J. Morgenstem 
 
 Foundations 
 of 
 Israel's History 
 
 ^i 
 
 B5I17I 
 .M85 
 
 !^ 
 
 (A.. 
 
 H?^ 
 
^ftUG 30 .1958 ^ 
 
 BSH 7/ 
 
The Foundations of 
 Israel's History 
 
 RABBI JULIAN MORGENSTERN 
 
 Reprinted fromYearbook, Vol. XX\' 
 
 Central Conference of American Rabbis 
 
 —1915 — 
 
c^ 
 
— 3- 
 
 THE FOUNDATIONS OF ISRAEL'S HISTORY 
 Rabbi Julian Morgenstern 
 
 THE CONCEPTION'^OF REVELATION IN ANCIENT ISRAEL 
 
 In all religious knowledge, belief and practice, two realities, 
 altogether separate and distinct, are constantly confused. 
 These two realities are God Himself, and man's little, human, 
 finite knowledge of God. Regularly individuals and creeds 
 have failed to realize, on the one hand, that God Himself is 
 one thing, absolute, supreme, transcendental, unknowable, 
 not human but more than human, and so not to be described 
 by human attributes, measured by human standards, nor ade- 
 quately comprehended in His true reality by human minds; 
 and on the other hand, that their knowledge of Him, the little 
 they can know of His true and supreme reality, is something 
 vastly different and infinitely less. And they believe, almost 
 without exception, that what they know about God, or think 
 that they know, is all that is to be known, is all of God Him- 
 self. And so they believe, too, that whatever others, individuals 
 or creeds, claim to know about God, different from, or more than, 
 their knowledge, must necessarily be wrong, false and heretical. 
 There is very much of this perplexing confusion in our religious 
 belief and practice, and the results are, far too often, ignorance, 
 intolerance, bigotry and strife. 
 
 Yet despite all this human disagreement and human m- 
 tolerance, God Himself is supreme, eternal, unattainable, the 
 
 1 Chapters I and II, virtually constituting the introduction to this paper, 
 were not written until after the Charlevoix convention. They are, accord- 
 ingly herewith presented to the Conference for the first time. Their import, 
 howe'ver. for the proper approach to, and understanding of, the subject, 
 will be immediately apparent to all. 
 
loving Father of man, the all-wise and all-good controller of 
 human destinies. And from the beginning of his life on earth, 
 man's constant endeavor, unconscious largely, yet none the less 
 earnest and persistent, has been to come close to God, to know 
 His way better and ever better. Like Moses of old, man's cry 
 has ever been, "Let me behold Thy face." But to him, too, 
 the answer has come, "No man may behold My face and live." 
 Yet despite this answer, like Moses again, man has ever per- 
 sisted, persisted just because of the divine element within him, 
 to know more, and ever more, about God. And just as to Moses, 
 God has, in His infinite love, granted a portion of man's 
 request. Although His face was denied, still He has permitted 
 man to hear His voice, to learn His true name, and to even catch 
 a fleeting glimpse of His back, and, from all this, form some esti- 
 mate, some dim, vague picture of His true being, His reality 
 and majesty and glory. He has granted to man, as the result 
 of his ceaseless striving upward, to know more and more about 
 Him and to understand more and more of His divine purpose 
 in man's life. And this steadily growing knowledge of God and 
 God's purpose with man, revealed through many sources and in 
 many ways, constitutes man's religion. And the record of the 
 gradual unfolding and growth of this knowledge is the true 
 history of religion. 
 
 In all this history of religion, this record of God's revela- 
 tion of Himself to mankind, Israel has borne, we believe, not 
 merely a leading role, but the leading role. This fact is con- 
 ceded by almost all the civilized world, even though men may 
 differ as to the actual nature and extent of this leadership. 
 Some there are, who grudgingly admit the fact, yet minimize 
 it as much as possible. And some hold that another leader- 
 ship was instituted under a new dispensation nineteen hundred 
 years ago. Others, and not a few, rate Israel's leadership more 
 highly, and even recognize that it has not ceased unto the 
 present day. 
 
 We Jews ourselves, and particularly we of the Reform 
 wing of Judaism, who believe firmly in Israel's mission unto 
 mankind and in the principle of religious growth and progress 
 along the lines of historical evolution, hold fast to our faith in 
 Israel's leadership in this growing knowledge of God; hold that 
 
— 5- 
 
 it was particularly through Israel that God revealed Himself 
 to mankind; that, in the v/ords of the great, unknown prophet 
 of the exile, God has Himself chosen Israel to be His servant, 
 His witness unto mankind. His light unto all the nations of 
 men; that He has revealed Himself unto Israel, that Israel in 
 turn might spread the knowledge of Him to all mankind. He 
 revealed Himself through Moses and the prophets in successive 
 ages. And the sum total of this revelation of Himself through 
 Israel is the sum total of Israel's knowledge of Him, is Israel's 
 religion, and, as we believe, the basis of the true, ultimate 
 religion of mankind. 
 
 But the conception of the actual nature and means of this 
 self-revelation of God to and through Israel has varied greatly 
 in the different periods of Israel's religious unfolding. In the 
 very earliest period, the means and agents were believed to be 
 many and diverse indeed. Auguries, portents, omens, miracles, 
 consultation of spirits and ghosts, these and others were all 
 regarded as media of revelation of the divine will and divine 
 nature. However, as the religious consciousness of the people 
 became more refined, the number of legitimate modes of revela- 
 tion was gradually reduced to three, the dream and vision, the 
 oracle, and the prophetic word^ Repeatedly in the Bible, God 
 is represented as revealing Himself and His divine purpose to 
 chosen individuals in dreams or visions.^ Moses consults the 
 oracle, according to tradition^ and evolves for the people a 
 body of oracular law, even though represented elsewhere* as 
 speaking to God face to face. Joshua, too, consults the oracle 
 and casts lots to determine the divine willS as do likewise 
 Samuel, SauP, and David*. 
 
 ' Cf. I Sam. XXVIII, 6. 
 
 ' Cf. Gen. XV, 1; XX, 6; XXVIII, 12; XXXVII, 5-10; XL, 8-13; XLI, 
 1-32; Num. XII, 6; XXIV, 4, 16; Dt. XIII, 2-6. 
 ' Ex. XVIII, 19-26. 
 
 * Ex. XXXIII, 11; Num. XII, 7f.; Dt. XXXIV, 10. 
 ^ Josh. VII, 14ff.; XIV, 2; XVff. 
 *J Sam. X, 20-22 (cf. LXX). 
 ' I Sam. XIV, 18f. (cf. LXX), 38-42 (cf. LXX). 
 ' I Sam. XXIII, 2, 4, 6, 10-12; II Sam. V, 23f. 
 
— 6- 
 
 But above all, in the course of Israel's religious develop- 
 ment, prophecy came to be regarded as the peculiar and unique 
 means of God's self-revelation to His people. And, more and 
 more, even consultation of the oracle and the interpretation of 
 dreams and visions were relegated to an inferior position. For 
 prophetic revelation was national in character; it expressed God's 
 will for the entire nation. The prophets saw in themselves the 
 direct agents and mouthpieces of God, speaking to the people 
 the actual words which God had placed upon their tongues. 
 But of even more significance than these actual words of God, 
 they saw God's hand in all things, in the events of their own 
 personal lives\ and in all the incidents of Israel's history. They 
 came to conceive of God as the all-wise and all-good controller 
 of human destiny. Therefore in all the events of history, and 
 particularly of Israel's history, they saw His power and read 
 His divine purpose. Other peoples and other religious teachers 
 found their evidences of the existence of God and the manifesta- 
 tions of His power and rule in nature, in the beauty of the flowers, 
 the majesty of the heaven, the power of the storm, the awful- 
 ness of the flood. The prophets, and through them all Israel, 
 too, saw all this as clearly as any others. But even more, they 
 saw God, not merely in nature; they saw God, too, in the events 
 of human history; saw Him guiding the destinies of men and na- 
 tions aright, bringing good out of the chaos of human purpose, 
 human conduct and human vanity, changing the temporary 
 evil of man's deeds into permanent good and blessing^ bringing 
 mankind ever forward, half unconsciously, along that difficult, 
 slow, up-hill course, that mankind has trodden since the begin- 
 ning, that we are treading still today, despite wars and bar- 
 barisms and relapses in civilization, and that mankind must 
 continue to tread, we believe, until the end of time and history 
 
 ^ Thus Hosea interpreted his own relations with his harlot wife as or- 
 dained by God in order to graphically illustrate Israel's faithlessness, for him- 
 self and the people. And he gave to his children, as did Isaiah after him, 
 names symbolic of God's relation and purpose with Israel. 
 
 * Compare the thought underlying the words of Joseph to his brothers, 
 "Ye planned evil against me, but God devised it for good, in order to pre- 
 serve the life of a mighty people." (Gen. F., 20.) 
 
and life, the course of progress and enlightenment and knowl- 
 edge, the knowledge of God Himself and of His purpose with 
 man on earth. 
 
 In Israel's history, in particular, the prophets saw the 
 evidences of God's love and purpose and guidance. It was 
 Israel alone whom God had known of all peoples^ whom He 
 had found like grapes in the wilderness*^, His first-born son', 
 whom He had taken in His arms, and taught to walk, and whose 
 bruises He had healed^ whom He had taken unto Himself, that 
 they might be unto Him for a people and He be unto them for 
 their God^ And every event in Israel's history, they held, 
 happened in accordance with God's will and purpose for Israel, 
 for reward and blessing, or chastisement and correction, or divine 
 guidance. Every event of history was purposed by God, though 
 not at all in the way of blind fatalism. Man was not the power- 
 less puppet, dancing as the deity pulled the strings; rather, he 
 was the majestic creature, but little lower than the angels, en- 
 dowed by God with knowledge and free will, yet subject to God's 
 laws and amenable to correction and even punishment, when the 
 exercise of this free will led contrary to God's plan of good. 
 Everything in history, they believed, was purposed by God. 
 In the words of Amos\ "Do two walk together, without having 
 agreed? Doth the lion roar in the forest, when there is no prey? 
 Doth the young lion utter forth his voice from his den, without 
 having taken something? Doth a bird fall into a snare on the 
 ground, without the trap having been set? Doth a snare spring 
 up from the ground, without catching something? Can the 
 trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not tremble? 
 Can evil befall a city, and the Lord not have caused it? Verily, 
 the Lord God doeth nothing at all, without having revealed 
 His secret purpose unto His servants, the prophets. The lion 
 roareth; who can but fear? The Lord God hath spoken; who 
 can but prophesy?" Can anything happen without cause; 
 and can any cause exert itself except to its full effect? And the 
 
 ' Amos 111,2. * Ex. IV, 22. 
 
 ' Hos. IX, 10. * Hos. XI, 3. 
 
 ' Ex. VI, 7; Lev. XXVI, 12; Dt. XXVI, 17; XXIX, 12. 
 
 « Amos III, 3-8. 
 
ultimate cause of all events of history is God himself; and the 
 effects of His divine purpose are just these events of history. 
 And His secret plan, His definite purpose for men and nations 
 and mankind, He reveals to His messengers, the prophets, that 
 they, in turn, may reveal it to Israel and to mankind. The 
 prophets were, above all, the interpreters of history, and par- 
 ticularly of Israel's history, reading God's divine plan there 
 aright, and proclaiming therefrom His purpose, His message, 
 and His life to man. 
 
 We can readily understand, therefore, the significant fact, 
 oft commented upon, that the great prophets appeared always 
 at the important crises, national and religious. They were all 
 the children of their own times, called forth by its needs and 
 spiritual dangers. And, in the name of the God of Israel, they 
 interpreted to the people these needs and dangers and the real 
 significance of the passing events of history. In the various cal- 
 amities that had befallen, and were befalling, Israel, they saw 
 the signs of Israel's faithlessness and of God's indignation and 
 divine punishment. Amos and Hosea interpreted the impending 
 downfall of the northern kingdom as evidence of the people's 
 hopeless corruption and incapability of repentence and regenera- 
 tion. They saw in Assyria the rod of God's anger, with which 
 He must smite the sinful nation. Isaiah counselled a policy 
 of national steadfastness and defense, the watchword of which 
 was absolute faith in God's protecting power, and entangling 
 alliances with no foreign nations. Jeremiah, too, saw in Ne- 
 buchadrezzar the instrument of God's will with Israel, and urged, 
 among other things, peaceful settlement and development of 
 economic life in the land of exile. And finally, the great, un- 
 known prophet discerned in all Israel's sin and suffering and 
 exile merely the divine purification and preparation for its great 
 mission as God's witness unto mankind. The prophets were, 
 in a sense, the makers of Israel's history, particularly Israel's 
 religious history and thought. But equally, or to an even greater 
 degree, they were the children of Israel's history, called to their 
 great, prophetic mission by the needs, national and spiritual, 
 of their own times. And their message consisted primarily in 
 interpreting to Israel, from the standpoint of the God of history. 
 
— 9— 
 
 all the significant events of its national life, in order that Israel 
 might thereby realize the better God's purpose with it, and live 
 more true to this purpose. And through this interpretation of 
 Israel's history, as the wise and purposed work of God, steadily 
 they fulfilled their inspired task of proclaiming likewise to God's 
 people their transgressions and to the house of Jacob their sins'. 
 
 But not merely the passing events of their own day did they 
 interpret thus. Time and again they reinforced their message 
 by reference to the great events and heroes of Israel's past. 
 And through their interpretation these took on new, larger and 
 more spiritual significance. Particularly was this the case with 
 the traditions of the patriarchs, especially Jacob^, and of the 
 exodus from Egypt. One prophet after another dv/elt upon 
 this last incident in particular and found therein new evidence 
 of God's providence and love and divine selection of Israel'. 
 According to this prophetic interpretation, it was then that God 
 first manifested His all-embracing love for Israel and took Israel 
 into covenant relation with Himself. And so, according to this 
 new, spiritual interpretation of the historic event, the exodus 
 from Egypt came gradually to be looked upon as marking the 
 beginning of both the national and religious existence of Israel. 
 
 But not only in the prophetic books themselves, can we 
 discern the prophet's interpretation of Israel's history. We 
 know now that practically all the historical portions of the 
 Bible, and particularly the larger part of the Torah, are the 
 work of prophetic writers, interpreting the ancient, tradi- 
 tional history of Israel from this prophetic standpoint of divine 
 purpose and providence. A typical instance is found in the 
 statements that when Pharaoh sent Israel forth from Egypt, 
 God did not lead them by the road through the land of the 
 Philistines, although this was the shortest route, for He feared 
 that when the danger of battle would be imminent, they might 
 become frightened and change their minds and return to Egypt; 
 so He led the people around the long way by the Red Sea and 
 
 ' Is. LVIII, 1. ' Cf. Hos. XII, 4-5. 
 
 ' Is. XI, 16; Jer. II, 6; VII, 22-25; XI, 4; Ezek. XX, 5-10; Hos. II, 17; 
 IX, 3; XI, 1; XII, 10; XIII, 4; Amos II, 10; III, 1; Mic. VI, 4. 
 * Ex. XIV, 17f. 
 
—10- 
 
 through the wilderness for forty years. Practically all the many 
 narratives of the Pentateuch are told from this unmistakably 
 prophetic standpoint, and with this unmistakably prophetic 
 purpose, of pointing, with the traditions of Israel's past history, 
 the lesson of God's peculiar relation to, and love for, Israel, 
 and Israel's peculiar obligation to God. It is clear that these 
 prophetic writers have taken many old traditions and inten- 
 tionally recast and reinterpreted them to further this purpose. 
 Their object in all this was not to determine how much of 
 historic truth lay at the bottom of all these traditions, nor to 
 record the events of Israel's history as they had actually trans- 
 pired. They were not objective historians; in fact, they were 
 not historians at all, in the strict meaning of the word. Rather, 
 they were didactic, historical writers; and their purpose was to 
 enforce their spiritual message by interpreting the facts of Is- 
 rael's ancient history, and its old traditions, legends and myths, 
 from their prophetic standpoint; to read their message into these 
 traditions and into the record of Israel's history, that Israel, 
 in turn, might read the message therefrom, and gather, with 
 redoubled strength and conviction, the lesson of its history as 
 proclaimed by the prophets, the lesson of God's selection and 
 guidance of, and purpose with, Israel, and of Israel's obliga- 
 tion of faith in, and duty to, God. 
 
 In accordance with this unvarying purpose, it was unavoid- 
 able that, in recording the ancient history, traditions and legends, 
 they took many and considerable liberties with historical ac- 
 curacy. They could have no hesitation in recasting some an- 
 cient tradition to fit their purpose. Nor could they record all 
 the ancient traditions and legends that did not readily accord 
 with this purpose. Here and there we have just a hint at some 
 tradition or legend, which, for one reason or another, these proph- 
 etic writers did not see fit to relate in full'. And we can readily 
 understand that very many of Israel's most ancient traditions 
 and legends they saw no reason to record, and so these have 
 been lost completely. Other traditions they naturally retold 
 and enlarged upon, until, in their present form, they must be 
 far from their original, and can contain but little of actual, 
 
 ' Cf. Gen. VI, 1-4; X, 9f.; XXXII, 2f. 
 
41- 
 
 objective, historical truth. Thus the very stories of the exodus 
 and of Israel's covenant with God, and the many BibUcal tra- 
 ditions about Moses, are greatly expanded from their original 
 pre-prophetic, historical form\ In many cases it is not a diffi- 
 cult task for the capable historian to strip off all the prophetic 
 accretion and get at the real historical facts beneath. Thus 
 we know today that Moses was really the hero who led one tribe, 
 most probably Judah\ out from Egypt, back into the wilder- 
 ness, its original nomad abode; and there, acting as its tribal 
 priest and interpreter of the oracle, he brought the tribe into 
 covenant relation with a desert god, thought to dwell upon some 
 certain, solitary peak in the wilderness, and, in the name of 
 this new god, and as revealed by him, evolved for the tribe a 
 body of ritual and ethical law, which in time became the basis 
 of the religion of Israel'. In this sense Moses is a real, historical 
 character, actually the law-giver and ultimate founder of 
 Israel's religion. And the exodus is an actual, historical event, 
 and marks, in a way, the beginning of Israel's national and 
 religious life. But at the hands of successive prophets and 
 prophetic writers, the original narratives of Moses and the 
 exodus and the giving of the law have been recast and expanded 
 into their present form in the Pentateuch. Moses has ceased 
 to be the simple tribal priest and enactor of the earliest tribal 
 laws. He has become the great national hero, the medium of 
 the revelation of the whole body of national law. And even 
 though much of this, it is stated, was intended to become effec- 
 tive only at a day much later than Moses, it is all represented 
 as emanating directly from God and revealed through Moses at 
 
 * Cf. Montefiore, Outlines of Liberal Judaism, 188f. 
 
 ' Or, possibly, Judah and Simeon. Some scholars, mistakenly, we be- 
 lieve, are inclined to believe this to have been the Joseph tribes, i. e., 
 Ephraim and Manasseh. 
 
 ' Apparently, too, Moses effected some sort of federation between Judah, 
 or Judah and Simeon, on the one hand, and the Qenites, with whom he 
 himself was personally related by marriage, and possibly also the Qalebites, 
 the Qenizzites and other nomadic tribes of the desert south of Palestine 
 and bordering upon Egypt. In this sense Moses was also the first leader 
 in that movement toward tribal federation that eventually culminated in 
 the evolution of the nation, Israel. 
 
-12— 
 
 the very beginning of Israel's national existence. And Moses has 
 come, furthermore, to be represented by these prophetic writers, 
 and most naturally, as the supreme type of prophet, who, unlike 
 and superior to all other prophets, could commune with God, 
 not merely in dreams and visions, but face to face, just as one 
 man would speak with another^ There is a vast difference 
 between this prophetic, literary, Pentateuchal Moses, the 
 supreme prophet, and the actual, historical Moses, the tribal 
 priest, leader and interpreter of the oracle in the wilderness. 
 The prophetic purpose, and the prophetic interpretation of 
 history, and the prophetic enlargement of the original tradi- 
 tions are easily discernible here. And the competent Biblical 
 student must learn to so read his Bible as to appreciate and 
 distinguish between the actual facts of history at the bottom 
 of all the recorded narratives and the prophetic enlargement and 
 interpretation that have been placed upon these facts in their 
 present Biblical form. 
 
 Such were the prophet's interpretation of Israel's history 
 and the prophet's conception of revelation and of his function 
 as an agent of this revelation. Each prophet, convinced of his 
 divine call in the most literal sense, felt himself to be, and actually 
 was, a single link in the great chain of God's self-revelation to 
 His people. He believed himself and his words to be merely 
 the instruments of this divine self-revelation. But more im- 
 portant than the single personality of any one prophet was the 
 content of his message; and more important than the combined 
 personalities of all the prophets was the sum total of their 
 message, the basis and content and purpose, as they believed, 
 of all revelation, Israel's actual history, past, present and future. 
 
 During and after the Babylonian captivity, the old spirit 
 of prophetism, which had come, with Deutero-lsaiah, to trans- 
 cend the limitations of national life and national religion, and 
 attained to a wider and loftier universalism in its conception 
 of God and Israel and Israel's role in the divine scheme of human 
 existence, slowly gave way to the new spirit of priesthood, 
 ritualism and legalism. This was, in a sense, distinctly national- 
 istic, or better, national-religious; it represented a more or less 
 
 ^ Ex. XXXIII, 11; Num. XIV, 7f.; Dt. XXXIV, 10-12. 
 
—13- 
 
 conscious reaction and protest against prophetic universalism, 
 and reaffirmed in new and even stronger terms the old national- 
 religious doctrine of the peculiar, unique relation of God with 
 Israel. Israel alone was His people, alone was holy unto Him, 
 and He alone was Israel's God; in relation to Israel He, too, was 
 holy. The term "holy," qadosh, gradually acquired a new and 
 more technical connotation; it came to mean not merely "mor- 
 ally and spiritually perfect," as used by Isaiah in reference to 
 God Himself; nor did it retain even its earlier technical sense, 
 "peculiarly sacred to a deity and hence taboo for mortals."* 
 It was now applied to everything that pertained to this sanctity, 
 the peculiar ritualistic and ethical and spiritual laws and re- 
 strictions by which the "holiness" obtaining between God and 
 Israel was preserved and strengthened'. It was the old, national 
 religion, revived, intensified and centralized, and, it must be 
 recognized, purified and spiritualized also. 
 
 But it meant the end of prophecy. For, beginning with 
 Amos, prophecy had been gradually outgrowing the old, na- 
 tional religion; had been evolving the universal conception of 
 the all-Fatherhood of God and of human brotherhood and of 
 the divine selection of Israel for a definite purpose and mission 
 unto mankind. Finally, in Babylon, the people found itself 
 completely detached from its native soil, saw its national life 
 and institutions and traditions seemingly dead, realized that it 
 was living among strangers, and, after the first suffering and 
 grief of exile had worn off, was even happy and prosperous. 
 
 * Is. VI, 3. * Cf. below pp. 269f. 
 
 ' Note the significant manner in which laws, ethical and spiritual in 
 character, are grouped with laws unmistakably and solely ritualistic in Lev. 
 XIX, and in fact throughout the entire Holiness Code (Lev. XVII-XXVI 
 in the main). The purpose of both kinds of law is clearly stated to be to safe- 
 guard this holiness relation between God and Israel. The watchword of this 
 new movement was, "Holy shall ye be, for I, Jahwe, your God, am holy" 
 (Lev. XIX, 1). Here "holy" is used in the new, technical, semi-spiritual and 
 semi-ritualistic sense just indicated. Repeatedly, too, the holiness com- 
 mand is enforced with the all-compelling thought, "I am Jahwe" (Lev. XIX, 
 12, 14, 16, 18 and passim), or "I am Jahwe, your God" (Lev. XVIII, 30; 
 XIX, 3, 4, 10, 25 and passim), or even, "I am Jahwe, who doth make you 
 holy," i. e., holy unto Himself, His peculiar property (Lev. XX, 8; XXI, 
 8, 15, 23; XXII, 9, 16). 
 
—14- 
 
 Yet during all this time it had retained its faith in its God, 
 the God of its fathers; its old God, yet also its new God, who 
 seemed no longer bound by the geographical limits of the land 
 of Palestine or the political limits of the nation Israel; who 
 seemed the God also, though perhaps not to quite the same 
 degree nor in exactly the same way, of the nations among whom 
 they lived and with whom they associated and did business. 
 The conviction became strong on the part of some that this 
 very exile from the native land, and the death of the nation, 
 had been really purposed by God. And prophetic univer- 
 salism blossomed forth during and immediately after the Baby- 
 lonian captivity into definite and clear expression in the words of 
 Deutero-Isaiah, the very culmination and flower, we believe, 
 of prophetic inspiration and prophetic activity. 
 
 But while this spirit of universalism was thus developing, 
 and continued to develop in Palestine in small and select circles 
 even after the captivity, as the books of Ruth and Jonah prove, 
 none the less, the reaction against the captivity and against 
 the spirit of universalism had begun in Babylon long before the 
 advent of Deutero-Isaiah, had begun in fact almost with the very 
 commencement of the captivity. Ezekiel was the father of this 
 reaction. It based itself upon the confident hope, already 
 voiced by Jeremiah\ at least according to popular interpreta- 
 tion, that the captivity would not mark the end; that the 
 nation would once more be restored, the Temple rebuilt, and 
 the national life and national worship revived. Once more, 
 though in a stricter and more literal, though at the same 
 time also more spiritual, sense, Israel would be God's peculiar 
 people and He their peculiar God, Israel "holy" unto Him and 
 He "holy" unto them. And this unique and intimate relation- 
 ship of "holiness" must be safeguarded by every means possible, 
 not only by ethical living, as enjoined by the earlier prophets, 
 but also by more constant and intense and punctilious worship 
 and ritualism, and, if necessary, even by such extreme measures 
 as the compulsory divorce of non-Jewish wives^ In conse- 
 quence this new national-religious movement, in glaring con- 
 trast to the old prophecy, accentuated the ritual side of the 
 
 * Jer. XXV, 1 Iff. ' Cf. Ezra IX-X. 
 
-15- 
 
 religion more and ever more. The tendency of prophecy had 
 been away from ritualism. Amos, Isaiah, Micah and Jeremiah 
 had inveighed against it in the most scathing terms\ Ezekiel, 
 on the other hand, the founder of the new movement, himself a 
 priest, was the first of the ritualist, priestly prophets. After 
 him came Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, spiritual prophets 
 in a sense, yet with the new priestly and ritualistic spiritualism. 
 The old, truer and more inspired prophecy, after reaching its 
 climax in Deutero-Isaiah, came to a natural end. Here and there 
 we find an occasional utterance in the old spirit, and later apo- 
 calyptic literature, too, now and then reveals something thereof. 
 But true prophecy itself was dead; it had too much outgrown 
 the narrowing influences of national life and national religion, 
 to live on in the new atmosphere. The spirit of the people at 
 large, even in Babylon, was intensely ritualistic. Not only the 
 Book of Ezekiel and the Holiness Code were composed in Baby- 
 lon, but the greater part of the Priestly Code^ as well. The 
 prophet ceased to be the foremost factor in the interpretation 
 and development of the religious life. The priest now com- 
 pletely took his place as the religious leader and expounder of 
 the divine nature and the divine will. And Israel itself turned 
 from the role of a prophet-people with a divine world-message, 
 such as Deutero-Isaiah had conceived for it, to that of a priest- 
 people, charged with the duty of punctiliously worshipping its 
 God and jealously and scrupulously living the life He had or- 
 dained for it alone.' 
 
 ' Amos V, 21-25; Is. 1,10-17 (cf. LVIII, 1-12); Jer. VII, 1-10; Mic.6-8. 
 
 ^ In addition to a few chapters in Genesis and in the last half of Num- 
 bers, and the very close of Deuteronomy, found for the most part in Ex. 
 XXIV, 15-XXXI; XXXV-XL; Leviticus (complete); Num. I-X, 28. The 
 Holiness Code is incorporated in the Priestly Code. Cf. Carpenter and 
 Harford, The Composition of the Hexateuch, 228-300 and index. 
 
 ^ In passing, an interesting and significant thought may be presented. 
 As the result of perfectly natural and easily comprehended religious evolu- 
 tion, Israel had come to a curious division of opinion in regard to the interpre- 
 tation of its religion and its history. On the one hand, as has been pointed 
 out, a universalistic conception of God and religion had developed from Amos 
 to Deutero-Isaiah, culminating in the doctrine of the all-fatherhood of God and 
 of human brotherhood and of the mission of Israel. In its expression by 
 
-16- 
 
 It was but natural that with this spiritual death of prophecy, 
 and the development of the new, priestly spirit and rituaHstic in- 
 
 Deutero-Isaiah, himself probably living in Palestine, this conception was 
 coupled with the thought of the return of Israel to its fatherland, and, pre- 
 sumably, the consequent re-establishment of the nation. But this return 
 and this national reconstruction were only means to the greater end of Israel's 
 role in the prophet's scheme of universalism; Israel was to be, above all, the 
 light unto the nations. Nowhere does the prophet attempt any picture of the 
 reconstructed national life, of the administration of the new government, or 
 of the blessings and joys of the new national independence. The universal- 
 istic ideal is the great goal; Israel is to live, not apart, by and for itself, and 
 holy to its God alone, but among and for the sake of the nations. 
 
 Certainly, too, there were some, perhaps many, who shared the prophet's 
 dream of universalism, but went by no means as far in their conception of, 
 and longing for, the return to Palestine and the re-building of the nation. 
 Undoubtedly to many, particularly in Babylon, happy and prosperous in the 
 land of their adoption, the return must have seemed an altogether unessential 
 detail of the universalistic program. How could they preach universalism 
 or how serve its cause better, than when living among strangers in a strange 
 land, yet feeling and showing themselves altogether one, truly brothers, with 
 the people among whom they were living? Since this doctrine of univer- 
 salism must have accorded completely with the life and life-philosophy of 
 very many Jews, born in Babylon, and happy and prosperous there, it offers 
 the simplest and most natural explanation of that otherwise strange fact that, 
 when the opportunity to return to Palestine did come and was repeatedly 
 renewed, so few availed themselves thereof. It was, undoubtedly, not merely 
 because the majority of the Babylonian Jews were too materialistically 
 inclined to exchange their prosperity in Babylon for the hardships of removal 
 to, and sojourn in Palestine. Far more likely, it was just because very many, 
 possibly the great majority, approved of this prophetic universalism and felt 
 that they could best champion this cause, this conception and interpretation 
 of Judaism, in Babylon itself. 
 
 Yet these Jews had not compromised their Judaism nor departed from 
 its teachings in the least. On the contrary, Deutero-Isaiah had not at all 
 given birth to an absolutely new thought in his doctrine of universalism. 
 Rather, this doctrine had been developing slowly but surely in the religious 
 life and experience and thought of the people; it was the natural and neces- 
 sary culmination of the evolution of prophetic religion. And the culmination 
 at just this moment was largely due to the conditions of life in Babylon, away 
 from the fatherland and all national influences. Although Deutero-Isaiah 
 was the one who formulated the subconscious thought and philosophy in 
 words, and was its foremost expounder and champion, none the less he was 
 conspicuously the child of his times, just as were the other prophets in their 
 days. Had not the nation fallen and Israel been led away to Babylon, we may 
 be sure that neither Deutero-Isaiah nor any other prophet would have con- 
 
-17- 
 
 terpretation of religion, a new and altogether different conception 
 of revelation should gradually come into existence. The Torah 
 
 ceived of this doctrine. But not only he, but all who held this same view and 
 interpreted Judaism in the same way, and in fact the whole movement itself, 
 were the products of their times and conditions. And their attitude was not at 
 all materialistic nor time-serving. They had a real, natural and well worked 
 out philosophy of God and life and religion in general, and Judaism in par- 
 ticular, in this doctrine of divine fatherhood and human brotherhood and 
 Israel's mission. 
 
 Nor was theirs at all a philosophy or policy of assimilation. Their con- 
 ception of universalism was founded, not upon the principle of obliteration 
 of national, racial, cultural or even religious differences, but solely upon the 
 principle of world-wide recognition of the principles of divine fatherhood and 
 human brotherhood and common worship of the one, true God. That theirs 
 was no program of assimilation is proved by the fact that they insisted upon 
 a peculiar, distinctive and separative role for Israel in this great scheme of 
 universalism; Israel could discharge its God-imposed mission only by remain- 
 ing distinctly Israel, and thus raising all the nations to its height of knowledge 
 and belief, not by submerging and extinguishing itself among the nations. 
 And it is proved even more concretely by the fact that just in Babylon Israel 
 has ever, even unto the present day, maintained its separate existence, did 
 not assimilate with the nations and disappear, but actually continued as the 
 real stronghold of Jewish spiritual life and doctrine, even in contradistinction 
 to Palestine, for over fifteen hundred years, until the tide of civilization 
 moved westward, not to Palestine, but to northern Africa and Europe. We 
 know too little of the life and history of these Babylonian Jews to adequately 
 measure all the influences that determined the course of evolution of Judaism 
 and, in time, produced a clear-cut and separative orthodoxy and ritualism 
 among them. None the less we must recognize this principle of universalism 
 at work among them, and that the product thereof was much that was spirit- 
 ual and at the same time distinctly Jewish. 
 
 On the other hand, we must realize that the growing longing on the part 
 of many for the restored and purified nation, and the development of the doc- 
 trine of holiness, "peculiarly sacred to God," was an equally natural and com- 
 prehensible outcome of the evolution of the religion. When permission was 
 given to return to Palestine, the people had perforce to make choice of their 
 future course; had to declare concretely their adherence to one or the other 
 interpretation of Judaism and of the function of the Jewish people, whether 
 chosen by God to be His witnesses to mankind, equally God's children, or 
 chosen to be His only servants and worshippers, while He, in turn, would be 
 their own, peculiar deity. That the majority, apparently, chose the course 
 of universalism, is not surprising. It was the easier course and demanded less 
 sacrifice. Yet, for all this, it was not the less idealistic and sublime. But 
 equally, too, the sublimity of the faith and idealism of the returning exiles 
 can not be overestimated. Probably, too, many believed in the doctrine of 
 
-18- 
 
 was completed by the incorporation of the older, prophetic, didac- 
 tic-historical writings with the new Priestly Code. The resultant 
 
 nationalism and national religion and holiness, but for one reason or another 
 did not enroll among the returning exiles. Their reasons must have been too 
 manifold to even conjecture. Not unlikely their influence upon the subsequent 
 evolution of Babylonian Judaism was considerable. 
 
 It is interesting and significant to realize that an almost parallel condi- 
 tion obtains in Judaism to-day. It dates from that moment in the last century 
 when the ghetto walls of Europe were thrown down and the Jew became a 
 citizen, theoretically at least, of the nation in which he lived. Theoretically 
 he was free to determine his course of conduct and the future evolution of 
 his Jewish life and religion. In the ghetto, under repressive and oppressive 
 laws he had no such freedom; he was compelled to live within himself, to con- 
 fine himself to the study of his own law and the practice of his religion. That, 
 in a way, he was content, we know. But now that a new world and new oppor- 
 tunities were suddenly opened, and he was bidden to choose, he found himself, 
 theoretically, obliged to decide between two, or possibly three, alternatives. 
 He might accept the proffered invitation and become a citizen; just because 
 of his manifold, centuries-long experience, a kind of cosmopolite and uni- 
 versalist, even though at the same time a citizen of his own nation in the truest 
 and highest sense. Or he might reject the invitation, and, instead, continue 
 of his own free will the life that he had been compelled, by external forces, 
 to live all these years. Or finally, he might step forth from his ghetto, but 
 refuse to become a citizen of the nation in which he lived, and instead, seek 
 to re-establish the old Jewish nation in Palestine, just as the exiles had done 
 twenty-four hundred years before. What though the task was infinitely 
 more difficult than then, and seemed to very many almost futile; none the less 
 it was, theoretically, a legitimate alternative. 
 
 Practically the matter worked itself out very simply. Naturally the 
 majority, enthused by the beauty of the ideal of freedom and universal 
 brotherhood, so strongly emphasized in the early half of the nineteenth 
 century, accepted the invitation wholeheartedly and unquestioningl}-, re- 
 joiced in their new citizenship and in their opportunities for usefulness, knowl- 
 edge and culture, and made the most thereof. The result has been, to make 
 a long story short, our Reform Judaism. Its position, in one sense, is largely 
 that of Deutero-Isaiah and those who shared his views, a lofty conception 
 of the doctrine of universalism and of Israel's peculiar role, not as assimilated, 
 but as distinct and separate, God's witnesses unto mankind. 
 
 Others, largely unconsciously, and largely, too, through force of circum- 
 stance, because opportunities for freedom were not fully presented, and 
 repressive restrictions were not completely removed, or were speedily renewed, 
 chose, or were forced to choose, to continue their former ex stence, with only 
 slight modification. 
 
 The possibility of a third choice occurred at first to very few. Only 
 slowly, as the glamor of freedom faded somewhat, and, also, as, after the 
 
—19— 
 
 work, our present Pentateuch, soon acquired a peculiar sanctity 
 and authority in Judaism. From then on the Law became the 
 guide of all Jewish life and worship. Day by day the tradition 
 found more general, unquestioned and literal acceptance, that 
 the Torah, i. e., the Pentateuch, had been divinely revealed to 
 Moses, and constituted, therefore, the eternal, unchangeable, 
 all-sufhcient law for all Israel. Direct revelation was now alto- 
 gether a thing of the past. The great, eternal revelation had 
 
 partial taste of freedom, granted for a moment to those, compelled finally 
 to make the second choice, had made the renewed oppression and persecu- 
 tion all the more unendurable, did the realization dawn that, theoretically at 
 least there was possibility of a third choice. Only a few realized it early, 
 Moses Hess and one or two more (Cf. Gotth^W, Zionism). Only since the reac- 
 tion of political anti-Semitism set in throughout Europe, with its accompany- 
 ina philosophy of racial nationalism, has the realization of this third possi- 
 bility become strong. Zionism is the result. It is a revival of the old na- 
 tional-religious ideal and philosophy, with, however, far less emphasis laid 
 upon the religious, and far more upon the purely national and cultural, ele- 
 ments. The idea of national "holiness" is once more, though perhaps not 
 consciously, the watchword of Zionism. 
 
 If the ideal of Zionism should, under God's providence, ever be attained, 
 undoubtedly it will be only the small minority of Jews, or even of Zionists, 
 that will return to the land of their fathers and share actively in the up- 
 building of the new Jewish state. The vast majority will surely, for mamfold 
 reasons, remain in their present homes, bound to their brethren in Palestine 
 and throughout the world by close and indissoluble ties, yet at the same time 
 proud, loyal and helpful citizens of the nation in which they live. Nor 
 will it be mere materialism and lack of idealism that will hold them where 
 they are Possibly, too, the real center of Jewish life and culture and religious 
 practice may be, not at all in Palestine, but, as at present, in Europe, or even 
 in America. And the future of Judaism, particularly Judaism as a religion 
 may continue in the hands, not of returning nationalists, but of the Jews ot 
 
 the western continents. r , ■ i 
 
 No comment is necessary; in fact it would be out of place in a purely 
 objective, historical discussion. But at least it is interesting and more 
 than interesting, to realize that present-day conditions are largely a replica 
 of those of twenty-four hundred years ago, and that, despite the adverse claims 
 of adherents of opposite schools. Reform Judaism and Orthodoxy and Zion- 
 ism are all equally natural and logical, though to a certain extent contra- 
 dictory and incompatible, development in Judaism, all three the legitimate 
 and even necessary proJucts of religious historical evolution "f^-- ^od^s 
 providence, which, we maintain, is the fundamental principle of Judaism. 
 
—20— 
 
 been through Moses^ Prophetic revelation was of secondary 
 importance and individualistic and personal in character. 
 The prophets were now regarded as mere inspired individuals, 
 rather than as successive links in the great chain of Israel's 
 religious and spiritual unfolding. And the nature of their 
 inspiration and communion with God was different from, and 
 far inferior to, that of Moses. Their words merely amplified 
 the original revelation through Moses in a few minor points. 
 Their great task, according to this new conception of revelation, 
 had been, not to proclaim new truths, but merely to rebuke 
 sinning and faithless Israel, and recall it to its allegiance to 
 its God and its observance of the ancient, sacred law. Every- 
 thing had been revealed by God to Israel through one man, 
 Moses, in one single lifetime. And because of this conception, 
 the real, prophetic principle of continuous revelation through 
 history was forgotten and ceased to be understood. The Law 
 contained everything for Israel, if not literally, then at least by 
 implication. Revelation was final and complete in the Torah, 
 and its content there might neither be added to nor subtracted 
 from. The interpretation and expansion of the law by various 
 and devious methods of hermeneutics now took the place of 
 pre-exilic, prophetic revelation completely. And slowly, through 
 the centuries, the vast body of oral law grew up and expanded, 
 and the legalistic literature was created, theMishnah, theTosefta, 
 the Talmud and the other minor works and later codes. The 
 oral law was conceived of as also of divine origin and authority, 
 equal, or almost equal, to the Torah itself; as indirect and un- 
 mediated revelation, as it were, yet equally binding upon the 
 people. And as the Torah came in time to be regarded as almost 
 supersacred and transcendental, the oral law took its place in 
 the life of the people, regulating their daily conduct and worship. 
 The Torah itself was remote, holy, taboo, inviolable. And such 
 it has been ever since in Judaism; in Orthodox Judaism, certainly; 
 in Reform Judaism, still to a large extent\ 
 
 * Cf. Kohler in Jewish Encyclopedia, VI, 607f.; X, 397f. 
 
 * Cf. Kohler, Grundriss einer systematischen Theologie des Judentums 
 auf geschichtlicher Grundlage, 28-37. 
 
—21— 
 II 
 
 BIBLICAL SCIENCE AND JUDAISM 
 
 During the last two centuries, a new movement in the 
 study and interpretation of the Bible has begun, commonly 
 known as Biblical Criticism. The name is rather unfortunate 
 since "criticism" is to most people a word of negative connota- 
 tion. To the popular mind, Biblical Criticism represents a dan- 
 gerous and destructive tendency in Bible study, the aim of which 
 is to pick the Bible to pieces, to deny all its truth, sanctity and 
 religious value, and to undermine all the foundations of re- 
 ligious belief and practice. Such a conception is altogether 
 ignorant of the true nature and purpose of Biblical Criticism. 
 Its sole aim is to discover all the truth about the Bible, just 
 because the Bible is the wonderful book it is. It seeks to learn 
 all it can about the way in which the Bible came into being, the 
 periods in which its various books and parts were composed, the 
 conditions affecting their composition and the purpose for which 
 they were written, and the manifold ways in which they have 
 been interpreted. In fnany cases, too, where the original He- 
 brew text has been corrupted through generations and centuries 
 of more or less unskillful and inexact copying by hand, or 
 through other equally potent and comprehensible causes, 
 Biblical Criticism seeks, and with remarkable success, to restore 
 the original text. In all this work it follows strictly scientific 
 methods, bases itself upon the exact principles of logic, and on 
 the whole, with the exception of the vagaries of a few extreme 
 enthusiasts, has worked out its conclusions along safe and con- 
 servative lines. For this reason the term, Biblical Science, 
 would seem immeasurably superior to, and more just than. 
 Biblical Criticism. 
 
 Biblical Science, ''as a science, particularly in its relation 
 to the Pentateuch, may be said to have begun, systematically, 
 with Astruc's "Conjectures" in 1753^ But already from about 
 the middle of the seventeenth century, or even earlier, vague 
 beginnings had been made and hazy conjectures advanced in 
 the writings of Carlstadt, Hobbes, de la Peyrere. Spinoza, 
 
 * Cf. Carpenter and Harford, The Composition of the Hexateuch, S3flF. 
 
—22— 
 
 Simon, Le Clerc and others^ Even five or six centuries before 
 this, Yitzchaki (982-1057) had held that Gen. XXXVI must 
 have been written during the reign of Jehosaphat^ And Abra- 
 ham ibn Ezra (1092-1167), while rejecting this hypothesis, 
 hinted nevertheless at twelve significant contradictions and 
 anachronisms in the text of the Pentateuch, and implied that 
 whoever could understand the mystery of these twelve, would 
 understand the truth, which, however, he implied, was of such 
 character as to forbid popular presentation'. Even before Ibn 
 Ezra, and frequently quoted by him, Moses ibn Gikatilla had 
 begun the purely historical interpretation of the Prophets and 
 the Hagiographa, and had advanced, among other things, the 
 hypothesis that the last part of Isaiah was the product of the 
 period of the second Temple, and that certain Psalms, partic- 
 ularly XLII, CXXXVII and the last two verses of LI, were 
 written, not by David, but by Jewish exiles in Babylon\ In 
 fact, it would not be at all amiss to assert that modern Biblical 
 Science had its real beginning with Saadia (892-942)S in his 
 system of Biblical interpretation according to the peshat^, or 
 simple, literal meaning, as opposed to the Midrashic and al- 
 legorical exegesis, that obtained up to his time. And the real 
 foundations of Biblical Science were laid in the grammatical and 
 lexicographical works of such Jewish-Arabic scholars as Saadia 
 himself, Menachem ibn Saruk, Dunash ibn Labrat, Judah 
 ibn Hayyug, Abu '1 Walid Merwan ibn Janah, and the Kimchis\ 
 In other words, modern Biblical Science is actually the out- 
 growth of the Biblical studies of mediaeval Jewish scholars, 
 who believed implicitly that, to be rightly understood, the Bible 
 must be studied and interpreted along strictly scientific and 
 rational lines. 
 
 But while thus positing the principle of scientific investiga- 
 tion of the Bible, and developing the preliminary studies of 
 Hebrew philology along scientific lines, these mediaeval Jewish 
 
 ^ Op. cit. 36ff. ^ Cf. Jewish Encyclopedia, VI, 623. 
 
 ' Commentary to Dt. I, 3, and Jewish Encyclopedia, VI, 520-524. 
 * Op. cit. V, 666f. ■* Op. cit. X, 579ff. 
 
 " Cf. Bacher in op. cit. Ill, 166 and X, 582f., and Lauterbach in op. 
 cit. IX, 652f. 
 
 ^ Cf. Bacher in op. cit. VI, 69f. 
 
-23- 
 
 scholars could scarcely anticipate into what channels and to 
 what conclusions their work must eventually lead. Abraham 
 ibn Ezra had dimly realized this, as is clear from his remark 
 about "the mystery of the twelve." But apparently even he, 
 bold scholar though he was, hesitated to pursue the study along 
 scientific lines to its logical ends, or even to clearly formulate 
 in his own mind the logical inference from this "mystery of the 
 twelve." 
 
 For in a way the one all-important, though largely negative 
 conclusion of Biblical Science is that, contrary to the traditional 
 Jewish view, the Torah or Pentateuch is not the work of one 
 man, Moses, but of many men, living at various periods in 
 Israel's early history. It represents the results of literary 
 activity in Israel, extending over a period of about six or seven 
 hundred years, from about 1000 B. C, or a little later, to ap- 
 proximately 400 or 300 B. C. It can therefore not be, in an 
 absolutely literal sense, the divinely revealed word of God\ 
 This conclusion is based upon an almost overwhelming mass of 
 evidence, and is now generally accepted, except by extreme 
 conservative and orthodox scholars. 
 
 But this much was, after all, merely negative work; it 
 consisted chiefly in disproval and repudiation of traditional 
 beliefs and theories about the Bible and its various books, told, 
 in short, what the Pentateuch and the entire Bible are not, 
 and how they might not be interpreted historically and scien- 
 tifically. The beginning of every science, and in fact of every 
 new and significant work, is in criticism, negation and refuta- 
 tion of outgrown beliefs and hypotheses, in tearing out and 
 pulling down and clearing away, in order to build up and to 
 plant'. Thus far the term. Biblical Criticism, in its usual 
 negative connotation, was fully justified. True, in refuting the 
 traditional views of Biblical authorship and interpretation, 
 Biblical Criticism did arrive at certain new, and, in a sense, 
 positive conclusions, chiefly as to the authorship and dates of 
 various portions of the Bible. But even this was only preliminary 
 work, and incidental to, and complementary of, the more 
 
 ^ Cf. McCurdy in op. cit. Ill, 178. 
 ' Jer. I, 10. 
 
-24— 
 
 fundamental and negative work of denial and refutation. Only 
 in recent years has the more positive and constructive side of 
 the work come clearly to the fore and become fully and rightly 
 comprehended. Here Biblical Criticism ceases and Biblical 
 Science begins. 
 
 Positive Biblical Science may be said to have begun with 
 the epoch-making work of Professor Heinrich Ewald, The 
 History of Israel} Since then the science has developed steadily 
 and systematically. Among its foremost pioneers were Kuenen, 
 Noldeke, Wellhausen, Robertson Smith, Stade, Driver and many 
 others*. In recent years the able and earnest workers in this 
 field have become too numerous for mention here. As the 
 result of their faithful labors, and with the help of extra-Biblical 
 material from the fields of Semitics, Egyptology, Archaeology 
 and Comparative Religion, the history of Israel in the Biblical 
 period has been reconstructed so radically and convincingly, 
 that today we view in a new and positive light the rise and 
 growth of the people, Israel, and of its various institutions, 
 political, economic and religious, the whole course of its religious 
 evolution, and its significance for modern religious belief and 
 practice. This is Biblical Science. 
 
 Naturally so tremendous a field of scientific investigation 
 offers ample room for wide diversity of opinion and interpreta- 
 tion. There are all manner of scholars, conservatives and 
 radicals; enthusiasts who ride rash and unfounded hypotheses 
 to death, like the late lamented Cheyne in his last years, with 
 his wild and discredited Yerachme'el hypothesis; reactionaries, 
 like Eerdmans, whose work, nevertheless, has much positive 
 value, in that it lays an effective check upon too radical and 
 insufficiently proved hypotheses. There are various schools of 
 investigation and interpretation; the literary school, of which 
 Wellhausen is the prototype; the so-called Pan-Babylonian 
 school of Winckler and Alfred Jeremias; the closely related school 
 of comparative mythologists, of whom Stucken is possibly the 
 extreme representative; and the literary-historical school, that 
 bases itself directly upon the literary school, yet in its work 
 
 * First edition in 1843; cf. Cheyne, Founders oj Old Testament Criticism^ 
 104ff. * Cheyne, op. cit. 
 
—25— 
 
 makes wider application of recent discoveries in Semitics, 
 Egyptology, Archaeology, Comparative Religion and Mythology 
 and other kindred sciences. The interests and work of this last 
 school are primarily historical rather than literary, although 
 its close kinship to, and dependence upon, the literary school 
 are universally recognized. Among its members may be found 
 representatives of the two great tendencies in the interpreta- 
 tion of history; scholars who, like Carlyle, regard history pri- 
 marily as the resultant of the thoughts, achievements and 
 personalities of great individuals; others who, like Buckle, re- 
 gard the individual, heroic in person and achievement though 
 he be, as a smaller factor in the making of history than the nation 
 or the people or the race itself, with all its racial, psychological 
 and spiritual tendencies and endowments. 
 
 Since Biblical Science touches closely upon the vital re- 
 ligious beliefs and traditions of the great majority of the civilized 
 world, and since, moreover, mankind is naturally conservative, 
 traditional, and often reactionary in matters of religion, it is 
 but natural that Biblical Science should have stirred up many 
 opponents, and that these should avidly and constantly point 
 to these many and wide differences of method, opinion and 
 interpretation among Biblical scholars as the best evidence that 
 Biblical Science has discredited itself and proved its conclusions 
 groundless. It is, however, premature rejoicing. These very 
 differences are the final safeguard of Biblical Science; they make 
 it indeed Biblical Science rather than Biblical Criticism, and 
 assure its progress, like that of every other science, along sane, 
 logical, conservative and systematic lines. They are the most 
 convincing evidence that its general conclusions, accepted by 
 the vast majority of modern scholars, are established beyond 
 possibility of doubt, and that the science must go on from 
 strength to strength and from knowledge to knowledge, building 
 up an ever more complete and comprehensive knowledge of 
 Israel, the nation, and Judaism, the religion. 
 
 That the course of evolution of this new Biblical Science 
 has been natural and logical is beyond question. First the old, 
 out-lived and disintegrating edifice of traditional beliefs and 
 dogmas was cleared away by the patient, searching investiga- 
 tions of Biblical Criticism, and a new foundation for a loftier 
 
-26- 
 
 and grander and more enduring temple, consecrated to the knowl- 
 edge of God, was laid on the ancient site by the literary critics 
 and scholars. On this foundation of the literary analysis of the 
 Bible the new and positive history is being built, the new and 
 glorious temple of the true knowledge of God erected. But 
 what is the significance of this new knowledge for Judaism, 
 and what part have Jewish builders played in the erection of this 
 new temple? Certainly its significance for Judaism must be 
 direct and far-reaching. And presumably Jewish scholars have 
 contributed their share, and a large share, in the evolution of 
 this new and important science, the earliest beginnings of which, 
 as has been shown, were made within their ranks. But alas, 
 such is not the case! Modern Jewish scholars have given almost 
 nothing to the development of the new science. And scarcely 
 has the problem of its actual significance for Judaism been 
 boldly faced and definitely solved by Jewish scholars at large! 
 
 For the same reason that Ibn Ezra hesitated to more than 
 merely hint at "the mystery of the twelve" and its import, and 
 felt constrained to reject with scorn Yitzchaki's hypothesis of 
 the date of Gen. XXXVI, so the scientific study of the Penta- 
 teuch, with its one, great, obvious conclusion of human, non- 
 Mosaic, composite authorship, was absolutely taboo, anathema, 
 to Jews and Judaism. Spinoza, it is true, attempted it in his 
 Tractatiis Theologico-politicus, but Spinoza was not bound 
 by the doctrines of Orthodox Judaism. To all Jews since Ezra, 
 the Torah has been the divinely revealed word of God, sacred 
 and revered, the accepted basis of all Judaism. And the scien- 
 tific conclusion of non-Mosaic and composite authorship seemed 
 necessarily both irreverent and heretical, a profanation of that 
 which Judaism has for twenty-four hundred years held most 
 sacred. In consequence, since Spinoza, with but a few note- 
 worthy exceptions*, Jewish scholars have contributed nothing 
 
 * In the field of textual criticism, in addition to Azariah dei Rossi (1513- 
 1578), and so a century older than Spinoza (cf. Jewish Encyclopedia, X, 485), 
 S. D. Luzzato (1800-1865; cf. op. cit. VIII, 224f.) and Abraham Geiger (cf. 
 below, pp. 249f.) may be mentioned. Among the so-called higher critics of the 
 Pentateuch, Leopold Zunz (cf. Hirsch, in Jewish Encyclopedia, XII, 699-704) 
 and M. M. Kalisch (cf. op. cit. VII, 420 and Cheyne, op. cit., 204-208) are 
 almost the only notable representatives of Judaism. 
 
-27— 
 
 at all to the development of the scientific study and interpre- 
 tation of the Pentateuch^ Some Jewish names may be mentioned 
 in connection with the modern exegesis of the extra-Penta- 
 teuchal books, but even these are very few. And, in conse- 
 quence, the strange, anomalous, yet altogether natural and 
 comprehensible condition has arisen, that the Bible, the Book 
 of the People of the Book, even in the original Hebrew, is now 
 being interpreted scientifically to the world, and consequently 
 to Jews as well, by non-Jewish scholars, and interpreted often 
 in a non-Jewish, and occasionally even in an anti-Jewish manner 
 and spirit. It is indeed one of the most striking anomalies of 
 the present day. 
 
 Nevertheless this scientific interpretation of the Bible, 
 and particularly of the Pentateuch, has powerfully affected 
 modern Jewish belief and practice. The reform movement in 
 Judaism, it has been often, and in a sense correctly, said, began 
 with the Mendelssohnian translation of the Bible into German^ 
 This certainly helped mightily to bring the Jew forth from the 
 narrow confines of Ghetto life into the broad, progressive, intel- 
 lectual and spiritual world\ In a moment, as it were. Reform 
 Judaism was born, the offspring of ancient, traditional Judaism, 
 reacted upon by the new life, culture and environment. Ju- 
 daism has ever been a religion of actual, present-day life, almost 
 as much the product of contemporaneous environment as of 
 ancient tradition and history. Or, perhaps better expressed, 
 real Judaism has always been the resultant, consciously or un- 
 consciously on the part of its adherents, of continuous historic 
 evolution, crystallized by contemporaneous environment into a 
 present-day religion of actual life. For this reason largely the 
 Jew has always been the most adaptable of men, has found it 
 comparatively easy to accommodate himself to new lands and 
 new conditions and to carry his religion of life with him and 
 adapt it to his ever changing environment, and still maintain it 
 as the religion of life. 
 
 * Cf. Bacher in Jewish Encyclopedia, III, 173f. 
 
 * Cf. Philipson, The Reform Movement in Judaism, 9 and 12-14. 
 ' Cf. Kayserling in Jewish Encyclopedia, VIII, 483. 
 
—28— 
 
 Therefore with his political and spiritual emancipation in 
 the first half of the nineteenth century, and his consequent 
 participation in the various modern educational and cultural 
 movements, with his insatiable thirst for knowledge and the 
 large opportunities to acquire knowledge, with schools, colleges, 
 universities and libraries now open to him, the Jew could not 
 remain unaffected by, nor unresponsive to, the teachings of the 
 growing Biblical Science, even though, as yet, he hardly dared 
 contribute actively and positively thereto. The teachings and 
 tenets of Biblical Criticism were in the air in the latter half 
 of the nineteenth century, and cultured and thinking people 
 were more or less affected thereby. Much of the prevailing 
 atheism and agnosticism of that period were the result of the 
 misunderstanding and wrong application of the Biblical Criti- 
 cism of that time. 
 
 To a certain extent, though in an altogether different way, 
 Reform Judaism was likewise influenced by the current Biblical 
 Criticism of the middle quarters of the nineteenth century. 
 For one of the most pronounced external manifestations of the 
 reform movement in Judaism has been the disregard and aban- 
 donment of many ancient, ceremonial institutions, even some 
 whose observance is commanded in the Torah, and is not due 
 merely to rabbinical expansion of Pentateuchal commands. 
 Such laws as those concerning fringes\ mixtures in garments*, 
 shaving the corners of the head', chalUzah* and many others, 
 conformity to which is in no wise conditioned by the non- 
 existence of the Temple, are observed today by few, if any, 
 Reform Jews. Other laws, dependent upon the existence of the 
 Temple and the survival of the Aaronic priesthood, are aban- 
 doned of necessity, and, for the most part, with but little regret. 
 In practice, at least, a negative principle seems to determine the 
 attitude of Reform Judaism toward the laws of the Torah. In 
 the main, only those laws are still considered binding which 
 have a positive ethical sanction or a fundamental spiritual, 
 religious value. Other laws need not be, and as a rule, are not, 
 observed. A few laws, negativ^e in character, i. e., laws that 
 
 ' Num. XV, 38-41; Dt. XXII, 12. » Lev. XIX, 27; XXI, 5. 
 * Lev. XIX, 19; Dt. XXII, 11. * Dt. XXV, 5-10. 
 
—29— 
 
 prohibit some positive act, as, for example, many of the laws 
 dealing with forbidden foods, are still observed by some con- 
 servatives. But even such negative observance is becoming 
 less. More and more a sense of absolution from the observance 
 of Biblical, as well as rabbinic laws, that apparently have little 
 or no spiritual or ethical import or sanction, and in consequence 
 the practical abrogation of these laws, is asserting itself in. 
 Reform Judaism. This attitude could hardly have developed, 
 or even have begun to develop, without at least tacit, or per- 
 haps unconscious, but none the less real, recognition during the 
 middle quarters of the nineteenth century of the principles and 
 conclusions of Biblical Criticism. 
 
 But from the theoretical standpoint, it must be admitted 
 that this attitude is altogether illogical, particularly on the 
 part of those who still believe, or wish to believe, in the divine 
 origin and Mosaic authorship of the Torah. Laws of divine 
 origin can not be abrogated by mere considerations of expediency, 
 or even of outgrown spiritual or ethical value. The very fact 
 of divine origin must lend to even the apparently most trivial 
 laws positive, spiritual sanction. The first logical act of Reform 
 Judaism, therefore, should have been to face clearly and bravely 
 the very difficult and delicate question of the historic correct- 
 ness of the tradition of the divine origin and Mosaic authorship 
 of the Torah, and only when this question had been answered, 
 after mature consideration, with an unqualified negative, would 
 the next step have been justified, namely, the determination of 
 the proper attitude of Reform Judaism toward the laws of the 
 Torah, and the abrogation of such laws as had been outgrown. 
 Until the Torah had been proved not of divine origin and 
 Mosaic authorship, there could, logically, be no right nor author-' 
 ity to disregard its laws; there could be no attitude other than 
 that of strictest Orthodoxy, namely, unquestioning acceptance 
 and scrupulous observance. 
 
 That some, at least, of the pioneer reformers were not blind 
 to this truth is certain. It is interesting to note that, in at- 
 tempting to justify the abrogation of certain ceremonial institu- 
 tions, Samuel Holdheim gave expression to the significant prin- 
 ciple that "the spirit of the age is also a revelation of God, 
 
—30— 
 
 and that this commanded the aboHtion of many observances 
 that had religious sanction at one time."^ Elsewhere he asserted 
 that "the present requires a principle, that shall enunciate 
 clearly that a law, even though divine, is potent only so long 
 as the conditions and circumstances of life, to meet which it 
 was enacted, continue; when these change, however, the law 
 also must be abrogated, even though it have God for its author. 
 For God Himself has shown indubitably that with the change 
 of the circumstances and conditions of life for which He once 
 gave these laws, the laws themselves cease to be operative, that 
 they shall be observed no longer because they can be observed 
 no longer * * * * ^Yhe present age and its guiding principle, 
 as thus formulated, recognize the working of God in history; 
 it believes truly and firmly in the providential guidance of the 
 fortunes of mankind; it looks upon the deeds recorded in the 
 history of mankind as the deeds of God, whereby He speaks 
 as clearly as He ever did; a particular revelation of God to a 
 single person is dispensable when God speaks to all and reveals 
 His will to all.'"' In this declaration Holdheim seems not only 
 to have rejected entirely the orthodox conception of revelation 
 through Moses and the Torah, but also to have unconsciously 
 returned, though by no means completely, to the ancient, pro- 
 phetic conception. But the problem of reform seems to have pre- 
 sented itself to him chiefly in its negative aspect. His main 
 concern, as in fact that of all early Reform Judaism, seems to 
 have been the abrogation of outgrown laws, rather than the 
 determination of the proper guiding principle of positive reform 
 and progress. It is true that he did show some appreciation of 
 the positive principle in his declaration about the God of history 
 revealing Himself through history, and in just this respect he 
 approached close to the prophetic conception of revelation. 
 But his application of the principle was almost completely 
 negative and limited. 
 
 Still less logical and satisfactory was the position of the 
 Frankfort Society of the Friends of Reform, and others with 
 and after them, who shared their view, that the true solution 
 
 * Quoted from Philipson, op. cit. 13. 
 ' Op. cit. 180 note. 
 
-31- 
 
 of the problem of reform lay in the repudiation of rabbinical 
 law and literature and the return to Mosaism, i. e., the observ- 
 ance of the Pentateuchal laws alone\ Not only did this move- 
 ment fail utterly to appreciate the real, inward truth of Judaism 
 and its history, as Philipson has so ably shown, but it likewise 
 rested upon a false scientific basis. For it applied the principle 
 of scientific investigation to the rabbinical portion of the content 
 of orthodox revelation, with the negative conclusion that the 
 oral law was not of divine origin and consequently no longer 
 binding. But it failed, or refused, to apply this same principle 
 to the Torah. Instead it insisted unquestioningly upon the 
 historical correctness of the tradition of Mosaic revelation, yet, 
 at the same time, it ventured to disregard and abrogate various 
 Pentateuchal laws. This was the extreme of inconsistency. 
 
 Far more thoroughgoing, scholarly and convincing was the 
 pronouncement of Abraham Geiger, that "the genius of the 
 people of Israel is the vehicle of revelation."'' Elsewhere Geiger 
 declared revelation to be "an illumination of the Jewish genius 
 by the Divine Mind, which caused the whole people to come 
 nearer the everlasting truth than any other. Judaism is not a 
 religion given by one man; Israel's God is not called the God of 
 Moses, or of Isaiah, but of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that is, 
 of the fathers of the nation, who imparted the deep powers of 
 religious intention and inspiration to all the seers, singers and 
 teachers, the framers of the Jewish religion."' In accordance 
 with this principle, Geiger insisted constantly that the entire 
 Bible, including the Torah, and also the Talmud and all Jewish 
 literature, must be studied from a strictly historical standpoint. 
 Judaism is essentially a historical religion, the resultant of natural 
 historical evolution, and only when studied and expounded from 
 this standpoint, can Judaism be rightly understood*. Far more 
 
 ' Op. cit. I79f. 
 
 "^ Quoted from Hirsch in Jewish Encyclopedia, V, 584ff. 
 
 ' Quoted from Kohler in Jewish Encyclopedia, X, 397. 
 
 ^ Cf. in particular, Geiger's articles, "Das Judenthum unserer Zeit und 
 die Bestrebungen in ihm," in his Zeitschrift fur judische Theologie, I (1835), 
 2f. and 11, and "Der Boden zur Aussaat," in his Judische Zeitschrift fur 
 Wissenschaft und Leben, I (1862), 1-9. 
 
—32- 
 
 than any of the other pioneer reformers, Geiger appreciated this 
 principle fully. And, almost alone among them,' he conscien- 
 tiously, boldly and unreservedly gave himself to the scientific 
 study of the Bible, and particularly of the history of the original 
 Hebrew text and its translations, always with full understanding 
 of the significance of these studies for the reform movement in 
 Judaism. His is one of the few Jewish names to which we may 
 point with pride among the founders of modern Biblical Science. 
 His chief critical work, Urschrift und Uehersetzungen der Bibel^, 
 is still today of prime scientific value. 
 
 Since Geiger, however, many, if not most, of our reform 
 leaders have only tacitly, and on the whole rather reluctantly, 
 admitted the main conclusions of Biblical Science. And instead 
 of continuing Geiger's work of unfolding the significance of this 
 developing science for Reform Judaism, they have, for one reason 
 or another, devoted themselves rather to what is generally con- 
 sidered the practical and popular side of the work of reform. 
 Many today, animated by the so-called current neo-orthodoxy 
 and reaction against reform, and with a short-sighted fear of 
 the evident, logical conclusions, even pride themselves somewhat 
 upon having assumed an attitude toward Biblical Science, 
 which they call sane and conservative, but which is in reality 
 reactionary, unscientific and illogical. Like the ostrich, which, 
 unable to escape its pursuers, hides its head in the sand, and, 
 no longer actually beholding the danger, thinks itself safe, so 
 too, these present-day "sane and conservative", unprogressive 
 
 ' As has been stated, Zunz, too, accepted the conclusions of Biblical 
 Criticism unreservedly, and even himself contributed something thereto 
 (cf. his writings in the Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl'andischenGesellschajt, 
 XXVII, 669-689, and Gesammelte Schriften, I, 217-270). But Zunz himself 
 was not a conscious religious reformer, nor even in full sympathy with the 
 purpose and tendencies of early Reform Judaism (cf. Ilirsch in Jewish Ency- 
 clopedia, XII, 699-704). His interest in Biblical studies was purely academic 
 and scientific. And while, in his letters to David Kaufmann, he did give 
 expression to the significant thoughts, "opinions on books arc not subject to 
 the authority of religion," and "why do they not inquire whether it be true 
 or false? Miserable men they, who desire not to be disturbed" (quoted from 
 op. cit. 704), none the less he did not feel called upon to discuss the import 
 of his own Biblical studies or of all Biblical Criticism for Judaism. 
 
 ' Breslau, 1857. 
 
—33— 
 
 progressives believe that so long as they refuse to acknowledge 
 the validity of Biblical Science, or even to admit the existence 
 of the problems which Biblical Science labors to solve, just so 
 long neither the problems themselves nor the solution offered by 
 Biblical Science exist, either for them or for Reform Judaism 
 at large. Others seek to compromise, and would harmonize the 
 old traditional belief in the divine origin and Mosaic author- 
 ship of the Torah with the dicta of Biblical Science, by recourse 
 to an artificial, pragmatic theology and frequent reference to 
 Mysticism and tendencies toward Mysticism in the latest sys- 
 tems of philosophy, particularly those of Bergson and Eucken. 
 Mysticism is a term altogether justifiable in its application to 
 that which is as yet unknown, or which may be eternally un- 
 knowable, yet which must be considered in theological thought 
 and discussion; but in its misapplication to that which is, or 
 may easily be, known by every one, even themselves, too fre- 
 quent reference to Mysticism almost indicates insufficient 
 intellectual courage and faith. Certainly these are anomalous, 
 silly, fearsome and pitiful attitudes for professed leaders of 
 a supposedly progressive movement. 
 
 At the same time neither they nor the founders and early 
 leaders of Reform Judaism, other than Geiger, are to be blamed 
 too greatly for their inconsistency and lack of logic. As a rule 
 movements like Reform Judaism do not arise and develop 
 along the lines of strict logic. They are far oftener the result 
 of spiritual, economic or cultural needs or tendencies, and the 
 logic follows later in the inevitable need for readjustment and 
 reestablishment upon a truly safe, sane and philosophic basis. 
 For this reason the rise of Reform Judaism and its development 
 up to the present day accord strictly with historical principles. 
 The reform movement in Judaism was a historical necessity. 
 And the present negative attitude toward the laws of the Torah 
 could hardly have been at all other than it is. But while admit- 
 ting all this, we must recognize too that the early leaders of 
 Reform Judaism, and many of our leaders today, did and do, 
 in their virtual abrogation of the majority of the Pentateuchal 
 laws, put the cart before the horse, and were and are distinctly 
 illogical and inconsistent. 
 
-34- 
 
 But for us today conditions are different. Reform Judaism 
 is now well established and its program of work and line of future 
 evolution can be fairly clearly forseen. For us the work of read- 
 justment and of logical reestablishment has begun, in order that 
 the future development may proceed smoothly and evenly and 
 along definite, positive and constructive lines. The fact of the 
 human, composite authorship is today beyond question, and 
 must be admitted, even though grudgingly, by the most conserva- 
 tive and traditional of our present-day leaders of Reform Ju- 
 daism. And the majority do admit, even though reluctantly, 
 to themselves at least, and very many to their congregations 
 also, the fact of human, composite authorship of the Pentateuch. 
 And thus, they believe, they justify, in a way and with a certain 
 logic, the negative attitude which Reform Judaism has had, 
 through historical necessity, to assume toward the laws of the 
 Torah. But it must be admitted, that this is, like the first posi- 
 tion of Biblical Criticism, at best purely negative work, defining 
 what the Torah is not and what the Bible is not, and what 
 significance and binding force the Biblical laws and narratives 
 need not, or can not, have. 
 
 But in this negative position, which Biblical Science on its 
 part has at last outgrown. Reform Judaism can not longer abide. 
 Nor can we remain content with the strange anomaly that our 
 Bible should be investigated and expounded scientifically, 
 expounded for us Jews too, only by non-Jewish scholars, and 
 often even from a non-Jewish standpoint and with non-Jewish 
 sympathy. Biblical Science is today recognized as an established 
 and legitimate science, and the significance of its conclusions 
 and teachings for all religious belief and practice is becoming 
 increasingly understood. More and more practically all creeds 
 and denominations today are being compelled, generally against 
 their will, to notice seriously, and take definite stand in regard to, 
 the principles and teachings of Biblical Science. Usually their 
 first position is wholly negative and antagonistic. But as the 
 years pass, slowly but steadily this first position is being modified 
 in the face of the irrefutable and persistent truths which Biblical 
 Science proclaims. And with this change of position, more and 
 more the realization is dawning, that Biblical Science and its 
 teachings are not at all negative nor dangerous nor destructive 
 
—35— 
 
 of true religion and true faith, but on the contrary are altogether 
 positive, helpful and constructive. Old, deep-rooted errors, 
 blinding superstitions and falsely accentuated doctrines are being 
 swept away; emphasis is laid upon the fundamental and vital 
 principles of religious life and faith; and the path is being pre- 
 pared for intelligent, rational and progressive observance and 
 practice. More and more this truth is becoming apparent, an4 
 religion today is undergoing a noticeable and significant trans- 
 formation. 
 
 But no more, and in reality far less, than any other present- 
 day, progressive religion or denomination, can Reform Judaism 
 refuse to take cognizance of Biblical Science, or shut eyes and 
 ears to its teachings. If, as some believe, or wish to believe, 
 the conclusions of Biblical Science be not true, they should be 
 refuted by competent Jewish scholars and their falseness proved, 
 that Judaism may be left free to develop unhampered by their 
 pernicious influence. But in such case Reform Judaism must 
 logically renounce its present negative attitude toward the Torah 
 and its laws, and revive the observance of all the divinely or- 
 dained Biblical statutes. 
 
 But if the main conclusions of Biblical Science are correct 
 and can not be refuted, and more and more it is becoming evident 
 that such is the case, then it is indeed high time that Reform 
 Judaism advance beyond its negative attitude of tacit denial 
 of the divine origin and Mosaic authorship of the Torah, and 
 consequent justification of its disregard of those laws which do 
 not accord with its philosophy of life, religion and ethics; it is 
 high time that it begin to assume a positive attitude, that it ask 
 itself, "If the Torah be not, as our ancestors believed, of divine 
 origin and Mosaic authorship, and therefore all the laws of the 
 Torah be not literally binding upon us, nor the Pentateuchal 
 account of the beginnings of our religion necessarily literally 
 true, what then is the actual, early history of Israel; what the 
 real origin and first development of our religion; what the 
 positive significance of the Torah, its narratives and its laws, 
 for Judaism today and in the future?'" Surely we can not disre- 
 
 * Cf . Kohler, Grundriss einer systematischen Theologie des Judentums auf 
 geschichtlicher Grundlage, 34ff. 
 
-36- 
 
 gard the Torah entirely, nor reject our Bible completely. Even 
 though we do know that it is not what tradition proclaimed it, 
 for us it is still the Bible, the Book, our Book, and we are still 
 the People of the Book. And from its inspiring pages we not 
 only can and must still gather eternal , ethical truth and knowledge, 
 but also, if it be rightly understood and interpreted, as Biblical 
 Science now teaches, we may learn from it just how our ancestors 
 arrived at all this ethical and spiritual truth, how they came to 
 know God at first just a little, and how, as the years and cen- 
 turies passed, this knowledge of God grew and grew; how, even 
 though it was not given to them either to behold God's face or 
 to know the fullness of His way, yet little by little they did come 
 to see His back and hear His voice and learn His true name, 
 and step by step He did reveal to them through His servants, 
 the prophets, and through the course of their long and won- 
 drous and God-guided history, as much of His way as it has been 
 given to man thus far to know. This is the history of our religion, 
 our Judaism. And a part, and a most significant part, of this 
 history we may learn from this new study of the Bible. We still 
 believe in God's self-revelation through history, through the 
 history of the past, rightly understood and interpreted, and 
 through the history of the present. Reform Judaism, following 
 Geiger, adheres firmly to the principle of historic evolution, and 
 regards itself as the last step, up to the present day, in the 
 great historic evolution that began with the very moment of 
 Israel's birth as a people, or, even before that, in all the events 
 and circumstances antecedent and preparatory thereto, and has 
 continued through the successive periods of Jewish history and 
 Jewish life down to the present day, and will continue through 
 the present day into the great infinite tomorrow of life and 
 history. 
 
 For just this reason Reform Judaism may no longer stand 
 still in its purely negative attitude, and refuse, through its reputed 
 leaders, to either affirm or deny the conclusions of Biblical 
 Science. To correctly and fully understand our Judaism of 
 today, and to properly and constructively guide and further 
 its future evolution, as far as it lies within our power so to do, 
 we must know all its past history aright, and in as great detail 
 
-37- 
 
 as possible. And above all, we must know the history of our 
 people and our religion as Biblical Science reconstructs it for 
 us, i. e., as our Bible, truly interpreted, teaches it to us, in the 
 earliest period of its origin and first development, when it was 
 just beginning to unfold itself, to formulate its eternal, wondrous 
 message of ethical monotheism and human brotherhood, was 
 preparing to assume its unique and glorious position in human 
 history as the world's teacher of religion, the witness unto man- 
 kind of God's truth, the bearer unto man of the knowledge of 
 God's life on earth. 
 
 But for just this end, that we may know our religion and 
 our whole history aright, we must have our own Jewish Biblical 
 scientists, who will reconstruct and interpret this history from 
 a positive Jewish standpoint, in accordance with our historic 
 Jewish consciousness and with full appreciation of the principle 
 of historic continuity in Judaism. For us this science is far more 
 vital than for any others. It is our literature, our history and 
 our religion that are the objects of its investigation. And we 
 must face the issue squarely and work out for ourselves the full, 
 scientific knowledge of the origin and history of our people and 
 our religion. Our procedure must be conservative, reverent and 
 sympathetic, with tender consideration for time-consecrated 
 tradition. As far as possible we must guard against all possible 
 errors and too hasty or radical conclusions. But if many of 
 our conclusions be untraditional, as they needs must be, none the 
 less we must have implicit faith in them, and bravely work them 
 out and apply them in their full significance. We must have 
 full faith in ourselves, and others will then have faith in us, 
 that we are not destroying the foundations of our Judaism, as 
 many short-sighted and timorous traditionalists fear. We are 
 not questioning the existence of God, nor denying, nor abrogat- 
 ing a single one of the vital, spiritual truths of Judaism. We 
 are merely perfecting our knowledge of Judaism, our knowledge 
 of the way in which our ancestors and our fathers and we our- 
 selves came to know what we do know about God and the life 
 He has ordained that man should live. We are returning, as it 
 were, to the conception of revelation and of religion that was 
 held by the prophets; are interpreting all our history, from its 
 
—38— 
 
 beginning unto the present day, in the same spirit as they in- 
 terpreted it; are conscious of the God of our fathers revealing 
 Himself to us still to-day, and to all mankind throughout eter- 
 nity, as He did to Israel of old. And we too, as the prophets, 
 may feel His spirit upon us. His voice speaking through us, and 
 His message of the ages upon our tongues. God in history, 
 in the history of the present and the future, as well as of the past; 
 God eternally revealing Himself and His purpose unto mankind, 
 and we the agents of His revelation, the people whom He chose 
 to be His witnesses and His messengers unto mankind. His 
 prophet-people, who must interpret His revelation unto our 
 brothers. His children also, all mankind — this is the true message 
 of Judaism, if only we can open our eyes and understand and 
 proclaim it. And in this spirit of truth and progress and con- 
 tinuous revelation and historic evolution, that are the real, 
 basic principles of our religion, we must study and interpret 
 our Bible for ourselves and for the Jewish people at large; and 
 not only our Bible, but all our vast literature and all our unique 
 and wonderful and inspiring history. And thereby we shall 
 add our little mite to the true knowledge of God and God's 
 way, which we call Judaism, and which we shall preserve and 
 develop and hand down as our proudest and most sacred heritage 
 to our children and our children's children. 
 
 In this spirit and with this end constantly in mind, we turn 
 now to the consideration, from the strictly scientific standpoint, 
 of the foundations, or perhaps better, some of the foundations, 
 of Israel's history, national, religious and spiritual. 
 
 III. 
 
 The Sources of Israel's Early History 
 
 The authentic history of Israel begins only with the entrance 
 of the tribes into Canaan. Even for some time thereafter there 
 is not a single event of which we have detailed information. 
 Not until the reign of David can we follow the course of history 
 with anything approaching proper consecution, David estab- 
 lished a typical Oriental monarchy. Among his numerous 
 court officials was the sojer, the court scribe, who recorded the 
 
-39- 
 
 illustrious deeds of the king and the glorious events of his 
 reign\ Thereafter we have the Chronicles of Solomon and the 
 Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Judah, which, later, con- 
 stituted the chief sources of the authors of the Books of Kings. ^ 
 
 The institution of the monarchy marks the beginning of 
 systematic literary activity in Israel. A purely agricultural 
 people, living under tribal or semi-tribal government, and during 
 the latter portion of the pre-monarchic period either subject to 
 the oppressive Philistine yoke, or engaged in a death-struggle 
 for independence, could have neither opportunity, inclination 
 nor probably even ability to produce a historical or national 
 literature. In fact, there could be neither national literature 
 nor national history, until the nation had actually come into 
 existence. Not until the time of David were the loosely-related 
 tribes bound together into a fairly close union. Until then they 
 had existed as almost totally independent ethnic units, with 
 merely the nucleus of a nation gradually evolving in a loose 
 federation of five or six tribes in the central and northern parts 
 of the country. Accordingly all traditions and whatever liter- 
 ature existed before the establishment of the nation must have 
 been altogether tribal in character. The traditions were handed 
 down within the tribe, and were recited in poetic form at tribal 
 gatherings. Such has ever been the beginning of literature, and 
 especially among the Semitic peoples'. Science has proved 
 conclusively, that the oldest portions of Hebrew literature are 
 certain Biblical poems or fragments of poems^ 
 
 But the moment literature ceases to be the product of pass- 
 ing enthusiasm and ecstasy, and comes to deal in systematic, 
 comprehensive manner with every-day life, it descends from 
 poetry to prose. But just because of this, prose can begin only 
 when a people at large reaches a certain high stage of culture 
 
 * Cf. II Sam. VIII, 17; XX, 25. 
 
 * I Ki. XI, 41; XIV, 19, 29, and passim in I and II Ki. 
 
 * Cf. Wellhausen, Reste des altarabischen Heidentums, 84flF.; Moore, 
 Judges; International Critical Commentary, 136. 
 
 * Typical among these, and of paramount historical significance is the 
 song of Deborah (Jud. V), undoubtedly the product of the 12th century 
 B. C, cf. Moore op. cit. 127-173. 
 
-40— 
 
 and finds opportunity and leisure for literary activity. This 
 condition, too, began to obtain in Israel only after the establish- 
 ment of the monarchy. It were an easy task, did time permit, 
 to trace the course of Israel's literary history. However, we can 
 state here only in a summary manner that absolutely every bit 
 of prose in the Bible was written only after the rise of the king- 
 dom under David, and was consequently composed entirely 
 from the national standpoint. The entire Bible, therefore, 
 with the exception of a few ancient poetic fragments, represents 
 Israel as a united people of such long standing that the national 
 consciousness dominates everything. The tribal standpoint 
 is almost entirely forgotten, and traditions, originally tribal in 
 character, have been modified and recast altogether from the 
 national point of view. Originally tribal heroes, like Gideon 
 and Jephthah, have been made over into national heroes. So 
 completely did the people come to feel itself a nation, that the 
 true account of its national origin under David was altogether 
 forgotten in favor of a gradually rising and commonly accepted 
 tradition, that ascribed the origin of the united people to remote 
 antiquity and to one common ancestor. 
 
 This partially a priori account of the beginning and first 
 development of literary activity in Israel is fully corroborated 
 by modern Biblical Science. We know now that the entire 
 Hexateuch, i. e., the Pentateuch plus Joshua, is, with the excep- 
 tion of a few fragments of ancient poems, the product of the 
 period between 932 B. C, the date of the division of the king- 
 dom, and the 4th or 3rd century B. C. It is absolutely certain 
 that not one word of the Hexateuch goes back to the traditional 
 period of desert wanderings. We know that this Hexateuch is 
 the work of various writers and epochs, and that the difTerent 
 portions or documents were written under varying conditions 
 and with varying purposes, and have in consequence unequal 
 historical value. 
 
 Hence, for the early period of Israel's sojourn in Canaan, 
 comparatively little trustworthy material exists in the Hexa- 
 teuch. Merely a few traditions from the oldest sources, found 
 chiefly in Exodus, Numbers and Joshua, have value. Our chief 
 material is found in Judges and Samuel, large portions of which 
 
—41- 
 
 belong to the very oldest Biblical sources. The information 
 thus gathered is strongly corroborated and supplemented by the 
 evidence of modern excavations, by the Tell-el-Amarna letters 
 and kindred documents, and occasional, scattered references 
 upon Egyptian and Babylonian monuments, and by the study 
 of Beduin customs and beliefs of today. From this scanty 
 material we must reconstruct our early history of Israel. Small 
 wonder that it must be fragmentary, with many and serious 
 lacunae, and that many questions must be left unsolved, at least 
 for the present. Still we can reconstruct the history sufficiently 
 to follow, in considerable detail, Israel's developing religious, 
 social and economic life, and determine the origin, growth and 
 real significance of its various distinctive institutions. And 
 this, we believe, is history. 
 
 IV 
 
 Israel in the Desert 
 
 Israel's real history begins only with the entrance of the 
 tribes into Canaan. The Hexateuch, written entirely from the 
 national standpoint, records the commonly accepted tradition 
 of twelve tribes, having first conquered the country east of the 
 Jordan, crossing the river under the leadership of Joshua and, 
 in two short campaigns, subduing the entire country and ex- 
 terminating all the original inhabitants except the Gibeonites. 
 Then the land is divided by lot among the nine and one-half 
 tribes, two and one-half having already received their portions 
 east of the Jordan. On its face this story seems improbable. 
 How can a land, of irregular dimensions and varying fertility, 
 be properly divided by lot among nine and one-half tribes, of 
 unequal size and undoubtedly of varying habits, in such manner 
 that each tribe shall not only feel a sense of perfect fairness in 
 the allotment, but shall also receive a portion commensurate 
 with its size and needs? 
 
 This doubt is corroborated by the evidence of the extra- 
 Hexateuchal books. These state clearly that the Canaanites 
 were not speedily nor completely conquered nor exterminated. 
 Jerusalem withstood the attacks of Benjamin, and succumbed 
 
-42- 
 
 at last only to the prowess of David and Judah, at least a century 
 and a half after the entrance of the tribes into Canaan\ Gezer 
 remained unconquered until the reign of Solomon'^. And for 
 at least a half century after the entrance of the tribes, the 
 Canaanites continued to hold the greater and more fertile and 
 desirable portion of the country, and were only gradually con- 
 quered and assimilated. 
 
 Furthermore abundant Biblical evidence establishes con- 
 clusively that originally there were many more tribes than the 
 traditional twelve. We hear in this early period of Machir, 
 Ya'ir, Gilead, Qain, Qenaz, Caleb and Yerachme'el. Egyptian 
 monuments likewise seem to prove the presence in Canaan, a 
 century or so before the advent of the main body of the tribes, 
 of small nomad, or semi-nomad, tribes, called Israel^ Jacob-el, 
 Joseph-el and Asher\ names of such prime importance in later 
 national tradition, that we can not, in the light of early tribal 
 history, but correlate these tribes with the large body of Israel. 
 The actual condition of only twelve tribes did not obtain until 
 David amalgamated a number of small, semi-nomad tribes 
 in the south, among them Caleb, Qain, Qenaz and Yerachme'el, 
 with Judah and made this the nucleus of the united kingdom. 
 
 Furthermore these same books prove conclusively that the 
 tribes did not enter the land together under the leadership of 
 one man, Joshua. Instead they entered separately, at different 
 times and different places. Each tribe was absolutely indepen- 
 dent of all other tribes, a separate ethnic unit, with little or no 
 sense of relationship with the other tribes. Each proceeded 
 independently, or, at most, in temporary league with one or 
 two other tribes, to conquer a portion of the country for itself, 
 and for many years could maintain itself there only with dififi- 
 culty and varying success. And the relations between the tribes 
 themselves during their first sojourn in the land were, quite 
 
 ' Jud. I, 8, 21; II Sam. V, 6-9; cf. Moore op. cit. 3-10. 
 ' I Ki. IX, 16. 
 
 ' Cf. the so-called "Israel-stele" of Mernephtah, in Breasted, Ancient 
 Records of Egypt, III, 602f. 
 
 * Cf. W. Max Mueller, 4 57'c« u. Europa nach altigyptischen Denkmilern, 
 162ff.; 236iT. 
 
—43- 
 
 as often as not, those of rivalry, and even open hostility, now 
 and then momentarily checked in the presence of danger from 
 the common enemy, Canaanites and Philistines, only, however, 
 to flare forth again when the danger had passed. 
 
 But if, at the moment of entrance into Canaan, the tribes 
 were thus totally unrelated, with no sense at all of common 
 origin or community of interest; if each tribe was absolutely 
 a separate and independent ethnic unit, it follows necessarily 
 that there could, strictly speaking, have been no common, 
 intertribal religion nor deity, that there must have been instead 
 separate tribal religions and separate tribal deities, at least as 
 many such separate deities as there were tribes. This a priori, 
 yet altogether logical and necessary, conclusion is confirmed 
 by abundant evidence. We know not only of separate tribal 
 gods in this early period, but also that, with but one important 
 exception, they were all represented by cult-objects. The ark 
 at Shiloh, which was captured by the PhilistinesS was originally 
 the cult-object of Ephraim; the ephod which Ebiathar brought 
 down to David^ and through which thereafter David consulted 
 the oracle, was a cult-object of Benjamin; the idol of Micah, 
 the Ephraimite, which the tribe of Dan stole, when compelled 
 by the Philistines to abandon their old home on the Mediter- 
 ranean coast and seek a new abode in the far north, became the 
 tribal god and cult-object of Dan^; apparently the golden ephod 
 which Gideon set up at Ophra*, became the tribal cult-object 
 of the new and larger Manasseh, which Gideon created by 
 amalgamating with the original Manasseh the greatly decimated 
 tribes of Machir and Ya'ir. In all likelihood the brazen serpent 
 in the Temple, which Hezekiah at last felt compelled to destroy', 
 was originally a tribal cult-object, though of what tribe it is 
 impossible to say. 
 
 But while absolutely certain that, on entering Canaan, the 
 tribes constituted separate ethnic units, and therefore had sepa- 
 rate tribal gods and tribal religions, none the less, at least in the 
 fundamentals of religion, they did have something positive and 
 
 * I Sam. IV-VI. * Jud. VIII, 24-27. 
 
 ' I Sam. XXI, 10; XXIII, 6. • II Ki. XVIII, 4. 
 
 ' Jud. XVII-XVIII. 
 
-44- 
 
 vital in common. For real religion is entirely the product ol a 
 people's daily life. Neither individual nor people can think 
 beyond, at least not far beyond, daily needs and experiences. 
 Especially is this true of primitive peoples, such as the tribes 
 at that time were. Such a people, at best, conceives of its gods 
 as those supernatural powers which are able to satisfy all its 
 needs; and all worship will be directed to the one great aim of 
 inducing or compelling these deities to so function that these 
 needs will be surely satisfied. Therefore, if possible in a general 
 way to determine the fundamental needs of any primitive people, 
 it is equally possible in a general way to infer how it will conceive 
 of its gods and how it will worship them. A people that has pro- 
 gressed no further than the hunting stage of civilization will 
 have what might truly be called a hunting religion. It will 
 conceive of its gods as those powers that increase the supply 
 of game and give success in the chase. A nomad or pastoral 
 people will have similarly a pastoral religion, an agricultural 
 people an agricultural religion, and a commercial people a com- 
 mercial religion. But as a commercial people comes into inti- 
 mate contact with foreign peoples and becomes subject to foreign 
 influences, its life necessarily becomes increasingly complex. 
 And because we can no longer measure all the forces that in- 
 fluence this daily life, we can no longer determine deductively 
 what a commercial people's religion must be. But until this 
 stage the task is simple and comparatively easy. 
 
 It is also self-evident that as a people gradually passes 
 from one stage of civilization to the next, the religious develop- 
 ment must follow apace. A hunting people can not have an 
 agricultural religion. But equally an agricultural people must 
 have completely, or almost completely, outgrown its earlier 
 hunting religion. If the transition from one stage of civilization 
 to the next be normal and gradual, the religious evolution, too, 
 will be slow and natural. But if the transition be rapid, and, 
 in a certain sense, abnormal, it follows that the people must 
 develop its new religion in a rapid, unnatural manner, borrowing 
 largely from those foreign sources, contact with which has 
 brought about the transition. 
 
 When the tribes forced their Avay into Canaan, they came 
 from out the great Arabian desert to the east and south. There 
 
-45- 
 
 they had lived, for decades and centuries, as typical nomads, 
 practically the same life that the Beduin in the vast, unchange- 
 able desert still live today. The sojourn in Egypt and the 
 exodus under Moses were undoubtedly historical facts, but 
 only in the life of some one single tribe, probably Judah\ and 
 certainly not in the life of all the tribes, and still less of the 
 united people or nation. But whatever their actual historic 
 reality, they left practically no impress upon the early life or 
 fortunes of any of the tribes. Throughout their pre-Canaan, 
 desert existence, the tribesmen had been typical Beduin, wander- 
 ing about with flocks and herds in constant search of pasturage 
 and water. Such a life is necessarily of the simplest. The 
 civilization of any people may well be measured by its house- 
 hold, and particularly by its kitchen, equipment. And where 
 the contents of the tent must be so limited, that at almost a 
 moment's notice they can be readily packed, while the clan moves 
 onward in search of new pasturage, it follows that the life itself, 
 with all its needs, must be simple indeed. The needs of the 
 Beduin might, then and now, be reduced to three; first, pas- 
 turage and water for sheep and cattle; second, offspring of sheep 
 and cattle; and, finally, human offspring, that the race, or, 
 more specifically, the family, clan and tribe, might not perish. 
 In common with most primitive peoples, the Beduin feels that 
 he himself can not satisfy these needs. But with these satisfied, 
 he can easily shift for himself. Consequently he conceives of 
 god or gods as those superhuman powers that produce human 
 and animal offspring, and cause the scanty desert herbage to 
 sprout, and the precious water to well forth. Just such a Beduin 
 picture of the deity and of life and its origin, we have in the 
 oldest version of the Paradise story*. And all Beduin worship 
 will be directed, not towards giving thanks for blessings received, 
 for thanksgiving is an advanced and quite spiritual conception, 
 totally unknown to primitive man, but towards inducing or 
 compelling these deities to continue these indispensable bless- 
 ings. 
 
 ' Cf. above p. 229. 
 
 * Gen. II, 7-9; 16-25; III, l-7a; 8-18; 19a^; 21-22a; 23; 24b^; cf. Gunkel, 
 Genesis' to II 9, 16 and III 16-19. 
 
—46— 
 
 From all this it is clear that, although there were practically 
 as many separate religions as there were tribes, and certainly 
 at least as many gods, these separate tribal religions must have 
 been very similar to one another, both in theology, if this term 
 may be used for something so primitive, and in ritual. And 
 although each tribe necessarily had its own tribal god and cult- 
 object, none the less all these gods must have been conceived 
 of as possessing much the same powers, discharging much the 
 same functions, subject to much the same influences, and there- 
 fore to be worshipped in much the same manner. While, ac- 
 cordingly, we may not for one moment disregard this essential 
 fact of the separate tribal gods and religions, we may never- 
 theless speak correctly of tribal religion in general, i. e., the 
 fundamental principles and rites of pastoral religion which all 
 the tribes had in common. This necessarily contrasted strongly 
 with the typically agricultural religion of the Canaanites, with 
 which these tribes now came into intimate contact, and served 
 as a certain mark of distinction from the Canaanites, and as 
 a certain bond of union between the tribes. Out in the desert, 
 where no other religious conceptions could obtain, this fact of 
 common religious fundamentals could have no significance nor 
 unifying force. But in the new land, with its strange, agricul- 
 tural life and religion, the facts of common desert origin, common 
 religious fundamentals, and common Canaanite enemy, must 
 have served as powerful forces, making for ever closer tribal 
 federation. 
 
 And as the tribes grew together into larger and ever fewer 
 ethnic groups, the various tribal gods had of necessity to fuse 
 correspondingly, largely just because they were the outgrowths of 
 the same fundamental conceptions. And when, out of the 
 many, separate, independent tribes, one nation did at last 
 evolve, it follows that the separate tribal gods must finally have 
 fused completely, until the conception of a national god, logic- 
 ally and necessarily, sprang into being. 
 
 But it must not be inferred that these gods were mere ab- 
 stract, philosophic conceptions, the resultants and expressions 
 of the tribesmen's daily needs, and that this gradual fusion 
 proceeded in an abstract and philosophic manner. Each tribal 
 
—47- 
 
 god was a highly concrete and individualized deity. The power 
 of each extended only over his own particular territory and tribe, 
 with all the members of which he was intimately related, either 
 as the divine father, or through a covenant, established and 
 frequently renewed by means of a peculiar covenant-sacrifice\ 
 Of this sacrifice the tribesmen themselves ate the greater part. 
 But a portion was also given to the deity, and was thought to 
 be actually consumed by him. It is this covenant-sacrifice that 
 later developed into the so-called "peace-oflfering." And since 
 each tribal god was thus individualized, it follows in particular 
 that each had his own individual name, that distinguished him 
 from all other deities. Among the early Semites, as among 
 almost all primitive peoples, the name is an indispensable part 
 of the deity's being. Until his real name is known, so that 
 prayers and sacrifices may be directed to him in person, it is 
 absolutely impossible to worship him*. Hence the four differ- 
 ent Biblical traditions of the revelation of the divine name' 
 imply four different accounts of the moment and manner in 
 which the worship of Jahwe actually began in Israel. 
 
 Unfortunately, however, few of the names of these original 
 tribal deities have been preserved, so completely have the 
 ancient tribal traditions been reworked to accord with the 
 later national standpoint. We hear, almost accidentally, that 
 in his covenant with Laban Jacob swears in the name of Pachad 
 Yitzchaq*, undoubtedly a deity, and presumably an ancient 
 tribal deity. Possibly too, though by no means certainly, 
 Shaddai, so frequently used as an appellative of the deity in 
 the early part of the Priestly Code\ was originally the name 
 of a tribal god. However the only name of which we can be 
 absolutely sure is Jahwe, undoubtedly originally the god of the 
 Qenites. His worship passed over to the larger tribe of Judah, 
 
 * Cf. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites^, 269ff. 
 
 * Cf. my Doctriyte of Sin in the Babylonian Religion {Mitteilungen des 
 vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, 1905, 3) 35flF. 
 
 » Gen. IV, 26; Ex. Ill, 1-15; VI, 3; XXXIV, 6. 
 
 * Gen. XXXI, 53. 
 
 * Gen. XVII, 1; XXVIII, 3; XXXV, 11; Ex. VI, 3; cf. Carpenter and 
 Harford, The Composition of the Hexateuch, 54f. 
 
—48— 
 
 when, under David, the Qenites were amalgamated with that 
 tribe, or perhaps some time before this. And when at last the 
 nation came into being under David, it was but natural that 
 his own tribe, Judah, then the largest and most powerful of 
 all the tribes, should exert the dominant influence in the develop- 
 ment of the national principles and institutions. And while 
 the consequent national religion was the result of the fusion 
 of the various tribal religions, and the national god a composite 
 picture, as it were, of the various tribal gods, still to this com- 
 posite, national deity the god of Judah naturally contributed, 
 not only the most numerous and distinctive features, but also 
 the name Jahwe. The various names of the other tribal gods 
 were speedily and purposely forgotten. 
 
 Just because this new national god was a composite picture 
 of the separate tribal gods, and likewise was perhaps the most 
 concrete possible expression of the supreme fact that out 
 of the many separate tribes one nation had at last evolved, 
 David, probably as the very master stroke of his diplomacy, 
 planned a brand-new sanctuary to this brand-new deity in his 
 brand-new capital. And as a further piece of diplomacy, he 
 brought up the old ark of Ephraim from Kiriath-ye'arim, 
 where it had lain, almost forgotten, for three-quarters of a 
 century, and deposited it in his temporary sanctuary at Jersua- 
 lem\ It showed concretely that the old tribal god of Ephraim 
 was now one with the new national god of united Israel. And 
 for the same reason he must have deposited in the sanctuary 
 the ephod of Benjamin, and presumably, too, many of the cult- 
 objects of the other tribes, among them, no doubt, the brazen 
 serpent. But it was inevitable that these cult-objects undergo 
 a complete transformation under the influence of the new 
 national god and national religion. The brazen serpent, appar- 
 ently alone, for some reason or other, continued to receive a 
 certain measure of worship, necessitating its eventual destruc- 
 tion by Hezekiah. Most of the cult-objects seem to have 
 speedily disappeared. The ephod of Benjamin was gradually 
 transformed by tradition, until it became, in the Priestly Code, 
 the 'Urim and Tummim in the high-priest's breastplate, bound 
 
 * II Sam. VI. 
 
—49— 
 
 by the ephod to the sacred garments\ And the ark of Ephraim, 
 apparently the most important tribal cult-object, containing 
 probably a sacred stone, or hetyl, in which, according to a com- 
 mon primitive Semitic belief, the deity was thought to dwell**, 
 became in the new national tradition, the receptacle of the two 
 tablets of the Decalog. But in accordance with the dominant 
 Qenite, or Judahite, conception of the deity, Jahwe himself, 
 the national god of Israel, was thereafter never to be repre- 
 sented more by idol or cult-object, was to develop from this 
 point into the incorporeal, spiritual, universal god of the prophets. 
 
 But all this anticipates. Of the many tribal gods Jahwe 
 alone do we know positively by name. But the name itself is 
 most significant. Various etymologies have been suggested\ 
 The one most generally accepted is that the name is a hiphil 
 form of hawa, "to be," and means "he causes to be," or "to 
 exist," in other words, designates Jahwe as the creator of life. 
 And, as said before, just this was the natural Beduin conception 
 of the deity. He was the creator, not of the earth, nor the 
 whole universe, for these are far beyond the limited ken of the 
 desert tribesman, but of life itself, the life of his own children 
 and fellow- tribesmen, of his sheep and cattle, and of the plants 
 and herbage from which these feed. He was thought to dwell 
 upon a sacred mountain far out in the desert, and long after 
 the tribes had fused together into the nation, he was still thought 
 by some to yet dwell there. It was to this mountain that 
 Elijah pilgrimed, when, in despair at the seeming hopelessness 
 of his task, he felt the need of communing directly with Jahwe; 
 and there, in the sacred cave on top of the mountain, he had his 
 vision and heard Jahwe speaking in the still small voice . 
 
 But Jahwe was not the only original tribal god thus thought 
 to dwell upon a sacred mountain in the desert. The Bible 
 speaks of several sacred mountains and other spots out in the 
 desert, which must have been originally seats of tribal gods 
 and local tribal sanctuaries. In the later national traditions 
 
 ^ Ex. XXVIII, 6-30. 
 
 ' Cf. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites*, 200ff . 
 ' Cf. Davidson, in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, II, 199. 
 * I Ki. XIX, 1-14. 
 
-50— 
 
 these various sacred mountains, too, were all fused under the 
 names of Sinai or Horeb. But these two, at least, must origin- 
 ally have been absolutely distinct peaks. Num. X, 33, a part of 
 one of the oldest Hexateuchal codes\ tells that the mountain 
 of God was only a three days' journey from the Promised Land. 
 According to Deut. I, 2, it was an eleven days' journey from 
 Horeb to the Jordan opposite Jericho by way of Mt. Se'ir and 
 Qadesh Barne'a. And according to Deut. XXXIII, 2; Jud. 
 V, 4 and Hab. Ill, 3, Sinai was a peak in this very range of Mt. 
 Se'ir. Certainly Qadesh, too, in the wilderness south of Judah, 
 must have been originally, as the name implies, a sacred place. 
 From this it can be seen how futile are the usual attempts to 
 determine the exact location of Sinai, and to identify it with 
 any one, single peak in the so-called Sinaitic peninsula. 
 
 This idea of the particular dwelling-place of a deity ac- 
 cords fully with the fundamental principles of early Semitic 
 religion, and is amply corroborated by Biblical evidence. Gen- 
 esis tells repeatedly that the patriarchs erected altars at places 
 where they believed a deity had revealed himself\ These altars 
 were erected, not to a general national or universal god, but, 
 as is expressly stated repeatedly, to the particular deity who 
 had appeared in that one single spot, and had thus signified 
 that this was his own peculiar abode. Similarly, when David 
 was driven by Saul to seek refuge among the Philistines, his 
 chief complaint was that, away from his own land, he could no 
 longer worship his own, native god, but must worship the gods 
 of the new land^ And when Na'aman, the Syrian, had been 
 cured by Elisha, and would in gratitude worship the god of 
 Israel, he could do so only by taking with him to Damascus 
 two ass-loads of earth from the land of Israel, whereon, in the 
 foreign land, he might erect a little shrine to the strange god\ 
 The god and the land, or more correctly a certain spot of land, 
 were in primitive Semitic religion inseparably associated^ 
 
 ^ Cf. my Biblical Theophanies, in Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie XXVIII 
 (1913), 23f. 
 
 ' Gen. XII, 7f.; XVI, 13; XXII, 4, 18; XXVI, 25. 
 ' I Sam. XXVI, 19. Ml Ki. V, 17. 
 
 ' Cf. Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites^, 92ff, 
 
—51— 
 
 Some of the tribes, it is clear, had the tradition that when 
 they migrated from their desert abode, their god, too, forsook 
 his home and marched with them, represented by, or contained 
 in, the tribal cult-object, as for example, the ark of Ephraim. 
 But the Qenite tradition, preserved in Ex. XXXIII and XXXIV, 
 tells positively that Jahwe refused to forsake his holy moun- 
 tain^ And long after the Qenites had taken up their semi- 
 permanent residence in the wilderness south of Judah, the 
 conception still prevailed in the minds of some, as the Elijah 
 story shows, that Jahwe still dwelt upon his sacred mountain 
 out in the desert. And thither, at their great, annual festival, 
 the Qenites must have pilgrimed, to properly discharge their 
 religious obligations in the very presence of their tribal god. 
 
 This great, annual festival was celebrated in early spring, 
 when the sheep and cattle cast their young. The principle that 
 a man is sole owner of all that he creates seems fundamental in 
 all society. And since Jahwe, together with other tribal gods, 
 was conceived of as the creator of the life of sheep and cattle, 
 he must also have been looked upon as their original owner. 
 All tribal cattle, and for that matter all human beings and all 
 plant growth likewise, were regarded as his creatures, and 
 hence as his peculiar property. That being the case, it followed 
 that the cattle could not be used with impunity by men, were 
 forbidden, taboo, holy, qadosh. And yet the Beduin in the desert 
 must live chiefly from his sheep and cattle, or at least from their 
 products of milk and wool. Therefore some way had to be found 
 to set aside the original divine property right and remove the 
 taboo, without, however, angering the deity. This same con- 
 ception and this same problem exist for most primitive men 
 in the pastoral and agricultural stages of civilization, and the 
 same solution has been given by practically all, viz., the prin- 
 ciple, that might well be called the law of the removal of taboo, 
 that the sacrifice of a part, and especially the first and best 
 part, removes the taboo upon the remainder, redeems it, to use 
 the technical term, for common use. The application of this 
 principle to desert life meant that the deity's original property 
 
 ' Cf. my Biblical Theophanies, in Zeitschrift fur AssyriologieXXV (1911), 
 171ff. 
 
-52- 
 
 right to all cattle could be obviated only by the taboo-sacri- 
 fice of the firstlings of the cattle. These had to be given to the 
 deity completely. In the earliest stages of religious evolution, 
 these animals were merely killed at the sacred stone, the fore- 
 runner of the later altar, and their blood was smeared upon this, 
 while their carcasses were left on the ground to be eaten by birds 
 and beasts of prey^ Later, in more advanced civilization, the 
 animal was burned completely upon the altar. And still later, 
 except in special cases, only a portion of the animal, the 'azqa- 
 rah"^ or "symbol," was burned; the remainder became the food 
 of the priests. But always under no condition might the sacri- 
 ficer himself partake of his own taboo-sacrifice. This very 
 logical prescription distinguished the taboo-sacrifice outwardly 
 from the covenant-sacrifice. In time this taboo-sacrifice de- 
 veloped into the 'olah, the minchah, the chattath and the 'asham 
 of the Priestly Code. 
 
 These firstlings seem to have been sacrificed regularly 
 eight days after birth\ And since all sheep and cattle cast 
 their young at almost the same time, these firstlings naturally 
 could, and would, all be sacrificed together, and this occasion 
 would constitute the most important, if not the sole festival of 
 these pastoral tribes. In addition to these firstling sacrifices, 
 the tribesmen participated in the sacred dance, the climax of 
 the celebration, that gave to these festivals their common desig- 
 nation, chag, from chagag, "to dance," and to this particular 
 festival its special name, pesach, from pasach also "to dance," 
 apparently with a peculiar step or limping motion^ This fes- 
 tival was the forerunner of the later Passover, and these first- 
 ling sacrifices, of the later Paschal lamb. 
 
 But Jahwe and the other tribal gods were the creators, 
 not only of animals, but of human life as well. Logically, 
 therefore, we would expect that all human firstborn would be 
 likewise offered as taboo-sacrifices. And there is ample evi- 
 dence that the sacrifice of first-born children did play a prominent 
 
 ^ Cf. Wellhausen, Reste des altarabischen Heidentums^ , 116ff. 
 ' Lev. II, 2, 9, 16; V, 12; VI, 8; XXIV, 7; Num. V, 26. 
 ' Ex. XXII, 29. 
 ^ Cf. I Ki. XVIII, 26, and the adjective ptsseach, "lame." 
 
—53- 
 
 role in all early Semitic religion^ Our ancestors, too, originally 
 sacrificed their firstborn children on the eighth day after birth, 
 sure that only thereby could the favor of the deity be gained, 
 and further offspring be ensured. 
 
 But as parental love gradually became stronger than fear 
 of the deity, ways and means naturally were found to evade the 
 original awful sacrifice. First-born males were instead often 
 consecrated to lifelong service of the deity, became the first 
 regular priests. Or perhaps a substitute sacrifice was offered, 
 either some fitting animal, generally a lambS or perhaps, as 
 among the Carthaginians^ a slave. Perhaps, too, after large 
 shrines, with fixed bodies of priests and urgent needs for material 
 upkeep, had arisen, a payment of money was accepted in lieu 
 of the actual sacrifice of the child or of a substitute animal*. 
 
 Or, finally, since actually all children were taboo, by a dif- 
 ferent, but equally natural, application of the same principle, 
 that the sacrifice of a part of the tabooed object redeems the 
 remainder, the custom arose of redeeming all males, at least, 
 by sacrificing a part of the child to the deity, a part, naturally, 
 that could be spared without maiming the child too greatly. 
 This same custom exists among many primitive peoples, express- 
 ing itself in the ceremonies of knocking out teeth, cutting off 
 the hair, or perhaps removing a joint of one of the fingers or 
 toes. But the part most commonly sacrificed, probably partly 
 because from the very organ whose function the ceremony was 
 intended to further, was the foreskin. This, of course, is the 
 origin of the very wide-spread custom of circumcision, at least 
 as practiced by the Semites. 
 
 In time, when the real origin and significance of these 
 various means of evading the actual first-born sacrifice were 
 forgotten, it was not surprising that they should be duplicated, 
 even consciously, that, for example, a people that practiced 
 circumcision should also regularly redeem its first-born by the 
 
 * Cf. Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites^ 464, who, however, 
 somewhat misstates the matter. 
 
 " Cf. my Doctrine of Sin in the Babylonian Religion {Mitteilungen der 
 vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, 1905, 3), pp. 69ff. 
 
 » Diodorus Siculus, XX, 14. ■* Num. XVIII, 15f. 
 
-54— 
 
 additional means of a substitute animal or the payment of 
 redemption money. 
 
 Biblical evidence proves conclusively that, at different 
 periods in their religious evolution, our ancestors practiced all 
 these rites of sacrifice and redemption of first-born with the 
 possible exception of the substitution of a slave. In all likeli- 
 hood, when they entered Canaan they had partially, though 
 by no means completely, outgrown the original sacrifice itself. 
 Circumcision, too, was universally practiced by them, while, 
 to a certain extent at least, the first-born was generally regarded 
 as the natural family and clan, if not tribal, priest. And if not 
 already before entrance into Canaan, then certainly very soon 
 thereafter, the custom arose of substituting a lamb for the child. 
 The oldest Biblical legislation^ not only permitted, but actually 
 commanded, this substitution, and thereby prohibited all human 
 sacrifice. Such was the general conception, not only of Jahwe, 
 but in a general way, of all original tribal gods, and such were 
 the most important details of their original worship. It may, 
 of course, be objected, that this description fits the god-con- 
 ception and worship, not only of the Israelite tribes, but of all 
 Semites in the pastoral stage of civilization. This is perfectly 
 true. We know now that, in origin, the religion of Israel differed 
 not one whit from common primitive Semitic religion; that it 
 began as a purely pastoral Semitic cult and continued as such 
 for a long time, during the entire period of desert life, and even 
 during the first years of the sojourn in Palestine. And only 
 through a long and gradual evolution, beginning with the estab- 
 lishment of the kingdom, with its consequent transformation of 
 the life of the people, and the rise of prophecy, did it differentiate 
 itself from other Semitic religions and become unique, the na- 
 tional religion of Israel, and eventually the world's great uni- 
 versal religion, our Judaism. 
 
 We must also consider briefly the social side of the pre- 
 Canaan tribal life if we would rightly understand the subse- 
 quent national, economic, and religious development of Israel. 
 Out in the desert there is absolutely no supreme authority. 
 Within the clan or tribe every man is entirely the equal of every 
 
 * Ex. XXXIV, 19f. 
 
-55— 
 
 one else. To the sheikh the members of the tribe generally 
 resort for counsel, and to him they generally submit their 
 disputes. But there is no power, other than that of common 
 opinion, to compel the acceptance of his advice or decision. 
 In war or upon the march a temporary leader, always a renowned 
 warrior, is elected, who plans and leads in battle, determines 
 the day's march and the halting-place at night. Beyond this, 
 common opinion as to what is fundamentally just is the only 
 powerful, all-compelling factor in regulating tribal social life. 
 It has, however, led to the recognition of certain unwritten 
 laws, chief of which is that of blood-revenge, but at the bottom 
 of all of which, and in fact of all desert social life, lies the prin- 
 ciple of fit, measured, and absolutely just compensation or 
 retaliation, the practical expression of the universal principle 
 of stern, uncompromising justice and personal equality^ 
 
 And of this desert life, with its unrestricted liberty and 
 equality, the true nomad is inordinately proud. The farmer, 
 or fellah, seems worthy only of his contempt. As a rule, only 
 gradually and with misgiving does he adopt the agricultural 
 or semi-agricultural life, even Avith its many material advantages 
 of ease and comfort and a fairly stable and varied food supply. 
 With all its hardships and scanty and monotonous fare, the 
 Beduin prefers his desert, with its assurance of complete per- 
 sonal liberty. Slavery, strictly-speaking, is practically un- 
 known in the desert. Real, individual poverty, too, but rarely 
 exists, for each individual or family has undisputed claim upon 
 the rest of the clan or tribe for help or maintenance in need. 
 Sexual morality, too, is upon a very high plane. Adultery and 
 unchastity are almost unknown, and are punished by the sever- 
 est penalties, generally deaths This is all the more striking, 
 when contrasted with the standards and practices of sexual 
 morality that obtained, for perfectly comprehensible reasons, 
 among the agricultural Semites, as, for example, the Canaanites^ 
 Parental and filial relations, too, are most carefully cherished 
 in the desert. The father or grandfather, unless incapacitated 
 by age, exercises supreme authority within the family or clan. 
 
 ^ Cf. Blunt, Bedidns of the Euphrates, 392ff.; -lOSff. 
 
 " Op. cit. 405ff. ' Cf. below, p. 281. 
 
-56- 
 
 and is accorded unquestioning and punctilious obedience and 
 reverence by all members, even though fully advanced to man's 
 estate. 
 
 This pride in the life and virtues and unrestricted liberty 
 and equality of the desert, this sense of sexual morality, parental 
 and filial respect and affection, and of absolute justice and 
 community of interest, characterize the Beduin for all time. 
 We can trace these influences in Israelite life; surviving the far- 
 reaching transformation from the pastoral, nomad existence of 
 the desert to the agricultural life in Canaan; constituting, when 
 coupled with the conception of the national god of Israel, who 
 demands and delights in moral and ethical conduct, some of 
 the most fundamental principles of prophetic religion and pro- 
 phetic ethics, particularly in opposition to the altogether differ- 
 ent and vastly lower ethical standards and practices of Canaanite 
 and foreign religions, against which the prophets had con- 
 stantly to combat; in consequence becoming conscious and 
 fundamental principles of Judaism and Jewish ethics, and 
 therefore surviving in us down to the present day, and through- 
 out all these ages exerting a potent influence upon the evolution 
 of our religion, and our religious and social psychology. The 
 incidents of Uriah^ and Naboth'^; the purity of family life, and 
 the intensity of parental and filial love and sense of duty; the 
 inherent antipathy to, and practical restriction of slavery; the 
 stern insistence upon absolute social justice, and the concep- 
 tion of the God of Israel as primarily a god of justice; the rise 
 of prophecy in Israel, and its earnest, spontaneous championship 
 of the poor and oppressed; the constant and uncompromising 
 passion for freedom, liberty and equality, and impatience of all 
 undemocratic government; all these principles that have ever 
 distinguished Israel from all other peoples, and Judaism from 
 all other religions, that have ever been present in our ancestors, 
 and are imperatively present in us today, these principles of 
 eternal truth and right and righteousness, are all, indirectly at 
 least, largely the product of the desert life and origins of our 
 ancestors. And Judaism can be rightly understood only when 
 we have traced the life and history of our ancestors back, and 
 
 ' I Sam. XI-XII. * I Ki. XXI. 
 
-57— 
 
 in as great detail as possible, to their beginnings in the vast, 
 mysterious desert of the East. Origins are by no means all 
 of history; but they are an important part thereof, absolutely 
 essential to full comprehension, and dare not be disregarded 
 by the conscientious seeker after truth and knowledge. 
 
 Israel In Canaan 
 
 In contrast to their original desert home, Canaan must have 
 seemed to the Israelite tribes indeed a "land flowing with milk 
 and honey." Yet, like every other land, the topography and the 
 corresponding productivity of the different parts vary consider- 
 ably. The northern and central portions, Galilee and Samaria, 
 and particularly the valley of Jezreel, the low-lying hills of 
 Ephraim and Manasseh, and the Mediterranean coast-land, are 
 very fertile. The tribes that settled here must almost immedi- 
 ately have given up their pastoral life for the easier existence 
 of the farmer. But this necessitated a complete transformation 
 of beliefs and habits. Residence in fixed and permanent abodes 
 and the assurance of a stable and varied food-supply make 
 powerfully for advance in civilization. And inasmuch as these 
 tribes did not enter peacefully into an uninhabited land, since 
 they had to conquer and dispossess the earlier inhabitants, who 
 had, necessarily, already attained to this higher civilization, 
 it follows that the agricultural tribes did not develop this 
 civilization spontaneously and slowly, but borrowed it in its 
 entirety from the Canaanites. 
 
 On the other hand the southern portion of Palestine, Judah, 
 is comparatively rocky and sterile. The water supply is scanty, 
 the mountains steep and rugged, and the soil, except in a few 
 favored spots, greatly washed away by the heavy rains. To the 
 south the country gradually merges into the desert. And the 
 country east of the Jordan, although far more fertile and capable 
 of cultivation, is still quite rugged, while proximity to the desert 
 on the east lays the land constantly open to forays by marauding 
 Beduin bands. In consequence the southern and eastern por- 
 tions of Palestine have never been extensively cultivated. 
 
-58- 
 
 Accordingly, the tribes that settled here continued to live as 
 shepherds and cattle-raisers, and the old desert life and re- 
 ligious beliefs and practices continued, but little modified from 
 their original form. The old desert Jahwe was still worshipped 
 by the Qenites, and long after the national Jahwe was commonly 
 believed to have taken up permanent residence in the Temple 
 at Jerusalem, Elijah, the shepherd from east of the Jordan, 
 the uncompromising champion of the old, desert, pastoral ideas 
 and ideals of life and worship, still pilgrimed to the desert peak, 
 where, as he persisted in believing, Jahwe still had his own 
 particular abode. 
 
 However, the southern and eastern portions of the land 
 could support only a comparatively limited population. Only 
 a few of the tribes, and these apparently the smallest and 
 weakest, settled here. The central and northern portions were 
 the most attractive, and thither the larger tribes naturally 
 forced their way. Their first great problem was to learn how 
 to till the soil. Their only teachers could be the Canaanites, 
 alongside of whom, in the more mountainous portions of the 
 country, they speedily settled, after the first hostility of invasion 
 had subsided. "What must we do to farm successfully?" they 
 asked, and the Canaanites replied, "You must plow and sow and 
 reap." "And is that all?" "No," was the answer, "if you would 
 live in this land and be successful farmers, you must, of course, 
 worship the gods to whom the land belongs, and who bestow 
 its agricultural blessings." This was an irrefutable argument. 
 Had the tribes objected, "We can never worship those gods; 
 we already have our own ancestral, tribal gods," the Canaanites 
 might have logically replied, "But they are all desert gods, who 
 only create numerous sheep and cattle out in the desert. If 
 we went to live there, w^e would worship them too. But here 
 you must worship the gods of this land, and, of course, with their 
 own peculiar rites with which we have always worshipped them. 
 You may continue to worship your old tribal gods too, if you 
 wish, but our gods, at least, you must worship." And it was 
 absolutely true. Being farmers now, and in the land of these 
 gods, the agricultural tribes had to have an agricultural religion, 
 had to adopt completely the ritual of the gods of the land. They 
 
—59- 
 
 could do nothing else. What were these gods, and how were 
 they worshipped? 
 
 In agricultural life the imperative need is, of course, an 
 abundant crop. A purely agricultural people raises only enough 
 to satisfy its needs for the one year. If, for any reason, the 
 crop fails, famine follows. All the rites of agricultural religion 
 will therefore tend to compel the deities to so function that the 
 annual crop will prove all-sufficient. 
 
 The primary factors in agricultural life may be reduced to 
 three, first the soil, or the earth itself, conceived as the great 
 mother, from whose capacious womb all life springs; second, 
 the heaven above, the source of both rain and sunlight, so in- 
 dispensable for plant life, that the heaven is generally conceived 
 as the great father, and both rain and sun's rays are often 
 represented as the fecundating principle, descending from 
 Father Heaven, fertilizing Mother Earth\ and making her 
 bring forth the annual crop, the third factor in agricultural life, 
 naturally conceived as the child of the great parent pair, and 
 forming with them a true, indissoluble trinity. This conception 
 of Mother Earth, and with it, implied at least, of Father Heaven, 
 and of the crop, their Divine Child, is found among many, if 
 not most, primitive, agricultural peoples. It seems to have been 
 common to all Semitic agricultural peoples, although, of course, 
 with many local variations^ 
 
 Among the Canaanites Mother Earth was deified under the 
 name of Astart or Astarte, identical with the Babylonian Ishtar. 
 Father Heaven received the name, or, perhaps better, the title, 
 Baal, "Lord" or "Husband," and the crop, the Divine Child, 
 in a way a deity of rather passive function and subordinate 
 rank, was called by the general name or title, 'Adon, "Lord," 
 the Greek Adonis, the parallel of the Babylonian Tammuz. 
 And since the crop goes through an ever-recurring, annual 
 cycle of sprouting, growth, ripening, harvesting and sowing. 
 
 ^ Cf. Dieterich, Mutter Erde, 15 note 2; 42ff.; 92-100; Frazer, TheGolden 
 Baugh^, II, The Magic Art and the Evolution of Kings, II, 98ff., and the saying 
 ascribed to R. Jehudah, mitra' ba'ala' de 'ara hu', "the rain is the husband of 
 the earth" {Bab. Taanith 6b). 
 
 " Cf. Noldeke, Mutter Erde und Verwandtes bei den Semiten, in Archiv 
 fur Religionswissenschaft, VIII (1905), 161-167. 
 
—60— 
 
 the well-known myth early arose of the beautiful youth, Adonis, 
 born in the spring, growing to ripe and flowering manhood, 
 then suddenly cut down and buried in the earth, only, however, 
 to rise again to new life the following spring, and thus, from year 
 to year, going through this same cycle of birth, death and 
 resurrection\ And since each year it was in a way the old, and 
 yet, in fact, a new, Adonis that was born, the belief arose, that 
 Adonis was always the first-born and only-begotten child of 
 Mother Earth, Astarte or Ishtar, who in turn was, therefore, 
 always a virgin until the birth of Adonis, and who, therefore, 
 constantly after each birth must have either renewed her vir- 
 ginity or remained a virgin in spite of this birth, and thus was 
 the eternally virgin-goddess, even while at the same time the 
 great Mother and goddess of sexual love. And since, too, the 
 new crop, the new Adonis, sprang from the seed of the old crop, 
 the old Adonis, sown in the womb of Mother Earth, Adonis 
 came in time, in certain local forms of the great myth, to be 
 regarded, no longer as the child, but as the lover and consort 
 of Astarte or Ishtar, and was therefore occasionally confused 
 with Ba'al, the Father God himself. 
 
 It must, however, not be imagined that there was one great 
 trinity for the entire land, for there was no one single Canaanite 
 nation. The land was divided into many, small, independent 
 city-states, each with its local Ba'al, Astarte and Adonis, just 
 as each desert tribe had its own tribal god; and within each 
 city-state there was at least one local shrine consecrated to the 
 worship of its particular trinity. But just as with the pastoral 
 tribes, so, too, the same conception lay at the bottom of the 
 various local trinities, and all were worshipped in much the same 
 manner. Hence, in a general sense, we may speak of Ba'al and 
 Astarte and Adonis as the sum total of the common, character- 
 istic features of the many local B"alim, Ashtaroth and 'Adonim. 
 
 In a fertile land with fairly certain annual crops and 
 numerous, conveniently situated shrines, the ritual must neces- 
 sarily be far more elaborate than that of the simple, pastoral 
 
 ^ Cf. Frazer, The Golden Bough^, V, Adonis, Attis and Osiris^; Baudissin, 
 Adonis und Esmun; Vellay, Le ctilte et les ftes d'Adonis-Thammouz dans 
 VOrient antique. 
 
-61— 
 
 religion. The chief festivals would naturally fall at the critical 
 periods of the agricultural year, in spring and fall. The first 
 of these was the great, seven-day mazzoth-iestival, at which the 
 last grain of the old crop was eaten sacramentally, in the form 
 of mazzoth, or unleavened bread, in order that none of the old 
 crop, the old Adonis, might remain, when the new crop, the new 
 Adonis, should be cut. Whatever of the old crop could not be 
 eaten thus, had to be burned^ Then on the day following the 
 close of this festival, when the old crop had been completely 
 consumed, the people would repair to the fields and solemnly 
 cut the first sheaf of barley, the first grain to ripen, and with 
 this march in solemn procession to their local shrine and offer 
 it up as the taboo-sacrifice of the barley, which thereafter they 
 were free to eat. 
 
 But the same taboo extended over the successively ripening 
 grains, the rye, oats and wheat. Before each could be used for 
 profane purposes, the taboo had to be removed by the sacrifice 
 of the first-fruits. Yet the harvest-time is too short, and every 
 day too important, to permit of appropriate rites at the sacrifice 
 of the first-fruits of each new kind of grain, particularly if 
 every seventh day was a rest-day, a Sabbath, upon which all 
 work was taboo^ Accordingly each first sheaf was put aside, 
 to be sacrificed later at the close of the entire grain-harvest. 
 By thus symbolizing the actual taboo-sacrifice, the people felt 
 free to eat at once of each new grain. And finally, at the end of 
 approximately seven weeks, the usual duration of the grain- 
 harvest, these various first sheaves were brought to the local 
 sanctuaries with solemn procession, and the joyful festival of 
 the first-fruits was celebrated. 
 
 And then, at the close of the entire agricultural year, 
 when the grain had been threshed and stored away, the fruit and 
 olives gathered, and the wine and oil pressed out, just before 
 the beginning of the rainy season, the festival of ingathering, 
 most important of all, the chag par excellence, was celebrated 
 for seven days. And on the following day, the eighth, the new 
 
 ^ Cf. Frazer, The Golden Bough\ VII, The Spirits of the Corn and the Wild, 
 II, 72ff. 
 
 ^ Ex. XXXIV, 21. 
 
-62- 
 
 year was ushered in with appropriate rites and ceremonies of 
 purification and rejoicing. 
 
 But these festivals were far less occasions for the sacrifice 
 of first-fruits, than for the celebration of important rites by the 
 whole people. No sooner was the old crop harvested than the 
 people began to look forward with anxious hope to the next 
 crop. Or to express this in religious language, Adonis was dead; 
 would he be restored to life, that the people too might live? 
 Much of the ritual of these great festivals centered about the 
 thought of the death and longed-for resurrection of Adonis. 
 The festivals began with a period of fasting, mourning and be- 
 wailing the dead god, which gradually changed to a condition of 
 joy, ecstasy and frenzy at the thought of his resurrection, 
 culminating in wild dances of the maidens in the vineyards 
 on the last day or night of the festival. There were also various 
 so-called homeopathic, magical ceremonies, ritual acts, observed 
 by practically all primitive peoples, which rest upon the premise 
 that like always causes like, that a desired event in nature can 
 be brought about by simulating it in solemn and detailed ritual*. 
 Thus in time of drought the sprinkling of water from aloft, say 
 by some one perched on a high tree, resembles the falling of 
 the rain from heaven. And the belief was world-wide, that the 
 proper performance of some such ceremony would invariably 
 cause the rain to fall. Ceremonies like this were common among 
 the Canaanites. Best known perhaps was that of the gardens 
 of Adonis^ Quickly ripening plants were sown in richly fertil- 
 ized soil in flower-pots, just before the beginning of these festivals, 
 were well watered and kept in the rays of the sun, so that they 
 sprouted rapidly during the first days of the festival, only, how- 
 ever to wither equally rapidly. The sprouting of the plants 
 resembled, and was thought to actually compel, the sprouting 
 of the grain, the rebirth or resurrection of the dead Adonis. 
 References to this ceremony, as known to, and undoubtedly 
 practiced in ancient Israel, are found in the Bible*. 
 
 ' Cf. Judges XXI, 17-23; Mishnah Taanith IV, 8. 
 Cf. Frazer, The Golden Bough^, I, The Magic Art and the Evolution of 
 Kings, I, 55ff. 
 
 ' Cf. Frazer, The Golden Bough^, V, Adonis, Attis and Osiris\ I, 194ff. 
 Is. XVII, lOf. (cf. Duhm to the passage), and possibly I, 29. 
 
—63- 
 
 But since Adonis was regarded as the only-begotten child 
 of Ba'al and Astarte, the offspring of their marriage union, 
 the most natural homeopathic, magical ceremony would be to 
 simulate this union in actual ritual. Among the Babylonians, 
 at the great annual new year festival, the marriage of the gods 
 was appropriately celebrated^ Among the Canaanites, the 
 emphasis seems to have been laid rather upon the act of sexual 
 union. The dances of the maidens in the vineyards were merely 
 preliminary to their being seized and carried off by the young 
 men of the village. Yet this was, in origin at least, no mere 
 unbridled lust, but a religious rite, that touched upon the funda- 
 mental problem of the maintenance of life. And the ceremony, 
 too, seems to have constituted originally the essential, if not 
 the sole, marriage rite. The stories of the Benjaminites and the 
 maidens of Shiloh^ and of the dances of the maidens of Jeru- 
 salem in the vineyards on the 15th of Ab and Yom Kippur* 
 record late survivals of the original homeopathic, magical 
 ceremony. 
 
 But in time, in practically all Semitic agricultural religions, 
 this ceremony of sacred prostitution came to be performed by spe- 
 cific classes of priests and priestesses, the qedeshim and qedeshoth*. 
 It was a peculiar ceremony indeed, and necessarily led to ever- 
 increasing licentiousness. It was outwardly probably the most 
 characteristic Canaanite rite, and distinguished Canaanite 
 religion most pointedly, externally at least, from the simple, 
 pastoral religion of the desert tribes, with their high standard 
 of sexual morality. We can, therefore, appreciate the scathing 
 denunciations by the prophets of this rite, and with it of all the 
 many Canaanite elements, that now began to enter into the 
 religion of IsraeP. 
 
 For, as we have seen, almost immediately after entrance 
 into Canaan, the agricultural tribes in the center and north of 
 necessity adopted the worship of Ba'al and Astarte and Adonis, 
 
 1 Cf. Frazer, The Golden Bough^, II, The Magic Art and the Evolution of 
 Kings, II, 25 and note, 130. 
 
 ^ Jud, XXI, 17-23. ' Mishnah Ta'anith, IV, 8. 
 
 * Cf. Movers, Die Phonizier, I, 678ff. 
 
 'In particular Hosea, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. 
 
—64— 
 
 and began to frequent the many local shrines and participate 
 in all the festivals and rites on equal terms with the Canaanites. 
 Not that the worship of the tribal gods was immediately dis- 
 carded. As long as tribal distinctions continued to obtain, 
 the survival of the old desert conditions, that long, too, the 
 old tribal gods had to survive. And to a certain extent too, 
 we can notice a gradual fusion of the old, pastoral religion with 
 the new agricultural religion. Typical of this is the Biblical 
 Passover, the outgrowth of the grafting of the old, pastoral 
 pesach upon the agricultural mazzoth-iest\w2LV. The fact that 
 these two festivals came at practically the same moment of the 
 year made this fusion inevitable. 
 
 But in all this process, the new agricultural religion had 
 to dominate. It was the more complex, elaborate and attractive; 
 it was the religion of the shrines and the land; and, above all, it 
 alone was the direct outgrowth of the daily life, and satisfied 
 the fundamental needs, of the now agricultural people. The 
 desert life and the shepherd religion were completely outgrown. 
 The old tribal gods were daily becoming, more and more, half- 
 forgotten names and empty symbols of original tribal distinc- 
 tions; and they and their worship threatened to disappear com- 
 pletely before the steadily increasing worship of Ba'al and 
 Astarte and Adonis. 
 
 Such now became the religion and religious practices of 
 the agricultural tribes in the central and northern portions 
 of the land. In the south and east, however, as we have seen, 
 the old, desert, shepherd life and religion continued with but 
 little modification. And this fact alone constituted an ever- 
 widening breach between the two groups of agricultural and 
 pastoral tribes. But not only in religion did this breach speed- 
 ily spring up. The life of the farmer differs in every way from 
 that of the shepherd. The farmer occupies a fixed abode, 
 has a fixed place of worship, lives in intimate communion with 
 fellow-men. All this makes for comparatively rapid social and 
 cultural progress. The shepherd, on the contrary, stands prac- 
 tically still culturally. Day by day this disparity in civilization 
 and culture increased, and very quickly the agricultural tribes 
 
 Cf. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Ceschichte Israels^, 84f, 
 
-65- 
 
 came to look down upon the pastoral tribes as inferiors, deserving 
 only of pity and contempt. Moreover the pastoral tribes were 
 almost completely cut off from their wealthier and more cultured, 
 agricultural neighbors. The Jordan river and valley are not 
 easily crossed, except in very few places. And along the northern 
 border of Judah, the northernmost limit of the pastoral tribes 
 in the south, an extensive stretch of land, from Jerusalem on 
 the east to Gezer on the west, remained Canaanite territory 
 until the time of David. All highroads from the south to the 
 north passed either through Jerusalem or the Canaanite country 
 to the v/est. Free communication between south and north was 
 therefore impossible. David's first act as king over United 
 Israel was the capture of Jerusalem\ just to ensure a united 
 kingdom in fact as well as in name. 
 
 This breach between the agricultural and pastoral tribes 
 was m.any-sided and unbridgeable. They stood too far apart 
 religiously, economically and socially. The feeling of superior- 
 ity and contempt of the agricultural tribes was matched by a 
 corresponding feeling of resentment and distrust among the 
 pastoral tribes. Complete and permanent fusion of the two 
 groups was impossible. David did, in the face of the great com- 
 mon Philistine danger, effect a certain union; and he and Solomon 
 by virtue of their strong personalities and constant watchfulness 
 and preparedness, could, although with difficulty and despite 
 numerous attempts at revolution, hold the two peoples together. 
 The moment the weakling, Rehobe'am, came to the throne, 
 the nation dissolved into the northern and southern kingdoms, 
 the old natural divisions of agricultural and pastoral tribes. 
 The eastern pastoral tribes, cut off altogether from the south, 
 had perforce to attach themselves, though rather loosely, to 
 the northern kingdom. 
 
 And in religion, too, the breach was incurable. The northern 
 tribes had to have an agricultural religion, regardless of whither 
 this might tend. But to the pastoral tribes this could seem only 
 disloyalty to the old, ancestral gods and traditions. Almost 
 coincident with the settlement of the tribes in the land, the 
 conflict began between the old, pastoral, and the new, agricultural 
 
 ' II Sam. V, 6-9. 
 
—66— 
 
 religions, the old Jahwe, and the new Ba'al worship. The latter 
 flourished in the center and north. The pastoral tribes, par- 
 ticularly in the south, continued ever the stronghold of the old 
 religion and the old shepherd ideas and ideals of life and virtue. 
 It can now be easily understood, why the first great prophets, 
 outwardly the champions of the old order, both religious and 
 social, sprang from out the shepherd tribes, Elijah from east of 
 the Jordan, Amos from Tekoah in Judah, the Rechabites from 
 the same environment. This combat between Jahwe worship 
 and Ba'al worship, that began now and continued in one form 
 or other until the Babylonian exile, furnishes the key to the 
 religious history of Israel. Judaism is not the mere continua- 
 tion of a triumphant desert religion. This could not triumph; 
 it had to succumb, because the desert life had to be outgrown. 
 But it was out of this conflict that Judaism, the universal 
 religion, at last was born. And we can understand the history 
 of Judaism correctly only by knowing and rightly appreciating 
 these two great forces and all the details of the struggle. 
 
 VI 
 
 Conclusion 
 
 Here we must pause. Our subject might have been treated 
 with far greater detail and elaboration of evidence, had time 
 permitted. But enough has been said to clearly present, even 
 though, of necessity, in brief and summary manner, a modern, 
 scientific interpretation of the beginning of Israel's history from 
 a positive and constructive Jewish standpoint. It is, in a sense, 
 a two-fold history. It involves, first, the detailed and sys- 
 tematic investigation of Israel's national, social, and economic 
 evolution, from its origin in a heterogeneous group of previously 
 unrelated, desert tribes, forcing their way, one by one, into a 
 new and attractive land, settling down, for the most part, 
 to agricultural life, only slowly gaining complete control of the 
 country in the face of Canaanite and Philistine opposition; 
 but just because of this long and desperate struggle for ex- 
 istence, developing a sense of community of interest, relation- 
 ship and federation, which culminated in the establishment of 
 
—67— 
 
 the united kingdom. This, however, was an abnormal condi- 
 tion, and could be only temporary. Thereafter we can follow 
 the fortunes of the two separate kingdoms politically and econo- 
 mically, noting the gradual transformation induced by the 
 attainment of the commercial stage of civilization, can see the 
 attendant festering, polluting, foreign influences at work, until 
 at last both northern and southern kingdoms succumb, less to 
 conquest by powerful foreign nations, than to internal, political 
 and economic stagnation and decay. 
 
 And in the second place, ours is a study of Israel's religious 
 evolution. Not that this can be separated from its political, 
 economic and social life, for all go hand in hand, constantly 
 react upon each other, and are incomprehensible, the one with- 
 out the other. Yet we can isolate the religious evolution to a 
 certain extent and follow it out by itself. We can trace this 
 evolution from its origin in primitive, pastoral, tribal religion, 
 with its different tribal gods and simple, pastoral ritual; we can 
 see this pastoral religion coming in contact with the agricultural, 
 Canaanite religion, and their great, centuries-long, life and death 
 struggle immediately beginning. We can follow out the suc- 
 cessive steps by which the original tribal gods fused into one 
 national god, and Jahwe, originally god of only one small tribe 
 and lord of a single, desert, mountain peak, came at last to be 
 regarded as supreme lord of the entire land and nation, with 
 earthly residence in the Temple at Jerusalem, yet gradually con- 
 ceived of as too spiritual and transcendental for earthly abode 
 and earthly limitations and attributes. We can trace, too, 
 step by step, the rise and growth, during this and the succeeding 
 periods of its history, of the many characteristic and unique 
 institutions of Israel, of the national consciousness, national 
 traditions and literature; of the national, civil and religious law; 
 of prophecy, with its rapidly expanding message; we can see 
 the struggle between Ba'al and Jahwe worship becoming con- 
 crete and acute, largely under, and in opposition to, foreign 
 influence, in the days from Elijah to the Babylonian exile; 
 the gradual ascendency of the priesthood over the prophets 
 during and after the exile; the unique, at first only half-compre- 
 hended, conception of Jahwe, as no longer merely a national 
 
—68— 
 
 God, but now the universal God of all mankind, and Israel 
 the messenger of His truth to all the world. We can perceive 
 momentary revivals of a decadent, and somewhat speculative 
 and predictive prophetism in apocalyptic literature, while, on 
 the other hand, priestly power and priestly law and theology 
 continue to develop, until at last, immediately upon the close 
 of the Pentateuchal canon, the evolution of the oral law begins. 
 Here commences the task of the post-Biblical historian. 
 
 All this, however, merely foreshadows the possibilities of 
 presentation, from the standpoint of Biblical Science, of the 
 history of Israel during the entire Biblical period. It is a large 
 subject, and can, in consequence, only be anticipated in this 
 paper. It is impossible to give here more than the merest out- 
 line of the leading forces and tendencies in the evolution of 
 Israel in the earliest, formative period of its history, antedating 
 the establishment of the kingdom. And in this entire period, 
 it must be borne in mind, Israel was no more than a gradually 
 federating group of typically Semitic tribes. Only in the period 
 following the establishment of the kingdom, when, to combat 
 the increasing and corrupting, foreign influences, prophecy arose, 
 with its distinct and peculiar message, did all that was sig- 
 nificant and unique in Israel's history and in Israel's contribu- 
 tion to human knowledge, religion and civilization, begin to 
 manifest itself. This paper could, of course, no more than merely 
 hint at this later evolution, and outline the earliest causes that 
 tended to bring it about. As the title indicates, the paper aims 
 merely to establish, as clearly as limited time and space will 
 permit, the foundations, or better, some of the foundations, 
 ethnic, political, psychological and spiritual, upon which the 
 later historical evolution rested, and the point from which this 
 evolution proceeded. The continuation of the work must follow 
 at some other time and place. But from this presentation of the 
 foundations, the able and sympathetic student may anticipate 
 somewhat the subsequent course of evolution of Israel's real 
 history. 
 
 It is an interesting and altogether constructive study. It 
 may lead far from the beaten course of the traditional interpreta- 
 tion of Jewish history, into untrodden fields, new and strange, 
 
-69— 
 
 and to some, perhaps, ominous of evil. But we need have no 
 fear. Day by day this sober, positive, constructive attitude 
 toward our Jewish history is gaining ground. And the time 
 must come when the history of our religion will be thus under- 
 stood by all our thinking men and women. They will have full 
 and reverent appreciation of our ancient traditions too, for these 
 illustrate and interpret our history, were, in fact, so written by 
 the early prophetic writers of the Torah and the historical 
 books; they breathe the eternal spirit of our Judaism, and are 
 a priceless part of our sacred, spiritual heritage. But men will 
 know full well how to distinguish between, and correctly evaluate, 
 the merely traditional and the historically true, will know how 
 Judaism came to be and the whole course of its subsequent 
 history; and knowing all this, they will know what Judaism is, 
 and will revere and practice it intelligently and with conviction 
 and passion. Truth and knowledge can not be destructive of 
 any religion nor of genuine faith; they must be the touchstones 
 that separate the real and the eternal from the false and evanes- 
 cent; they alone can be the firm foundation, upon which may 
 rest the living, universal religion, which we hope and believe 
 and labor that our Judaism may be. 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GA CLORD 
 
 
 
 .«,NTEO,NU.S.A. 
 
Q< 
 
 aulora : 
 
 PAMPHLET BrNDER 
 
 "ZHZ. Syrocuse, N. Y, 
 Stockton, Calif. 
 
'• ' t 
 
 BS1171.M85 
 
 The foundations of Israel's history ... 
 
 ■ nn'.""/,?".I['^.°'?''"' Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00043 1389 
 
 ■1 '; 
 
 b*| 
 
 ^: 
 
 'i\l. 
 
 
 y-R 
 
 hM *A