, + however (W. and A. 79. 13, 14), the Phœnician governor Rib-Hadad seems + to distinguish between ‘the king of Mittani and the king of Nahrina,’ + though the passage may also be translated, ‘the king of Mittani, that + is, the king of Nahrina.’ Ilu-rabi-Khur of Gebal (W. and A. 91. 32) + writes the name Narima, and says that the king of Narima in alliance + with the king of the Hittites was destroying the Egyptian cities of + Northern Syria. + +Footnote 289: + + W. and A. 104. 32-35. Comp. Numb. xxiv. 24, where Assyria and Eber + take the place of Babylonia and Nahrima. The translation given above + is from a corrected copy of the cuneiform text. + +Footnote 290: + + See _Records of the Past_, new ser., vi. pp. 28, 29, 34, 45. + +Footnote 291: + + Brugsch, _Egypt under the Pharaohs_ (Eng. tr.), ii. p. 151; _Records + of the Past_, new ser., vi. pp. 31-45. + +Footnote 292: + + _Records of the Past_, new ser., vi. pp. 38-41. As only the _qau_ or + ‘district’ of Shalam is mentioned, it is possible that the city itself + was not captured by the Egyptian troops. Hebron is written _Khibur_, + _i.e._ the city of the ‘Khabiri.’ + +Footnote 293: + + Was the campaign of Ramses III. the mysterious ‘hornet’ sent before + the children of Israel to destroy the populations of Canaan (Exod. + xxiii. 28, Deut. vii. 20, Josh. xxiv. 12)? At any rate, this is more + probable than the suggestion that _tsir’âh_, rendered ‘hornet,’ is a + variant of _tsâra’ath_, ‘plague.’ + +Footnote 294: + + The name has been Hebraised, and perhaps corrupted, so that it is + difficult to suggest what could have been its Mitannian original. The + Khusarsathaim of the Septuagint, however, reminds us of the name of + Dusratta or Tuisratta, the Mitannian king who corresponded with the + Pharaoh Amenophis IV. + +Footnote 295: + + Livy, xxviii. 37, xxx. 7. + +Footnote 296: + + The Welsh laws allowed a stranger to acquire proprietary rights in the + fourth generation, and to become a tribesman in the ninth (Seebohm, in + the _Transactions_ of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, 1895-96, + pp. 12 _sqq._). + +Footnote 297: + + This is expressly stated in the Song of Deborah: the Reubenites could + not come to the help of their brethren, for they had become a body of + scattered and nomad shepherds (Judg. v. 15, 16). + +Footnote 298: + + See Judg. xx. 16. + +Footnote 299: + + _P’sîlîm_, mistranslated ‘quarries’ in the Authorised Version. They + were the sacred stones, believed to be inspired with divinity, which + formed the Gilgal or ‘Circle.’ Modern critics have raised unnecessary + difficulties about the geography of the narrative, and conjectured + that the name of the capital of Eglon has dropped out of the text in + Judg. iii. 15 (see Budde: _Die Bücher Richter und Samuelis_, p. 99). + The Biblical writer makes it plain that Eglon was at Gilgal, not at + Jericho as his would-be critics assert. + +Footnote 300: + + Caphtor is written Kptar in hieroglyphics at Kom-Ombo (on the wall of + the southern corridor of the temple), where it heads a list of + geographical names, and is followed by those of Persia and Susa + (Sayce: _The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_, 3rd + edition, p. 173). The name of the Zakkal, formerly read Zakkar or + Zakkur, and identified with the Teukrians, has been pointed out by + Professor Hommel in a Babylonian inscription of the fifteenth century + B.C. (W. A. I. iv. 34, No. 2, ll. 2, 6). Here it is called the city of + Zaqqalu, and we may gather from a papyrus in the possession of M. + Golénischeff that it was situated on the coast of Canaan not far from + Dor. + +Footnote 301: + + A reminiscence of the event is probably preserved in Justin, xviii. 3, + where we read that in the year before the fall of Troy, ‘the king of + the Ascalonians’ destroyed Sidon, whose inhabitants fled in their + ships and founded Tyre. The date would harmonise with that of the + reign of Ramses III. Lydian history related that Askalos, the son of + Hymenæos, and brother of Tantalos, had been sent by the Lydian king + Akiamos in command of an army to the south of Palestine, and had there + founded Askalon (Steph. Byz. _s.v._ Ἀσκάλων), and according to Xanthos + the Lydian historian, the goddess Derketô was drowned in the lake of + Askalon by the Lydian Mopsos (Athen. _Deipn._ viii. 37, p. 346). In + these legends we have a tradition of the fact that the Philistines and + their allies came from the coast of Asia Minor and the Greek Seas. + +Footnote 302: + + Josh. xiii. 2, 3; Judg. iii. 1-3. The statement in Judg. i. 18 was + true only theoretically; it was not true in fact until the reign of + David. + +Footnote 303: + + Stephanus Byzantinus _s.v._ Ἰόνιον, where it is also said that Gaza + was termed Ionê. According to Kastôr the thalassocratia or ‘sea-rule’ + of Minôs lasted until B.C. 1180, when it passed into the hands of the + Lydians. By the latter may be meant the expedition sent to the south + of Palestine by the Lydian king Akiamos. + +Footnote 304: + + Sayce, _Races of the Old Testament_, pp. 126, 127, and pl. i. + +Footnote 305: + + Deut. ii. 23. Avim is merely a descriptive title signifying ‘the + people of the ruins.’ + +Footnote 306: + + See my _Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_, pp. + 325-327. It is possible that some of the Semitic deities had been + adopted by the Philistines before they left Krete, if indeed they came + from that island. At all events it has been supposed that certain + Canaanitish divinities were adored there, more especially Ashtoreth, + under the title of Diktynna. The presence of Semites in the island + seems indicated by the name of the river Iardanos or Jordan. + +Footnote 307: + + In the age of Deborah, however, it would seem that the seaport of + Joppa was still in the possession of the Danites (Judg. v. 17). But + cp. Josh. xix. 46. + +Footnote 308: + + Winckler and Abel, _Mittheilungen aus den orientalischen Sammlungen_, + iii. 143. 37, 43. Anatum or Anat, the son of Sin-abu-su, is also a + witness to the sale of some property in a deed dated in the reign of + the Babylonian king Samsu-iluna, the son of Khammurabi or Amraphel, + and published by Mr. Pinches, _Inscribed Babylonian Tablets in the + Collection of Sir H. Peek_, iii. p. 61. + +Footnote 309: + + See Judg. i. 27. Beth-shean, the Scythopolis of classical geography, + is the modern Beisân. + +Footnote 310: + + Twenty is half the indeterminate number forty, and merely denotes that + the exact number of years, though unknown, was less than a generation. + +Footnote 311: + + Judg. v. 15. Literally the words are: ‘Issachar [is] like Barak.’ The + Heb. _kên_ is the Assyrian _kêmi_, ‘like,’ and is used in the same way + as _kida_ in modern Egyptian Arabic. It is criticism run wild to + assert with Budde, Wellhausen, and others, that Deborah also is + described as belonging to Issachar. + +Footnote 312: + + Pindar, _Pyth._ iv. 106; _Lactant._ i. 22; _Etym. Mag._ s.v. ἐσσην. + +Footnote 313: + + Gen. xxxv. 8, where the name of the terebinth, Allon-Bachuth, ‘the + terebinth of weeping,’ is derived from the lamentations over the death + of the nurse. A different origin of the name, however, seems to be + indicated in Hos. xii. 4. + +Footnote 314: + + Rimmon, one of the chief Assyrian gods, was also entitled Barqu, ‘the + lightning,’ and it is possible that the name had migrated westward + along with that of Rimmon. Noam, whose name enters into that of + Abinoam, the father of Barak, seems to have been a Phœnician god, + whose consort was Naamah. + +Footnote 315: + + ‘Forty thousand’ represents the highest unit, one thousand, in the + division of the army, multiplied by the indeterminate number forty. + +Footnote 316: + + ‘The Hittites of Kadesh,’ according to the reading of Lucian’s + recension of the Septuagint, 2 Sam. xxiv. 6, in place of the corrupt + and unmeaning Tahtim-hodshi of the Massoretic text. See Hitzig, _Z. D. + M. G._, ix. pp. 763 _sqq._; Wellhausen, _T. B. S._, p. 221. + +Footnote 317: + + It has been generally assumed to have been near the Kishon, on account + of Judges iv. 16. But the inference is not certain, partly because we + do not know how far the pursuit may have extended, partly because + Oriental expressions cannot be interpreted with the mathematical + exactitude of western language. The name of Harosheth means probably + ‘[the town of] metal-working,’ or ‘the smithy.’ + +Footnote 318: + + Being a poem, it was probably handed down orally at first. This would + account for variant readings like ‘also the clouds dropped,’ by the + side of ‘also the heavens dropped,’ in _v._ 4; or ‘in the days of + Jael,’ by the side of ‘in the days of Shamgar ben-Anath,’ in _v._ 6. + The name of Jael, however, may have been a marginal gloss like + _sârîd_, ‘a remnant,’ possibly, in _v._ 13. The song was almost + certainly written from the outset in the letters of the so-called + Phœnician alphabet, and not in cuneiform characters. Had it been + written in cuneiform there would have been a confusion between + _aleph_, _hê_ and _’ayin_, which cannot be detected in it. At the same + time, the use of the preposition _bě_ in _vv._ 2 and 15 (_b’ Isrâel_, + _b’ Issachar_) could be explained from the cuneiform syllabary, in + which the character _pi_ (used for _bi_ in the Tel el-Amarna tablets) + also has the value of _yi_. The omission of the article, which is a + characteristic of the Song, reminds us that in Canaanite or Phœnician + the definite article of Hebrew did not exist. + +Footnote 319: + + A variant reading gave ‘clouds’ instead of ‘heavens.’ + +Footnote 320: + + Probably a marginal gloss. + +Footnote 321: + + This line also is corrupt, but there is a reference to it again in + verse 11, ‘The people of Yahveh went down to the gates.’ + +Footnote 322: + + _I.e._ on the road. + +Footnote 323: + + _Dabbĕrî shîr_, with a play on the name of Deborah. + +Footnote 324: + + The Massoretic text has ‘captives.’ + +Footnote 325: + + The text is here again corrupt. The Septuagint renders it: ‘Then went + down the remnant to the strong.’ But _sârîd_, ‘remnant,’ is possibly a + marginal gloss derived from the name of the place Sarid in Zebulon + (Josh. xix. 10), the meaning being ‘Then the people of Yahveh + descended to Sarid to the nobles.’ The second member of the verse + shows that the ‘nobles’ are Israelites. + +Footnote 326: + + The text cannot be right here, though the general meaning of it is + clear. + +Footnote 327: + + The idea is the same as that of the sun and the moon standing still + while Joshua defeated the kings at Makkedah (Josh. x. 12-14). + Babylonian astrology taught that events in this world were dependent + on the motions of the heavenly bodies. + +Footnote 328: + + Septuagint: ‘My mighty soul has trodden him down.’ The verse seems to + be corrupt. Cheyne translates: ‘Step on, my soul, with strength!’ + +Footnote 329: + + The Massoretic punctuation makes it ‘spoil.’ Ewald conjecturally reads + _sârâh_, ‘princess,’ for _shâlâl_, ‘spoiling.’ The Septuagint has, + equally conjecturally, ‘spoils for his neck.’ The garment referred to + is the white towel worn round the neck as a protection from the sun or + wind, and called _shaqqa_ in Upper Egypt, or the parti-coloured + _milâya_ used for the same purpose in Lower Egypt. Cheyne translates: + ‘A coloured stuff, two pieces of embroidery, for my neck, has he taken + for a prey.’ + +Footnote 330: + + Judg. vi. 32. + +Footnote 331: + + 1 Sam. xii. 11, 2 Sam. xi. 21 (where ‘Baal’ has been changed into + ‘bosheth,’ ‘shame’). + +Footnote 332: + + Judg. ix. 1. + +Footnote 333: + + See Kittel, _Geschichte der Hebräer_, ii. p. 73. + +Footnote 334: + + If a distinction is to be drawn between the names of Gideon and + Jerubbaal, it might be conjectured that the first was the name under + which the bearer of it was known to the Israelites at Ophrah, the + second that whereby he was known to the Canaanites of Shechem. + According to Porphyry, Phœnician annals spoke of a priest of Ieuô + named Hierombalos, which is clearly Jerubbaal. The Canaanitish kings + could also be priests, as we learn from the history of Melchizedek. + Baethgen makes Jerubbaal practically identical with Meribbaal + (_Beiträge zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte_, p. 143). + +Footnote 335: + + The Kadmonites of Gen. xv. 19, where they are coupled with the Kenites + and Kenizzites of Southern Palestine: see above, p. 162. + +Footnote 336: + + Many of the accounts of battles given by Livy are similarly confused, + and are doubtless drawn from more than one source, but no one would + think of distinguishing the sources, much less of splitting the + narrative of the Roman historian into separate documents. + +Footnote 337: + + Judg. vi. 24. + +Footnote 338: + + The usage lingered even as late as the time of Hosea (Hos. ii. 16). + +Footnote 339: + + The name of Abimelech, ‘my father is king,’ cannot be used as an + argument, since the ‘king’ referred to in it is the divine king or + Moloch, not an earthly ruler. + +Footnote 340: + + Judg. ix. 4, 46. Cf. viii. 33. + +Footnote 341: + + See Judg. i. 28. + +Footnote 342: + + The story of the pitchers and torches is pronounced by modern + criticism to be a myth, and has been compared with old Egyptian + romances like that which described the capture of Joppa in the reign + of Thothmes III. by a stratagem similar to that which we read of in + the story of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves. But from the point of + view of history alone there is no reason for discrediting the + narrative. Bedâwin superstition would fully account for the panic and + flight if the camp believed that the spirits of the night had attacked + them. Indeed similar panics have been known to arise not only among + the Bedâwin of the wilderness, but even among disciplined English + soldiers. + +Footnote 343: + + The names of the chiefs have been said to have been derived from the + two places which local tradition associated with their deaths. But + though ‘the rock of the Raven’ is a very possible geographical name in + the East—there is indeed more than one ‘Raven’s Rock’ in modern + Egypt—‘the winepress of the Wolf’ is quite the reverse. Animal names + like raven and wolf, on the other hand, were frequently applied in + ancient Arabia to individuals and tribes (see W. Robertson Smith in + the _Journal of Philology_, ix. 17, 1880, pp. 79-88). + +Footnote 344: + + In the narrative the quarrel with Ephraim comes before the defeat of + Zebah and Zalmunna, but Judg. vii. 25 shows that it is misplaced. + Certain critics have maintained that two different versions of the + same story lie before us, and that the Oreb and Zeeb of the one + version are the Zebah and Zalmunna of the other. This, however, is to + exhibit a curious ignorance of Bedâwin organisation and modes of + warfare: there would have been more than one raiding band, and the + different bands would have been under different shêkhs. + +Footnote 345: + + See above, p. 270. Of the cities mentioned in Judg. i. 27, Dor, as we + learn from the Golénischeff papyrus, had been occupied by the Zakkal, + the kinsfolk of the Philistines, and would not have become Israelitish + until after the conquest of the latter people. (Cf. 1 Kings iv. 11.) + Dor, however, properly belonged to Asher, and Josh. xvii. 11 expressly + states that the Canaanitish cities afterwards possessed by Manasseh + were originally included in the territories of Issachar and Asher. + Issachar could not have lost them until after the time of Barak. + +Footnote 346: + + Even at Tyre, the title of the supreme Baal, Melek-qiryath (Melkarth), + ‘the king of the city,’ shows that at the outset the state had been a + theocracy. + +Footnote 347: + + See above, p. 306. The priestly character of Jerubbaal has been + suppressed in the narrative in accordance with the feelings of a later + time, when the priesthood was strictly confined to the tribe of Levi. + But at an earlier date the anointed king was regarded as invested by + Yahveh with priestly functions. Saul and Solomon offered sacrifice, + and David’s sons acted as priests (2 Sam. viii. 18). + +Footnote 348: + + See Judg. xvii. 5; Hos. iii. 4. + +Footnote 349: + + 1 Sam. ii. 18, xxii. 18, xxiii. 9, xxx. 7, 8. + +Footnote 350: + + Judg. vi. 24, viii. 27. + +Footnote 351: + + See Judg. ix. 1, 28. + +Footnote 352: + + 2 Sam. xx. 14. The reading of the latter passage, however, is not + certain. + +Footnote 353: + + See Judg. ix. 41. Verse 31 should be translated, Zebul ‘sent + messengers unto Abimelech to Arumah.’ + +Footnote 354: + + The name of Jobaal, ‘Yahveh is Baal,’ has been preserved in the + Septuagint. Its signification has caused it to be omitted in the + Massoretic text where we have only _ben-’ebed_, ‘the son of a slave,’ + corresponding to the expression ‘son of a nobody,’ which we meet with + in the Assyrian inscriptions. + +Footnote 355: + + It is here called the _Migdal Shechem_ or ‘Tower of Shechem,’ but + seems to have been the same as the _Millo_ of _v._ 6. The fort would + have stood in the same relation to Shechem that the ‘stronghold of + Zion’ taken by David stood to Jerusalem. It was probably built just + outside the walls of the town. We may compare also the ‘Millo’ + constructed by Solomon to defend his palace and the temple (1 Kings + ix. 15). + +Footnote 356: + + See 2 Sam. xi. 21. + +Footnote 357: + + See Judg. x. 11, 12. All records of the wars with the Zidonians and + the Maonites have perished. Perhaps Professor Hommel is right in + identifying the Maonites with the people of Ma’ân in Southern Arabia, + whose power waned before the rise of that of Sheba, and extended to + the frontiers of Palestine (_Aufsätze und Abhandlungen sur Kunde der + Sprachen, Literaturen und der Geschichte des vorderen Orients_, pp. 2, + 47). + +Footnote 358: + + Numb. xxvi. 23, 26. + +Footnote 359: + + Had the southern Beth-lehem been meant, it would have been called, as + elsewhere in the book of Judges, Beth-lehem-Judah. + +Footnote 360: + + Numb. xxxii. 41; Deut. iii. 4, 14. In Deut. iii. 4, the ‘cities’ of + Argob are described as sixty in number, which in Josh. xiii. 30 are + identified with ‘the towns of Jair which are in Bashan.’ This, + however, is incorrect, as it was thirty villages and not sixty cities + that were conquered by Jair. + +Footnote 361: + + This must mean that he had claimed a portion of his father’s + inheritance from the legitimate sons, and that ‘the elders’ who tried + the case decided it against him. In the narrative he is called merely + ‘the son of Gilead.’ + +Footnote 362: + + Tubi (No. 22) is one of the places mentioned by Thothmes III. among + his conquests in Palestine. It is probably the modern Taiyibeh, the + Tôbion of 2 Macc. x. 11, 17. + +Footnote 363: + + The argument put into the mouth of the Ammonites (Judg. xi. 13), like + the answer made by Jephthah, doubtless expressed the feelings on both + sides, but the language is that of the historian, as in the case of + the speeches in Thucydides. When it is said (_v._ 26) that the + Israelites had occupied the district north of the Arnon for three + hundred years, the chronology is that of the compiler. Three hundred + years are equivalent to ten generations, and the ten generations are + made up by counting the names of the judges given in the book of + Judges, down to Jephthah, as representing so many successive + generations (1. Moses; 2. Joshua; 3. Othniel; 4. Ehud; 5. Shamgar; 6. + Barak; 7. Gideon; 8. Abimelech; 9. Tola; 10. Jair. If Moses and Joshua + are reckoned as one generation, the numeration would be carried on to + Jephthah). + +Footnote 364: + + The name of Jephthah is a shortened form of Jephthah-el, which we find + as the name of a valley on the borders of Asher (Josh. xix. 27). + +Footnote 365: + + See Steinthal, _The Legend of Samson_, Eng. tr. by Russell Martineau + in Goldziher’s _Mythology among the Hebrews_, pp. 392-446. + +Footnote 366: + + Ramath-lehi is ‘the height of Lehi,’ and has nothing to do with + _râmâh_, ‘to throw’; ’Ên-haqqorê is ‘the Spring of the Partridge,’ not + ‘of the caller.’ + +Footnote 367: + + It may be gathered from Judg. i. 16, 17, that Simeon preceded Judah in + the occupation of the future Judah. When the expedition against Arad + and Zephath was formed, the Jews and Kenites were still encamped + together at Jericho. The Kenites seem to have remained behind in the + newly-won territory of the Negeb, while the Jews established + themselves at Beth-lehem. + + + + + CHAPTER VI + THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MONARCHY + + + Influence of Shiloh—Samuel and the Philistines—Duplicate Narratives + in the Books of Samuel—Prophet and Seer—Dervish Monasteries—Capture + of the Ark and Destruction of Shiloh—Saul made King—Quarrels with + Samuel—Delivers Israel from the Philistines—Attacks the + Amalekites—David—Two Accounts of his Rise to Power—Jealousy of + Saul—David’s Flight—Massacre of the Priests at Nob—Wanderings of + David—He sells his Services to the King of Gath—Duties of a + Mercenary—Battle of Gilboa and David’s Position—He is made King of + Judah—War with Esh-Baal—Intrigues with Abner—Murder of + Esh-Baal—David revolts from the Philistines and becomes King of + Israel—Capture of Jerusalem, which is made the Capital—Results of + this—Conquest of the Philistines, of Moab, Ammon, Zobah, and + Edom—The Israelitish Empire—Murder of Uriah and Birth of + Solomon—Influence of Nathan—Polygamy and its Effects in the Family + of David—Revolt of Absalom—Of Sheba—Folly and Ingratitude of + David—Saul’s Descendants sacrificed because of a Drought—The Plague + and the Purchase of the Site of the Temple—David’s Officers and last + Instructions—His Character—Chronology—Solomon puts Joab and Others + to Death—His Religious Policy—Queen of Sheba—Trade and + Buildings—Hiram of Tyre—Palace and Temple Built—Tadmor—Zoological + and Botanical Gardens—Discontent in Israel—Impoverishment of the + Country—Jeroboam—Tastes and Character of Solomon. + + +When Samuel was born, the Hebrew settlement in Palestine had long been a +matter of the past. Little by little Canaan had passed into the +possession of the Israelitish tribes. The older population had at first +been massacred, then laid under tribute and amalgamated with the +newcomers. The tribes themselves had changed much. Some had disappeared, +others had grown at their expense. Ephraim, which from the first days of +the conquest had been the most powerful among them, was now in a state +of decadence, and a new force was rising in the south in the shape of +the mixed tribe of Judah. A few of the Canaanite cities in the interior +still remained independent, like Gezer and Jerusalem, as well as all +those on the Phœnician coast. + +The tribes had suffered from want of cohesion. The attempt to found a +monarchy in Manasseh had failed; it was too local and limited, and +served only to arouse the jealousy of the tribes which lay outside it. +It had done little more than bring to light the dissensions and +differences that existed within Israel itself. The bond that connected +the tribes had become continually looser, and the ‘House of Joseph’ was +divided into hostile factions. Benjamin had been decimated by its +brother Israelites under the leadership of Ephraim, and Ephraim had +undergone the same treatment at the hands of its brethren from Gilead. +The conquest of Canaan had brought with it the old Canaanitish spirit of +disunion and discord; the spectacle which the Tel el-Amarna letters +present to us of city arrayed against city is reproduced in the Israel +of the period of the Judges. The common brotherhood, which was still +felt in the age of Deborah, tended to be forgotten. The tribes no longer +come to one another’s aid; they fight with one another instead. The +authority of the Judges become more and more circumscribed, their +jurisdiction more and more confined. The tribes on the east of the +Jordan begin to lead a separate life, and hardly acknowledge that the +tribes to the west are kinsmen at all. The incorporation of the +Canaanite element had weakened the recollection of a common descent, and +at the same time had introduced into Israel a spirit of selfish +isolation. The causes which had brought about the conquest of Canaan by +the Israelites were now working among its conquerors, and it seemed as +if the fate of the Canaanites was to be the fate of the Israelites also. + +The sanctuary at Shiloh still existed, but it had lost much of its +influence. It had become little more than the local sanctuary of +Ephraim,[368] and as the power of Ephraim waned the influence of Shiloh +declined as well. Elsewhere rival sanctuaries and rival forms of worship +had arisen. The high-places, whereon the Canaanites had adored Baalim +and Ashtaroth, still continued sacred, and though officially the Baal of +Israel was Yahveh, the mass of the people worshipped the local Baal of +the place in which they lived. Yahveh was scarcely remembered, even in +name: His place was taken by the Baalim and Ashtaroth of Canaan. +Manasseh went ‘a whoring’ after the golden image erected by Jerubbaal in +Ophrah, or after the Canaanitish Baal-berith in Shechem; a rival +priesthood to that of Shiloh served before the idols of Micah at Dan; +and Jephthah sacrificed his daughter in accordance with Canaanitish +beliefs. The Law of Moses was forgotten; each man did that which was +right in his own eyes. + +Modern criticism has asked how it is possible that all this could have +been the case if a written Law actually existed. But the question +forgets to take account of the circumstances of the time. A knowledge of +reading and writing was confined to a particular class, that of the +scribes; Israel was divided; intercommunication was difficult, and a Law +which presupposed a camp of nomads continually under the eye of their +legislator, was not adapted to the changed conditions in which the +Israelites found themselves. Moreover, it must be remembered that the +Israelites were for the most part a peasantry living in scattered +villages; the inhabitants of the towns were Canaanites either by race or +marriage. The one were too ignorant, the others too alien, to be +affected by the Mosaic Code. + +Nevertheless, the Code was preserved at Shiloh. Here there was an +Aaronic priesthood, and the few notices that we possess of the worship +carried on there show that it was in accordance with the Mosaic Law. +Outside Shiloh, among those who still remained true to the faith of +their fathers, the Law was remembered and presumably observed. Of this +the Song of Deborah is a witness. The God of Israel, in whose name Barak +and Deborah went forth against the heathen, is the Yahveh of the +Pentateuch, not the Baal of Canaan. The history of Israel in the age of +the Judges is, religiously as well as politically, the history of +degeneracy, not of development. + +In fact, religion and politics cannot be separated one from the other in +the history of the ancient East, least of all in the history of the +Hebrews. The one presupposes the other, and the political decay of the +nation is a sure sign of its religious retrogression. The same causes +which broke up its political unity broke up its religious unity as well. +The knowledge and worship of Yahveh lingered in Ephraim, because in +Ephraim alone the old ideal and spirit of Israel continued to survive. +Ephraim was, as it were, the heart and core of Israel; it had led the +attack upon Palestine, and its blood was purer than that of the other +tribes. It remained more genuinely Israelite, with less admixture of +foreign blood. + +After Joshua and Othniel the history of most of the Judges is connected +with that of Ephraim. Ehud is a Benjamite—the Ephraimitic ‘Southerner’; +Shamgar is referred to in the Song of Deborah;[369] Deborah herself +dwelt near ‘Beth-el in Mount Ephraim’; between Ephraim and Jerubbaal, +who reigned on the Ephraimitic frontier, there was smothered hostility, +which burst into open war in the case of Jephthah; Tola was buried in +‘Shamir in Mount Ephraim’; Abdon was an Ephraimite; while Ibzan and Elon +came from adjoining tribes. Jair the Manassite, and Samson from ‘the +camp of Dan,’ are the sole exceptions to the rule. What else can this +mean except that such annals as survived the stormy age of the Judges +were preserved amid the fastnesses of Mount Ephraim? The scribes of +early Israel were not confined to Zebulon, and as in Babylonia or Egypt, +so also in Palestine, the temple was the seat of the library. In the +sanctuary at Shiloh the written records of the country would have found +a safe harbourage along with the tables of the Law and the other +monuments of the Mosaic age.[370] + +The lifetime of Samuel separated the age of the Judges from that of the +Kings. It marked the transition from a period of anarchy and disunion to +one of order and organised unity under a single head. But never had the +fortunes of Israel seemed so desperate. Disunited, with its former +leader, Ephraim, disabled and half-exterminated through civil war, it +had become the prey of a foreign enemy. The Philistines were no longer +content with raiding expeditions. They now occupied the districts they +overran, and built forts to secure the passes that led into the very +heart of the Israelitish territory.[371] Their supremacy extended from +one end of Palestine to another, and so gave a name to the country which +it never afterwards lost. The tribes were reduced to a condition of +serfdom; they ceased to be free men who could go forth with arms in +their hands to fight their foes; and were compelled, as in the +subsequent days of Chaldæan domination, to confine themselves to tilling +the soil. The wandering smiths, the Kenite gypsies, were driven from the +land; the Israelite was deprived of all warlike weapons, and was forced +to go to the nearest Philistine post if he wished merely to sharpen his +implements of agriculture. The sons of Jacob had almost ceased to be a +nation. + +It was while Samuel was still young that the chief Philistine victories +were gained, and as he grew older the Philistine yoke became heavier and +more severe. In the general wreck, his was the one prominent figure in +Israel. To him the people looked for counsel and help, and saw in him a +prophet of Yahveh. But Samuel was a man of peace, not of war. He could +not lead his people to battle, or check the rising tide of Philistine +success. Other men were wanted for the work, and these were not +forthcoming. Perhaps a time came when Samuel himself was unwilling they +should be found, and that the authority he had possessed should pass to +another. Such, at least, is the impression we derive from his opposition +to the demand of the people that they should have a king. + +Samuel possessed, moreover, something more than personal influence. He +was the last representative of the ancient sanctuary at Shiloh. He had +been dedicated to it even before he was born; he had grown up in it +among the last descendants of the earlier high-priests; he had seen the +ark taken from it to fall into the hands of the Philistines; he had also +witnessed, probably, the destruction of the temple itself. All the older +traditions of Mosaic worship gathered about him; he was the living link +in the chain which bound the religious past of Israel with its present. +In his person the doctrines and practices which had been preserved at +Shiloh were handed on to the newer age of the kings. + +The Hebrew historian who put together the books of Samuel was no longer +embarrassed, like the compiler of the book of Judges, by a want of +materials. His embarrassment arose from a contrary cause. The documents +before him relating to the history of the seer, to the rise of the +monarchy and the adventures of David, were numerous, and the same event +was sometimes recorded in different forms. He was called upon to +harmonise and combine them together, and he doubtless experienced the +same difficulty in doing so that the Assyriologists at present +experience in reconciling the various accounts they have of the history +of Babylonia in the thirteenth century B.C. That the latter can be +reconciled, if only we knew a little more, we cannot doubt; but for the +present the chronological inconsistencies seem irreconcilable. All that +can be done is to set them side by side. + +The compiler of the books of Samuel treated his materials in the same +way. The result is that the picture of the Hebrew prophet which is +presented to us is not always uniform in its colours. Sometimes he is a +priest, sometimes the judge of all Israel, sometimes a mere local seer +whose very name appears to be unknown to Saul.[372] Throughout the +greater part of the narrative the Philistines are represented as the +irresistible masters of the country; once, however, we hear that the +cities they had captured were restored to Israel.[373] But it does not +follow that because the colours of the picture are not uniform, a fuller +knowledge of the history would not show that they are in harmony with +one another. European critics are apt to forget that in the East, and +more especially in the ancient East, conditions of life and society +which are incompatible in Europe may exist side by side. John, the +hermit of Lykopolis in Upper Egypt, was nevertheless on more than one +occasion the arbiter of the destinies of the Roman Empire. And in the +border warfare of Canaan cities passed backwards and forwards from one +side to the other with a rapidity which it is difficult for the modern +historian to realise. + +Whether Samuel was a Levite or an Ephraimite by descent has been +disputed. His father came from the village of Ramathaim-zophim in Mount +Ephraim, and was descended from a certain Zuph, who is called ‘an +Ephrathite.’[374] ‘Ephrathite’ signifies ‘a man of Ephraim’ (as in 1 +Kings xi. 26). But it also signifies a native of Ephratah or Bethlehem +in Judah (Ruth i. 2, 1 Sam. xvii. 12), and could therefore signify any +other place of the same name. That there were other places of the name, +the very name of Ephraim, ‘the two Ephras,’ is a witness,[375] and we +might therefore see in the ‘Ephrathite’ merely a native of one of them. +The Chronicler (1 Chron. vi. 26, 27, 33-38) definitely makes Samuel a +Levite, and traces his genealogy back to Kohath. It is true that in the +age of Samuel the priests, in spite of the Mosaic law, were not always +of the family of Levi—the fact that David’s sons were ‘priests’ is a +sufficient proof of this,[376]—but it seems hard to believe that such an +infringement of the Levitical tradition would have been permitted at +Shiloh. Nor is it likely that the genealogy given by the Chronicler was +an invention. Samuel had been in a special manner the gift of Yahveh. +His mother Hannah had borne no children to her husband Elkanah, and was +accordingly exposed to the taunts of a second and more fortunate wife. +Once each year did the whole family ‘go up’ to Shiloh, ‘to worship and +to sacrifice unto the Lord of Hosts.’ On one of these occasions Hannah +besought Yahveh with tears that He would grant her a son, promising to +dedicate him to the service of the sanctuary should he be born. A +Babylonian tablet, dated in the fifth year of Kambyses, records a +similar dedication by a Babylonian mother of her three sons to the +service of the sun-god at Sippara.[377] In this case, however, the sons +did not leave their mother’s house until they were grown up, when they +entered the temple, where part of their duty was to attend the daily +service. + +Hannah’s prayer was granted, and a son was born. The name which he +received has no relation to the circumstances of his birth, in spite of +the etymology suggested for it in 1 Sam. i. 20, so long as we look only +to its Hebrew spelling. But if this spelling has been derived from a +cuneiform original all becomes clear. Samû-il in Assyrian would mean +‘God hears,’ and there would thus be a fitting connection between the +name and the story of the prophet’s birth. The fact is noteworthy, as it +suggests that the history of Samuel was first written in the cuneiform +characters of Babylonia; and that the cuneiform syllabary was used in +Israel up to the time of the fall of Shiloh.[378] + +As soon as the child was weaned he was brought to the sanctuary along +with other gifts. These consisted of meal and wine, and three bullocks, +one of which was slain at the time of the dedication. ‘The priest’ who +presided over the services of the temple was old and infirm, and the +management of the sanctuary was really in the hands of his two sons, +Hophni and Phinehas. His own name was Eli. But he comes before us +without introduction; we know nothing of his parentage and descent, and +even the Chronicler found no record of his genealogy. That he was a +lineal descendant of Aaron, however, admits of no doubt. This, indeed, +is plainly stated not only in the prediction of the destruction that +should overtake Eli’s house (1 Sam. iii. 14), but also in the opening +words of the prophecy of ‘the man of God’ (1 Sam. ii. 27, 28).[379] The +very name of Phinehas, given to Eli’s son, connects him with the line of +Aaron and the long bondage of the Israelites in Egypt. Phinehas is not +Hebrew, but the Egyptian Pi-Nehasi ‘the Negro,’ and could have no sense +or meaning in the Israel of the age of Samuel except as an old family +name. + +Samuel was clad in the linen ephod, the sacred vestment and symbol of +the priest, and ‘ministered unto Yahveh before Eli.’ One night, before +‘the lamp of God’ had gone out which burned before the ark of the +covenant,[380] ‘the word of the Lord’ came to the boy in his sleep. +Three times did it call to him, and then came the revelation of the +punishment which Yahveh was about to bring on the house of the high +priest.[381] His sons had been unfaithful to their office; not only had +they lain ‘with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle +of the congregation,’ they had made men abhor the offering of the Lord, +and the weak old man had restrained them not. The law had ordained that +the fat of the sacrifice belonged to Yahveh, and that before it was +burned upon the altar neither priest nor offerer could receive anything +of the victim. Unless the law was complied with, the sacrifice was +useless; Yahveh had been robbed of His portion, and no blessing could +follow upon the offering. But the sons of Eli persistently set at naught +the strict injunctions of the law. Before the fat was burned, their +servant came and struck his three-pronged fork into the flesh that had +been placed in the caldron, demanding that it should be given to him +raw. God’s priests thus mutilated the sacrifices that were made to Him, +and compelled His worshippers to defraud Him of His due. The Israelites +began to shrink from bringing their yearly offerings to Shiloh, and the +downward course of the religion of Israel was hastened by the cynical +greed of its priests.[382] + +Eli had already been warned by ‘a man of God’ of the coming vengeance of +Yahveh. The prophet destined to play so important a part in the history +of Israel now appears almost for the first time upon the scene. Deborah, +indeed, had been a prophetess, and a prophet had denounced the idolatry +of his countrymen during the period of Midianitish oppression; but the +spirit of Yahveh, which, in later days, revealed itself in the form of +prophecy, had hitherto rather inspired those upon whom it had fallen to +become leaders in war and ‘judges’ of their people. Now it assumed a new +shape. Out of the misery and confusion produced by the Philistine raids +sprang the first great outburst of Hebrew prophecy. Those who still +believed Israel was the chosen people of Yahveh, and that He alone was +God over all the earth, were profoundly stirred by the triumph of the +uncircumcised. There was an outbreak of that religious enthusiasm, +degenerating at times into fanaticism, which has occurred again and +again in the East. The ‘seer’ took the place of the ‘judge.’ The waking +visions which he beheld revealed the future, and declared to him and the +people the will of Yahveh. The arms of flesh had failed; all that was +left was the ‘open vision,’ where the events of the future were pictured +beforehand, and men learned how to escape disaster. + +Around the seer there gathered bands of disciples, closely resembling +the dervishes of to-day. They, too, received a part of the prophetic +spirit, and at times, under the influence of strong emotions, passed, as +it were, out of the body into an ecstatic state. Like the modern +dervishes, however, they were completely under the control of the seer. +At a word from him their ecstasy would cease, and they would once more +become ordinary citizens of the world. But the spirit that moved in them +was easily communicated to religious or excitable natures. The +messengers sent by Saul to arrest David at Ramah were themselves +arrested by the spirit of prophecy which permeated the home of Samuel, +and when Saul himself followed in his wrath, he, too, was suddenly +overcome by the same divine influence. ‘The spirit of God was upon him +also; and he went on and prophesied, until he came to Naioth (the +convent) in Ramah. And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied +before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that night.’ + +But this ecstatic excitement was not of the essence of Hebrew prophecy, +and the latter soon divested itself of it. The dervish element, indeed, +remained almost to the last; Elijah is a proof of it, and even Hosea and +Isaiah still recur at times to symbolic action. But it became +subordinate and purely symbolical, while the seer himself became a +prophet. The conception that gathered round him was no longer that of a +seer of visions, a revealer of the future, but of an interpreter of the +will of God to man. Prediction there might be in his prophecies; but it +was accidental only, and dependent on conditions which were clearly +expressed. If the people repented of their sins, God’s anger would be +turned away from them; if, on the contrary, they persisted in their evil +ways, disaster and destruction would fall upon them. The message of +Yahveh was conditional; it did not contain the revelation of an +inevitable future. + +In this respect the Hebrew prophet was unique. His name _nâbî_ is found +in Babylonian, where it takes the form of _nabium_ or _nabu_, ‘the +speaker.’ It was the name of the prophet-god of Babylon, Nebo, the +interpreter of the will of Bel-Merodach, the supreme deity of the city. +Nebo declared to mankind the wishes and commands of Merodach; he was, +too, the patron of literature, the inventor, it may be, of writing +itself. The name of the mountain whereon Moses died is a testimony that +the worship of Nebo had been carried to the West in the old days of +Babylonian dominion in Canaan, and we need not wonder that the word +_nâbî_, with all that it implied, had been carried to the West at the +same time. But it was not until after the age of Samuel that it made its +way successfully into the Hebrew language. Samuel was still the _roeh_ +or ‘Seer,’[383] though the Babylonian word in the form of a verb +(_hithnabbê_) was already applied to his ecstatic companions who +prophesied around him.[384] But the word answered to a need. As the +Hebrew prophet ceased more and more to be a seer, it became necessary to +find some new title for him which should express more accurately his +true nature, and the word _nâbî_ was already at hand. The ‘seer,’ +accordingly, fell into the background; the ‘prophet’ occupied his place. + +We can trace the beginning of this great religious movement in the age +of Samuel. Samuel has often been called ‘the founder of the prophetic +schools,’ and, to a certain extent, this is true. But they were not +schools in the sense of establishments where his contemporaries could be +educated in the older literature of their country, and be trained to +take upon them the prophetic office. Schools of this kind were to come +later in the history of Israel. They did not even resemble the early +Christian monasteries of Egypt, where bodies of monks lived together +under a head, sometimes in a single building, sometimes in a collection +of separate cells. The earlier disciples of Samuel were wandering bands +of enthusiasts, over whose religious ecstasies he exercised an exciting +and a controlling influence. They were men, to use a Biblical +expression, who were ‘drunk with the spirit’ of God.[385] + +The loss of the ark and the destruction of Shiloh must have quickened +the movement which the Philistine troubles had begun. And it should be +remembered that the ‘prophets’ among whom Saul was numbered were not all +of them of the Dervish type. Among them must have been men like Samuel +himself, the true predecessors of the prophets of later Hebrew history. +In the generation which followed, we find men like Gad and Nathan, who +have ceased to be seers and have become the preachers of Israel, the +conscience-keepers of the king himself, and the chroniclers of his +reign.[386] The literary traditions of Shiloh passed to them through the +hands of Samuel. + +The prophetic movement did something more than keep alive a belief in +Yahveh as the God of Israel. It preserved at the same time the feeling +of national unity. The ‘prophets’ who surrounded Samuel were drawn from +all classes and from all parts of the Israelitish territory. That Samuel +was ‘established to be a prophet of Yahveh’ was, we are told, known to +‘all Israel,’ ‘from Dan to Beer-sheba.’ That the statement is not too +general is shown by the history of Saul. All Israel demanded a king, and +it was over all the Israelitish tribes that he ruled. As he owed his +power to Samuel, it is clear that the influence of Samuel also must have +extended from one extremity of the Israelitish tribes to another. +Wherever the Philistine supremacy allowed it, the authority of the seer +was recognised and reverenced.[387] + +But it follows from this that the veneration in which the temple at +Shiloh had been held was equally widespread. Theoretically, at least, +the Israelite acknowledged a central sanctuary, where the sons of Aaron +served before Yahveh, and the prescriptions of the Mosaic law were +observed. In practice, it is true, the old Canaanitish high places, with +their local Baalim and Ashtaroth, had usurped the place of Shiloh; +private chapels had been set up in the houses of individuals, and +priests ministered in the sacred ephod before a graven image. But all +this was the natural fruit of an ‘age of ignorance,’ and later +generations recognised that such was the case. The purer worship of +Yahveh was no ‘development’ out of an earlier polytheism; it was simply +a return to an ideal, the memory of which was kept alive at Shiloh. + +And yet a time came when it seemed as if Yahveh had forgotten the +sanctuary wherein He had set His ‘name at the first.’ The punishment +denounced upon the house of Eli was not slow in coming. Judah was +already in Philistine hands, and the enemy were now attacking the +Israelitish stronghold in Mount Ephraim. The Philistine camp was pitched +at Aphek, not far from Ramah, the birthplace of Samuel.[388] The last +relics of the Hebrew army were encamped opposite them in a spot +subsequently named Eben-ezer, ‘the Stone of Help.’ But it proved no help +to them on this occasion. The Israelites were defeated with a loss of +about four thousand men, and in their despair ‘the elders’ advised that +the ark of the covenant should be brought to the camp. Yahveh, it was +believed, enthroned Himself above it between the wings of the cherubim, +like the Babylonian Bel-Merodach, who on the feast of the New Year +similarly enthroned himself above the ‘mercy-seat’ in his temple at +Babylon.[389] He would therefore be actually among them, visibly, as it +were, leading their troops to victory and blessing them with His +presence. In the old days of the conquest of Canaan, the ark had been +carried before the camp of Israel; the visible presence of ‘Yahveh of +hosts’ had gone with it, and the foe had been scattered before Him like +chaff before the wind. + +The ark was accordingly fetched from its resting-place at Shiloh, and +for the first time since the days of Moses and Joshua the safeguard of +Israel was seen by the common eye. Despite the fears and reluctance of +Eli[390] his two sons bore it on their shoulders to the Israelitish +camp. Its arrival was greeted by a shout of joy which resounded across +the valley to the camp of the foe. Thereby the Philistines knew that the +God of the Hebrews had come in person to help his people against their +enemies as he had helped them in old days against the Egyptians. But the +old days were not to come again. The ark had been carried out of its +resting-place by the command of the elders, not of Yahveh. Its sanctity +had been profaned, the mystery that surrounded it rudely stripped away. +It was only when it stood in its appointed place in the Holy of Holies +that the glory of the Lord rested upon it, and Yahveh enthroned Himself +between the wings of its golden cherubim. The tabernacle and the ark +were inseparable like the casket and the treasure within it; either +without the other was forsaken of the Lord. + +The presence of the ark in the Israelitish camp availed nothing. The +Israelites fought with desperation, but without a leader they were no +match for the well-armed and well-trained Philistine troops. Their army +was cut to pieces; it was said that thirty thousand of them were left +dead on the field. Worst of all, the two sons of Eli were among the +slain; the ark of Yahveh was captured by the heathen, and the way lay +open to Shiloh. + +A Benjamite fled from the slaughter to carry the evil tidings to the +high priest. Eli was ninety-eight[391] years old; his eyes were blind, +and he was sitting on a bench at the entrance to the temple, full of +anxiety for the fate of the ark. The shock of the news was more than he +could bear; when he heard that it had been taken by the Philistines he +fell backwards, and his neck was broken. A single day had deprived +Israel of its ark and of its priests. + +Hardly was Eli dead when his daughter-in-law, the wife of Phinehas, was +prematurely delivered of a child. He was born on an evil day, a day when +the light of Israel seemed extinguished for ever. Throughout his life he +bore a name which prevented the terrible circumstances of his birth from +being forgotten. His mother called him I-chabod, ‘the glory is +departed,’ ‘for the ark of God was taken.’[392] + +I-chabod had an elder brother, Ahitub, born in happier times.[393] +Through him the line of Shilonite priests was continued, and the high +priesthood still remained in Eli’s house. It was Ahitub’s grandson, +Abiathar, who, after being the faithful servant of David in his +troubles, was banished and deprived of the priesthood on Solomon’s +accession.[394] But Ahitub must still have been young when the +Philistines gained the victory which laid all Palestine at their feet. + +The destruction of the temple at Shiloh must have been one of the first +results of the victory. The Israelites had no longer an army, and the +Philistine conquerors could march in safety through the passes of Mount +Ephraim. A fort was built by them to command the pass at Michmash, and +the old sanctuary of Israel was levelled to the ground. No record of its +destruction, indeed, was known to the compiler of the books of Samuel; +it would have been strange, if in that hour of distress and national +disaster, when the storehouse of Hebrew literature was itself destroyed, +a chronicler should have been found to describe the event. But the +memory of it was never forgotten, and it is alluded to both by the +prophet Jeremiah and by the Psalmist (Jer. vii. 12, xxvi. 6; Ps. +lxxviii. 60). + +Such of the priests of Shiloh as survived the catastrophe were scattered +through Israel. In the time of Saul we find eighty-five of them at Nob, +which is accordingly called ‘the city of the priests.’ Samuel himself +fled to the home of his fathers at Ramah. There as a seer and prophet, +as the representative of the fallen sanctuary of Israel, and as one of +the few literary men of the age, he became the centre of all that was +left of patriotism and national feeling in Israel. Gradually his +influence grew. Ahitub, the grandson of Eli, was young like himself, and +the destruction of Shiloh had deprived him of such authority as his +service before the ark of the covenant would have conferred. + +The ark itself was once more within the confines of Israel. It had been +carried to Ashdod, and there placed in triumph in the temple of Dagon. +But the triumph was short-lived. In the night, the image of Dagon twice +fell from its pedestal and lay on its face before the ark of the +mightier God. On the second occasion, it was broken in pieces by its +fall; when the priests entered the sanctuary in the morning, they found +the head and hands of their god rolled upon the threshold. ‘Therefore,’ +we are told, ‘neither the priests of Dagon nor any that come into +Dagon’s house tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod unto this +day.’[395] + +Dagon has been supposed to have had the shape partly of a man, partly of +a fish. But the supposition has arisen from a false etymology of the +name, which connects it with the Hebrew _dâg_, ‘a fish.’ We now know +from the cuneiform inscriptions that Dagon was really one of the +primitive deities of Babylonia adored there in days when as yet the +Semite had not become master of the land. Dagon was coupled with Anu, +the god of the sky, and when the name and worship of Anu were carried to +the West, the name and worship of Dagon were carried there too. Sargon +‘inscribed the laws’ of Harran ‘according to the wish of the gods Anu +and Dagon,’ and a Phœnician seal in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford has +upon it the name of Baal-Dagon as well as representations of an ear of +corn, a winged solar disk, a gazelle, and several stars. The ear of corn +symbolises the fact that among the Phœnicians Dagon, the brother of El +and Beth-el, was the god of agriculture and the inventor of bread-corn +and the plough.[396] But this was because in the language of Canaan +_dagan_ signified ‘corn.’ In passing to the West the god thus assumed +new attributes, and became an agricultural deity who watched over the +growing crops.[397] + +The power of the God of Israel was not shown only in the humiliation of +the Philistine god. The plague broke out in Ashdod, accompanied by its +usual symptom, hæmorrhoidal swellings. The inhabitants of the city were +not slow in recognising in it the wrathful hand of Yahveh, and the ark +was accordingly sent to their neighbours in Gath. But here, too, the +plague followed it, and Ekron, to which it was sent next, fared no +better. For seven months the sacred palladium of Israel remained in the +hands of its captors. Then ‘the priests and the diviners’ advised that +it should be sent back to the people of Yahveh along with offerings to +mitigate the anger of the offended God. Five mice and five hæmorrhoids +of gold were made and placed in a coffer by the side of the ark. They +represented the five Philistine cities, and the mice were symbols of the +wrathful Yahveh, the God of hosts and of battle, who had wreaked his +vengeance on the worshippers of the peaceful god of agriculture. The +mice which devoured the corn were the natural foes of Dagon. + +The ark and the coffer were placed on a cart, and two milch-kine were +yoked to draw it. A doubt still lingered in the minds of the Philistines +whether the God who had allowed his people to be conquered and his +dwelling-place to be captured could really, after all, have been the +author of the plague, and they watched, therefore, to see whether the +kine took the road towards Israelitish territory or back to their own +young. But all doubt vanished when the kine marched straight eastward +towards Beth-shemesh, lowing as they went. The villagers were in the +fields reaping when they saw the cart coming towards them, laden with +its precious freight. The kine stood still at last by the side of a +great stone—the stone of Abel ‘in the field of Joshua the Beth-shemite.’ +Then the Levites came and took the ark and the offerings from the cart +and laid them on the stone, which thus became a sanctuary and an altar. +The wood of the cart was broken into firewood, and the kine were repaid +for the gift they had brought by being sacrificed to the Lord. + +But the plague followed the ark even upon Israelitish soil. The men of +Beth-shemesh believed that it was because they had looked into the +sacred shrine of Yahveh, to see, possibly, whether its original contents +were still within it, and in their terror they begged the inhabitants of +Kirjath-jearim to come and carry it away. To Kirjath-jearim accordingly +it was removed and placed in the house of Abinadab, whose son Eleazar +was consecrated to look after it. That it was not carried to Shiloh is a +sign that the destruction of Shiloh had already taken place. + +With the removal of the ark to Kirjath-jearim darkness falls on the +history of Israel. There was little for the patriotic historian to +record. The people were in servitude to the Philistines, the national +sanctuary had been destroyed, the ark itself was hidden away in a +private house. When the curtain is again lifted, it is to chronicle a +local success over the Philistine foe. Samuel is at Mizpeh, ‘the +watch-tower,’ which must have adjoined Ramah, if indeed it was not the +name of one of its two quarters.[398] Here was the last refuge of the +few Israelites who still refused to acknowledge the Philistine rule, and +the surrounding mountains afforded a home and shelter to the bands of +outlaws who still carried on a guerilla warfare with the foreigner. One +of the incidents of this warfare was long remembered. While Samuel was +sacrificing a lamb as a burnt-offering to Yahveh, the Philistines fell +upon the assembled people. But a sudden thunderstorm dismayed the +assailants, who fled down the valley towards Beth-car pursued by the +inhabitants of Mizpeh. It was in memory of the victory that Eben-ezer, +‘the stone of help,’ was set up by the seer between Mizpeh and +Shen.[399] + +It would seem that no further attack was made upon Mizpeh and its +neighbourhood during the lifetime of Samuel. At least such appears to be +the conclusion we must draw from the generalising and optimistic +language of the Hebrew historian.[400] For a time, indeed, the whole +district was freed from the presence of the foreigner. The villages +eastward of Ekron and Gath ceased to pay tribute to the conqueror, +though their independence could not have lasted long.[401] Samuel’s +‘circuit’ did not extend beyond Mizpeh, Gilgal and Beth-el, and his sons +judged cases in Beer-sheba. + +Ahitub, the high-priest, was doubtless at Nob with the rest of the +Levites of Shiloh, almost within sight of Mizpeh. What had been saved +out of the wreck of the temple at Shiloh must have been there with him. +We know that at Nob the sword of Goliath was subsequently laid up before +Yahveh, and at Nob too was probably preserved the brazen serpent that +had been set up by Moses in the wilderness.[402] According to the +Chronicler,[403] however, the tabernacle and the brazen altar which had +been made by Bezaleel were at Gibeon; how this came to be the case he +does not say.[404] At any rate, if the brazen serpent were preserved, +there is no reason why other things should not have been preserved as +well. And the books of the Law would have been among the first objects +to be carried with them by the fugitive priests. We are told that when +the ark was brought into the temple of Solomon it still contained the +tables of stone which had been placed in it by Moses (1 Kings viii. 9); +if these had been removed from it when it was taken to the Israelitish +camp, they too must have formed part of the temple furniture which was +saved by the priests. + +Here, therefore, in a small district of the tribe of Benjamin, a portion +of which was inhabited by the old Gibeonite natives of the land, all +that remained of Israelitish independence, whether religious or +political, found its last refuge. Here the national spirit of Israel +still lingered among the priests and Levites who had fled from Shiloh, +or who lived in the mountains of Ephraim. It is not without significance +that here, too, was the home of the Gibeonite serfs of the +sanctuary;[405] priests, Levites, and Nethinim were gathered together, +as it were, in one spot. Though the temple had fallen, the Mosaic Law +and ritual were enshrined in the hearts of those who had served in it. + +The destruction of Shiloh had restored to Beth-el its old +pre-Israelitish renown. Once more its high-place became thronged with +worshippers, and those who had formerly carried their gifts and +sacrifices to Yahveh at Shiloh, now brought them instead ‘to God at +Beth-el.’[406] At Beth-el, accordingly, once each year Samuel offered +sacrifice and adjudged the cases that were brought before him, or +predicted the future to those who consulted him as a seer. It was at a +similar gathering at Mizpeh that the Israelites had been attacked by the +Philistines, and that the victory of Eben-ezer had been gained. + +But the results of the victory were local and momentary, and the +condition of the Israelites had become intolerable. Samuel, moreover, +was growing old; his sons Joel and Abiah were corrupt,[407] and his own +influence was that of the seer rather than that of the leader in war or +the administrator in peace. The only hope for Israel lay in its finding +a chieftain who could mould its shattered fragments into unity, could +organise its forces, and break the Philistine yoke. A new Jerubbaal or +Jephthah was required, but one who would lead to victory not a few only +of the tribes, but the whole of Israel. + +The people demanded a king. Their instinct was right; in no other way +could the Israelitish nation be saved. Democracy had been tried, and had +failed: the end of the era of the Judges was internal anarchy and decay, +the destruction of the central sanctuary, and servitude to the +foreigner. Naturally Samuel was reluctant to hand such powers as he +still possessed to another. His sons, doubtless, were more reluctant +still. Moreover, he had been brought up in the school of the past. His +boyhood had been spent at Shiloh under the influence of ideas which saw +in a theocracy the divinely-appointed government of Israel.[408] At +first he resisted the demand of the people. But it was in vain that he +protested against their rejection of Yahveh and himself, or pointed out +to them that the establishment of a kingdom meant the loss of their +personal independence. The logic of events was too strong for the seer, +and he was compelled to yield. The time had come when the choice lay +between a king or national extinction, and a king accordingly had to be +found. + +Samuel yielded apparently with a good grace. In such a matter the word +of the chief seer and prophet of Israel was law, and he knew that the +selection was in his own hands. And he made it wisely and patriotically. +Saul, the son of Kish, the first king of united Israel, justified his +election to the crown. He saved Israel from destruction, and for a time +succeeded in rolling back the wave of Philistine domination. His +military capacities were unquestionable, as well as his courage and +devotion to his people.[409] + +But there was another side to his character, which perhaps commended +itself to Samuel quite as much as his military abilities. A vein of deep +religious fervour ran through his whole nature, which at times +degenerated into the gloomy despondency of the fanatic. Rightly handled, +he was capable of high religious enthusiasm, and of following his +religious guide with the simplicity of a child. But he could not brook +opposition; and, like all men of strong emotions, his hate was as +intense as his love. He was born to be the leader of his countrymen, +whether as a king or as a dervish the future had to decide. + +Naturally he was a Benjamite, from that little corner of Palestine which +still remained true to the best traditions of Israel. At first it seemed +as if he was going to be the obedient disciple of Samuel, a crowned +addition to the group of dervish-like prophets who surrounded the seer. +More than one account of his accession to the throne of Israel has been +handed down, and it is not always easy to reconcile them. One thing, +however, is clear: Saul did not seek election, and it came upon him as a +surprise. + +But the tallness of his stature had marked him out from among his +companions; it was the outward token of superiority which Yahveh had set +upon him. His first meeting with Samuel was accidental. He had been sent +by his father[410] to seek some asses that had strayed or been stolen, +and, while vainly engaged on his quest, was advised by his slave to +consult a seer who lived in the neighbouring town. The town proved to be +Ramah, and the seer to be Samuel, who was that day offering a solemn +sacrifice on the high place.[411] Samuel invited him to the feast which +followed the sacrifice, and assigned to him the chiefest position among +his guests; then before his departure he secretly anointed his head with +oil, and declared that he was chosen to be ‘captain over Yahveh’s +inheritance.’ Next the seer told him where the asses were that he +sought, and bid him make his way to the sacred circle of stones at +Gilgal, and there remain seven days until the prophet himself should +come. + +Hardly had Saul quitted the presence of Samuel than he was met by ‘a +company of prophets’ coming down with music and wild cries from the +high-place of Gibeah.[412] Saul had not yet recovered from the +excitement of the strange and unexpected scene in which he had just been +an actor, and was in no mood to resist the infection of the religious +ecstasy which now seized upon him. He, too, like the spectators at a +modern _zíkr_ in the East, joined the band of enthusiasts, and added his +voice to theirs. It was not until he reached the high-place that his +outburst of religious frenzy had spent itself. + +Such is one of the versions of the history of the foundation of the +Israelitish monarchy. Saul is anointed secretly by Samuel, and at once +enrols himself in one of the ‘prophesying’ bands of which Samuel was the +spiritual director. According to another version, his election as king +took place in public at a great assembly convened by Samuel at Mizpeh. +Here the lot fell upon Saul, who had hidden himself ‘among the stuff,’ +and Samuel thereupon presented him to the people, who shouted ‘Long live +the king!’ Then the seer ‘wrote in a book’ such regulations regarding +the election and duties of a. king as we find in the book of Deuteronomy +(xvii. 14-20), ‘and laid it up before the Lord.’ As soon as the assembly +was dismissed Saul returned ‘to his house at Gibeah.’[413] + +His election, however, was not accepted unanimously, consecrated though +it had been by Yahveh. There were some who failed to see in the tall +enthusiast anything more than the son of a yeoman at Gibeah. But a +sufficient number of his own tribesmen were ready to gather around him +as soon as he should summon them to battle. And the occasion was not +long in coming. Jabesh-Gilead, the old ally of Benjamin, was beleaguered +by Nahash, the Ammonite king. The city was too weak to resist, and its +inhabitants, offered to surrender. But with Semitic ferocity Nahash +answered that he would spare their lives only on condition that the +right eye of each should be torn out. Seven days were granted them in +which to determine whether they should accept his terms or fight to the +death, and during the period of respite the elders of the city sent to +Benjamin to beg for help. Saul was ploughing when the messengers +arrived, and, fired with indignation, he cut his oxen into pieces, which +he sent throughout Israel with the words: ‘Whosoever cometh not forth +after Saul and after Samuel, so shall it be done unto his oxen.’[414] +The summons still ran in the name of the old seer. + +Men came in from all sides, and Saul found himself at the head of a +small army. It is said that when he numbered his troops at Bezek, ‘the +children of Israel were three hundred thousand, and the men of Judah +thirty thousand.’ Such may have been the full fighting force of Israel +before Saul’s reign was ended; it cannot have represented the number of +those who were able to flock to his standard during the few days that +still remained for the relief of Jabesh. As elsewhere in the Old +Testament, the ciphers are largely exaggerated. Indeed when we consider +the size of the Assyrian army, as recorded in the inscriptions, at a +time when it was the most formidable engine of destruction in Western +Asia, it becomes clear that the number of fighting men in the Hebrew +army can never have been very great. The three hundred and thirty +thousand men in Saul’s army are but an instance of that Oriental +exaggeration of numbers and inability to realise what they actually +mean, which is as common in the East to-day as it was in the age of +Samuel.[415] + +Jabesh was rescued, and the Ammonites were scattered in flight. The +victory was a proof of Saul’s military capacity, and justified his +choice as king. The news of it rang from one end of Israel to the other, +and the victorious soldiers demanded the death of those who had +questioned their leader’s right to reign. But Saul refused the demand; +no bloodshed was to mar the glory of the day; from henceforth all true +Israelites were to be united in recognising their king. Yahveh had +chosen him at Mizpeh; it was now needful that he should go to the sacred +enclosure of Gilgal, the first camping-ground of the Israelites in +Canaan, and there be solemnly acclaimed by the assembled multitude. As +Joshua the Ephraimite had started from Gilgal to conquer Canaan, so Saul +the Benjamite, the new ‘captain of the Lord’s inheritance,’ set forth +also from Gilgal to restore its fallen fortunes. + +A year had to pass before Saul felt himself strong enough to attack the +Philistine garrisons. By that time he had collected three thousand +Israelites about him, all of them prepared to fight and willing to obey +their leader. But they were armed only with implements of agriculture, +or such other makeshifts for weapons as they could find. The Philistines +had forbidden the wandering blacksmiths to enter Israelitish territory, +and Saul and his son Jonathan, we are told, alone possessed sword and +spear. Out of the three thousand, one thousand were with Jonathan at +Gibeah; the rest were with Saul watching the road that led over the +mountains from Michmash to Beth-el. There was a Philistine fort on the +hill above Gibeah, in the very heart of Saul’s own country; another fort +commanded the pass of Michmash and the approaches to Ephraim. + +The Philistines seemed to have made a rising among the Israelites +impossible. Their forts and garrisons commanded the roads, like the +French garrisons in Algeria, and the conquered population was forbidden +the use of arms. Saul, nominally the king of Israel, was in reality +merely the chief of a band of outlaws, desperately holding their own in +the fastnesses of the mountains, and protected by the sympathy of the +priests and the peasantry. The victory over Nahash had confirmed Saul’s +title to lead them among his own countrymen; it had done nothing towards +releasing them from the domination of the Philistines. + +Now, however, Jonathan ventured to assail the Philistine outpost at +Gibeah. The attack was successful; the fortress was taken and its +defenders put to the sword.[416] It was open revolt against the +Philistine supremacy, and the news of it quickly spread. Saul sent +messengers throughout Israel, claiming the success for himself and the +monarchy, and formed a camp at Gilgal. Meanwhile the Philistine army was +on the march to suppress the revolt. The Hebrew chronicler describes it +as consisting of ‘thirty thousand chariots and six thousand horsemen, +and people as the sand which is on the seashore for multitude,’[417] and +it pitched its camp at Michmash, a little to the north of Gibeah. Here +it cut Saul off from all communication with the north, and threatened +his rear. He therefore left Gilgal and joined his son at Gibeah. Only +six hundred men remained with him; the rest had fled at the approach of +the enemy, who sent out three bands of raiders from their camp, one of +which marched in a south-eastward direction towards the Dead Sea, while +the other two turned, the one to the north-west, and the other to the +north-east. + +The mountainous district from which Saul drew his forces was +panic-stricken. The peasantry fled from their devastated fields, and the +whole country was given up to fire and sword. Pure-blooded Israelites +and Hebrews of mixed descent were united in the common disaster. The one +hid themselves in the caves and forests, even in cisterns and +grain-pits, while the others took refuge in Gad and Gilead, on the +eastern side of the Jordan.[418] + +It was again Jonathan who brought deliverance to Israel. Between the +Israelites at Gibeah, and the Philistines at Michmash, lay a deep gorge, +usually identified with the Wadi Suweinît.[419] On either side rose a +precipitous crag of rock which effectually cut off the hostile forces +one from the other. Across this gorge Jonathan determined to make his +way, accompanied only by his armour-bearer, and trusting in the help of +Yahveh of Israel. In broad daylight the two heroes climbed the opposite +cliff, in the face of the Philistines, who believed they were deserters +from the Israelitish camp. But once arrived in the Philistine +stronghold, they fell suddenly on its unprepared defenders and slew +about twenty of them ‘within as it were half a furrow of an acre of +land.’ The Hebrew camp followers of the Philistines thereupon turned +upon their companions, and the camp of the Philistines became a scene of +confusion and dismay. Jonathan had said nothing to his father of his +intended exploit, but Saul soon observed that fighting was going on in +the enemy’s camp. + +Among the Israelitish fugitives with Saul was the high-priest +Ahimelech,[420] the great-grandson of Eli, who had joined the king with +the sacred ephod. The ark, too, had been carried for safety into the +Israelitish camp, and was once more accompanying the army of Israel +against its foes. When, therefore, Saul had numbered his men and found +that Jonathan was absent, he called for the priest and bade him inquire +of Yahveh whether they should go to his help or not. But before the +question could be answered the tumult on the opposite side of the valley +made hesitation impossible. It was clear that the moment had come for +striking a blow at the supremacy of the foreigner. The gorge accordingly +was quickly traversed, and the Israelitish king with his six hundred +followers threw himself on the enemy’s rear. The Philistines resisted no +longer. Attacked in front by the peasants who had followed them, and in +the rear by the soldiers of the king, they fled precipitately up the +pass to Beth-el.[421] The victory was complete, and the Philistine +forces would have been annihilated had Saul’s religious convictions been +less fervent. But when the instinct of the general overcame the zealot, +and he had stayed the priest in the very act of consulting Yahveh, he +salved his conscience by a vow. None should eat or drink until he had +overthrown his enemies, and whoever broke the royal vow should be +devoted to death. + +The vow was rash and untimely, but it was registered in heaven. The +Philistines were pursued as far as Aijalon. The Israelites were too weak +from want of food to follow them further. Jonathan alone, who had not +been in the Israelitish camp when the vow was made, ate a little honey +which he saw dropping from a tree. His companions looked at it with +longing eyes, but dared not follow his example. All the more fiercely, +therefore, did they fall upon the spoil which they afterwards found in +the Philistine camp. The sheep and oxen and calves were slaughtered as +they stood upon the ground, ‘and the people did eat them with the +blood.’ The news of this violation of one of the primary laws of +Israelitish religion struck Saul with horror. He caused a great stone to +be rolled towards him, and on this improvised altar the animals were +slain. It was ‘the first altar,’ we are told, that Saul ‘built unto the +Lord.’ + +But worse was yet to come. Saul proposed to pursue the Philistines in +the night, and accordingly the oracle of Yahveh was again appealed to. +No answer, however, was returned to the questioners. Neither priest nor +ephod availed anything, and it became clear that sin had been committed +in Israel. When the lots were cast, they fell upon Jonathan, who then +confessed that he had, in ignorance of his father’s vow, eaten a little +honey. The religious fanatic was stronger in Saul than the father, and +he pronounced sentence that Jonathan must die. Jonathan, in fact, was +the firstborn whose sacrifice was demanded by Yahveh as the price of the +victory. Fortunately the religious convictions of the Hebrew soldiers +were less intense than those of their king. It was Jonathan to whom the +victory was due, and in the hour of his triumph they refused to allow +him to die. Saul yielded, perhaps willingly; but the Philistines were +permitted to disperse to their own homes.[422] + +Was the sacrifice of Jonathan urged by Ahimelech and the priests? They +at any rate did not interfere to prevent it, and the lots were cast +under their supervision. What is certain is that from this time forward +there was an increasing estrangement between Saul and the priesthood, +which ended in the secret anointing of David as king of Israel, and in +the massacre of the priests at Nob. We hear no more of Ahimelech and the +ark in the camp of Saul. + +Samuel, the aged and venerated representative of the Shilonite +priesthood, had much to do with this growing estrangement. From the +first he had looked upon Saul as a rival who had robbed him of his +former power. Even after Saul had proved his fitness to rule by the +rescue of Jabesh, and had been publicly acclaimed king by the people at +Gilgal, he could not conceal his mortification and hostility. Were not +he and his sons still with them? he asked the assembled Israelites; why +then had they added this ‘wickedness’ unto ‘all their sins,’ to demand a +king? In the thunder which rolled overhead he bade them recognise the +anger of Yahveh at their thus rejecting His representative, and he ended +with the threat that both they and their king should be ‘consumed.’[423] + +Samuel was not long in embodying his hostility in deeds. According to +one of the authorities used by the compiler of the books of Samuel, +seven days only had elapsed after Saul’s election when the seer +upbraided him in the presence of his army and told him that Yahveh had +chosen another king in his place.[424] Here, however, two occurrences +have been confused together—Saul’s confirmation as king by the people at +Gilgal, and his subsequent encampment at the same place in the second +year of his reign. By this time the breach had grown and widened between +the old Judge and the new ‘Captain’ of Israel. Saul, in spite of his +religious convictions and excitability, had not shown himself the +obedient disciple and tool of Samuel that might have been expected; he +proved to have a strong and violent will of his own, which he was fully +ready to exercise when not under the influence of religious excitement. +It was only temporarily that Saul was ‘among the prophets.’ Nor did he +possess that tact and pliability which would have enabled David under +the same circumstances to avoid an open quarrel with the aged seer. Saul +was too earnest, too convinced that what he believed was the truth, to +understand a compromise, much less a course of duplicity. + +That the incident at Gilgal is historical, there can be no doubt. It is +only the time of its occurrence that is misplaced. It belonged to those +days of danger and difficulty when the Philistines seemed to have +triumphed finally, and the hope of Israel lay in the six hundred +desperate men who still followed Saul. Saul had waited vainly for the +coming of Samuel, and at length, tired of waiting, had offered the +burnt-offering for the safety and success of the army which Samuel had +agreed to present. Hardly had it been offered when the seer appeared. +Then it was that the king of Israel was told that he had been rejected +by the Lord, and that another had been selected in his place. The +occasion was indeed well chosen; the Israelites were already +sufficiently discouraged and inclined to believe that their king had +been even less successful against the Philistines than Samuel and his +sons. Under the rule of Samuel, at all events, the territory of Benjamin +had not been devastated, and its inhabitants compelled to hide +themselves in the holes of the earth. + +Samuel returned from Gilgal to ‘Gibeah of Benjamin.’ The victory at +Michmash, which disappointed his predictions,[425] changed the aspect of +affairs, and Saul’s throne seemed now to be firmly established. Once +more, however, Samuel made an effort to shake it, and it was again at +Gilgal that the event took place. Saul’s power rested on his soldiery, +and the surest way, therefore, of striking at it was through the +soldiery in the camp of Gilgal. + +It was after an expedition against the Amalekites. The Israelites had +marched towards El-Arîsh and smitten the Bedâwin of the desert ‘from +Havilah’ in Northern Arabia to the great Wall of Egypt.[426] They had +brought back with them a vast amount of spoil, as well as Agag, the +Bedâwin chief, ‘everything that was vile and refuse,’ including the mass +of the people, having been ‘destroyed utterly.’ But this was not enough. +The Amalekites were to be treated as the Canaanites had been by Joshua; +they and all that belonged to them had been laid under the ban and +condemned to extermination.[427] Samuel, therefore, went in haste to the +Israelitish camp, and there charged Saul with disobedience to the +commands of Yahveh. Saul’s plea that the cattle and herds had been saved +by ‘the people’ in order that they might be sacrificed to the Lord, was +not accepted, and the fierce old seer himself ‘hewed Agag in pieces +before Yahveh.’ At the same time, he told the Israelitish king that the +kingdom had been rent from him and given to a neighbour that was better +than he. It was the last time that the king and the seer met. Samuel +went back to his home at Ramah and Saul returned to Gibeah. Between Saul +and the priesthood there was open war. + +The attack upon the Amalekites implies that the Philistines had for a +time ceased to be formidable. The extract from the state chronicles +given in 1 Sam. xiv. 47-52 makes it follow the other wars of Saul. Among +these wars we hear of one against Moab, of another against Edom (or +rather Geshur), and of a third against ‘the kings of Zobah.’[428] The +Aramæans of Zobah, called Tsubitê in the Assyrian texts, and placed +northward of the Haurân, were beginning to be powerful, and as we learn +from the history of David, were about to establish a kingdom under +Hadadezer which extended to the Euphrates and included Damascus. But at +present they were still governed by more than one chief.[429] + +The campaign against Zobah makes it clear that Saul’s authority was +acknowledged in Gilead as well as on the western side of the Jordan. It +is not surprising, therefore, that after his death his son should have +resided there, well out of the reach of the Philistines, or that +Eshbaal’s kingdom should have comprised all the northern tribes. Little +by little, in spite of the opposition of Samuel, Saul worked his way to +general acknowledgment and power. The Israelites, for the first time, +were welded into a homogeneous state, and their enemies were kept at +bay. The organisation of the kingdom went hand in hand with the military +successes of its king. Israel at last was not only feared abroad, but at +peace and unity within. + +With all this, Saul preserved the old simplicity of his life and +manners. He never yielded to the usual temptations of the Oriental +despot; he had no harîm like David or Solomon, no palaces, no gardens, +no trains of cooks and idle servants.[430] The people were not taxed to +supply him with luxuries, nor dragged from their homes for his buildings +and wars. In some of these royal pleasures doubtless he could not +indulge: the conditions under which he reigned prevented it. But it was +only by his own free choice that he remained faithful to one +wife—Ahinoam, the daughter of Ahimaaz,—and that he held court at Gibeah +under the shade of a tamarisk instead of a palace, with a spear in his +hand in place of a sceptre.[431] + +Saul was a born soldier, and he had a soldier’s eye for detecting those +who could best serve him in war. He added to his bodyguard all who were +distinguished by strength or courage, and the border warfare with the +Philistines kept them in constant employment. Among the young recruits +was David, the youngest of the eight sons of Jesse, a Jew of Beth-lehem. +Two different accounts have been preserved of the way in which David was +first introduced to the king. It is difficult to reconcile them; the +compiler of the books of Samuel was content to set them side by side +without attempting to do so, while the Septuagint translators have cut +the Gordian knot by omitting large portions of one of them. The +difficulty is increased by the fact that the second account makes David +the conqueror of Goliath of Gath, who elsewhere (2 Sam. xxi. 19) is said +to have been slain during David’s reign by El-hanan the +Beth-lehemite.[432] + +According to this second story, the Philistines had invaded Judah and +pitched their camp on a mountain-slope between Socoh and Azekah. Saul +was encamped on the hill opposite, and between the two armies was the +valley of Elah at the bottom of which was the dry bed of a mountain +stream. The three elder brothers of David were in the Hebrew army, David +himself having been left at home to look after his father’s sheep. From +time to time, however, he was sent with loaves of home-made bread to his +brothers and a present of milk-cheeses to ‘the captain of their +thousand.’ On one of these occasions a Philistine giant, Goliath by +name, came forth from the camp of the enemy to challenge the Israelites +to single combat. He had done so day by day, but none of Saul’s +followers had ventured to accept the challenge. For Goliath of Gath was +a descendant of the ancient Anakim, and of gigantic stature. His height, +it was said, was six cubits and a span, or nearly ten feet,[433] and the +staff of his spear was like a weaver’s beam, while its head weighed six +hundred shekels of iron. Like the Greeks, he wore not only a bronze +helmet and coat of mail, but also greaves on his legs; a bronze shield +was hung between his shoulders and a broad-sword at his side. + +David offered to accept the challenge of the uncircumcised giant, and in +spite of his brothers’ ridicule his words were repeated to Saul. As a +shepherd he had already proved his strength and daring by slaying both a +lion and a bear; he was now ready to face the Philistine and redeem the +honour of Israel. At first the Israelitish king insisted that he should +be armed, and he was accordingly equipped in the usual Hebrew fashion +with helmet, cuirass, and sword. But the young shepherd felt restricted +and awkward in these unaccustomed accoutrements; nor did he know how to +manage the sword. He therefore stripped them from him, and boldly +approached the Philistine champion with his shepherd’s sling and five +‘smooth stones.’ These he knew how to wield, and with such effect that +one of the stones penetrated the forehead of the Philistine, who fell +dead to the ground. Then his conqueror dissevered his head with his own +sword, while the Israelites shouted and pursued the panic-stricken enemy +to the gates of Ekron.[434] Saul had inquired in vain through Abner, the +commander-in-chief of the army, whose son the young champion of Israel +was; and it was not until David had presented himself before the king, +with the head of the Philistine in his hand, that he learned from his +own lips that he was the son of his ‘servant Jesse the Beth-lehemite.’ + +David’s fortune was made; Saul at once incorporated him in his +bodyguard, and a warm friendship began between him and Jonathan, a +friendship that ceased only with Jonathan’s death. David was fresh and +handsome, with a charm of manner and a ready tact which won the hearts +of those he was with. It was not long, therefore, before he became first +the favourite, then the general, and eventually the son-in-law of the +Israelitish king. + +The other account of David’s introduction to Saul brings Samuel once +more upon the stage. The ‘neighbour’ better than Saul proves to be +David, whom Samuel is accordingly sent to Beth-lehem to anoint secretly. +He goes there under the pretence of wishing to offer a sacrifice, to +which he invites Jesse and his sons. The elders of the city receive him +with fear and trembling, and ask if he has come in peace. He is known to +be the enemy of the king, and his arrival in a city of Judah bodes +nothing good. The sons of Jesse are passed in review before him; none of +them, however, is approved, and the seer asks if there is still no +other. Thereupon Jesse tells him that there is yet the youngest, who is +in the fields tending the sheep. Samuel bids him be sent for, and in +spite of his terror of Saul and the secrecy of his mission, anoints the +youth ‘in the midst of his brethren.’ Then the spirit of Yahveh comes +upon David, and an evil spirit from Yahveh takes possession of Saul. +Saul still reigns, indeed, but the mystic power conferred by the +consecration, which had given him the right to do so, has henceforth +passed to another. + +The ‘evil spirit’ shows itself in fits of moody depression, which at +times become insanity. Saul’s mind, always excitable, loses its balance; +he is oppressed by a settled melancholy, which is now and again broken +by outbursts of ungovernable rage. His servants determine that the evil +spirit can be charmed away only by music, and one of them recommends +David, the Beth-lehemite shepherd, who is not only a valiant ‘man of +war,’ but also a skilful player upon the harp. David is hereupon +summoned to the court, where his harping cures the king, who makes him +his armour-bearer. + +Such are the two narratives of David’s introduction to Saul. It is plain +that they exclude one another. The king’s handsome armour-bearer, who +soothes his mind and banishes his melancholy by music, cannot be the +shepherd-lad who brings the loaves of home-made bread to his brothers, +and whose very name and parentage are unknown to Saul and Abner. And yet +there are points in each narrative which seem to be historical. It is +true that in a later passage the death of Goliath is ascribed to a +certain El-hanan; but the passage is corrupt, and though the Chronicler +must have had an equally corrupt text before him,[435] it is possible he +may be right in making the Philistine slain by El-hanan the brother of +Goliath. At all events, the fact that the sword of the giant of Gath was +preserved at Nob and was there handed over to David on his flight from +Saul, shows that the death of Goliath must have happened while Saul was +reigning and that David had been the hero of the deed. The priest +expressly says that it was ‘the sword of Goliath the Philistine whom +thou slewest in the valley of Elah.’ On the other hand, David was famous +as a musician, and was even said to have invented instruments of music +(Am. vi. 5), while Saul’s fits of depression were also historical; and +the description given of David’s appearance (1 Sam. xvi. 12) is that of +one who had seen him. Perhaps the harp-playing before the king followed +David’s enrolment in Saul’s bodyguard, and was one of the means whereby +he gained the heart of his royal master. + +Are we to accept the anointing by Samuel as a historical incident, or +are the modern critics right in asserting that the story is an +invention, the object of which was to claim for the founder of the +Judæan monarchy the same consecration at the hands of the great Hebrew +seer as that which had been bestowed upon Saul? That David was actually +anointed by a messenger of Yahveh admits of little doubt. Apart from +Psalm lxxxix. 20, the date of which is questionable, and which may refer +to the coronation in Hebron, it is clear from incidental notices in the +historical books of the Old Testament that such consecration by a +prophet or seer was felt to be a necessary prelude to the usurpation of +a throne. It was thus that both Jehu and Hazael were incited to seize +the crowns of Samaria and Damascus.[436] The use of oil in religious +ritual went back to the days when Babylonian culture was predominant in +Western Asia, and the religious texts of Babylonia contain many +references to it. That the prophet was anointed for his office, we know +from the history of Elisha. + +On the other hand, it is difficult to conceive that David’s brother +would have treated him with the contempt to which he gave utterance in +the valley of Elah (1 Sam. xvii. 28) had he really been a witness to his +consecration as king, and David’s future friendship with Jonathan, the +heir-apparent to the throne, would have been more than hypocritical. +Possibly the period of the consecration has been transferred from a time +when David had become the son-in-law of Saul and the friend and guest of +Samuel (1 Sam. xix. 18-22) to an earlier time in David’s life to which +it is inappropriate.[437] + +Abner, the cousin of Saul, remained the commander-in-chief of the +Israelitish army, the Turtannu or Tartan, as the Assyrians would have +called him. David, however, was made a general—‘the captain of a +thousand’ was the exact title. The desultory war with the Philistines +still continued, and the new general soon justified his appointment. But +his successes and his popularity with the army aroused the jealousy of +the king. Saul began to plot against his life and to hope that he might +fall in one of the skirmishes with the enemy. Merab, Saul’s elder +daughter, had been promised to him in marriage, but she was given to +another, and though her younger sister Michal was offered in her place, +Saul stipulated that David should bring him instead of a dowry a hundred +foreskins of the Philistines. It was the Egyptian mode of counting the +slain, which is still practised in Abyssinia; when Meneptah II. defeated +the Libyans and their northern allies, the number of the enemy who had +fallen was determined partly by the hands, partly by the foreskins cut +off from the slain. The hundred foreskins demanded by Saul were doubled +by David, who thereupon received Michal as his wife. + +Saul had already, in one of his fits of frenzy, made an attempt on +David’s life. The day before he had heard the women welcoming David as +he returned from ‘the slaughter of the Philistine’[438] with sounds of +music and the refrain: ‘Saul hath slain his thousands and David his ten +thousands.’ The king brooded over the words, until in his moments of +insanity they overpowered all prudence and restraint. When he recovered +they still sounded in his ears, and his feigned friendship towards his +son-in-law concealed murder in his heart. + +At last he openly avowed his desire to be rid of his supposed enemy; and +though in his saner hours he still shrank from murdering him with his +own hand, he suggested both to Jonathan and to his retainers that they +should do so. David, in truth, was becoming a formidable rival. He was +idolised by the army, was popular among the people, and was a member by +marriage of the royal house. He was, moreover, a Jew; and the tribe of +Judah was now beginning to rise into importance and to realise its own +strength. Above all, Samuel and the priests were at bitter feud with +Saul, and favourably disposed to David. + +Jonathan betrayed his father’s secret to his unsuspecting friend, and +bade him await the issue of an appeal to the better nature of Saul. The +appeal was successful, and for a time Saul laid aside his suspicions and +there was apparent, if not real, harmony once more between him and his +son-in-law. But another success against the Philistines revived the evil +passions of the king. Again the old depression and gloom came upon him, +and David’s harp, instead of dissipating it, transformed it into +madness. Suddenly he flung his spear at the player, who slipped aside +and fled. The time for mediation and forgiveness was passed. David could +no longer be safe in the presence of a madman who was bent on taking his +life. Royal guards were even sent to watch David’s house, and he escaped +only with the help of his wife. In the night she let him down through +the window of his room, and laid on the bed in his place the image of +the household god covered with a sheet. When the king’s guards arrived +to take him she pretended that he was sick, and it was not until they +had come a second time that they discovered they had been deceived. Saul +reproached his daughter for abetting her husband’s escape; but it was +too late, and David had made his way to the house of Samuel at Ramah. +Here, however, he was not yet safe from pursuit, and he and the seer +accordingly took refuge in the sacred enclosure of the Naioth or +monastery. There, surrounded by the prophet-dervishes, they felt that +even the king in the madness of disappointed fury would not venture to +violate their sanctuary. + +That Samuel also should have been compelled to shelter himself from +Saul’s anger, and that David on escaping from Gibeah should at once have +gone to him, makes it evident that the king at least believed in the +complicity of the seer in the plot against his throne. It also raises +the presumption that Saul’s belief was justified, and that Samuel had +played the same part towards David that Ahijah subsequently played +towards Jeroboam, and Elijah towards Jehu. That David and Samuel were +acquainted with one another seems clear; indeed, Gibeah and Ramah were +so close to each other that it would have been strange if the politic +David had not visited the old seer. Had it been on the occasion of one +of these visits that the rising rival of Saul was anointed with the +consecrated oil? + +David remained safe in sanctuary. The messengers sent by Saul to fetch +him from it fell under the influence of the place, and joined the +dervishes in their ecstatic exercises; and when Saul himself followed +them, he too was infected by the religious excitement around him. One of +the sources used by the compiler of the books of Samuel ascribes to this +occasion the origin of the saying: ‘Is Saul also among the +prophets?’[439] + +But as in the case of the introduction of David to Saul, there is again +a double account of his escape. The two narratives are equally worthy of +credit from a historical point of view, yet it is difficult to reconcile +them together. The compiler has endeavoured to do so by supposing that +David ‘fled’ from the monastery of Ramah to Jonathan after Saul’s return +to Gibeah. But this only makes the difficulty of harmonising the two +accounts the greater. If we accept them both, the only way of +reconciling them is to suppose that a considerable interval of time +elapsed between the events recorded in them, that in the monastery of +Ramah peace was once more established between David and his +father-in-law, and that David consequently returned to his accustomed +place at court. In this case, the statement of the compiler that the +second narrative follows immediately upon the first would be a mistaken +inference.[440] + +According to the second account, David came to Jonathan and assured him +that Saul was determined to take away his life. Jonathan protested that +this was impossible, although he had himself previously warned his +friend that such was the case,[441] on the ground that his father +concealed nothing from him. It was then agreed that Jonathan should +discover Saul’s intentions and reveal them three days later to David, +who should meanwhile hide himself in the fields. Jonathan was to shoot +three arrows, and send a boy to gather them up. If he told the boy they +were on the hither side of David’s hiding-place, it meant that all was +well; if, on the contrary, he said they were beyond it, David would know +that his life was in danger. The day following was the feast of the New +Moon, when David ought to have dined with the king. But his place was +empty; only Abner sat by the side of Saul, whose seat was, as usual, ‘by +the wall.’ Saul said nothing, thinking that David was absent for +ceremonial reasons; but when on the next day the place was again empty, +he asked Jonathan what had become of him. Jonathan replied, as had been +agreed upon, that he had given David permission to go to Beth-lehem to +take part in an annual sacrifice of the family. But the answer did not +deceive his father. Saul broke forth into reproaches, accusing Jonathan +of rebellion and folly in preferring friendship to self-interest, and in +saving the life of one who would use it to deprive him of the crown. +Jonathan replied; and the king, mad with rage, flung his spear at his +own son, who left the table and made his way to the place where David +was concealed. There he gave the signal by which David knew that he must +flee for his life, and while the lad was picking up the arrows the two +friends embraced and parted, perhaps for the last time. + +David fled to Nob. The priests of Shiloh had settled in it, and he +believed therefore that he would find a shelter there. But Ahimelech was +afraid of Saul; he knew that the king bore no goodwill to his +son-in-law, and it was strange that David should be alone. David, +however, had a ready answer to the question why ‘no man’ was with him. +Saul had sent him out in haste on a secret mission, and his servants +accordingly had been ordered to wait for him ahead. The haste indeed was +such that he had brought with him neither food nor weapons. The priest +had only the shewbread to offer, and at first hesitated about giving it +to those who were not Levites. But David overcame his scruples, assuring +him that his companions had ‘kept themselves from women’ for the past +three days, and that the vessels they carried with them were clean. At +the same time he took Goliath’s sword which had been dedicated to +Yahveh, and lay behind the ephod wrapped in a cloth. Then he continued +his flight, and did not rest until he found himself at the court of the +old enemy of Israel, Achish the son of Maoch, king of Gath.[442] + +Recent criticism has maintained that this first visit to Achish of Gath +is but a duplicate version of David’s second visit to the same prince, +like the duplicate accounts of his introduction to Saul and flight from +the Israelitish court. The two visits, however, clearly belong to +different periods of time, and the different treatment experienced by +the fugitive at the hands of the king of Gath was due to the wholly +different circumstances under which he arrived there on the two +occasions. The solitary and defenceless exile, flying for his life from +his own countrymen, was a very different person from the leader of a +numerous band of reckless and well-armed adventurers who came to offer +their services as mercenaries in war. A more serious difficulty is the +fact that Achish, the son of Maoch or Maachah, was still reigning over +Gath in the third year of Solomon (1 Kings ii. 39). But the long reign +of about fifty years, which this presupposes, is no impossibility; +Ramses II. of Egypt, for example, was sixty-seven years on the throne. + +David did not remain long in Gath. The Philistines could not forget that +he had been one of their most formidable adversaries, and there must +have been some among them who had blood-feuds to avenge upon him. The +fugitive servant of Saul was no longer to be feared, but there were many +voices crying for his life. For a while Achish was inclined to protect +him in the hope of using him against his countrymen, but how long this +protection would last was doubtful. David accordingly feigned himself +mad, he scrabbled on the gates, and let the spittle fall on his unshorn +beard. The Philistine king gave up all hope of making him his tool, and +allowed him to quit the court. David thereupon made his way to the home +of his boyhood, and took refuge in the limestone caves of Adullam, a few +miles to the south-west of Beth-lehem. + +Here at last he was safe. He was among his own tribesmen, in a district +well known to him, and in a place of refuge where the outlaw could defy +his pursuers. Moreover, the home of his family was not far distant, and +it was not long, accordingly, before his brothers and other relatives +joined him in his mountain stronghold. The band of outlaws increased +rapidly, and soon amounted to four hundred men. David’s abilities as a +military leader were known throughout Israel, and all the outlaws and +adventurers of Judah flocked to his standard; among them was the prophet +Gad. + +David once more found himself at the head of a considerable force. The +quarrel between him and the king was assuming the character of a civil +war. It was Judah against Israel, the first revolt of the new power that +was rising in the south against the domination of the north. But the +power was still in its infancy. Against the trained veterans of the +royal army, with the prestige of legal authority and resources behind +them, the bandits of the Judæan mountains could hold their own only so +long as they remained among the limestone fastnesses of their own land. +It was like a struggle between Sicilian brigands and the regular troops; +the sympathies of the peasantry were with the brigands, and as long as +they acted on the defensive, their lives were safe. + +But the mountains of Judah were barren, and it was needful for David and +his men to descend at times into the valleys and plains below, and there +levy contributions of food. These were the moments of danger. The +townsmen and owners of land could not be trusted like the peasantry; +they looked with no favourable eyes on the armed outlaws who seized what +was not freely given to them, and were ready enough to betray them to +Saul. In the towns and plains the king’s troops had the advantage; +while, on the other side, it was always possible to fall in with a body +of Philistines to whom every Israelite was a foe. + +But while David was hidden in the cave of Adullam, Saul committed a deed +which shattered his kingdom and transferred the allegiance of the +priesthood to his Judæan rival. This was the massacre of the priests at +Nob. In reading the story of it we seem to have before us the words of +an eye-witness. Saul was seated under the tamarisk on the hill at +Gibeah, with his spear in his right hand, and his officers standing +around him. Suddenly he broke out into reproaches against them and +against his son. ‘Hear now, ye Benjamites; will the son of Jesse give +every one of you fields and vineyards, and make you all captains of +thousands and captains of hundreds; that all of you have conspired +against me, and there is none that sheweth me that my son hath made a +league with the son of Jesse, and there is none of you that is sorry for +me, or sheweth unto me that my son hath stirred up my servant against +me, to lie in wait, as at this day?’ Then the heathen foreigner, ‘Doeg +the Edomite which was set over the servants of Saul,’ answered and said +that he had seen David come to Ahimelech the priest at Nob, and that +there the priest had consulted Yahveh for him, had given him food and +Goliath’s sword. At once the infuriated king sent for Ahimelech and his +brother priests, and demanded of him why he had conspired with the +rebel. Ahimelech’s answer only increased his anger. David, said the +priest, was the son-in-law of the king, and his most faithful servant; +how then could he have refrained from helping him on his road? +Thereupon, Saul ordered the priests to be put to death, but no Israelite +could be found to perpetrate such an act of sacrilegious atrocity. The +Edomite, however, had no scruples; he fell with a will upon the +defenceless priests, and eighty-five of them were massacred. Saul then +descended upon Nob, ‘the city of the priests,’ and treated it like a +city of the Amalekites, smiting it with the edge of the sword, ‘both men +and women, children and sucklings, and oxen and asses and sheep.’ Only +Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech, escaped, and fled to David, carrying +with him the ephod and the oracles of God. The prophecy of the +destruction of Eli’s house was fulfilled, but in fulfilling it Saul +destroyed his own. The breach between the king and the priests was +complete; he had compelled them, and all who reverenced them, to take +the side of his rival. + +It was now that David determined to send his father and mother to the +protection of the Moabite court. His great-grandmother had been a +Moabitess, and it is possible that the war between Saul and Moab, +referred to in 1 Sam. xiv. 47, was continuing at this very time. In this +case, the Moabite king would have given a ready welcome to the parents +of his enemy’s enemy. They would be hostages for David himself, and +David was a person whom it was desirable to attach to the Moabite cause. +Not only was he the son-in-law of Saul, and an able general, but he was +now at the head of a devoted body of men who were waging war on the +Israelitish king. If war was actually going on at the time between +Israel and Moab, alliance with David would divert and weaken the +Israelitish attack. Moreover, as long as David’s parents were in his +power, the king of Moab could compel the Jewish chieftain to serve and, +if need be, to fight for him. + +David’s followers had increased to six hundred men, and he now felt +himself strong enough to occupy one of the Judæan cities, and make it a +centre for his war against Saul. A pretext for doing so was soon found. +Keilah was threatened by Philistine raiders, and patriotism demanded its +rescue. The city is mentioned in the Tel el-Amarna letters under the +name of Keltê; it was already a place of military importance, and was +surrounded by walls. David’s followers, however, were reluctant to leave +their retreat in the mountains and venture into a town. But the +representative of the high priests of Shiloh was now with them, and the +oracles of Yahveh, which he consulted through the ephod, admitted of no +contradiction. Keilah was accordingly occupied by David, and its +Philistine invaders repulsed. The citizens, however, showed little +gratitude towards their preservers. Perhaps they thought it was merely +an exchange of masters, and that Philistine pillage would not have been +worse than the exactions of the outlaws. Perhaps they feared the fate of +Nob for harbouring the enemy of Saul. However it might be, they sent +word to Saul that David and his men were in the town. The king marched +to Keilah without delay; had not God delivered David into his hand by +bringing him into a city that had ‘gates and bars’? But once more the +ephod was consulted, and the answer was clear. The people of Keilah were +traitors, and David’s band must seek a shelter elsewhere. This time they +fled to the wooded slopes above the wilderness of Ziph, on the eastern +side of the Dead Sea. Here David and Jonathan met once more[443] under +the shadow of the forest. But the Ziphites betrayed the hiding-place of +the outlaws, and offered to help the king to capture his foe. For a time +the hunted fugitives evaded their pursuers; spies brought David +intelligence of Saul’s movements, and the desolate wadis of Ziph and +Maon, with their deep defiles and precipitous rocks, enabled him to slip +out of the toils. But at last the game became desperate; the outlaws +were encircled on all sides, and the difficulty of procuring food must +have been great. At that moment the Philistines came to their help; a +messenger arrived in haste at the royal camp, urging the king to march +westward at once, for a Philistine army had invaded the land. David was +saved, and he now settled himself in the caves and fastnesses of the +mountains about En-gedi. + +From the peaks where only the wild goats trod,[444] David could look +across the Dead Sea to the purple hills of Moab. Here, therefore, he was +in touch with the Moabites, while his inaccessible position rendered him +safe from attack. Below him was the comparatively fertile valley of +Carmel of Judah, where large flocks of sheep fed on the scanty grass. It +was the northern portion of the wilderness of Paran, and the outlaws +exacted from it their supplies of food. The supplies were usually +yielded with a good grace, and in return the shepherds and their flocks +were protected from the Bedâwin and the wild beasts. But on one occasion +the request for food met with a refusal. Nabal, a wealthy farmer at +Maon, was shearing his sheep, and refused to give any of them to the +messengers of David. Perhaps Saul was still in the neighbourhood, and he +was thus emboldened to play the part of the churl. But he was soon +taught that David was strong enough to take without asking. Four hundred +of the outlaws marched down upon Maon, bent upon making him and his +family pay with their lives for the niggardly refusal. The tact of a +woman, however, saved them, and averted the anger of David. Abigail, the +wife of Nabal, met the angry chieftain on the road with presents and +honeyed words, and her fair looks and speeches induced him to turn back. +That night Nabal was holding a shearing feast in fancied security, but +when, the next day, his wife told him of his narrow escape, and of the +band of outlaws that was still in the neighbourhood, his heart failed +him, and ‘he became as a stone.’ The shock was too great for his +strength; a few days later he died. Then Abigail, like a prudent woman, +became the wife of the outlaw, and the wealth of Nabal passed into his +hands. It was a welcome addition to David’s resources, and made him +better able to control his men. Abigail, too, proved a devoted wife, +following her husband in his wanderings, and sharing his wild life. She +was not his only wife, however, though Michal had been given by her +father to a Benjamite named Phaltiel. David, it would seem, had already +married a certain Ahinoam of Jezreel. + +It was probably before the marriage of Abigail, and while Saul was still +chasing the outlaws through the wilderness of Ziph,[445] that an +incident occurred, two versions of which had reached the compiler of the +books of Samuel. Saul had with him a force of three thousand men, more +than sufficient gradually to close in upon David and cut off all his +chances of escape. Abner, the commander-in-chief, was with him, and the +king was obstinate in his determination to track his enemy to the death. +According to the one version of the story, Saul was alone in a cave; +according to the other, he was asleep at night in his camp among the +rocky crevices of Mount Hachilah. While he slept, David, with his two +companions, Ahimelech the Hittite and Abishai the brother of Joab, crept +stealthily towards him, and soon reached the unconscious king. Abishai +would have slain him with his spear, but David forbade his touching ‘the +Lord’s anointed,’ and contented himself with carrying away the spear and +cruse of water which stood at his head, or, according to the other +version, with cutting off the skirt of the royal robe. Then, standing on +the opposite side of the gorge, David reproached Abner for his careless +watch over the king. Saul recognised David’s voice, and demanded if it +were not he, whereupon David made an appeal to the king’s better nature, +asked why he was thus driving him from his country and his God, and +pointed to the trophies he had just carried off in proof of his +innocence. If he were really aiming at the throne, would he have spared +the king when Yahveh had delivered him into his hands? The impulsive +Saul yielded for the moment to the voice and words of his former +favourite, but they produced no further effect upon him. David could not +venture to send back the spear by one of his own men; it had to be +fetched by a servant of the king. David had given Saul a lesson in +generosity, but the only result of it was that he had to return to his +old hiding-place. Saul remained resolutely bent on taking his life. + +Meanwhile Samuel had died, and there seemed no longer any power left in +Israel to contend against the will of the king. David began to perceive +that his cause was hopeless; he had become a mere chief of brigands, and +against him were arrayed all the forces of order and authority in the +country. It was useless to continue the struggle, and he determined, +therefore, to sell the services of himself and his followers to the +hereditary enemies of his people. Accordingly he passed over to Achish +of Gath, and entered the service of the Philistine. + +The use of mercenary soldiers was no new thing. Egypt had long since set +the example, and in the age of the nineteenth dynasty the larger part of +the Egyptian army already consisted of foreigners. Many of these were +kinsfolk of the Philistines from the Greek seas. Such soldiers of +fortune were acceptable to the kings who employed them for more reasons +than one. Their lives were devoted to fighting, and therefore they were +better trained and more amenable to discipline than the native recruits, +who were levied only as occasion required. Moreover, they had everything +to gain and nothing to lose from war, unlike the peasantry, whose fields +might be ravaged while they themselves were away in the camp. Above all, +the mercenaries were faithful to their employer so long as he supplied +them with plunder or pay. They had no party feuds to avenge, no loss of +liberty to chafe at, no spirit of independence to cherish. Their swords +were at the disposal of the king, and of none else; the tyranny which +crushed his subjects found in them a willing instrument. David never +forgot the lesson which his service with Achish had taught him. When at +last he became the king of Israel, he also surrounded himself with a +bodyguard of foreign mercenaries, drawn from much the same countries as +those of the Pharaoh. + +It was not as a bodyguard, however, that Achish needed the Jews. It was +rather as an auxiliary force in future contests with their countrymen. +Consequently they were allowed to settle in the country, at some +distance from Gath, and Ziklag was given them as a residence. The +outlaws had ceased to be brigands, and had become part of the regular +army of a foreign prince. + +For a year and four months the Hebrew corps dwelt at Ziklag. But they +were not idle all the time. Once David led them on a raiding expedition +against the Bedâwin Amalekites of the south. Men, women, and children +were alike put to the sword, so that none might live to tell the tale. +When the Jews returned with their booty, David professed to Achish that +the raid had been directed against the Hebrews of Judah and their allies +the Kenites and Jerahmeelites. The deception was successful, and the +Philistine king rejoiced in the thought that the captain of his +mercenaries had thus for ever rendered himself hateful to his +countrymen. David had succeeded in disarming the suspicions of his +hosts, in providing his retainers with the spoil they coveted, and yet +at the same time in not alienating from himself the affections of his +own people. + +But a further trial was in store for the wily exile. The quarrel between +Saul and his son-in-law had allowed the Philistines to assert once more +their old supremacy in Israel. In David the Israelites had lost one of +their chiefest generals, and the troops which should have been employed +against the common foe were occupied in hunting him through the wilds of +the Judæan mountains. The watchful enemy took speedy advantage of the +fact. Israel was again invaded; the Philistines swept the lowlands of +Judah, and prepared to march northward. Saul returned from his pursuit +of David among the trackless rocks on the shore of the Dead Sea only +just in time to prevent their penetrating again into the heart of Mount +Ephraim. The territory of Benjamin was saved for a time, and the +foreigner did not succeed in reaching the royal residence at Gibeah. + +But the respite was not for long. A year and a quarter later the united +forces of the Philistine cities marched northward, along the highroad on +the coast of the Mediterranean, which had been trodden so often by the +former conquerors of Western Asia. They passed Dor, the modern Tantûra, +then occupied by their kinsfolk the Zakkal, and, turning the point of +Mount Carmel, proceeded eastward through the valley of the Kishon +towards the plain of Megiddo. It was the old fighting ground of +Palestine; its possession gave the conqueror the command of the whole +country west of the Jordan, and cut off the Israelitish king in his +rear. With the enemy established at Megiddo, Benjamin and Ephraim would +be effectually severed from the northern tribes. + +Saul lost no time in proceeding against his foe. The Philistine camp had +been pitched, first at Shunem, then at Aphek, on the southern slope of +Mount Gilboa;[446] the Israelites now took up their station at a +fountain near Jezreel, a few miles to the north-west. But the sight of +the huge Philistine army, recruited, doubtless, as it had been by the +Zakkal, filled Saul with despair. His own forces were miserably +insufficient to meet it; he had lost his old confidence in Yahveh and +himself, and the priests and prophets had become his enemies. In vain he +sought counsel of Yahveh; such priests as still remained near him +refused their help, and ‘Yahveh answered him not, neither by dreams, nor +by Urim, nor by prophets.’ Abiathar and Gad were with David; the +prophets who had gathered round Samuel were now the bitter foes of the +Israelitish king. + +In his despair he turned to the powers of witchcraft and necromancy. In +younger and happier days, before the massacre at Nob, when he was still +the favourite of the servants of Yahveh, still enthusiastic for the +religion of Israel, Saul had driven from his dominions all those who +professed to traffic with the powers of the unseen world. The wizards +and fortune-tellers, the enchanters and the possessed had been expelled +from the land. The fact is a proof of the influence of the Mosaic code +and religion in the priestly and royal circle.[447] Elsewhere in Western +Asia the necromancers’ trade was flourishing; Babylonia, which was the +home of the culture of Western Asia, was the home also of the arts of +magic. Here the magician was held in high honour, and the literature of +magic and omens occupied a large place in the libraries of the country. +We cannot suppose that beliefs which were held by the most cultivated +classes of Babylonia were not also shared by the mass of the population +in Canaan and Israel. And it must be remembered that outside the +Levitical law there was no suspicion or idea that those who practised +magic had dealings with spirits of evil. Heathendom drew no distinction +between spirits of good and spirits of evil; the gods themselves were +destructive as well as beneficent. The Mosaic condemnation of witchcraft +was utterly opposed to the popular belief, and Saul’s expulsion of those +who practised it proves not only the existence of the Law, but also its +recognition as the law of the state by the representatives of the +religion of Yahveh. It was a reform analogous to those of Hezekiah and +of Isaiah in later days; an attempt to conform to the Law of Yahveh, +contrary though it was to the prejudices and the practices of the time. + +But the king was now forsaken by the Law and its ministers, and as a +last resource he turned to the forbidden arts. In disguise he went by +night to a witch at Endor, and begged her to raise the shade of Samuel +from the dead. And Samuel came in visible presence to the witch, though +his voice only was heard by the king. But it was a voice that pronounced +judgment. God had indeed departed from Saul and given his kingdom to +another, and the doom was about to be fulfilled. Before the morrow’s sun +was set, where Samuel was there should Saul and his sons be also, and +the host of Israel should be delivered into the hand of the Philistines. +Saul fell to the earth in a swoon; he had fasted all the previous day, +and brain and body were alike worn out. + +It was an ill-omened beginning for the day of battle which followed. +Like the army of Israel, that of the Philistines was divided into +companies of a thousand men each, which were further subdivided into +companies of a hundred. Along with the native Philistines and their +allies, the band of Hebrew mercenaries marched past the five generals. +But hardly had they passed when a discussion arose as to their +trustworthiness. Achish, indeed, declared his full confidence in the +fidelity of David and his followers, but the other Philistine ‘lords’ +distrusted them. The risk of employing them against their own countrymen +was too great. How could they be trusted not to desert at a critical +moment of the battle, and so make their peace with Saul by the sacrifice +of the uncircumcised foreigner? The wishes of Achish were overruled, and +David was sent back to Ziklag. + +What would David have done had the result of the council been otherwise? +It has generally been assumed that the fears of the Philistine lords +were justified, and that he would have betrayed his new masters by going +over to his old one. But in that case it is probable that he would have +found some excuse for not leaving Ziklag and accompanying Achish on his +march. That he followed the Philistine army as far as the field of +battle implies that in selling his services to the king of Gath, he +accepted all the recognised consequences of the act. As he had told +Saul, it was not only from his country that he was driven out, but from +the God of his country as well. In leaving Judah for Gath he had +transferred his duties from Israel to Philistia, from Saul to Achish, +from Yahveh to Dagon. It was the first step that mattered: all else was +contained in it. The duties of the mercenary were well understood: he +ceased to have a country of his own, and became, as it were, the +property of the prince to whom his services were given. In after days, +David would have had no scruple in employing his Philistine bodyguard in +subjugating their kinsmen, any more than the Egyptians had in employing +their Sardinian or Libyan mercenaries in their wars against Libya and +the peoples of the Greek seas. + +David, indeed, would not have lifted up his hand personally to attack +‘the anointed of Yahveh.’ But there was a good deal of difference +between a hand-to-hand fight between himself and Saul and assisting his +new masters in overthrowing the power of the northern tribes of Israel. +Between the Jews and these northern tribes there was always a certain +amount of smothered hostility, which broke out into actual war in the +early part of David’s reign, and eventually led to the revolt of the Ten +Tribes. It was not the Israelitish king, but the Israelitish kingdom +which David and his followers were helping to destroy. + +We need not question his sincerity, therefore, when he offered his sword +to the lords of the Philistines and protested against their mistrust of +himself. Nor would the fact that he had been on the side of the +Philistine enemy have been prejudicial to his future interests, if he +already cherished the hope of being the successor of Saul. It was in +Judah, among his own tribesmen, and not in Northern Israel, that the +foundations of his kingdom were to be laid; it was only the Jews, +consequently, whose good-will it was needful for him to secure. If he +already aimed at extending his power over all Israel, a defeated and +broken Israel would be more easily won over to him than an Israel proud +of its independence and strength, and attached to the house of a +sovereign who had led them to victory.[448] David’s loyalty to Achish, +however, was never put to the test. He and his mercenaries were sent +back to Ziklag, and their dismissal from the field of battle was in +itself an insult which would serve as a pretext for a quarrel with the +Philistines should the need or opportunity for one ever arise. But when +they reached their homes, they found there only desolation and ruins. +The Bedâwin Amalekites had made a raid upon the undefended town, had +burned its buildings and carried away the women and the spoil. There was +no longer any Saul to repress their attacks, or to exact vengeance for +their incursions. + +Mutiny broke out among the mercenaries. They accused David of having +torn them from their families, thus leaving Ziklag to the mercy of the +foe. He was the cause of the disaster, and they began to talk of stoning +him to death. The priest Abiathar came, however, to his rescue, and +announced through the ephod the word of Yahveh that the robbers should +be overtaken and the spoil recovered. At once, therefore, the pursuit +commenced. The Bedâwin tracks were followed in such haste that when the +desert was reached, only four hundred out of the whole band of six +hundred had strength enough to proceed. Then an Egyptian was found who +had been a slave among the Amalekites, and having fallen ill on their +retreat from Palestine had been left to die upon the road. The departure +of the Philistine army had exposed the Negeb to the attack of the +Bedâwin, and they had not been slow to take advantage of it.[449] Only +three days had elapsed since they had passed the spot where the slave +was found, and he offered himself a willing guide to the Hebrews in +their quest of his former masters. The Amalekite tents were soon +reached, and the nomads were found feasting on the abundant plunder they +had gained and dancing in fancied security. Suddenly at twilight the +Hebrews fell upon them, and an indiscriminate slaughter took place. The +massacre went on for twenty-four hours, and none of the Amalekites +escaped except about four hundred young men, who succeeded in mounting +their camels and flying beyond pursuit. All the spoil they had carried +off fell into the hands of their conquerors, including the two wives of +David himself. The flocks and herds were given to David: the rest of the +plunder was divided among his followers, the two hundred men who had +been left on the road being allowed, after some dispute, to share it +equally with their fellows.[450] + +David, with characteristic foresight, sent portions of the spoil that +had been allotted to him as a ‘present’ to ‘the elders of Judah’ in the +chief towns of the tribe. The Jerahmeelites and Kenites were not +forgotten, nor the Calebites of Hebron. Some of the plunder was sent as +far south as Hormah and Zephath, as well as to Aroer and Ramoth of the +south. Reuben and Simeon had now ceased to exist as separate tribes, +Simeon having been absorbed into Judah while such cities of Reuben as +still remained Israelite had been occupied by ‘the elders of +Judah.’[451] + +David’s object in sending the presents was cloaked under the pretext +that they were made to those who had befriended him in the days of his +wandering. But the pretext was more than transparent. His wanderings had +never extended to Hormah or Aroer, or even to ‘the cities of the +Jerahmeelites.’ A crown was already within measurable distance of the +Jewish chieftain: his soldier’s eye had seen that the Israelitish army +was no match for that of the Philistines, and the priests who were with +him were assured that Yahveh had forsaken Saul, and would work no +miracle in his favour. The Philistines were once more dominant in the +south, and a victory at Gilboa would make that domination secure. David +possessed the confidence of Achish, and as the vassal of the Philistines +he could count on their support were he to make himself the king of +Judah. All that was needed was the good-will of the Jewish elders, and +this his victory over the Amalekites gave him the means of purchasing. + +On the other hand, were the Philistines to be defeated, and the Hebrew +army, contrary to all probability, to be victorious, David’s position +would be in nowise affected. He would still be safe among the +Philistines, out of reach of Saul, and at the head of a formidable band +of mercenary troops. The pretext for sending the presents could be urged +with some show of reason: they were merely a return to the friends who +had aided him in the time of his necessity. Now, as ever, David could +indignantly disclaim any intention of plotting against the ‘anointed of +the Lord.’ + +While David was thus looking after his own interests, events were +fighting for him in the north. The Israelites at Gilboa were utterly +defeated, and all Israel lay helpless at the feet of the heathen. Saul +was slain along with his three elder sons; only a minor, Esh-Baal, was +left, who was carried for safety to the eastern side of the Jordan. +Israel was without either a king or a leader; even its army was lost. +For a time the mercenaries of David were the only armed force that still +remained among the tribes of Israel. + +Saul had fallen on his own sword. Wounded by an arrow, he had prayed his +armour-bearer to slay him lest he should fall still living into the +hands of his foes. But his armour-bearer refused to commit the act of +sacrilege, and the king slew himself. His body, like those of his sons, +was stripped and hung in derision from the walls of Beth-shan. But the +inhabitants of Jabesh of Gilead could not forget that Saul had once +saved them from the Ammonite, and they went by night and carried away +the ghastly trophies of Philistine victory; the bodies were first burnt, +then the ashes were buried under a tree at Jabesh, and a fast of seven +days was held for the dead. + +The Philistines do not seem to have crossed the Jordan. They contented +themselves with occupying the country west of it, and garrisoning the +cities from which the Israelites had fled. The monarchy had fallen, and +the house of Israel appeared to have fallen with it. From Dan to +Beersheba the Philistine was supreme. + +Deliverance came from the south, from the latest born of the Israelitish +tribes. The mixed Israelite, Edomite, and Kenite population, which had +there been slowly forming into a united community, now found a common +head and leader in the son of Jesse. David, too, was of mixed descent. +His great-grandmother had been the Moabitess Ruth, and on his father’s +side he was partly of Calebite origin.[452] Mixed races have always +shown themselves the most vigorous and the most fitted to rule, and the +history of the Israelitish monarchy is no exception to the general law. +A purely Israelitish dynasty had failed, as it was destined to do again +after the revolt of the Ten Tribes; it needed the genius and tact of the +Jewish David to establish the monarchy on a lasting basis and defend it +against all enemies. + +The news of the death of the king of Israel was brought to David by an +Amalekite. He had robbed the corpse of its crown and golden bracelets +which he laid at the feet of the Jewish chief. In the hope of a reward +he had come in hot haste and pretended that he had dealt the final blow +which delivered David from his enemy, and opened to him the way to a +throne.[453] But he met with an unexpected reception. The story of the +disaster aroused in David his slumbering patriotism, his affection for +Jonathan, and his old reverence for Saul. Now that he had nothing any +longer to fear from the Hebrew king, and everything to gain by his +death, he could allow his impulse and emotions to have free play. He +turned in anger upon the messenger, demanding of him how he—a stranger +and an Amalekite—had dared to lift up his hand against the anointed of +Yahveh. Then he ordered his followers to cut down the luckless Bedâwi, +whose blood, as he told him, was upon his own head. After their recent +experience the nomad thief was likely to have but a short shrift at the +hands of the mercenaries. + +In this act of vengeance there was that mixture of policy and impulse +which is the key to so many of David’s actions. On the one hand, David +freed himself from all responsibility for the death of Saul. The blood +of the king could not be required at his hand either in the form of a +blood-feud with the family of Saul, or in that of the nemesis which +waited on the shedder of blood. On the other hand, it could not be said +that he had gained the crown through the murder of the legitimate king. +Saul indeed had been slain, and David had reaped the advantage of his +death, but he had in no way connived at it. In the eyes of God and man +alike he was innocent of the deed. + +David found an outlet for his feelings in a dirge which is one of the +gems of early Hebrew poetry. Future generations knew it as the Song of +the Bow; such was the name under which it was incorporated in the +collection of early Hebrew poems called the book of Jasher, and under +which David ordered that it should be learned in the schools. + + ‘Thy glory, O Israel, is slain upon thy high places! + How are the mighty fallen! + Tell it not in Gath, + Publish it not in the streets of Askelon; + Lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, + Lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph. + Ye mountains of Gilboa, + Let there be no dew nor rain upon you, neither fields of offerings; + For there the shield of the mighty ones was cast away, + The shield of Saul, as of one unanointed with oil. + From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, + The bow of Jonathan turned not back, + And the sword of Saul returned not empty. + Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives, + And in their death they were not divided; + They were swifter than eagles, + They were stronger than lions. + Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, + Who clothed you in scarlet delicately, + Who put ornaments of gold upon your apparel. + How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle + Jonathan is slain upon thy high places. + I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan; + Very pleasant hast thou been unto me: + Thy love to me was wonderful, + Passing the love of women. + How are the mighty fallen, + And the weapons of war perished!’[454] + +David, however, was too practical to spend his time in useless laments. +He had relieved his feelings in a burst of lyric poetry; it was now time +to seize the opportunity which the overthrow and death of Saul had given +him. The oracle of Yahveh was consulted, and the answer was favourable; +let David march to Hebron and there offer himself as king of Judah. The +way had already been prepared: he had secured the good-will of the +Jewish elders; he was the son-in-law of the late king, and a hero of +whom his tribesmen were proud. Above all, he had behind him a body of +armed veterans and devoted adherents, the only armed force now left in +the country. + +Hebron was the natural capital of Judah. It is true it had been a +Calebite settlement, but Calebites and Jews were now one. Its ancient +sanctuary had been a gathering-place for the population of the south +from time immemorial, and there was no other city which could rival its +claims to pre-eminence. Here, therefore, the representatives of Judah +assembled, and here they anointed David to be their king. The goal of so +many years of struggle and hardship, of patient waiting and politic +tact, was at length reached. David was king of Judah; it could not be +long before he became king of Israel also. + +The Philistines offered no difficulties. David was their vassal; he had +shown himself loyal to them, and they were well content that he should +rule over his countrymen, and collect the tribute due from them year by +year. The territory of Judah, moreover, was small; it adjoined the +cities of the Philistines, and in case of revolt could easily be overrun +and reduced to subjection. That a rival prince should reign in the +north, thus separating the northern tribes from Judah and putting an end +to all joint action, was a further guarantee for Philistine supremacy. +The old Egyptian province of Canaan had become Palestine, the land of +the Philistines. + +For seven and a half years David reigned in Hebron. Meanwhile, the +relics of the Israelitish army had found a refuge on the eastern side of +the Jordan. Here, under their old commander-in-chief Abner, the son of +Ner, they once more formed themselves into a disciplined body, and made +Esh-Baal, the surviving son of Saul, their king.[455] Esh-Baal, we are +told, reigned two years. His position was a difficult one. His rule was +titular only; all the real power of the State was in the hands of his +uncle Abner. Judah refused to acknowledge his authority, and had raised +itself into a separate kingdom under a rebel chief; the northern tribes +on the west side of the Jordan were in subjection to the heathen +conqueror who held possession of the highroad from Asia into Egypt, and +therewith of the trade and wealth that passed along it. Cut off from +Mount Ephraim, the subjects of Esh-Baal saw David, the Jewish vassal of +the Philistines, extending his sway over Benjamin, the ancestral +territory of the house of Saul, while they themselves maintained a +precarious struggle against their foes behind the fortified walls of +Mahanaim. Here they would have been under the protection of the +Ammonites, who were threatened by the same enemy as themselves.[456] + +The Philistines found the task of forcing the fords of the Jordan too +dangerous or too unprofitable. Terms were made with the Israelites; +Esh-Baal became their vassal, and his nominal rule was allowed to extend +over Western Israel as far south as the frontiers of Judah. Here the two +vassal kingdoms came into collision with one another, and Israel and +Judah were engaged in perpetual war. It was a repetition of what had +been the state of Canaan in the closing days of the Egyptian empire when +the Tel el-Amarna letters passed to and fro. + +Esh-Baal was merely the shadow of a king. Whether he was a minor or an +imbecile it is impossible to say with certainty; most probably he was +but a child.[457] Abner, the master of the army, was also the real +master of the kingdom. David’s rise to power must have been as +distasteful to him as it would have been to Saul, and he seized the +first opportunity of endeavouring to overthrow it. The brigand-chief had +become a king, and the outlaws who had gathered round him in the cave of +Adullam had been rewarded with posts of honour. Joab, the nephew of +David,[458] was made the commander-in-chief of the Jewish army, and the +choice was justified by the results. David owed most of his future +successes in war to the military skill and generalship of his +commander-in-chief. He himself ceased more and more to take part in +active warfare; Joab more than supplied his place, and the safety of the +king was too important to the army and its general to allow of his +risking his person in battle. David ruled at home while Joab gained +victories for him in the field. + +Joab proved a faithful and a loyal servant. No suspicion was ever +breathed against him that he sought to steal the hearts of his soldiers +away from their master, and to supplant David as David had supplanted +Saul. In the evil days of rebellion and disaster that were to overtake +David, Joab never deserted him, and his restoration to the throne was +the work of his faithful general. The services, however, rendered by +Joab had their drawback. He became indispensable to the king; nay more, +he became the master of the king. As David grew old, he began to fret +under the irksome yoke; gratitude and self-interest alike forbade him to +remove his too powerful servant by those Oriental means which had given +him a wife, and up to the day of his death Joab’s power was checked only +by the influence or the intrigues of Bath-sheba. + +Even in the early days when David still reigned at Hebron, there was +ill-feeling between the uncle and the nephew. The masterful nature of +Joab had asserted itself, and David was made to feel that his throne +depended on ‘the sons of Zeruiah.’ War had broken out between Esh-Baal +and David. The Jews, it would seem, had advanced northward into the +territory of Benjamin, where they were met at Gibeon by the Israelite +forces under Abner from Mahanaim. A fierce battle ensued which ended in +the defeat of the Israelite troops. Abner fled across the Jordan, the +north of Israel being in the hands of the Philistines, and the authority +of David was acknowledged as far as Mount Ephraim. The Benjamites were +forced to transfer their allegiance from the house of Saul to that of +Jesse. Nineteen Jews only had fallen in the fight, while 360 of the +enemy were left dead on the field of battle. But among the Jews was +Asahel, the younger brother of Joab, who had been slain by Abner during +his flight. It was the beginning of a blood-feud which could be +extinguished only by Abner’s death. + +Abner’s military genius was no match for that of Joab, and the long war +which followed between David and Esh-Baal saw the power of the Jewish +king steadily increase. David began to assume the manners and privileges +of an Oriental despot, to multiply his wives, and to marry into the +families of the neighbouring kinglets. Four more wives were added to his +harîm, one of whom was the daughter of Talmai, the Aramaitish king of +Geshur. The alliance with Talmai had a political object; Geshur lay on +the northern frontier of Esh-Baal’s kingdom, and in Esh-Baal, therefore, +David and Talmai had a common enemy.[459] Absalom was the offspring of +the marriage with the Aramaitish princess.[460] + +Enclosed between Geshur and Judah, with Benjamin lost and the north of +Israel garrisoned by the Philistines, the dynasty of Saul grew +continually weaker. The Ammonites made common cause with David (2 Sam. +xi. 2), and in the neighbouring Aramæans found further allies. Abner was +not slow in perceiving that his fortunes were linked with those of a +lost cause, and he determined to betray his nephew and his master. A +pretext was quickly found; he entered the royal harîm and spent a night +with Rizpah, the concubine of Saul. The act was equivalent to claiming +the throne, and Esh-Baal naturally ventured to protest. The protest gave +Abner the opportunity he wanted. He fell with angry words on the +helpless king, told him that his throne depended on his general’s +loyalty, and that that loyalty was at an end. Henceforth Abner’s sword +was at the service of David to transfer to him the kingdom from the +house of Saul, and to establish the rule of the Jewish prince from Dan +to Beer-sheba. + +The Israelite general now sent secret messengers to David to arrange the +details of the betrayal. Abner undertook to ‘bring over’ all Israel to +David, in return for which he was to supplant Joab as the commander of +David’s army. The terms were agreed to by the Jewish king, David only +stipulating in addition that Michal should be restored to him. We are +not told what it was proposed to do with Esh-Baal; Abner’s treason, +however, involved putting him out of the way. As long as he lived there +would have been a claimant to the Israelite throne. + +The plot prospered at first. Abner tampered successfully with the elders +of Israel, reminding them that they had once wanted David as their +king,[461] and that Yahveh had declared that through him alone the yoke +of the Philistines should be broken. The Benjamites also allowed +themselves to be persuaded by one of their own princes, who was at the +same time the most prominent member of the house of Saul, and Abner +accordingly went to Hebron with a troop of twenty men to announce to +David that his part of the compact had been fulfilled. But the secret +had already oozed out. Abner had timed his visit so that Joab should be +absent on a raid when he had his audience with David. Joab, however, +returned sooner than was expected, and, pretending to be ignorant of the +real object of Abner’s coming, expostulated with the king for allowing +an enemy to penetrate to the court and spy out the weak places of the +land. Meanwhile he had sent a messenger who brought Abner back to +Hebron, where he and his brother Abishai murdered the unsuspecting +Israelite, and thus avenged the blood of Asahel. + +The blow was felt keenly by David, who saw in it the destruction of his +hopes. The acquisition of Israel seemed further off than ever, for the +Israelites were not likely to forgive or forget the murder of their +chief. Worst of all, perhaps, his chances of getting rid of Joab were at +an end. It was clear that the Jewish general had discovered the +treachery that had been meditated towards him, and though he was too +politic to reproach the king, it gave him a firmer hold upon David than +before. From the point of view of the monarchy, indeed, this was +fortunate, as Joab had proved himself a better and more loyal general +than Abner, and it is probable that had Abner been thrust into his +place, the future conquests of David would never have been made. + +All that David could do was to disavow the murder of Abner, to protest +that though he had been anointed king he had not the power to punish the +perpetrators of it, and ostentatiously to abstain from food at the +public dinner of the court. Abner, moreover, received a sumptuous burial +in Hebron, at which the king was chief mourner. Joab must have +recognised the policy of the king’s action, since he seems to have +accepted it without a word of protest. He had gained his point; his +rival was removed from his path, and his position in the kingdom was +more unquestioned than ever. + +The death of Abner reduced the adherents of Esh-Baal to despair. The +seeds of disaffection which he had sown also began to grow up. If Israel +was to be delivered from the Philistines, it was evident that the throne +of Esh-Baal must be occupied by another. Time was on the side of David, +and it was not long before the end came. + +Esh-Baal was murdered by two of his own tribesmen. Baanah and Rechab, +the sons of Rimmon, penetrated into his bed-chamber one summer afternoon +while he was taking his _siesta_, and there murdered the sleeping king. +Then they beheaded the corpse, and, taking the head with them, hurried +to David at Hebron without once resting on the road.[462] But David was +too prudent to countenance the deed. While securing all the advantages +of it, he ordered summary punishment to be inflicted on its +perpetrators, and thus cleared himself and his house from the stain of +blood. Like the Amalekite who claimed to have killed Saul, the murderers +of Esh-Baal were put to death, and the divine law, which exacted blood +for blood, was satisfied. The Jewish king could enjoy with an easy +conscience the fruits of a murder of which he was innocent. No other +rival stood in his path, for Merib-Baal, the son of Jonathan, was a +hopeless cripple, with his spine injured by a fall in his childhood. +When he was still but five years of age the fatal battle of Gilboa had +taken place, and his nurse in the hurry of flight had dropped the child +from her arms.[463] + +The death of Esh-Baal made David king of what was left of Northern +Israel. Those who had gathered round the son of Saul at Mahanaim now +flocked to Hebron, and there anointed the king of Judah king also of +Israel. They reminded him that they, too, were of his ‘bone and flesh,’ +sprung from a common ancestor and acknowledging the same God, that he +had once been their leader against the Philistines, and that it had been +predicted of him that he should again be the captain of Israel.[464] + +His coronation as king of Israel led to war with the Philistines. From +the vassal prince who reigned at Hebron, and whose title was not +acknowledged by the majority of his countrymen, there was nothing to +fear; it was different when he had become the king of a united Israel, +and could once more summon the forces around him with which he had +gained the victories of his earlier years. In accepting the crown of +Israel, moreover, without the permission of the Philistines, David had +been guilty of revolt. The Philistines claimed dominion over the whole +of Northern Israel west of the Jordan; if they had condoned his +annexation of the territory of Benjamin, it was because he was still +their tributary vassal, and the annexation meant war between him and the +rival kingdom of Israel. The heathen lords of Palestine were well +content that Judah and Israel should waste their strength in contending +with one another. But the union of the two kingdoms turned that strength +against themselves. The union had been effected without their consent; +it was ‘the men of Israel’ who had anointed David without consulting the +suzerain power. + +At first the war went against the newly crowned king. He was taken by +surprise, and the Philistine army had invaded his territories before he +had time to gather his forces together. Beth-lehem, the seat of David’s +forefathers, was seized by the enemy, and made the base of their attack. +Thus cut off from help from the northern and eastern tribes, or even +from Benjamin, David was forced to retire from Hebron, and once more to +take refuge in the ‘hold’ of Adullam.[465] It was a country well known +to him; it had already saved him from the pursuit of Saul, and the +foreign foe did not dare to penetrate into its dark caves and narrow +gorges. Here for a time he carried on a guerilla warfare with the +Philistines until he felt himself strong enough to venture out into the +open field. It was while he was thus keeping the enemy at bay that three +of his followers performed a deed which placed them among the thirty +_gibbôrîm_, or ‘mighty men,’ in immediate attendance on the king.[466] +David had a sudden longing for the water of the well at the gate of +Beth-lehem, of which he had doubtless often drunk in his boyish days. +His wish was overheard by Joshebbasshebeth,[467] Eleazar, and Shammah, +who broke through the host of the Philistines, and succeeded in bringing +the water to their leader. David, however, refused to drink it. It was, +as it were, the price of blood; the three heroes had risked their lives +to bring it, and the king accordingly poured it out as a libation to the +Lord. + +How long this guerilla warfare lasted we do not know. Only a meagre +abstract is given us of the wars and conquests of David, and it seems +probable that a detailed history of them has been intentionally omitted +by the compiler of the books of Samuel. A separate work dealing with the +history was doubtless in existence at the time he wrote, and there was +no room for another by the side of it. It was the lesser known portion +of David’s history which he aimed at compiling out of the records of the +past. The story, therefore, of the conquest of the Philistines and then +of the creation of an Israelitish empire has been lost to us; we know +the results, but little more. + +When David at length ventured to descend from his mountain fortress, the +Philistines were encamped in the plain of Rephaim, or the ‘Giants,’ +which stretched to the south-east of Jerusalem.[468] He was thus cut off +from the north, the road being further barred by the Jebusite stronghold +of Jerusalem, which appears to have peacefully submitted to the +Philistine domination. For a while the two hostile forces watched one +another, neither daring to attack the other. Heroes and champions on +either side performed individual deeds of valour like that which had +first won recognition for David on the part of Saul, but no general +engagement took place.[469] The Philistines were too numerous, the +Israelites too securely posted to be assailed. + +At last, however, David judged that his opportunity had come. The oracle +of Yahveh was consulted; the answer was favourable; and the Israelites +descended suddenly on their enemies at a place called Baal-perazim. The +Philistines fled precipitately, leaving behind them the images of their +gods, which fell into the hands of the conquering army. The defeat at +Gilboa was in part avenged. + +But the strength of the Philistines was by no means broken, and they +still held possession of the country north of Judah. Once more they +poured through the valley of Rephaim, and once more they were driven +back towards the coast. David had fallen upon them in the rear, the +sound of the approaching footsteps of the Israelites being drowned in +the rustling made by the wind in a grove of mulberry-trees. This time +the invaders were utterly shattered; they retreated from the territory +of Benjamin, and fled to Gezer, which was still in Canaanite hands. The +war was now carried into the country of the enemy. Gath, the most inland +of the Philistine cities, was the primary object of attack; but a long +and desultory war was needed before either it or its sister cities could +be forced to yield. Again opportunities occurred for the display of +individual deeds of prowess, and for winning the rewards of valour from +the Israelitish king. The three brothers of Goliath were slain by three +of the champions of Israel, Jonathan the nephew of David being the +victor in one combat, Abishai the brother of Joab in another. Abishai’s +victory was gained at Gob, where David narrowly escaped death at the +hands of the giant Ishbi-benob.[470] The narrowness of the escape +terrified his subjects, and they determined that he should not again +expose his life in the field. The memory of Saul’s death and its +disastrous results was too recent to be forgotten. Henceforward, except +on rare occasions, David governed his people from the city or the +palace; his armies were led by Joab, and the king became to them a name +rather than an inspiring presence. The personal affection he had once +excited was confined to his bodyguard, and when the evil days of +rebellion came upon him, it was the bodyguard alone which remained +faithful to their king. + +Before the war with the Philistines was finished, an event occurred +which had a momentous influence on the future history of Judah. This was +the capture of Jerusalem. The Jebusite city had severed Judah from the +northern tribes, and the struggle with the Philistines had shown what +advantage that gave to an enemy. A united Israel was impossible so long +as the Israelitish territory was thus cut in two by a belt of hostile +country. While Jerusalem remained in the hands of the foreigner, Israel +could never be secure from Philistine attacks, or its king be able to +hurl against the enemy the full force of his dominions. If the +Philistine war was to be brought to a decisive and satisfactory end, if +the king of Judah was also to be king of Israel, it was needful that +Jerusalem should be his. We have learned from the tablets of Tel +el-Amarna how important Jerusalem already was in the days when the +Israelites had not as yet quitted Egypt, and when Canaan formed part of +the Egyptian empire. Its position made it one of the strongest of +Canaanitish fortresses. It was the capital of a larger territory than +usually belonged to the cities of Canaan, and it was already venerable +for its antiquity. Its ruler was also a priest, ‘without father and +without mother,’ and appointed to his office by ‘the Mighty King,’ ‘the +Most High God’ of the book of Genesis. Its name testified to the worship +of a god of peace: Urusalim, as it is written in the cuneiform +characters, signified ‘the City of Salim,’ the god of peace. + +The city stood on a hill to which in after days was given the name of +Moriah. A low depression, first recognised in our own days by Dr. Guthe, +separated it from another hill, which sloped southward till it ended in +a point. On one side was the deep limestone valley through which the +torrent of the Kidron had forced its way; on the other side, to the +west, was another valley known in later times as that of the sons of +Hinnom. On the southern hill was a fort which protected the approach to +the upper town to the north.[471] + +Its Jebusite defenders believed it to be impregnable. Even the lame and +the blind, they said, could repel the assault of an enemy. But they were +soon undeceived. The Israelites climbed up the cliff through a drain or +aqueduct that had been cut in the rock, and the Jebusite fortress was +taken. It may be that its capture was due to treachery, and that the way +had been shown to the besiegers by one of the garrison; at all events +the inhabitants of the city were spared, and henceforward shared it with +settlers from Judah and Benjamin. The latter would seem to have been +chiefly planted in the new city which David built on the southern hill +of Zion where the Jebusite fortress had stood. In contradistinction to +Jerusalem it came to be known as the City of David; a strong wall of +fortification was built around it, a Millo or citadel was erected on the +site of the Jebusite fort, and the king’s palace was founded in its +midst. The palace seems to have stood on the western side of the hill, +with a flight of steps cut in the rock leading down from it to the +valley below, traces of which have apparently been discovered by Dr. +Bliss in his recent excavations.[472] + +It was built by Phœnician artificers from Tyre. War and foreign +oppression had destroyed most of the culture the Israelites had once +possessed, and they no longer had among them skilled artisans like +Bezaleel, who could undertake the construction or adornment of buildings +which might vie with the palaces of the Philistine or Canaanite cities. +Carpenters and stone-masons had to be fetched from Tyre like the beams +of cedar that were cut on the slopes of the Lebanon. Jaffa, the port of +Jerusalem, must already have fallen by war or treaty into David’s hand. + +We are told that the cedar and the workmen were sent by Hiram, the +Tyrian king. But if the Israelitish palace had been built in the early +part of David’s reign, this can hardly have been the case. Josephus, +quoting from the Phœnician historian Menander, tells us that Hiram I., +the son of Abibal, reigned thirty-four years (B.C. 969-936),[473] and +since he was still alive in the twentieth year of Solomon’s reign (1 +Kings ix. 10), it would have been Abibal rather than Hiram who first +entered into commercial alliance with David.[474] Abibal seems, like +David, to have been the founder of a dynasty, and his son and successor +was the Solomon of Tyre. He constructed the two harbours of the city, +restored the temples, and built for himself a sumptuous palace, while +his ships traded to the Straits of Gibraltar in the west and to the +Persian Gulf in the east. + +Jerusalem became the capital of the Israelitish king, and the choice was +a sign of his usual sagacity. It was an ideal centre for a kingdom such +as his. It lay midway between Judah and the northern tribes, and thus, +as it were, bound them together. At the same time it belonged to +neither; its associations were Canaanite, not Hebrew, and its choice as +a royal residence could excite no jealousies. Moreover, this absence of +past associations with the history of Israel enabled David to do with it +as he liked; it contained nothing the destruction or alteration of which +would offend the prejudices of his countrymen. Situated as it was on the +borders of both Judah and Benjamin, it served to unite the houses of +Saul and Jesse, and the mixed population which soon filled it—partly +Jebusite, partly Jewish, and partly Benjaminite—was a symbol and visible +token of that unification of races and interests in Palestine which it +was the work of David’s reign to effect. In addition to all this, +Jerusalem was a natural fortress, difficult to capture, easy to defend; +it had behind it the traditions of a venerable past, and had once been +the seat of a priest-king. + +The spoils of foreign conquest allowed David to fortify and embellish +it. Israel as yet had no trade of its own. The struggle with the +Philistines had effectually prevented it from engaging in the commerce +which had made the name of ‘Canaanite’ synonymous with that of +‘merchant.’ The Philistines had held possession of the highroads that +ran through Palestine as well as of the southern line of coast; the +coasts and harbours to the north were occupied by the Phœnicians. The +capture of Joppa from the Zakkal first opened to Israel and Judah a way +to the sea. + +The fortifications of Jerusalem were completed and the royal palace +built. But the God of Israel to whom David owed his power and his +victories had no habitation there. Jerusalem had become the capital of +the Israelitish monarchy, yet it was still under the protection of a +Canaanitish god. The time had come when Yahveh should take his place and +assume the protection of David’s capital and David’s throne. + +In Egypt, in Babylonia, in the cities of Canaan itself, the palace of +the king and the temple of the deity stood side by side. It was on the +temple rather than on the palace that the wealth of the nation was +lavished: while the palace might be built of brick and stucco, the +temple was constructed of hewn stone. David naturally desired that +Yahveh also should have a fitting habitation in the city He had given to +His worshippers. But the prophet Nathan, who had at first shared in the +plans of David, was commissioned to arrest the design. David had been a +man of war who had ‘shed much blood upon the earth’;[475] until the wars +were finished ‘which were about him on every side’[476] Yahveh would not +permit him to build Him a house. All he might do was to prepare the +material for his happier and more peaceful son. Jerusalem was ‘the city +of the god of peace,’ and it was as a god of peace and not of war that +Yahveh would consent to dwell within it. + +Nevertheless, though the building of a temple was forbidden, the new +capital of the kingdom was not deprived of the presence of Yahveh. The +ark of the covenant was brought from the Gibeah or ‘Hill’ of +Kirjath-jearim,[477] where it had lain so long. Placed in ‘a new cart,’ +it was led along by oxen, while David and the Israelites accompanied it +with music and singing. On the road, the oxen stumbled and shook the +sacred palladium of Israel; Uzzah, one of the two drivers, put forth his +hand to steady it, and immediately afterwards fell back dead. His death +was regarded as the punishment of one who, though not a Levite, had +ventured to touch the shrine of Yahveh, and David in terror and dismay +broke up the festal procession, and left the ark in the nearest house, +which happened to belong to a Philistine of Gath named Obed-Edom.[478] +Here it remained three months. Then, David finding that the household of +the Philistine had been blessed and not cursed by its presence, caused +it to be again removed and taken to Jerusalem. Sacrifices were offered +as it passed along, music once more accompanied it, and David, as +anointed king, clad in the priestly ephod, danced sacred dances before +it. But his wife, Michal, who had seen him from a window thus acting +like one of the inferior priests, ‘despised him in her heart,’ and on +his return to the palace upbraided him with his unseemly conduct. David +answered taunt with taunt; the king could not degrade himself by any +service, however mean, that he might perform in honour of his God, but +Michal herself should be degraded by living the rest of her life a +childless wife. Meanwhile the assembled multitude was feasted with +bread, meat, and wine, and the ark was reverently placed in ‘the tent’ +set up for the purpose in the midst of Jerusalem. Was this the famous +‘tabernacle of the congregation’ which had accompanied the Israelites in +their wanderings in the desert, and had afterwards formed part of the +temple-buildings at Shiloh? The fact that it is called ‘the tent’ would +seem to imply that such was the case. On the other hand, the Chronicler +evidently thought otherwise,[479] and we are not told that ‘the tent’ +had been brought from elsewhere. + +It would seem that the war with the Philistines was over when the ark +was brought to Jerusalem. During its continuance it is not probable that +a native of Gath would be living peaceably in Israelitish territory, or +giving hospitality to the sacred safeguard of Israel. The Philistines +must have already been incorporated into David’s kingdom, like the +Jebusites of Jerusalem or the Kenites of the south, and his bodyguard +have been recruited from among them. Unfortunately we do not know how +long the war had lasted. A time came, however, when they acknowledged +themselves the servants of the Israelitish king, and became the vassals +of Judah. They never again were formidable to their neighbours, nor did +they ever seriously dispute the suzerainty of Judah. It is true that +they might now and then take advantage of a foreign invasion, like that +of the Assyrians, to shake off the yoke of their suzerain, but their +independence never lasted long, and the five cities did not always take +the same side. Even when the very existence of Jerusalem was threatened +by Sennacherib, we find Ekron faithfully supporting Hezekiah against the +Assyrian conqueror. David broke the spirit as well as the power of the +Philistines, and took for ever the supremacy they had wielded out of +their hands.[480] + +The ‘lords’ or kings of the five Philistine cities were left +undisturbed. But their position towards David was reversed. Instead of +his being their vassal, they became vassals to him, paying him tribute, +and providing him with military service when it was required. David was +well acquainted with the excellence of the Philistines as soldiers in +war. Accordingly he followed the example of the Egyptian Pharaohs who +had transformed their Libyan and Sardinian enemies into mercenary +troops, and of the king of Gath in his own case. He surrounded himself +with a bodyguard of Philistines and Kretans, to whom were afterwards +added Karian adventurers from the south-western coast of Asia Minor. +Already in the age of the Tel el-Amarna tablets Lycians from the same +part of the world had served as mercenaries in Syria, and in the time of +Ramses II. the Hittite army contained troops from Lycia, from Ionia, and +from the Troad. Not only could the foreigners be used against David’s +own countrymen in case of disaffection or rebellion; their employment +about the king’s person in an office of trust made them feel that they +were as much his subjects as the Israelites themselves, and forget also +that they had been conquered. It was a means of cementing together the +monarchy which the Israelitish king had created. + +The war with the Philistines was followed by one with Moab. Here, too, +David was successful. The Moabites were vanquished, and the captives +massacred in accordance with the cruel fashion of the day. Forced to lie +along the ground, two-thirds of the row were measured off with a line +and pitilessly put to death. The result was the almost complete +destruction of the fighting force of the country; and a century had to +pass before Moab recovered its strength, and once more regained its +independence. It was during the war with Moab that Benaiah, the son of +Jehoiada, who was sprung from the mixed Jewish and Edomite population of +Kabzeel, first came into notice, and was rewarded with a place among the +thirty ‘heroes.’ He slew, we are told, two _ariels_ of Moab.[481] The +word seems to have specially belonged to the language of the Moabites. +Mesha, on the Moabite Stone, states that after the conquest of Ataroth +and Nebo, he took from them the _arels_ (or _ariels_) of Dodah and +Yahveh, and tore them in pieces before Chemosh,[482] and in the Egyptian +_Travels of the Mohar_ the same word is found, having been borrowed from +the Canaanites in the sense of a ‘hero.’[483] The _ariels_ slain by +Benaiah must therefore have been Moabite champions like the Philistine +Goliath of Gath. + +Their overthrow was not the only achievement of Benaiah which qualified +him for a place among the _gibbôrîm_. He had found a lion at the bottom +of a cistern in the winter-time when the ground was covered with snow, +and had boldly descended into the pit and killed it. He had, moreover, +slain an Egyptian in single combat, though armed only with a staff, +while his opponent wielded a spear. These and similar deeds raised him +to the rank of captain of the foreign mercenaries, an office which he +retained throughout the reign of David. Between him and Joab, the +commander of the native army, feelings of rivalry and ill-will grew up, +as perhaps was natural. The native troops naturally looked askance at +the mercenaries, who formed, as it were, a check upon themselves, and +were favoured by the king with a confidence which they did not +themselves enjoy. The feelings of the troops they commanded were +reflected back upon the two generals, whose jealousies and counter +intrigues ended, finally, in the destruction of one of them. Benaiah +survived, while Joab perished at the foot of the altar. + +Moab was conquered; it was now the turn of Ammon. The Ammonites had +looked on while their neighbours on the eastern side of the Jordan were +being annexed to the kingdom of Israel. Nahash, however, the Ammonite +king, had long been the ally of David. A common hostility to Esh-Baal +had brought them together, and the league against the son of Saul had +included Ammon, Judah, and the Aramæans. It was this alliance which had +largely contributed to the success of David in his war against the +northern tribes; left to himself it is doubtful whether the Jewish +prince would have succeeded in overcoming his rival. + +While Nahash lived, the old friendship continued between him and the +king of Israel. But with his death came a change. The ambassadors sent +by David to congratulate his son Khanun on his accession were grossly +insulted, and driven back across the Jordan with their beards half-shorn +and their robes cut off in the middle. Khanun, it was clear, was bent +upon provoking war. He had the Aramæans at his back to support him; the +fate of Moab had alarmed him, and he determined, while he still +possessed allies, to anticipate the war which he foresaw. + +The challenge was promptly taken up. Joab and his brother Abishai +marched across the Jordan at the head of a large army of veterans. A +battle took place before ‘the City of Waters,’ Rabbath-Ammon, ‘the +capital of Ammon.’ The Aramæan forces had already come to the help of +their confederates. Hadad-ezer of Zobah had furnished 20,000 men; 12,000 +had come from the land of Tob, and 1000 from Maacah.[484] Joab found +himself enclosed between the Aramæans on one side and the Ammonites on +the other. But the Israelitish general was equal to the danger. Leaving +Abishai to resist the Ammonite attack, he put himself at the head of a +picked body of troops and fell upon the Syrians, whom he succeeded in +utterly routing. The Ammonites, seeing the flight of their allies, +retreated behind the walls of their city, and Joab remained master of +the field. + +But the battle had been sharply contested, and the Hebrew army had +suffered too severely to be able to pursue its advantage. Joab retired +to Jerusalem, there to recruit his army and prepare for another +campaign. Meantime, the enemy also had not been idle. Hadad-ezer +summoned the vassal princes of Syria from either side of the Euphrates, +and placed the army under the command of a general named Shobach. The +struggle had passed from a mere war with Ammon to a contest for the +supremacy in Western Asia. The time had come for David himself once more +to take the field; the issue at stake was too important to be decided by +an inferior commander, however able and experienced. + +The two great powers on the Euphrates and the Nile, which had controlled +the destinies of the Oriental world in earlier days, were now in a state +of decadence. Egypt was the shadow of its former self. Its empire in +Asia had long since fallen, and it was now divided into two hostile and +equally impotent kingdoms. The Tanite Pharaohs reigned in the north, and +though their supremacy was theoretically acknowledged as far as the +First Cataract, Upper Egypt was really governed by the high priests of +Ammon at Thebes, who had blocked the navigation of the Nile by a strong +fortress at El-Hîba, near Feshn, which successfully prevented the rulers +of the Delta from advancing to the south.[485] Babylonia was similarly +powerless. A younger rival had grown up in Assyria, and about B.C. 1290 +the Assyrian king Tiglath-Ninip had even captured Babylon and held +possession of it for seven years. Like Egypt, Babylonia had renounced +its claim to rule in Western Asia, not to renew it till the age of +Nebuchadrezzar. + +The kingdom of Mitanni or Aram-Naharaim, moreover, had passed away; when +Tiglath-pileser I. of Assyria swept over Western Asia, in B.C. 1100, it +had already become a thing of the past. Perhaps its overthrow was due to +the irruption of the Hittites from the mountains of Cappadocia, but if +so it was soon avenged, for the Hittites too had ceased to be +formidable. Their empire had dissolved into a number of small states: +one of these was Carchemish, which commanded the chief ford across the +Euphrates; another was Kadesh, on the Orontes, which had once more sunk +into obscurity. + +In place of Mitanni and the Hittites the Semitic Aramæans of Syria had +risen into prominence. They had been the older inhabitants of the +country, and the decay of the intrusive powers of Mitanni and the +Hittites had enabled them to shake off the foreign yoke, and establish +kingdoms of their own. Among these, Zobah, called Zubitê in the Assyrian +inscriptions, acquired the leading place. + +In the closing days of the Assyrian empire, the capital of Zobah lay to +the north-east of Moab—perhaps, as Professor Friedrich Delitzsch thinks, +in the neighbourhood of the modern Homs.[486] It was essentially an Arab +state, but had been founded by those Ishmaelite Arabs of Northern +Arabia, who, like the Nabatheans, had by intercourse with a Canaanite +population developed a dialect which we term Aramaic. Saul, as we have +seen, had been already brought into hostile collision with them. At that +time the tribes of Zobah were still disunited, and it was with the +‘kings’ or chieftains of Zobah that the war of the Israelitish ruler had +been carried on. As in Israel, however, so in Zobah, the necessity of +defending themselves against the enemy had led to union, and when David +reigned at Jerusalem they were under the sway of a single sovereign, +Hadad-ezer, ‘the son of Rehob.’ Rehob had given his name to a district a +little to the north of Palestine, of which Hadad-ezer must have been the +hereditary prince.[487] + +Hadad-ezer had attempted to establish his empire on the ruins of that of +the Hittites. He had not only unified Zobah, but had reduced the +neighbouring Aramæan princes to subjection. All northern Syria was +tributary to him except the kingdom of Hamath, and Hamath also was +threatened by the rising power. He had erected a stela commemorating his +victories on the banks of the Euphrates, in imitation of the ancient +Pharaohs of Egypt, and his alliance was courted by the Aramæans on the +eastern side of the river. + +His career of conquest was suddenly arrested. The Ammonites, threatened +by David, sought his assistance, and in return for his help offered to +acknowledge his suzerainty. The offer was accepted, and the Syrian king +found himself face to face with the upstart power of Israel. The war +which followed must have been a long one, but it ended in the complete +victory of David. In the brief annalistic summary of David’s reign given +in 2 Sam. viii., we hear only of one or two of the later incidents in +the campaign. David, it is said, smote Hadad-ezer ‘as he was marching to +restore his stela on the banks of the river’ Euphrates (_v._ 3). This +implies that the memorial of former conquests had been destroyed either +by the Israelitish king or by the revolted subjects of Hadad-ezer +himself. + +The account of the war against Ammon (2 Sam. x.) shows that the +Israelitish victory must have been subsequent to the overthrow of the +Ammonites. The defeat of Hadad-ezer was complete. The Israelites +captured 1000 chariots, 7000 horsemen,[488] and 20,000 foot-soldiers, +besides a large number of horses. The Syrian power, however, was not yet +broken. Damascus rose in defence of its suzerain, and David found +himself once more confronted by a formidable enemy. But fortune again +smiled on the veterans of Israel, and 22,000 Syrians from Damascus were +left dead on the field. Israelitish garrisons were placed in Damascus +and the neighbouring cities, and the rule of David was acknowledged as +far as the frontiers of Hamath.[489] Nevertheless, Hadad-ezer was still +unsubdued. His communications with Mesopotamia were still open across +the desert, and it would seem that the last scene in the war was enacted +as far north as Aleppo. + +A final effort to save Hadad-ezer was made by the Aramæan states on the +eastern side of the Euphrates, who were either his vassals or his +allies. Troops poured across the river, under the command of Shobach, +called Shophach by the Chronicler. Once more David made a levy of the +Israelitish forces and led them in person against the foe. He crossed +the Jordan to the south of Mount Hermon, traversed the territories of +Damascus and Homs, and after leaving Hamath on the left found himself at +Helam, where the Aramæan host had pitched their camp. Josephus in his +account of the campaign transforms Helam, which he reads Khalaman, into +the name of the Aramæan king beyond the Euphrates; we may accept his +reading without following him in changing a place into a man. Khalaman +would correspond exactly with Khalman, the Assyrian name of Aleppo, +which lay on the high road from the fords of the Euphrates to the west. +It seems probable, therefore, that in Helam or Khalaman, we must see +Aleppo. + +According to Josephus, who appears to have derived his account from some +Midrash or Commentary on the books of Samuel, the army of Shobach +consisted of 80,000 infantry and 1000 horse. At all events, in the +battle which followed, and which resulted in the complete victory of the +Israelites, 7000 of the Syrian cavalry and 40,000 of their foot-soldiers +are said to have been slain.[490] The power of Zobah was utterly +destroyed. All Syria on the western side of the Euphrates hastened to +make peace with the conqueror, and to offer him homage or alliance. The +states on the eastern bank were separated from their Aramæan kinsfolk to +the west, and as long as David lived took good care not again to cross +the river. The old dream of the Israelitish patriot was fulfilled, and +the dominion of Israel extended northwards to the borders of Hamath. +Even the desert tribes to the east of Hamath, who had owned obedience to +Hadad-ezer, passed under the sway of David, and for a time at all events +the Jewish king could boast that his rule was acknowledged as far as the +Euphrates.[491] + +The immediate result of the victory was a sudden influx of wealth into +the Jewish capital. Not only were the golden shields carried by the +bodyguard of Hadad-ezer brought to Jerusalem, to be borne on state +occasions by the foreign guards of the conqueror, but immense stores of +bronze were found in two of the cities of northern Syria, Tibhath and +Berothai.[492] It was out of this bronze that the fittings of the temple +were afterwards made by Solomon.[493] + +Another result of the war was an embassy from Toi or Tou of Hamath. The +powerful Hebrew prince who had so unexpectedly appeared on the horizon +of northern Syria was a neighbour whose goodwill it was necessary to +purchase at all costs. The embassy sent by Toi to David was accordingly +headed by the Hamathite king’s own son. This was Hadoram, whose name was +changed into the corresponding Hebrew Joram. The change of name was a +delicate way of acknowledging the supremacy of the God of Israel and the +sovereign who worshipped Him, and of declaring that henceforth Hadad of +Syria was to become Yahveh of Israel. As the Assyrian kings professed to +make war in order that they might spread the name and worship of Assur, +so it might be presumed that the campaigns of David were carried on in +order to glorify Yahveh, who had given him the victory.[494] + +The ambassadors brought with them various costly gifts, which +Israelitish vanity might, if it chose, interpret as tribute, and which +would certainly have been so interpreted by an Egyptian or Assyrian +scribe. Vessels of gold, silver, and bronze were laid at the feet of +David, and a treaty of alliance formed between him and the ruler of +Hamath. That Hadad-ezer had been the common enemy of both was a +sufficient pretext both for the embassy and for the alliance. The memory +of the alliance lasted down to a late date. Even when Azariah reigned +over Judah in the time of the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III., Hamath +could still look to Jerusalem for help; and in the age of Sargon, +Yahu-bihdi, whose name contains that of the national God of Israel, led +the people of Hamath to revolt. + +All this while the siege of ‘the City of Waters,’ the Rabbah or +‘Capital’ of Ammon, still dragged on. Joab was encamped before it, while +David was leading a life of ease and luxury in his palace at Jerusalem. +This neglect of his kingly duties finds little favour in the eyes of the +Hebrew historian. At the season of the year when David sent Joab and +‘his servants’ to do his work, other ‘kings’ were accustomed to ‘go +forth to battle,’ and special emphasis is laid upon the words of Uriah: +‘The ark and Israel and Judah abide in tents; and my lord Joab and the +servants of my lord are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go +into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife?’ With a +king who had thus delegated his proper work to others, and had already +forgotten that the very reason for his existence was that he should lead +the people of Yahveh against their enemies, a catastrophe could not be +far distant. First came the act of adultery with Bath-sheba, the wife of +Uriah the Hittite, next the treacherous murder of a faithful guardsman +and brave officer. Uriah was made to carry to Joab the letter which +contained his own death-warrant, as well as that of other servants of +David, equally innocent and equally valorous. A special messenger +brought the king the news of his death, and Bath-sheba was at once added +to the royal harîm. One man only could be found with courage enough to +protest against the deed; this was Nathan the prophet, a successor of +the Samuel who had placed the crown on David’s head. The king professed +his penitence, though he did not offer to put away Bath-sheba, and the +death of the child he had had by her was accepted in expiation of his +guilt. It was an example of that vicarious punishment, that substitution +of ‘the fruit of the body for the sin of the soul,’ a belief in which +was as strong among the Canaanites as it was in Babylonia. The second +son borne by Bath-sheba received the double name of Jedidiah from +Nathan, and Shelomoh or Solomon from his father. Shelomoh, ‘the +peaceful,’ was, in fact, the Hebrew equivalent of Salamanu or Solomon, +the name of a king of Moab in the days of Tiglath-pileser III.[495] + +David’s submission gave him a claim upon Nathan which the prophet never +forgot. The death of the first-born of Bath-sheba, moreover, seemed to +indicate that Yahveh had accepted the sacrifice of the child that had +been, as it were, offered for the sin of the father, and that the guilt +of the Israelitish monarch had been atoned. Henceforward Nathan took a +peculiar interest in the new queen and her offspring. One of the four +sons of Bath-sheba was named after him (1 Chron. iii. 5), and it was to +him that Solomon owed in part his succession to the throne. It may be +that Solomon’s training was intrusted to the prophet; such at any rate +may be the significance of the words in 2 Sam. xii. 25. + +It was after the birth of Solomon that Rabbah was at length starved into +a surrender. Joab, ever jealous of his master’s fame, sent to tell David +of the fact, and to bid him come at once and occupy the city lest the +glory of its capture should be credited to the general who had besieged +it rather than to the king who had remained at home. David accordingly +proceeded to the camp, and entered the Ammonite capital at the head of +his troops. The crown of gold, inlaid with gems, which had adorned the +image of Malcham, the Ammonite god, was placed over the head of his +human conqueror; the city itself was sacked, and its population treated +with merciless rigour. In the euphemistic language of the historian they +were put ‘under saws and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, +and made to pass through the brickkiln.’[496] + +The war with Ammon was followed by one with Edom. The Amalekites or +Bedâwin had already been taught that a strong power had arisen in +Palestine, thoroughly able to protect its inhabitants from the raids of +the desert robbers (2 Sam. viii. 12); the turn of the Edomites was to +come next. David himself seems to have led the Israelitish army,[497] +and in a decisive battle in a wadi south of the Dead Sea, utterly +crushed the forces of Edom.[498] Eighteen thousand of the enemy were +slain, and all further resistance on the part of disciplined troops was +at an end. For six months longer the inhabitants of Mount Seir carried +on a guerilla warfare with Joab; they were, however, mercilessly hunted +out and massacred, hardly a male being left alive (1 Kings xi. 15). The +child Hadad, the son, it may be, of the last Edomite king Hadar, was +carried by ‘his father’s servants’ to Egypt, where they found shelter in +the court of the Pharaohs, and David took possession of the depopulated +country. Its possession opened up for Israel a new era of wealth and +commercial prosperity. The high road along which the spices of southern +Arabia were carried ran through it, and at its southern extremity were +the two ports of Elath and Ezion-geber on the Sea of Suph, which +connected Western Asia with the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. David now +commanded the caravan-trade from the north of Syria to the Gulf of +Aqaba; on the one side he was in contact with Mesopotamia and Asia +Minor, on the other with Egypt and Arabia. Apart from the trade which +passed through Palestine, leaving riches on its way, the tolls levied on +merchandise must have brought a goodly income to the royal exchequer. +David, indeed, had too much in him of the peasant and the warrior to +realise the full extent of his good fortune; it needed a Solomon to +perceive all the advantages of his position, to fit out merchant vessels +in the Gulf of Aqaba, and to secure a monopoly of the carrying trade. +For the present, David was occupied in fortifying the conquests he had +made. Aramæans from Ammon and Zobah were drafted into his +bodyguard,[499] and Edom was so effectively garrisoned as to make revolt +impossible for more than a century. A firm hold was kept upon the +kinglets of the small Aramæan states to the north who had formerly owned +Hadad-ezer as their suzerain; the king of Geshur was already connected +by marriage with the royal house of Israel. A new and formidable power +had grown up at the entrance to Egypt, effectually cutting off the +monarchy of the Nile from Western Asia, and the commander-in-chief of +the Israelitish army had proved himself the ablest and most irresistible +general of his time. + +David appeared to be securely fixed not only on the throne of Israel, +but also on that of an Israelitish empire. But his power after all was +wanting in stability. It depended in great measure upon Joab; Joab alone +commanded the confidence of the veteran soldiery, and was dreaded by the +foreign foe.[500] Moreover, there was as yet but little real adhesion +between the Israelitish tribes. Ephraim could not forget its old +position of pre-eminence, or cease to resent the domination of the +new-born and half-foreign tribe of Judah. The blood-tax demanded by the +wars of David added to the discontent. The wars were wars of aggression +rather than of defence, and were to the advantage of a Jewish dynasty, +not of the people as a whole. Military service became as unpopular in +Israel as it has been of recent years in Egypt: when David proposed to +number his subjects and thereby ascertain what fighting force he +possessed, Joab vainly endeavoured to dissuade him from his intention, +and the people subsequently saw in the plague that followed the +punishment of a royal crime. The bodyguard of Philistines and Kretans, +with its officers of various nationalities and creeds, protected the +person of the king and prevented any open signs of disaffection; but +discontent smouldered beneath the surface, ready to break into flame +whenever a favourable opportunity occurred. The Israelites had too +recently submitted themselves to the rule of a single sovereign to be as +yet amenable to discipline, or to have lost the democratic instincts of +the armed peasant and his guerilla methods of carrying on war. + +There was yet another, and a still more potent cause for the instability +of David’s throne. This was to be found in the royal family itself. +Polygamy has been the fatal cancer which has eaten away the strength and +prosperity of the most powerful dynasties of the Oriental world; and the +history of the Israelitish empire proved no exception to the rule. David +had none of the stern and ascetic fanaticism which distinguished Saul; +he enjoyed life to the fullest, and when success came, policy alone set +bounds to his enjoyment of it. Self-indulgent as most other Oriental +despots, he multiplied to himself wives and children, not shrinking even +from the murder of the trustiest of his followers in his determination +to add yet another beauty to his well-stocked harîm. Polygamy brought +with it its usual curse. In the dull and idle seclusion of the palace, +the wives of the king quarrelled one with another for his favour and +love, and the quarrel of the mother was adopted by her children. +Maachah, the daughter of the king of Geshur, claimed precedence for +herself and her son Absalom in virtue of their royal blood; Amnon, as +the first-born of his father, regarded himself as rightful heir to the +throne, and as therefore placed above the ordinary laws of men; while +Bath-sheba, whose unscrupulous ambition had betrayed a husband to +destruction, never ceased intriguing in the interests of Solomon whom +she had destined from the outset for the crown. + +The latter years of David’s life were clouded with the crimes and +rebellions of his family. Amnon outraged his half-sister Tamar, and was +murdered by her brother Absalom, and Absalom, his father’s favourite, +fled to Talmai, king of Geshur. Thanks to Joab, the blood-feud was +eventually appeased, and after an exile of three years Absalom was +allowed to return to Jerusalem. Two years later, David consented to +forget the past. Absalom was again received at court, and his beauty and +grace of manner resumed their former sway over the hearts of both king +and people. + +But David was growing old; discontent was gathering even among his own +tribesmen, and Absalom was impatient to seize the crown which he +conceived to be his by right. He obtained leave to go to Hebron, there +to offer sacrifice in the ancient sanctuary and capital of Judah. The +place was well chosen: the religious traditions of a venerable past were +associated with the city, and its inhabitants could have looked with +little favour on the rise of Jerusalem. They gave ready ear to the +prince who promised to restore Hebron to its ancient importance, and +make it once more a capital. The cry of Hebron and Judah as against +Jerusalem and a dynastic empire was eagerly responded to. + +David was taken by surprise. Even Joab does not seem to have been aware +of the conspiracy which was being formed. There were no troops in +Jerusalem sufficient to defend it against attack, even if its defenders +could be trusted, and of this David was no longer sure. He seemed +deserted by all the world, and his only safety lay in flight. Even his +counsellor Ahitophel had gone over to the rebel son. + +The royal household and harîm fled eastwards across the Jordan to those +outlying districts of Israelitish territory in which Esh-Baal had so +long maintained himself. David was accompanied by his bodyguard: the +priests who wished to accompany him with the ark were sent back. So, +too, was Hushai, the fellow-councillor of Ahitophel, in the hope that he +might counteract the schemes of Absalom’s adviser. + +The revolt showed David that he had been living in merely fancied +security. His tribesmen had fallen away from him at the first summons of +his more popular son; his old comrades, indeed, still stood by him, and +he could count on the swords and fidelity of his foreign bodyguard. But +what were they against a revolted nation? Even in the days of outlawry, +when he was hunted from cave to cave by Saul, he could reckon on popular +sympathy and help; now the popular sympathy was transferred to another, +and the flood-gates of disaffection and hatred were opened upon him. In +spite of his guards, Shimei of the house of Saul ventured to stone him +as he passed along, and to call him the man of blood who had +unrighteously seized the crown. It was a sign that the fall of Saul’s +dynasty had not been forgotten, and that there were still those in +Benjamin who submitted with reluctance to the rule of his supplanter. + +David was saved by the loyalty of Joab. Had that invincible general gone +over to the enemy a new king would have sat on the throne of Israel. The +commander-in-chief would have taken his veterans with him and led them, +as ever, to victory. Fortunately for David, his old friend refused to +forsake the fortunes of the fallen king. Perhaps family jealousies may +have had some influence on his resolution. Absalom conferred the office +of commander-in-chief on Amasa, the son of Joab’s cousin, who had +married a man of Israel.[501] The appointment may indeed have been made +because Joab had already thrown in his lot with that of the king; more +probably it had been promised to Amasa before the beginning of the +revolt. + +But the priests and prophets remained faithful to the king of their +choice. Zadok and Abiathar, the chief priests, had returned to Jerusalem +with the sacred symbol of Yahveh’s presence in Israel, but their sons +Ahimaaz and Johanan undertook to keep David informed of the plans of his +enemies in the capital. Fortunately for him, the advice of Ahitophel was +only partially acted upon. Absalom possessed himself of his father’s +concubines, and thereby, in accordance with Hebrew ideas, published to +the world his usurpation of the throne, but the further advice of the +wily counsellor was disregarded. Instead of despatching a body of twelve +thousand men, who should fall upon the fugitives before they could reach +the fords of the Jordan, Absalom and his youthful friends preferred the +counsel of Hushai, and determined first to raise a levy of all Israel. +The idea of marching in person at the head of a great army appealed to +the vanity of the young usurper; and to the inexperience of youth the +possibility of David and his guards hiding in ambush, and thence +descending upon their unwary pursuers, seemed a very real danger. +Ahitophel, the single representative of age and experience among the +conspirators, knew only too well what the rejection of his advice must +mean. The rebellion was self-condemned; it was doomed to failure, and +the return of David would be the destruction of himself. Even at the +council-board of Absalom his rival Hushai had been preferred to himself; +all that was left him was to crawl back to his home in bitter +disappointment, and there hang himself. The conspiracy had lost the +brain which alone could have conducted it to success. + +The news of Ahitophel’s advice was brought to David by the young +priests. They had escaped with difficulty from their hiding-place at the +Fuller’s Spring below the southern extremity of the wall of Jerusalem, +and subsequently owed their preservation to a woman’s wit. The priests +were known to be hostile to the new movement; they had therefore been +watched and closely pursued. They reached David while he was still on +the western side of the Jordan, and no time was lost in putting the +river between himself and his enemies. The fugitives, however, did not +consider themselves safe until they found themselves at Mahanaim, where +they were in the midst of a friendly population. Ammonites as well as +Gileadites hastened to do honour to David, and to furnish him with +everything that he and his companions required.[502] + +He was soon joined by Joab and his brother Abishai, with the veteran +troops under their command. A third division of the army was placed +under Ittai of Gath, a captain in the royal bodyguard, and the approach +of the rebel army was awaited without anxiety. Amasa made the fatal +mistake of attacking the royal troops in their own territory, on ground +they had chosen for themselves. Not only was it on the further side of +the Jordan, it was also among the trees and dense undergrowth of the +forest of Ephraim.[503] The issue could not be doubtful. David, indeed, +had not been allowed by his followers to enter the field himself. He was +now too old for active service, and his death would involve all the +horrors of a disputed succession and civil war. That Absalom, however, +would be defeated seems to have been taken for granted, and David +accordingly impressed upon his generals that they should spare his son’s +life. + +But Joab judged more wisely than the king. He knew that as long as +Absalom lived there would be constant trouble and insecurity, and that +for those who had fought against him on his father’s side there would be +but short shrift. As Absalom, therefore, hung suspended by his hair from +the branches of a tree which had caught him in his flight, he pierced +him with three darts, while his ten armour-bearers despoiled the corpse. +Twenty thousand of the enemy were said to have been slain, partly by the +sword, partly from the nature of the place in which the battle was +fought, and the slaughter would have been greater had not Joab recalled +his men from their pursuit of the foe as soon as Absalom was dead. With +the fall of the usurper all further danger was at an end. + +Ahimaaz, the Levite, famous for his fleetness of foot, ran with news of +the victory to the king. But Joab knew how fondly David had doted on his +handsome and selfish son; he knew also that he was weakened in both mind +and body, and that the day was past when his emotions could be kept +under control. Joab, therefore, refused to let Ahimaaz carry the tidings +of his son’s death to the king, and an ‘Ethiopian’ slave was sent with +the news instead. In the end, however, Ahimaaz outran the Ethiopian, and +announced at Mahanaim the victory that had been won. Then came the +foreigner with the message that Absalom was dead. + +The conduct of David which followed on the message was indefensible. He +forgot that he was a king, that he had duties towards his people and +those who had risked their lives on his behalf, that the prince who had +fallen in open fight had been the murderer of his brother, a rebel +against his father, and a would-be parricide. All was forgotten and +absorbed in a father’s grief for his dead son. David allowed the passion +of his emotion to sweep him away, and he wept as a woman and not as a +man. It was an outburst of Oriental exaggeration of feeling, +unrestrained and untempered by the reason or the will. + +His followers regarded the spectacle with amazement and dismay. Had it +been worth their while to fight for such a king? One by one they slunk +away, and it seemed as if he would soon be left alone to the company of +himself and his harîm. But once more Joab came to the rescue of his old +master and companion in arms. It was indeed with the rough speech of the +soldier, but plain speech was needed even though it was rough and rude. +‘Thou hast shamed this day,’ he said, ‘the faces of all thy servants, +which this day have saved thy life, and the lives of thy sons and of thy +daughters, and the lives of thy wives, and the lives of thy concubines; +in that thou lovest thine enemies, and hatest thy friends. For thou +regardest neither princes nor servants: for this day I perceive, that if +Absalom had lived, and all we had died this day, then it had pleased +thee well. Now therefore arise, go forth, and speak comfortably unto thy +servants: for I swear by the Lord, if thou go not forth, there will not +tarry one with thee this night: and that will be worse unto thee than +all the evil that befell thee from thy youth until now.’ + +David was roused from his selfish and unworthy grief; weak and +self-indulgent as he had become, the words of Joab nevertheless forced +him to recognise the dangers he had provoked. But he never forgave his +monitor. He soon found an opportunity of punishing Joab for his loyalty, +and his dying orders to his successor were to put his grey-haired +servant to death. + +Secret word was sent to the priests at Jerusalem that they should shame +the elders of Judah into demanding the return of the king, seeing that +he was their own tribesman, and that the rest of Israel had already +acknowledged his sovereignty. At the same time Amasa was appointed +commander-in-chief in place of Joab. David thus revenged himself upon +his too outspoken general, and also made a bid for popularity among the +Jewish forces who had followed Amasa. + +The act was as foolish as it was unjust, and it soon brought its penalty +with it. The elders of Judah indeed begged the king to return, and he +was led across the Jordan in a sort of triumphal procession by the +delegates of that tribe. But the other tribes resented this +appropriation of the royal person. It was the Jews rather than the rest +of Israel who had revolted and made Absalom their king, while the +veterans of Joab who had remained loyal represented the whole nation. +For the first time since the death of Esh-Baal, the men of Israel and of +Judah stood over against one another with antagonistic interests and +angry rivalry; Israel claimed to have ten parts in the king, whereas +Judah had but one, and yet David’s action had implied that Judah alone +was his rightful heritage. Hardly was he again in Jerusalem before a new +and more dangerous revolt broke out against his rule. Sheba, a +Benjamite, raised the standard of rebellion, and his cry, ‘We have no +part in David,’ found an echo in the hearts of the northern tribes. +‘Every man of Israel,’ we are told, deserted ‘the son of Jesse’; Judah +alone adhered to him. But the strong arm and able brain that had so long +fought for David were no longer there to help him; Joab had been +superseded by Amasa; and the raw levies of Judah who had escaped from +the forest of Ephraim were but a poor substitute for the disciplined +forces which had created an empire. David at last awoke to the fact that +in a moment of weak passion he had done his best to throw away a crown; +Abishai was summoned in haste and sent with the bodyguard and ‘Joab’s +men’ against the new foe. + +It would seem that Sheba’s camp had been at Gibeon, not far to the north +of Jerusalem. On the advance of the Jewish army he retreated northward. +Joab had accompanied his brother, and at ‘the great stone’ of Gibeon the +Jewish forces were overtaken by their new commander-in-chief. Amasa +placed himself at the head of them, clad in the robe of office which +Joab had worn for so many years. The provocation was great, and the +murder of Abner with which Joab had begun his career was repeated in the +murder of Amasa at the close of it. Abner, however, had been a general +of considerable ability and influence; and Joab had not yet accumulated +so many claims upon the gratitude of the king. The army took Joab’s side +in the matter: Amasa’s body was thrown into a field with a common cloth +above it, and the Jewish soldiers hurried on along the high-road in +pursuit of the foe. They would have no other commander but Joab, and his +degradation by the king was tacitly set aside. + +With Joab once more at their head, the insurrection soon came to an end. +Sheba fled to the northern extremity of Israelitish territory and flung +himself into the city of Abel of Beth-Maachah.[504] Here he was closely +besieged until ‘a wise woman’ persuaded her fellow-citizens to cut off +his head and throw it to Joab. The rebellion was over, and Joab returned +in triumph to Jerusalem. + +The last ten years of David’s life were passed in tranquillity. His +bodily and mental powers grew enfeebled, and he sank slowly into the +grave. The hardships of his youth and the self-indulgence and polygamy +of his later years had weakened his constitution prematurely. While his +early companions Joab and Abiathar still retained their vigour, the king +became old and worn-out. The intrigues of the harîm, it is true, still +continued, but there was no Absalom to steal away the hearts of the +people by his beauty and winsomeness of manner; no Amnon to assert in +deeds the rights of a crown-prince. + +Israel was at peace with her neighbours. Edom and Zobah had been utterly +crushed; Moab and Ammon feared to move while Joab was alive. The petty +kings of Northern Syria paid intermittently their tribute; Tyre and +Sidon courted their powerful neighbour, whose friendship was preferable +to his hostility. Egypt was divided against herself; more than one +dynasty ruled in the country, and the Tanite sovereigns of the Delta had +neither wealth nor men. Like Egypt, Babylonia had fallen into decay, and +the defeat of the Assyrian king Assur-irbi by the Aramæans had cut off +Assyria from the nations of the West. The Philistines had been compelled +to become the servants of David; and the pirate-hordes who had flocked +to their aid from Krete and the Ægean now passed into the service of the +Israelitish king, or else transferred their attention to other parts of +the Mediterranean Sea. According to Greek legend, Thrace, Rhodes, and +Phrygia occupied the waters of which they had once been the masters. +Phœnician trading-ships could at last sail peaceably across them, and +Tyre accordingly, under Abibal and Hiram, became a centre of maritime +trade. + +In the north, the Hittite empire had long since passed away. Kadesh, on +the Orontes, had become the capital of a small district, formidable to +no one, and on good terms with its Israelitish neighbours.[505] Hamath, +also, was in alliance with the Israelitish king. Among the wadis of the +Lebanon, near Damascus, Rezon, indeed, led the life of a bandit-chief, +and robbed the caravans which passed his way; but it was not until after +David’s death that he succeeded in establishing himself at Damascus, and +there founding a dynasty of kings. + +At home, however, though outwardly all seemed calm, the seeds of +disunion and discontent were lying thick below the surface. The +rebellion of Absalom in Judah, of Sheba in Northern Israel, had shown +how fragile were the bonds of union that bound the tribes to one another +and to their king. The affections of Judah were not yet entwined around +the house of David; the feeling that they were a single nation had not +yet penetrated very deeply into the hearts of the other tribes. The +Davidic dynasty itself was not yet secure. It depended for its support +rather on the sword than on the loyalty of the people. The fallen +dynasty still had its followers and secret supporters, and now and then +an event occurred which showed how dangerous they might become. Shimei +the Benjamite doubtless represented the feeling of his tribe when he +cursed David in the hour of his humiliation; and David’s conduct after +his restoration to the throne shows that he could not trust even +Merib-Baal or Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, whom he had treated as +his own son.[506] An incident which had happened in an earlier part of +his reign is another proof of his readiness to root out as far as +possible the family of Saul. Three years in succession Palestine had +suffered from want of rain and consequent famine, and the oracle of +Yahveh declared that the cause of the visitation was Saul’s slaughter of +the Gibeonites. The massacre of the priests at Nob had indeed been +avenged by the death of the Israelitish king and his sons, and by the +fall of his throne, but other temple-servants besides the priests had +suffered from Saul’s outburst of mad anger, and their blood was still +crying out for revenge. Blood demanded blood, and the sacrifice of +Saul’s descendants could alone atone for the guilt of their forefather. + +Mephibosheth was spared, partly because of his father Jonathan’s +friendship towards David, whose life he had once saved, partly because +little was to be feared from a lame man. But the five sons of Michal (?) +by Adriel of Meholah were handed over to the executioner.[507] They +stood too near the throne; apart from Mephibosheth they were, in fact, +the only direct descendants of the late king, and David was doubtless +glad of the opportunity of removing them from his path. His dying +injunctions to Solomon proved how merciless he could be when the safety +of his dynasty was at stake. + +Two other descendants of Saul still remained, who might possibly be a +source of trouble. These were the sons of his concubine Rizpah, and they +also were condemned to die. The sacred number of seven victims was thus +made up, and David satisfied at once the religious scruples of the +Gibeonites and the political exigencies of his own position. Shimei had +some reason for calling him a ‘man of blood’ who had shed ‘the blood of +the house of Saul.’ + +The human victims were hanged on the sacred hill of Gibeah ‘before the +Lord,’ and none was allowed to take the bodies down until at last the +rain fell. Then they were buried solemnly in the ancestral tomb of +Saul’s family at Zelah, along with the ashes of Saul and Jonathan, which +David had brought from Jabesh-gilead. The great atonement had been made +and accepted by Yahveh, and at the same time David had cleared himself +from all charges of impiety towards the dead. The fallen dynasty had +ceased to be formidable. + +Hence it was that when the northern tribes under Sheba broke away from +the house of David, they could find no representative of the family of +Saul to lead them. Sheba, it is true, was a Benjamite, but he came from +Mount Ephraim, and was not related to Saul. He was rather one of those +military generals who in after days played so large a part in the +history of the northern kingdom in dethroning and founding dynasties. + +Nevertheless, the yoke of the royal supremacy was borne with impatience. +In spite of the support of the priesthood and the swords of Joab and the +foreign bodyguard, David’s reign was troubled by rebellion. As long, +indeed, as it was signalised by victories over a foreign foe, by the +conquest of neighbouring states, by the influx of captive slaves and the +acquisition of spoil, his subjects were well content with their +successful leader in war. His influence over those who were brought into +personal contact with him had always been great, and there were few who +could resist his charm of manner. But when the era of conquests was +past, when David had delegated his military duties to others, and had +retired more and more into the privacy of an Oriental palace, the seeds +of discontent began to grow and spread. Even in Judah there were +complaints that justice was neglected (2 Sam. xiv. 2-6); further off the +complaints must have been loud and deep. The unpopularity of the +conscription by which the ranks of the army were filled was patent even +to Joab (2 Sam. xxiv. 3), and the census on which it depended was +regarded as hateful to God as well as to man. + +Even David himself half repented of his determination to number the +people (2 Sam. xxiv. 10), and the general feeling was expressed by the +seer Gad when he declared that the punishment of heaven would be visited +for the deed, not indeed upon the guilty king, but upon his innocent +subjects (2 Sam. xxiv. 13, 17). In the plague that devastated Palestine +they saw the anger of Yahveh, and the conscience-stricken king at once +assented to the common view. + +The cessation of the plague was connected with the foundation of the +temple. At the very spot where David had seen the angel of death +standing with his sword unsheathed, the altar was built and the +sacrifice offered which appeased the wrath of the Lord. It was the +threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite, on the level summit of Mount +Moriah, where the old Jebusite population of Jerusalem still dwelt. It +may even be that Araunah was the last Jebusite king whose life and +freedom were spared when Jerusalem was surrendered to David.[508] + +The threshing-floor was bought by David, and became the great +‘high-place’ of the new capital of the kingdom. Everything marked it out +as the site of that temple which in the Eastern world was a necessary +supplement of the royal palace. It was the highest part of the city; it +was, moreover, a smooth and sunny rock, and the place which it occupied +was open and unconfined. It had been the scene of a special revelation +of Yahveh to the king, and the altar erected on it had been the means of +preserving the people of Israel from death. It is possible, too, that +the spot was already sacred. In the Tel el-Amarna tablets, Ebed-Tob, +king of Jerusalem, speaks of the Temple of Nin-ip as standing on ‘the +mountain of Uru-salim,’ and of all the mountains of Jerusalem the future +temple-mount was the most prominent and commanding. + +We do not know when the pestilence occurred which thus had such +momentous consequences for the later religion of Judah. The empire of +David already extended as far as ‘Kadesh of the Hittites,’[509] but Edom +does not as yet seem to have become a province of Israel. The census was +taken in order to ascertain the number of fighting men in Israel, not +with a view to the levying of taxes. In the latter case the conquered +provinces would have been included in the registration. We may gather, +therefore, that the event happened about the middle of David’s reign, +probably at the time when the struggle with Zobah was still going on. + +It was at a later period, when ‘the Lord had given him rest round about +from all his enemies’ (2 Sam. vii. 1), that he announced to Nathan his +purpose of building a temple. Nathan had taken Gad’s place as the seer +and confidant of the king, and the palace of David had already been +erected. But Yahveh would not allow him to carry out his plan. His hands +were stained too deeply with blood; the work was destined for the son +whose name signified ‘the peaceful one,’ and in whose birth and training +the seer had taken so profound an interest.[510] All that David could do +was to prepare the way for his successor, to collect the materials for +the work, and to determine the place whereon the temple of God should +stand. + +Two lists have come down to us of David’s chief officers, extracted from +the State annals. The first list is given at the end of the annalistic +summary of the events of his reign (2 Sam. viii. 16-18), and belongs to +the earlier portion of it; the second must have been drawn up not long +before his death. From the outset, it is clear, the kingdom was as +thoroughly organised as that of the surrounding states. There was the +‘recorder’ or ‘chronicler’ whose duty it was to hand down the memory of +all that happened to future generations; the scribe or chief secretary +who wrote and answered official letters, and superintended the copying +and re-editing of older documents in the record office; the +commander-in-chief of the army, who corresponded to the _turtannu_ or +tartan of the Assyrians, and the commander of the foreign troops. The +administration, in fact, seems to have closely resembled that of +Assyria, excepting only that there was no Vizier or Prime Minister who +acted as the representative of the king. It presupposes a +long-established use of writing and all the machinery of a civilised +Oriental state. The scribe and the chronicler make their appearance in +Israel simultaneously with the establishment of an organised government. +A knowledge of the art of writing could have been no new thing. + +Jehoshaphat, the son of Ahilud, we are told, was the recorder, Seraiah +was the secretary,[511] Benaiah the commander of the Kretan and +Philistine bodyguard. By the side of the civil functionaries were the +two high priests Zadok and Abiathar, while the office of royal chaplains +was filled by the sons of David himself. Their duties were probably to +offer such sacrifices as were not public in the absence or in place of +their father. That there should have been two high priests is difficult +to explain. Zadok was the son of Ahitub, whom the Chronicler makes the +son of Amariah, and a descendant of Phinehas the son of Eleazar (1 +Chron. vi. 7), while Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech or Ahiah, the +grandson of Ahitub, and great-grandson of Phinehas the son of Eli.[512] +Abiathar appears to have represented the family of Ithamar the younger +brother of Eleazar the son of Aaron; at any rate, it was to his family +that the safe keeping of the ark had been intrusted as well as the high +priesthood at the sanctuary of Shiloh. The destruction of Shiloh dealt a +blow at its influence and _prestige_, the massacre of the priests at Nob +almost annihilated it. Room was thus given for another line of priests +who claimed descent from the elder branch of Aaron’s family, and who had +probably preserved the Mosaic tradition in another part of Israel. Is it +possible that Zadok had followed the fortunes of Esh-Baal, while +Abiathar attached himself to David? At all events, the unification of +the kingdom brought with it the unification of the high-priestly +families; throughout the greater part of David’s reign the ark at +Jerusalem was served by both Zadok and Abiathar, with numerous Levites +under them (2 Sam. xv. 24-29). That Zadok is always named first, though +Abiathar had been the early friend and priest of David, implies that his +claim to represent the elder branch of the high priest’s family was +recognised. + +When the second list of David’s officials was compiled certain important +changes had taken place. Seraiah, the secretary, had been succeeded by +Sheva or Shisha (2 Sam. xx. 25; 1 Kings iv. 3); ‘Ira, the Jairite,’ had +become the chaplain of David, and the growth of the empire had +necessitated the creation of a new office. This was the imperial +treasurership which was held by a certain Hadoram, who seems to have +been of Syrian origin, and whose duty it was to collect the tribute of +the conquered provinces.[513] Possibly he had already gained experience +of the office under one of the Syrian kings. + +Other officers of David are enumerated by the Chronicler (1 Chron. +xxvii. 25-34). They had their analogues in Assyria and Egypt, and show +how thoroughly the court of Israel was modelled after those of the +neighbouring states. Among them we read of Azmaveth, the son of Adiel, +who presided over the exchequer; of Jonathan, the son of Uzziah, who +superintended the public granaries, which must therefore have been +established in imitation of those of Egypt and Babylonia;[514] of Ezri, +the superintendent of the peasants who worked on the crown lands; of +Shimei and Zabdi, who had charge of the royal vineyards and +wine-cellars; of Baal-hanan and Joash, to whom were intrusted the olive +plantations and storehouses of oil; of Obil, the Ishmaelite, the chief +of the camel-drivers; of Jehdeiah, the head of the ass-drivers; and of +Jaziz, the Hagarene, who superintended the shepherds of the king.[515] + +David sank slowly into the grave, old in mind as well as in years. A +young maiden, Abishag the Shunammite, was brought to lie beside the +king, and so keep up the warmth of his body. But it was all in vain, and +it became clear that he could not last long. The bed of the dying king +was surrounded by intrigue. Adonijah, the eldest of his surviving sons, +naturally looked upon himself as the rightful heir. He could count upon +two powerful supporters. One was the priest Abiathar, who had first +given David’s title to the crown a religious sanction; the other was +Joab, who had created his empire. But Bath-sheba had long since +determined that she should be queen-mother, and that her son Solomon +should wear the crown. Behind her stood Nathan, the spiritual director +both of herself and of her son. The adhesion of Abiathar and Joab to +Adonijah, moreover, drove their rivals Zadok and Benaiah into the +opposite camp, and Benaiah took with him the foreign bodyguard of which +he was commander, and which, as in other countries, thus showed itself +ready from the outset to make and unmake kings. Above all, Bath-sheba +still exercised her old influence over the half-conscious monarch, and +it did not need the incitements of Nathan to induce her to exert it once +more on behalf of Solomon. Backed as she was by the prophet, the issue +was not doubtful, and David did as he was bid. Bath-sheba reminded him +of his old promise to herself, Nathan craftily represented that Adonijah +was already seizing the crown before his father’s life was extinct. + +Zadok and Benaiah were accordingly summoned, and ordered to escort the +young prince on David’s own mule to the spring of Gihon, and there, just +outside the eastern wall of Jerusalem, where the Spring of the Virgin +now gushes from the ground, to anoint him with the oil of consecration, +and proclaim his accession by the sound of trumpet. The presence of the +priests and the bodyguard was a visible sign that the kingship and the +power had been transferred from David to Solomon. + +Meanwhile Adonijah was holding a feast at the stone of Zoheleth, near +En-Rogel, the Fuller’s Spring, the modern Well of Job south of the Pool +of Siloam. Abiathar and Joab were with him; so also were his brothers, +who seem to have had but little affection for the favourite of Nathan, +as well as those representatives of Judah who had been the mainstay of +Absalom’s rebellion. Solomon appears to have been regarded as tainted by +foreign blood; at all events, Judah followed Adonijah as it had followed +Absalom.[516] But Nathan and Bath-sheba had taken their measures in +time. In the midst of the feast news was brought to the conspirators by +Johanan, the son of Abiathar, that Solomon had been proclaimed king, and +that his person was already protected by the royal bodyguard. The guests +fled in dismay, and Adonijah took refuge at the altar. There the +sovereign-elect promised him that he would spare his life. + +Solomon next received the last commands of the dying king. David’s last +thought was for the maintenance of the kingdom and the dynasty. Solomon +was to follow in the footsteps of his father, to obey the law of Yahveh +and His priests. More especially he was to seek an early opportunity of +ridding himself of possible rivals or antagonists whom the weakness or +policy of David himself had hitherto spared. Joab was to be put to +death; he was too powerful a subject to be allowed to live, aged though +he now was, and his complicity with Adonijah made him dangerous to the +new king. Shimei, too, was to be slain; as long as he lived the fallen +dynasty had a leader around whom the disaffected might rally. On the +other hand, the kindness of Barzillai, the Gileadite, was not to be +forgotten; favour to him would win the hearts of the men of Gilead.[517] + +David died, leaving behind him a name which his countrymen never forgot. +He became the ideal of a patriot king. He had founded a dynasty and an +empire; and though the empire soon fell to pieces, the dynasty survived +and exercised a momentous influence upon the religious history of the +world. He had established once for all the principle of monarchy in +Israel; never again could the Israelites return to the anarchic days of +the Judges, or forget the lessons of unity which they had been taught. + +In character he was generous and kind-hearted, though in his later years +his kindheartedness degenerated into weakness. He was, moreover, brave +and skilful, with a personal charm of manner and readiness of speech +which those about him found it impossible to withstand. Alone of his +sons, Absalom seems to have inherited these gifts of his father, which +may perhaps account for the blind love David had for him. But along with +these gifts went a rich fund of Oriental selfishness, which made him +never lose an opportunity of securing his own advantage or promotion. It +was a selfishness so deep as to be wholly unconscious; whatever made for +his interests was necessarily right. It was combined with clearness of +head and definiteness of aim, which ensured success in whatever he +undertook. A good judge of men, he first attached them to himself by his +gifts of manner, and then knew how to trust and employ them. + +With the strong and healthy mind of the peasant there was, however, +combined a depth of passionate emotion which doubtless had much to do +with the influence he possessed over others. David was a man of strong +impulses, and we cannot understand his character unless we remember the +fact. The impulses, it is true, were controlled and regulated by the +cool judgment and politic self-restraint which distinguished more +especially his earlier life; but they swayed him to the end, sometimes +for good, sometimes for evil. Above all, he was a religious man, deeply +attached to the faith into which he had been born, full of trust in +priests and prophets and oracles, and convinced that Yahveh would +protect and befriend him as long as he obeyed the divine law. But there +was neither asceticism nor fanaticism in his religion; it was the firm +faith and religious conviction of a healthy mind. + +David was not cruel by nature; if he showed himself merciless at times, +it was either for reasons of policy, or because the action was in +accordance with the public opinion of the age. The Assyrian kings gloat +over the barbarities they practised towards their conquered enemies, and +the Hebrew Semite similarly prayed that Yahveh might dip His foot in the +blood of His foes. David might indeed be a man of blood, but by the side +of the rulers of Nineveh he was mercy itself; and the very fact that the +blood he had shed prevented him from building a temple to his God shows +how different the conception of Yahveh must have been from that which +prevailed among the neighbouring nations of their own deities. + +Such, then, was David’s character, with all its apparent anomalies. +Brave and active, clear-headed and politic, generous and kind-hearted, +he was at the same time selfish and impulsive, at times unforgiving and +merciless. He had nevertheless a genuine and fervid trust in Yahveh, and +a fixed belief that Yahveh demanded an upright life and ‘clean hands.’ +Up to the last he remained at heart the Oriental peasant, who takes a +healthy view of life, whose shrewdness is crossed and chequered by the +impulses of the moment, and whose religion is deep and unquestioning. +But, like the peasant, he failed to be proof against success and +prosperity. The bold and hardy warrior degenerated into the +self-indulgent and even sensual despot. It is true that he repented of +the crimes to which his self-indulgence had led, and which to most other +Oriental despots would have soon become a second nature; the +self-indulgence, however, remained, and a weak will and infirmity of +purpose marred the latter years of his life. + +Future generations saw in him the ‘sweet psalmist of Israel.’ As far +back as we can trace it, tradition averred that a large part of the +psalter owed its origin to him. It has been left for the nineteenth +century to be wiser than the past, and to deny to David the authorship +of even a single psalm. But there are some of them which seem to bear +their Davidic authorship on their face,[518] and if there are many which +belong to a later date, while others are pieced together from earlier +fragments,[519] this is only what we should expect when once the nucleus +of a collection had been formed, and the psalms embodied in it employed +liturgically. Assyrian discovery has shown that penitential psalms, +similar in spirit and form to those of David, had been composed in +Babylonia centuries before his time, and there collected together for +liturgical purposes.[520] In Egypt, what we should call ‘Messianic +psalms’ had been written before the age of the Exodus.[521] There is, +therefore, no reason why a part of the Hebrew psalter should not belong +to the Davidic period, and be the work of David himself. There is +nothing in it inconsistent with the character of David or the ideas of +his time. It is only the false theory of ‘the development of Hebrew +religion’ which finds in it the religious conceptions of a later era. +Those indeed who maintain that in the age of David the law of Moses was +as yet unknown, and that faith in Yahveh was hardly to be distinguished +from that in Baal or Chemosh, may be compelled to deny that any of the +psalms, with their high spiritual level, can belong to the king who was +‘after God’s own heart’; but history cannot take note of theories which +are built upon assumptions and not facts. Even in the northern kingdom +of Israel, where the memory of the founder of the Davidic dynasty was +naturally held in little esteem, tradition was obliged to confess that +he had been the inventor of ‘instruments of music’ (Am. vi. 5). + +The exact date of David’s death is doubtful. The chronology of the books +of Kings, so long the despair of chronologists, has at length been +corrected by the synchronisms that have been established between the +history of Israel and Judah and that of Assyria. Thanks to the so-called +Lists of Eponyms or Officers from whom the years of the state calendar +took their name, we now possess an exact chronology of Assyria from B.C. +911. In B.C. 854 Ahab took part in the battle of Qarqar, which was +fought by the princes of the west against their Assyrian invaders, and +his death, therefore, could not have happened till after that date. In +B.C. 842 Jehu offered homage to the Assyrian monarch, and Hazael of +Damascus was defeated in a battle on Mount Shenir. Four years previously +the Syrian opponent of the Assyrians was Hadad-idri or Ben-Hadad. +Lastly, Menahem of Israel paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser III. in B.C. +738, Pekah and Rezin were overthrown in B.C. 734, and Damascus was taken +and destroyed by the Assyrian king in B.C. 732. It is only after the +capture of Samaria by Sargon in B.C. 722, when the kingdom of Judah +stands alone, that the Biblical dates harmonise with the Assyrian +evidence, or indeed with one another. It is evident, therefore, that the +Biblical chronology is more than forty years in excess. Ahab, instead of +dying in B.C. 898, as Archbishop Usher’s chronology makes him do, cannot +have died till some forty-five years later. We have no means of checking +the earlier chronology of the divided kingdom, but assuming its +correctness, the revolt of the Ten Tribes would have taken place about +B.C. 930. + +Solomon, like Saul, is said to have reigned forty years. But this merely +means that the precise length of his reign was unknown to the compiler. +It could not have exceeded thirty years. Hadoram, who was ‘over the +tribute’ in the latter part of David’s life (2 Sam. xx. 24), still +occupied the same office in the first year of Rehoboam’s reign (1 Kings +xii. 18), and Rezon, who had fled from Zobah when David conquered the +country, was ‘an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon’ (1 Kings +xi. 24, 25). No clue is given by the statement of Rehoboam’s age in 1 +Kings xiv. 21, since when it is said that he was ‘forty and one years’ +at the time of his accession this is merely equivalent to ‘_x_ + 1.’ + +The length of David’s reign is more accurately fixed. Seven years and a +half did he reign in Hebron, and thirty-three years over Israel and +Judah (2 Sam. iv. 5), or forty and a half years in all. Approximately, +therefore, we may date his reign from B.C. 1000 to 960. Saul’s accession +may have been ten or fifteen years earlier. + +David’s palace at Jerusalem, it is stated in 2 Sam. v. 11, was built by +the artisans of Hiram of Tyre, who also furnished him with cedar wood. +The fragment of Tyrian annals quoted by Josephus from Menander[522] +throws some light on the chronology of the time. Hiram, we are told, was +the son of Abibal, and the names of his successors are recorded one +after the other, together with the length of their reigns. But +unfortunately the sum of the reigns does not agree with their total as +twice given by Josephus, nor indeed are our authorities agreed among +themselves in regard to the length of certain of them. The fact, +however, that Josephus twice gives the same total raises a presumption +in its favour, more especially when we find that it is possible by a +little manipulation to make the sum of the several reigns harmonise with +it.[523] This total is one hundred and forty-three years and eight +months, which, it is said, elapsed from the building of Solomon’s temple +in the twelfth year of Hiram down to the foundation of Carthage in the +seventh year of Pygmalion. But the date of the foundation of Carthage is +itself not a wholly certain quantity, though B.C. 826 is probably that +which was assigned to it by the native historians.[524] A hundred and +forty-three years and eight months reckoned back from 826 would bring us +to B.C. 969 or 970. As the temple was begun in the fourth year of +Solomon’s reign (1 Kings vi. 1), this would give B.C. 973 for the +accession of Solomon, and B.C. 1013 for that of David. The palace +constructed for David at Jerusalem by the workmen of Hiram must have +been erected at the very end of David’s life, after the suppression of +the revolt of Absalom, unless, indeed, the author of the books of Samuel +has mistaken the name of the Tyrian king, and written Hiram instead of +Abibal. + +There is yet another synchronism between Hebrew and profane history +which must not be overlooked. Jerusalem was captured in the fifth year +of Rehoboam by Shishak I., the founder of the twenty-second Egyptian +dynasty. But Egyptian chronology is more disputable even than that of +Israel, and we do not know in what year of the Pharaoh’s reign the +invasion of Palestine took place. Boeckh, on the authority of Manetho, +places the commencement of his reign in B.C. 934; Unger, on the same +authority, in B.C. 930; while Lepsius pushes it back to B.C. 961. + +On the whole, then, we must be content with approximate dates for the +founders of the Hebrew monarchy. The revolt of the Ten Tribes will have +taken place somewhere between B.C. 940 and 930; the accession of David +somewhere between B.C. 1010 and 1000. It coincided with the period when +the older kingdoms of the Oriental world—Babylonia, Assyria, and +Egypt—were in their lowest stage of weakness and decay. + +Solomon succeeded to a brilliant heritage. The nations which surrounded +him had been conquered or forced into alliance with Israel; there was +none among them adventurous or strong enough to attack the newly risen +power. The caravan-roads which brought the merchandise of both north and +south to the wealthy states of Western Asia passed through Israelitish +territory; Edom, which communicated with the Red Sea and Indian Ocean, +was in Jewish hands, as well as Zobah, which commanded the road to the +Euphrates. The tolls levied on the trade which thus passed through the +empire filled the treasury at Jerusalem with abundant riches, while the +products and luxuries of the whole eastern world flowed into the Hebrew +market. The alliance with the Tyrians gave Solomon a port in the +Mediterranean; the possession of Edom gave him ports of his own in the +Gulf of Aqaba. In return for the use of the Edomite harbours by the +ships of Phœnicia, he was allowed to send forth merchantmen of his own +from the havens of Hiram on the Phœnician coast. The ships themselves +were manned with Phœnician sailors; like the Assyrian kings in later +days he had to turn to the experienced mariners of Phœnicia to work his +fleet. + +At home the kingdom had been fully organised. There were an army of +veterans, a foreign bodyguard, who had no interests beyond those of the +master who paid them, a well-selected capital, and a fiscal +administration. The revolts which had disturbed the later years of David +had been suppressed with a heavy hand, and such murmurs as may have been +raised against the enfeebled government and neglected justice of the +late reign were hushed in presence of a young and well-educated prince, +the _protégé_ of priests and prophets, whose very name promised his +people the blessings of peace. The wars of David, with their tax of +blood and treasure, were at an end. Those who had conspired against the +elevation of Solomon to the throne had been put to death at the outset +of his reign: the grey hairs of Joab were stained with his own blood as +he clung to the unavailing altar; Adonijah was executed on the ground +that he had asked to have Abishag for a wife, and it was not long before +a pretext was found for removing Shimei out of the way. Benjamin and +Judah had alike lost their leaders, and Solomon henceforth did his +utmost to win them to himself. + +Abiathar was banished to the priests’ city of Anathoth, and the glory of +the high priesthood was left to Zadok and his descendants alone. They +alone were allowed to serve before the ark of the covenant, and the doom +pronounced upon the house of Eli was thus fulfilled. The act placed the +religion of Israel for many generations to come under the domination of +the king. Solomon declared by it his supremacy in the church as well as +in the state. It meant that the king claimed the power and the right to +appoint and dismiss the ministers of the Mosaic law. The central +sanctuary became the royal chapel rather than the temple of the national +God, and its priests were the paid officials of the sovereign rather +than the administrators and interpreters to the people of the divine +law. The democratic element passed out of Hebrew religion, and the king +more than the high priest came to stand at the head of it. The erection +of the temple completed the work which the deposition of Abiathar had +begun; sanctuary, services, and priesthood were all alike under the +royal control. The family of Eli had preserved the tradition of the days +when the priests of Shiloh exercised independent authority, and +interpreted the law which all were called upon to obey. With the +banishment of Abiathar came a break with the past; no venerable memories +were connected with the rival house of Zadok, no recollection of a time +when the word of the priest of Shiloh had been a teacher in Israel. +Under Zadok and his successors the old meaning of the high priesthood +gradually faded out of sight; as in Assyria or Southern Arabia the +priests of an earlier age were supplanted by kings, so too in Israel the +place and influence of the high priest were absorbed by the Davidic +dynasty. Even a Jeroboam could assert his right to establish sanctuaries +and appoint the priests who should serve them. + +Solomon had been brought up under the eye and instruction of Nathan, and +to Nathan, therefore, we must probably trace his religious policy. There +was much to be said in favour of it. It prevented friction between the +priesthood and the monarchy; it guaranteed the stability of the dynasty +of David by extending to it the sanction of religion; above all, it +secured the maintenance of the religion itself. It gave it as it were a +local habitation in a costly sanctuary built and endowed out of the +royal revenues, and attached to the royal palace. The ark ceased to be +national, and became instead the sacred treasure of the chapel of the +king. While the monarchy lasted, the religion of the monarchy would last +also, and Nathan and Zadok might be pardoned if they believed that the +Davidic monarchy would last for ever. + +The administration of the country next claimed the attention of the new +king. It was organised on an Assyrian model, Palestine being divided +into districts, each of which was placed under a governor who was +responsible for the taxes as well as for the civil and judicial +government of it. Hitherto, it would appear, the old system of tribal +government had been preserved, the tribes owning allegiance to +hereditary chieftains or ‘princes,’ who, like the chieftains of a +Highland clan, represented the tribe, and led its members to war. David +seems to have modified this system for military purposes, if we may +judge from the list of ‘captains’ given in 1 Chron. xxvii., but no +attempt was made to carry out a general system of taxation, or appoint +governors with fiscal powers. The conquered provinces alone were +required to furnish an annual tribute to the treasury, and for this a +single officer, Hadoram, was found sufficient. + +The territory of the Israelites themselves was now formed into fiscal +districts. Twelve officers were appointed, who were required to provide +in turn for the necessary expenses of the royal household during the +twelve months of the year. A list of them, extracted from some official +document, is given in 1 Kings iv. 8-19. In the earlier part of the list +the names of the officers have been lost, those only of their fathers +having been preserved. Two of them were married to daughters of Solomon, +indicating that the list must have been drawn up towards the end of +Solomon’s life. One of the king’s sons-in-law was the governor of +Naphtali; the other presided over the Phœnician coast-land south of +Tyre. Here, at Dor, in a country occupied by the Zakkal kinsmen of the +Philistines, and in proximity to Tyre, it was needful that the prefect +should be connected with the king by closer ties than those of +officialism. The direction of the Mediterranean trade was mainly in his +hands, and the resources which were thus at his disposal, as well as the +neighbourhood of Hiram, might have tried the loyalty of any but a +relative of the king. The plateau of Bashan was under the jurisdiction +of one governor who had his residence at Ramoth-gilead; Gilead was under +a second, while a third governor had Mahanaim. We may, therefore, gather +that Ammon and Moab, as well as Geshur, had been absorbed into +Israelitish territory. This may in part explain why at the revolt of the +Ten Tribes Moab went with Israel rather than with Judah. + +It is noticeable that there was no governor in Judah. Here, in fact, the +king himself ruled in person. It would seem that Judah was exempt from +the taxes levied on the rest of Palestine. This was in accordance with +the policy which made Solomon court the goodwill of his father’s tribe, +and identify with its interests those of himself and his house. So far +as the continuance of the Davidic dynasty was concerned, the policy +succeeded. Judah identified itself with the house of David, and rallied +faithfully round its king. There was no longer any talk of rebellion, or +of transporting the capital to Hebron; from henceforth Judah and its +kings were one. But the fact only made the breach between Judah and the +rest of Israel wider and more visible, and alienated the other tribes +from the reigning house. They were treated like the conquered Gentiles; +the place of their old hereditary princes and leaders was taken by +governors appointed by the crown, and fixed taxes were rigorously +exacted from them for the support of the royal treasury. They derived no +benefit, however, from the royal expenditure; it was lavished upon +Jerusalem and the Jewish towns which lay near to it. They were too far +off to see even a reflection of that royal glory of which they may have +heard, and for which they certainly had to pay. The same causes which +strengthened the ties of allegiance of Judah to the reigning dynasty +weakened those of Israel. + +Throughout the reign of Solomon, Hadoram remained ‘over the tribute,’ +and his duties were enlarged by the supervision of the home taxation and +_corvée_ being added to that of the foreign tribute.[525] Jehoshaphat +still continued ‘recorder,’ but the secretary Shisha had been succeeded +by his two sons. The literary correspondence of the empire was +increasing, and one chief secretary was no longer sufficient for it. The +family of Nathan, as might have been expected, was well provided for. +One son was made Vizier; the other became the royal chaplain as well as +‘the king’s friend.’ The latter title, which had been given to Hushai in +the time of David (1 Chron. xxvii. 33), had been borrowed from Egypt; +the title of the Vizier, or ‘head of the officers,’ corresponded with +the Assyrian Rab-saki or Rabshakeh, ‘the chief of the princes.’ Another +office which may have been borrowed from Assyria was that of royal +steward, which was held by Ahishar; along with him the Septuagint +associates a second steward Eliak, and a captain of the bodyguard called +Eliab, the son of Saph or Shaphat.[526] Like the list of governors, the +list of officials must have been drawn up at the end of Solomon’s reign, +since Azariah has already taken the place of his grandfather Zadok as +high priest (see 1 Chron. vi. 9, 10, where a confusion has been made +between Ahimaaz the son of Zadok and Johanan or Jonathan the son of +Abiathar). It is significant that the list begins with the ‘priest,’ not +with the general of the army as in the warlike days of David. + +The fame of Solomon’s wealth and magnificence was spread through the +Oriental world. Foreign sovereigns sought his alliance or courted his +favour. Even the Queen of Sheba came to visit him. Modern criticism has +long since banished the Queen to the realm of fiction, but archæological +discovery has again restored her to history. Sheba or Saba was already a +flourishing kingdom in the time of the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser +III.; its territories extended from the spice-bearing coasts of Southern +Arabia to the borders of Babylonia and Palestine. If Glaser and Hommel +are right in their interpretation of the south Arabian inscriptions, it +had entered on the older heritage of the kingdom of Ma’ân. The Minæan +kings of Ma’ân had ruled not only in the south but in the north as well; +their records are found near Teima, and they had command of the great +highroad of commerce which led from the Indian Ocean to Egypt and Gaza. +Egypt and Gaza, indeed, are mentioned in Minæan inscriptions.[527] From +an early period the kingdoms of Southern Arabia had been in commercial +contact with Canaan. + +The conquest of Edom by David and the Hebrew fleets which sailed from +the Gulf of Aqaba must soon have acquainted the merchant princes of +Ma’ân and Saba with the fact that a new power had risen in Western Asia, +and a new market been opened for their goods. The road to Palestine was +well-known and frequently travelled, and Minæan or Sabæan settlements +existed upon it almost as far as the frontiers of Edom. What more +natural, therefore, than that a Sabæan queen should visit her wealthy +neighbour whose patronage had become important for Sabæan trade? That +queens might rule in the Arabian peninsula we know from the annals of +Tiglath-pileser III., which refer to Zabibê and her successor Samsê, +each of whom is called a ‘queen of the land of the Arabs.’ + +Even the Pharaoh of Egypt condescended to mingle the blood of the solar +race with that of the grandson of a Hebrew _fellah_. Solomon married the +daughter of the Egyptian monarch. But it was a monarch of the +twenty-first dynasty, who, though acknowledged as the sole legitimate +representative of the line of the Sun-god Ra, had nevertheless been +sadly shorn of his ancient rights and authority. His power was confined +to the Delta, where he held his court in the old Hyksos capital of Tanis +or Zoan, close to the Asiatic frontier, and as far removed as possible +from the rival dynasty which ruled in Upper Egypt. He was doubtless glad +to secure a son-in-law who could defend him from his enemies at home in +case of need, and whose friendship was preferable to his hostility. + +The Egyptian princess had brought with her as dowry the Canaanitish city +of Gezer. That it should have been in the power of the Pharaoh to give +it is at first sight surprising. It shows that Egypt had never +relinquished in theory her old claims to be mistress of Canaan. Like the +title of ‘king of France,’ which so long lingered in the royal style of +England, they were never abandoned, but were ready to be revived +whenever an opportunity occurred. Towards the close of the period of the +Judges, but before the Philistines had become formidable, Assyria and +Egypt had met on friendly terms on the coast of Palestine. The Assyrian +conqueror, Tiglath-pileser I. (in B.C. 1100), had found his way to the +Phœnician city of Arvad, and there received from the Egyptian Pharaoh +various presents which included a crocodile and a hippopotamus. The +campaign of the Assyrian king had brought him to the edge of the +territory which the Egyptian rulers of the twenty-first dynasty still +regarded as their own, and they hastened accordingly to propitiate the +invader, and thus to stay his further advance. The embassy and gifts +further show that the occupation of the coast by the Philistines did not +prevent the Egyptians from maintaining their old relations with +Phœnicia, though they may have done so by sea rather than by land. At +all events an expedition sent to Gebal by Hir-Hor, the high priest of +Thebes, at the beginning of the twenty-first dynasty, was despatched in +ships.[528] Had the coast-road been free from danger, the Egyptians +would doubtless have asserted their right to march along it. They seized +the first occasion to do so, when the Philistines had been conquered by +David, and the successor of David was the Pharaoh’s ally. + +Solomon engaged in no wars of his own. He was no general himself, and it +may be that he feared to intrust a subject with an army. Joab had taught +him how easily the commander-in-chief might defy his master, Abner how +readily he might betray him. In the list of officials given in the +Hebrew text, Benaiah indeed is stated to have been ‘over the host’ (1 +Kings iv. 4), but Benaiah was actually the commander of the bodyguard, +so that his command of the army must have been merely nominal. +Practically the army which had played so large a part in the history of +David had ceased to exist. Hence it was that Rezon was able to establish +an independent kingdom in Damascus, and that when the Ten Tribes +revolted there was no army at hand with which to suppress the rebellion. +Hence, too, the curious fact that just as Solomon sought the help of +Hiram in fitting out his merchant fleet in the Gulf of Aqaba, so also he +sought the help of the Egyptian king in subduing the one Canaanitish +city of importance which still preserved its freedom. Gezer had +maintained its Canaanitish continuity from the days when as yet the +Israelites had not entered Canaan, and the mounds of Tel Jezer which +mark its site must still conceal beneath them the records of its early +history. Doubtless the Egyptian court was gratified at the arrangement +with the Hebrew king. It admitted the Egyptian claim of suzerainty over +Palestine, and admitted the right of its armies to march along its +roads. But the substantial advantages remained with Solomon. He gained +Gezer without either expense or trouble, and at the same time he allied +himself by marriage with the oldest and most exclusive royal race in the +Oriental world. Like the kings of Mitanni in the age of the eighteenth +dynasty, the son-in-law of the Pharaoh was on a footing of equality with +the proudest princes of Asia. + +The alliance with Hiram was no less advantageous. Hiram had done for +Tyre what Solomon was doing for Jerusalem. It has been conjectured that +his father Abibal, or Abi-Baal, was the founder of a dynasty; at all +events the accession of Hiram ushered in a new era for the Tyrian state. +He succeeded to the throne at the age of nineteen years, and during his +long reign of thirty-four years he raised Tyre to an unprecedented +height of prosperity and power, and rebuilt the city itself. The ancient +‘rock’ from which it had derived its name was connected by an embankment +with another rocky islet close to it, and a new and splendid city was +erected upon the space thus won from the sea. Excellent harbours were +constructed, massive walls built round the city, and the venerable +temple of Melkarth restored from its foundations, and decorated with all +the sumptuous splendour of Phœnician art. + +Tyre had always been famous for its sailors and its ships, and its +wealth is celebrated even in the letters of Tel el-Amarna. But under +Hiram its maritime trade underwent an enormous development. The conquest +of the Philistines by David, and the consequent disappearance of piracy +from the eastern basin of the Mediterranean, were the immediate causes +of this. Tyrian ships could now venture into the bays and havens of the +Greek seas in quest of slaves, or the precious purple-fish, and their +merchants could make voyages in safety as far as Tarshish. Riches poured +into ‘the merchant-city,’ and Hiram had resources in abundance for his +public works. + +The Hebrew king was eager to follow the example of his Tyrian neighbour. +It was true that his subjects were neither sailors nor traders; it was +true, also, that the harbours on the Mediterranean coast which the +conquest of the Philistines had added to his dominions were few and +poor. But the conquest of Edom had given him the entrance to the +spice-lands of Southern Arabia, and the gold-mines which recent +discovery has found in Central Africa.[529] An agreement was therefore +come to with Hiram which was to the profit of both. Hiram gave Solomon +sailors and boat-builders, as well as the use of his Mediterranean +ports; in return he received from Solomon the right of using the +harbours of the Red Sea. While the products of Europe made their way to +Solomon through Tyre, the products of the south passed to Hiram from the +Edomite havens of Elath and Ezion-geber. + +Hiram was useful to Solomon in yet another way. The age of +empire-building was over; the time had come to create a capital which +should be worthy of the empire. Like Ramses II. of Egypt, Solomon made +himself an imperishable name as a builder. Jerusalem was strongly +fortified; royal palaces were erected; above all, a temple was raised to +Yahveh that vied in splendour with those of Phœnicia and the Nile. But +the architects and artisans had to be brought from the dominions of the +Tyrian king; the Israelites had been too much barbarised by the long +struggle for existence they had had to wage for another Bezaleel to be +born among them, as in the days when they had but just quitted the +cultured land of the Delta. It is true that the master-artificer in +bronze, who designed the bronze-work of the temple, was a Hebrew on his +mother’s side, but he bore the Tyrian name of Hiram, and his father was +‘a man of Tyre.’ Even for his carpenters and masons Solomon was indebted +to his Tyrian ally; it was only the gangs of labourers driven to their +forced work among the forests and quarries of Lebanon that were levied +by Hadoram out of ‘Israel.’ The Israelites had become hewers of wood and +drawers of water for their king, and, as in the old days of Egyptian +bondage, 3300 taskmasters were employed in keeping them to their +work.[530] Like the architects, the skilled artificers were lent by +Hiram; from Hiram came also the logs of cedar and fir that were needed +for the buildings at Jerusalem. + +In return Solomon provided his ally with wheat and oil. The island-city +was dependent on others for its corn; on the rock of Tyre and on the +barren crags of the opposite mainland no wheat could be grown. Twenty +cities of Galilee, moreover, were ceded to Hiram. But for these Hiram +had to pay one hundred and twenty talents of gold; and in the end, the +wily Hebrew, like his forefather Jacob, had the best of the bargain. +When the Tyrian king came to inspect his new territory, it ‘pleased him +not.’ Solomon, in fact, had given him what it was not worth his own +while to keep. + +The royal palace was thirteen years in building. Attached to it was the +armoury, or House of the Forest of Lebanon as it was called from the +cedar used in its construction. Here the three hundred shields and two +hundred targets of gold were stored, which were made for the bodyguard, +and served also as a reserve fund in case of need. The architecture of +the palace itself culminated, as in Persia, in the audience-chamber with +its throne of ivory overlaid with gold, and approached by six steps +which were guarded on either side by the images of lions. Another palace +was erected for the Egyptian queen; like the palace of the king it was +in the Upper City, close to the spot on which the temple was destined to +stand. + +The old palace of David, in the lower town or ‘City of David,’ was +deserted; as soon as the new buildings were completed on Moriah, the +king moved to them with his harîm and court. The palace which had +satisfied the simple tastes of the father was no longer sufficient for +the luxury and display of the more cultured son. The ‘City of David’ was +left to the Jews and Benjamites; the court and the priesthood settled +above them by the side of the old Jebusite population, which had been +reduced to serfdom (1 Kings ix. 20). None but slaves and serfs might +dwell where the monarch lived surrounded by his armed bodyguard; the +free Israelite was confined to another quarter of the town. + +The palace was protected by a huge fortress called the Millo, which was +connected with the new walls of Jerusalem, and begun as soon as the +palace of the Egyptian princess had been finished. Whether it stood on +the eastern or western side of the city is doubtful; the topography of +pre-exilic Jerusalem is unfortunately still involved in obscurity. The +pool of Siloam, and the identification of the Upper Gihon or ‘Spring’ +with the Virgin’s Fountain, the only natural spring of water in the +immediate neighbourhood of the city, are almost the only two points +which can be fixed with certainty. If the subterranean tunnel which +conveys the water of the Virgin’s Fountain to the pool of Siloam is the +conduit made by Hezekiah when he ‘stopped the upper water-course of +Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of +David’ (2 Chron. xxxii. 30), the west side will be that which overlooks +the Tyropœon valley, where the tunnel ends. In this case the city of +David, which is stated in 2 Sam. v. 7 to have been on Mount Zion, will +be the so-called southern hill or ‘Ophel,’ which lies south of the +Mosque of Omar, and the Tyropœon valley will be the Valley of the Sons +of Hinnom so often referred to in the Old Testament. The Jerusalem of +the kings will thus have been, like most of the cities of the ancient +Oriental world, of no great size according to our modern conceptions; +its population will have been as closely packed together as it is to-day +in the native quarters of Cairo, and the fortifications which surrounded +it would not have occupied too wide a circumference for a Jewish army to +defend. The Tyropœon valley is choked with the rubbish of ancient +Jerusalem to a depth of more than seventy feet; but under it must lie +the tombs of the kings of Judah. The recent excavations of Dr. Bliss +have thrown but little light on the question, since the walls he has +found seem mostly of a late date; but if the rock-cut steps he has +discovered north of the pool of Siloam are really ‘the stairs that go +down from the city of David’ (Neh. iii. 16), a striking verification +will have been given of the theory which sees in the southern hill the +Zion of Scripture, and in the valley of ‘the Cheesemakers’ the gorge of +the sons of Hinnom.[531] + +The crown of all the building activity of Solomon was the temple, even +though it did not take so long to construct as his own palace. Materials +for it had already been accumulated by David, and the architects and +workmen came from Tyre. It was built of large blocks of square stone, +the edges of which were probably bevelled as in early Phœnician work, +and the walls inside were covered with panels of cedar. Walls and doors +alike were profusely decorated with the designs of Phœnician art. +Cherubs and palms, lotus flowers and pomegranates were depicted on them +in the forms that have been made familiar to us by the relics of ancient +Phœnician workmanship. The temple itself was of rectangular shape, not +unlike the chapel of King’s College at Cambridge, and in front of it +were two large courts, one of which—the ‘inner’ or ‘upper’ court—stood +on a higher level than the other. The whole design, in fact, was purely +Phœnician; in form and ornamentation the building exactly resembled the +temples of Phœnicia. Like them, it must have looked externally like a +huge rectangular box, which was further disfigured by chambers, in sets +of three, being built one over the other against the walls. The great +temple of Melkarth, which Hiram had just completed at Tyre, probably +served as the model for the temple of Jerusalem. + +The entrance was approached by steps, and consisted of a porch, on +either side of which were two lofty columns of bronze, called Jachin and +Boaz.[532] Similar columns were planted before the entrance of a +Phœnician temple where they symbolised the fertilising power of the +Sun-god, and Herodotos (ii. 44) states that the two which stood in front +of the temple at Tyre were made of gold and emerald glass. Two similar +columns of stone, though of small size, have been found in the Temple of +the Giants in the island of Gozo, one of which still remains in its +original place. In the outer court was a bronze ‘sea’ or basin, thirty +cubits in circumference, and supported on twelve oxen. The ‘sea’ had +been imported into the West from Babylonia, where it similarly stood in +the court of a temple, and represented the _apsu_ or ‘watery abyss,’ out +of which Chaldæan philosophy taught that all things had been evolved. A +Babylonian hymn which describes the casting of a copper ‘sea’ for the +temple of Chaos tells us that, like the ‘sea’ at Jerusalem, it rested on +the heads of twelve bulls.[533] Along with the ‘sea’ bronze lavers and +basins were provided for the ablutions of the priests and the vessels of +the sanctuary. + +The temple was but a shell for enclosing the innermost shrine or Holy of +Holies where, as in a casket, the ark of the covenant was placed under +the protecting wings of two gilded cherubim. What they were like we may +gather from the Assyrian sculptures, in which the two winged cherubs are +depicted on either side of the sacred tree.[534] The over-shadowing +wings formed a ‘mercy-seat,’ the _parakku_ of the Babylonian texts, +whereon, according to Nebuchadrezzar, Bel seated himself on the festival +of the new year, while the other gods humbly ranged themselves around +him bowing to the ground.[535] At Babylon, moreover, the table of +shewbread which stood before Bel was of solid gold, like the table which +Solomon made for the service of Yahveh.[536] Indeed, the description of +the lavish use of gold in the temple of Jerusalem finds its echo in the +description given by Nebuchadrezzar of the temples he reared in Babylon. +The altar of Yahveh, it is said, was of gold, so too were the +candlesticks and lamps and vessels; even the hinges of the doors that +opened into the Holy of Holies were of the same precious metal, while +the cedar work was richly gilded, and the floor itself was overlaid with +golden plates. In similar terms Nebuchadrezzar describes his decoration +of Ê-Sagila, the temple of Bel, at Babylon. Here too, the beams and +panels of cedar were overlaid with gold, the gates were gilded, and the +vessels for the service of the sanctuary were of solid gold.[537] There +was one point, however, in which the temples of Jerusalem and Babylon +differed from one another; in the shrine of Ê-Sagila was the image of +Bel: the Hebrew shrine contained no likeness of a god. The only graven +figures within it were the cherubim whose wings overshadowed the ark. + +The temple was finished in seven (or more exactly seven and a half) +years. Perhaps an effort was made to restrict the years of building to +the sacred number. At all events, it was in the seventh month of the +Hebrew year, the Ethanim of the Phœnicians, that the feast of the +dedication was kept.[538] It coincided with the ancient festival of the +Ingathering of the Harvest, a fitting season for commemorating the +completion of the work. + +The dedication of Solomon’s temple is the beginning of a new chapter in +the history of the Jewish state and of Hebrew religion. It became the +visible centre round which the elements of the Israelitish faith +gathered and cohered together until the terrible day came when the enemy +stormed the walls of the capital and laid its temple in the dust. But it +had already exercised a profound influence upon the history of Judah. It +had helped to unify the kingdom; to bind the population of southern +Palestine, mixed in blood though it were, into a single whole. Unlike +the northern tribes with their two great sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel, +Judah and Benjamin had a common centre in the one sanctuary of +Jerusalem. Around it, moreover, were grouped all the traditions and +memories of a venerable past. It alone was connected with the traditions +of the Mosaic Law and the priesthood of Shiloh, with the rites and +ceremonies that had come down from the primeval days of the Israelitish +people, and with the foundation of the monarchy itself. It was the +dwelling-place on earth of Yahveh of Israel; here was the sacred ark of +the covenant which had once been carried before the invaders of Canaan, +and was still the outward sign and symbol of God’s presence among His +people. With the preservation of the temple the preservation of the +Jewish religion itself seemed to be bound up, as well as of the Jewish +state. + +But the temple did something more than help to unify the southern +monarchy and preserve the traditions of the Mosaic law. It served also +to strengthen and perpetuate the Davidic dynasty, and to keep alive in +the hearts of the people their allegiance to the line of Solomon. The +temple, as we have seen, was not only a national sanctuary, it was also +a royal chapel. It formed, as it were, part of the royal palace, in +which the king overshadowed the high priest himself. The halo of +veneration which surrounded the temple was thus communicated to the +royal line. The temple and the descendants of David became parts of the +same national conception; the one necessarily implied the other. When +the throne of David fell, the temple also fell with it. While the temple +lasted, Judah remained a homogeneous state, yielding willing obedience +to its theocratic monarchy, and gradually gaining a clearer idea of the +meaning and practice of the Mosaic Law. The temple of Solomon made +Jewish religion conservative, but it was a conservatism which, as time +went on, evolved the consequences of its own principles, and sought how +best to carry them out in ritual and practice. + +Jerusalem had become one of the great capitals of the world. Its public +buildings were worthy of the empire which had been created by David, of +the wealth that had poured into the coffers of Solomon from the trade of +the whole Orient, of the culture and art which the young king had done +his best to introduce. But the necessities of defence were not +forgotten. The fortifications of the city were pushed on—though, it +would seem, not with sufficient rapidity to allow them to be finished +before the king’s death—and horses and chariots were imported from Egypt +and the land of the Hittites in the north. With these Solomon equipped a +standing force of 1400 chariots and 12,000 horsemen, who served as +garrisons in Jerusalem and the other fortresses of the country. + +Nor were the other cities of the empire neglected in favour of +Jerusalem. Gezer was rebuilt and fortified; so too were ‘Beth-horon the +nether and Baalath’ in Judah, and ‘Tadmor in the wilderness,’ the +Palmyra of later days.[539] It is true that modern criticism would see +in Tadmor the Tamar of the southern desert of Judah which is referred to +by Ezekiel (xlvii. 19, xlviii. 28) as a future border of the Holy Land. +But, though the Kethîbh or text of the Hebrew Scriptures has Tamar, the +reading is corrupt, and has been corrected by the Massoretic scribes +themselves.[540] The Chronicler (2 Chron. viii. 4) shows that Tadmor was +the reading of the text in his time, and he shows further that it was +known to be the desert-city which afterwards became the seat of empire +of the merchant prince Odenathus and his queen, Zenobia. We learn from +him that Solomon had put down a rising in that part of Zobah which +adjoined Hamath, that he had founded ‘store-cities’ in Hamath, and had +built Tadmor in the wilderness beyond. It is strange only that no +allusion is made to building operations in Israel: perhaps Solomon was +disinclined to establish fortresses among the northern tribes which +might be used against his own authority, perhaps David had already put +the cities of northern Israel in a thorough state of defence. At all +events, little danger from abroad was to be apprehended in this part of +the Israelitish dominions; Solomon was in alliance with Tyre, and +presumably also with Hamath, and Zobah was included in his empire. + +We gather from the Assyrian inscriptions that Zobah extended from the +neighbourhood of Hamath and Damascus eastward across the desert towards +the Euphrates. Midway stood Palmyra, approached by roads from both +Damascus and Homs, which there united and then led to the ford across +the Euphrates at Thapsacus or Tiphsakh. It was the shortest route from +Palestine to Mesopotamia, and avoided the tolls and possible hostility +of the Hittites in their strong fortress of Carchemish. The conquest of +Zobah would necessarily have laid Palmyra and the roads that passed +through it at the feet of David, and the importance of the place for +commercial purposes could not have failed to strike the mind of Solomon +ever ready to discover fresh channels of trade. Its fortification would +naturally have been one of his first cares; even if there had been no +mention of the fact in the Old Testament, the historian would have been +almost compelled to assume it. It opened to him the merchandise of +Mesopotamia, of Babylonia, and Assyria, and brought him into touch with +the old monarchies of the Asiatic world. For the trade of the east, +Palmyra was to Solomon what the ports of Edom were for the trade of the +south. + +To the north his dominions touched on those of the Hittites, who were +still settled in Kadesh on the Orontes, even if Hamath had long since +passed out of their possession. Lenormant was the first to point out +that in 1 Kings x. 28 there is an allusion to the importation of horses +into Judah, not only from Egypt, but also from the Hittite regions on +the Gulf of Antioch. Here lived the Quê of the Assyrian monuments, who +are named in the Hebrew text, though it needed the revelations of +Oriental archæology to discover the fact. Solomon, it is there said, +‘had horses brought out of Egypt and out of Quê; the royal merchants +received it from Quê at a price.’ In the later days of the Assyrian +empire Nineveh obtained its supply of horses and stallions from the same +part of the world, and there are numerous letters to the king which +relate to their importation. The chariots came from Egypt, the value of +each being as much as 600 shekels of silver, or £90; it was only the +horses that were brought from ‘the kings of the Hittites’ and ‘the kings +of Aram.’ The trade in both horses and chariots was a monopoly which +Solomon kept jealously in his own hands; the merchants were those ‘of +the king,’ and none of his subjects was allowed to import materials of +war which might be employed against himself. + +It was the trade with the south which introduced into Jerusalem the +greatest novelties and the most costly articles of luxury. In imitation +of the kings of Egypt and Assyria, Solomon established zoological and +botanical gardens where the strange animals and plants that had been +brought from abroad were kept. Such collections had been made by +Thothmes III. at Thebes, and on the foundations of a ruined chamber in +his temple at Karnak we may still see pictures of the trees and plants +and birds which he sent home from his campaigns in Syria and the Soudan. +In Assyria a botanical garden had been similarly planted by +Tiglath-pileser I. (B.C. 1100), and stocked with foreign plants.[541] +Solomon’s collections were therefore no new thing in the Oriental world, +though they were a novelty in Palestine; and his subjects went to gaze +and wonder, like the Cairenes of to-day, at the apes which had come from +the far south, or the peacocks whose name (_thukîyîm_) betrayed their +Indian origin. It is even said that he composed books on the animal and +vegetable collections he had made.[542] + +Gold and silver and ivory were also brought, with the apes and peacocks, +by the merchant vessels whose voyages of three years’ duration carried +them along the Somali coast, and even, it may be, to the mouths of the +Indus. The gold probably came, for the most part, from the mines of the +Zambesi region, where foreign mining settlements are now known to have +been established at an early date, and where objects have been found, +such as birds carved out of stone, which remind us of the civilisation +of southern Arabia. But the greater part of the silver, which we are +told became as plentiful as ‘stones,’ must have been derived from Asia +Minor. Here were the mines from which the Hittites extracted the metal +for which they seem to have had a special fancy, and it was through them +that it probably made its way to Jerusalem. Copper would have come from +Cyprus, and been brought in the ships which trafficked in the +Mediterranean. It was the Mediterranean trade, moreover, which supplied +the tin needed for the vast quantities of bronze that was used in the +Solomonic age. We know of no source of it equal to such a demand except +the peninsula of Cornwall; but if it really was Cornish tin that found +its way to the eastern basin of the Mediterranean during the Bronze Age +it must have travelled like amber across Europe until it reached the +Adriatic or the Gulf of Lyons. The amber found by Dr. Schliemann in the +prehistoric tombs of Mykenæ is of Baltic origin, and amber beads have +been discovered by Dr. Bliss at Lachish, belonging to the century before +the Exodus; if amber could travel thus far from northern Europe, the tin +might have done the same. + +Future generations looked back upon the reign of Solomon as the golden +age of Israel. But there was a reverse side to the picture. The +combination of culture and arbitrary power produced in him the selfish +luxury of an Oriental despot, which is bent on satisfying its own +sensuous desires at the expense of all around it. Solomon’s extravagance +was like that of the Khedive Ismail in our own day, and it led to the +same amount of misery and impoverishment in the nation. He found on his +accession a treasury well filled by the thrifty government of his +father; and his trading monopolies and alliances brought him an +apparently inexhaustible supply of wealth. But a time came when even +this supply began to fail, and to cease to suffice for his reckless +expenditure. Heavier taxes were laid on the subject populations; the +free men of Israel were compelled to work as unpaid serfs under the lash +of the taskmaster, and the older population of the land, who were still +numerous, were turned into veritable bond-slaves. To the Gibeonites, who +had long been the serfs of the Levitical sanctuary, were now added the +Nethinim, a part of whom went under the name of ‘Solomon’s slaves’ (Ezra +ii. 55, 58). The building of the temple had cost the people dear: the +Israelites had been robbed of their freedom to provide for it stone and +wood; the Canaanites had been given to it as actual slaves. + +Doubtless the policy of Solomon was partly determined by the same +considerations as those which had moved the Pharaoh of the Oppression. +He mistrusted the Canaanites, he was afraid of the northern tribes. In +either case he endeavoured to break their spirit, and render them +powerless to revolt. But in the case of the Hebrew tribesmen he did not +succeed. Discontent was smothered for awhile, but it was none the less +dangerous on that account. And towards the end of Solomon’s life an +incident occurred which led eventually to the division of the kingdom. +Jeroboam the son of Nebat—in whom Dr. Neubauer has seen the name of a +‘Nabathean’—and whose mother belonged to the tribe of Ephraim, had +distinguished himself by his activity and abilities. Solomon had +finished the Millo or Fort, and was now at work on the other +fortifications of Jerusalem. His notice was drawn to Jeroboam, and he +made the young man the ‘taskmaster’ or overseer of the _corvée_ of +Ephraimites employed upon the walls. Like Moses in old days, Jeroboam’s +sympathy was aroused by the sufferings of his fellow-tribesmen, which +found a mouthpiece in Ahijah the prophet of Shiloh. Ahijah was himself +one of the dispossessed. The glory of Shiloh had passed away from it; +Jerusalem had taken its place. The tabernacle of Shiloh had been +rejected in favour of the temple of the Jewish king. The centre of +Hebrew religion and power had departed from the house of Joseph, and +been transferred to the mixed parvenus of Judah. + +In Jeroboam the prophet recognised the leader who should restore the +lost fortunes of Ephraim and revenge its injuries. Jeroboam listened to +the counsels of revolt, but the time for making use of them had not yet +come. His plans and plotting became known to Solomon, and, once more +like Moses, he had to fly for his life. He made his way to the Egyptian +court, where a ready welcome awaited him. + +A new dynasty had arisen there. The Libyan mercenaries had dethroned +their feeble masters, and seated Shishak or Sheshanq, their general, +upon the throne of the Pharaohs. The Tanitic dynasty which ruled the +Delta was swept away; so also was the rival dynasty of high-priests who +reigned at Thebes and held possession of Upper Egypt. With the rise of +the twenty-second dynasty at Bubastis, a new and unaccustomed vigour was +infused into the government of Egypt. Shishak proved himself an able and +energetic king. His earlier years were occupied in putting down +opposition at home, and restoring order and unity throughout the +country. When once the task was accomplished, he began to turn his +attention elsewhere. Egypt had never relinquished its theoretical claims +to sovereignty in Canaan; and the new power that had arisen there +menaced the safety of the Asiatic frontier. Solomon, it is true, had +allied himself by marriage with the Pharaohs; but it was with a Pharaoh +of the fallen dynasty, and this in itself made him all the more +dangerous a neighbour. At present Israel was too powerful to be +attacked; but a time might come when the Egyptian monarch might venture +to march again along the roads that had once conducted the armies of +Egypt to the conquest of Syria. Meanwhile Shishak could stir up +disaffection and rebellion in the Israelitish empire, and could harbour +pretenders to the throne who might hereafter undermine the very +existence of the new power. + +As long as Solomon lived Jeroboam did not dare to stir. But he was not +the only ‘adversary’ of the Jewish king. Hadad, the representative of +the old kings of Edom, had also found a refuge in the Egyptian court, +and had there married the sister-in-law of the Pharaoh. In spite of the +Pharaoh’s remonstrances he had returned to the mountains of Edom when +David and Joab were dead, and had there carried on a guerilla warfare +with the Israelitish garrisons. Throughout the lifetime of Solomon he +had maintained himself in the fastnesses of Seir, and had been, as it +were, a thorn in the side of the conquerors of his country. But he never +succeeded in seriously injuring the caravan trade that passed through +Edom, or in shaking off the Israelitish yoke. The male population of +Edom had been too mercilessly exterminated for this to be possible, and +all that he could do was to molest the trade with the Red Sea. But even +in this he does not seem to have been successful. + +A more formidable opponent of Israel was Rezon of Zobah. He, it would +seem, had established himself at Damascus even before the death of +David, and all the efforts to dislodge him were of no avail. It is +possible that the insurrection in Zobah, which led to the construction +of fortified posts on the borders of Hamath (2 Chron. viii. 3), was +connected with his revolt. At any rate, Rezon founded a kingdom and a +dynasty in the old Syrian capital, which in years to come was to shake +the monarchy of northern Israel to its base. ‘He abhorred Israel,’ we +are told, ‘and reigned over Aram.’ + +The Jewish historian traces the misfortunes of Solomon to the religious +indifferentism of his later years. His wives were many, his concubines +innumerable. They had been added to his harîm from all parts of the +known world; and they brought with them the worship of their native +deities. Solomon had none of that intense belief in the national God +which had distinguished Saul and David, or which made the Assyrian kings +conquer and slay the unbelievers who would not acknowledge the supremacy +of Assur.[543] He was a cultured and selfish epicure, catholic in his +tastes and sympathies, and doubtless inclined to stigmatise as +narrow-minded fanaticism the objections of those who would have +forbidden him to indulge his wives in their religious beliefs. On the +hill opposite Jerusalem they were allowed to worship in the chapels of +their own divinities, and the king himself did not refuse to bow himself +with them in the house of Rimmon. Shrines were erected and altars blazed +to Ashtoreth of the Sidonians, to Milcom of Ammon, and to Chemosh of +Moab. + +Modern criticism has averred that all this was only in accordance with +the general ideas and practice of the time, and that not Solomon alone +but the rest of his people saw little or no difference between Yahveh +and Baal. The Song of Deborah, which reflects the feelings of so much +earlier an epoch, is a sufficient answer to such an assertion. The whole +history of Saul and David points unmistakably to the contrary, and the +temple bears witness that there was a time when Solomon also shared the +belief that Yahveh alone was God in Israel, and that He would brook the +presence of no other god beside Himself. The character of Solomon, his +habits and alliances,—above all, the seductions of the harîm, are quite +enough to account for a gradual change in his views. It is probable, +moreover, that the death of his old guide and instructor Nathan may have +had much to do with what an undogmatic theology might call emancipation +from the narrow and exclusive circle of Hebrew religious ideas; we know +that such was the case with Jehoash after the death of Jehoiada the +priest. The king who began by sending to Phœnicia for the architects and +builders of the temple, ended not unnaturally with the erection of +sanctuaries to a Phœnician goddess. + +In fact, the artistic tastes of Solomon ran counter to the puritanical +tendencies and restrictions of the Mosaic Law. It had been made for the +wanderers in the desert, for hardy warriors intent on the conquest of a +foreign land, for the simple peasantry of Palestine. It was directed +against the cultured vices and artistic idolatries of Egypt and Canaan: +on its forefront was the command: ‘Thou shalt not make the likeness of +anything that is in the heaven above, in the earth beneath, or in the +water that is under the earth.’ The temple at Jerusalem, with its costly +decoration and graven images, was in itself a violation of the letter of +the Law. Solomon was called indeed to be king over Israel, but his heart +and his sympathies were with Phœnicia. + +He had been carefully educated, and, like our own Henry VIII., was a +learned as well as a cultivated prince. His wisdom was celebrated above +that of the wisest men of his day (1 Kings iv. 30, 31), and he left +behind him a large collection of proverbs. Some of these were re-edited +by the scribes of Hezekiah’s library (Prov. xxv. 1), the foundation of +which may possibly go back to him. Indeed, he showed himself so anxious +to imitate the civilised monarchs of his day that it is hard to believe +he established no library at Jerusalem. The library had been for untold +centuries as essential to the royal dignity in Western Asia or Egypt as +the temple or palace, and the annals of Menander imply that one existed +at Tyre in the age of Hiram. Archæology has vindicated the authenticity +of the letters that passed between Solomon and the Tyrian king (2 Chron. +ii. 3, 11); similar letters were written in Babylonia in the age of +Abraham, and the tablets of Tel el-Amarna have demonstrated how frequent +they were in the ancient East. As in Babylonia and Assyria, so, too, in +Palestine, they would have been preserved among the archives of the +royal library. + +Hiram was nineteen years old when he ascended the throne, and he died at +the age of fifty-three. Solomon was probably of about the same age as +his friend both at his accession and at his death. He died, worn out by +excessive self-indulgence, leaving behind him an impoverished treasury, +a discontented people, and a tottering empire. But he had achieved one +great result. Jerusalem had become the capital of a united Judah and +Benjamin, Hebrew religion had obtained a local habitation round which +henceforward it could live and grow, and the dynasty of David was +planted firmly on the Jewish throne. When the disruption of the kingdom +came after Solomon’s death, it did no more than give outward form to the +estrangement that had so long been maturing between Judah and the +northern tribes; the temple, the line of David, and the fortress-capital +of Jerusalem remained unshaken. The work of David and Solomon was +accomplished, though in a way of which they had not dreamed; and a +nation was called into existence whom neither defeat nor exile, +persecution nor contempt, has ever been able to destroy. + +Footnote 368: + + We hear only of citizens of Mount Ephraim going up yearly to sacrifice + at Shiloh (1 Sam. i. 1-3). + +Footnote 369: + + It must be remembered that at this time, before the rise of Judah, + Ephraim was the nearest neighbour of the Philistines as well as of the + Amalekites. + +Footnote 370: + + It cannot be supposed, of course, that an Ephraimite would have + recorded the defeat and slaughter of his tribe at the hands of + Jephthah. But such a momentous disaster could not fail to become known + throughout Canaan, and some notice of it must have been taken by the + chroniclers of Ephraim themselves. Where and by whom, however, the + present account was composed it is vain to inquire, and the question + may be left for discussion to the philological critics. That Samuel, + who was brought up at Shiloh, could write we are assured in 1 Sam. x. + 25. + +Footnote 371: + + 1 Sam. ix. 5; xiv. 1. + +Footnote 372: + + 1 Sam. ix. 18, 19. The disintegrating critics have assumed this + narrative to be primitive and contemporary because it presents us with + a picture of Samuel which seems to degrade him into an obscure local + soothsayer, and on the strength of it have disputed the antiquity of + such narratives as assign to him national influence. They might just + as well maintain that the only primitive and contemporary account of + King Alfred that we possess is the story of the burnt cakes at + Athelney. + +Footnote 373: + + 1 Sam. vii. 14. + +Footnote 374: + + Zuph gave his name to ‘the district of Zuph’ (1 Sam. ix. 5), which has + the plural form in Ramathaim-zophim. + +Footnote 375: + + Ephraim, however, may be, like Jerusalem, the older form of which has + been recovered from the cuneiform inscriptions, a later Massoretic + mispronunciation of an original plural Ephrim. The Massoretes have + erroneously introduced a dual form into the pronunciation of the name + Chushan-rishathaim, and probably also into that of Naharaim when + compared with the Egyptian Naharin and the Nahrima of the Tel + el-Amarna tablets. Perhaps the dual form Ephraim originated in the + existence of the two Ophrahs (with _’ayin_), which are already + mentioned in the geographical lists of Thothmes III. + +Footnote 376: + + 2 Sam. viii. 18; see also 2 Sam. xx. 26. The Authorised Version + mistranslates the word in both passages. + +Footnote 377: + + Translated by me in the _Records of the Past_, new ser., IV., pp. + 109-113. + +Footnote 378: + + See above, p. 244. The Hebrew Samuel could also represent a Babylonian + Sumu-il, ‘Sumu is God’ or ‘the name of God,’ which we actually find in + early Babylonian contracts. + +Footnote 379: + + So, too, the Chronicler states that he was descended from Ithamar the + younger son of Aaron (1 Chron. xxiv. 3). + +Footnote 380: + + It would seem from 1 Sam. iii. 3, as compared with Exod. xxvii. 21, + and Lev. xxiv. 3, that there was no veil at the time in ‘the temple of + the Lord, where the ark of God was.’ + +Footnote 381: + + ‘The priest’ of the narrative is equivalent to ‘high priest’: see + above, p. 219. Eli’s two sons were naturally not on a level of + equality with himself. It has been gravely maintained that there were + only three priests at Shiloh at the time, because nothing is said + about any others; had the narrative not required the mention of Hophni + and Phinehas we should have been told there was only one. Such + trifling with historical documents is unfortunately only too + characteristic of the so-called ‘literary criticism.’ + +Footnote 382: + + It has been assumed that ‘the women that assembled at the door of the + tabernacle of the congregation’ (Exod. xxxviii. 8, 1 Sam. ii. 22) were + religious prostitutes like the _qedashoth_ in the Phœnician temples + (see Deut. xxiii. 17, 18). But the fact that the intercourse of the + sons of Eli with them was a sin in the eyes of both Yahveh and the + people proves the contrary. Here, as in other cases, an old + institution of Semitic religion was retained among the adherents of + the Mosaic law, but it was deprived of its pagan and immoral + characteristics. + +Footnote 383: + + 1 Sam. ix. 9. + +Footnote 384: + + 1 Sam. xix. 23. _Nâbî_ is not of Arabic derivation as is often + supposed, as, for example, by Professor Cornill, _The Prophets of + Israel_, pp. 8-10, where it is erroneously stated that the Babylonian + _nabû_ does not mean ‘to pronounce’ or ‘proclaim.’ The name of Nebo + shows to what antiquity the Babylonian _nabium_ in its special sense + of ‘prophet’ reaches back. The modern Arabic _nebi_ is borrowed from + the Hebrew _nâbî_. _Nâbî_ corresponds with the Greek προφήτης + ‘forth-speaker,’ as distinguished from μάντις or ‘diviner,’ the + Babylonian _asipu_. In Babylonia the _asipu_ performed the offices + which the Hebrew _roeh_ had once fulfilled; he determined whether an + army should move or not, whether victory would be on its side, whether + an undertaking would be prosperous or the reverse. While, therefore, + the _asipu_ and the _nabiu_ continued to exist side by side, + performing the functions which had been combined in the Hebrew _roeh_, + and at the outset in the Hebrew _nâbî_, among the Israelites the + _roeh_ disappeared, and the _nâbî_ alone remained with purely + prophetical attributes. + +Footnote 385: + + Towards the end of Samuel’s life, however, a Naioth or ‘monastery’ + grew up around him at Ramah, which must have closely resembled the + Dervish colleges of the modern Mohammedan world; see 1 Sam. xix. 23. + This monastery will have taken the place of Shiloh, and become a + veritable ‘school’ of prophetical training and instruction. + +Footnote 386: + + Gad, however, still retained the title of ‘seer’ (1 Chron. xxix. 29), + and one of the histories of the reign of Solomon was contained ‘in the + visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam’ (2 Chron. ix. 29). Even + Isaiah’s history of Hezekiah was called ‘the vision of Isaiah the + prophet’ (2 Chron. xxxii. 32). But the title was merely a survival. + +Footnote 387: + + We must, however, distinguish between Samuel’s authority as a seer, + which did not excite the jealousy of his Philistine masters, and his + authority as a dispenser of justice. That was confined to a small area + in the heart of Mount Ephraim. Each year, we are told (1 Sam. vii. 16) + he went on circuit like a Babylonian judge, ‘to Beth-el and Gilgal and + Mizpeh.’ This is the Mizpeh of Benjamin. + +Footnote 388: + + Ramah, ‘the height,’ is identified in 1 Sam. ii. 11 with Ramathaim, + ‘the two heights.’ The village evidently stood on two hills. For the + possible site of Aphek, see G. A. Smith, _The Historical Geography of + the Holy Land_, p. 224. Eben-ezer is identified with the great stone + at Beth-shemesh (1 Sam. vi. 14, 18) by M. Clermont-Ganneau (_Quarterly + Statement_ of the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1874, p. 279; 1877, pp. + 154 _sqq._), but this is questionable. + +Footnote 389: + + See my _Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_, p. 154; + and above, p. 196. + +Footnote 390: + + 1 Sam. iv. 13. + +Footnote 391: + + The Septuagint text omits the ‘eight.’ + +Footnote 392: + + The Septuagint reads Ouai-bar-khabôth, ‘Woe to the son of glory,’ with + the insertion of the Aramaic _bar_, ‘son.’ + +Footnote 393: + + 1 Sam. xiv. 3. + +Footnote 394: + + As Abiathar was the contemporary of David, and his father Ahimelech or + Ahiah of Saul, Ahitub will have been the contemporary of Samuel. If + Solomon came to the throne about B.C. 965, and Saul was about forty + years of age at the time of his death, we should have about B.C. 1045 + for the date of Saul’s birth. Samuel was an old man when he died; if + he lived ten years after Saul’s accession, and was ten years old when + the ark was taken, we may place his birth about B.C. 1090. This would + give about B.C. 1180 for the birth of Eli, or very shortly after the + Israelitish invasion of Canaan. The life of Eli would thus cover + almost the whole period of the Judges, and form a single link between + the Mosaic age and that of Samuel. In such a case it is not + astonishing that the records and traditions of the Mosaic age were + preserved at Shiloh. The ark was only seven months among the + Philistines (1 Sam. vi. 1), and it was removed from ‘the house of + Abinadab’ at Kirjath-jearim some time after the seventh year of David + (see, however, 1 Sam. xiv. 18). ‘The sons of Abinadab,’ in 2 Sam. vi. + 4, must mean, as is so frequently the case, the descendants of + Abinadab. + +Footnote 395: + + In Zeph. i. 9 there is an allusion to the practice of the Philistine + priests of ‘leaping’ over the threshold. For the origin and reason of + this sacredness of the threshold see Trumbull, _The Threshold + Covenant_, pp. 10-13, 116-126, 143. ‘In Finland it is regarded as + unlucky if a clergyman steps on the threshold when he comes to preach + at a church.... In the Lapp tales the same idea appears.’ (Jones and + Kropf, _Folk-Tales of the Magyars_, p. 410.) + +Footnote 396: + + Philo Byblius according to Euseb., _Præp. Evangel._ i. 6. + +Footnote 397: + + That Dagon was worshipped in Canaan before he was adopted by the + Philistine emigrants we know, not only from the evidence of + geographical names, but also from the fact that one of the Tel + el-Amarna correspondents in Palestine was called Dagan-takala. + +Footnote 398: + + It is noticeable that Zophim in Ramathaim-zophim means ‘Watchmen.’ + Poels (_Le Sanctuaire de Kirjath-jearim_, Louvain, 1894) has, + moreover, made it probable that Kirjath-jearim, Mizpeh, Gibeah, Geba, + and Gibeon all represent the same place. + +Footnote 399: + + According to 1 Sam. vii. 2, the victory at Eben-ezer took place + ‘twenty years’ after the ark had been removed to Kirjath-jearim. But + this is merely the half of an unknown period, and means that the + interval of time was not long. + +Footnote 400: + + 1 Sam. vii. 13, 14. The area of independence, however, must have been + very confined, since there was a garrison of the Philistines in ‘the + hill of God’ at Gibeah (1 Sam. ix. 5), as well as one at Michmash (1 + Sam. xiv. 1). + +Footnote 401: + + There is no reason for doubting the very explicit statement made in 1 + Sam. vii. 14, which explains and limits the preceding verse. Its + antiquity is vouched for by the concluding words: ‘And there was peace + between Israel and the Amorites.’ The term ‘Amorite’ instead of + ‘Canaanite’ points to an early date, and the sentence reads like an + extract from a contemporary chronicle. The peace was an enforced one, + as both Israelites and Canaanites alike were under the yoke of the + Philistines. + +Footnote 402: + + See 2 Kings xviii. 4. + +Footnote 403: + + 1 Chron. xvi. 39, xxi. 293; 2 Chron. i. 3, 5. + +Footnote 404: + + Is it an inference from 1 Kings iii. 4? That the Chronicler sometimes + drew erroneous inferences from his materials, I have shown in _The + Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_, p. 463. It is + difficult to understand how ‘fixtures’ like the tabernacle and the + altar escaped destruction when the temple at Shiloh was ruined. + +Footnote 405: + + Kirjath-jearim was a Gibeonite town (Josh. ix. 17). + +Footnote 406: + + 1 Sam. ix. 3. + +Footnote 407: + + 1 Sam. viii. 2. Joel is called Vashni in 1 Chron. vi. 28, where the + Septuagint reads Sani. + +Footnote 408: + + As has been noticed above (p. 315, note 1), the title of the supreme + god of Tyre is evidence that there, too, the state had been originally + regarded as a theocracy. + +Footnote 409: + + The name of Saul corresponds with the Babylonian Savul, a title of the + Sun-god, though it might also be explained as a Hebrew word meaning + ‘asked for.’ But one of the Edomite kings was also named Saul, and he + is stated to have come from ‘Rehoboth (Assyrian Rêbit) by the river’ + Euphrates (Gen. xxxvi. 37). This points to a Babylonian origin of the + name. Kish, Saul’s father, has also the same name as the Edomite god + Qos (in Assyrian Qaus), of which the Canaanitish Kishon is a + derivative. As Saul’s successors in Edom were Baal-hanan and Hadad, + while Hadad was a contemporary of Solomon, and El-hanan is said in 2 + Sam. xxi. 19 to have been the slayer of Goliath, I have proposed (_The + Modern Review_, v. 17, 1884) to see in the Saul and Baal-hanan of Edom + the Saul and David of Israel. Saul is said to have fought against Edom + (1 Sam. xiv. 47), and Doeg the Edomite was his henchman. But the + proposal is excluded by two facts. The kings of Edom recorded in Gen. + xxxvi. 31-39 reigned ‘before there was any king over the children of + Israel,’ and Saul the son of Kish did not come from the Euphrates. + +Footnote 410: + + 1 Sam. ix. 3. In 1 Sam. x. 14-16, Saul’s uncle takes the place of his + father. + +Footnote 411: + + Much has been made of the supposed fact that Saul had never heard of + Samuel, and did not know that he was a seer. But the narrative only + says that Saul’s slave informed him that a seer was in the town, + without mentioning his name; and if Saul had never previously seen + Samuel, he would naturally not recognise him in the crowd. + +Footnote 412: + + That the prophets were at Gibeah is shown by the fact that ‘the hill + of God,’ where they met Saul, was also where ‘the garrison of the + Philistines’ was (1 Sam. x. 5, xiii. 2, 3). + +Footnote 413: + + It has been usually supposed from this verse that ‘Gibeah of Saul’ was + the original home of Saul’s family. But as the family burial-place was + at Zelah (2 Sam. xxi. 14), this can hardly have been the case. Gibeah + was the scene of Jonathan’s first success against the Philistines, and + it was here that Saul fixed his residence during the latter years of + his life. + +Footnote 414: + + Cp. Judg. xix. 29, where the Levite similarly cuts up his concubine + and sends the pieces to the several tribes of Israel. + +Footnote 415: + + See my _Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_, pp. 463-4. + When Ahab came to the help of the Syrians against the Assyrian king + Shalmaneser, his whole force consisted of only ten thousand men and + two thousand chariots, and ‘Assur-natsir-pal thinks it a subject of + boasting that he had slain fifty or one hundred and seventy-two of the + enemy in battle.’ The whole of the country population of Judah carried + into captivity by Sennacherib was only two hundred thousand one + hundred and fifty, which would give at most an army of fifty thousand + men. The Egyptian armies, with which the victories of the eighteenth + and nineteenth dynasties were gained, were of small size. One of them, + in the time of the nineteenth dynasty, contained only three thousand + one hundred foreign mercenaries and one thousand nine hundred native + troops (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, Eng. tr., p. 542). At the same + time, we must not forget that if there were fifty thousand available + fighting men in Judah in the time of Hezekiah, there would have been + about three hundred and fifty thousand among the other seven tribes a + few generations earlier. Consequently the calculation given in the + text of 1 Sam. xi. 8 is approximately correct as a mere calculation. + Between available and actual fighting men there was, of course, a + great difference. In the second year of Saul’s reign, when his + authority was established, he was not able to muster more than three + thousand fighting men (1 Sam. xiii. 2). A larger body, indeed, had + flocked to him, but they were an undisciplined, unarmed multitude, who + had to be dismissed to their homes. + +Footnote 416: + + As the Hebrew _netsîb_ signifies a ‘governor’ as well as a ‘fortified + post’ or ‘garrison,’ many writers have maintained that the _netsîb_ in + ‘the Hill of God’ at Gibeah was the Philistine official. But Jonathan + would not have required a thousand men in order to destroy a single + official and the few soldiers who might have been with him. + +Footnote 417: + + The Hebrews had, of course, no means of ascertaining the exact numbers + of the enemy. The number of chariots is quite impossible, and they + would have been useless in the mountainous country. In the great + battle in which Meneptah saved Egypt from the combined armies of the + Libyans and their northern allies, nine thousand three hundred and + seventy-six prisoners in all were taken, while the slain amounted to + six thousand three hundred and sixty-five Libyans and two thousand + three hundred and seventy of their Mediterranean confederates. To + these must be added nine thousand one hundred and eleven Maxyes. And + yet it does not seem that any of the invaders escaped from the battle. + +Footnote 418: + + 1 Sam. xiii. 6, 7. For the distinction that is here drawn between ‘the + men of Israel’ and ‘the Hebrews,’ see above, p. 6. + +Footnote 419: + + The identification is uncertain, as it depends on the position to be + assigned to Gibeah. + +Footnote 420: + + Ahimelech (1 Sam. xxii. 9, 11, 20) is here called Ahiah, perhaps out + of reluctance to apply the term Melech, ‘King,’ with its heathen + associations, to Yahveh. + +Footnote 421: + + Here called by its old name of Beth-On, which the Massoretic + punctuation has transformed into Beth-Aven. + +Footnote 422: + + Some of the literary critics have started the gratuitous supposition + that a prisoner was substituted for Jonathan, though the fact was + suppressed by the later Hebrew historian. It is perhaps natural that + those who re-write history should have a poor opinion of the + trustworthiness of their predecessors. + +Footnote 423: + + 1 Sam. xii. + +Footnote 424: + + 1 Sam. x. 8, compared with xiii. 8-15. + +Footnote 425: + + 1 Sam. xiii. 14. Though Saul’s kingdom did ‘not continue,’ it + nevertheless lasted some time, and was not overthrown at Michmash, as + those who heard Samuel’s words must have expected. As David was not + anointed until some years later, he cannot be ‘the man’ after Yahveh’s + ‘heart,’ whom the seer had in his mind at the time. + +Footnote 426: + + The _nakhal_ (A.V. ‘valley’) is probably the Wadi el-Arîsh, which lay + on the way to the Shur or line of fortifications that protected the + eastern side of the Delta. Havilah, the ‘sandy’ desert, corresponds + with the Melukhkha or ‘Salt’ desert of the Babylonian inscriptions. + The ‘city of Amalek’ may have been El-Arîsh, if this were not in + Egyptian hands at the time. + +Footnote 427: + + The Israelites had been stirred to vengeance by the murderous raids of + the Bedâwin at a time when the Philistine invasion had made them too + weak to defend themselves (1 Sam. xv. 33). + +Footnote 428: + + For ‘Edom’ we should probably read ‘Aram,’ as is demanded by the + geographical order of the list of countries which runs from south to + north. In 2 Sam. viii. 13, ‘Aram’ has been substituted for ‘Edom,’ + which was still read by the Chronicler (1 Chron. xviii. 12), and the + marriage of David with the daughter of the king of Aram-Geshur (2 Sam. + iii. 3) implies hostility between Saul and the Geshurites. + +Footnote 429: + + The ‘critics’ have decided that the list of Saul’s wars has been + ‘borrowed’ from the history of David. In this case, however, we should + have heard of ‘the king’ of Zobah, not of ‘the kings.’ We happen to + know that Saul fought against Ammon. Had the fact not been mentioned, + the ‘critics’ would have maintained, as in the case of Moab and Zobah, + that such a war never took place. The argument from silence may + simplify the process of reconstructing history, but from a historical + point of view it is worthless. + +Footnote 430: + + Saul showed himself in other cases such a scrupulous observer of the + Law that we can well understand his obeying the precept of Deuteronomy + that the king should not ‘multiply’ horses or wives (Deut. xviii. 16, + 17). + +Footnote 431: + + 1 Sam. xxii. 6. + +Footnote 432: + + It is clear, however, from 1 Sam. xxi. 9, that there must be some + mistake here, since the sword of Goliath was laid up at Nob while Saul + was king. + +Footnote 433: + + This must be an exaggeration, since David, who was not above the + ordinary size, afterwards used his sword (1 Sam. xxi. 9). + +Footnote 434: + + The narrative goes on to say that ‘David took the head of the + Philistine and brought it to Jerusalem; but he put his armour in his + tent.’ This verse is given in the Septuagint, though the next nine + verses are omitted. But the statement cannot be right. Jerusalem was + not captured by David until many years after the battle in the valley + of Elah, and the shepherd lad had no tent of his own at the time. + +Footnote 435: + + 1 Chron. xx. 5. ‘Beth-lehemite’ is turned into ‘Lahmi,’ the name of + the ‘brother’ of Goliath, and the unintelligible _Yaare-oregim_ + becomes _Yair_. _Oregim_, ‘weavers,’ however, has crept in from the + end of the verse, and the original reading of 1 Sam. xxi. 19 must have + been, ‘El-hanan, the son of Yaari (the forester) the Beth-lehemite, + slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s + beam.’ + +Footnote 436: + + 1 Kings xix. 15, 16; 2 Kings ix. 2, 3. Ahijah, however, did not anoint + Jeroboam when he suggested to him that he should head a revolt of the + ten tribes against the house of David. When David was made king at + Hebron he was anointed by ‘the men of Judah,’ not by a prophet (2 Sam. + ii. 4), and no mention is made of a prophet or priest when he was + anointed ‘king over Israel’ (2 Sam. v. 3). + +Footnote 437: + + We must remember that in any case the act of anointing would have been + a secret, and that consequently an erroneous account of it might + easily have been set on foot. + +Footnote 438: + + 1 Sam. xviii. 6. The singular ‘Philistine’ has to be noted, as if + there was a reference in it to the overthrow of Goliath. Cf. xix. 5. + +Footnote 439: + + See above, p. 342. + +Footnote 440: + + It is also possible that chapter xx. ought to precede chapter xix. + +Footnote 441: + + 1 Sam. xix. 2. + +Footnote 442: + + Hitzig identified the name of Achish with that of the Homeric + Ankhisês. Whether this is so or not, Dr. W. Max Müller is probably + right in seeing the same name in that of a native of Keft, or the + northern coast of Syria, mentioned in an Egyptian papyrus where it is + written Akashau (Spiegelberg in the _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, + viii. p. 384). + +Footnote 443: + + Unless, indeed, 1 Sam. xxiii. 16-18 is an interpolation. + +Footnote 444: + + 1 Sam. xxiv. 2. Compare the expression used by Sennacherib when + describing his campaign against the Cilicians: ‘Like a wild goat I + climbed to the high peaks against them’ (W. A. I., i. 39, 77). + +Footnote 445: + + The name is preserved in the modern Tell Zif. + +Footnote 446: + + Shunem was a fortified city, already mentioned in the Tel el-Amarna + tablets, Aphek a mere village. Shunem had evidently been captured, and + the Philistine camp subsequently formed outside its walls a little to + the west. + +Footnote 447: + + See Exod. xxii. 18; Lev. xx. 27; Deut. xviii. 10, 11. + +Footnote 448: + + We are told in 1 Chron. xii. 19 that even while he was in the + Philistine camp at Aphek, and again when he was on the march back to + Ziklag, ‘some of Manasseh’ deserted to him. + +Footnote 449: + + The Negeb or ‘South’ was divided at the time into the Negeb of the + Cherethites or Philistines, of the Jews, and of the Calebites (1 Sam. + xxx. 14, 16.) Up to the end of Saul’s reign, therefore, Caleb and + Judah had not been as yet amalgamated into a single tribe. + +Footnote 450: + + See above, p. 234. + +Footnote 451: + + Aroer had belonged to Reuben (Josh. xiii. 16), Hormah, Ziklag, + Chor-ashan, and Ramoth of the south to Simeon (Josh. xix. 4-8.) It is + curious that no mention should be made of Beth-lehem, and it is + therefore possible that ‘Beth-lehem’ should be read in place of + ‘Beth-el’ in 1 Sam. xxx. 27. The Septuagint has Baith-Sour. + +Footnote 452: + + Boaz, the grandfather of Jesse, is said to have been the son of Salmon + or Salma, who, according to 1 Chron. ii. 50, 51, was the founder of + Bethlehem, and the son of Caleb. + +Footnote 453: + + Criticism has seen in the story told by the Amalekite a second version + of the death of Saul inconsistent with that which precedes it. The + inconsistency certainly exists, but that is because the Amalekite’s + story was a fabrication, the object of which was to gain a reward from + David. There was this much truth in it, that Saul had been wounded and + had desired death; the Amalekite could easily have learned this from + those who had witnessed the last scene of Saul’s life. But the fact + that he had robbed Saul’s corpse shows that he must have come to the + ground after the flight of the Israelitish soldiers; he was, in fact, + one of those Bedâwin thieves who, in Oriental warfare, still hang on + the skirts of the battle in the hope of murdering the wounded and + plundering the dead when it is over and the victors are pursuing the + vanquished. + +Footnote 454: + + The translation is that of the Revised Version, with a slight change + in the 21st verse. The contrast between the preservation of the text + in this Song and in that of the Song of Deborah is great, no passage + in it being corrupt, and points to the more archaic character of the + latter, as well as to a confirmation of the fact that the Song of the + Bow was learnt in the schools from the time of its composition. + +Footnote 455: + + Ish-Baal or Esh-Baal, ‘the man of Baal,’ is called Ishui in 1 Sam. + xiv. 49 (where the name of Abinadab is omitted; see 1 Chron. viii. + 33). Later writers changed Baal into Bosheth, ‘Shame,’ in accordance + with the custom which grew up when the title of Baal came to signify + the god of Phœnicia, rather than Yahveh of Israel. + +Footnote 456: + + That the reign of David ‘in Hebron’ continued for five years after the + death of Esh-Baal seems the most probable way of explaining the + statement in 2 Sam. ii. 10, that the reign of Saul’s son lasted only + two years. It is certainly preferable to the usual supposition that + ‘two’ is a mistake for ‘seven.’ + +Footnote 457: + + The author of the books of Samuel did not know his age (2 Sam. ii. + 10). In 1 Sam. xiv. 49 Ishui is named before Melchi-shua, but in 1 + Chron. viii. 33 Esh-Baal is the youngest of Saul’s children. That + Esh-Baal did not take part in the battle of Gilboa would suit equally + well with either hypothesis. Abner, the son of Ner, the son of Abiel, + was the great-uncle of Esh-Baal (1 Sam. xiv. 50, 51). As he was still + in the prime of life when he was murdered, it is reasonable to suppose + that his great-nephew was very young. + +Footnote 458: + + 1 Chron. ii. 16. + +Footnote 459: + + If, as is probable, we should read ‘Geshurites’ for ‘Ashurites’ in 2 + Sam. ii. 9, Esh-Baal would have claimed rule over Geshur, and + consequently would have been as much involved in war with the king of + that country as he was with David. We subsequently find the Aramæans + in alliance with the Ammonites (2 Sam. x. 6, etc.), and the king of + Ammon was the ally of David against Esh-Baal (2 Sam. xi. 2). It is + probable that in 1 Sam. xiv. 47, ‘Aram’ must be read for ‘Edom,’ the + geographical position of which was not between Ammon and Zobah (see + above, p. 368); if so, Esh-Baal, in asserting his authority over + Geshur, would only have succeeded to his father’s conquests. + +Footnote 460: + + Absalom, as the son of a princess, would claim precedence of his two + elder brothers, who, although born after David’s coronation, were + nevertheless not of royal descent on their mother’s side. The name of + the eldest, the son of Ahinoam, was Amnon, that of the second, the son + of Abigail, is given as Chileab in the Hebrew text of Samuel, Daniel + in that of 1 Chron. iii. 1, the Septuagint reading Daluia (Dalbia) and + Damniêl in the two passages. He seems to have died young. The fourth + son of David was Adonijah, the son of Haggith, who, by the death of + his three elder brothers, became the eldest son before his father’s + death, while the fifth and sixth sons were Shephatiah, the son of + Abital, and Ithream, the son of Eglah. All were born in Hebron. + +Footnote 461: + + 2 Sam. iii. 17. This goes to show that Saul’s suspicions of David were + founded on fact. + +Footnote 462: + + The name of the Babylonian god Rimmon or Ramman implies that the + family of the murderers were idolaters. They are said to have been + originally from Beeroth, the inhabitants of which had fled to Gittaim + (2 Sam. iv. 3). If the flight had been due to Saul, the hostility of + the sons of Rimmon to the son of Saul would be explained. Beeroth was + one of the cities of the Gibeonites (Josh. ix. 17), and Saul, we learn + from 2 Sam. xxi. 1, had slain the Gibeonites. + +Footnote 463: + + The name Merib-Baal, given by the Chronicler (1 Chron. viii. 34, ix. + 40), is doubtless correct. In the books of Samuel Baal has, as usual, + been changed into Bosheth, and Merib corrupted into the senseless + Mephi. + +Footnote 464: + + See 1 Chron. xi. 2, and xii. 38-40, where it is added that the + coronation-feast lasted for three days. + +Footnote 465: + + See 2 Sam. xiii. 13-17. + +Footnote 466: + + It is difficult to say whether the number of the _gibbôrîm_ or + ‘heroes’ was actually restricted to thirty, or whether thirty was an + ideal number which was elastic in practice. In 2 Sam. xxiii. + thirty-seven ‘heroes’ are named, but some of these may have been + appointed to supply the place of others who had died or fallen in war. + To be included among the thirty was equivalent to receiving a Victoria + Cross. + +Footnote 467: + + 2 Sam. xxiii. 8, but the text is corrupt, and reads literally: ‘He + that sitteth on the seat, a Takmonite, chief of the third (?); he is + Adino the Eznite, over eight hundred slain at one time.’ The + Septuagint has: ‘Yebosthe the Canaanite is chief of the third; Adino + the Asônæan is he who drew his sword against eight hundred warriors at + once’; while the Chronicler (1 Chron. xi. 11) omitted the name of + Adino, and read: ‘Jashobeam, a Khakmonite, chief of the captains; he + lifted up his spear against three hundred slain at one time.’ For + Jashobeam the Septuagint gives Yesebada. Adino seems to be the Adnah + of 1 Chron. xii. 20, a Manassite who deserted to David when he was at + Ziklag. Jashobeam is the most probable form of the name, and there + must be some confusion between Jashobeam, who brandished his spear + over three hundred enemies, and an unknown Adino, who did the same + over eight hundred enemies. + +Footnote 468: + + G. A. Smith, _The Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, p. 218. + +Footnote 469: + + See 2 Sam. xxi. 15-22, xxiii. 8-17. + +Footnote 470: + + If the name of Ishbi-benob, ‘my seat is in Nob,’ is correct, ‘Gob’ + must be corrected into ‘Nob.’ But perhaps it is the name of the giant + which needs correction. + +Footnote 471: + + See the map given by Stade, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, p. 268, + and my ‘Topography of Præ-exilic Jerusalem’ in the _Quarterly + Statement_ of the Palestine Exploration Fund, Oct. 1883, pp. 215 + _sqq._ + +Footnote 472: + + Bliss, ‘Excavations at Jerusalem’ in the _Quarterly Statement_ of the + Palestine Exploration Fund, Oct. 1896 and Jan. 1897. + +Footnote 473: + + _Antiq._ viii. 5, 3; _C. Ap._ i. 18. + +Footnote 474: + + It is, of course, possible that Abibal had been preceded by an earlier + Hiram of whom we otherwise know nothing, and who is meant in 2 Sam. v. + 11. It is also possible that the use of Hiram’s name in this passage + is proleptic, derived from the fact that it was he who subsequently + sent materials to David for the construction of the temple. + +Footnote 475: + + 1 Chron. xxii. 8. + +Footnote 476: + + 1 Kings v. 3. + +Footnote 477: + + 2 Sam. vi. 3. In Josh. xviii. 18 ‘Gibeah of Kirjath’ is given as one + of the cities of Benjamin. Like most of the Egyptian and Babylonian + cities it had a second and sacred name, Baalê-Judah, the city of ‘Baal + of Judah’ (2 Sam. vi. 2). + +Footnote 478: + + The name of Obed-Edom, ‘the servant of Edom,’ shows that Edom was the + name of a deity as well as of a country, like Ammi, the patron-god of + Ammon, and it is met with in the monuments of Egypt. A papyrus (_Pap. + Leydens._ i. 343. 7) states that Atum or Edom was the wife of the + Canaanitish fire-god Reshpu, and one of the places in Palestine + captured by Thothmes III. was Shemesh-Edom (No. 51), ‘the Sun-god is + Edom’ (_Records of the Past_, new ser., v. p. 47). + +Footnote 479: + + 2 Chron. i. 3. See above, p. 353. + +Footnote 480: + + This must be the general signification of the Hebrew expression + _Metheg-ammah_ in 2 Sam. viii. i., which the Septuagint translates τὴν + ἀφωρισμένην, ‘the tribute.’ The Chronicler read Gath for Metheg (1 + Chron. xviii. 1), and consequently understood _ammah_ in the sense of + ‘mother-city.’ My own belief is that we have in the phrase a Hebrew + transcription of a Babylonian expression which has been derived from a + cuneiform document. The Babylonian _mêtêg ammati_ (for _mêtêq ammati_) + would signify ‘the highroad of the mainland’ of Palestine, and would + refer to the command of the highroad of trade which passed through + Canaan from Asia to Egypt and Arabia. _Ammati_ is the Semitic + equivalent of the Sumerian Sarsar (W. A. I. v. 18, 32 _c._), which was + an early Babylonian name of the land of the Amorites or Syria (W. A. + I. ii. 51, 19; see _Records of the Past_, new ser., v. p. 107); and + _mêtêq_ is given as a rendering of _kharran_, ‘a highroad’ (W. A. I. + ii. 38, 26). + +Footnote 481: + + 2 Sam. xxiii. 20. + +Footnote 482: + + See my _Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_, p. 367. + +Footnote 483: + + _Ibid._ pp. 349, 350. + +Footnote 484: + + The Septuagint has misread ‘Amalek’ for ‘Maacah.’ + +Footnote 485: + + El-Hîba probably stands on the site of the Egyptian town of Hâ-Bennu, + the Greek Hipponon, the capital of the eighteenth nome of Upper Egypt, + and its fortifications were built by the high priest Men-kheper-Ra and + his wife Isis-em-Kheb. The Tanite Pharaohs formed the twenty-first + dynasty. + +Footnote 486: + + See Delitzsch, _Wo lag das Paradies_, pp. 279-280. Assur-bani-pal + states that he sent his troops against the cities of Azar-el, the + Khiratâqazians, Edom, Yabrudu, Bit-Ammani or Ammon, ‘the district of + the city of the Haurân’ (_Khaurina_), Moab, Sakharri, Khargê, and ‘the + district of the city of Tsubitê, or Zobah.’ Delitzsch identifies + Yabrudu with the Yabruda of Ptolemy, the modern Yabrûd, north-east of + Damascus. In the tribute-lists of the Second Assyrian Empire, Tsubitê + or Tsubutu comes between Dûru (_Tantûra_) and Hamath, Samalla + (_Sinjerli_) and Khatarikka or Hadrach (Zech. ix. 1.), and Zemar + (_Sumra_), and the Quê on the coast of the Gulf of Antioch. + +Footnote 487: + + The fact that the Assyrian king Shalmaneser II. calls Baasha, the + contemporary king of Ammon, ‘the son of Rukhubi’ or Rehob, just as he + calls Jehu ‘the son of Omri,’ shows that Rehob was a personal name. + The Biblical Beth-Rehob is parallel to Bit-Omri, a designation of + Samaria in the Assyrian texts. Beth-Rehob is placed near Dan in Judg. + xviii. 28. In 1 Chron. xix. 6, Aram-Naharaim is apparently substituted + for Aram-Beth-Rehob, though, as the dominions of Hadad-ezer extended + to the Euphrates, soldiers may have come to the help of the Ammonites + from Mesopotamia, as well as from Beth-Rehob. The name of Hadad-ezer + is incorrectly given as Hadar-ezer in 2 Sam. x. 16. It appears as + Hadad-idri in the Assyrian inscriptions (with the Aramaic change of + _z_ to _d_), where it is the name of the king of Damascus, called + Ben-Hadad II. in the Old Testament. + +Footnote 488: + + So, according to the Septuagint and 1 Chron. xviii. 4. The Hebrew text + of 2 Sam. viii. 4 has ‘700 horsemen.’ But it is possible that we ought + to read ‘1700 horsemen.’ + +Footnote 489: + + Nicolaus Damascenus, as quoted by Josephus, makes Hadad the king of + Damascus, who thus vainly endeavoured to check the torrent of + Israelitish success. Hadad, however, must be merely Hadad-ezer in an + abbreviated form, Perhaps we may gather from 1 Kings xi. 23, that the + ruling prince in Damascus at the time of David’s conquests was Rezon, + the son of Eliadah. + +Footnote 490: + + 1 Chron. xix. 18. In 2 Sam. x. 18, the numbers are 700 charioteers and + 40,000 horsemen, which are clearly wrong. + +Footnote 491: + + The account of the war with Zobah given above is the most probable + that can be gleaned from the scanty and fragmentary notices that have + been preserved to us. But it must be remembered that it is probable + only. It is not even certain that ‘the Syrians that were beyond the + river’ (2 Sam. x. 16) were not the Aramæans of Damascus rather than + those of Mesopotamia, since, as Professor Hommel has shown (_Ancient + Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, pp. 195 _sqq._) the + term _Ebir Nâri_, ‘Beyond the river,’ is already used in an Assyrian + poem (K. 3500, l. 9) of the age of David, in the Assyro-Babylonian + sense of the country westward of the Euphrates. Indeed, Professor + Hommel suggests that it already denoted the country westward of the + Jordan. This, however, is inconsistent with 2 Sam. x. 17; and west of + the Jordan, moreover, there were no Aramæan kingdoms. + +Footnote 492: + + The Chronicler (1 Chron. xviii. 8) has preserved the true form of the + name of Tibhath, which has been corrupted into Betah in 2 Sam. viii. + 8. It is the Tubikhi of the Tel el-Amarna tablets, the Dbkhu of the + geographical list of Thothmes III. (No. 6). Instead of Berothai the + Chronicler has Chun. + +Footnote 493: + + 1 Chron. xviii. 8. + +Footnote 494: + + Hadoram, the older form of the name, is found only in 1 Chron. xviii. + 10. The text of the books of Samuel has the Hebraised Joram. + +Footnote 495: + + Salamanu appears as Shalman in Hos. x. 14, as Sulmanu in + Assyro-Babylonian. Sulmanu was the god of Peace, like Selamanês in a + Greek inscription from Shêkh Barakât in northern Syria, whose name is + also found in a Phœnician inscription from Sidon (Clermont-Ganneau, + _Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études_ CXIII., vol. ii. pp. 40, + 48). + +Footnote 496: + + This is usually supposed to mean that they were tortured in various + ways, but more probably it means only that they were made public + slaves and compelled to cut and saw wood, harrow the ground, and make + bricks. At all events, if tortures are referred to, no parallel to + them can be found elsewhere. As the crown is said to have weighed ‘a + talent’ it can hardly have been worn by an earthly king. + +Footnote 497: + + 2 Sam. viii. 13. In 1 Chron. xviii. 12, however, the victory is + ascribed to Abishai, the brother of Joab. + +Footnote 498: + + 2 Sam. viii. 13, where the mention of ‘the valley of salt’ shows that + we must read ‘Edom’ instead of ‘Aram,’ as indeed is done by the + Chronicler as well as in the superscription of Ps. lx. and in the + Septuagint. The ‘valley of salt’ was part of the Melukhkha or + ‘Saltland’ of the cuneiform inscriptions. + +Footnote 499: + + 2 Sam. xxiii. 37, 36, 34. + +Footnote 500: + + 1 Kings xi. 21. + +Footnote 501: + + This was Ithra who ‘went in’ to Abigail, the daughter of Nahash, the + sister of Zeruiah, Joab’s mother (2 Sam. xvii. 25). The form of + expression may imply that Abigail was seduced. If so, the hostility of + Joab would be easily accounted for. + +Footnote 502: + + It is probable that ‘Shobi the son of Nahash of Rabbah of the children + of Ammon’ (2 Sam. xvii. 27) was a brother of the last king of Ammon, + and it is even possible that he may have been the cause of the + Ammonite war. If he had been a rival of his brother Khanun, and had + received shelter and protection from David, we should have an + explanation of the otherwise gratuitous insult offered by Khanun to + the ambassadors of the Israelitish king. + +Footnote 503: + + That the forest was on the eastern bank of the Jordan is plain from + Josh. xvii. 15-18 and 2 Sam. xix. 31. + +Footnote 504: + + It is called Abel-Maim, ‘Abel of the Waters,’ in 2 Chron. xvi. 4, + compared with 1 Kings xv. 20. In 2 Sam. xx. 14, we should perhaps + read, ‘And all the young warriors’ (_bakhûrîm_ for _bêrîm_) ‘were + gathered together,’ as the Septuagint has ‘all in Kharri,’ and the + Vulgate ‘viri electi.’ + +Footnote 505: + + 2 Sam. xxiv. 6, according to Lucian’s recension of the Greek + translation (‘Khettieim Kadês’). See Field, _Origenis Hexaplorum quæ + supersunt_, i. p. 587. + +Footnote 506: + + 2 Sam. xix. 29. Ziba, the steward of Mephibosheth, who was lame, had + accused his master of aiming at the kingdom, and David had accordingly + given him all Mephibosheth’s property. David not only had believed the + accusation, but in spite of Mephibosheth’s protests and excuses, must + have continued to do so, since Ziba, so far from being punished, was + allowed to retain half his master’s possessions. The Jewish historian + evidently takes a different view from that of David, and regards the + accusation as false. Mephibosheth is more correctly written Merib-Baal + in 1 Chron. viii. 34; ix. 40. + +Footnote 507: + + ‘Adriel, the son of Barzillai the Meholathite’ (2 Sam. xxi. 8), cannot + be the same as Phaltiel or ‘Phalti the son of Laish of Gallim’ (1 Sam. + xxv. 44), to whom Saul had given Michal after David’s flight, and from + whom David afterwards took her (2 Sam. iii. 16). As Michal never seems + to have subsequently left the harîm of David (2 Sam. vi. 23), it would + appear that the name of Michal in 2 Sam. xxi. 8 must be a mistake for + that of some other daughter of Saul. + +Footnote 508: + + See 2 Sam. xxiv. 23, where the Septuagint has ‘Orna(n) the king.’ The + various spellings of the name Araunah, Araniah (2 Sam. xxiv. 18), and + Ornan (1 Chron. xxi. 15) show that it was a foreign word, the + pronunciation of which was not clear to the Israelites. Araniah is an + assimilation to a Hebrew name. + +Footnote 509: + + 2 Sam. xxiv. 6. + +Footnote 510: + + In 1 Kings v. 3, 4, the reason why David could not build the temple is + given a little differently. It is there stated to have been because of + the constant wars in which he was engaged which prevented him from + securing the needful leisure for the work. This reason, however, does + not apply to the latter part of David’s reign. + +Footnote 511: + + The Chronicler (1 Chron. xviii. 16) reads Shavsha, apparently through + a confusion with the later Sheva (2 Sam. xx. 25). However, the + Septuagint has Sasa in 2 Sam. viii. 17, and the two scribes of Solomon + at the beginning of his reign were the sons of Shisha (1 Kings iv. 3). + +Footnote 512: + + The genealogy of the high priests is involved in a confusion which + with our present materials it is hopeless to unravel. In 1 Sam. xiv. + 3, Ahimelech is called Ahiah, and in 2 Sam. viii. 17, as well as in + the document used in 1 Chron. xxiv. (verses 3, 6, and 31), he is made + the son of Abiathar instead of his father. In 1 Chron. xviii. 16, the + name is transformed into Abimelech, and in 1 Chron. xxiv. Ahimelech + and Abiathar are stated to have been descended from Ithamar the son of + Aaron, and not from his brother Eleazar. That the genealogy in 1 + Chron. vi. 4 _sqq._ is corrupt is evident not only from the repetition + of the triplet Amariah, Ahitub, and Zadok in verses 7, 8, and 11, 12, + but also from the statement that Azariah four generations after Zadok + ‘executed the priest’s office’ in Solomon’s temple. In 1 Chron. ix. + 11; Neh. xi. 11, again, the order is ‘Zadok the son of Meraioth the + son of Ahitub,’ whereas in 1 Chron. vi. 7, 8, and 52, 53, it is Zadok + the son of Ahitub the son of Amariah the son of Meraioth. + +Footnote 513: + + Hadoram (2 Chron. x. 18) is written Adoram in 2 Sam. xx. 24, and + Adoniram in 1 Kings iv. 6. Adoni-ram is a Hebraised form of the + original name Addu-ramu, ‘Hadad is exalted.’ His father’s name, Abda, + has an Aramaic termination. An early Babylonian seal-cylinder in the + collection of M. de Clercq has upon it the name of Abdu-ramu. + +Footnote 514: + + See above, p. 92. + +Footnote 515: + + 1 Chron. xxvii. 25-32. + +Footnote 516: + + The Jewish historian includes among those who refused to go with + Adonijah the otherwise unknown Shimei and Rei (1 Kings i. 8). They are + referred to as well-known personages, implying that the writer must + have had before him a large collection of documents relating to the + history of the time, most of which have now perished. + +Footnote 517: + + As Barzillai was already eighty years of age at the time of David’s + flight (2 Sam. xix. 35), the death of David could not have happened + very long after that event. That Joab and Abiathar were still vigorous + implies the same thing. As for the authenticity of David’s dying + instructions, there is no reason to question it. A later writer is not + likely to have gratuitously credited them to David; and inconsistent + though they may seem to us with David’s piety, they were in full + keeping with his character as well as with that of other Israelites of + his age. If they had been falsely ascribed to David by Solomon’s + admirers after the murder of Joab and Shimei, Adonijah also would have + been included among the victims. + +Footnote 518: + + _E.g._ Ps. lx. + +Footnote 519: + + _E.g._ Ps. cviii. + +Footnote 520: + + See my Hibbert Lectures on the _Religion of the Ancient Babylonians_, + pp. 348-356. Thus we read:— + + ‘O lord, my sins are many, my transgressions are great! + O my goddess, my sins are many, my transgressions are great! + + The sin that I sinned I knew not. + The transgression I committed I knew not. + The cursed thing that I ate I knew not. + The cursed thing that I trampled on I knew not. + The lord in the wrath of his heart has regarded me; + God in the fierceness of his heart has revealed himself to me. + + I sought for help and none took my hand; + I wept and none stood at my side; + I cried aloud and there was none that heard me. + I am in trouble and hiding; I dare not look up. + To my god, the merciful one, I turn myself, I utter my prayer; + + O my god, seven times seven are my transgressions; forgive my + sins! + O my goddess, seven times seven are my transgressions; forgive my + sins!’ + +Footnote 521: + + See above, p. 175. + +Footnote 522: + + _Cont. Ap._ i. 17, 18. + +Footnote 523: + + The single reigns are:—(1) Hiram for thirty-four years; (2) Baleazor + for seven years according to the Armenian version of Eusebius and the + Synkellos, seventeen years according to Niese’s text of Josephus; (3) + Abdastartos nine years; (4) Methuastartos twelve years; (5) Astarymos + nine years; (6) Phelles eight months; (7) Eithobalos or Eth-Baal + thirty-two years (forty-eight years according to Theophilus _ad + Autolyc._ III.); (8) Balezor six years (seven years according to + Theoph., eight years according to Euseb. and the Synk.); (9) Matgenos + twenty-nine years (twenty-five years according to the Arm. Vers. of + Euseb.); (10) Pygmalion forty-seven years. + +Footnote 524: + + _I.e._ seventy-two years after the foundation of Rome; Trogus Pompeius + _ap._ Justin. xviii. 7; Oros. iv. 6. Velleius Paterculus (i. 6) makes + it seven years later. + +Footnote 525: + + See 1 Kings xii. 18. For the forced labour or _corvée_ see 1 Kings v. + 13, 14. + +Footnote 526: + + The Vatican manuscript of the Septuagint has a wholly different list + from that of the Hebrew text, Baasha the son of Ahithalam taking the + place of Azariah as Vizier, Abi the son of Joab being + commander-in-chief, and Ahira the son of Edrei tax-master, while + Benaiah remains commander of the bodyguard as in David’s reign. The + list is perhaps derived from a document that belonged to the early + part of Solomon’s reign. The Syriac reads Zakkur for Zabud, the royal + chaplain; but Zabud is supported by the Vatican Septuagint, which + makes him the chief councillor. For the reading ‘army’ or ‘bodyguard’ + instead of the senseless πατριᾶς in iv. 6, see Field, _Origenis + Hexaplorum quæ supersunt_, i. p. 598. + +Footnote 527: + + See Hommel, _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition_, pp. 252 _sqq._ + +Footnote 528: + + The papyrus in which the history of the expedition is recorded is + preserved in the Hermitage at St. Petersburg, and has not yet been + published. Mr. Golénischeff, its discoverer, however, has given me a + verbal account of it. + +Footnote 529: + + There is no gold in Southern Arabia, and consequently Ophir must have + been an emporium to which the gold was brought for transhipment from + elsewhere. The mines were probably at Zimbabwe and the neighbourhood, + where Mr. Theodore Bent made important excavations. For the site of + Ophir, which may have been near Gerrha in the Persian Gulf, see Sayce + in the _Proceedings_ of the Society of Biblical Archæology, June 1896, + p. 174. + +Footnote 530: + + 1 Kings v. 16. These taskmasters must be distinguished from the 550 + (or 250 according to 2 Chron. viii. 10) who superintended the work in + Jerusalem itself (ix. 23), on which no Israelites were employed, but + only native Canaanites (ix. 21, 22). The Chronicler makes the + overseers of the preparatory work 3600 in number (2 Chron. ii. 18), + the _corvée_ itself consisting of 150,000 men. + +Footnote 531: + + See my article in the _Quarterly Statement_ of the Palestine + Exploration Fund, 1883, pp. 215-223, where I have staked the + justification of my views on the discovery of the ‘stairs’ near the + spot where the rock-cut steps have been found by Dr. Bliss (_Ibid._ + 1896-97). Dr. Guthe first noticed that a shallow valley once existed + between the Temple-hill and the so-called ‘Ophel.’ + +Footnote 532: + + The columns were 18 cubits high (1 Kings vii. 15), though the + Chronicler (2 Chron. iii. 15) makes them 35 cubits or 52-1/2 feet. The + _khammânîm_ or ‘Sun-pillars,’ dedicated to the Sun and associated with + the worship of Asherah and Baal, are often referred to in the Old + Testament (2 Chron. xxxiv. 4; Is. xvii. 8, etc.), and are mentioned in + a Palmyrene inscription. + +Footnote 533: + + A translation of the hymn is given in my Hibbert Lectures on the + _Religion of the Ancient Babylonians_, pp. 495, 496; see also p. 63. + +Footnote 534: + + Layard, _Monuments of Nineveh_, i. plate 7A. + +Footnote 535: + + See above, p. 196. + +Footnote 536: + + Herod. i. 181. + +Footnote 537: + + See Ball, _The India House Inscription of Nebuchadrezzar_ in the + _Records of the Past_, new ser., iii. pp. 104-123. + +Footnote 538: + + 1 Kings viii. 2. In vi. 38, however, it is said that the work was not + completed until the eighth month of the year, the Phœnician Bul. + +Footnote 539: + + To these the Chronicler adds ‘Beth-horon the Upper’ (2 Chron. viii. + 5). Possibly the two Beth-horons were fortified in connection with the + reservoirs which Solomon is supposed to have constructed in order to + supply Jerusalem with water. Baalath was, strictly speaking, in Dan + (Josh. xix. 44). The Latin form Palmyra comes from Tadmor by + assimilation to _palma_, ‘a palm.’ The change of _d_ to _l_ in Latin + words is familiar to etymologists, and the initial _p_ for _t_ is + paralleled by _pavo_, ‘a peacock,’ from the Greek ταὧς (Persian + _tâwûs_). One of the Septuagint MSS. has Thermath for Tadmor, but in + the ordinary text the whole passage is omitted. + +Footnote 540: + + Thus ‘Beth-horon the Upper’ is omitted in the verse, and the words ‘in + the land’ (of Judah) have been transposed to the end of it, instead of + coming as they should after ‘Baalath.’ + +Footnote 541: + + _Records of the Past_, new ser., i. p. 115. + +Footnote 542: + + 1 Kings iv. 33. That books are meant, and not lectures such as were + given to his subjects by the Egyptian king Khu-n-Aten, seems evident + from verse 32, compared with Prov. xxv. 1. + +Footnote 543: + + ‘The enemies of Assur,’ says Assur-natsir-pal, he ‘has combated to + their furthest bounds above and below’ (_Records of the Past_, new + ser., ii. p. 136); ‘Countries, mountains, fortresses, and kinglets, + the enemies of Assur, I have conquered,’ says Tiglath-pileser I. + (_Records of the Past_, new ser., i. p. 94). + + + + + INDEX. + + + A + + Aaron, 34, 134, 162, 165, 201, 215, 218, 221, 223, 245. + + Abarim, 7, 226, 244. + + Abdiel, 13, 38. + + Abdon, 322. + + Abel (city), 436. + + Abel-mizraim, 98. + + Abesukh (Abishua), 13. + + Abi, 459. + + Abiah, 355. + + Abiathar, 348, 381, 388, 391, 431, 443, 444, 445, 447, 455. + + Abibal, 410, 411, 437, 452, 453, 462. + + Abiel, 399. + + Abi-ezrites, 305, 307, 309, 311. + + Abigail, 384, 401, 431. + + Abimelech, 242, 306, 310, 316 _sq._ + + Abimelech of Gerar, 63. + + Abinadab, 348, 352, 398. + + Abinoam, 299, 303. + + Abishag, 445, 455. + + Abishai, 384, 408, 417, 426, 432, 436. + + Abishar, 459. + + Abital, 401. + + Abner, 371, 374 _sq._, 436. + + Abraham, etymology of, 33, 34. + age of, 143. + + Abram (Abi-ramu), 13, 38, 128. + + _abrêk_, 87. + + Absalom, 146, 401, 429 _sq._, 448. + + Abulfarag, 95. + + Achan, 251. + + Achish, 378, 385, 389. + + Achshaph, 259. + + Adam (city), 248. + + Adino, 406. + + Adoni-bezek, 267. + + Adonijah, 401, 445, 446, 447, 455. + + Adoni-zedek, 254. + + Adoram. _See_ Hadoram. + + Adriel, 439. + + Adullam, 379, 405. + + Agag, 367. + + Ahiah. _See_ Ahimelech. + + Ahijah, 373, 376, 476. + + Ahimaaz, 369, 431, 433, 459. + + + Ahimelech or Ahiah, 348, 363, 365, 378, 381, 443. + the Hittite, 384. + + Ahinoam, 369. + wife of David, 384, 401. + + Ahira, 459. + + Ahitophel, 430, 432. + + Ahitub, 348, 349, 353, 443. + + Ahmes, 148. + ‘Captain,’ 89, 92, 95. + + Aholiab, 198. + + Ai, 14, 247, 251, 254, 258, 269. + + Aijalon, 257, 363. + in Zebulon, 322. + + Akiamos, 292, 293. + + Aleppo, 421. + + Alexander the Great, 185. + + Allon-bachuth, 298. + + _alûphîm_, 67, 224. + + Amalek, city of, 367. + + Amalekites, 43, 46, 186, 189, 215, 230, 234, 247, 289, 303, 307, 322, + 367, 386, 391, 392, 395, 426. + + Amasa, 431 _sq._ + + amber, 475. + + Ameni, 175, 231. + + Amenôphis, 173, 174. + + Amenôphis, IV. or Khu-n-Aten, 155, 287. + + Ammi, 13, 39, 413. + + Ammi-satana (dhitana), 12. + + Ammiya, 229. + + Ammi-zadoq, 7, 13, 14, 39, 40. + + Ammo, 40, 228. + + Ammon, 13, 39, 44, 227, 289, 358, 401, 417 _sq._, 427, 457. + + Ammonites, 322, 323, 398, 432. + + Amnon, 401, 429. + + Amon, 156, 158, 237. + + Amorites, 2, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, 21, 24, 38, 42 _sq._, 56, 57, 231, + 252, 264, 285, 292, 353, 415. + + Amram, 162. + + Amraphel (_see_ Khammu-rabi), 12, 24, 117, 126, 128, 147, 149, 295. + + Amu, 6. + + Amurru (Amorites), 15, 30, 42. + + Anab, 266. + + Anakim, 41, 53, 294, 370. + + Anath, 295. + + Anathoth, 237, 455. + + angels, Babylonian, 194. + + Ansarîyeh, 37. + + Anu, 295, 350. + + Anuti, 3. + + Aperu, 3. + + Aphek, 261, 262, 346, 387, 391. + + Apophis, 23, 85, 95, 99, 148. + + Apuriu, 2, 173. + + Ar, 44, 227. + + Arad, 182, 217, 257, 263, 329. + + Aram, 368, 401, 417, 473, 478. + + Aramaic, 34 _sq._ + + Araunah, 441. + + Arba, 53. + + Argob, 227, 322. + + _ariel_, 416. + + Arioch (_see_ Eri-Aku), 11, 24, 26, 58, 128. + + ark, 196 _sq._, 346 _sq._, 354, 413, 456, 468. + + Arnon, 43, 222, 223, 226. + + Aroer, 392, 393. + + Arphaxad, 143. + + Arrian, 185. + + Arumah, 318. + + Arvad, 231, 285, 461. + + Asahel, 400. + + Asenath, 84. + + Ashdod, 292, 293, 349, 351. + + Asher, 78, 248, 304, 311, 314. + + Asherah (Asratu), 15, 241, 274, 307, 468. + + Ashkelon, 56, 159, 292, 396. + + Ashtaroth-Karnaim, 24, 41, 223, 227. + + Ashurites, 401. + + Asshurim, 7, 223, 231. + + Assur-bil-kala, 231. + + Assur-irbi, 231, 437. + + Assur-natsir-pal, 359, 478. + + Assyrians, 21, etc., 418, 451. + + Astruc, 105. + + _asyla_, 235, 236. + + Aten-Ra, 156. + + Atonement, day of, 134. + + Aup, 229. + + Avaris, 23, 173. + + Avim, 294. + + Azariah, 459. + + Azekah, 369. + + Azmaveth, 445. + + + B + + Baal, 308. + + Baalath of Judah, 471. + + Baal-berith, 283, 310. + + Baale-Judah, 413. + + Baal-hanan, 356, 445. + + Baal-Peor, 233, 244. + + Baal-perazim, 407. + + Baal-zephon, 181. + + Baanah, 404. + + Baasha, 459. + + Baba, 93. + + Babylon, 11, 12. + + Babylonia, 2, etc. + kings of, 12, 147. + + Babylonian law, 57 _sq._ + ritual, 204. + + Bad-makh-dingirene, 26. + + Baethgen, 306. + + + Balaam, 40, 132, 224, 228 _sq._, 234. + + Balak, 228. + + Balawât, 197, 202. + + Barak, 296 _sq._, 311. + + Baring-Gould, 195. + + Barzillai, 439, 447. + + Bashan, 24, 223, 227, 235, 322, 457. + + Bastian, 31. + + Bath-sheba, 263, 424, 429, 445, 446. + + Baxter, 135. + + Beer, 318. + + Beeroth, 252, 404. + + Beer-Sheba, 64, 353. + + Bela, son of Beor (_see_ Balaam), 224. + + Belbeis, 96, 154, 171. + + Benaiah, 416, 443, 446, 462. + + Ben-Hadad, 420, 451. + + Beni-Yaakan, 221. + + Benjamin, 76, 79, 253, 268, 275 _sq._, 303. + + Ben-Oni, 79. + + Bent, 463. + + Berger, 34. + + Berothai, 423. + + Beth-Anoth, 285. + + Beth-barah, 312, 317, 318, 319. + + Beth-car, 352. + + Beth-el, 69, 70, 81, 247, 253, 277, 298, 345, 353, 354, 363. + + Beth-horon, 255, 471, 472. + + Beth-lehem, 81, 264, 268, 275, 279, 338, 369, 371, 377. + + Beth-lehem in Zebulon, 322. + + Beth-On, 70, 79, 86, 253, 363. + + Beth-Rehob, 420. + + Beth-Shean, Beth-Shan, 247, 252, 296, 394 + + Beth-Shemesh, 351, 352. + + Bethuel, 65. + + Beybars I., Sultan, 249. + + Bezek, 247, 267, 359. + + Bint-Anat, 161. + + Birch, 185. + + Bissell, 110. + + Bliss, 255, 256, 410, 466, 467, 475. + + Boaz, 394. + + Boaz, (a column), 467. + + Boeckh, 453. + + Briggs, 105. + + Brinton, 42. + + Browne, Sir Th., 201. + + Brugsch, 3, 93, 149, 150, 179, 180. + + Brünnow, 4. + + Bubastis, 154. + + Budde, 226, 290, 297. + + Bul (month), 469. + + Burna-buryas, 21. + + + C + + Caleb, 246, 256, 263 _sq._, 269, 287, 392, 394, 397. + + calendar changed, 178. + + camels, 169. + + Canaan, 2, 8, 11, 21, 34, 131, 159, 160, 217. + + Canaanitish. _See_ Hebrew. + + Caphtor, 291. + + Carchemish, 19, 40, 55, 228, 285, 419, 472. + + Carmel of Judah, 285, 383. + + Carthage, 288, 453. + + Casdim, 8. + + census, 210, 440. + + Chabas, 3. + + Chærêmôn, 174. + + + Chedor-laomer, 11, 24, 26, 128. + + Chemosh, 40, 44, 416, 478. + + Chephirah, 252. + + Cherethithes, 392. + + Cheyne, 304, 305. + + Chileab, 401. + + Chinnereth, 259. + + Chronicles, books of, 140. + + chronology, 142 _sq._, 211, 451. + + Chun, 423. + + Chushan-rishathaim, 286, 287. + + circumcision, 31, 165, 250. + + Clercq, de, 202. + + Clermont-Ganneau, 29, 52, 249, 252, 346. + + copper, 474. + + Cornill, 343. + + Cornwall, 474. + + Covenant, book of, 101, 136, 196. + + cuneiform characters, use of in Israel, 244, 339. + + Cushite wife of Moses, 215. + + Cyprus, 230, 285, 474. + + + D + + Dagon, 294, 349, 350. + + Damascus, 25, 28, 368, 373, 421, 423, 438, 462, 477. + + Dan, 76, 80, 248, 254, 263, 280, 294, 304, 320, 330. + Camp of, 279, 280. + + Dangin, Thureau-, 10. + + Daressy, 14, 223. + + David, 146, 369 _sq._ + City of, 465, 466. + + Day of Atonement, 208. + + Debir (king), 254. + + Debir (city), 265. + + Deborah, 81, 295 _sq._ + Song of, 273 _sq._ + + Dedan, 45. + + Delitzsch, Friedrich, 148, 419. + + Deluge—story, 122 _sq._ + + Derketô, 292. + + Deuteronomy, 101, 219, 238 _sq._ + + Dhi-Zahab, 222. + + Dibon, 79. + + Diktynna, 294. + + + Dinhabah (Dunip), 37, 224. + + Diodoros, 96, 97, 184. + + Dodah, 416. + + Doeg, 356, 381. + + Dor (_Tantûra_), 247, 252, 259, 261, 294, 313, 387, 457. + + Driver, 143. + + Dungi, 60. + + Dusratta, 287. + + Dussaud, 37. + + + E + + Ebal, 242, 243. + + Ebed-Tob, 3, 28, 29, 128, 254, 266, 441. + + Ebed-Asherah, 229. + + Eben-ezer, 346, 352, 354. + + Eber, 7, 231, 285. + + Ebers, 86. + + Ebir-nâri, 7, 8, 231, 423. + + Ebronah, 7, 221. + + Ecclesiasticus, book of, 137. + + Edar, tower of, 82. + + Edom, 39, 66 _sq._, 120, 132, 155, 182, 189, 190, 222, 224, 230, 288, + 356, 368, 401, 426, 427, 442, 454, 463, 477. + + Edom (god), 413. + + Edrei, 227. + + Egibi, 69. + + Eglah, 401. + + Eglon (king of Moab), 289 _sq._ + + Eglon (city), 254, 256. + + Egypt, 2, etc., 418. + + Egyptians in Israel, 288. + + Ehud, 290. + + Eisenlohr, 151. + + Ekron, 351, 371. + + El, 46. + + Elah, 226, 369, 371, 374. + + Elath, 66, 182, 187, 427, 464. + + Elam, 5, 11, 12, 24, 26. + + Eleazar, 221, 406, 443. + + El-hanan, 356, 369, 372. + + El-Hîba (in Egypt), 418. + + Eli, 219, 340 _sq._, 381, 443, 455. + + Eliab, 459. + + Eliadah, 421. + + Eliak, 459. + + Elijah, 189. + + Elim, 182, 187. + + Elimelech, 4. + + Elishah (Cyprus), 285. + + El-Kab, 89, 92, 93. + + Elkanah, 339. + + Ellasar (Larsa), 25, 138. + + Elon, 321. + + El-Paran, 187, 226. + + embalming, 96, 97. + + Emim, 24, 41, 43. + + Endor, witch of, 389. + + En-gedi, 383. + + En-hakkorê, 327, 328. + + En-Mishpat (Kadesh-barnea), 191, 215, 220. + + Enna (Egyptian writer), 83. + + En-rogel (the Fuller’s Well), 446. + + ephod, 72, 283, 316. + + Ephraim, 76, 79, 253, 303, 313 _sq._, 322 _sq._, 325 _sq._, 334, 335, + 338. + + Ephrathite, 338. + + eponyms, 451. + + Erman, 89, 90, 91, 198, 212, 223. + + Erech, 11, 12. + + + Eri-Aku (Arioch), 11, 12, 25, 27, 59. + + Esar-haddon, 208, 225. + + Esau, 66 _sq._, 74. + + Esh-Baal, 368, 393, 398 _sq._, 417, 430, 444. + + Eshcol, 216. + + Eshtaol, 279, 326. + + Eshtemoa, 264. + + Etana, 328. + + Etham, 180, 187. + + Ethanim (month), 469. + + eunuchs, 86. + + Eurafrican race, 43. + + Ewald, 305. + + Ezion-geber, 182, 221, 427, 464. + + Ezra, 132, 134. + + Ezri, 445. + + + F + + Feast of Trumpets, 208. + + Fenkhu, 2, 6. + + festivals, 194. + + firstborn claimed by Baal, 206. + + + G + + Gaal, 318. + + Gad (tribe), 76, 80, 227, 232, 235. + + Gad (prophet), 345, 380, 388, 440, 442. + + Galilee, 467. + + gardens, zoological and botanical, 473. + + Gath, 266, 351, 378, 386, 408, 413, 414, 432. + + Gaza, 180, 258, 292, 293, 294, 328. + + Geba, 352. + + Gebal, 94, 461. + + Gedor, 265. + + George Syncellus, 95. + + Gerar, 63. + + Gerizim, 243, 317. + + Geshur, 227, 368, 401, 427, 457. + + Gezer, 120, 159, 247, 252, 253, 256, 257, 408, 460, 462. + + Gibeah, 275 _sq._, 352, 353, 357, 358, 361, 366, 369, 377, 380, 387, + 412, 439. + + Gibeon, 252, 254, 352, 353, 436. + + Gibeonites, 253, 259, 404, 438, 475. + + Gideon (Jerub-baal), 232, 305 _sq._ + + Gihon, 446, 466. + + Gilboa, 387, 393, 396, 399, 404. + + Gilead, 227, 235, 304, 312, 322 _sq._, 368, 432, 447, 457. + + Gilgal, 250, 261, 290, 353, 357, 360, 361, 366, 367. + + Gilgames, Epic of, 123. + + Gimil-Sin, 10. + + Girshin, 37. + + Glaser, 7, 119, 459. + + Gob, 408. + + Goldziher, 226. + + Golénischeff, 175, 291, 294, 313, 461. + + Goliath, 353, 356, 369 _sq._, 375, 378, 408. + + Gomer (Kimmerians), 131. + + Goodwin, 181. + + Goshen, 95, 150, 153, 158. + + granaries, 92. + + Gray, Buchanan, 198. + + Greene, Baker, 187. + + Gudea, 164, 207. + + Gudgodah, 221. + + Guthe, 409, 467. + + + H + + Hachilah, 384. + + Hadad (god), 15, 241. + + Hadad (king), 146, 356, 427, 477. + + Hadad, son of Bedad, 232. + + Hadad-ezer, 368, 417, 418, 420, 421, 424. + + Hadar, 427. + + Hadashah, 286. + + + Hadoram (Adoram), 444, 452, 457, 458, 464. + or Joram, 254, 423. + + Hadrach, 419. + + Haggith, 401. + + Ham (Ammon), 25, 41. + + Hamath, 254, 421, 423, 472, 478. + + Hamor, 75. + + Hannah, 339. + + Har-el, 50. + + Harosheth, 296, 299, 300. + + + Harran (Kharran), 8, 9, 15, 65, 71, 350. + + Hashmonah, 221. + + Hathor, 88. + + Haurân, 368, 419. + + Havilah, 190, 367. + + Havoth-Jair, 227. + + Hayman, 243. + + Hazeroth, 214. + + Hazor, 248, 258, 259 _sq._, 296 _sq._ + + Heber, 299, 304. + + + Hebrew language, 35 _sq._ + + Hebrews, 1, etc., 362. + + Hebron, 4, 23, 53, 81, 149, 236, 254, 264, 265, 285, 289, 373, 397, + 398, 401, 402, 403, 405, 429. + + Helam (Aleppo), 422. + + Heliopolis (On), 85, 99, 154, 171. + + Hepher, 261, 262. + + Herodotos, 14, 31, 96, 468. + + Heshbon, 43. + + Hesy (_see_ Lachish), 255. + + Hexateuch, 100. + + Hezekiah, 225. + + high-priests, 219, 315. + + Hilprecht, 10. + + Hinnom, valley of sons of, 409, 466. + + Hiram, 410, 452, 453, 462, 463, 464, 465, 480. + + Hir-Hor, 461. + + Hittites, 14, 21, 22, 29, 40, 54 _sq._, 94, 159, 160, 262, 274, 284, + 285, 300, 418, 420, 437, 471, 472, 473, 474. + + Hitzig, 300, 378. + + Hivites, 262, 274. + + Hobab, 213. + + Hoffmann, 37. + + Hoham, 254. + + Hommel, 5, 7, 26, 29, 34, 45, 80, 119, 148, 151, 164, 198, 231, 291, + 321, 423, 459. + + Hophni, 340. + + Hor, 182, 221. + + Horam, 256. + + Horeb, 164, 189. + + Hormah (or Zephath), 215, 217, 258, 392. + + hornet, the, 286, 293. + + Horites, 2, 24, 66, 74, 159. + + horse, the, 90. + + Huldah, 297. + + Hûleh (Lake Merom), 259, 261. + + Hushai, 430, 432, 458. + + Hyksos, 6, 22, 69, 83, 84, 85, 90, 95, 99, 148, 154, 174, 212. + + + I + + Ibleam, 252. + + Ibzan, 322. + + I-chabod, 348. + + Iddo, 345. + + Inê-Sin, 10, 11. + + Ira, 444. + + Ir-Shemesh, 285. + + Isaac, 46, 62 _sq._ + age of, 143. + + Ishbi-benob, 408. + + Ishmael, 34, 38, 66, 76. + + Ishmaelites, 46. + + Ishui, 398, 399. + + Israel, etymology of, 73. + + ‘Israelites’ in Egyptian, 159, 172. + + Issachar, 80, 252, 296, 297, 303, 313, 314, 321. + + Istar (Ashtoreth), 161, 188. + + Ithamar, 340, 443. + + Ithream, 401. + + Ittai, 432. + + Iye-ha-Abarim, 225. + + + J + + Jaazer, 227. + + Jabesh-gilead, 277, 278, 358, 394. + + Jabez, 263. + + Jabin, 259 _sq._, 296, 300. + + Jachin (column), 467. + + Jacob, 67 _sq._ + + Jacob-el, 13, 38, 68 _sq._, 128. + + Jacob’s Well, 75. + + Jael, 301, 302, 304. + + Jaffa. _See_ Joppa. + + Jair, 227, 322. + + Jarmuth, 254, 255. + + Jasher (Jashar), book of, 136, 257, 396. + + Jashobeam, 406. + + Jaziz, 445. + + Jebus, 268. + + Jebusites, 247, 264, 267, 409, 414, 441, 465. + + Jedidiah (Solomon), 306, 425. + + Jehdeiah, 445. + + Jehoshaphat, 443, 458. + + Jephthah, 322 _sq._, 335. + + Jephthah-el, 326. + + Jerahmeel, 263, 320, 386, 392, 393. + + Jericho, 177, 248, 250, 258, 263, 289. + + Jeroboam, 456, 476. + + Jerub-baal (Gideon), 305 _sq._ + + Jerusalem, 3, 25, 28, 174, 246, 254, 257, 264, 268, 269, 275, 284, 286, + 407, 408 _sq._, 441, 464, 470, 471, 480. + + Jeshurun, 73, 191, 242, 244. + + Jesse, 369, 371. + + Jethro, 163, 186, 190. + + Jezreel, 262, 384. + + Joab, 399 _sq._ + + Joash, 305 _sq._, 445. + + Jobaal, 318. + + Jobab, 259. + + Joel, 355. + + Johanan, 261, 431, 447, 459. + + Jonathan, son of Saul, 358, 360 _sq._ + + Jonathan, son of Moses, 281. + + Jonathan, brother of Joab, 408. + + Jonathan, son of Uzziah, 445. + + + Joppa (Jaffa), 294, 311, 410, 412. + + Joram, 254. + + Jordan, dried up, 249. + + Joseph, 79, 82 _sq._ + + Joseph-el, 13, 38, 68, 128. + + Josephus, 410, 421, 422, 452. + + Joshebbashebeth, 406. + + Joshua, 246 _sq._, 265, 270, 271, 287. + + Jotham, 317. + + Judah, 37, 76, 80, 258, 263, 264, 267 _sq._, 320 _sq._, 328. + + judge (_shophêt_), 190, 288. + + Justin, 30. + + + K + + Kabzeel, 416. + + Kadesh on the Orontes, 55, 80, 300, 419, 437, 442, 473. + + Kadesh in Galilee, 236, 259, 261, 296, 298, 299. + + Kadesh-barnea, 187, 189, 191, 215, 220, 221, 258, 267. + + Kadmonites (_see_ Kedem), 162, 307. + + Kainan, 143. + + _kalbu_, 265. + + Kallisthenes, 184. + + Karians, 415. + + Kastor, 293. + + + Kedem or Qedem (Kadmonites), 163, 306. + + Keft, 378. + + Keilah, 264, 382. + + Kelt, 43. + + Kenaz, 80, 263. + + Kenites, or ‘Smiths,’ 214, 230, 263, 267, 288, 299, 320, 336, 386, 392. + + Kenizzites, 264, 267, 286, 287, 289, 320. + + Kennicott, 281. + + Keturah, 45. + + Kibroth-hattaavah, 214. + + Kidron, 409. + + king, law about the, 241. + + Kirjath-jearim, 252, 279, 348, 352, 354, 412. + + Kirjath-Sannah, 265. + + Kirjath-Sepher, 265, 287, 330. + + Kish, 356. + + Kishon, 261, 297, 300, 303, 304, 310, 356. + + Kittel, 306. + + Kohath, 338. + + Korkha, 286. + + Kretans, 415, 428, 443. + + Krete, 293, 294, 320. + + Kudur-Laghghamar. _See_ Chedor-laomer. + + Kudur-Nankhundi, 12. + + Kush, 161. + + Khabirâ, 5. + + Khabiri, 3, 4, 254, 266, 284, 286. + + Khalaman, 422. + + + Khammu-rabi (Amraphel), 11, 12, 13, 25, 27, 45, 59, 68, 71. + + Khanun, 417, 432. + + Khar (Horites), 2, 159, 160, 192. + + Kharran. _See_ Harran. + + Khetem (Etham), 180, 181, 187. + + Khubur, 5. + + Khu-n-Aten (Amenôphis IV.), 156, 157. + + + L + + Laban, 36, 71 _sq._ + + Laban (god), 18. + + + Lachish, 20, 120, 248, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 267, 475. + + Laish, 248, 259, 280 _sq._ + + Lakhmu, 81. + + Lapidoth, 297. + + Larsa (Ellasar), 11, 12, 25, 27, 28, 117, 138. + + lawgiver, the, 121. + + Leah, 71. + + Lebanon, 11. + + Lehmann, 60. + + Lemuel, 13. + + Lenormant, Fr., 473. + + Lepsius, 454. + + Levi, 76, 80, 134, 201. + + Levite, story of the, 275 _sq._ + + Levite of Ephraim, 279 _sq._ + + Levites, 218 _sq._, 234, 239, 243, 378, 413. + cities of, 235 _sq._, 282. + + Libnah, 255. + + Libyans, 20, 42, 159, 171, 172, 175, 212. + + Lihyanian, 35. + + Lindl, 25. + + Lot, 39, 44. + + Lotan, 2. + + Luz, 81. + + Lycians, 415. + + Lydians, 292, 293. + + + M + + Maachah, 227, 417, 436. + + Maachah wife of David, 429. + + + Maachah or Maoch of Gath, 378, 379. + + Machir, 76, 121, 144, 227, 303, 313. + + Machpelah, 53, 97. + + Madai, 131. + + Madon, 259. + + Mafkat (Sinaitic Peninsula), 163, 182, 186. + + Mahanaim, 73, 398, 400, 432, 457. + + Mahler, 151. + + Makkedah, 255, 257, 304. + + Malcham or Milcom, 426. + + Malik (Moloch), 11. + + Mamre, 23, 216. + + Mâ’n. _See_ Minæans. + + Manasseh, 76, 77, 281, 311, 391, 406. + kingdom of, 306. + + maneh or mina, 60, 252. + + Manetho, 149, 151, 173, 212, 330. + + Maoch. _See_ Maachah. + + Maon, 383. + + Maonites (Minæans), 321. + + Maqrîzî, 93, 129. + + Marah, 187. + + Mariette, 148. + + _marna_, 294. + + marriage by capture, 277. + + Martu (Moreh), 20, 21, 42, 44. + + Maspero, 23, 85, 93, 95, 129, 151, 160, 163. + + Massah, 214. + + Max Müller, W., 22, 266, 378. + + Maxyes, 362. + + Megiddo, 247, 252, 259, 296, 304, 310, 387. + + Meholah, 439. + + Meissner, 8, 60. + + Melchi-shua, 399. + + Melchizedek, 25, 28, 128. + + Melkarth, 315, 463, 467. + + Melukhkha, 163, 190, 367, 427. + + Memphis, 14. + + Menander, 185, 410, 452, 480. + + Meneptah, son of Ramses II., 22, 64, 94, 96, 149, 150, 154, 155, 159, + 160, 170 _sq._, 175, 178, 185, 212, 291, 361, 374. + + Men-kheper-Ra, 418. + + Mephibosheth (Merib-Baal), 404, 438. + + Merab, 374. + + Mer’ash, 10. + + Meribah, 214, 220. + + Merib-Baal (Mephibosheth), 307, 404, 438. + + Merom, 259, 262. + + Meroz, 274, 304. + + Mesopotamia, 284. + + Messianic psalms, 450. + + _messu_, 161. + + Messui or Messu, 161, 215. + + _metheg-ammah_, 414. + + mice, 351. + + Micah, 278. + + Michal, 374, 384, 413, 439. + + Michmash, 349, 353, 361, 362, 366. + + Midian, 32, 45, 163, 190, 213, 232 _sq._, 263, 306 _sq._ + + Migdol, 180, 181, 184. + + Millo, 319, 466, 476. + + + Minæans (Mâ’n), 7, 34, 45, 119, 198, 459, 460. + + Minos, 293. + + Miriam, 162, 214, 223. + + Mitanni, 17, 18, 284 _sq._, 300, 419, 462. + + Mizpah, 36, 245, 262, 324, 345, 352, 353, 358. + + Moab, 223, 226, 232, 289, 368, 381, 415, 457. + + Moabite Stone, 146, 416. + + Mopsos, 292. + + Moreh, 21, 44. + + Moriah, 49, 51, 465. + + Moseley, H. N., 31. + + Moseroth or Mosera, 220. + + Moses, 161 _sq._, 281. + songs of, 243. + death of, 244. + + Mount of the Lord, 50. + + Müller, D. H., 35, 231. + + Muzri, 183. + + + N + + Nabal, 383. + + Nabatheans, 40, 419. + + Nabonassar, 12. + + Nabonidos, 16. + + Nadab and Abihu, 207. + + Naharaim (Mesopotamia), 17, 40, 284 _sq._ + + Nahash (of Ammon), 358, 417, 432. + + Nahash (aunt of Joab), 431. + + Nahor, 18, 19. + + Nahshon, 145. + + Naioth (‘the monastery’), 342, 344, 376. + + name changed, 32. + + Naphtali, 80, 311, 457. + + Naram-Sin, 24, 188. + + Nathan, 345, 412, 425, 442, 445, 446, 456, 458. + + ‘Nations’ (Goyyim), 26. + + Naville, 95, 129, 149, 153, 154, 183. + + Nebat, 476. + + Nebo, 245, 343, 416. + + Nebuchadrezzar, 196, 197, 288, 418, 468, 469. + + Negeb, the, 246, 254, 257, 269, 329, 392. + + Ner, 398, 399. + + Nethinim, the, 354, 475. + + Neubauer, 37, 162, 224, 302, 476. + + Nile, 88, 93, 94. + + Nin-ip, 29, 441. + + Nin-Marki, 15. + + Nin-Martu, 59. + + Noah, 123, 124, 126. + + Noam, 299. + + Nob, 237, 349, 353, 369, 372, 378, 380, 408, 438, 444. + + Nobah, 227. + + + O + + Obed-Edom, 413. + + Obil, 445. + + Oboth, 225. + + Og, 43, 224, 227. + + On (Heliopolis), 85, 86, 154, 174. + + Ophel, 466, 467. + + Ophir, 463. + + Ophrah, 283, 305, 307 _sq._, 338. + + Oppert, 148. + + Oreb, 312. + + Oros, 173. + + Osarsiph, 174. + + Osiris, 223. + + Othniel, 256, 263, 266, 287 _sq._ + + + P + + Padan (-Aram), 16, 17, 69. + + Pa-ebpasa, 179. + + palace of David, 452. + + palace of Solomon, 465. + + Palestine, name of, 398. + + Palmyra (Tadmor), 471, 472, 473. + + Paran, 186, 213, 383. + mount of, 189. + + Passover, the, 176 _sq._ + + peacocks, 474. + + Peiser, 8, 59, 60, 71, 148. + + Pella, 259. + + Peniel, or Penuel, 73, 312. + + Perizzites, or ‘fellahin,’ 228. + + Pethor, 40, 228. + + Petra, 188, 214, 233. + + Petrie, Flinders, 20, 21, 56, 60, 151, 159, 170, 255. + + Phaltiel, 384, 439. + + Pharaoh, etymology of, 97. + + Phichol, 64. + + Philistines, 64, 180, 257, 291 _sq._, 320, 326 _sq._, 335, 437. + + Philo Byblius, 46. + + Phinehas, 145, 215, 233, 275, 443. + + Phineas son of Eli, 340, 348. + + Phœnician alphabet, 119. + + Phœnicians, 2, 30, 35, 94, 454, 467. + + Phœnician sacrificial tariffs, 204, 205, 206. + + Pi-hahiroth, 181. + + Pinches, 12, 13, 26, 60, 68, 70, 295. + + Pinon. _See_ Punon. + + Piram, 255, 256. + + Pirathon, 322. + + Pithom (Pi-Tum), 149, 150, 153, 154, 155, 166. + + plagues, the ten, 167 _sq._ + + Pliny, 97. + + Plutarch, 184. + + polygamy, 316, 428. + + Porphyry, 306. + + Potiphar’s wife, 83. + + Potipherah (Potiphar), 84, 86. + + Priestly Code, the, 101, 103, 106. + + + prophet, the, 341 _sq._ + + Ptah-hotep, 98, 118. + + Puah, 321. + + + Punon or Pinon, 225, 226. + + Pur-Sin, 20. + + + Q + + Qarantel, mount, 250. + + Qedem. _See_ Kedem. + + Qos, 356. + + Qosem (Goshen), 95, 153, 154. + + Quê, 419, 473. + + + R + + Raamses (Rameses or Ramses), 150. + + Rabbah, 44, 227, 228. + + Rabbath-Ammon (Rabbah), 417, 424, 426, 432. + + Rab-saris, the, 86. + + Rab-shakeh, the, 459. + + Rachel, 71, 81, 82. + + ram in sacrifice, 52. + + Ramah, 298, 344, 346, 349, 352, 357, 367, 376. + + Ramathaim-zophim, 338, 352. + + Ramath-lehi, 327, 328. + + Rameses or Raamses, city of, 179. + + Ramoth of the South, 392. + + Ramoth-Gilead, 457. + + Ramsay, W. M., 237. + + Ramses or Rameses I., 150, 153, 158. + + Ramses II., 4, 55, 64, 78, 148, 149, 150, 154, 180, 223, 266, 379, 415, + 464. + + Ramses III., 3, 4, 67, 150, 171, 222, 224, 285, 291, 292. + + Ramses IV., 3, 212. + + Ramses VI., 186. + + Rassam, Hormuzd, 197. + + Rechab, 404. + + ‘Red Sea,’ the, 182. + + refuge, cities of, 235. + + Rehob, 420. + + Rehoboam, 452. + + Rei, 446. + + Reisner, 15. + + Rekem, 233. + + Rephaim, 24, 41, 227. + plain of, 407. + + Rephidim, 189. + + Reshpu, 413. + + resurrection, 210. + + Reuben, 77, 80, 227, 232, 235, 289, 303, 392. + + Reuel, 63. + + Rezon, 147, 421, 437, 452, 462, 477. + + Rib-Hadad, 94, 284, 306. + + Rimmon (god), 15, 30, 299. + + Rimmon (Benjamite), 404. + rock of, 277. + + Rizpah, 402, 439. + + Rowlands, J., 215. + + Ruth, 263, 394. + + + S + + Saba or Sheba, 119, 163, 219. + + Sabæans, in Babylonia, 13. + + Sabbath, Babylonian etymology of, 193, 208. + + Sachau, 19. + + sacrifices, 197 _sq._ + Babylonian, 197. + human, 46 _sq._, 324. + + Saft-el-Henna (Goshen), 96, 153, 154. + + Sakea, Babylonian feast of, 209. + + Salem or Jerusalem, 28, 268. + + Salimmu, god of peace, 28. + + Salma or Salmon, 394. + + Samâla or Samalla, 36, 231. + + Samaritans, 100, 103. + + Samson, 327 _sq._ + + Samsu-iluna, 45. + + Samuel, 242, 245, 335 _sq._, 365 _sq._, 389. + + sanctuary, central, 240. + + Saph, 459. + + Sardinians, 293. + + Sargon of Akkad, 10, 20, 161. + + Sarid, 303. + + Saul, 146, 190, 356 _sq._ + + Saxon conquest of Britain, 252, 269, 271. + + scapegoat, the, 48. + + Scheil, 12, 27. + + Schliemann, 475. + + Schumacher, 223. + + scribes, 121. + + ‘sea’ in the temple, 468. + + Sebaita (Zephath), 215. + + seer. _See_ prophet. + + Seir, 24, 66, 67, 74, 162, 171, 188, 222. + + Seirath, 290. + + Selamanês, 425. + + Sennacherib, 137, 152, 257, 260, 359, 383. + + Septuagint, 136, 154. + + Seraiah, 443, 444. + + seraph, 225. + + serpents, bronze, in Babylonia, 225, 353. + + Set, 165. + + Sethos (Ramses), 174. + + Seti I., 2, 158, 216. + + Seti II., 83, 98, 151, 178, 180, 185. + + Set-Nubti, 148. + + Shalman, 425. + + Shamgar, 295, 301, 320. + + Shamir, 321. + + Shammah, 406. + + Shapher, 221. + + Shasu, 67, 171, 217, 222. + + Sharon, 261. + + Shavsha, 443. + + Sheba (Benjamite), 435, 436, 440. + + Sheba or Saba, 45, 119, 163, 321, 459, 460. + + Shechem, 22, 75, 76, 262, 269, 270, 283, 309, 316 _sq._ + + shekel, 60. + + Shelomith, 207. + + Shem (Babylonian Sumu), 13. + + Shemesh-Edom, 413. + + Shephatiah, 401. + + shepherd, 90. + + Sheth, 230. + + Sheva, 443, 444. + + shewbread, 197, 468. + + _shibboleth_, 325. + + Shiloh, 269, 270, 275, 277, 281, 283, 320, 333, 334, 337, 339, 344 + _sq._, 352, 353, 378, 444, 476. + + Shimei (Benjamite), 430, 438, 439, 447, 455. + + Shimei (official of David), 445, 446. + + Shimron, 259. + + Shimron-meron, 260. + + Shinar, 11, 25. + + Shisha, 443, 444, 458. + + Shishak, 84, 252, 263, 453, 476, 477. + + Shobach or Shophach, 418, 421. + + Shobi, 432. + + Shunem, 387, 445. + + Shur, 181, 183, 187, 190. + + Siddim, 24, 30. + + Sidon, 259, 262, 274, 280, 321. + + Sihon, 43, 224, 226. + + Siloam, pool of, 466. + + Simeon, 76, 80, 263, 320, 329, 392. + + Sin (moon-god), 9, 16, 188. + desert of, 188, 189. + + Sinai, 164, 188, 302. + mount, 188, 191 _sq._ + + Sinaitic Peninsula, 163, 182, 186, 187. + + Sin-idinnam, 12, 27. + + Sinjerli, 19, 36, 138. + + Sinuhit, 162. + + Sippara (Sepharvaim), 14, 57. + + Sisera, 261, 296 _sq._ + + slave, penalty for murder of, 194. + + Smith, G. A., 36. + + Socho or Socoh, 265, 369. + + Sodom, 25, 30. + + Solomon, 146, 306, 425, 445, 447, 452 _sq._ + proverbs of, 138. + + sphinx, 88. + + Spinoza, 105. + + Stade, 103, 278, 409. + + Stone of Job, 223. + + Strabo, 185. + + Strassmaier, 59, 197. + + strikes, 166. + + Subarti, 5, 16. + + Succoth, 150, 155, 179, 180, 181, 312. + + Suez Canal, 212. + + Sumu-abi, 13. + + + Suphah, 222. + + Suru (Syria), 16. + + Sutekh, 22, 23, 85, 148. + + Sutu or Sutê, 230, 289. + + Suweinît, Wâdi, 362. + + + T + + Taanach, 247, 252, 261, 296, 304. + + Taberah, 214. + + tabernacle, the, 196 _sq._, 353, 414. + + tables of the law, 202. + + Tabor, 299, 309, 310. + + Tadmor, 471, 472. + + Tahtim-hodshi, 300. + + Takmonite, 406. + + tale of the two brothers, 83. + + Talmai, 401, 429. + + Tamar (wife of Judah), 82. + + Tamar (daughter of David), 429. + + Tamar (city of), 471. + + Tappuah, 261, 262. + + Tarkhu, 19. + + tartan, the, 374, 443. + + Tatian, 105. + + Tatnai, 8. + + tattooing, 200, 241. + + Teie, 155, 158. + + Tel el-Amarna, 2, etc. + tablets of, 113 _sq._ + + Tel el-Maskhûta, 149, 154, 166. + + Tema, 45, 459. + + Teman, 189. + + temple, when built, 145, 412. + of Solomon, 464, 467 _sq._ + + Terah, 18, 19. + + teraphim, 72, 80, 279. + + Thapsacus (Tiphsakh), 472. + + Thebes in Egypt, 461. + + Thebez, 319. + + Themistokles, 237. + + Thothmes III., 20, 41, 50, 55, 68, 80, 84, 98, 175, 217, 237, 259 + _sq._, 280, 300, 311, 323, 413, 423, 473. + + Thothmes IV., 88. + + Thukut (Succoth), 149, 155, 179, 180, 181. + + Tiamat, 125. + + Tibhath, 423. + + + Tid’al, 12, 24, 26, 128. + + Tiglath-pileser I., 231, 419, 461, 474, 478. + + Tiglath-pileser III., 138, 230, 281, 424, 425, 451, 459, 460. + + Tiglath-Ninip, 418. + + Timnath-heres, 271. + + tin, 474. + + Tirzah, 261. + + tithe, 29. + + Tob, 323, 417. + + Toi or Tou, 423. + + Tola, 321. + + Tomkins, H. G., 20, 80, 81, 84, 259, 300. + + Travels of the Mohar, 266, 416. + + tribes, the twelve, 77. + + Trumbull, Clay, 176, 215, 350. + + Tubikhi (Tibhath), 423. + + Tudghula. _See_ Tid’al. + + Tumilât, Wâdi (Goshen), 95, 153, 154, 155. + + Tunip (_see_ Dinhabah), 65. + + Tyre, 274, 288, 315, 410, 457, 462, 463, 465, 467, 480. + + Tyropœon valley, 466. + + + U + + Ubi (Aup), 229. + + Umman-Manda, 26. + + Unger, 454. + + Ur of the Chaldees, 8, 9, 11, 16, 60, 127, 209. + + Uriah, 424, 425. + + Urim and Thummim, 72, 198, 388. + + Usous, 66. + + Uzzah, 413. + + + V + + Virey, 92, 99. + + von Luschan, 36. + + + W + + Warburton, Bishop, 210. + + Ward, J., 23. + + wedges of gold, 252. + + Wellhausen, 103, 145, 297, 300. + + Welsh laws, 288. + + Wessely, 175. + + Wiedemann, 194, 239. + + Wilbour, 93. + + Wilcken, 175. + + Winckler, 148, 183, 266. + + Wolf, 104, 121. + + Wright, Bateson, 104. + + + X + + Xanthos, 293. + + + Y + + Yabniel, 256. + + Ya’di, 37, 80, 231. + + Yahveh, 34, 47, 164. + + Yahveh-Shalom, 308, 310. + + Yahveh-yireh, 49. + + Yaphia, 255. + + Yâm Sûph (_see_ Suphah), 180, 181, 182, 183, 185, 188, 427. + + Yaudâ or Yaudû, 37, 80. + + Year of Jubilee, 208. + + Yeud, 46. + + + Z + + Zabdi, 445. + + Zabsali (Zamzummim), 11, 41. + + Zadok, 145, 431, 443, 444, 446, 455, 459. + + Zahi, 2. + + Zakkal. _See_ Zaqqal. + + Zalmon, 319. + + Zalmonah, 225. + + Zalmunna, 312. + + Zambesi, 474. + + Zamzummim, 11, 25, 41, 43, 138. + + Zanoah, 264. + + Zaphnath-paaneah, 89, 174. + + + Zaqqal or Zakkal, 5, 291, 293, 294, 313, 387, 388, 412, 457. + + Zared, 226. + + Zaretan, 248. + + Zaru, 179, 181. + + Zebah, 312, 368, 401. + + Zebud, 459. + + Zebul, 318, 319. + + Zebulon, 121, 303, 311, 321. + + Zeeb, 312. + + Zelah, 358, 439. + + Zelophehad, 144, 207. + + Zephath (Hormah), 217, 246, 257, 258, 329, 392. + + Zeruiah, 400, 431. + + Ziba, 438. + + Ziklag, 386, 389, 391, 392. + + Zimrida, 256. + + Zin, 220. + + Zion, 410, 466. + + Ziph, 382, 384. + + Zippor, 228. + + Zipporah, 163, 165, 215. + + Zoan (Tanis), 23, 53, 90, 148, 149, 150, 460. + + Zobah, 417, 419, 422, 427, 442, 454, 472, 477. + + Zoheleth, 446. + + Zorah, 279, 320, 326. + + Zuph or Ziph, 338. + + Zuzim, 11, 24, 25, 41, 138. + + + + + ● Transcriber’s Notes: + ○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_). + ○ Footnotes have been moved to follow the sections in which they are + referenced. + + + +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75324 *** |