"fv- $ A OF T11K ?(D3®IL(D3Q<3&iL SBQMU&iaV, AT PRINCETON, N. .J. DO 3W -A. T X € J .-V < » 1.- SAMUEL AG NEW, OF PHILADELPHIA, PA rilB ( '(ISC, SfoswcJj J2cfr£~J§5f Shelf, >.Vsi<3J | ■■'• HISTORY ISRAELITISH NATION, ABRAHAM TO THE PRESENT TIME, DERIVED FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCES, BY ISAAC M. WISE. (Deutr. xxxii, 7.) th-yi nut? )T2 dSi^t niD1 idt VOL. I. ALBANY: J. MUNSELL, 78 STATE STREET. 1854. Entered, According to Act of Congress, in the year 1853, By Isaac M. "Wise, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for the Northern District of New York. :" -"■'■■ PREFACE. The history of a people who saw the rise and decline of all the empires of antiquity, and still stands unmoved and unchanged among the nations, must be interesting to every friend of historical truth, and welcome to every inquiring mind. It teaches a grand lesson of the course of Providence, and directs the mind to an imperceptible power which governs the destinies of nations. Such a nation is Israel only. It has seen Assyria, Babylo- nia and Persia in the days of their pride and of their downfall. It witnessed the advent, conquests, and death of Alexander. It saw Egypt and Syria play their parts on the stage of his- tory, to be finally obliterated from the nomenclature of nations. It saw Sparta and Athens flourish and wither; saw Tyre and Zidon, Carthage and Alexandria, send their fleets to the most distant habitations of mankind, and it saw them shrink to insignificance. It was a civilized nation when Romulus marked the spot where afterwards proud Rome should sit upon her seven hills, the queen of the world. It witnessed the rise, decline, and overthrow of gigantic Rome. The nations of antiquity rolled away in the current of ages, Israel alone remained an indestructible edifice of gray antiquity, inscribed with the enigmatical characters of the distant history of primitive ages, and preserved by an internal and marvelous power. It saw the IV PREFACE. barbarous nations pour their unnumbered hosts into the Roman empire, and made its home on the Thames, the Seine, theEbro, the Po, and the Danube. It flourished with the Saracens, and suffered in the obscure and fanatical days of the Middle Ages. It saluted joyously the dawning light of science, art, civilization and justice, and cheered vehemently the birth of liberty and independence in America, and the resurrection of the European nations. The history of this nation is an important chapter of universal history, and as such alone it deserves careful examination by the critical inquirer no less than by the general reader. The mode of existence of this nation is yet more wonderful than its duration. Thirty-three centuries ago this people, descending from a pastoral family, and doomed to oppression and slavery in Egypt, first, of all nations on earth, demanded and obtained liberty and independence. Traversing the pathless desert, Moses, the grandest character of antiquity, not only taught the purest doctrines of religion and morals in the midst of an age of idolatry, superstition, and general corruption of morals ; but he also promulgated the unsophisticated principles of democratic liberty and of stern justice in an age of general despotism and arbitrary rule ; thus becoming the progenitor of entirely new theories which revolutionized the ancient world, and lay at the foundation of modern civilization. Moses formed one pole and the American revolution the other, of an axis around which revolved the political history of thirty- three centu- ries. Trained in these principles, the Israelites took possession of their land, where they were obliged to contend with as many enemies as there were nations around them. Still, after four centuries, we see them triumph over all their enemies, and PREFACE. David and Solomon the lords of the land from the Euphrates to the Red Sea and to the Mediterranean. Industry, commerce, art and science, nourished, and the nation was opulent, enlightened and free. Divided into two hostile kingdoms they successfully opposed for one century the united armies of Syria, and again they rose to their former splendor; the Solomonian empire was restored under Jerobeam II and Uziah. The Assyrian giant swallowed all Syria, and even succeeded in razing the walls of Samaria; but after a des- perate struggle of nearly thirty years, he lay slain on the mountains and plains of Judah, and once more this nation enjoyed the privileges of a liberal government, an extended commerce, and became an enlightened community. The unfor- tunate contest between Egypt and Babylonia brought the Israelites between two collossal empires, to neither of which it could offer an effectual resistance ; and after'resorting to the most desperate means to maintain its independence, it fell heroically, crushed under the immense weight of Babylonia, and after a national existence of nearly nine centuries. Babylonia fell, Persia rose, and after fifty years of non-exist- ence, Israel emerged again from|the nations, and returned to the beloved mountains of its dear home. The trumpet of the angel of resurrection resounded in Judah, cities and temple rose from their ruins as the Phoenix from the ashes, under the protection of Persia, on which it nominally depended; new elements for future greatness were prepared, and it waited patiently for an opportunity to gain its independence. But there came Alexander, who brought to an end the degenerated Persian empire, and Palestine became the apple of contention between Egypt and Syria. Being frequently the theatre of war VI PREFACE. between those two powers, and constantly changing masters, the land became impoverished. This state of things produced in the nation two violent parties, the national and the helenistic, disuniting and enfeebling the people ; so that no rational hope could be entertained, that this nation would ever gain its independence. But when the oppression of Antiochus Epiphanes had become insufferable, when that king attempted to Grecianize the Israelites, which would have blotted them out from the list of nations, the lion of Judah started from his slumber and Syria trembled as he awoke. The grey- headed Matathia, the progenitor of the Hasmonean dynasty, unfurled the standard of insurrection. The nation revived, the patriots flocked to the glorious banner of liberty and inde- pendence, the disciplined armies of Syria fell under the blows of the inspired champions, and the Israelitish nation was born again. Matathia died, his brave sons continued the struggle successfully; Israel was independent, and once mt>re it rose to the zenith of national glory. Rome had become the queen of Europe, of northern Africa and western Asia. The nations bowed down respectfully to the Roman eagle. The languages, laws, religions and customs of the nations rapidly disappeared giving way to those of Rome. Israel fought nearly two centu- ries against her gigantic power. It was plundered of its wealth, deprived of its independence, its cities were deso- lated and ruined, the country devastated, its sons and daughters sold into perpetual slavery, its champions were slain, terror and consternation were spread over the land; still it fought. Jerusalem and the temple were destroj-ed, bury- ing under their ruins thousands of the noblest champions ; the land was depopulated and poor; oppression, dismay and famine PREFACE. Vii were arrayed against that people ; still it fought. Only after Roman legions were brought from as far as Britannia, after cruelty, treachery and the most abominable inhumanity were leagued against Israel, and after it was betrayed by its friends and saw its champions slain everywhere, it fell; it was crushed but not annihilated. Since then, Israel is scattered among all nations on the earth. It went through all phases of civiliza- tion, taking an active part in the development of mankind, through all scenes of happiness and adversity, and through all the revolutions of ages. It flourished when befriended by others, but it was not crushed by the numerous and violent persecutions to which it was exposed. Neither misery and death, nor promises and arguments were successfully employed in blending them with the generality in religious views, or in depriving them of that native buoyancy which held them erect in the storms of ages, and went with them from land to land. They have maintained their language, literature, religion, traditions and customs, and in a great measure also their national peculiarities and moral character during eighteen centuries of dispersion and successive miseries, but seldom interrupted by the sunshine of happiness. Is it not a noble and instructive lesson to explore and to comprehend the causes of this unparalleled union, this infinite perseverance, this unshaken confidence and self-denial, indicated in the struggles against overwhelming forces, and this heroic defiance against the omnipotence of fate? This important problem, however frequently proposed, was never solved; nor can it ever be solved without an intimate knowledge of the history of the Israelitish Nation. Here the theologian will remark, that this nation was spared Vlll PREFACE by the special grace of Providence, to promulgate the truth, revealed on Mount Sinai, and the Christian theologian will add, and to testify to the truth of the Gospel. But without enter- ing into those differences it must be remarked, that Providence makes use of certain intellectual means to produce effects; and the means by which those extraordinary effects were pro- duced must be very interesting indeed; worthy of being correctly known and studied. But those means can not be guessed at by the pleasing poet or ingenious preacher, nor can they be produced by the most profound metaphysical specula- tions. They are stored up in the arsenal of history; there is the right place to seek for them ; there they must be found. Besides this political history, the Israelitish nation can show to the world a history of literature which begins with Moses (1485 b. a), and passing through all the centuries and phases of learning and civilization it reaches up to our days, repre- senting all phases of humanity and all directions of the mind during thirty-three centuries. Its inspired bards touched the secret chords of the heart before Orpheus and Homer tuned the Grecian lyre. Its prophetic orators charmed the minds of millions with their fresh current of bold elocution before De- mosthenes and Cicero spoke to the multitudes of Athens and Rome. Its law-giver stands unrivalled in history, and its philosophers are the first on record. The national literati of Israel were not diminished by the conclusion of the Biblical canon, nor did this alter the ingenuity and productiveness of the mind. Hebrew poets sung in the language of Isaiah in every century, so that also in our days Hebrew poets abound, such as M. Leteris, Luzzatto, Rapeport, Stern, and^others, and the last century produced some of the PREFACE. IX sweetest singers of Israel. Besides those poets who wrote in the Hebrew tongue, this nation has produced numerous bards who wrote in the different languages of the nations among whom they lived, in all parts of the world. A collection of the poetical productions in Hebrew and other languages com- posed by Israelites would be much larger than the poetical productions of any other nation. The same assertion would be correct in regard to musical compositions. The Israelitish literati have been no less active upon the field of philosophy and theology during all the time after Philo and Josephus. Although but few of those men are known to the world at large, such as Philo, Saadias, Jehudah Halewi, Abn Ezra, Maimonides, Nachmoides, Don Abarbanel, De Rossi, Menassah ben Israel, Del Medigo, Spinoza, Mendelssohn, Maimon, and others, still these few names are sufficient to convince the reader, that Israel had prominent philosophers in every age. It would be superfluous to remark here, that the Israelites had numerous authors in all branches of oriental philology, biblio- graphy, lexicography, and exegesis, as this was the field almost peculiar to that nation up to the eighteenth century. The reformation of Doctor Martin Luther and others would not have occurred if the Israelites had not previously investigated all branches of biblical criticism, and directed the mind of the learned to a conception of revealed religion altogether different from the one adopted and advocated in Rome. The principal bulk of the literature of this nation belongs to the branch of jurisprudence. Religion, law, justice, and righteousness, were synonyms, and so blended that it became one sacred element, which claimed the attention of the learned Israelites from time immemorial to our own days. Three- X PREFACE. fourths of the vast and unexplored field of rabbinical literature is occupied by jurisprudence, and there are indeed but few- questions in that science, the international law excepted, which were not discussed by some of the rabbins with that hair-splitting sagacity which is characteristic of Israelitish sages. The laws of Moses preceded those of Lycurgus, Draco, and Solon. The expounders of that law had produced a code of laws, the Mishna, previous to Theodosius and Justinius, and long before the common law was known. The Israelites studied law before the migration of nations and during the middle ages, and they have never yet abandoned that study. Interesting to the student is the strange similarity between the common and the rabbinical law, which correspond almost pre- cisely in principles and practice. The attention of the learned was called to that vast litera- ture in the seventeenth century by the two Buxtorfs, father and son, Plantavitius and GafFarelli; in the eighteenth cen- tury by Hyde, Le Long, Montfaucon, Hackspan, Shickard, Hody, Richard Simon, Bartolocci, Wolf, Lightfoot, Reland, and a host of others ; in the nineteenth century this field has been occupied almost exclusively by Israelites, such as Buchner, Luzzatto, Reggio, Rapaport, Zunz, Frankel, Geiger, Fuerst- enthal, Fuerst, Krochmal, Dukes, Cassel, Carmoli, Kirchheim, Landshut, Lebrecht, Steinschneider, and others. Finally, if we direct our attention to the history of com- merce, we meet again with the Israelite playing there also a prominent part. The ancient Israelites , during and after the days of Solomon, actively were engaged in transmarine trade, sending their ships to Tarshish and Ophir. They were important in this respect in Alexandria, in Babel, in Rome, and afterwards PREFACE. XI in the Italian cities, no less than in the Netherlands. They were the bankers and merchants of the known world during the middle ages, connecting by their industry the cities of the east- ern continent. They were forced away from every kind of occu- pation, they were prohibited from owning real estate, and from residing in certain cities, and restricted to certain streets of other cities ; they were forced to pay heavy taxes ; were frequent- ly robbed of all their money and property. Still they flourished, were rich and industrious, wherever they were. The most re- markable fact is, that even in these United States the Israelitish emigrants succeed better in commercial enterprises than do any of the different races and nationalities flocking to these hospitable shores. We have set down some of the elements, which make the history of this nation important to every reader, and therefore we hope to add a useful and welcome contribution to American literature. The history of this nation has hitherto been treated merely as a part of ecclesiastical history, which was the reason why every author represented it according to his own views on the subject of religion. Basnage, Bastholms, Jahn, Jost, Lengerke, Ehwald, Herzfeld, Salvador and Friedlander must be excepted from this accusation; but their works are written in French, Danish or German. Milman, Cockayne and Hannah Adams, if they had written a history instead of a synopsis, would also have made an honorable exception. It may justly be said, that the po- litical history, the history of the literature, the commerce, the jurisprudence of the Israelites, does not yet exist in the English language. Still it is certain that the history of a nation is only then distinct and accessible to the reader, when all the vital elements of that nation are duly and connectively con- Xii PREFACE. sidered. Such a complete history we lay before our readers. We have ample access to the whole literature, ancient and modern, belonging to this history; and having discarded all prejudices, national and religious, we are enabled to lay before our readers a complete and pragmatical history of the Israel- itish nation, derived from the original sources, written in a spirit of philosophical criticism, independence and impartiality, for Jews and Gentiles, and treated in the same method as if it were the history of any other nation. We entertain the hope that this history will direct the attention of the learned to the vast literature of the Israelites, and level a new road of criticism upon this large field, so that our humble production may soon be superseded by that of an abler pen. Albany, N. Y„ December 1, 1853. INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME I. The first volume of this work comprises the history of the Israelitish nation from the patriarch Abraham to the destruc- tion of the temple of Solomon. The sources of this period are the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, Ruth, the Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jere- miah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Abadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakuk, and Zephaniah. These books are before us in the original tongue, together with all the known ancient versions and commentaries. Historical investigations, concerning the time when, and the authors by whom these books were written, will be found in their proper places in this volume. Besides these original sources, we have consulted Josephus, Philo, and the ancient rabbins, because they were so much nearer in time to this period of history, were better acquainted with the manners, customs, and circumstances of that age, and, probably, were in possession of more extensive sources than we. We have not neglected to bestow attention on the biblical criticism of the modern schools, both orthodox and rational; but we were led exclusively by none, having always exercised our own judgment where the authorities differ. "We have had recourse to the best authors on the history of those nations who came in contact with the Israelites. So we XIV INTRODUCTION TO consulted on Egypt, Wilkinson, Bunson. Sharpe, Champollion, Kenrick, and the classics ; on Syria, Assyria and Babylonia, we consulted Botta, Layard, Sharpe, Banomi, and the classics. In the geography of Palestine and the adjacent countries, we were led by Reland, Benjamin of Tuleda, Schwarz, Robinson & Smith, Niebuhr, Ritter, Du Bois-Ayme, and D'Anville. In archeology, we consulted Godwin, Jennings, and De Wette, without placing implicit confidence in either of them. Rape- port's Erech Milin, Lawson's Bible Cyclopedia, and the critical investigations laid down in the Measseph, Bikureilttim, Cherem Hemed, Orient, andFrankel's Monatsschrift, were not neglected by the author. In history we found no book with which we were fully satisfied. The rationalists utterly misconceived the spirit of that age, and being frequently misled by philological niceties, erecting large structures upon the tottering basis of a few words, they are deprived of numerous facts which belong to the whole history, and are thus disabled from giving proper connection to detached events. On the other side, the orthodox have done no more than to extract historical events from the Bible which they joined together^without critical judgment and without accounting for their method. They offer to the student nothing more nor less than what every simple reader of the Bible finds there. A history of this nature recently made its appearance bearing the name of Archibald Alexander, D. D., late professor in the Theological Seminary at Princeton, N. J. All neglected to bestow proper attention on the litera- ture and traditions of the nation whose history they wrote ; the former from a spirit of hypercriticism, and the latter from religious prejudices, and partly also from ignorance of the VOLUME I. XV rabbinical literatnre. We were, therefore, obliged to write an entirely new history, hewn, as it were, from the original rock. In order to avoid misunderstandings, we deem it necessary to lay down the principles which chiefly guided us in this task. It must be remarked in the first place, that none should be misled and judge this work by a translation of the Bible, for the best translation compares with the original as the image with the person which it represents, and it must be remembered that all the translators, biased as they were, took much pains to mystify the Bible, and that each of them labored under the disadvantage of being obliged to suit scriptures to the views and conceptions of a particular sect. The difficulty which we encountered on the threshold in the writing of this volume is this. The facts preserved in scrip- tures are surrounded by doctrines and miracles, so that it often becomes difficult to say which belongs to the province of history. The facts are sometimes but touched upon by the inspired speakers, and often narrated in two or three different ways, so that it is difficult to choose. We have proceeded on the following principle. History is distinguished from religion and theology as the ideas of knowing and believing. History records what is established by the criteria of criticism to be fact, while the dogmas and doctrines of religion are based upon faith, not admitting of the rigid application of criticism. Rational theology itself can not proceed beyond a reconciliation of faith and reason. This, however, is insufficient in history, where evidences are required that things actually took place, where, when and how they occurred. The next distinction between history and religion is this : the former treats on man, and the latter on God. If this be Xvi INTRODUCTION TO admitted, it must necessarily follow that miracles do not belong to the province of history. Miracles can be wrought by God only, and history records what men have done. The historian may believe the miracles, but he has no right to incorporate them in history. As a general thing man is always the agent or the subject of miracles, consequently the action itself may be historical, and can be adopted in history if it can be ascribed to common and natural causes, while the miracle as such belongs to the province of theology. Doctrines are not, of themselves, a part of history; they are of importance only so far as they exercised an influence upon human actions which became part of history. If this be admitted, it must be confessed that the historian dare not confound doctrines and facts. The origin of doctrines, if marvelous, must be considered the same with other miracles. According to these principles, we have adopted only such facts as are able to stand the test of criticism; miracles for which we could not find common and natural reasons, were not recorded by us, still we have attempted to find such reasons wherever we could. We did not contradict or deny the rest, neither did we deem ourselves entitled to consider them as a part of history. The main body of the book contains the political history, and the appendix of every period contains the doctrines, principles, customs, and the literary activity of that particular age. We have drawn proper lines of demarkation between history, theology and exegesis, although we could not avoid critical investigations in the main body of the book, in order to establish certain facts, or to make others intelligible. The next difficulty which we encountered is this. The authors of the books from which this part of history is drawn, VOLUME I. X\U claim for most of the prominent actors a direct and mystical communication with the Deity. If this be admitted as apart of history, the limits drawn before arc overstepped. If it be denied, the sources are so impaired, that it is difficult to determine what is true. This embarrassment is somewhat increased by the consideration, that almost all lawgivers, philosophers, poets, and heroes of antiquity, nay, even the inventors of useful arts, and the cultivators of sciences, claimed for themselves divine communications. The historian in order to be impartial, as he ought to be, must either admit that Menes and Moses. Orpheus and Isaiah, Socrates and Jeremiah, Plato and Paul, received communications from God, in which he tran- scends the sober limits of history, and overthrows all systems of theology, or he must deny that divine communication to all of them. In this latter case, he degrades the ancient history to a compendium of fables, and debases the noblest and staunchest defenders of humanity, those who are the pride of human nature, to willful impostors. We have to offer the following remarks on the subject, which will inform the reader of the point of view from which we judged the subject in the present work. An attentive examination of history convinces every one, that mankind must pass through the same periods of life and development as every individual; because the race is regulated by the same moral and physical laws as the individual. Man- kind had its period of childhood, its flowery age of youth, its strong days of manhood, and it will wax old. Calm reasoning and quiet reflection are the mental operations of matured man only; the noble youth thinks, speaks and acts by a spontaneous impulse for which our philosophers have no name. A careful A XVlll INTRODUCTION TO investigation into the distinctions of cause and effect, proba- bility and necessity, real or imaginary beings, must not be expected of the ardent youth, whose glowing imagination conjures up a paradise inhabited by angels, imbues the granite with life and sensibility, and realizes by a magic power all the desires of the heart. Mankind had also its happy days of youth. The few representatives cf that age which now and then appear among us (poets, painters, sculptors and musicians), prove, that the youth of mankind was a happy period. The paradisaic regions of Milton were beheld with rapture by many a happy man in days of yore. The noble forms which Raphael, Correggio, or Van Dyke, conceived in the moment of inspira- tion, appeared as guardian angels to many a happy man of antiquity. The amiable and truly great beings through which our dramatic poets pour forth fresh streams of ideas and verities, and which moved solemnly and divinely through the fancy and the heart of their creators, appeared as tutelar gods to the men of bygone ages. We, though delighted by those fictitious creations, distinguish between realities and imaginary beings; the men living in the juvenile age of mankind made no such distinctions. In connection with this, must be considered the conceptions which the ancients formed of the operations of God, or the gods, in the universe. Their reasoning faculties were still considerably impaired by the active operations of fancy, which disabled them from penetrating the veil with which nature covered its secret laboratory; they saw in every phenomenon of nature, both moral and physical, a direct manifestation of the Deity. Ever}- operation in nature was ascribed directly to Elohim or Satan, Ormuzd or Ahriman, Kneph or Typhon, VOLUME I. XIX Zeus or Pluto. God thundered, rained and turned the fiery chariot of the sun; he caused the wind to blow, the storm to roar, and the earth to quake; he rolled the streams of water into the sea, and they were dried up at his command. " I am all" — the inscription at Sais read — "that has been, that is, and that will be, and no man has lifted my veil." Every being, animate or inanimate, was regarded as a mere instrument through which God operated immediately. The roar of tho thunder, and the ideas arising in the mind; the dew falling upon the summits of Hermon, and the speech proceeding from the lips of man, were considered equally divine, directly pro- ceeding from the one or the other god. What evidences a priori can be produced to the contrary ? "With what right can the theologians of the present day deny this view of the uni- verse ? This exposition fully accounts for the frequent appear- ance of angels among the Hebrews and of tutelar deities among the heathen, for the faith put in dreams, omens and oracles, and for the fear and superstition which the appearance of unusual phenomena produced. If, therefore, Menes, Orpheus, Solon, Socrates, Plato, or any other] sage of antiquity, pre- tended to receive communications from some deity, it was no imposition; it was their ardent desire to elevate mankind, their lofty and youthful imagination, and their corresponding reli- gious conceptions, which appeared to them in the form of con- crete beings, and spoke to them in a language understood by them alone, and they alone could reproduce, in human language, the language of poesy. In connection with these general conceptions of the ancients must be considered the peculiar conceptions of the Hebrews. The pure and sublime ideas of the Deity peculiar to the ancient XX INTRODUCTION TO Israelites, conferred upon them a just claim to the title of The People of Jehovah, or the Chosen People. This produced in that nation the consciousness of a distinguishing and friendly relation between God and Israel,* who was believed to watch with an especial eye over Israel (n-D1|J niwn). God was the king and the father, and Israel was his people and his son. It can easily be imagined what sentiments this leading idea produced. The unshaken and unexceptionable confidence in God characterizing this people; the boldness and divine inspiration of their prophets, orators, sages and martyrs, who advocated and expounded this leading idea, and frequently confirmed it by their own lives; the indestructability of their nationality and the unyielding fortitude with which they ad- hered to their religion, are the next consequences of that sub- lime consciousness. It was not only the individual thus relying upon Providence, but the nation as a union, a totality, which was thus imme- diately connected with the Deity; and, therefore, the laws regulating this commonwealth were divine, the king was the messiah of the Lord, the high priest was the oracle of the Lord, the prophets were His especial messengers, the judges were an Elohim who dispensed justice in the name of the Lord, and the national council, the collective wisdom and will of the people, were the especial instrument, through which his will and his decrees were revealed. This was the voice of God speaking through the prophets, high priests, magistrates, kings, judges and the national council, as circumstances required it. This was afterwards called b'b ro " The reecho of the voice * Exodus xix, 4-6 5 Deuteronomy xxvi, 10-19. VOLUME I. XXI of God," and the Romans said, Vox populi, vox Dei. If the reader has properly considered what has been said in this intro- duction, he is acquainted with the principles which directed us in the composition of the present volume, and he is requested to admit, that they enabled us to write a political history of the Israelii ish nation. CONTENTS. * • • » PA OR Preface, iii Introduction to Volume I., xiii PERIOD I. From the birth of Abraham to the demise of Moses. Biblical Chronology, 1 CHAPTER I. The Patriarchs, 1 The title of the Israelites to the land of Canaan, 37 CHAPTER II. The Israelites in Egypt. The Exode, 41 CHAPTER III. Israel in the wilderness, 72 Appendix to Period I. I. The Country. a. Geographical Sketch. 109 b. Title, 110 c. Design, 115 d. Division and Inheritance of the Land, 116 e. Occupation, 1 20 f. Products, 121 II. The Government. a. The People, 121 b. The Union of the Nation, 124 c. The Executive Power, 125 d. The National Council, 127 e. The Prophets and Priests, ] 23 f. The Judiciary, 129 g. The Military, 131 h. Exceptions, 132 CONTENTS. Xxiil PAGX III. The Theory of the Law, 133 IV. Health, 138 V. The Family, 142 VI. Servants, 148 VII. The Poor, Widows, Orphans and Strangers, 150 VIII. Commerce, 152 IX. Security of Person, 154 X. Security of Property, 155 XI. Security of Honor, 155 XII. The Penal Law, 150 XIII. Religion, Preliminary Remarks, 161 a. The Spirit of Religion, 162 b. The Forms of Religion, 169 1 . The Tabernacle and its Servants, 170 2. The Sacrifices, 175 3. The Feasts, 177 4. The Nazir, 1 80 5. The Law concerning the Dead, 1S2 XIV. Taxes and the Treasury, 185 XV. The Prophecies of Moses, 187 XVI. Literature, 190 XVII. Mechanical Arts, 195 PERIOD II. From the accession of Joshua to the chief command, to the end of the republic in the time of Samuel, Biblical Chronology, 197 CHAPTER IV. Administration of Joshua, 198 CHAPTER V. From Othniel to the demise of Samson, 219 CHAPTER VI. From the demise of Samson to the end of the Republic, 243 Appendix to Period II. I . The People and the Country, 259 II. The Government and the Laws, 265 III. Religion and Idolatry, 27G IV. Literature, .... 1 , 286 XXIV CONTENTS. PERIOD III. PA3 E From the Appointment of Saul to the Royal Dignity to the division of the Kingdom, Biblical Chronology, 2 J7 CHAPTER VII. From the Accession of Saul to the throne of Israel, to the death of his son and successor, 297 CHAPTER VIII. Administration of David, 330 CHAPTER IX. Administration of Solomon, 3G2 Appendix to Period III. I. The People and the Country, 3S4 II. The Government, 3SS III. Religion, 305 IV. Ivlusie, 3!)S V. Literature, 400 PERIOD IV. From the Division of the Empire into the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel to the fall of Samaria. Biblical Chronology, 414 CHAPTER X. From Jerobeam and Rehabeam to the expiration of the Omri d3'nasty, . . 415 CHAPTER XI. From the expiration of the Omri dynasty to the fall of Samaria, 407 Appendix to Period IV. I. The People and the Country, 407 II. The Government, 504 III. Religion, '. 507 IV. Literature, 512 PERIOD V. From the fall of Samaria to the fall of Jerusalem. Biblical Chronology, 522 CHAPTER XII. From the fall of Samaria to the battle of Megiddc, 522 CHAPTER XIII. From the coronation of Jehoahaz to the destruction of Jerusalem, 550 f fsnrosroa HISTORY ISRAELITISII NATION. PERIOD I. FROM THE BIRTH OF ABRAHAM TO THE DEMISE OF MOSES. (1775— 2315, A.M. 1985—1445, B.C.) BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. Age of Abraham when Isaac was horn, 100 years. Age of Isaac when Jacob was born. 60 years. Age of Jacob when coming to Egypt, 130 years. The Israelites1 sojourn in Egypt, according to Josephus and the ancient rabbins, 210 years. The Israelites' sojourn in the wilderness, 40 years. Total number of years, 540 CHAPTER 1. THE PATRIARCHS. 19S5— 1695, B. C. Between the Euphrates, the Tigris and the Khabur rivers is that fertile and well-watered plain, which the ancient Hebrews called Aram Neharaim, Syria of the rivers, wherefore the Greeks denominated it Mesopotamia. It was bounded north by the modern Armenia, south by Babylonia, east by Assyria, and west by Syria Proper. In that country was " Ur of the Chaldees," noted as being the birth-place of Abraham, or Abram, as his first name was. Ur, signifies light, which name most likely was given to the place by the ancient fire-wor- shipers, considering it one of the sacred places; wherefore it was inhabited by the Chaldees. the priests of Zabiism, and 1 2 PERIOD I. the caste of warriors of the ancient Babylonia. The name of that place appears to be of nearly the same antiquity as the emigration of Abram. The father of Abram was Terah, and if we may rely on the tradition, his mother was Amthela, He was the tenth lineal descendant of Noah by Shem, and was born two hundred and ninety-two years after the deluge, fifty-eight years before the death of that second progenitor of mankind. The youth of Abraham, like that of all prominent men of antiquity, is surrounded with a cloud of myths,* so that it is impossible to arrive at historical truth on this point. The quintessence of those myths is this : The progenitors of Abram, who spoke a language from which afterwards the Hebrew, Aramaic, Chaldian, Arabic, and the kindred tongues sprung up, led a pastoral life in the plains of Mesopotamia; main- taining the principles of primitive religion, as they are found among all nations of antiquity, and especially in the religious mysteries of the Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, and Druids, and in the sacred books of the Brahmins. But when primitive religion was debased into idolatry, the father of Abram also was deluded by that blasphemous theology, and he became a carver of idols, in which trade also Abram was instructed. The first tyrant, Nimroud, who founded an empire in the land of Shinear, was also the first who made religion and its ministers serve as his accomplices. Nimroud founded temples to the different idols, conferred high dignities upon their priests, and suppressed the liberty of conscience, so that prejudice and fear supported the fabric of state. The Chaldecs, formerly mere priests, became the guardians of the throne, a caste of warriors. Abram was early convinced of the folly and wickedness of idolatry, and hesitated not to give free utterance to his thoughts, which exposed him to the wrath of Nimroud, who had brought a large part of Mesopotamia under his sway. Terah, unaccustomed to the royal yoke, and * Joseph. Antiqu. I, vii, 1. Pseudo-Jonathan Genesis xi, 28. Bereshith Rabba xxxviii. Abulpharag. Hist. Dynast, p. 20. Coran Sur vi, 75. Sur xxi, 52. Hyde de Relig, Vet. Persar. p. 62, Bauer, Gesch. I, p. 114. CHAPTEB I. 6 probably also convinced of the truth in the thoughts of his son, emigrated from Ur to Haran, or Charaea, the ruins of which still are extant a few miles west of the source of the Al Habor. This city was distinguished for an attachment to Zabiism from the earliest ages; and in the worship rendered to the hosts of heaven, the god, Lunus, denoting the moon in a masculine form, was here honored with a particular adoration. Here Terah found rich pasture for his Hocks, and probably was out of the country subjected to Nimroud, wherefore he made there his new home. But in the breast of Abram there was a lire much warmer than the sacred fire of Ur; in his mind a light had risen, which emanated more brilliant rays than the soft beams of the moon reflected from the pure mirror of the Al Habor. It was the idea of the existence of One God, who created, governs, and preserves the universe by his mere will, and the consciousness that it is man's duty to worship and to obey him ; it was the fervent desire to maintain the pure principles of primitive religion unimpaired and unadulterated, as Adam, Hanoch, Noah and Shem had taught them, which unceasingly stimulated Abram to leave the well-cultivated, fertile, and well- watered banks of the Al Habor, and to go forth in search of another home, where he might constitute a new tribe, separated from the rest of mankind and their idolatry; in order to train those, who are his, in his own ideas and principles. No wonder then, that he, whose mind was inspired with the sublimest ideas, whose heart was filled with love to God and purity, perceived a divine call, promising him the assistance of the Almighty ; that his tribe will grow up to become a great nation ; that he will succeed to educate them in all the truth and purity for which his heart longed ; that his fame will spread over all the families of the earth, who will gladly receive from his hands the blessing of divine truth; and that thereby the families of the earth will be blessed by him (Gen. xii, 1-4). Abram well understood that divine call, for it was the reecho of his noble heart; and no sooner had his father died at Haran, than he left his brother Nahar in possession of the 4 PERIOD I. paternal inheritance, took his wife (and half sister) Sarai. Lot. the son of his brother Haran, who had died in Ur. all the persons who coincided with his pious views, and his herds and slaves, and started across the Euphrates, in search of another land, which he might occupy and where he might realize his pions plan of constituting an independent tribe, trained in his prin- ciples and doctrines. Nicolaus, of Damascus, says in his history,* ';Abram reigned at Damascus, being a foreigner, who came with an army out of the land above Babylon, called the land of the Chaldeans; but, after a long time, he got him up, and removed from that country also, with his people, and went into the land then called the land of Canaan, but now the land of Judea, and this when his posterity were become a multitude; as to which posterity of his, we relate their history in another work. Now the name of Abram is even still famous in the country of Damascus, and there is showed a village named from him, The Habitation of Abram.' " Abram searched for unoccupied land, wherefore he continued his journey, until he, at the age of 75 years, had come to the plain of Morah, near the town of Shechem. That fertile plain was not yet occupied; for then, the sacred records remark, the Canaanites were in the land, who, like the Phcenicians, paid more attention to trade than to agriculture; and they were but few in number as we shall see in the sequel. Abram took formal pos- session of the unoccupied land, by building an altar to the One God, who promised him the land, and to the glory of whom he dedicated a new tribe. He then passed through the land in a southern direction between the Jordan and the mountains of Ephraim, and pitching his tents somewhere between Beth El and Ai, he again built an altar as a mark of having taken possession of the land in the name of God, Here he found himself sud- denly interrupted in his plan to colonize a land where only one God should be worshiped, and where moral corruption should * Joseph. Antiqu. T, vii, 2. CHAPTER I. 5 be unknown; for owing to the low state of culture of the ground, a famine broke out, and lie was obliged to seek a land. where the art of agriculture had obliged nature to produee plenty. Such a land was Egypt; and Abram crossing the Isthmus of Suez arrived in Egypt. Abram " afraid of the madness of the Egyptians with regard to women," as Josephus said, and aware that homicide was not considered as atrocious a crime as adultery, begged of his wife Sarai to say she was his sister, which she and also Abram did. The fame of her beauty reached the royal palace, and Sarai was taken into the harem of the then reigning Pharaoh, who was favorably disposed to Abram on account of his sup- posed sister. Abram became very rich in Egypt, not only in herds and flocks, but also in slaves, gold and silver. In what way he acquired his wealth is not told in the Bible ; nor does Josephus tell us anything, but that Pharaoh made him a large present in money. When Pharaoh wished to enjoy his prize, he was plagued with distemper; upon which he made inquiry about Sarai, and he was told that she was the wife of Abram. After Abram had told him the cause of representing her to be his sister, Sarai was restored to him, and, according to the Bible, he was sent off from the country; but according to Josephus, Pharaoh gave him leave to enter into conversation with the most learned among the Egyptians, which Abram did. After having refuted the priests of the different sects, he communicated to them the science of Arithmetic and Astronomy ; "for, before Abram came into Egypt, they were unacquainted with those parts of learning; for those sciences came from the Chaldeans into Egypt, and from thence to the Greeks also." Wealthy and admired, the patriarch departed from Egypt, returning to that part of Canaan of which he had taken pos- session, and which he considered his own, and pitched again his tents between Beth El and Ai. But the wealth of Abram and his nephew Lot had so increased, that the pasture became insufficient for their numerous herds, which led to frequent strife between the herdsmen of the two sheiks. Abram O PERIOD I. proposed to Lot, that they should separate from each other, leaving him free choice where to settle. Lot chose the fertile plains of Jordan for his part, and moved with his herds as far down as the city of Sedom. Lot was the adopted son and heir' of Abram, wherefore it grieved the patriarch that he now stood in the world without an heir, apprehending that he would not be able to transmit his principles and sublime doctrines to pos- terity. But grand schemes arise only in great hearts, which are possessed of a buoyancy that never can be impoverished. Only for a moment the patriarch was discouraged; the next moment he perceived again the divine voice promising him good suc- cess; he is told, that he and his children will possess this land as far as he sees it ; that his seed will be innumerable as the dust of the ground. Abram again encouraged, traveled through the land as far south as the plain of Mamra, which is before Hebron ; and also there he found the land unoccupied. He built again an altar to the God in whose name he claimed the land. He was now in possession of a fertile tract of land on the west side of the Jordan, including the beautiful regions of Shiloh, Jerusalem, Jericho, and Bethlehem. The land of Sedom, now the residence of Lot, was in a state of dependency on Kedarleomer, king of Elam. The king of Sedom, together with four neighboring princes, refused obe- dience to Kedarleomer, upon which he came with three allies in order to enforce obedience. The five kings resisted, but they were routed in a pitched battle, in the valley of Siddim. Kedarleomer took many captives, among whom also was Lot. No sooner had Abram heard of the fate of his nephew, than he hastened to his rescue. Three hundred and eighteen trained men composed his whole army which he could raise with the aid of his allies, Aner, Eshcol and Mamra; nevertheless, he pursued the enemy as far as Dan. Dividing his army, according to ancient stratagem, into two files, he surprised the enemy at night, and achieved a signal victory, driving the enemy before him as far as Hobah, near Damascus, and recapturing not only Lot and his substances, but also the captives and the sub- stances taken of the king of Sedom and his allies. Whci» CHAPTER I. 7 returning, Malkisedek, king of Salem, the priest of the chief Deity (Zeus, Adonis or Saturnus) who had a claim upon the tenth part of all persons and things taken in war. came out with bread and wine to meet the returning hero; and after having blessed him, he made him a present with the tithe due unto him, which Abram accepted in order to return it to the rightful owner. For soon after the king of Sedom came to meet the patriarch, proposing to him to return the persons recaptured and to keep the substance. But Abram whose intention was merely to rescue Lot, refused to keep anything; only his allies should take their portion. Abram crowned also with military fame had returned to his tent, where he reflected on what he had done. He had now a powerful enemy, who might surprise him in the same way as he had surprised him; but the voice, which encouraged him ever since he departed from his native land, again encou- raged him, promising him great rewards for the noble actions just committed, saving his kinsman and restoring to the king of Sedom all that was his. Abram grew old; his hope to transmit his divine views to a son, and thus preserve them in his tribe, grew fainter. His wife Sarai, perceiving the grief of her husband, gave him her handmaid Hagar, the Egyptian, for a wife, who conceived of Abram, and when he was eighty-six years old he had the pleasure of embracing his own son, whom he called Ishmael (Yishma-el, God will hear), God will hear him, that also Sarai may embrace a son, and that his plans be realized. When Abram had a male issue all his hopes were renewed, he saw now the possibility to realize his plan. He had in possession sufficient land; he was sufficiently rich and powerful to maintain his independence; and so he thought of means to keep his tribe separated from the idolatrous nations around him. Again he perceived the divine voice, which always cherished him, directing him to introduce circumcision among his tribe — which he probably saw in Egypt — which should be the sign of the covenant between God and his tribe, by virtue of which he has a lawful claim to the land which he has taken g PERIOD I. in possession for him and his descendants, in order to establish a nation which worship the Almighty God. Abram intro- duced this custom among his tribe, and it was a law that whoever neglected this custom, should be excluded from his tribe. Being now separated from the other nations by virtue of an external mark, he also changed his and his wife's name into Abraham and Sarah, considering himself now entered into a new covenant with God, which thus powerfully effected him, that also the hope of a male issue by his legitimate wife Sarah revived in his heart, although he could not yet perceive the possibility, whereas he was already ninety-nine years of age. Three mysterious strangers happening to come to him, whom he treated with Arabian hospitality, also told him that Sarah his wife would give birth to a male child. Abraham going with his guests, who went towards Sedom, "to bring them on the way," was told by the Lord — probably by the shakes of the earthquake or by the roar of the distant thun- der— that he will destroy the cities of Sedom and Gemarah, on account of the wickedness of their inhabitants. He prayed to God for the wicked and sinful people, in which prayer his no]ble heart is fully reflected; but when he came the other morning to the same place, he saw the smoke ascending from a Dead Sea, which was the memorial of flourishing but sinful cities. Lot and his two daughters were saved, his wife he lost; and having escaped into the mountains, they were sepa- rated from the rest of mankind, and therefore supposing all mankind had expired, conceived in incest from their father; the two sons thus conceived, became the progenitors of Amnion and Moab. Abraham — probably terrified by the noise and shakes of the earthquake at the destruction of Sedom — traveled southwest into the land of Phelistia. The powerful sheik was not wel- come to the Phelistines; and although they ventured no active hostility against him, still they injured him wherever they could. Abraham took possession of the unoccupied lands, and digged wells, as a mark of his having taken possession of the land, which the Phelistines destroyed or robbed from him. God, however, indemnified the pious Abraham; for his wife Sarah gave birth to the long expected legitimate heir, Sarah said, whoever will hear it will laugh at me, for she was nine 1 3 and Abraham was an hundred years old, when this son was born; and Abraham named his son Isaac (Yitsehak, he will laugh or rejoice). Sarah, who disliked that her son should divide his rich inheritance with the son of her handmaid, induced her husband to send away Hagar and her son. which Abram did in order to maintain the peace of his house. Hagar and Ishmael went off towards the wilderness, where she lost the way. And when the water was gone from the bottle, she saw her .child exposed to the most horrible kind of death. Still, an angel — probably the sound of a rivulet flowing from a well — showed her a well of water, by which she and her child were saved. The poetical beauty of that passage can not be imitated, and we must refer the reader to the ori- ginal (Genesis xxi, 14-21). Abimelech, informed of the troubles existing between his subjects and the powerful Abraham, went to the latter to have him enter with him into a covenant of friendship; for the alliance of a sheik who had subdued the powerful Kedarleomer, was of no little importance. Abimelech bestowed upon the patriarch considerable presents in money, cattle and slaves, and confirmed his right of possessing the land which he occupied. And so Abraham entered into a covenant of friend- ship with the king of the Phelistines, which was to last for three generations, including the present one. The place where this covenant was made was called Bear Shaba (the well of swearing). After Abimelech had returned to his home, Abraham planted a grove on that place, to commemorate the covenant into which he had entered with the chief of the land; and he claimed the soil he had occupied, in the name of the Lord. Abraham sojourned in Phelistia a long time. In this land, where the manners and customs of the Phoenicians were much practiced, Abraham saw the horrid custom of man-sacrifice ; and the idea arose in his mind, to demonstrate his inexpressible love towards God by sacrificing his own son to his God. And 10 PERIOD I. the divine voice, which was constantly with him, expressively demanded of him to do so. It was not a momentary ecstasy leading Abraham to this step; for he made long preparations and traveled nearly three days before he reached the solitary Moriah. which was the spot appointed for this awful sacrifice. Arrived there, he built the altar, prepared the wood, bound his son. and had already stretched out his hand to take the knife, which he had prepared to sacrifice his beloved son, when an angel of the Lord — -probably the paternal love — prevented him from accomplishing his pious design, assuring him, that the resolute will to sacrifice even his own son, is a convincing proof of his fearing the Lord. When Abraham had sacrificed a ram, instead of his son Isaac, the same voice — it was not as general the voice of the Lord, but that of an angel — assured him that the Lord has sworn by himself, to bless him by mul- tiplying his seed to be as innumerable as the stars of heaven and the sand of the sea shore ; that his seed, by whom all the nations of the earth will be blessed, will inherit the gates of his enemies. This blessing related more to Isaac than to Abraham personally; for the trial concerned the life of Isaac. Abraham, who saw his son willing to die for his God, was probably the angel of the Lord who promised this blessed future to his pious son. Father and son returned joyously to their home, Bear Shaba, and Abraham was delivered from a horrid practice which was common with his neighbors, the sacrifice of man; and thus this practice was abolished among the tribe of Abraham. In order to withdraw his tribe from the influence of the horrid superstitions of the Phelistines, which had nearly misled him to sacrifice his own son, Abraham left this place and returned to his former home in the vicinity of Hebron; but when arrived at Hebron, his wife died at the age of 127 years. He had no piece of land (for he occupied the valleys) wThich was fit to inter the remains of his wife in the same honorable manner as was common among the Egyptians ; wherefore he bought a cave and a tract of land of Ephron the Hitite, where he interred the body of his wife. The land was bought and paid for in the presence of many witnesses, so CHAPTER I. II that Abraham's right to this property was indisputable. The next care of Abraham was to prevent the amalgamation of his son Isaac with the daughters of the land, whereas lie wished to have his tribe entirely separated from them and their superstitious practices. He therefore dispatched the steward of his house, Eliezer, of Damascus, to go to his family in Aram Naharaim or Padan Aram, to bring a wife for his son Isaac, out of the tribe of Terah. The steward after having sealed his promise by a solemn oath, took ten camels and plenty of jewels and other precious things, and went to the city of Naliar, where a lucky chance brought him into the house of Bethuel, son of Nahar, the brother of Abraham. Here he obtained for the son of his master, the fair Rebecca, daughter of Bethuel, who by permission of her parents and brother, went with the steward. Isaac impatiently awaiting the arrival of his bride, was gone out in the field, when he met the returning servant, bringing him the blushing bride, who had covered her face with a veil, when she was informed that she is met with her be- trothed. Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah — the tent of the mistress of the tribe — and he loved her, and was consoled after Sarah his mother. Abraham had taken another wife, after Isaac was married, whose name was Keturah. The six sons which this wife had born unto him, and also the sons of his concubines, were sent off to the east and west with rich gifts, so that none could claim the right of inheriting the wealth and the power of Abraham but his faithful and legitimate son Isaac, whom Abra- ham had appointed to be his heir and successor, as sheik of the tribe. When Abraham was 175 years old, he died (1810 b. c.) and was gathered unto his people, bequeathing to his son a power- ful tribe, large and fertile tracts of land, numerous herds and herdsmen, treasures of silver and gold, and, what was most important, a glorious name, and a mental treasure, which he could confidently deposit with his pious and faithful son. who was willing to be sacrificed before the God to whose glory lather Abraham had left his family and established an inde- L2 PERIOD 1 1 pendent tribe in a foreign land. Abraham, who was buried by Isaac and Ishmacl on the side of his wife Sarah, in the cave of Machpelah, had realized his wishes. He had Rift a powerful and rich tribe to a son, who was possessed of the same sacred ideas and noble principles, which made Abraham a great and far-renowned man; so that even in our days many an oriental tribe proudly calls itself descendants of Abraham; and none can say with any degree of certainty, that the Brahma of the Hindus is not father Abraham, who sent his sons to the east, and who may have bequeathed his name to the former inha- bitants of Hindustan. The Israelite and the Arab bow down with reverence at the mention of the virtues of their first sire ; and the civilized nations on the globe, believing in a revealed religion, bless his memory. ISAAC. There is nothing extraordinary or truly great in the life of this patriarch. He was one of those happy men, who live on the wealth and reputation of their fathers. He was a pious worshiper of the God of his father; he faithfully imitated the patriarchal virtues, as well as the ordinary mode of living and acting of his father, and is remarkable as an obedient son. He was also a tender spouse, and, it would appear to us, a very feeble father. When Abraham was no more, Isaac moved to Bear Lahai Roi, which is between Kadash and Barad, remarkable as being the place where the messenger of Abraham overtook Hagar, when fleeing before Sarah her mistress. The causes of this moving are not stated in the Bible; most likely it was done to the end of appropriating new tracts of land. Previously to this, fifteen years before the death of Abraham, Rebecca was delivered of twin brothers, the first of which looking rough and haired was called Esau (Esov, the finished); the second, holding the heels of his brother, was called Jacob (Ya'akof, he will hold the heel). The two lads differed widely in temperament and character. Esau was a friend of the chase and war, and loved the free field; while Jacob was an innocent youth, who pre- CH U'TKR I. 13 ferred peace to war, who loved his solitary tent better than the roaming in the wild deserts. Jacob was therefore the favorite of his mother; but the father felt more inclined to the rough hunter, whom he supposed might one day become a powerful leader of the tribe when he himself would be no more. Both of them, it appears, grew up without much guidance of their father, being left almost entirely to their own will and inclina- tions. Jacob had once prepared a pottage when Esau returned from a chase weary and hungry. Esau desired Jacob to give him part of the red pottage, wherefore he was nicknamed Edom (the red). Jacob gave him part of it, and when Esau rejoiced over his meal, Jacob asked of him to sell him his birthright; for the firstborn of the tribe became sheik after the demise of the father, if he had not particular reasons to appoint a younger brother, as Abraham did with Isaac, because he was the son of his legitimate wife. Esau replied that he did not care for his birthright, whereas he is exposed to death every step he goes, being either opposite a ferocious beast or a revengeful enemy ; and therefore he sold his birthright to Jacob ; the price, however, is not mentioned in the Bible. This bar- gain remained a secret with the two brothers. A famine which occurred while Isaac lived in Bear Leeha Roi, obliged him to leave his place; intending to go to Egypt, as his father had done under similar circumstances, he came to Geror, in Phelistia, where he may have found plenty of pasture for his cattle, and therefore he heard for the first time the same divine voice, which had accompanied his father, ordering him not to leave the land, renewing to him the promises repeatedly given to Abraham, that his seed will be as innume- rable as the stars of the heaven, that they will possess this land, and will be a cause of blessing to all nations. Isaac went from his former home with the intention to go to Egypt, and in this respect he also imitated his lather, as he repre- sented his wife to be his sister. But not being cautious enough with his tenderness, he was soon detected to be the husband of the fair Rebecca, wherefore the king of the Phelistines, after he had heard Isaac's reason for this misrepresentation, espe- 14 PERIOD I. daily commanded, remembering the covenant with Abraham, " Whosoever touches this man or his wife, shall be put to death." It appears that agricultural pursuits were more com- mon in this part of the country, being mere thickly settled, than in those parts further distant from the sea, and so Isaac, too, yielding to the general occupation of the people, tried his strength in agriculture. He was very fortunate in this em- ployment; the harvests were rich, and the wealth of Isaac materially increased. But he had no claim to the land which he possessed; for the only marks of occupation, which his father had made, the wells he had digged, the Phelistines had destroyed and filled with earth. Therefore Abimelech supposed he had a right to drive away the powerful sheik, whose per- petually increasing wealth and power became dangerous to him. Isaac was obliged to move down the valley of Geror, where he reopened the wells which his father had digged, and the Phelis- tines had destroyed; but also this possession was protested, so that he had to move from place to place, until he finally arrived at Bear Shaba ; there he found the grove which his father had planted; this was an unquestionable mark of occupation, and none could contest his claim on this part of the country. There he heard again the divine voice which had spoken to his father Abraham, which now encouraged him and promised him the divine assistance; there he digged a well, and none protested against it; and therefore he pitched there his tent, built an altar, and claimed the land in the name of the Lord. Abimelech came afterwards to Isaac to renew the covenant of friendship existing between the Phelistines and the family of Isaac. Isaac received him well and entertained him. The covenant was renewed, the place was again named Bear Shaba, Abimelech returned home satisfied, and Isaac remained unmolested in pos- session of the land inherited from his father. Isaac had grown old and blind, and consequently he was disabled to be any longer an efficient chief of his tribe ; he therefore resolved upon resigning his power to his first born son Esau, not knowing that he had sold his claim to Jacob. To this end it was that he called Esau, bidding him to hunt a CHAPER I. 15 venison, to make of it savory meat as he loves it, to bring it to him, and when his mind will be pleased by the enjoyment of the well-tasting meal lie will bestow his blessing on him, which is the formal acknowledgment of his right of succession to the wealth and power of his father. Esau obeyed, and went into the field. Rebecca had heard these words of her husband, and knowing that the word of the patriarch was an irrevocable decree, she had not the courage to oppose the will of her hus- band by words. ' Knowing also, that every act, after being done, wTas regarded by the patriarchs as an act of Providence, she thought of leading Isaac to acknowledge Jacob as his suc- cessor in one way or other, which, if once done, he would not reclaim. Isaac was weak enough to pay no regard to the faults of Esau; but Rebecca knew, that while father Abraham had established an independent tribe in order to realize his principles and ideas regarding God and virtue, and to which end he separated himself entirely from the surrounding tribes ; Esau paid no attention to this fundamental principle of his tribe, and took in marriage two women of the tribe of the Hitites, who were a grief of heart to Isaac and to Rebecca. While Abraham and Isaac held a peacable superiority over the aborigines, and endeavored to improve the manners and sen- timents of the tribe by pastoral and agricultural pursuits, withdrawing the men of the tribe altogether from savage employments; Esau was a warlike and unsteady hunter, who, if becoming chief of the tribe would destroy the beautiful work which his fathers painfully constructed. While Jacob on the other side appeared to her — mothers do not see the smaller faults of their sons — to have the mild disposition, the pious sentiments, the steady habits, and the good will which are requisite to govern the tribe in the sense of Abraham and Isaac. She therefore resorted to a deception in order to save the tribe. She, after having told her favorite son the words of his father to Esau, bid him bring two good kids of the goats, of which she would make savory meat ; this Jacob should bring to his father, and pretending to be Esau, he will obtain the father's blessing. Jacob reluctantly obeyed; he disguised himself with 10 PERTOD I. the skins of the kids, and brought the savory meat to the father, pretending to have obeyed his command. The father suspected him, and endeavored in different ways to convince himself that the aspirant really was his son Esau. The old patriarch really supposed to have before him his son Esau, wherefore he ate of the savory meat and also did drink of the wine set before him. He then called his son to draw near and kiss him, which Jacob did. Isaac smelling the odor of his garments blessed him. " See, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field which the Lord has blessed; therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven and of the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine. Let people serve thee, and nations bow down unto thee; be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee; cursed be everyone that curses thee, and blessed be he that blesses thee." This blessing plainly indicates, that Isaac was much inclined to agriculture, and desired his successor to adhere to this noble employment, the only basis of civilization. The second part of the blessing, and more especially the words, be lord over thy brethren, &c, plainly shows that this paternal blessing was intended as a formal appointment of a successor to govern the tribe; which dignity was now bestowed upon Jacob. When Jacob Jiad left his father, Esau returned and brought savory meat to his father. When offering the meat to his father, the latter asked him, who he was? The answer, " I am Esau, thy first born son," was a cause of extreme terror to Isaac, who supposed some impostor may have snatched his blessing, still he exclaimed, "And he shall be blessed;" for it was done, consequently it was the will of Providence that it be so. While, however, Esau bitterly complained before his father, and entreated him to bless him too, Isaac remembered the voice of Jacob, and told his son that it was his brother Jacob who cunningly obtained his blessing. Esau now bitterly complained about the artfulness of his brother, who had taken his birth- right and now took also his blessing. Isaac moved by the injustice done to Esau, told him — which confirms our view on the nature of his blessing — " Behold, I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants; and CHAPTER I. 17 with corn and wine have I sustained him, and what shall I do now unto thee, my son?" When Esau again entreated his father to Mess him, and even wept, the rough and hearty- hunter wept before his father, Isaac took this happy occasion to recall his son to his favorite employment, to agriculture; to withdraw him from his savage employment ; and to teach him subordination to the head of the tribe. He said unto him, " Behold, thy dwelling shall be of the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above. And also by thy sword thou mayest live ; but thou shalt serve thy brother ; and it shall come to pass as thou wilt submit, so wilt thou break his yoke from off thy neck." But Isaac's paternal words had no effect upon the heart of Esau; for he intended to kill his brother, in order to obtain the dominion over the tribe. He knew well enough, if he should commit this outrageous action in the lifetime of his father it would be of no avail ; for he would be excommunicated from the tribe, wherefore he postponed it, till after the demise of his father. Rebecca having been informed of the evil intentions of her eldest -son, consequently advised Jacob to go to Laban, her brother, and stay there until the wrath of his brother should subside, to which Jacob consented. But she, not wishing to grieve Isaac by informing him of the evil intentions of Esau, desired him to send Jacob to Mesopotamia, in order to take a wife of the family of Bethuel, to which Isaac consented. He bade his son go to Mesopotamia and choose a wife among the daughters of Laban; and after he had blessed him, that God may give to him and his seed the land which He has given to Abraham, Jacob left the house of his father to go to Meso- potamia. When Esau perceived that his wives were displeasing to the sight of his parents, on account of their Hitite origin, he took in marriage the daughter of Ismael, in order to -regain the favor of his parents. But it appears he did not succeed in his design; for he soon left his father, and established an independent tribe in the land of Seir. It appears from the sources before us, that Isaac left his estate in Bear Shaba, and returned to the plain of Mamra, where Esau, probably in com- 2 18 PERIOD I. pany with the warlike portion of the tribe, fell into the land south of the plain of Mamra, which was inhabited by Horim (Troglodytes), who were easily overcome and subjected to the dominion of Esau. The conquerors and the aborigines jointly occupied the land, which was now called Edom, after the name of the conqueror, who had in the land fifteen princes of thou- sands, while the aborigines had but seven such princes, which shows the superiority of the power of the former. The tribe of Isaac, after the separation from Esau and probably the majority of the young men from it, being under the guidance of an old and blind man, seems to have become insignificant, so that nothing transpired which was of sufficient importance to be recorded by the ancient historian. JACOB. Jacob had left, probably for the first time, the friendly and comfortable tent of his mother, and traversed the mountains of Palestine to reach the Euphrates, in order to cometoHaran, the end of his journey. How the last words of his father, "And He may bestow upon thee the blessing of Abraham," reechoed in his agitated mind ; how this idea was blended with the fear that his brother might pursue after him and overtake him; ' and how again both these ideas were accompanied by a painful home-sickness, may be learned from the dream which he had, when sleeping for the first night after his departure from home. When at the spot where afterwards Beth El stood, night overtook the traveling Jacob, he took some stones for his pillow, and laid down to sleep. He dreamed of a ladder standing on the earth and reaching with its top up to heaven; and, according to Josephus, persons were descending down the ladder, that seemed more excellent than human. And the Lord stood .above him, promising him the blessing of Abraham as his father had done ; then he promised to guard him on his way, and to bring him home again in safety. When Jacob awoke, he felt overawed by his nightly vision; he therefore poured oil on one of the stones upon which he laid, and erected it as a pillar of memorial; he called the place Beth El (house CHAPTER I. 19 of God), the first city however built on this spot afterwards was called Luz. Jacob not knowing whether he had but a dream or a divine vision, vowed a vow, if God will guard him on his way and bring him back in peace, he would consider this a house of the Lord. "And of all thou wilt give me," said he, "I shall give ^hee a tenth part;" probably for the maintenance of the house of the Lord which he intended to build there. Jacob continued his journey towards the east, and having arrived in the vicinity of the city of Nahar he found three shepherds encamped with their flocks around a well. Jacob was informed by them that they were from Nahar; that they knew Laban, who was well; and that Rachel his daughter will come with the flock of her father, which she tends. Rachel indeed came, and after Jacob had rendered her the service of rolling off the stone from the well, which shews his physical strength to the best advantage, he told her with tears in his eyes — he was yet not cured of his home-sickness — that he is the son of Rebecca. Rachel informed her father of the arrival of the unexpected guest, who was heartily welcomed by Laban. Jacob told him the cause of his flight from his home, and Laban hospitably offered him his house. Jacob however did not remain there idle, he worked, which occasioned Laban to tell him, that he does not expect him to work without wages because being his relative; he desired him to fix his own wages. Jacob proposed to serve seven years for the fair Rachel, his youngest daughter, which proposal Laban cheer- fully accepted. But when the seven years of service had expired, Laban gave him his eldest daughter Leah instead of Rachel; and when Jacob complained about this deception, Laban excused himself by a custom of the place, according to which the youngest is not permitted to be married before the eldest. Laban now proposed to give him also his daughter Rachel on condition of serving him seven years more, which condition was accepted by the patriarch, who had now two wives, Rachel and Leah, to each of whom was given a hand- maid, Zilpah was given to Leah, and Bilhah to Rachel. When 20 PERIOD I. Leah was blessed with children and Rachel the favorite wife of the patriarch was childless, the latter desired her husband to beget children by Bilhah her handmaid, which she would consider her own children. Jacob complied with her wishes. But no sooner Leah perceived that her sister obtained children by her handmaid, than she also desired her husband to beget children by her handmaid Zilpah. Jacob complied also with her wishes. So the patriarch had children of four mothers. This simple narrative, and the one of Hagar given to Abraham by Sarah, is to show that polygamy was not customary with the patriarchs, it occurred only under peculiar circumstances. Jacob's family became numerous in Haran; for his four wives had borne to him eleven sons and one daughter, who were named according to different circumstances. The six sons of Leah were Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Jehudah, Isacchar and Zebulon. The son of Rachel was Joseph. The two sons of Zilpah were Gad and Ashar. The two sons of Bilhah were Dan and Naphtali. Jacob had only one daughter by Leah, whose name was Dinah. Joseph was the youngest of his children, and he was born when the seven years of service were expired, so that these twelve children were born in a course of seven years, and Reuben was but six years older than Joseph. When the second term of service had expired Jacob desired to return to his father; but Laban, whose wealth had materially increased by the faithfulness and industry of Jacob, desired Jacob to stay with him and serve for wages. Jacob demanded, as his wages, all the speckled and spotted cattle, and all the brown cattle among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats, which shall be born after this day. Laban consented to this bargain, and having separated from the herds all the animals answering the descrip- tion of Jacob, and having entrusted them to the care of his sons, Jacob took again charge of the herds of Laban, and tended them six years. Meantime, Jacob ingeniously contrived that all the animals born, had the color described to be his wages. Laban and his sons looked jealously upon the rapid increase CHAPTKR I. 21 of Jacob's wealth, and they were no longer as friendly towards him as formerly. Jacob, observing the coolness of their beha- vior, and apprehending the danger of being violently dis- possessed of what he properly considered his own, perceived a divine call — probably his mother had sent the promised messenger — to return into the land of his fathers. He sent for Rachel and Leah, who came to him into the field, and after having told them that he apprehended their father might rescue from him his well-deserved wages, and that God bid him return to his own country, they consented to return with him to his father's house. When Laban was absent to shear his sheep, Jacob, improving the opportunity, took all that was his, and started in a southwestern direction with the intention to return to his father. Rachel took along, without the knowledge of Jacob, the idols of her father. Three days after that, Laban was informed of the flight of Jacob; in company with his friends he pursued after Jacob and overtook him after seven days' journey on the mountains of Gilead. Laban and Jacob had encamped on two opposite hills, as two hostile armies. The approaching night prevented any action. At night, however, Laban was cautioned by a divine voice — it was probably the paternal love which arose in his heart and over- came all other emotions — to do no injury to Jacob. When the morning had dawned, Laban came to Jacob and rebuked him that he fled away secretly, as he would have sent him off honorably with song and music; and besides this, Laban asked him why he stole his gods ? Jacob felt offended by this ques- tion, and told him concerning his apprehensions which caused him to flee secretly; adding to this the permission or request to search in all his tents and to take what is his, and whoso- ever has his gods should not live. Laban searching through all the tents without finding his gods, came also into the tent of Rachel, who, sitting upon the images, and making excuses that she could not rise, escaped the reproach of her father, and probably the pain of death, for this was the punishment pro- nounced by JacoV. When Laban had thus searched everywhere and found nothing, Jacob gave utterance to the feelings of an 23! PERIOD I, honest man, who is accused of a crime which he did not com- mit. Laban, however, answered with paternal affection, and the quarrel subsided; a covenant of peace and mutual friendship, which was concluded with a feast, was made between the parties, in witness of which a heap of stones was erected, which gave to the place the name of Galed (a heap of stones), and Laban returned satisfied to Haran. Jacob was once more an independent sheik ; but he was no longer under the protection of Laban. He had now to care for the safety of his tribe, and he intended to cross the Jordan in order to reach his father. The fear of his brother Esau powerfully returned to his mind. Will not the offended brother, who had become powerful while he remained a simple shep- herd, take vengeance for the wrongs done to him? This was the thought which troubled Jacob severely. Twenty years of dependency, the love he felt for his family, and probably also the consciousness of his weakness, occasioned Jacob to resign 7 CD his claims upon the successorship to the government among the tribe of his father. Therefore he sent messengers to his brother Esau, commanding them, 4i Thus you shall say to my lord, to Esau, thus says thy servant Jacob, I have sojourned with Laban and stayed there till now. And I have oxen and asses, flocks, and man-servants and maid-servants, and I have sent to tell my lord, that I may find grace in thy sight." But his messengers returned with the tidings that Esau, accompanied by four hun- dred men, came to meet him. Jacob, who thought that having removed the cause of Esau's hatred he would be appeased, did not know how to take that coming with an army; he was sorely afraid that having informed Esau of his weakness, he would wish to kill him and his family in order to obtain a rich spoil. He thought of counteracting this design, first by dividing his herds and men into two camps, wherefore the place was called Mahnaim (double camps), which would cause them to appear too small a recompense for so atrocious a crime, where- as the enemy himself must reckon, if he charge and overcome the first camp, the second one will escape by flight. And the second means to which he resorted was sending a large and CHAPTER I. 23 still larger looking present to his brother, bidding his servants again to say words of a very submissive nature. But before he resorted to these means, he prayed to God in warm and very sen- sible terms in behalf of his family, not mentioning however the promise of possessing the land of his fathers, on account of the previous resignation to this claim. The same night Jacob had transported his family and all he had over the river Jabbok, and he alone remained on the other side, when a man — probably a froobooter — attacked him, but Jacob offered a violent resist- ance so that they wrestled for sometime, until finally Jacob was lamed by his opponent. Jacob was now not only sorely afraid on account of his approaching brother, but he was also lame and unfit either to flee or to protect his family. These hours of distress were commemorated by the family of Israel in not eating the sinew which is upon the hollow of the thigh. Jacob had passed Penuel, when Esau with his four hundred men met him. Jacob bowed down obediently before his brother, not knowing yet how this scene would end, but, contrary to his expectations, Esau welcomed him in the most friendly manner. "When he asked Jacob about the cattle he had met, and Jacob told him it was a present intended to appease him, Esau refused to accept it, and he only then took it when Jacob pressed him to do so. Esau invited his brother to go with him to Seir, which Jacob declined; he also offered to Jacob the service of his men, which was in like manner declined. Esau and Jacob were now reconciled. Esau leaving his father's possessions to Jacob, returned to the land of Edom, and Jacob stopped at a place called afterwards Succoth (tents), on account of the tents which Jacob had pitched there. Remarkable is it that Jacob built for himself a house, being the first time that one of the patriarchs had built a house. This circumstance confirms the supposition, that Jacob must have remained for a long time at Succoth, for Simeon and Levi can not have been older than ten or eleven years when departing from Nahor ; and boys of this age certainly can not attack all the inhabitants of a city, as they did in Shechem. After Jacob had stayed for sometime in Succoth, he crossed 24 PERIOD I. the Jordan, probably at the same spot where once Abraham crossed this river, for he also went to Shechem, in order to settle on the land of his father. But when coming there he found the land occupied by the Emorites, and being unwilling to make war upon the inhabitants, which would have been imprudent as he had but few men, he bought a piece of land where he pitched his tent, and as once his grandsire did, and probably on the same spot, he erected an altar and worshiped God. Although Jacob bought a piece of land near the city of Shechem, still not all the land which he claimed in the name of his family was occupied by the Emorites; plenty of land was left for his herds, which he forthwith occupied. Dinah, the daughter of Jacob and Leah, curious to see the daughters of that country, had left her tent; she was seen by Shechem, the son of Hamar, the prince of the country, who took her to his house, seduced her and kept her there, which gave great offence to Jacob and his sons. Hamar, induced by his son, offered to Jacob a pacific proposition to be blended into one tribe, which the sons of Jacob seemingly received, if the inhabitants of Shechem be circumcised like themselves. Hamar, partly induced by his son, and partly by the conscious- ness that the land properly belonged to Jacob, and probably therefore proposed the marriage of his son with the daughter of Jacob, occasioned his people to take this step. But the third day after the operation, when none of the inhabitants could defend themselves, two of the offended brothers of the dishonored Dinah massacred all the male inhabitants of the place, the females and whatever they found in the city they took as a spoil, and taking Dinah from the house of the seducer brought her back to her parents. Jacob saw himself now in a horrid position; he could not well go back over the Jordan, whereas he did not consider that land his own; he could not well proceed south to reach his father, whereas he did not know whether Esau will be satisfied, if he take possession of the land of his father; he could not stay in this part of the country, whereas he had to fear the wrath of his neighbors; his two sons had brought him in a position which he could not CHAPTER I. 25 well forget even in his last hour, when he told them, M Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce; and their wrath for it is cruel." But the moral power of a man is most prominent in the hour of danger, and so the pious Jacob heard the divine voice, advising him to return to Beth El, and remember the night when he fled from Esau his brother, and also the dream he had there, and the vow he made at that time. Jacob commanded his sons to change garments, to be cleansed, and to give up to him the idols taken in Shechem, which he hid in the earth; and then they advanced towards Beth El, where an altar was built, and the memory of the eventful night, when first sleeping there upon a pillow of stones, was celebrated. Jacob saw part of his dream verified ; God had been with him in the night when Laban had overtaken him ; at the day when Esau met him; and now again when he feared the wrath of his neighbors. Here he was again rich and blessed with a large family. This encouraged him to believe that the second part of his dream, or rather of his wishes, will also be fulfilled; and so he was again expressively told by the divine voice, that he will be the heir of Abraham and Isaac; that Esau shall molest him no more, for his sons have become fearless warriors. Therefore he shall no longer be called Jacob (one who holds the heels, who is sub- jected to another one), his name shall now be Israel (Yisrael, one who rules by God). Thus encouraged, Jacob proceeded now fearlessly towards the south, after he had buried Deborah the nurse of Rebecca, and after he had erected another pillar called El Beth El, to reach the home of his father. But when on the way, Rachel, his favorite wife, died when she had given birth to the youngest son of Jacob, whom the dying mother called Ben Oni (son of my affliction), and Jacob called him Benjamin (Benyamin, son of my old age). Where afterwards the town of Beth Lehem stood, there the patriarch silently dug a grave, returned to the earth the fragments of Rachel for whom he had served fourteen years, and a rude stone, sanctified by the tears of Jacob, long told the following generations, "Here rests Rachel, the fair, the beloved." The weary patriarch pitched his tent at Migdal Eder; but here again grief tdy PERIOD I. and sorrow fell into his cup, for here he heard of the villainy of his eldest son Reuben and his concubine Bilhah. Simple and inexperienced had Jacob left the solitary tent of his mother, but having passed through the severest hours of trial and affliction, he returned an experienced and sanctified man to his aged mother and blind father, and thought of passing the rest of his life happily in the bosom of his numerous family; but otherwise it was determined in the counsel of Providence. Jacob had taken possession of his father's property, who was at least 160 years old, and had been blind for many years. Jacob himself was about 100 years, gray, and bent by a sad and joyless life. It was time for him soon to appoint one of his sons as his successor in the tribe. Reuben, the firstborn, it was well known to the brothers, had lost the confidence of their father; the same was the case with Simeon and Levi. So the brothers supposed Jehudah will be chosen by their father, and it appears that this choice would have pleased them. But Joseph, who was the favorite of his father on account of his mother Rachel, whom the father also distin- guished from the rest of his sons, held himself more on the side of the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah than with the sons of Leah, which increased their suspicion that Joseph was anxious for the dignity of being his father's successor. Joseph had two dreams which appeared to indicate that he really aspired to that honor, even during the lifetime of the father, whereas he saw that Isaac had done the same to Jacob. He was inconsiderate enough — being but seventeen years old — to tell his dreams to his father in the presence of his brothers. Notwithstanding the earnest rebuke of the father about his foolish dreams, and his expressive declaration that he, his wife and his sons will not bow down to him, the suspicion of the brothers increased and produced a violent hatred against Joseph. The sons of Jacob maintained the possession of Shechem and the land, which they supposed to be theirs by the right of inheritance and of conquest. They had their herds there, not fearing the wrath of other tribes. Jacob, who was still afraid the neighboring tribes might combine against his sons, sent CHAPTER I. 27 Joseph to Shechem in order to bring him word of his brothers. Joseph, after wandering about for sometime in the then unoccu- pied land between Mamra and Shechem, iinally found his brothers at Dothan. When his brothers saw him at a distance, some of them proposed to kill him. But Reuben proposed not to kill him directly, but to throw him into one of the pits, where he would starve to death — he intended to save Joseph and to bring him back to his father. The brothers agreed, and when Joseph came they stripped him of his coat of many colors, and then threw him into the pit. Reuben left them in order to avoid suspicion, and the brothers sat down to their meal, when a caravan of Ishmaelites and Midianites approached them* Jehudah, who knew well that his words had influence with his brothers, and probably also observing that the first and most violent rage of anger was over, urged that if they should sell Joseph for a slave, they would attain the same object of not being governed by him, as if they were to kill him and cover his blood. Jehudah's words were respected; Joseph was brought up from the pit, and sold for twenty pieces of silver to the passing merchants, who took him along down to Egypt. Reuben returned, and almost despaired when not finding Joseph; but it was too late, and silence was the best policy for him. Joseph's coat of many colors was dipped in blood and sent to the father, who supposed a ferocious beast had killed and devoured his son. He gave vent to the most violent grief, and none could console him. Jehudah had taken a wife, the daughter of a merchant whose name was Shua; she bore unto him three sons, Er, Onan, and Shelah. When Er had grown up he married Tamar ; but Er died childless, and Jehudah bade his son Onan take in mar- riage his sister-in-law, " and raise up seed to his brother." Onan obeyed, but it occurred also that Onan died childless. Jehudah told his daughter-in-law to wait until his youngest son had grown up. She waited for sometime, but Shelah did not take her in marriage; wherefore she disguised herself and sitting by the wayside, she obtained children by Jehudah. without his -knowing who she was. Jehudah was told that his 28 PERIOD Ii daughter-in-law was pregnant, and he ordered her to be burned. But when she was brought out to be executed, she sent to Jehudah the seal, handkerchief and staff which he had left with her as a surety. Jehudah remembered his fault, and said, she is innocent, the fault is his, because he has not given her in marriage to his son Shelah, and accordingly she was spared. She gave birth to twin brothers, who were called Parez and Zarah. From this fragment it would appear that Jehudah separated from his brothers, but no cause is mentioned in the Bible, nor is it said when or why he returned. Joseph was brought to Egypt and was sold to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, in whose house he soon was found so useful and honest, that his master made him the steward of it, giving him unlimited authority in his house and fields. The wife of his master fell in love with Joseph, but notwithstanding her exertions to mislead him, Joseph adhered to the principles of morality. When once alone with Joseph, she was so over- ruled by her passions, that she caught Joseph by the garment, who left a piece of it with her, and escaped. The passionate love of the woman being thus disappointed, turned into a furious hatred; she accused the innocent lad of having at- tempted to seduce her, which deprived Joseph of his liberty. He was thrown into prison, but even there he found favor in the sight of the chief jailer, who appointed him overseer to the other prisoners. The chief butler and the chief baker of the king of Egypt, had committed a transgression against their lord, wherefore they were kept in the prison where Joseph was, until investigation should be made into their respective cases. Joseph was ordered to minister to them. One day he found them unusually disheartened and downcast ; when asking them the reason, he was told that a dream which each of them had, was the cause of their being downcast. Joseph interpreted their dreams, according to which the chief butler was to be restored to his office after three days, and the chief baker was to be hung after three days. Joseph entreated the chief butler to intercede for him with Pharaoh, as he is innocent. The fate of the two officers was precisely as pre- CHAPTER I. 29 dieted to them by Joseph ; but the chief butler forgot his request. Two years after this, Pharaoh had a dream, which none of his magicians and wise men, who had elevated the interpretation of dreams almost to a science, could interpret. The chief butler spoke to Pharaoh of the Hebrew lad, who had interpreted his and his fellow-prisoner's dreams so agree- bly to truth that it literally occurred as he had predicted, Joseph was released from his prison and brought before Pha- raoh. The dream was narrated and he interpreted that seven years of plenteousness will come, which will be followed by seven years of extreme sterility ; wherefore he advised Pharaoh to appoint officers for the purpose of storing corn during the seven years of plenteousness, in order that the country be supported during the following years of sterility. Pharaoh was so surprised by the wisdom and meekness of Joseph, who was then thirty years old, that he elevated him to the dignity of viceroy, and gave him full powers to store provisions throughout the whole country, and sell them afterwards according to his own judgment. Pharaoh called Joseph Zaphnath Phaneah (savior of the commonwealth), and gave him in marriage A snath, the daughter of Poti Phera, priest of On (the chief deity of the Egyptians), by whom Joseph begot two sons, Menassah and Ephraim. Joseph bought and stored provisions in all parts of Egypt during the seven years of plenteousness. And when the years of sterility commenced, the people came to Pharaoh to buy corn ; but he sent them to Joseph who had chief authority in this respect. There was famine in many neighboring countries, but in Egypt was bread. The sterility of Egypt had also brought famine into the land of Canaan. Jacob advised his sons to go to Egypt and buy corn. The sons of Jacob, with the exception of Benjamin, arrived in Egypt and bowed down to Joseph, whom they did not know in his dress of an Egyptian dignitary. Joseph knew them, and wishing to convince himself whether they had repented of the wickedness committed on him, he treated them with an unusual degree of harshness, telling them that he 30 PERIOD I. considers them spies, who came to ascertain the weakness of the country. The brothers in vain endeavored to prove that they were the sons of one father, which is not likely that ten sons of one father would embark in such a dangerous concern ; he insisted in his accusation and sent them to prison, where he left them for three days ; after which they again appeared before him, and he told them that he will only then believe their state- ment, if he is convinced that they are the sons of one man; which to prove, one of them must remain in his power, and the others may return and bring their youngest brother of whom they spoke. The brothers of Joseph, who did not know that he understood their language, for he spoke to them by an inter- preter, said to each other, "Verily, we are guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul when he besought us and we would not hear, therefore is this distress come upon us." Joseph had now heard that his brothers re- pented; he turned from them and wept. Whether these were tears of joy that his brothers had improved their moral cha- racter, or a painful recollection of the past, or pity for the grief of his brothers, we can not say; but Joseph returned to them composedly, and took Simeon from them, binding him in their presence, after which he gave orders to send them away. He took Simeon from them, because, as an ancient commentator states, Simeon was his principal opponent, and he was afraid the brothers might do him harm on the way. When on the road, one of the brothers of Joseph found his money given back unto him, and so the others did when coming home, which increased their fear to the utmost They informed their father of the treatment they received in Egypt, and told him that they could not return to Egypt unless Benjamin is sent with them, to which Jacob objected. Reuben, however, was foolish enough to say to his father, that he should entrust Benjamin to his hands, and if he should not bring him back, Jacob may kill the two sons of Reuben, his own grandchildren. Jacob did not answer to this folly, but insisted upon not send- ing his youngest son with them. Jehudah, the prudent and CHAPTER I. 31 just, who waited to plead for his brother Joseph, when his brothers had resolved to starve him to death, until the first rage of anger was over, did so now. When the provisions were consumed, he told his father that they could not go to Egypt unless Benjamin could go with them; bnt he also told his father to entrust the lad into his hands upon his word of honor. This had more influence on Jacob than the address of Reuben, and he entrusted the lad into the hands of Jelmdah, recommending to them great caution — taking along presents and money — then he prayed: "And the Almighty God will give you mercy before the man, and he will send with you your other brother and Benjamin;" and then he resigned his fate in the hands of Providence. The eleven sons of Jacob went down again to Egypt well provided with money, delicious fruits and spices, which the land of Canaan produced. Arrived at the place where Joseph resided, they were guided into the house of Joseph, who had ordered dinner to be prepared for them, but which greatly increased their fear. They were greatly surprised when they were richly entertained, and Joseph had ascertained the age of each of them by the magic power of his cup. In the morning they were dismissed in a friendly manner ; but the magic cup of Joseph was put into the sack of Benjamin. This was the last trial which Joseph undertook with his brothers. He well knew that Benjamin must now be to his father what he was to him formerly; consequently the jealousy of his brothers must now be the same towards Benjamin as it was formerly against him. He knew that his brothers repented what they had done to him, and they would not do the same to Benjamin. But he offered to them a chance to dispose of Benjamin without the least cooperation on their sides, so that they were perfectly innocent. When, therefore, the brothers had left the city, Joseph sent after them an officer of his house, to bring back the one who had the cup, to be Joseph's slave. But when the officer had overtaken them, and had found the cup in the sack of Benjamin, they did not suffer Benjamin to return alone to the city; all of them returned mournfully with him. Being 32 CHAPTER I. brought before Joseph all of them fell down upon their faces in silent grief; none of them could speak. Jehudah could scarcely say anything, but that all of them are now his slaves- Joseph, however, insisted that only the one with whom the cup was found is to be his slave, the others may return in peace to their father. This common grief of the brothers con- vinced Joseph that they really repented of their iniquity towards him. Meanwhile, Jehudah had composed himself, and he addressed to Joseph words in which boldness and sensibility vie with each other; it is the elocution of a lion-hearted man. who is overpowered by the grief of his aged father. He reviewed the whole story in brief words; he represented to Joseph the grief of his father when departing from his youngest son; he then depicted the grief of his father, if Benjamin should not return; and finally he told Joseph, that he, having given his word of honor, can not possibly return, and see him- self dishonored in every tear and every sigh of his unfortunate father; wherefore he proposed to be a slave unto Joseph, only to let Benjamin return to his parent. Joseph was overpowered, and bursting into tears he told them, " I am Joseph, lives my father yet?" The surprise of the brothers was great, but he encouraged them with fraternal words, and bade them return to their father and tell him of his son's glory in Egypt, and bring him and his family there to live happily the rest of his days. Pharaoh also who had heard of the arrival of Joseph's brothers, bade them take animals, wagons and provisions, to return to Canaan, and to come down with their father and the whole of his family. They did so, and when returning to Jacob his mind revived at the glorious tidings. Jacob left Mamra, for Isaac had died ten years previous to Jacob's departure, at the age of 180 years, and was buried by Jacob and Esau in the cave of Machpelah, and when he came to Bear Shaba, where he had passed the happy days of his youth, he offered sacrifices to the God of his father Isaac. But here the mission of his tribe came in conflict with the paternal feelings to see his son Joseph before he dies ; the former made it his duty to stay in Canaan, as his father Isaac had done, when famine was in the CHAPTER I. 33 land, and the latter stimulated him to go to Egypt; but the latter triumphed, and at night, when this struggle may have driven the slumber from his eyelids, he heard the divine voice encouraging him to go down into Egypt, where he will become a great nation. " I will go down with thee to Egypt, I will also bring thee up again and Joseph shall put his hands on thine eyes," Jacob and his family, sixty-six persons, besides the wives of his sons, the wife and sons of Joseph, the husbands and children of his daughters, and undoubtedly a great number of servants {Gen., xlvi, 7), crossed the Isthmus of Suez, andrcached the province of Goshen, where he was welcomed by his son, who, on being notified by Jehudah of the arrival of his father, had come up from Memphis, which, it appears, was the residence of the Pharaoh, of Lower Egypt. Although Joseph married a daughter of a priest of Heliopolis, and was himself a member of this learned order of priests, who changed his name into Osarsiph, still it appears from the biblical record, that he resided in Memphis, that being the seat of government. It appears to have been the wish of Jacob to remain in the province of Goshen, not only because this was a well- watered and little-occupied country, and because the Egyptians were religiously prejudiced against shepherds; but chiefly on account of being near the frontiers of Canaan, which enabled the tribe to maintain its possessions in that country. Joseph therefore when acquainting Pharaoh with the arrival of his tribe and introducing to the king five of his brothers, did not tell him that they were husbandmen; he merely stated that they were keepers of sheep; and whereas they could not find suffi- cient of pasture in Canaan they wished to stay for a time in the well-watered plains of Goshen until the famine was over Pharaoh received them kindly, and directed Joseph to give them the best part of the land of Goshen. So Joseph gave Goshen, in the district afterwards called Raamses, where ho provided them with all that was necessary for their support. He also introduced his father to Pharaoh, in which interview the statement of the aged Jacob is interesting to the historian : 3 34 PERIOD I. "And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, the days of the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty years ; few and evil have been the days of the years of my life, and I have not attained the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage." (1695 b. c.) The famine increased in Egypt and Caanan, with every year of sterility; the money of those two countries was brought for food into the treasury of Pharaoh; the cattle too was sold to the king for provisions; but the years of sterility and scarcity still heavily lasted upon the suffering people. They sold their estates and finally their persons to the king to escape starva- tion. Joseph, in order to guard the country against similar calami- ties, caused the agriculturists to live together in towns, in order to improve civilization, the best guard against famine, and ordered that the fifth part of the productions of the soil should be delivered to Pharaoh, to be preserved in the royal storehouses, as the means of protecting the country against similar afflictions which, however, gave to the king despotic prerogatives. Still the people were well satisfied with that reorganization of the royal government from which the priests were exempted, who lived in cities and received their salary from the king in provisions, and consequently neither sold their estates nor their persons to the king. Joseph saved and improved Egypt, therefore, his name gave birth to many fables and legends among the Egyptians. They called the pyramids "storehouses of Joseph;*' many wells were digged and many dams and canals were built by him, and also the exsiccation of the Delta was ascribed to him. Manetho confounded the name of Joseph with that of Moses. His Osirsiph literally signifies Joseph; if it be granted, that the term Joseph is contracted of Yah and yoseph; if we adopt for Yah, the Hebrew term denoting God, the Egyptian term Osiris, the priests of Egypt, of w^iom Manetho copied, must have called Joseph Osirseph. To this comes yet the peculiar circumstance, that Manetho calls Osirseph a priest of Helio- polis, and that Joseph had taken in marriage the daughter of a CHAPTER I. 35 priest of On or Helios identical with Osiris, and as an officer of so high a rank, necessarily must have belonged to some one clerical order. lie also called Joseph Salatis, as he might have been named in the records of another temple according to the very letter of the Bible. "And Joseph was the Shalit" (Genesis xlii, 6). The Coran narrates the story of Joseph differently from the biblical account; and the Moslems have books containing the supposed loves of Joseph and Zuleikah, the wife of Potiphar, who, they allege, was the daughter of Pharaoh. Some learned men have contended that the Egyptians worshiped Joseph as Osiris. Apis and Serapis, and also under the names of the second Hermes, Tammuz and Adonis. Jacob lived seventeen years in Egypt; he saw his family rapidly increase in number and wealth, and being near his son Joseph he did not urge his sons to return to Canaan, passing the evening of his eventful life in the midst of his nourishing descendants. When the moment of death approached, he con- voked his twelve sons, and after having been promised by Joseph, that his body should be interred by the side of his pro- genitors at Hebron, he ordered the affairs of his family, conferring upon each of his sons, also upon the sons of the handmaids, the dignity of an independent sheik, or head of a tribe, to each of whom he assigned a certain portion of the land of Canaan, and appointed one common chief for all of them, to be the leader of the whole family. This t dignity, as well as a double portion of the inheritance, was due to Reuben his first-born son, according to ancient custom; but this son was " hasty as water;" he stood accused of having defiled the bed of his father; consequently the right of a double portion of the inheritance was conferred upon Joseph, so that his two sons, Menasha and Ephraim were given equal claims on the land with the sons of Jacob, which, however, was only then a double portion, as Jacob intended it to be, if the land had been equally divided among the tribes, and not according to the number of persons as was really done afterwards. Jacob could not confer that superior dignity upon Simeon or Levi, who were next in age to Reuben, because they were violent and 36 PERIOD I. fierce men, therefore lie did not even confer upon them the dignity of being independent sheiks, distributing their descend- ants among the other tribes. Ke next came to the lion-like Jehudah, before whom the sons of his father should bow down; he conferred upon him the dignity of being the head of the family, nearly in the same terms as he once received that dignity from the hands of his father (Genesis, xxvii, 28, 29). After having expressed his confidence that Jehudah, like the young lion going out for prey, should advance at the head of his brothers, and take possession of the land of Canaan, which he considered his own, he said to his sons, "No tribe shall depart from Jehudah, nor shall the commander depart from between his feet [men], until he shall have come to Shiloh [the capital of Canaan], and the nations [of Canaan,] shall have submitted to him" (Genesis, xlix, 10), limiting his supremacy to such a period of time as might be necessary to regain possession of the land. After having thus ordered the government of his family, he blessed each of his sons agreeably to their capacities and inclinations, and also according to the nature of the tract of land assigned to each of them,* and died at an age of 147 years (1678 b. ,c). "Father Jacob did not die," the ancient sages said; his spirit was impressed upon his numerous family,, his piety ani- mated the hearts of his sons ; his institutions lasted for a long period of time^ and his memory is still blessed by the pious and good of all nations. The body of the patriarch was care- fully embalmed by the physicians of Joseph during forty days, which were followed by seventy days of public mourning, all of which was done exactly in the style of the ancient Egypt- ians.! Joseph, by special permission of Pharaoh, together with the male descendants of Jacob and a large number of Egyptians, chariots and horses, as due to an Egyptian dignitary of high rank, conveyed the body of Jacob to Canaan; and after mourning seven days, according to the customs of the Hebrews, he was interred in the family sepulchre at Hebron. * Herder Briefe, das Studium der Theologie betreffend 5 Brief, v. f Herod. Lib. ii, cap. 85, 86; Diodor. Biblioth, Lib. i, p, 58. CHAPTER J. tf Having returned to Egypt, the brothers of Joseph apprehended his just retaliation, and therefore besought him in the name of his father to pardon them. If any thing more was necessary to characterize Joseph as one of the noblest of the human race, it was his affectionate answer to his brothers; he not only pardoned them and attempted to persuade them that they had committed no wrong; but he even looked upon their grievous crime, of having sold him, as the cause of his fortune, their preservation, and the salvation of Egypt. Joseph was, so to say, the moral result of the patriarchal virtues, as they were developed in the tribe of Abraham ; he was an affectionate son, a kind brother, a faithful servant, a moral and pious man, a wise governor, and a devout minister to Pharaoh. He died at the age of 110 years, fifty-four years after the death of his father (1624 b. c), after having educated Machir his grandson. He was embalmed and deposited in a coffin to be removed to Palestine, when his family shall return, as he had caused them to promise under oath. THE TITLE OF THE ISRAELITES TO THE LAND OF CANAAN. Before we conclude this chapter, it is necessary to a better understanding of history to drop some remarks on the title of the Israelites to the land, which they afterwards claimed as theirs. This point especially deserves our notice, whereas a great deal of ingenuity and learning has been wasted to establish the fact, that the Israelites had no legal claim on Palestine, and that their invasion and conquest of Canaan was an act of robbery. Considering the following passages, we will be convinced, that the patriarchs had undisturbed possession of the land of Canaan for the space of two hundred and fifteen years. God said to Abraham, " To thy seed I will give this land; " in consequence of which Abraham took possession of the land, erected an altar as a mark of possession, and actually occupied it (Genesis xii, 7-13). After this, God tells Abraham that he will give the whole land unto him and unto his seed, upon which Abraham traveled through the land, and again 38 PERIOD I. built an altar as a token of occupation (Genesis xiii, 14-18). Next we are informed, that God told Abraham, " I am the Lord who brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give to thee this land to possess it " (ibid xv, 8). " And I have given unto thee and to thy seed after thee, the land in which thou soj our nest, the whole land of Canaan for an eternal possession" (ibid xvii, 8). These passages plainly inform us, that the land was given to Abraham to be inherited by his descendants ; that he actually took possession of it and occupied it, and that none contested his claims. The same is the case with Isaac, to whom God said, "Abide in this land and I will be with thee; for to thee and to thy seed I will give all these lands"* (ibid xxvi, 3, 4). He occupied the land of his father considering himself the legal heir of it, and the only contest we meet is in Phelistia, but everywhere else he was in uninterrupted possession of the land; wherefore he said to Jacob, his son, "And he will give to thee the blessing (possession) of Abraham, to thee and to thy seed with thee, to possess the land in which thou sojournest, which God has given to Abraham'' (ibid xviii, 4). The same idea is expressed in the dream of Jacob. " The land upon which thou layest I will give to thee and to thy seed " (ibid xviii, 13); and when he had returned to Canaan, "And the land which I have given to Abraham and Isaac, I shall give to thee, and to thy seed I shall give the land" (ibid xxxv, 12). Jacob actually occupied the land as the legitimate heir of Isaac, and in this capacity he divided it among his sons (ibid xlix). It was occupied not merely for pastoral purposes ; there are distinct traces of agricultural employment in the express statement about Isaac when in Phelistia (ibid xxvi, 12); in the blessing which Isaac conferred upon Jacob (ibid xxvii, 28, 37); in the dream of Joseph (ibid xxxvii, 7), and in Jacob's last words. But, besides this, the passages quoted before, the altars built, the wells digged, and the grove planted, would be sufficient to entitle us to the assertion, that the patriarchs were in an uninterrupted and uncontested possession of the * To the Euphrates, vide Genesis xv, 1S-2L CHAPTER I. 39 land of Canaan for the space of two hundred and fifteen years; consequently, it was no longer a merely promised land, but it was the property of the patriarchs, according to all laws of natural justice. The objections which might be made against the assertion, are, that the Bible recognizes other nations to have existed in Canaan simultaneously with the patriarchs, and that they had, at least, the same claim upon the soil as the patriarchs. We admit this, and we have stated before, that they only took possession of such tracts of land which had not previously been occupied; and the fact, that this was the most fertile and most beautiful part of the country, is no mean evidence to the effect, that the aborigines must have been but very few in number. This hypothesis is powerfully sup- ported by the facts, that Abraham with three hundred and eighteen warriors routed the army of Kedarleomer and his allies, who had conquered eleven nations in the south and southeast of Palestine; that Abimelech made a treaty with the patriarch, in which it was stipulated, that they should do no harm to him and his descendants, and that he said to Isaac, 44 Thou art much too mighty for us;" that Shechem said of Jacob and his few men, who was afraid of Laban and Esau, " These men are peaceably disposed to us;" and that the whole population underwent the pain of circumcision, that the family of Jacob might amalgamate with them; that two sons of Jacob could massacre all the males of the city, and the aborigines of Canaan had not the boldness to avenge the wrong; and that Joseph in wandering between Hebron and Shechem lost his way, where, as it seems, no settlement existed. The few aboriginal tribes, to all of whom the patriarchs, it appears, were superior in wealth and numerical strength, as well as in the possession of land, acknowledged the supremacy of the tribe of Abraham. This fact is stated directly by Nicolaus, of Damascus, quoted by Josephus, as we have stated above, and by the sons of Heth. "A prince of the Lord art thou amongst us." It is no less plainly mentioned in the alliance of Abraham with Aner, Eshcol and Mamre (Genesis xiv. 13, 14): in the treaty of Isaac and Abimelech (ibid xxvi, 26-29). and in 40 PERIOD I. the blessing of Isaac: " The nations will serve thee, and the tribes bow down unto thee." Isaac could not have conferred a dignity upon his intended successor which he himself did not possess. It is therefore evident, that the partriarchs were the lords of Canaan, partly by possessing the best part of the land, partly by their superiority in numerical strength, and partly by the acknowledgment of their supremacy by the aborigines; the words, " The land which I have given to Abraham and Isaac," must be taken literally. This supremacy was not achieved with the force of the sword; for if so it would be mentioned in our sources as well as the expedition of Abraham against Kedarleomer, and the massacre of Shechem by the sons of Jacob. Abraham came to Canaan that the nations of the earth should be blessed by him, and it was the power of suasion, of truth, of piety, — then religion was the mainspring of all human actions — and true wisdom, by which that supremacy was gained and maintained. The altars built by the patriarchs, the praise bestowed upon Abraham by Malkizedek, king of Salem, the terms " Thou art a prince of the Lord among us," and the whole tenor of our sources are indicative to the same effect. The next objections we have to refute are these: Jacob in his last words, and especially those to Jehudah, spoke of taking- Canaan by war, this is too plain to be denied; which would inform us of the unamicable feelings of the aborigines towards the tribe of Abraham, at least against Jacob. To this comes the fact, that the possession of the land was interrupted by their stay in Egypt, consequently they forfeited their claims on the land. We can not discuss this question before we have proceeded farther in our history ; we will then show, that during the ab- sence of Jacob other nations overran and subjected the country, forcibly preventing the Israelites from retaking the land which was theirs by divine and by natural justice; by divine pro- mise, actual, uninterrupted and uncontested occupation by the fathers. CHAPTER II. 41 CHAPTER 11. THE ISRAELITES IN EGYPT. THE EXODE. (1695-1485, B. C.jf- After we are informed, at the end of Genesis, that Jacob and Joseph died, and again at the beginning of Exodus, that Joseph and that whole generation died; our sources continue that the children of Israel were fruitful, increased in number and strength, and " There arose up a new king over Egypt who knew not Joseph," and they were miserably enslaved. From the time when Jacob came to Egypt to the death of Joseph was about seventy years ; Levi lived twenty-three years after Joseph* not having been more than four years older than the former, (Exodus vi, 16), consequently there is a period of about ninety years of peace and prosperity, of which we know no more than that " the children of Israel were fruitful and increased abund- antly, and multiplied and waxed exceedingly mighty; and the land was filled with them," so that the new king of Egypt who knew not Joseph, could say, " Behold, the children of Israel are more numerous and mightier than we." Besides this, the Bible contains a few particulars in reference to that time; we learn (Genesis 1) that the Israelites were received in Egypt as the family of their benefactor, were given the province of Raamses, called so by anticipation, in the most fertile district of Goshen between the ancient Pelusaic branch of the Nile, the Isthmus of Suez and the mountains of Attaka; and that they after the lapse of seventeen years were so naturalized in Egypt, that when returning to Canaan to bury Jacob, they were considered to be Egyptians. It appears, therefore, that they lived well satisfied in Egypt, not being disturbed by the Egyptians in either their religious views or in their occupations for nearly one century. Still the author of Chronicles mentions an invasion of the men of Gath in the pro- vince of Goshen, during the lifetime of Ephr aim, son of Joseph. 42 PERIOD I, "And the sons of Ephraim, Shuthelah, and Beted his son, and Tahath his son, and Eladah his son, and Tahath his son. and Zabah his son, and Shuthelah his son, and Ezer, and EJcad, whom the men of Gath that were born in that land slew, when they came down to take away their cattle. And Ephraim their father mourned many days, and his brethren came to comfort him. And when he went in to his wife, she conceived and bare a son, and he called his name Beriah, because it went evil with his house" (/ Chron. vii, 20-23). " And Beraah and Semah, who were heads of the fathers of the inhabitants of Ajalon, are those who drove away the inhabitants of Gath" (ibid viii, 13). These passages plainly inform us, that the Israelites were attacked by the inhabitants of Gath ; this attack was renewed several times, and while the sons of Benjamin succeeded in re]3elling the enemy, the sons of Ephraim lost some of their men. This invasion must have taken place at an early stage of our history, whereas Ephraim was still livings and the Israelites still were independent warriors. In support of this fact it may be quoted, that Josephus mentions an ancient hatred and quarrel between the Israelites and Phelistines to have existed at the time of the exode (Antiqu. II, xv, 3); which is also noticed in the Bible (Exodus xiii, 17). The passage in Chronicles informs us, that the invaders were not the aborigines of Gath, but the men of Gath who were bom in that land. A new race must have emigrated to Gath, of which the invaders were the descendants born in Gath. If we com- pare the peaceable spirit of the Phelistines in the time of the patriarchs, with their warlike expeditions throughout the whole of ancient history, it becomes almost evident, that a new race must have emigrated into Phelistia and subjected the aborigines by the force of the sword. The author of Joshua has left us an account of a nation inhabiting Phelistia and a large part of Palestine, who were of a warlike disposition, and who did not exist there in the time of the patriarchs. " And at that time came Joshua and cut off the Anakims from the mountains, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the mountains of Judah. and from all the mountains of Israel: Joshua destroyed CHAPTER II, 43 them utterly witli their cities. There were none of the Ana- kims left in the land of the children of Israel, only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained (xi, 21, 22). The spies of Moses too found them in Hebron and elsewhere, where formerly the Ilitites led a peaceable life. The invaders who slew the sons of Ephraim were the Anakims born in Gath, the fathers of whom had emigrated to that city. It is necessary to a proper understanding of history to deviate from our general course, and investigate the origin and nature of this unknown race. Numbers xiii, 33, we are informed by the report of the spies, that the Anakims or the sons of Anak, are of the Nephilim or giants, which is conlirmcd by other biblical passages (Deutron. i, 28, ix, 2). Deutronomy ii, 10, we are further informed that the Anakims were identical with the Rephaim, consequently either Rephaim, Nephilim and Anakim were three names for the same race of men, or they were names of three different tribes of the same nation ; in either case we must trace back their history to the antediluvian period, where we read, " The Nephilim (giants) were on the earth in those days, and also after that; when the sons of the gods came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the heroes who were ever the men of renown." According to this passage the Nephilim, the giants, heroes and the men of renown, with whom we meet again in the myths of all ancient nations, were not the descendants of the sons of the gods and the daughters of men; but they were on earth before and after that sexual connection took place. Moses did not inform us about their origin; we are left to suppose that they were the descendants of Cain. If it were our province we could prove their early existence over the whole of Asia, and their long and bloody warfares with almost all the Asiatic nations, which gave rise to the numerous giant fables in ancient mythology. It is sufficient to our present plan to know, that they "were ever the heroes and the men of renown." In Genesis Rabbah (xxvi), where the identity of the antediluvian Nephilim with the Rephaim and Anakim is mentioned as an unquestionable matter, they are characterised as an immoral. 44 PERIOD I. violent and rough race of men, who paid no regard to either divine or human laws; subsisting on robbery, and crime, and disregarding even the sacred ties of matrimony ; to which their very name affords no mean evidence, for Nephilim literally signifies the fallen, those who fell from the height of moral humanity, We meet them again in the time of Abraham, when Kedar- leomer, the Syrian king, and his allies, eame down into Arabia Petrsea and routed them on all points (Genesis xiv). This appears to us to be one of the numerous struggles between the Noachides and the corrupted race of the Nephilim, so that an unquenchable hatred existed between those two different races of men. On this occasion we find them divided into five different tribes, the Rephaim, Susim, Emim, called so by anti- cipation, Hori and Amalek. This was not the end of the struggle; Esau continued it successfully against the Hori, Amnion overcame the Samsumim or Susim, and Moab over- came the Emim (Deutr. ii). This latter struggle could not well have taken place before the latter part of Jacob's life; for Ammon and Moab were born almost simultaneously with Isaac; and Lot having lost all his wealth at the destruction of Sedom, it was certainly long after it, when his descendants succeeded to collect such a powerful tribe as to be able to drive that old giant race from their lands. It appears, there- fore, that when the patriarch Jacob had gone to Egypt, the Rephaim, Anakim or Nephilim, who had been driven from their lands, overrun Palestine and Phelistia, making them- selves masters of the land, and holding it until driven from Palestine by Joshua, and in Phelistia we find them as late as the days of David (2 Samuel xxi). On the other side of Jordan but a few of them remained; so that in the days of Moses it was but Og, the king of Bashan, who remained of the Rephaim, still the whole province was called land of Rephaim (Deutr. iii). They had emigrated to the west, where many traces of them existed; there was the valley of Rephaim, near Jerusa- lem, and the land of Rephaim, west of Jordan, mentioned by Joshua (xvii, 1G). Hebron was called Kiriath Arba, on account CHAPTER II. 45 of the four sons of Anak residing there, and on the road between Gaza and Pelusium, the name llafa or llaphia is still found; it is a place about 15 miles southwest of Gaza, where, round a fountain considerable ruins of large buildings mark the spot, where once those Rephaim had their head-quarters between Egypt and Phelistia.* In order to have a full account of the expulsion of the Rephaim or Anakim from Arabia, we must yet quote a pas- sage of Josephus. " Now for all these sons (of Keturah) and grandsons, Abraham contrived to settle them in colonies; and they took possession of Troglodytes, and the country of Arabia the Happy, as far as it reaches to the Red Sea." Here, again, we see the Anakim s, as we shall henceforth call that race of giants, driven from the deserts by the Noachides, and especially by the branches of the tribe of Abraham, as Esau, Amnion and Moab had done; for that the Troglodytes or the Hori mentioned in Scripture are identical with the Anakims has been sufficiently proved by the learned Rapoport,| based upon the several statements of the rabbinical literature in com- parison to Robinson and Smith's learned inquiry of the identity of Eleutheropolis and Bethogabra, which has been adopted also by Dr. K. B. Stark. j The subterranean palaces, which Robinson described, in the vicinity of Eleutheropolis of Pales- tine, which undoubtedly were found, and gave the same name to a city in Idumea, are other traces of the westward course of the Anakim; in which the most remarkable fact is, that the giants of the Scandinavian myths, as well as of the Sclavonic, Greek, and Hindu nations, are supposed to have lived in clefts of rocks, and in the interior of mountains. It is very natural to believe, that those Anakim also came to Egypt, and attacked the Israelites as their old and natural enemies. Traces of their permanent existence in Egypt have reached us by the Greek geographers. According to Arternidorus,§ the coast from the * Ritter's Geography, Thl. xiv, p. 137-14G. Gaza's Kuestenstrasse. t Erech Milin, art. Eleutheropolis. } Gaza, £c, Jena, 1852, s 19. 4 Apud Strabo, B. 1G, p. 768, 775. 46 PERIOD I. Gulf of Suez to Berenice was inhabited by the Troglodytes, who made their dwellings in the excavated rock, of whom also Herodotus (ii, 104) gives an account. Comparing these accounts with the strange tales which Greek and Roman writers related about the gigantic figure and the detestable mode of life of that race of men, who also inhabited the interior of Egypt,* we are convinced that they were identical with the Anakims of Scripture. The best account of the Anakims' invasion of Egypt, has reached us in the fragments of Manetho.j which Josephus pre- served in his refutation of Apion. We set them before our readers as we found them. '* There was a king of ours whose name was Timous. Under him it came to pass, I know not how, that God was averse to us, and there came, after a sur- prising manner, men of ignoble birth out of the eastern parts, and had boldness enough to make an expedition into our country, and with ease subdued it by force, yet without our hazarding a battle with them. So when they had gotten those that governed us under their power, they afterwards burnt down our cities, and demolished the temples of our gods, and used all the inhabitants in a most barbarous manner; nay, some they slew, and led their children and their wives into slavery. At length, they made one of themselves king, whose name was Salatis; he also lived at Memphis, and made both the upper and lower regions pay tribute, and left garrisons in places that were the most proper for them. He chiefly aimed at securing the eastern parts, as foreseeing that the Assyrians, who had then the greatest power, would be desirous of that kingdom and invade them ; and as he found in the Saite Nomas (Sethroite) a city very proper for his purposes, and which lay upon the Bubastic channel, but with regard to a certain theo- logical notion was called Avaris ; this he rebuilt, and made very strong by the walls he built around it, and by a most * Pliny, N. H., c. 30. t Manetho, the high priest of the temple of Isis, at Sebeunytus, in Lower Egypt, in the reign of Ptolemy Logi (322-284 B. c), wrote a history of Egypt, CHAPTER II. 47 numerous garrison of two hundred and forty thousand armed men, which he put into it to keep it. Thither Salatis came in summer time, partly to gather his corn, and pay his soldiers their wages, and partly to exercise his armed men, and thereby to terrify foreigners. When this man had reigned thirteen years, after him reigned another, whose name was Beon, for forty-four years; after him reigned another, called Apachnas, thirty-six years and seyen months; after him Apophis reigned sixty-one years, and then Janias fifty years and one month; after all these reigned Asis forty-nine years and two months. And those six were the first rulers among them, who were all along making war with the Egyptians, and were very desirous gradually to destroy them to the very roots. This whole nation was styled Hycsos, that is, shepherd kings ; for the first syllable Hyc, according to the sacred dialect, denotes a king, as is sos, a shepherd; but this, according to the ordinary dialect; and of these is compounded Hycsos; but some say, that these people were Arabians. These people, whom we have before named kings and shepherds also, and their descendants also, kept pos- session of Egypt five hundred and eleven years." Manetho, continues, " that the kings of Thebais, and of other parts of Egypt, made an insurrection against the shepherds, and that a terrible and long war was made between them." He says, farther, " That under a king, whose name wras Alisphrag- muthosis, the shepherds were subdued by him; and were, indeed, driven out of other parts of Egypt, but were shut up in a place that contained ten thousand acres. This place was named Avaris." Manetho, says, that the shepherds built a wall round all this place, which was a large and strong wall, and this in order to keep all their possessions and their prey within a place of strength, but that Thummosis, the son of Alisphragmuthosis, made an attempt to take them by force and by siege, with four hundred and eighty thousand men to lie round about them; but that, upon his despair of taking the place by that siege, they came to a composition with them, that they should leave Egypt and go, without any harm to be done to them, whithersoever they would; and that after this PERIOD 1 v with their whole lies and ts, wet in number than two hundred and forty thous I took their Lerness Syria, but that, as they were in fear of the s who had then the dominion over Asia, they built a atry, whieh is :. and that in this great number of men. and callevi : Jerusalem." T - id fragment oi Manetho. quoted by . 5. v.. s. is this: " Amenophis. king of Egypt, was desirous . the gods; he communicated his sd to a prophet, alsc called Amenophis, who told him. that he might see the gods, if he would clear the whole country of :' - and oi the other impure The king was pi as ath this injunction, and _ I ( _ :her all that had any defects in their bodies, out of Igypt, whose numv - eighty :housand. whom he s : me quarries which are on the east sidi of the Nile, that they niisht work in them, and might be separated from the if s: oi the Egyptians. After those, that were sent to work in the quarries, had continued in that miserable stati for a long while, the 1: a - sired to s I the city ;: Avaris, which was then ".. . solate by the shepherds, for their habita- tion and protection: which desire he granted them. Now this \ according to the ancient theology, was Typhon*S But when these men were gotten into it, and found the place ■ revolt, they appointed themselves a ruler out of the priests of Heliopolis. whose name - ^.\rsiph: and they took their oaths that they would be obedient to him in all thi: _ - He then, in the first place, made this law for them: that they should neither worship the Egyptian gods, nor should abstain from anv one of those sacred animals which they had held in the highest -:em. but kill and destroy them all; that they should join themselves to nobody, but to those that were of his confederacy. When he had made such laws a and many more such as were mainly opposite to the customs of the _ .-ptians. he gave orders that they should use the multitude of the hands they had in building walls about their city, and make themselves ready for a vrar with king Amenophis. while he did himself take in • and that were polluted with them, and sent amba herds who had been driven on! land by the city called Jerusalem ; whereby he informed them of his own affairs, and of 1 - that had Treated in such an ignominious manner, and desired that they would come with :isent to bis ssil : this war against Ecrypt. B that he would, in the first place, brine them back to their ancient city and country Avaris, and provide a plentiful maintena:. ;ir multitude, that he would protect them and fight for them as should require, and would easily reduce the country under their dominion. These shepherds were all very glad of this mess g and came away with alacrity, g - n number two thousand men; and in a little time they can:: I now Amenophis, the king : Egypt, upon his being informed of their invasion, was in great confusion, as calling to mind what Amenophis. the son of Papis, had : retold him: and, in first place, he assembled the multitude of the Egyptians, and took counsel with their leaders, and sent for their sacred animals ; especially for those that were principally wor- shiped in their temples, and gave a particular charge to the priests distinctly, that they should hide the im ges : gods with the utmost care. He - sent his soi Sethos, who was also named Ra: Less 5, from his father Bhampses, being but five years old, to a friend of his. He then passed on with the rest c : the Egyptians, being three hundred thousand of the most warlike of them, against the enemy who met them. Yet he did not join battle with them; but thinking that would be fighting against the gods, he returned and came to Memphis, where he took Apis and the other sacred animals for which he had sent, and presently marched into Ethiopia, together his whole army and multitude of Egyptians ; for the king of Ethiopia was under an obligation to him ; on which account he received him, and took care of all the multitude that was with him. while the country supplied all that was : for the food of the men. lie also alloted cities and village - . 4 50 PERIOD I this exile, that was to be from its beginning during those fatally determined thirteen years. Moreover, he pitched a camp for his Ethiopian army, as a guard to king Amenophis, upon the borders of Egypt. And this was the state of things in Ethiopia. But for the people of Jerusalem, when they came down together with the polluted Egyptians, they treated the men in such a barbarous manner, that those who saw how they sub- dued the forementioned country, and the horrid wickedness of which they were guilty, thought it a most dreadful thing; for they did not only set the cities and villages on lire, but were not satisfied till they had been guilty of sacrilege, and destroyed the images of the gods, and used them in roasting those sacred animals that used to be worshiped, and forced the priests and prophets to be the executioners and murderers of the sacred animals, and then ejected them naked out of the country. It was also reported, that the priest who ordained their polity and their laws, was by birth of Heliopolis, and his name Osarsiph, from Osyris, who was the god of Heliopolis; but that when he went over to these people his name was changed, and he was called Moses." The account of Manetho is too contradictory of itself, and to other historical sources, to deserve our implicit faith. He has three different accounts of the fortification of Avaris by Salatis, by the last of the shepherd kings, and by Osirsiph. Avaris, in which the retreating shepherds held out against the king of Egypt, covered an area of ten thousand acres of land, so fortified that the large army of the Egyptians could find no weak place to attack its garrison, which is a matter of impos- sibility; still, he adds, that the retreating shepherds built Jerusalem, large enough for all of them with their families and effects, which is another impossibility. The shepherds, two hundred and forty thousand strong, were obliged to leave Egypt ; but uniting afterwards two hundred thousand strong, with the eighty thousand polluted Egyptians, the king, not- withstanding the friendship of Ethiopia, could not even join in battle with them, and was obliged to leave the country to their mercy for thirteen years, which is no less unlikely than CHAPTER II. 51 the former. No less unlikely is his statement, that the king yielded the strong Avaris to eighty thousand ill-treated and ejected Egyptians; or thpt the shepherds left their new set- tlements to assist a body of leprous men, among whom were a number of cripples, according to his own statement. No historian has yet suceeded in accounting for the five hundred and eleven years of the reign of the Hyksos, as Manetho states, in comparison with other historical documents or monuments, or to find any one of the six names of the shep- herd kings mentioned by him, in any other historical document or monument. Besides this, it must be remarked, that while he did not at all mention the Israelites, for the Hyksos were the lords and not the slaves of Egypt, and the eighty thousand polluted men were Egyptians, as he himself states — still he men- tioned Moses and the Mosaic dispensation too plainly to be mis- understood, and not only made of him an Egyptian by descent, but also called him by the name of Joseph, whom he also men- tioned as the first king of the Hyksos, which is supported not only by the above philological statement, but also by Manetho's own statement, that Salatis came to Avaris to gather his corn. We are, therefore, obliged to adopt so much only of his account, as we can support by other historical evidences. There were shepherd kings in Egypt ; for we have to this effect the testimony of other historians. Herodotus (I, 124, 126-128) states, that during a period, before the beginning of the eighteenth dynasty, of one hundred and six years, all sorts of vices ruled in Egypt. He could not learn the names of those rulers, whereas the Egyptians did not much like to pro- nounce their names. These rulers, he mentioned in connection with the builders of the pyramides, who, he says, were called Cheops and his brother Chephren, who were the oppressors of the people, and practiced all sorts of vices. He then continues, that it is also sai4, the pyramides were built by a shepherd, whose name was Philistis or Philistion. This corresponds with the testimony of Eusebius, who states, that the seven- teenth dynasty consisted of four Phoenician shepherd kings, who tyrannized over Egypt one hundred and three years, under 52 PERIOD I. four kings, viz: Saites, reigned nineteen years; Bnon reigned forty years ; Apophis reigned fourteen years ; and Archies reigned thirty years. Diodorus (I, C3, 64) agrees with Herodotus in respect to one hundred and six years of the occupation of Egypt by a foreign and detested race of men, who were the builders of the pyramides, for which the stones were brought from Arabia; he only differs in the names and number of rulers of that dynasty. The Hyksos went to Palestine after their expulsion from Egypt ; this was critically ascertained by Heyne, and by Kenrick.* Typhon, or Baal Zephon, the god of the Hyksos, is identical with the Dagon of the Phelistines ; and the myths of that god belong more to Phelistia than to Egypt (Dr. Shenk, Gaza); in Egypt, Typhon was an impaired, captured and inimical deity, thus hated, that his name was not mentioned (Plut. c. 30); to this must be taken the name Philistis, mentioned by Herodotus, and the words of the prophet Amos xi, 7, and we arrive at the fact, that Phelistia was the principal seat of the Hyksos, from which point they overrun Egypt, and afterwards all Palestine, precisely corresponding with the biblical records of the Anakims. The Anakims came from Arabia; and Manetho remarks, that some said they were Arabs. Typhon, their god. principally was the god of the wilderness, in which popular superstitions always sought the hosts of evil spirits, as even some passages of the Bible inform us; and that the Anakims were the worshipers of Typhon, is evident from their being a nation of the wilderness, and from the description given of them in Genesis Rabbah (xxvi), which literally cor- responds with the account of Manetho, that the Hyksos set on fire the cities and villages, that they demolished the temples and maltreated the priests. It was a fallen and terrible nation, as their names Nephilim and Emim imply. The leprous Egyptians are brought in connection with the Hyksos, by Manetho; this is another proof that they were the Anakims; for it is well known, that the oriental leprosy is the product * Heyne ad Apollod. II, 1, 4; Kenrick, Egypt .off Herod. II, 182. CHAPTER II. 53 of the Arabian desert, where the Anakinis lived under ground; to this comes yet their propensities for fornication and bestiality, as described by the ancients; the name Rephaim, which may signify, those who need to be healed;* and the statement of Exodus Rabba ii, that the last king of Egypt, before the exode, was leprous, and bathed in the blood of the Hebrew children, one hundred and fifty of which were daily killed to this end. It appears, therefore, that the polluted Egyptians, mentioned by Manetho, were the remainders of the Hyksos, who were sent into the same quarries, whereto their kings formerly sent the Egyptians ; that they revolted and were assisted by those of Palestine. All our sources agree, that the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, was followed immediately by the eighteenth dynasty, consequently it was about 1500 B.C., wrhen the exode occurred according to sacred chronology ; there is no particle of evidence, that this was not the case. We may, therefore, take for granted, that the expulsion of the Hyksos and the exode occurred simultaneously. The coming of the Hyksos to Xios in the Delta, where they first conquered the Phoenician settlers, wherefore Eusebius called them Phoeni- cian shepherds, could not have occurred before the emigration of Jacob ; for the expedition of the Anakims must have been after the departure of Jacob from Canaan, so that the death of Jacob and the coming of the Hyksos to the Delta, was most likely also simultaneous. The wars between them and the Egyytians then commenced ; and it took a long while before they succeeded in taking Memphis, to which point they came from the Delta and from the Isthmus, as the passage in Chronicles informs us ; so that we may take for granted, with Eusebius, Diodorus and Herodotus, that they ruled over Memphis a little longer than one century. Manetho, who took his infor- mation from the nomenclatures of Egyptian temples and from popular traditions, as he himself confesses, confounded the facts which occurred at the same period. He most likely col- lected all the foreign sounding names and set them in connection *This philological definition was suggested to us by our literary friend, Rev. W. Rothenheimer. 54 PERIOD I. with the Hyksos, grouping around them all the traditions he could learn. Based upon this investigation we may continue our history, and we will find many biblical passages, which can not be understood otherwise, but that the Israelites suffered under the Hyksos or Anakim, wherefore they were afterwards so much afraid of the Anakim,* and Moses so often noticed them. The family of Jacob continued, after the death of the patriarch, to occupy the province of Goshen; the seventy male persons, together with the husbands and children of the daughters of Jacob, and their servants (Genesis xlvi, 7, 26), rapidly increased to a powerful tribe ; their manner of living and of occupation maintained them unimpaired in physical strength; their industrious habits, and the wealth then accu- mulated in Egypt, soon made them an opulent people; and as the Anakim had overrun Canaan, which the Israelites impos- sibly could occupy under such circumstances, the idea of returning to Canaan, grew fainter as their prosperity in Goshen increased. The Egyptians befriended them as the family of their benefactor; they had frequent intercourse with the Egyptians; so that they were greatly affected by Egyptian manners, customs, laws, religion, science and superstition. They were governed as Jacob had ordained each tribe by its own chief, while all of them obeyed one chief of the tribe of Jehudah. Manetho, informs us, that after the death of Jacob (during the life of whom he supposes Joseph or Salatis to have reigned) four princes followed after each other, in a period of one hundred and ninety-one years. He calls them Beon, Apachnas, Apophis and Jonian, after whom Assis or Moses followed. These four names may be the same with Jehudah, Hezron, Ram and Aminadab. This state of things was the easier maintained by peaceable means, whereas all Egypt was then divided into petty kingdoms, one of which, that of Mem- phis, was, on account of Joseph, particularly well disposed towards the Hebrews, as the descendants of Israel were called, * Numbers xiii, 33; Deutr. i, 23. ix, 2. CHAPTER II. • 55 and so they were looked upon as peaceable neighbors and friends of the Egyptians. This state of things, which produced a rapid increase among the Israelites, must have lasted nearly one century, whereas Joseph lived to the age of one hundred and ten years, fifty-four years after the death of Jacob; and Levi, who lived twenty-seven years longer than Joseph, though not more than four years older than Joseph, must have lived about eighty years after the death of Jacob ; if we add to this the seventeen years of Jacob's living in Egypt, it amounts to nearly one century of peace and uninterrupted tranquility, as we are informed in the Bible and by Josephus, that the time of oppression but begun after the death of Joseph and the whole of that generation. At the end of the first and at the beginning of the second century, the Anakims, the Hyksos of Manetho, the Phoenician shepherds of Herodotus, Diodorus andEusebius, succeeded to take Memphis, then a new king arose, who did not know Joseph. Their first attempts to pass through Goshen were frustrated by the Israelites, who may have lost many a brave defender of the nation, besides the sons of Ephraim; the attempts of the Anakims were renewed year after year; until finally the Israelites, although by nature a strong and fearless race, still were overcome by the Anakims, who on account of their numerous warlike expeditions in Canaan, Phoenicia, Phe- listia, and probably also in Greece, were practiced in warlike enterprises, while the Israelites living for nearly one century in a state of profound peace, occupied with agricultural pursuits, could not long offer them effectual resistance. After the Israelites were overcome, the Anakims leaving a sufficient garrison among them, and taking along the most active men, women, and also children, to sell them as slaves, marched towards the other Egyptian countries, joining with those coming from Xois, where they did not meet with much resistance; as the Egyptians, in consequence of the wealth accumulated there during the last century, had grown " lazy and delicate as to painstaking, and gave themselves up to other pleasures, and in particular to the love of gain," as Josephus remarks. The petty kings were dethroned; the priests were divested of their 56 PERIOD I. political power; the cast of warriors were probably calmed by being enlisted among the warriors of the invaders; the agricul- tural and pastoral people, who were a mere zero in the Egyptian government, could care but little for this sudden change of government ; those who did not submit to the new king, either fled to Thebes, or were compelled to obedience by being sold as slaves to other Egyptians ; or they were sent into the quarries, on the other side of the Red sea. The most dan- gerous enemies of the invaders, however, were the Israelites, who had offered them the most effectual resistance, and whom they hated most violently on account of former occurrences, wherefore the new Pharaoh said to his people, not to the Egyptians at large, "Behold, the children of Israel are more and mightier than we." This could not possibly refer to the whole Egyptian nation ; but it was true in regard to the invaders. The king then continued, " Come on, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply audit come to pass, that when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight also against us, and so get them up out of the land." They had greatly depopulized Goshen, by selling into slavery many of the warriors, together with their families; still they were afraid of the Hebrews, whom Manetho calls Assyrians, because the term, Hebrews, is derived from eber, the other side, and so were all those called who came from beyond the Euphrates; and the Assyrians once possessed all the land between the •lower Euphrates and Tigris. The Hyksos Pharaoh, therefore, appointed taskmasters over the people, who not only took taxes from the people, but also selected the stoutest of them to build fortifications in the very heart of their country; so they fortified Pithom and Raamscs or Avaris, which cities, especially the latter, were garrisoned with large forces, in order to hold the people in a state of subjection. Besides those fortified cities, the Hebrews, together with disobedient Egyptians, were forced to build pyramides, dams, canals, other fortifications and ramparts, in order to extinguish in them every spark of liberty; to which end, the taskmasters and such Egyptians as had bought Hebrew slaves, were instructed to treat them CHAPTER II. 57 with rigid severity. But, notwithstanding these inhuman measures of the government, the Israelites increased rapidly, and their numbers became a matter of tear to the trembling invaders, who held the land by force only, and who had to fear that an insurrection of the Hebrews would be seconded by the Egyptian priests, and by the kings of Thebes; therefore the midwives were instructed to destroy the male offspring of the Hebrews immediately after their birth. But the midwives fearing the Lord, did not kill the innocent children; and so Pharaoh commanded all his people to destroy every new-born male child of the Hebrews, wherever and whenever found. Jochebed, the wife and aunt of Amram, the son of Kehath, the son of Levi, the son of Jacob, at this time gave birth to a male child, which the mother hid for about three months, that none of the agents of Pharaoh should discover and kill it. But the orders of the king were so rigidly enforced, that she could no longer conceal her child; she, therefore, laid it in a little chest, and setting it on the brink of the Nile, exposed it to the mercy of the finder. Miriam, its sister, stood at some distance to observe the fate of the child. The daughter of Pharoah had come down to bathe in the Nile, and she found the weeping babe. Being moved by the tears of the boy, she, although knowing that it was a Hebrew child, resolved upon saving it. When Miriam saw this, she asked the princess whether she might go and call a nurse to take care of the child ; and being ordered to do so, she called upon her mother, who came and received her child from the hands of the princess, with the promise of good wages if she took proper care of it. The mother undoubtedly did her duty, and when the child had grown up, it was brought to the princess, who adopted it as her son, and named him Moses.* There is no great man in history, whose birth and cradle is not surrounded with the most extra- ordinary and marvelous stories, announcing to the world that a great event has taken place. While the Bible narrates, in the * Mosheh, according to the Bible, because drawn out of the water-, derived from the verb mashah, to draw- but, according to others, Mo signifies water, and sheh. drawn, in the Egyptian tongue. 58 PERIOD I. most simple and touching manner, the birth and first fate of Moses, the rabbins, Joscphus and Philo, know, that the Egyptian magicians predicted his birth and his career; that God appeared to Amram in a dream, and told him that Moses, the redeemer of his nation, will be born by his wife; that the house was filled with light, when the child was born; that he refused to be nursed by any other woman but his mother; he was as tall, beautiful and intelligent a child as none was seen before; that he was never addicted to childish plays, but always studied and contemplated, so that he at the age of twelve had outdone all his Egyptian teachers in learning and wisdom. These sayings reappear so often in ancient history, that they can not claim the confidence of an intelligent man. Josephus informs us, that the princess desired her father to make her adoptive son successor to the crown, which Pharaoh did. Moses was severely persecuted by the magicians and priests on this account, and but the assertions of his adoptive mother could save his life. When he had reached the age of maturity, he was placed at the head of an army to march against Ethiopia, the people of which country, most likely Thebes, were at war with the (Hyksos) Pharaoh, which also Manetho mentions. Moses led his army from one victory to the other, so that the enemy sued for peace, which was granted; one of the stipulations was, that Moses married Tharbis, the daughter of the king of Ethiopia.* After Moses had returned to Memphis, during that time the Apophis of Eusebius must have succeeded his father ; the jealousy of the officers at the king's court had assumed a violent nature ; he had not only the confidence of the Egyptians, but also of the Hebrews; for when he was great, he went out to his brothers, and undoubtedly thought of ameliorating their miserable con- dition. Pharaoh and his officers may have found this politics dangerous to their own interests; for if he, who possessed the confidence of the Egyptians and the Hebrews, should succeed, will he not either expel the invaders, or deprive them of their power? It was, therefore, deemed necessary to dispose of him * Vide Numbers xii, 1. CHAPTER II, 59 in one way or other. An opportunity was soon offered. Moses, frequently mixing among the oppressed people, one day saw an Egyptian, who killed a Hebrew- slave;* Moses in his anger lynched the murderer, but knowing as he did, that his name was much disliked at court, he covered the corpse with sand. When he came among them some other day, he found a Hebrew officer chastising a Hebrew slave, Moses rebuked the assailant, upon which he was answered, " Doest thou mean to kill me, as thou hast killed the Egyptian?" Moses was afraid the matter would be brought before Pharaoh, who would improve this chance to dispose of him, with an appearance of justice. His apprehension was not unfounded; Pharaoh, indeed, was informed of the affair, and intended to have Moses killed. But Moses was informed of this intention, and left Egypt. It was dangerous for him to flee to Thebes, and throw himself into the arms of a former enemy; he could not escape across the Isthmus, whereas the Anakims were in possession of Phelistia, as well as of Egypt; therefore he had to cross the Red sea and seek shelter in Arabia. It was there that he saw some rude shepherds driving away some shepherdesses from the troughs, where they gave water to their flocks ; but Moses assisted the weaker party. When the shepherd girls had come home to their father, who was a priest of Midian, which according to Josephus, was a city on the Red sea, called after one of Abraham's sons by Keturah; they told him of the Egyptian, who had aided them against the other shepherds ; upon which Moses was sought, found and brought into the house of the priest; he agreed to live there, and married Ziphorah, the daughter of the priest, Jethro,f and begat with her two sons, Gershom and Eliezer. It must have been a singular contrast for Moses to be first a high officer at the court of Egypt, or as Josephus said, successor to the crown, and now a simple shepherd. * If the second Vayach signifies he killed, the first Macceh being derived from the same radix, must have the same signification. f An Arabian sheik, as some suppose; the prophet Shoaib, as others sup- pose; the high priest of the temple of Medina, as again others suppose. 60 PERIOD I. He saw first the learning, civilization, pomp, splendor and corruption of Egypt ; now he saw a simple and peaceable people in their natural state of purity. In Egypt he saw but the oppressed and the oppressor; but now he saw a people in the full enjoyment of liberty. There he heard the priests speak of their seven gods, the sacred animals and vegetables, kneeling at the shrine of physical nature, and worshiping its grossest objects; now he saw a people kneeling before sun, moon and stars only, and raising the eye to a blue, ethereal sky. In Egypt he heard of Hermes, Thaut and Manes; but in Arabia he heard of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He had heard the history of the creation of the first human parents, of the primitive ages, of the flood, from the Egyptians and the Hebrews, now he heard it from the Arabs — each nation on the globe has the same stories covered under other fictions — he compared the myths, and with the help of God, he produced the first eleven chapters of Genesis, in wiiich the Egyptian and Arabic accounts, as well as the master pen of Moses, are plainly visible. He then compared the traditions of the Hebrews regarding Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, with those of the Arabs, on the same subject; he also most likely visited all the spots which tradition had pointed out to him — his exact knowledge of the geography of Palestine is a plain demonstra- tion that he must have been in that country — he probably saw the altars built by the patriarchs, found inscriptions, marks, and, most likely, also documents; he compared again, exercised his own judgment ; and, with the help of God, he compiled the rest of the book of Genesis. He comprehended the mission which Abraham had adopted for his tribe, and for which the patriarchs lived and worked; he comprehended the eternal truths which pervaded the heart of Abraham and his descend- ants ; he was inspired by the sublime virtues and pure life of his early ancestors; and having confidence in God and in truth, he was convinced that the sacred verities, which his ancestors possessed and guarded, in order to maintain them for the world by their descendants, could not be lost entirely among his Hebrew brethren in Egypt, although they had been greatly CHAPTER IT. 61 addicted to Egyptian superstition and corruption; and if they were yet in possession of a part of those elevating truths, if they felt yet proudly about the virtues of their noble ancestors; they were able to shake off the yoke of slavery, form a people in the sense and will of father Abraham, and eternize the truths inherited by their ancestors. He then thought of the wretched condition of his brethren; of the violence and power of Pharaoh; of the immense strength of his army, and invincible fortifications ; thought of his own inability to inspire the mul- titude by the power of speech; of the imminent danger con- nected with such an undertaking. All these ideas struggled in his great mind against his ardent desire to save his people, and to eternize the truths which his ancestors possessed and guarded; and so it came to pass, that one day, when he had led the flocks of his father-in-law to mount Horeb, "An angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire, out of the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush burnt with fire, and the bush was not consumed.-' The bush was not consumed with the horrid fire; if Israel was not consumed, notwithstanding the tyranny of the Hyksos, it could be saved. He could not find a reasonable cause to satisfy him that his undertaking must be successful; but he was aware, that he was going to do a great and good work, and so God promised him special assistance, by which Moses overcame all the diffi- culties which struggled in his mind; and so he returned to Jethro, announcing to him his intention to return to Egypt, took his wife and children, and after a stay of about forty years, as the tradition says, he returned to Egypt. ' ' How very different, " says Salvador, " was the position of Moses from that of other lawgivers of antiquity. Lycurgus, Menos and Draco were born among nations who were united under a certain standard of laws, and who were in possession of a land of their own; so those lawgivers were brought up to their eminent vocation by a natural process of affairs. Confucius promulgated his precepts to his fellow-citizens in profound peace. Mahomet, that powerful spirit, gave, after fifteen years of solitary contem- plation, to nations whose civil affairs had been settled previously, 62 PERIOD I. a new code of laws, consisting of a peculiar compound of ancient maxims, which he suited to their state of affairs, and imposed by the edge of the sword. Moses appears alone: having no command over material forces of any kind; the individuals of whom he is to make a people, have no country of their own; before he can give them laws, he must, so to say, conquer them; must discourage their oppressors, must elevate the mind from a long and severe oppression; must overcome a horrid mass of difficulties." Let us see how he overcame them. Aaron, the eldest brother of Moses, was the first man whom he met; to him he explained his plans and aims; charging Aaron, who was a more expert speaker than Moses, to address the people in the affair. When he arrived at Goshen, a public convention of the elders of the people took place; Aaron addressed them, and although the traditional account of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, of their sacred mission, which they bequeathed to their descendants, and of the land of which they had taken posses- sion to this purpose, was almost forgotten; still the elders of the people were convinced, that the time had arrived for their redemption from bondage. Moses and Aaron, consequently, went to Pharaoh and demanded him in the name of their God and an oppressed people, to give permission to the Hebrews to make a journey of three days into the wilderness, for the purpose of celebrating a feast. But Pharaoh refused to comply with their demand; he made use of words which decidedly showed him to be the Hyksos king, of Manetho, who was the enemy of religion, the servant of Typhon; he said, "Who is the Lord, that I shall obey his voice?" Still, afraid that a general insurrection might compel him to comply with the demands of Moses, he commanded his officers to treat the Hebrews with doubled severity, which was rigidly enforced. The people thus cruelly treated, in consequence of the first attempt of Moses, endeavored to stop his operations. But Moses had learned by this doubled severity on account of his demands, that the tyrant trembled, fearing a general rise of the people; so he endeavored to organize a general insurrection, but the mass of the people did not understand his great plans; they were too much oppressed, and so they did not mind him. CHAPTER II. 63 Still, Moses improved his chance; he went to Pharaoh, and demanded him to give permission to the Hebrews to leave the country entirely; but the king boldly refused to comply with his demands. Moses was not easily discouraged; he pursued his plan in three different ways; he attempted to inspire the peo- ple for his mission; he endeavored to break the obstinacy of the king; and, undoubtedly, he also called on the kings of Thebes to cooperate with him to defeat the common enemy. The ter- ror of the Hyksos was so great with the people, that none of these objects was easily achieved; still Moses succeeded, so that he not only gradually gained the confidence of the Hebrews, but " The man Moses was also very great in the land of Egypt, in the eyes of the servants of Pharaoh and in the eyes of the people." He succeeded so well with the Egyptians, that they provided the Hebrews with money and arms (Exodus xi, 2, 3; xiii, 18); that even the officers next to the king, advised him to let the Hebrews go (ibid x, 7). But how did he achieve this success ? With the intelligent portion of the Hebrews it was easy for him, as we have seen above, to gain their confi- dence ; they were intimately acquainted with his great plans and designs, and were desirous to assist him in the great work of redemption. The intelligent portion of the Egyptian popu- lation certainly coincided with him to reduce the foreign tyrants; the mass of the people was inspired by the miracles which he performed; the slaveholders and the king were terri- fied by the plagues which came over the country, and threatened to lay waste the whole land; about which Eichhorn remarks:* that the plagues as described in Exodus are usual in Egypt, and that it was but their almost simultaneous appearance which terrified the people. So also H. du Bois-Ayme, one of the learned members of the French expedition to Egypt, remarks: | "In that part of Scripture, treating on the epoch of the exode, are found many facts, which, although being * Eichhorn de Egypli anno mirabili. KosenmUller scholia in Exodum, cap. vii. t Description de TEgypte, Tom. I, de PEtat ancien— Notice sur le srjour des Hubreux en Egypte, 64 PERIOD I. uncommon, still are compatible to the records of profane authors and to the present state of the country.." The Bible does not inform us, that those plagues were uncommon in Egypt; on the contrary, they are frequently called "Egyptian plagues," some of which even the magicians of Pharaoh could produce; nor are we forced by any one passage in Scripture, to suppose that these plagues took place within a short period of time; it rather appears, that years elapsed before the plan of Moses was matured for realization. It was the will of God, that those plagues happened; Moses made the best use of the occurrence to inspire the people with hope, and to deter the Egyptian slaveholders. The king was pressed on one side by the friends of Moses, and by those whom the plagues had terrified, to let the Hebrews go; and on the other side, a gene- ral insurrection of the Hebrews threatened him with all its terror; and on the third side, there were the kings of Thebes, as Manetho informs us, who eagerly waited for an opportunity to expel the invaders from the Egyptian territory. Pharaoh would have permitted the Hebrews to depart, but now they were dispersed over almost the whole country, and were not as dangerous as if he had permitted them to meet and to organize in one body, to go into the desert, connect with those working in the quarries on the other side of the Nile, march back upon Egypt and bring Pharaoh between two armies. Moses must have taken, meanwhile, the city of Raamses or the Avaris of Manetho ; for it says in our records (Exodus xii, 37), that the children of Israel departed from that city. Being in possession of this valuable point, he had a place where to organize the body of his army, consisting of those who lived in Goshen, being the best kernel of the nation. Here was the place from which he could safely organize an insurrection of the Hebrew slaves all over the country. Manetho knew well enough, that Moses was in possession of Avaris, but he did not know the circumstances connected with it. Whether the time of the plagues lasted thirteen years, as Manetho supposes, and whether Moses had possession of Avaris during all this time is not contrary to the text of the Bible ; but it does not appear to us CHAPTER II. 65 necessary to enter upon a critical investigation in order to ascertain it. When neither the plagues, nor the words of the magicians and other wise men, nor the threatening insurrection could move Pharaoh to allow the Hebrews to depart in peace, as it was the desire of Moses and of the people; Moses pre- pared a general rise of the Hebrews in one night, the night between the 14th and 15th day of the first month, Nissan or April. But nothing is more dangerous and horrible than an insurrection of slaves, who have been deprived for years of the inalienable rights of man, and who at once gain liberty and superiority of strength. Moses, in order to prevent the horrible scenes connected with such a general rise, commanded them in the name of God to be prepared for departure that night; but each family should be in its respective house ready for depart- ure, and spend the night in religious devotion to the God who would redeem them this night. The blood of the sacrifice brought on that occasion should be sprinkled on the door-posts, in order that the destroyer, who was to rage that night, should not enter their houses. So those slaves were kept in their houses under, the influence of a religious awe ; and none of the horrid scenes generally connected with such an affair were enacted during that night. At midnight, our records state, the Lord smote all the first-born of the land of Egypt. It would appear to us, as Aben Ezra already remarked, that parties of the army of Moses at Avaris or Raamses, were sent to the country to kill the first-born or the defenders, of all those who were opposed to the departure of the Hebrews. This had its good effect. Pharaoh was now forced by the terrified people to dismiss the Hebrews; the people were so terrified, that they drove out the Hebrews without giving them time to bake their cakes for the journey. They assembled around Avaris or Raamses, where those present before had already been organized, according to tribes, in twelve divisions, as mentioned before, so that every new comer had only to take his place with his respective tribe. It would appear, that they were encamped seven days around Avaris or Raamses, in order to be properly organized, during which time those scattered over the country 5 G6 PERIOD I. could join them, and also those who desired to go with them could improve the chance; and a mixed multitude joined them. Those seven days were also celebrated as the feast of liberty and delivery, and sanctioned as the annual feast of Passover for the Israelites of coming generations. Since they had to bake their dough in the sun without being leavened; they were commanded to commemorate this event, by eating annually, at that feast, unleavened cakes; and since the first born of the Egyptians were slain, and theirs was saved, it was ordained, that the first-born of man and beast should be sacred to God. This is the first time in history, that a nation claimed and attained its rights; the first time that a despot was chastised by an offended and oppressed people. And how beautifully is it narrated in the Bible ; it is God himself who interferes on behalf of the oppressed, and chastises the tyrant. God sanctions the struggle of a nation for its liberty and independence. After the Israelites were properly organized, they started to leave the country, marching towards the Isthmus. Their road has been ascertained by Robinson and Smith; but our space allows us not to be minute on this subject. Moses had more than one reason for not leading the Israelites across the Isthmus ; for, in the first place, they would have come into the midst of the Hyksos* who had their connections across the Isthmus, where they undoubtedly were well fortified, in order to cover their retreat from Egypt in case of necessity (Exodus xiii, 17); and, in the second place, if he had succeeded in forcing his way through the lines of the Hyksos, he would have been unable to take Canaan, or to organize them into a nation able and pre- pared for the mission which inspired his mind. He, therefore, at the first place of encampment, Succoth, where the remains of Joseph were deposited, which were taken along by the Israelites, — altered his course, and marched towards the Red sea. For this he had a good many reasons ; it was necessary to have the people go through the Red sea by a miracle, so that they be convinced of the impossibility of returning to Egypt; as there were a great number among them who disliked CHAPTER II. 67 to leave Egypt (Ex. xiv, 12), and they frequently uttered their desire to return to Egypt. It was also necessary, that Pharaoh, most likely the Archies of Eusebius, be thoroughly chastised before they left the country; for they were by no means safe on the other side of the Red sea, nor were they out of the reach of the Egyptian army. Finally, it is not unlikely, that Moses cooperated with the kings of Thebes, who were led by Amosis, the founder of the eighteenth dynasty, to which the terms of the Bible, "And they (the Israelites) saved Egypt," is no mean support; therefore, Moses manoeuvered about in the desert, either to hold Pharaoh in a state of excitement, and so to withdraw his attention from the commotions in the south of Memphis; or to attract him with his army into the desert, where he might find the end of his power by the waves of the Red sea; or, if this was not effected, Amosis could find time to occupy Memphis. Therefore they directed their steps towards the Red sea, and having passed Etham they encamped at a place which the Bible describes to be between Migdol and the sea, before Pi ha-Hiroth and Baal Zephon. We are also informed that God went before them in a pillar of cloud at day time, and of fire at night, to lead them on the way; which would inform us, that the whole manoeuvre of Moses was a profound secret to the people. Don Abarbanel supposes this to be a figurative description of Providence which led them. Van der Hart supposes it was the sacred fire of the priests. Others suppose it was identical with the pole which Alexander the Great used to give signals in the camp, of which smoke emitted at day time, and fire at night time,* to which means Napoleon is said to have resorted, under similar circumstances;! and that the Arabs still do so. J Ac- cording to which, it would have been a fire of resinous fuel, which emits a dense smoke at day time ; and a flame of fire at night time, having been necessary in order that the different divisions of the army be not separated from each other. We, * Curtius Rufus, lib. v, c. 7. t Courrier de PEgypte, 27 Nivose 8, of the Rep. t M. du Bois-Ayme's Description de TEgypte. 68 PERIOD I. for our part, do not believe that the nature of that pillar can be fully ascertained by us, standing so remote from that age. According to our sources, the Israelites marched day and night, which could have been for no other reason but to con- found Pharaoh. The manoeuvre of the Israelites had the desired effect; when Pharaoh had been informed that the Israelites marched towards the sea, not crossing the Isthmus, where they would have been within his grasp; he could but think, that they intended to return and unite their forces with those of Amosis. Pharaoh thought of crushing the Israelites at once and pursued them with a numerous army, in which chariots of war and cavalry made a principal division. After a difficult march Pharaoh overtook the Israelites at a spot described above, which we do not think has been fully ascertained by modern travelers. The camp of the Israelites was so situated, that Pharaoh could not attack them ; for, according to Josephus, their right and their left was covered by steep ranges of moun- tains, while the sea covered their rear; the valley was too narrow to have the chariots or the cavalry operate to any advantage; so Pharaoh could only besiege them. Still, the Israelites, on perceiving the Egyptian army, were discouraged; and gave free utterance to their feelings, accusing Moses of having led them away from a safe home to certain death. Moses succeeded in pacifying them until the provisions were gone, as Josephus informs us; when, of course, a decisive step had to be taken. The cause of this delay may have been an understanding to this effect with Amosis, or the expectation of Moses of the right moment to cross the sea, which, according to Scripture, could be expected only with the blowing of a strong east, or rather north-east wind. Much has been said about the crossing of the Red sea, and while the pious believer of the Bible perceives in it a merely divine manifestation of the Deity on behalf of Israel, the hypercritics of our days have altogether denied the fact on the ground of its being contrary to the laws of nature ordained by the Deity; we are, therefore, supposed to be entitled to show, that th&re is a possibility, that the crossing of the CHAPTER II. (jD Red sea really occurred in accordance with the laws of nature. Josephus remarks on this subject: "As for myself, I have delivered every part of this history as I found it in the sacred books. Nor let any one wonder at the strangeness of the narration, if a way icere discovered to those men of old time, who were free from the wickedness of the modern ages, whether it happened by the will of God, or whether it hap- pened of its own accord; while, for the sake of those who accompanied Alexander, king of Macedonia, who yet lived comparatively but a little while ago, the Pamphvlian sea retired and afforded them a passage through itself,* when they had no other way to go; I mean, when it was the will of God to destroy the monarchy of the Persians." I. Salvador, a modern French writer, gives us this description of the affair. " The Red sea, or the Sea of Suph, is a gulf running from south to north in a length of more than four hun- dred French miles, from the 13 to 30° northern latitude. It equals a large channel, stretching between Arabia in the east, Abyssinia and Egypt in the west. Its western shore was inhabited by the ancient Troglodytes. It terminates in the north in two small arms, which were always exposed to the strongest tides. The western part of it was called by the ancients, Sinus Heropolites, separated from the Mediterranean sea by the Isthmus of Suez, and the eastern part they called Sinus Aelnites, after the city of Aelana once situated on its shores. Moses had encamped at the head of the western gulf,| in a position, which it is difficult now to ascertain; because those shores have undergone many changes in the lapse of centuries. J The Sinus Heropolytes is at present but three to four miles wide at its northern extremity. The tide, according to that * This is also narrated by Callisthenes, Strabo, Arian and Apian. t According: to Robinson, above Suez, where there are about three to four miles from shore to shore-, and where the Arabs still cross with their camels. J Niebuhr's Travels. Memoire de M. du Bois-Ayme on the boundaries of the Red Sea, in the Description of Egypt, Tom. I. Voyage of Aly-Bey, Tom. hi, p. 89. 70 PERIOD I. work on Egypt, rises there two metres (eight feet), with storms, especially when the wind blows strongly from the south, the tide rises to a height of three to four metres (12 — 16 feet), which is more than sufficient to drown a numerous army.* The commander-in-chief of that Egyptian expedition, (Napoleon) returning one day from the Fountains of Moses, which are on the eastern shore of the gulf, thought of making use of the ebb tide to cross the Red sea on dry ground ; but night came on, he had lost his way, the flood tide came against him, and he scarcely found time enough to escape the rage of the waves.j Moses who had become intimately acquainted, during his stay in Arabia, with the phenomena and vicinity of the Red sea, ordered at even time the fire, which was at the head of the camp, to be brought behind between the camps of the Israelites and the Egyptians; either, in order to cover the movements of his camp by a thick smoke, or to let the Egyptians see the stationary rear of it, while the march was continued in the front. When the tide and a strong wind had driven back the water, a remarkable phenomenon became visible, which accounts more satisfactorily for the following facts, than the natural exposition of the affair given by Josephus, and adopted by|St. Thomas, Grotius, and many of the learned rabbins, that the Israelites marched in a semi-circular line through the sea during the ebb tide, returning to the land on the same shore from which they started. There became visible in the bottom of the sea a considerable elevation of the bottom running across the gulf from shore to shore, which divided the water in two parts; the part north of the elevation formed a separate sea, while in the south of it was t*he main body of the water, and between them the broad elevation of the bottom. This fact, which is readily understood, and which is confirmed by M. du * Description de l'Egypte, Tom. i, p. 34, Niebuhr remarks, that the sea above Suez has but the breadth of a river. Description of Arabia, p. 410, Herodotus already knew, that this sea daily retires and returns again; lib. iii, $ 2, and Diodor. added to this, that it has long islands, small navigable roads, and a strong tide, lib. iii. 7 Du Bois-Aynn , ibid. Memorial du St. Helena, Tom. i. CHAPTER II. 71 Bois-Ayme, through observations made at the very spot,* is literally contained in the historical part of the biblical text; one must only guard against the common mistake of taking the next following poetical chapter for a description of facts. It says there, " And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord drove the sea with a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the zvaters ivcre divided." On this elevation of the bottom of the sea, the different divi- sions of the Israclitish host crossed the sea, extending their front continually as the elevation gained in breadth. They progressed, having the water at their right and their left hand side, appearing to them in the light of the moon, " as a wall;" at the left they were covered by a sea separated from the main body of the water by the elevation, on which they marched; while their right wing w^as covered by the main body of water. So they continued their march until their rear had come into the sea, when the Egyptians observing that peculiar road and the march of the Israelites, pursued them, blinded by vengeance. The Israelites, whose main body had meanwhile reached the opposite shore, could draw up in battle line to protect their rear, and to prevent the enemy from reaching the shore. But this caution was unnecessary. The darkness of a stormy night, the illusion of the dim light of the moon, their ignorance of the nature of that road, and especially their heavy chariots, the wheels of which cut deep into the sandy ground, considerably checked their progress. Suddenly the roar of the rushing waves struck on their cars, which returned with the more vio- lent a force the more they had been driven back by the previous storm; and the general outcry was raised, " Let us flee from the face of Israel, for the Lord fighteth for them against the Egyptians." But where could they flee? At their left was the sea described before, hemming them in as a wall; the shores were too far distant, and the roar of the rushing waves con- tinually increased. The confusion of the Egyptians, upon the dawn of morning through a dim light, must have been horrible. * Description of Egypt ami the limits of the Red sea, I e. 72 PERIOD I. The terrors of death followed the passion of vengeance; their senses became confused, and the returning tide overtook them, floating them along on its thunderlike currents, together with horses, chariots and baggage." But on the opposite shore, a sublime hymn resounded, the people rendering praise to Jeho- vah for this wonderful salvation ; the accords of the multitude shouting for joy, accompanied by the sound of the drum, cymbal and sistrum by Miriam and the other women, who repeated the concluding verse of the hymn — filled the air of the desert. Here they were joined by their brethren, who partly had worked here in the quarries, and partly had fed here their numerous flocks. Israel was saved (1485 B.C.), and the Hyksos were beaten, driven from Egypt with very little trouble; where- fore the founder of the eighteenth dynasty was called Amosis, in honor of Moses, by the agency of whom Egypt was saved from foreign tyrants. So a nation was born; so Israel was redeemed from Egypt to continue the mission of the patriarchs; to play the part in history, which Providence has entrusted into its hands, and to begin a grand, marvelous and eventful career as a nation. CHAPTER III. ISRAEL IN THE WILDERNESS. (1485-1445^ B. C.) The people which Moses brought from Egypt were not, as some erroneously supposed, a host of demoralized slaves, who were debarred from all sorts of knowledge and civilization; for such a people could not have been subjected to the organiza- tion that Moses effected, nor would they have accepted laws and a religion so intelligent as those contained in the Mosaic dispensation. There were amongst them a vast number of CHAPTER III. 73 slaves, who had lived for a long time, and a vast number of whom had been born under the degradations of perpetual slavery; but the bulk of the people lived in Goshen, although under the despotic rule of the Hyksos, still they were personally free, and were occupied with agriculture and the kindred arts. We will find among them in the course of this period artists in different branches of the useful and of the fine arts ; a caste of warriors, non^D ^J« who came with them out of Egypt; a political organization into tribes with official chiefs, as Jacob had ordered it, and the tribes subdivided into families with chiefs of the families, which were again subdivided into fatherhouses with official chiefs, besides which, we find among them in Egypt a council of the elders, consequently, they must have been an organized and civilized nation in Goshen, de- pending on the Hyksos kings then the rulers of Egypt. Many of them were addicted to the pastoral life, especially the Reubenites, Gadites, and one half of the tribe of Menassah, who most likely occupied the oases of Arabia Petrsea, previous to the exode. We have set down here this observation in order to prevent misunderstanding, when we shall afterwards speak of different classes of people among the Israelites. Josephus informs us, that the next day after they had crossed the Red sea, "Moses gathered together the arms of the Egyptians, which were brought to the camp of the Hebrews by the current of the sea, and the force of wind assisting it." Soon after — it is not remarked how long they stayed there — the whole host marched in a southern direction at a short distance from the sea. It was necessary for Moses to go as far away from the Isthmus of Suez as possible, in order to escape molestation by the tribes connected with the Anakims; until he had trained his men, and organized the nation as he wanted it. The pursuit of Amalek, a cognate tribe of the Anakims (Genesis xiv, 7), which we shall directly notice more at length, shows that this caution was very prudent. Most all the readers of the Bible form a peculiar conception of the wilderness, thinking it to be a vast and barren plain covered with sand and serpents, in which no other living being 74 PERIOD 1. breathes; but this is by no means the case, there are man}' large and fertile oases, which afford pasture to the numerous herds of the Arabs; there are in Arabia Petnea many a fertile val- ley, as the Ghurundel and the Taiyibch valleys, and thousands of Arabs still find there a tolerable support. The Hebrew term "»m denotes a place of pasture and also a desert. If the wilderness between the two gulfs of the Red sea has lost its vegetative powers in the same ratio as Palestine, then it was much more fertile in the time of Moses than at present, of which there are indeed some unquestionable traces ; the petrified trees which are found in many regions of that desert, especially in the vicinity of Suez , are a plain evidence of a former vege- tation in that desert. The Bible mentions palm trees, and Josephus makes mention of groves of palm trees in that wil- derness. The numerous live stock which the Israelites had with them, is another proof of its fertility; for they never complained about the want of pasture. It appears, that the gazelles, which now traverse the Syrian desert in droves of two to three thousand, formerly roamed also over this desert, as well as the hart and the roe, which undoubtedly existed there in the time of Moses, together with many different wild birds.* In the time of David, and especially in the time of king Uziah, that desert was regarded as a valuable possession, upon which much care was bestowed; men and money were sacrificed for it. We can not imagine, that Moses should have led a people into a desert, if he had not carefully surveyed it before, and had known that they could find there their support; it appears to us much more agreeable to the wisdom and humanity of Moses, that he had fixed upon every point of encampment and had carefully considered every possible occurrence before he took it upon himself to lead two millions of human beings into a howling desert. After the Israelites had traversed for three days the wilder- ness of Shur, the common dilemma of the want of water, that curse of the wilderness, was experienced by them; and when they finally found a stream of water, it was bitter, as numerous * Leviticus xvii, 1H-, Deutrononiy xii. 22. CHAPTER III. 75 fountains of bitter water arc found in those deserts in our day. The water, spoken of here, most likely was in the vicinity of the torrent of Sdur, where yet. in our day wells of salt water arc found. Moses, better informed than the Arabs of our day, threw a certain kind of wood into the water which rendered it drinkable. Perhaps, he threw many pieces of wood in to form a natural reservoir to purify the water. According to Josephus, the water was bitter because it had stood so long; Moses " bid the strongest men among them that stood there, to draw up water; and told them, that when the greatest part was drawn up, the remainder would be fit to drink; so they labored at it till the water was so agitated and purged as to be fit to drink." According to Buckhardt's observation, it must have been the berries of the shrub growing at the salt wells, which made the water drinkable ; but our text speaks of a wood. That place was called Marah (bitter). Moses embraced that opportunity to exhort the people to trust in God, and not to be discouraged by the terrors which accompany a journey through a wilderness. While they remained at Marah, Moses gave them such laws and regulations as were necessary for a marching host. The next encampment was at Elim in the fertile Valley of Ghurundel, where they found twelve fountains of water and seventy palm trees ; according to Josephus, a grove of palms, where they rested for some time. No stopping place is then noticed until they came to the Wilderness of Sin, about sixteen miles from the former place; still they must have been encamped in the Valley of Taiyibeh, where the beautiful Lake Murcah, most likely the encampment on the sea, invited them to a day of rest, and sixteen miles was too much for a day's march for such a large body, and they reached the Wilderness of Sin, Plain of el Ca'a, not before the fifteenth day of the second month after the exode. The want of provisions was felt, and the murmuring was heard against Moses, " Would to God we had died by the hand of God in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the ilesh-pots, and when we did eat bread to the full; rather than that vou have led us forth into this 76 PERIOD I. wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger." The words of themselves prove sufficiently that it was but that part of the people who were degraded by a lasting and severe slavery, although Ave do not know what sort of words we might use under similar circumstances. Moses satisfied them by promising them in the name of God, that they should have plenty of meat in the evening and of bread in the morning. Jn the evening a vast number of quails came flying over the sea, flying very near the earth as usual; the Israelites caught them and satisfied their hunger with them. Josephus remarks, that this bird is more plentiful in that region of the Arabian gulf than anywhere else. It is also well known, that the quails still cross the gulf in our very day, and wearied by a long flight can be easily caught with the hands, and many Arabs still subsist on this easy sport. In the morning they found small grains, which tasted sweet as dipped in honey; they tasted it, and not knowing what it was, they called it manna, derived from man hu, "what is this? " of which Josephus says, that it came down in rain in all those places in his very day. Prosper Alpin tells us,* that the monks of Mount Sinai gathered manna in the vicinity of their convent, to give it to the ambassador of Algiers. Modern travelers confirm this statement. It is generally supposed, that this accounts not for the miracle, as the quantity of manna must have been immense, to feed nearly two millions of people; but it is generally forgotten, that they subsisted also on quails, that they had a vast wealth of live stock; that the numerous oases and fertile valleys are not only covered with wells and pasture, but also with fruit trees; that cara- vans came to them and brought them the products of other countries; and that they also subsisted on hunting (Levit. xvii, 13). The manna was but one of their means of subsist- ence. Moses commanded them to gather manna every morn- ing, sabbaths excepted, as that should be a day of rest. But those who were slaves in Eg}rpt, and not permitted to have a * De medicina Egyptionorum, lib. ii, c. v. CHAPTER III. 77 day of rest, although the Egyptians observed the sabbath, disobeyed that command, upon which Moses exhorted them to pay more regard to the Lord's day. He also commanded Aaron to take a part of it and lay it up for a memorial, that the Israelites were fed by the Lord when they were in the wilder- ness, which, however, was done long after this. From Sin, where they ate the first manna, they traveled to Rephidim, Valley of Sheikh, resting at three intermediate places, where again the want of water thus provoked them, that a riot broke out against Moses, threatening to stone him to death if they were not supplied with water. Moses, probably either knowing that there was a well of water in a rock, or digging one with the aid of his friends, and covering it with a large stone which was thin enough to be split by a forcible blow with a stick, produced by the command of God plenty of water from a rock, as our sources inform us. This place was called Masah Umeribah; but the Arabs call it Macad-Sidna-Mousa, place of our lord Moses. The Amalekites frequently attacked the rear of the camp when either marching or resting. While in Rephidim Moses commanded Joshua to select the best men, those who served in the Egyptian army, and chastise Amalek, which was done with the best consequences. Moses having the chief command, assisted by Aaron and Hur, stood on a hill and directed the battle. Amalek was utterly discomfited; upon which Moses built an altar, calling it "God is my banner," and swore, that this cognate tribe of the Anakims should be utterly exterminated. Departing from Rephidim, they came in the beginning of the third month after the exode, into the wilderness, or rather mountains of Sinai. Moses had led the people almost to the extremity of the desert, so that they should be undisturbed; for this was the spot where he thought of preparing them for the mission to which Abraham had devoted his tribe, and to organize them to the great work of taking Canaan and con- stituting a free and independent nation. Here he disclosed to them his lofty plans, making them acquainted with the eternal will of God, and the part which they should enact in the history 78 PERIOD I. of mankind. In the Bible we are told, that he addressed to them these words by the command of God, " Ye have seen what I have done unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. Now, therefore, if you will obey my voice, and keep my covenant, then shall ye be unto me a peculiar treasure above all nations ; for all the earth is mine. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation " (Exodus xix, 4-6). But if we compare this statement with that in Exodus xxiv, 1-11, and with the words of Josephus (Antiqu. B. iii, c. v, 3), it becomes evident, that the verses quoted are but a very brief statement of the quintessence of what Moses spoke to the people. He read to them the Book of the Covenant (Exodus xxiv, 7), and this was according to ancient traditions, with which not only Josephus but sound common sense agree, the Book of Genesis, the history of creation, of the deluge, of the patriarchs, and their pious designs, to which he may have added a brief review of the history of their sufferings in Egypt, and their wonderful delivery from bondage, and into which afterwards the ten commandments were written. He expounded to them the great mission, which they were to take upon themselves, and for which Abraham left his home to constitute an independent tribe, which he told them consisted in being exalted in moral sentiments above the rest of nations ; being a kingdom of priests, every one of which should be the servant of the Lord, and bound to practice and to teach his divine will, not as in Egypt where this duty devolved upon one caste. Every one of them should be as free and esteemed as the Egyptian priests were; and a holy nation by practice, by the purpose to which they should be subservient, and by being separated from the rest of mankind to the service of the Lord, while others wor- ship idols. The people, inspired by the history of their ancestors on one side, and by the great and divine mission on the other, unanimously exclaimed, "Whatever the Lord will say, we shall do and obey." Moses erected an altar of twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of Israel; he called the first born sons, who, according to patriarchal custom, were the CHAPTER III. 79 priests of the nation, and ordered them to bring sacrifices, the blood of which lie sprinkled upon the altar and upon the nation, as a token of the renewed covenant between God and the sons of Abraham; thus dedicating the nation to its great mission. He then constituted a legislative body, consisting of seventy of the elders of Israel, in whose company, together with Aaron and his two sons, Nadab and Abihu, he retired to the mountain in order to have a solitary place for calm and considerate deliberation ; while the nation celebrated the feast of the covenant, and prepared themselves to receive the fundamental laws, being, as it were, the compact between God and Israel, between the king and his people. Meanwhile, Moses and his legislative body deliberated on the mountain, and pre- pared the first constitution ever given to a nation; an instrument which has outlasted thirty-three centuries ; which has become the original compact of civilized society; every word of which still testifies its divine origin. " And they saw the Deity of Israel; and there was under his feet, as it were, a paved work of brilliant sapphire, and, as it were, the color of heaven in its clearness." It was truth, clear as the color of sky, beautiful as the brilliant sapphire, and immutable as the Deity. Moses, on command of God, laid the ten commandments first before the seventy elders of Israel, who unanimously approved of it (Exodus xix, 7, 8). The sixth day of the third month was set apart for the proclamation of the constitution of the covenant by God him- self. And when the morning dawned, " There were thunders and lightnings, and a heavy cloud was upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet was exceedingly loud; so that all the people, that were in the camp, trembled." Moses, who had come down again, led the people out of the camp towards the smoking mount, which was fenced in, so that no uninitiated per- son should ascend it; and after he had charged them again under the penalty of death not to ascend the mountain, he and Aaron went up; and a large flame of fire descended upon the mount, the thunder, the lightning, and the voice of the trumpet increased. Moses stood between the Lord and the people to 80 PERIOD I. interpret to them the words of God; for they were afraid of the lire (Deutr. v, 5). "And they said unto Moses, speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die." So the Bible describes the scene and the circumstances under which the ten commandments, the constitution of the covenant, were proclaimed by the Almighty. We must let theologians dispute about the nature of the revelation, whether all this was natural or supernatural; whether God spoke the whole of the ten commandments in the presence of all the people, who heard and understood every word; or whether they only heard the first three commandments directly from God himself, as some of the ancient rabbins thought; or whether the people heard but a voice from the midst of the fire, thunder, lightning, and the sound of the trumpet, which they did not understand, and which Moses interpreted to them, as others of the ancient rabbins asserted, and which is not only most agreeable to the words of the sacred text, but also to human reason: the historian is satisfied with the words which were revealed, leaving the accompanying circumstances to the learned theo- logians. The words revealed stand not in need of the testimony of external manifestations; they speak for themselves; the evidence of their divine origin is closely interwoven with themselves. They are internally the basis of civilization, the moral code of mankind. The ten commandments are the germs of the Mosaic dis- pensation. It is first commanded that they shall worship but One God, who is the immutable essence of all substances. He is, what there is, what there was, and what there will be — Jehovah. He is their Elohim, their national Deity, although he is the God of the universe; and, therefore, they shall have no national deity besides him. He is their king, for he has redeemed them from the Egyptian bondage to be his people ; every Israelite is his servant, wherefore he can not be sold into perpetual slavery, being owned by God. As God is the immutable essence of all substances, he has no corporeal form; and, therefore, they were commanded, secondly, not to CHAPTER III. 81 make an image of him : not to compare him with the luminaries of heaven, or with the things of the sublunar world, and not to make images of those comparisons, as the Egyptians and other nations did; if another made such images, they should not bow down unto them, nor worship them; as this would bring upon them the absurd and horrid consequences of idolatry, which degraded and demoralized other nations ; and which transmitted corruption from generation to generation. As God is not only the king and national Deity, but also the creator, governor and preserver of the universe, they wvro commanded, thirdly, not to take his name in vain; not to swear to a falsehood by the name of God; not to use his name for divination or sorcery; not to call him by the names of idols; and not to associate his name with immoral or profane pur- poses; because they owed him obedience, respect and adoration. So far are the laws respecting God, the king of Israel; or the duties of an Israelite towards God. As regards the individual, to whom personal liberty was secured, it was ordained in the fourth commandment, to have the seventh day set apart for sacred purposes, while the other six days were appointed for useful labor; in order that man should discharge his duties towards himself, and towards his fellow-creature, he must take proper care for his spiritual and physical welfare. But, as every human being is obliged by the eternal laws to discharge these duties, this command also enjoined upon them not to imitate Egyptian cruelty, but to permit also the lowest of their servants to rest on the seventh day; and since also the animal is a creature of God, it also should be given a day of rest. As regards society, which consists of families, the supreme authority of each of which is father and mother, who are responsible to society for the actions of the members of their respective family, according to patriarchal custom; the fifth commandment was ordained, to honor father and mother, that is, to obey them with love and gratitude. If only such well- governed families composed a commonwealth, public peace and prosperity would be secured; provided, father and mother were 6 82 PERIOD I. obedient to the law. What is next necessary in civilized society is security of life and limbs ; the sanctity of the matri- monial institute and female chastity, which was valued next to life ; security of property, and a high respect to truth, which was commanded in the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth com- mandments. But the law should not be a mere external command or prohibition ; it should be a religious duty proceed- ing from an improved heart, wherefore it was commanded, tenth, and lastly, for a man not to covet what belongs to his neighbor. God is the efficient cause and the human heart the final cause of the law, wherefore God stands at the head of the decalogue, and the human heart at the end of it. History is a regular succession of causes and effects ; no leaps are visible anywhere in its extensive province. The ten com- mandments are an unequalled master-piece ; still they did not leap into existence; they are the quintessence of the principles of the patriarchs. The ancient rabbins state, that Abraham knew and practiced the whole of the law ; and that the sons of Noah had the following seven commandments : not to worship idols ; not to blaspheme the Lord; not to commit homicide or suicide; not to commit incest; not to steal; and to dispense justice.* History lying before us proves this assertion to be true. Com- pare the first commandment with, " I am the Lord who brought thee out from Ur of the Chaldees, to give unto thee this land to possess it" (Genesis xvi, 7); "There appeared the Lord unto Abraham, and he said unto him, I am the Almighty God, walk thou before me, and be thou perfect " (ibidxvii, 1). Com- pare the second commandment with, "And Jacob said to those of his house, Remove the strange gods which are amongst you;" " And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods;" "And Jacob hid them " (ibid xxxv, 2, 4). These, and many other passages, prove that the first two commandments were known to the patriarchs, and observed by them. The third is but a logical consequence of the two former ones. In as far as the sacredness of the oath is con- * Maimonides Melachim IX, 1. CHAPTER III. 88 cerned, many evidences can be produced, that it existed in an eminent degree among the patriarchs; we only refer to the passages, Genesisxxi, 22-34; xxiv, 3, 9; xxv, 33; xxvi, 26-33.; xxxi. 53. The fourth commandment announces itself as an ancient one, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy;" it could be remembered only if existing previously, which is also proved by the definite article (rdBfil) in the original ; the conclusion of the commandment speaks of its venerable anti- quity. To honor father and mother was thus an indispensable law among the patriarchs; that even Esau, the rude warrior, manifested an unlimited respect towards his parents ; that Isaac submitted to his father to be sacrificed; and that none of the sons of Jacob had courage to take Benjamin down to Egypt, without the special permission of the father. Compare the sixth commandment with " And he said, Let us not kill a per- son." "And Reuben said unto them, Shed not blood" (ibid xxxvii, 21, 22); hence the story of Shechem (ibid xxxiv), and the severe rebuke of Jacob for this horrid cruelty, when blessing his sons (ibidxli, 5-7). As regards the seventh commandment, we see in the act of Abraham calling Sarah his sister, and Isaac calling Rebeccah his sister (ibid xii, 10-20; xx, 1-14; xxvi. 6-10), that the violation of the matrimonial ties was con- sidered, even by Egyptians and Phelistines, a crime worse than homicide. Besides this, we read of the indignation of the sons of Jacob, when their sister was dishonored (ibid xxxiv, 7, 31); of the severe judgment which Jehudah passed on Thamar, his daughter-in-law (ibid xxxviii, 24); of the severe rebuke of Jacob to Reuben for a similar crime (ibid xlix, 4) ; and of the words and conduct of Joseph opposite the wife of Potiphar (ibid xxxix, 7-12). The thirty-first chapter of Genesis, where Laban charges Jacob of the crime of theft, shows us in what light this crime was then considered. The indignation of Jacob is so great that the crime he was charged with must have been considered by him a capital one. Besides this, we can see plainly enough in the story, when the cup of Joseph was found in the sack of Benjamin (ibid xxxiv), that theft was considered a crime. The ninth commandment implies the sacredness of 84 PERIOD I. truth, and of promise, which was sacred even to Ephron, selling a piece of land to Abraham (Genesis ii, 3), for which Abraham had no other pledge than the word of Ephron; and to Jacob, who had given to Laban no other pledge but his word, to serve him seven years more for Rachel (ibid xxix, 27-29); and to Jehudah, who had pledged but his word to his father for Benjamin (ibid xliii, 8-10), and when his daughter-in-law sent him the tokens, he confessed the truth, " She is juster than myself" (ibid xxxviii, 25, 26). The tenth commandment was practically taught by Abraham; when he returned from the war against the four kings ; the king of Sedom offered him the substances and demanded but the persons, which Abraham nobly rejected, claiming nothing for himself (ibid xiv, 22-24); and bj- Joseph, who said to his mistress, "And how should I do this great wickedness and sin to God? " (ibidxxxix, 9) The substance of the ten commandments existed previous to the revelation, and was incorporated into the life of the patriarchs. The greatness of this production consists in the arrangement and the brevity, as well as in the fact, that every law of Moses, except those in regard to sacrifices and priesthood, is contained in it, as the tree with its fruits is contained in the grain of seed. After Moses had interpreted to them the ten commandments, he continued, that the God of Israel not only is not honored by representations of silver or gold, but he claims nothing but a plain altar of earth or rough stone, erected in any one place, as the patriarchs did. " On everyplace where I shall cause my name to be mentioned, I shall come unto thee and bless thee." It is evident, that Moses did not then think either of a taber- nacle, or of a priesthood, or of any of the laws connected with it, to which other occurrences gave rise. He thought of the simple worship of the patriarchs ; that the first born of each family should be the priest of the family, as he had told them when they were assembled before Raamses; and any spot selected to the erection of an altar, should be the sanctuary of the family. He thought of banishing at once idolatry with all its causes and consequences, but he was not sufficiently CHAPTER III, 85 acquainted with the real character of the people, as we shall notice hereafter. Moses then proceeded to develop the laws on this founda- tion, but as we shall be obliged to treat on this subject in some other place, we will return now to history. Moses entrusted the government to the seventy elders, who were under the presidency of Aaron and llur, while he, in company with Joshua, retired up the mountain, in order to write down the laws. He remained there forty days. Meanwhile, a revolution broke out in the camp ; the people dissatisfied with the state of things, and believing Moses to be dead, desired Aaron to give them another leader, "Arise, make to us Elohim, which go before us ; for this man Moses who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him." They had no confidence in Aaron and the seventy elders, and wanted an idol, having divine powers, to lead them through that path less desert. Aaron was not the man to govern an agitated multitude, although he might have succeeded if he had tried; for the better class of the people would have supported him as well as Moses. 'He thought of preventing the making of an idol, and therefore commanded them to bring the earrings of their women and children, who he thought might offer resist- ance; but a rude man in a state of excitement is not easily checked, especially if spurred by religious fanaticism; they brought plenty of earrings to make an idol. It is easy to guess what kind of idol was made ; it was a golden calf, the Apis of Egypt; and around this idol they danced in wild ecstasy, and exclaimed, " These are thy gods, 0 Israel, who brought thee up out of the land of Egypt;" informing us their ideas of these gods to have been, that they were gifted with the same divine power as the man Moses, who had brought them out of Egypt. ' Aaron, seeing himself unable to quench the savage lire, told them, when building an altar, "To-morrow, be a feast to God;" thinking the night-rest might calm the minds; but, behold, when the morning dawned, the multitude was assem- bled, sacrifices were offered, eating and drinking, and feasting and the usual plays at the dedication of Egyptian idols, 86 PERIOD I. together with all the savage and immoral consequences, de- graded the excited assembly. Egyptian corruption swayed its sceptre ; the savage passions held in subjection for about three months, broke forth now with all their energies, as the rushing waves which break through their dam ; and the better class of the people were obliged to observe profound silence, fearing the excited and furious multitude. Meanwhile, Moses returned to the camp. On coming near it, he heard the shouts of the feasting multitude; Joshua, the warrior, supposed to hear the shouts of war; but Moses listened with anxiety, still he could not distinguish what those shouts meant. When he approached the camp and perceived the golden calf, the idolatrous music and plays, he threw away the two tables of stone upon which the ten commandments were engraved, and broke them in pieces at the foot of the mount. He saw that he had misunder- stood the character of the people ; he was educated in all the sciences, arts and secrets of the Egyptian priests; he had been pervaded by the spirit of his ancestors. But the people had grown up with the superstitions of Egypt, which can be sup- pressed, held in its proper limits, which can even be quenched for moments, but which can never be entirely crushed; they will rush forth occasionally, as the lightning from the dark clouds. There he stood, and saw his great plans wrecked on the rock of an indomitable superstition. But a great man never despairs. He acted promptly and energetically; he seized the supposed divine chief of the people, the golden calf, burnt it and ground it to powder in their sight, and none had the cou- rage to oppose him. It is an Egyptian superstition, if one eats or drinks what belongs to the gods, his bowels swell, and sudden death follows. Moses, therefore, took the dust of the golden calf and put it into the water, and commanded the people to drink of it. By this means he was enabled to tell who was free from and who was governed by Egyptian superstition. He then called to him all those that were faithful to God; and there assembled around him all the sons of Levi, besides the others wjio had taken no part in the revolutionary proceedings. CHAPTER III. 87 After about three thousand of the rebels had fallen under the edge of the sword, order was restored. Moses well understood that the cause which produced the outbreak was not removed, and that, consequently, similar scenes might reoccur; therefore, measures were to be taken to prevent them. He also told the wiser class of the people, that the multitude, accustomed to idolatry, could not be governed and satisfied by the sublime idea, that the omnipresent God is amongst them and leads them ; they must be given a tangible symbol of the Deity, an angel, whom they see, and hear, and fear, to replace the Egyptian idols. The better class of the people mourned about this unpromising state of affairs, and did not put on their usual ornaments. The first measure of Moses was to remove his tent out of the camp, so as to have no communications with the people, but in official matters; in order to maintain a proper respect among the people before their leader. His tent was also the seat of the seventy elders, the highest authority of the nation. But this was formerly the only authority; now he instituted, on the advice of his father-in-law, subordinate offices; rulers over ten, over hun- dred, and over a thousand, who appear to have had but the judicial power, while the executive power remained with the princes; there were then three instances before the highest authority could be reached. Joshua, the son of Nun, who was already distinguished for his valor, it appears, was entrusted with the chief command over the army; while the Levites ormed the guard to maintain a due respect for the Law, and for the persons enacting and dispensing it. After Moses had thus secured tranquillity and order, he thought of spiritual means to convince and satisfy the mind on a point which seemed to him most essential and most necessary, namely, that God led the people; that they enjoyed the special grace of providence, since a special mission was entrusted to their care, which was bequeathed to them by their ancestors; that the supposed power of divinity, which their misguided imagination bestowed upon idols and relics, was placed in every good and wise man; and that, therefore, the idols must be dethroned, in 88 PERIOD I. order that man be elevated to his proper position, which God has assigned to him. But there he met with the insurmountable difficulty, that none can see God while living, and those who were accustomed to see representations of the gods,. could not be withdrawn from this conception by sublime speculations- His mind was full of the most sublime conceptions of God, his divine nature, and his government; but he could not render tangible those divine speculations to the multitude: still, he knew, that nothing else could exercise a lasting influence upon them. He thought again; and the result was a tabernacle of the congregation, a caste of priests, a mode of worship, of pomps and mysteries on the Egyptian style, which should at once satisfy them without corrupting them, and which should not only pervade them with nobler and higher ideas, but also withdraw them gradually from their erroneous conceptions, and bring them nearer to God and truth. He retired again up Mount Sinai; but this time Joshua re- mained in the camp, to secure tranquillity and order. Moses was absent forty days. He came back with the two tables of stone, upon which the ten commandments were engraved;* the * It has been forwarded by Goethe, Hitzig, and others, that the Mosaic tables of stone did not contain the ten commandments but the passage Exodus xxxiv, 11-26, which is but partially refuted by Hengstenberg ; we, therefore, must add here the following critical observations. We first call the attention of the reader to Exodus xix, 3, 6, where God charges Moses to tell the people that they have seen what God had done for them in Egypt, and they should be unto him a chosen and priestly nation if they obey his voice; but no mention is made of the commands which they should ob^y; still the people answer (verse 8): "All which the Lord has said we shall do.11 Besides this, it is singular that the passage commences, "Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and thou shalt say to the children of Israel;" still, at the end of the charge it says again, " Those are the words which thou shalt speak to the children of Israel," which latter sentence appears to be entirely superfluous. But all these difficulties are overcome, if we say God told Moses the ten commandments, which, of right, should be placed after the words, "Those are the words which thou shalt speak to the children of Israel," but which were set at the place when they were spoken to all Israel. The terms onain rV?N "Those are the words" refer to the ten commandments. Moses came down and communicated nbxn Dna*irW?3 rx "all those words-," the charge and the ten commandments to the Elders of Israel (verse 7). who understood the importance of those words, and believed CHAPTER III. 89 people greeted him with tokens of the highest respect. Moses convoked the officers of the people, exposing to them his plans about a national sanctuary and priesthood ; and having obtained their consent, he convoked the people, and laid before them the proposition of erecting a sanctuary to the God of Israel, and appointing to him a standing priesthood, which was received with applause and general satisfaction. Moses told them, that the tabernacle, the vessels belonging to it, and the garments of the priests, would be made of voluntary gifts; and the people brought so much gold, silver and copper; blue, purple and scarlet yarn, and linen thread and goat's hair; and rams' skins dyed red, and badgers' skins, and shittim wood; and oil for lighting, and spices for the anointing oil, and for the incense of spices; and onyx stones, and stones for setting for the ephod and for the breastplate ; that it was necessary to give notice publicly, that there was plenty of every article in the their origin; therefore, they said, "All that the Lord has spoken we will do." It could not be expected of the people that they should comprehend so quickly, and receive so readily, the words of God, as their elders did; there- fore, God said to Moses (verse 8), that he would speak to Moses in the presence of the people, that they may hear and believe, which Moses communicated to the people, and (xx. 1); "God spoke" nhxn D^ann-^a rtN " all those words saying." Here is the same expression as before, and, consequently, we have a right to suppose that the same words were spoken to the people as Moses had spoken to the elders. The author of Deuteronomy says again the same words n^xn nnmn nx " Those words the Lord spoke to all your congregation" (verse 19). In Exodus xxiv, we read, that Moses told the people ^3 r\s D^Dcen TNi mm n^n "All the words of God and the judgments;" the latter part refers to the judgments which were added to the ten commandments (xxi, 1). Here a clear distinction is made between the words of God and the judgments. Verse 12, we read, that God bid Moses to ascend the mountain and to receive " the tables of stone and the Law, and the command which I have written to teach them." Here, again, a distinction is made between what was written on the tables and the Law (the judgments) and the command (referring to xxiii). It is, therefore, evident that Moses calls the ten commandments " those words" or " the words of God " emphatically, in discrimination from the other laws and commandments, which God promised him to write on the two tables, in order to be a testimony to coming generations. Moses wrote all the words of God mm nin-Vo pn and not the judgments of which he speaks in the previous verse, and then he made a covenant with them before God r^sn D^-o-tn-^ ^'j The covenant was made upon the tea commandments, which are the basis of 90 PEKIOD I, hands of the workmen, so that the people should be restrained from bringing more.* Bezalel, the son of Uri, of the tribe of Jelmdah, and Ahaliab, son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan, were the chief artists, who superintended the different deparments of weaving, en- graving and other works; " and all women that were wise- hearted, spun with their own hands." While the artists were busy with the construction and erection of the sanctuary, Moses reorganized the people, putting them upon a war-footing. He convoked first the twelve princes of the tribes (Levi never formed a separate tribe), which were for Reuben, Elizur, son of Shedeur; for Simeon, Shelumial, son of Zuri- shadai; for Jehudah, Nahshon, son of Aminadab, for Issachar, Nethanel, son of Zuor; for Zebulon, Aliob, son of Helon; for the Mosaic legislation. The two first tables were broken, as is well known, and God commanded Moses to make two other tables, and ascend again the mountain. " I will write onain n« The words which were on the first tables, which thou hast broken." Moses obeyed. God gave him new information about the divine government of God, and also new commandments against idolatry. Then he was directed, "Write unto thee, rrVsa anain rx those words nSvn anann >o by "). Nor did Moses say that the debtor's house or real estate can be sold, which, if even sold, had to be restored at the jubilee year; and if the debtor did not make payment before the year of release, that year annulled the debt (Deutr. xv, 2, 3). The law in regard to weight and measure, says, "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in mete yard, in weight, or in measure. Just balance, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin shall you have.?'| In the latter passage occurs the addition, " For an abomination of the Lord thy God is every one that doth such things, every one that acteth * Genesis xlix, 13; Deuteronomy xxxiii, IS, 19. t Deuteronomy xxiii, 20. t Leviticus xix, 35, 36; Deuteronomy xxv, 13-16. 154 APPENDIX TO unrighteously." It is extremely easy to adduce reasons for these laws of commerce. It strikes us there are but four. 1. Nothing is more dangerous to the mental development of a nation than the love of gain; and nothing produces more love of gain than an extensive commerce. If the Israelites with the lively energies and passions, which a tropical climate produces, had engaged in an extensive commerce, the whole mind of the nation would have been engulfed in the yawning abyss of avarice and love of gain, which would have crushed the whole destiny of the nation. 2. An extensive commerce must have had the effect of making some citizens very opulent ; the accumulation of wealth is the direct opposite of the equality of possession intended by the Mosaic law, and is so dangerous to the liberties of the people, that more than one nation have lost their liberty, and also their political existence by the opulence of a few citizens. 3. It would have been dangerous to the Israelites had they come much in contact with foreign nations, their idolatry and moral debasement, before they were totally pervaded by their own institutions. History proves that the apprehensions of Moses were just. 4. The engagement in an extensive commerce, must have produced, inevitably, war with the maritime nations, as it did afterwards when they were really engaged in commercial pursuits, involving them in war with Syria, Assyria, Egypt and Babylonia, which Moses had many reasons not to wish; and so he ceded the foreign trade to foreign merchants. IX. THE SECURITY OF PERSON. "Thou shalt not kill,-' is one of the fundamental laws of the Mosaic dispensation, and consequently, it must have been prohibited to strike a person (Exodus xxi, 18, 19), to injure him on his limbs (ibid 23, 24), or to cause in any way that one be injured (ibid 33; Deutr. xix, 18, 19; xxii, 8), " Thou shalt not lay a stumbling-block before the blind; " nor stand by inactively if injury is done to a fellow-man (Levit. xix, 17), nor even PERIOD I. 155 desire in the heart, that one he injured, although he he one's enemy (Levit. xix, 17, 18), " Thou shalt not curse the deaf." The Mosaic law was not intended to command or prohibit an outward action merely, it intended to operate upon the source of all good and evil actions, upon the rational will, wherefore the decalogue concludes with the commandment, " Thou shalt not covet. " X. THE SECURITY OF PROPERTY. "Thou shalt not steal " is another fundamental law, nor rob, nor withhold any thing belonging to the neighbor (Lev. xix, 13). nor deny another's property in our hands (ibidxi); nor cause any damage to the property of the neighbor (Exod. xxi, 33-36; xxii, 4, 5). nor stand by inactively when the property of another is damaged. " If thou meet thy enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, thou shalt abstain from forsaking him, but thou shalt surely unload him" (Exod. xxiii, 4-5; Deutr. xxii, 1-4); nor should any one desire to possess the property of another man (Exod. xx, 17; Deutr. v, 18). Only such pro- perty which had no legal owner, as game (Lev. xvii, 13) or wild fowl (Deutr. xxii, 6, 7), and the like, may be taken by the first finder. As regards real estate, the law ordains : " Thou shall not remove the land mark of thy neighbor, which the first ones will set in thy inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it" (Deutr. xix, 14). XI. THE SECURITY OF HONOR. If the law would have been silent on this point, it would be understood, es ipso, that a code of laws which is founded upon the moral self-esteem of the individuals as members of society, must prohibit slander; still the law provided for this case too. " Thou shalt not go about as a talebearer among thy nation," which signifies, that none should debase the character of another by words. " Thou shalt not bear false witness against 156 APPENDIX TO « thy neighbor; "you shall say no lies one against another" (Lev. xix, 12). These provisions are eminently calculated to guard the honor of the citizen. This law is expressed in unquestionable terms in the case of false accusation of a woman by her husband (Deuir. xxii, 13-19) and in the punishment of Miriam when speaking ill of her brother Moses (Xumb, xii, 1-10). It is unnecessary to add, that the law made provisions for the protection of female chastity, whereas it has been remarked before what an eminent position the female sex held in the ancient society of the orient; and how the law punished the violation of matrimonial ties or the pledge of love; still we may refer our readers to Exod. xx, 14; xxii, 15, 16; Deutr. v, 17; xxi, 10-13; xxii, 5, 28, 29. XII. THE PENAL LAW. The above named and all other prohibitive laws in the Mosaic dispensation, although no punishment is expressly stated, were to be strictly enforced by the courts. The viola- tion of either of them was punished by the bastinade. If one had an unjust meteyard, &c, or seeing the ass of his enemy laying under his burthen, and he did not help him up, or the like, he was punished with a bastinade. The Mosaic law knows of the following punishments: 1, fines in money, in default of which the individual could be hired out by the court to pay his fine; 2, the bastinade; 3, the political death, or the loss of citizenship, sometimes with and sometimes without the threatening of a future punishment, or an early death; 4, the capital punishment. The first class of punishment was applied to cases of theft (Exod. xxi, 37; xxii, 3); of deceitful concealing of the property of others (ibid xxii, 8); of seduction (ibid xxii, 15, 16; Deutr. xxii, 28, 29); of slandering his wife (ibid xxii, 19); of having caused a damage to the property of another (Exod. xxi, 32-36; xxii, 4, 5); of assault and battery (ibid xxi, 18, 19-22-25); and of having been by frivolity the cause of the death of a person (ibid 28-31), There are, according to |the expounders of the law, one hundred and sixty- oi^ht prohibitions in the Pentateuch, the PERIOD I. 157 transgression of which was punished by the bastinacle* of which the greatest number belongs into the branch of the ceremonial law, which was intended to crush the practice of idolatry; and a great number of which could only be trans- gressed by the priests. It is sufficient to our purpose to notice those cases only which belong to the law proper. Those were punished with the bastinade who did not give to the poor what the law prescribes; who entered the house of his debtor, took his moveable property for a pledge and did not return it; who took in such a way the moveable property of a widow, or who took of a man the tools with which he earns a living; who strikes a man without doing him a visible injury ; who slanders a man by lies, or who slanders his wife in order to be divorced of her; who curses a man with the name of God; the false witness in either of these cases; who is guilty of perjury, or of a breach of promise under oath, and some other cases. There are enumerated by the expounders of the law (Mishna, Kerisuth i, 1) thirty six transgressions, which were punished by the loss of citizenship (karath); sixteen of which are prohibited cases of sexual connections. The rest of them besides two, concern religion, and were intended against the practice of idolatry. The neglect of the act of circumcision, and of bringing the annual sacrifice of passover are of a purely national character. It appears, however, that this loss of citizenship did not last for a longer time than the day of atone- ment; if the transgressor repented his sin, and came to make atonement for it. That day appears to have been intended in political affairs as a day of general amnesty (Lev. xvi, 29-34); if the grievance was not one between man and man. Capital punishment is ordained by the law for willful murder (Exod. xxi, 12-14), for striking, cursing or totally disobeying father and mother (ibid xxi. 15, 17; Deutr. xxi, 15-17); for kidnapping (Exod. xxi, 16; Deutr. xxiv, 7); for bestiality (Exod. xxii, 17; Levit. xx, 15, 16), for sexual intercourse with certain persons (Levit. xx, 10-14; Deutr. xxii, 20-27); *Maimonides. On the Senate S. xix, $ 4. 158 APPENDIX TO and for high treason, under which latter branch must be under- stood the violation of the sabbath {Exod. xxxi, 14, 15), the day set apart to the service of the Supreme Ruler of the nation; the act of sacrificing his children to Maloch (Levit. xx, 1-6); or who serves Ob and Jidoni (ibid xx, 27); who curses the Deity (ibid xxiv, 13-17); the false prophet (Deutr. xiii, 2- 7; xviii, 20); who seduces others to idolatry (ibid xiii, 7-12); the inhabitants of a whole city who have yielded to idolatry (ibid 12-19); who willingly disobeys the orders of the national government (ibid xvii, 8-13). There are but three kinds of capital punishment, stoning, burning and hanging. In regard to the latter mode of punishment, it is also ordained, that the body of the delinquent shall be buried before night {Deutr. xxi, 22-23). The law is particularly strict in regard to the murderer. The custom of the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans, that the temples of the gods were the places of refuge for all sorts of criminals, was abolished by Moses (Exod. xxi, 14); so did Moses abolish the custom of paying werigild for homicide (Numb, xxxv, 31), which, however, seems to teach indirectly, that a ransom may be taken for a person in other cases, where the law sets capital punishment. If a man be found slain in the field, the court next to the spot was to take cognizance of the case, and to signify their knowledge of the case by a sacrifice called Eglah Arupah. A young heifer was killed by breaking her neck, and the elders pronounced that they did not know who was the criminal, and that it was their duty to ascertain (Deuteronomy, xxi, 1-9). On the other side, the law was no less strict, that no innocent person be condemned. " And there shall not be shed innocent blood in the midst of thy land, which the Lord thy God gives thee for an inheritance." No man should be condemned to any sort of punishment, other- wise than before the regular court of justice of his own place, the elders of his city (Deut. xix, 12); nor otherwise than by the positive evidence of at least two witnesses, who witnessed the action (Deut. xix, 15), who were to be examined carefully (Deutr. xiii, 15; xix, 18). The false witness was to receive the same punishment as his testimony, if true, would have PERIOD I. 159 brought on the accused (ibid 16-21); and the judges, who sit in a public place, exposed to the censure of the people, were charged again and again to dispense justice in the name of God. The horrid custom among ancient nations, the next relative of the slain person taking revenge on the criminal, was abolished by Moses by his six cities of refuge, to which the manslayer could escape, and to which the roads must have been in the best order. If the refugee was guilty of intentional murder, the elders of his city brought him before their court and condemned him. If it was found, that it was an uninten- tional murder which he had committed, he was to stay in one of those cities until the high priest died (Exod% xxi, 13; Numb, xxxv, 9-34; Deutr. iv, 41-42; xix, 1-13). This punishment for unintentional murder was every way just, as frivolity is a crime, and especially then, if it has reached such a degree as to cause homicide. His stay among the Levites was not merely calculated to protect him against the avenger, but also to cure him of his levity. The fundamental idea of the penal law, of which our limits permit us to give but a brief sketch, is this: the law is for the protection and benefit of the whole community; if one violate it, he gives offence to the whole community, who for the sake of its own protection must give such a punishment to the offender as is strong enough to occasion him to fear its return. But if one has so deeply sunk into vice as to commit willful murder, he is so dangerous to the community and most likely so incurable, that he must be removed from society. To let the murderer emigrate before the final sentence of the court is given, as the Greeks did, is undoubt- edly a gross injustice committed on foreign countries, to which Moses could not consent. Many of the cases which the Penta- teuch punishes with death, were undoubtedly intended only for the time of their stay in the wilderness, when the strictest mar- tial law was necessary. At all events they were calculated but for the infancy of the nation. Therefore, as we have remarked before, many sideways, as it were, were left for the expounders of the law, who made the best use of them. Disobedience to the sreneral government was one of the greatest crimes as long 160 APPENDIX TO as the union of the nation was not strong enough to maintain itself by less rigid means; as soon as this was the case, capital punishment for this offence was abolished. This penal law is by no means as severe as that of the Greeks and Romans was. And even if it were so severe, there would be no harm in it; for if a law is entrusted into the hands of the people at large, whose safety and prosperity it produces and guards, then an offence against it is the more atrocious a crime. Hence, if the law is dispensed by judges chosen by the people, and in the presence of the people, it can never be more severe than the people need and want it. As a general thing it may be re- marked, that it appears to be a maxim of this penal law, that the law itself must be severe, because it is an instruction given to the community, which consists of all classes of people ; but its application must be mild, and bound to so many conditions, that its severity be not a practical one. So we read Deut. xxv, " if the guilty man deserve to be beaten, then the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to the degree of his fault, by a certain number; forty stripes he may give him, not more; so that he shall not exceed, and beat him above these, with too many stripes, and thy brother be thus rendered vile before thy eyes. As the best case of illustration we may quote the law concerning the rebellious son (Deutr. xxi, 18-22). He must be both stubborn and rebellious, a glutton and a drunkard, and not hearkening to either his father or mother, although he was chastised; such a child is certainly found but very seldom. Both father and mother must agree, and both of them accuse their child before the court of justice, and if the court condemn him to death, they are the first who must execute the judgment (Deutr. xvii, 7). Such parents are certainly as scarce as such children. It is therefore sure that a case of this kind never occurred; this law was intended to the effect of being read, and to show that the public courts are bound to assist the parents, if required to do so, in their family government. This brief sketch of the Mosaic law is necessary in order to understand the history of the Israelitish nation, of which the PERIOD I. 161 Mosaic law is the foundation. We could not do lull justice to the subject, as this requires an extra work of considerable extent. We could only make a synopsis of the whole, as necessary to our plan. It is a matter of astonishment to us, that legislators and lawyers study ancient laws, and still consider the Pentateuch a merely religious book, so that the knowledge of the Hebrew is considered a merely theological affair. There can be no doubt, that the principles of jurispru- dence as applicable to free nations are in the Pentateuch, and not in the civil law, nor in the codes of Lycurgus or Solon only. What lawyers generally term natural justice is not in nature, but in the Pentateuch. XIII. RELIGION. A commonwealth, without any sort of religion, is a despot- ism, for if the citizen is not obedient to the laws from a reli- gious sense of duty, the laws are imposed upon him, and every imposition, in this respect, is a despotism. The sense of duty and obedience to certain laws because they are beneficial to society, though they may be inconvenient or injurious to the individual, is of itself a respect before the rights of man, and before truth; but if there is no moral government of mankind, then no other right can be imagined than that which a man takes for himself; consequently a respect before the rights of others, although they be injurious to the concerned individual is a manifested respect before the moral government of man- kind which is the basis of religion, the fear of the Lord; for under moral government of mankind, we can understand nothing else but the government of God. A commonwealth, without a religion would not only be a despotism, but it would also be forced to resort to severity, and even to cruelty, to a system of espionage, to a limitation of all means to express ideas and views, and to a vigilant watch over the sentiments of the individuals; for the law can only command or prohibit, and punish the violator, or reward the faithful adherent. But it can not act upon the sentiments of man; it can not watch over thoughts and secret actions ; it can not make a man good, it can only prevent one from being a bad man ; it can 11 162 APPENDIX TO punish for bad actions, but it can not crush their source, the evil sentiments; it may deter the criminal by the severity of the punishments, but it can not till the mind with a sacred love of virtue and a fear of vice and impurity, all of which religion alone can effect. Yet at the same time religion itse.f maybe converted into an imposition, to a source of corruption, to an instrument of violence, as we find plenty of examples in history; wherefore it naturally must be the care of legislators that the laws be supported by religion, and that religion itself be not corrupted to effect an end contrary to that designed. This seems to be the principle which guided Moses in respect to religion, which we must consider under two different heads, viz: The spirit of religion, and the practices of reli- gion. a. The Spirit of Religion. — Moses did not teach dogmas, which must be believed ; nor has the Hebrew language a term denoting to believe; his religious dogmas are represented as a reasoning from facts, or from analogy; he narrates events then commonly known, and upon them he bases his religious theo- ries. " Thou shalt know and rejleit in thy heart, that the Lord is God; in heaven above and on earth beneath is none besides him." He narrates the creation of the world by God; upon which he bases the dogma, God is the creator of the universe. He narrates the history of the deluge, of Sedom and Amorah, of Joseph's fortune in Egypt, of the exode; upon which he bases the dogma, God is the governor of mankind as well as of the material universe, Providence. He speaks of the natu- ral blessings which God bestowed on the patriarchs in their domestic employments, of the plagues which God sent over Egypt, of the manna, the quails, the water from the rock; upon which he bases the dogma, God is the preserver. He speaks of the rewards bestowed upon Noah, the patriarchs, and Joseph, for their virtuous lives, and of the punishment which befel Cain, the generation of the deluge, the people of Sedom and Amorah, Pharaoh, the Egyptians and others, upon which he bases the dogma, God loves virtue and is displeased by vice; he rewards the virtuous and punishes the wicked; his PERIOD I. 163 grace and his displeasure correspond to the degree of piety or impiety of the recipient; God is righteous and just. Cain re- pents his sin and is pardoned; Jacob improves his conduct and is received into the grace of God; Pharaoh also is par- doned several times upon confessing his wrong, and promising to do right; and so Moses says God pardons sin, iniquity, and transgression. Whatever he says about God is the consequence of a reasoning from facts, wherefore he never speaks of the essence or the attributes of God, he only speaks of God's actions, as they may be deduced from an observation of nature and history. The remarkable passage (Exod. xxxiii, 6, 7), does not contain one adjective, but merely abstract nouns of actions, and should be rendered, "Jehovah is Jehovah (im- mutable) the divine power, whose actions are gracious, benevo- lent, long suffering and abundant of benignity and truth. Showing benignity unto the thousands (who love him and keep his commandments), forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin (who repent and improve their conduct); but he will not hold guiltless (who improve not), visiting the iniquity of parents on children and children's children to the third and fourth generation." He forbids making an image of God, because " You have not seen any image when the Lord spake to you." He never deviates from this principle, and therefore never falls into illusive conceptions of the Supreme Being, as the theologians of Egypt and India did. The name of Jehovah itself is of the same nature. It is not a qualification of the divine essence, but a compound of terms denoting time with- out end. One who is not limited by time, who is immutable. Zoroaster gave afterwards the same name to the Supreme Being, This was certainly the best method of guarding the Israelites against illusory speculations on the nature of God; for by a reasoning from facts one is kept upon the ground of sober observation, which endears to him nature and history, and almost all other sciences, as the leaves of the great book in which man is permitted to read the actions of God. On the same principle of reasoning, Moses considered man. The generation of the deluge gave him the proof, that the 164 APPENDIX TO inclinations of man are wicked from his youth, the age when the sensual passions awake in their full vigor, and when he comes into a closer contact with society; wherefore society must be improved to the benefit of the individual, and the passions must be tamed, so that they overrule not the spirit, the intellect and the will. God held direct communication with Adam, Cain, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses; consequently, man is also a great and eminent being, an image, a likeness, a son of God, who may directly perceive the voice of God. This consciousness of his own value Moses wished to impress upon the whole nation of Israel: " I wish that all the people of the Lord were prophets, that God put his spirit upon them." Cain and Abel brought of their own accord sacrifices to God. So did Noah after he had come out from the ark. So did Abraham several times. Consequently, the human heart in its uncorrupted state is grateful to its Marker, and relies confidently on him in the hours of peril and danger, as Jacob did many times, and as Abraham did when his kinsman, Lot, was carried off. The heart must be guarded against corrupt influ- ences from without. The human heart, on account of its presentiments of a Supreme Being, is inclined to superstition and idolatry, if the intellect is not sufficiently cultivated to direct the sentiments. So the actions of the nations, which he saw, Israel not excepted, informed him. Therefore, all causes of superstition must be removed out of his sight, and intellectual capacities must be indefinitely cultivated; where- fore Moses was so strict against idols, temples, groves, and even against their names ; and wherefore he again and again recommended to know, to read the law, to teach it to the children, and to speak of it as much as possible. Love is natural to the human heart; the child, youth, virgin, man, woman, and the gray-headed man, love. No man can exist without it. Therefore, Moses bade them to love God, to love each other and also their enemies, to love the stranger; to cultivate this natural affection to its utmost capacity. So Moses did not depart one step from the broad field of observa- tion, and therefore he knows nothing of all those differen PKRIOD I. 165 theories on the creation of man, of which mythological writers made mention, that the spirits revolted against God and were expelled from Heaven, and imprisoned in bodies of clay, to pass through a certain number of purifying regions in different bodies, which almost all nations of antiquity believed; or that man must wander from star to star until he finally arrives at the Supreme Being, in which he is absorbed, as the Zabians supposed. He reasoned from facts; he started from observa- tions on nature and history, and this excluded, eo ipso, every extravagance of that nature. It must be confessed, that it was not in the province of Moses to speak of the immortality of the soul, or of a future reward and punishment. Consistently with his mode of reason- ing he could not speak of them ; and the first step beyond this method would have thrown widely open the gates to all the vague speculations which then disgraced the nations, and held them in a state of bondage both morally and physically. He had yet a special reason not to speak of the eternal life. It is well known to every reader of history, that all the nations of antiquity believed in a future state of existence, each one in its own manner.* The Egyptians especially, of whom Herodotus informs us, that they were the first who built altars and erected statues and temples to the gods ; the first who taught that the soul of man is immortal ;| and of whom Lucian tells us, that they were said to be the first who had a knowledge of the gods, J taught this doctrine, in the form of the resurrection of the body. It can not be supposed, that either Moses was ignorant of it, or that the Israelites, who were so much addicted to Egyptian superstition, did not know or not believe the doctrine of im- mortality and future reward and punishment. But, as the ancients in their theology deified the whole universe, so that * Warburton's Divine Legation of Moses, vol. i, b. ii; Plutarch, Vita Lucul. Edit. Francof torn, ii, p. 1125, E. Plato, Repub. lib. xi, p. 364, E., torn, ii, edit. Steph. 1578. Cicero Tuscul. Disp., lib. i, cap. 16, torn. ii. Seneca Eph. 117. f Herodotus' Euterpe, cap. 4 and 123, J De Dea Syria, sect. ii. Iti6 APPENDIX TO every particle of matter was but a part of the infinite deity, and that every natural process, every human thought and also every word spoken was but a manifestation of the Deity; so that there was no room left for human volition and actions, and consequently, there was no real distinction between vice and virtue, the most eminent of which was inaction, as it is yet in our days the belief of the Brahmins : so they reasoned in regard to immortality, making this world to be a mere abode for punishment, this life as merely devoted to a purification of the soul by ascetic practices, and by serving the gods in the most revolting manner, in order to be finally absorbed in the Deity, or to be after thousands of years reunited with this .habitation of clay. This system, it is evident, turned the attention of the nations from the present state of life, made them indifferent towards virtue and justice, and assigned the political power to the hands of the priests in Egypt, of the Brahmins in India, of the emperor, the son of Tien in China, and to the Chaldees among the ancient Zabians. To the slaves especially, as many of the Israelites were in Egypt, this system must have been welcome ; it promised them a rich indemnifica- tion in another state of life, for what they suffered in this life. Moses opposed this system by a sound reasoning from facts. He taught that man is free ; he may choose either virtue or vice; that God finds pleasure in virtuous actions, in an honest industry, and that he rewards it with his grace and blessing; that he dislikes vice, corruption and inaction, and punishes it with his curse and his displeasure. Moses gave a sanctity to virtue, to industry and labor, and awakened his people to the performance of human duties as men and citizens, without which a despotical government would have inevitably followed; he did not deny the dogma of future rewards and punishments ; he at once declared that man was created in the image of God, that man may hold communication with God, that man is a son of God, that God kills and revives, that God is most benign and gracious. All of which confirmed the dogma of immortality. But he was not arrogant enough to look into a world, the nature of which he could not perceive by a reason- PKU1UD U 167 ing from facts; he was wise enough to sanctify this life by which alone a future life can be obtained; he was prudent enough to restore his people to this world, to give them liberty, freedom of thought and action, and to guard them against extravagant speculations and irrational superstitions. The doctrine of immortality was known to and believed by all of them, for if they had never heard it, they would have felt it; it is innate to the mind, and therefore all nations were aware of it. Moses never told them that there is a Supreme Being, because they knew it; he never told them to pray, when their heart is inclined to it; for man will do it without com- mand: so it was entirely unnecessary to speak unto them on immortality. It has been stated above, that the facts which Moses recorded convinced him, that it is the innate desire of man to worship God; but there the heathen, in accordance with their system, resorted to the contemplative life, to ascetic practices, to savage and immoral games, to man sacrifice, to the sacrifice of their own children, against all of which Moses spoke in bold and precise terms. The whole of the divine worship which he recommended may be reduced to the command, to cultivate carefully the moral and intellectual capacities, " You shall be holy, for the Lord your God is holy;" and to assist others in doing the same. All religious practices contained in the Pentateuch have this one end and aim. A careful study of the law was repeatedly recommended by Moses; and this law, as we have attempted to show, is connected with all branches of moral, mental and physical sciences, to which the study of it inevitably induced, and which is made a condition to comprehend and appreciate it. This, Moses set in the place of illusory contemplation and vague speculations. But the study of the law is not the end and aim of it. The actions of man are the principal objects to direct which the law is given. Divine service consists in obeying the law, in doing what is good, noble and useful, and reforming the heart to desire the same; and shunning what is bad, ignoble, or hurtful, and educating the heart to despise the mean, the bad, and 168 APPENDIX TO ignoble desire. There is no distinction between civil, political, moral, or religious laws; all of them are equally sacred, and all of them must be obeyed bona fide, and acted accordingly; because God commanded all of them. "And these command- ments, statutes and judgments, which the Lord your God has commanded to teach you. to do in the land, to which you pass over to possess it, that you may fear the Lord thy God, to observe all his statutes and commandments which I command thee, thou and thy son and thy son's son all the days of thy life, and that thy days be prolonged; thou shalt hear, 0 Israel, and observe to do, that he may do well unto thee, that you may multiply exceedingly, as the Lord the God of thy fathers has spoken unto thee, a land flowing with milk and honey" (Dentr. vi. 1-3). As the chief example of their actions he recommended to them God, as he is revealed to us in nature and history. " You shall walk after the Lord your God." As the only means to reach human perfection he recommended to them to fear the Lord, which will cause them to walk in his ways or to imitate his actions, which will incline their heart to love him and to serve him with all the heart and mind (Dentr. x, 12), which he took to be the moral perfection of man. He desired them to be intelligent, humane, kind, pure and active, because God desires them to be so. This is the religion of Moses. This may be reduced to the following principles : 1. There is but one God, who is the creator, preserver and governor of mankind, and the whole of the universe; we have no knowledge of his essence or the attributes of his essence. We are but permitted to form a conception of him by his works, which show us his infinite wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and an infinite love which pervades all things. 2. Man is God's image; the superior of the created beings the next to God, who watches over him, rewarding him when virtuous, and punishing him when vicious. A man is virtuous when he lives obedient to the law; he is vicious when he dis- obeys the law. Man's will is perfectly free, and his natural inclinations are perfectly good, being the work of God; if he is MOD i. not misled by external influent ill do what is good and right. The k no.' 'ence and operations :y man. in order to have an example for imitation; an ideal for his endeavors, and a sure foundation in the acknowledgment of truth. Where te acquirement of this knowledge is the principal duty of man. 4. The end and aim of all actions must he to become holy, that is. to purify and extend the natural affections of love and kindness, to elevate the moral .sentiments, and to develop the mental faculties to their utmost capacity, which is the destiny of man on earth. But this end can be reached only in the midst of civilized society, and only by means which are at the same time useful to our fellow-man, and conducive to that principal end. Those means are prescribed in the law; wherefore it must be studied diligently and carefully. 5. The sinner may be restored to his human dignity if he either truly repent of his wickedness fand consequently im- proving his moral nature, restores himself to his human dignity; ; or if he be purified by the punishment of Providence and he acknowledge, that such punishment was just, and intended to restore hirn to piety; or also if the court of justice punish him agreeably to the law, and he then chooses the path of righteousness. 6. Religion must make man happy, useful, and good, not by means of an imaginary belief, but by the knowledge and love of truth; not by ascetic practices or inaction, but by doing what is right and shunning what is evil. 7. The nation of Israel has yet this peculiar religious duty: to guard and promulgate the revealed truths. Many other doctrines and principles have been deduced from the Mosaic dispensation; but we are unable to find anything in the Pentateuch contrary to these rational principles or not contained in them. b. The Forms of Religion or Outward Religion. — In respect of outward religion, Moses appears to have been guided by the following principle : men must be given means to demonstrate 170 APPENDIX TO by his actions the love and veneration to God, which inspire his mind, and also other means which awaken those sentiments in him if they are in a dormant condition. Outward religion must be conducive to one of these results, aside of which it has no signification. The means to those ends must be satis- factory to the worshiper; he must be accustomed to regard them with a sacred awe, if they shall be efficient at all. Therefore Moses did not substitute new ceremonies in place of those to which they were accustomed in Egypt; he only re- formed them ingeniously, to represent the pure ideas of monotheism and theocracy. In considering outward religion, according to Moses, we come first of all to the national sanctuary. I. THE TABERNACLE OF THE CONGREGATION AND ITS SERVANTS. In the tabernacle must first be remarked the court, which was one hundred cubits long from east to west, and fifty cubits broad from north to south, with twenty pillars on each of the broad sidgs, and ten pillars on the west side, and six on the east side, where was the entrance. A curtain of fine linen went round all the pillars, fastened by cords to the rings on the pillars, hanging down in a flowing manner. The height of this court was but five cubits. The front was adorned with silver pillars, while the others were of brass, and having an entry twenty cubits broad, which was covered by a curtain composed of purple, scarlet, blue and fine linen, embroidered with different figures excepting the figures of animals. In this court was the Mishcan, dwelling, the residence of the king, the abode of God. This was ten cubits high and broad, and thirty cubits long, enclosed on three sides by boards of shittim wood, which rested on silver sockets which were overlaid with gold. The bars which by means of golden rings, through which they were put, connected the boards, were of shittim wood overlaid with gold. The inside was divided into two departments, the one often cubits and the other of twenty cubits length, which were separated from each other by a PERIOD I. 171 curtain and four pillars; the smaller or second department was called the most holy, sanctum sanctorum, such as they had in almost all the Egyptian temples. The iirst and largest depart- ment was called the tabernacle.* The most holy place contained nothing but the ark of the covenant, in which was nothing besides the two tables of stone. This place was accessible only to the high priest, and only once a year on the tenth day of the seventh month. In the tabernacle, accessible to the priests only, stood the golden altar, where the incense was offered twice a day. On the north side of the altar stood the golden table with twelve cakes, which were changed weekly, and upon which were two vials of frankincense ; on the south side stood the golden candlestick with its seven lamps, kept in good order by the priest. In the court, accessible to every one who was pure, stood the altar of brass, upon which the sacrifices were burnt, and the laver of copper resting on a foot of copper, in which the priests washed their hands and feet. That all this was made on the Egyptian style has been so often told by modern archaeologists, that it is not necessary to repeat it. Even Josephus when speaking of the golden table says, " like those of Delphi." But it must be borne in mind, that this tabernacle represented ideas quite different from those which an Egpytian temple did. The most holy is certainly something similar to the mysterious temple at Sais ; but here was not the veiled image of Sais, here was, every body knew it, the ark containing the two tables, which were sacred not by themselves, but by the divine principles engraved upon them. It was the people's charter of liberty; it was the ground work of civiliza- tion, which made the place sacred. This was not to deceive and blindfold the mass, as the Egyptian mysteries were, and to give an unlimited sway to superstition and priestcraft. It was to influence the community with a sacred reverence of principles on which their national and personal prosperity depended; they knew what was deposited in that sacred place, * Concerning the roofing, curtains and other particulars, read Exodus xxxv -xl; and Josephus's Antiquities, B. iii, c. vi. 172 APPENDIX TO and learned to respect it by the sanctity ascribed to the place, which even the high priest was permitted to enter but once a year, when making atonement for the people. Moses sur° rounded the most sacred ideas with a corresponding reverence. The veil itself, which separated the holy from the most holy, and the other curtains, were embroidered with different figures, but, as Josephus expressly remarks, not with the figures of animals. Moses let them have figures, as they were accustomed to it; but no such figures, as inclined the mind towards Egyptian feticism. Before the curtain was the holy place, which Josephus said was to represent the earth, while the most holy was to represent the heaven. There stood significant symbols; first the golden candlestick with the seven lamps, in order to remember that God, the invisible spirit, had created the world in seven days, and that light was the first creature; and these lights burned at night only, as in every other temple, because Helios flames his fires over the hours of day, and were significant of the then general view, that God is enthroned in light, and there is no night before him. On the other side stood the golden table, " like those of Delphi" consequently like those also of Egyptian temples, upon which was the shewbread. While the lamp taught the important lesson "God is the creator of the universe," the table imparted the lesson, " God preserves the universe;" He gives food to the millions of creatures, who depend on his mercy. In the most holy place there was expressed the idea, " God governs the universe." Here then were the three fundamental ideas of the Mosaic religion. And there stood the altar of gold, which was to teach the significant doctrine, "Man, thou shalt worship this God, who is the creator, governor and preserver of the universe." The worship was simple, a handful of incense was burned at morning and evening; because it is not the thing sacrificed, but the heart, the mind of him who appears before God, that constitutes the real value of it. So Moses represented eternal ideas by means of Egyptian materials. Around this tabernacle was the court of the people, and there stood but one altar, upon which sacrifices were offered. But there were so PERIOD I. 173 man}- limitations as Maimonides well remarks,* that it was almost a matter of impossibility to sacrifice an animal. The man who entered the sacred court had to be clean, not having touched that day a carcass, not having had sexual communica- tion, or a sexual or leprous disease; if this was the case he had to keep his time of purification, bathe himself in water, change his garments before he could enter the sacred place, which was open only at day time. There were but three priests, Aaron and his two sons, and the ceremonies of every sacrifice took a long time; still, none of the principal sacrifices could be offered without an officiating priest, or at any other place than on the altar of the court of the tabernacle. So Moses did not at once abolish this ancient custom, because it was sacred to them; but he limited it so much, that it must gradually abolish itself. The Levites and the priests were dressed as the priests of Egypt, which was calculated to fill with a sacred awe the mind of those who were accustomed to the Egyptian form of worship. But the priests were not permitted to imitate the ridiculous, demoralizing and irrational ceremonies of the Egyptian priests; nor were they given any political power. They were restricted to divine service and divine instruction only; and a set of simple ceremonies was prescribed unto them, which they could not alter nor amend. The Levite, or the priest officiating in the tabernacle, had to be free of every bodily blemish, so that his personality make a good impression upon the worshiper. He had to be educated for his function, in order not to profane the sanctuary by errors or mistakes. Song and music, which exercise the greatest influence upon the mind, were integral parts of the divine service; the Levites performed this part, and were schooled to this vocation. As regards the instrumental music, Moses adopted not only those instruments which were deemed sacred, as the cystrum and other instruments used in Egyptian temples ; but for particular occasions he added the trumpet and trombone. Every body knows what a strong influence those instruments exercise upon * Morah Nebughim iii, $ 47. 174 APPENDIX TO the mind of a simple man. Thus every thing in the tabernacle was calculated to enliven the religious sentiments, which is the first problem of a divine service. Moses maintained the Egyptian forms because they were sacred to the people; but he reconstructed them to represent the pure and sacred monotheism of the patriarchs, which was a grand piece of labor, testifying of the ingenuity, prudence and honest designs of Moses. The clothes of the high priest were undoubtedly in the Egyptian style ; but they were symbolically to represent ideas foreign to the Egyptian system; he wore upon his forehead a plate of pure gold, upon which there were engraved the words " Holy to Jehovah;" he was consecrated to the service of the One and Invisible God, whose glory fills the tabernacle, and whose omniscience looks into the hearts of his servants; this plate was worn upon the head of the high priest to signify that his whole being, his heart and his mind, his sentiments and his thoughts, were subject to God, whose servant he was; he wore upon his breast the breastplate of judgment, undoubtedly a commonly acknowledged representation of justice; and upon this breastplate were twelve precious stones, each of which bore the inscription of one of the names of the tribes of Israel. This breastplate told the high priest that he was appointed to bear upon his heart the twelve tribes of Israel, to live for them, to love them, and to watch that justice be done to each of them. This breastplate was fastened to the ephod, in which the names of the twelve tribes were united upon the shoulders of the high priest, engraved on the two stones, which rested on his shoulder, to signify that it was his duty to unite the house of Israel under the dominion of God ; he was the bearer of the urim, emblem of enlightenment, and tumim, emblem of innocence and perfection; no superstition should have dominion over him ; truth is perceived at the rays of enlightenment. No ambition, no desire to govern, no brutal passions should degrade him. The fear of the Lord, justice, patriotism, enlightenment and innocence spoke symbolically from the attire of the high priest ; and if he acted accordingly, he was the oracle of the nation. Moses gave to the people a home PERIOD I. 175 oracle, and in correspondence with the whole of his system, he gave them not a blind idol, but a man; he restored man to his wonted dignity: it is with man and not with the idol that God communicates. This oracle was merely for national pur- poses, and was then permitted to answer only when asked by the highest authorities of the nation. The high priest was a private counsellor of the highest authorities of the nation. 2. THE SACRIFICES. As to the sacrifices which Moses ordered, it must be observed, that there were two daily sacrifices; one in the morning, and one in the evening, to which additional sacrifices were added on the festivals and new-moon days. These sacrifices were brought in the name and on behalf of the whole nation, so that the sacrifices of the individuals were virtually abolished. Still it was not exactly prohibited to bring a sacrifice; but it was attended, as we stated above, with a great many difficul- ties, so that it must have been a rare case, that one brought a sacrifice. At least it could not happen that more than one out of ten thousand brought a sacrifice every year in the tabernacle. Among the sacrifices of the individuals was the olah, or burnt offering, which was called so because the whole of it, the skin excepted, was burnt ; this was an atonement for having neglect- ed to comply with the positive commandments of the Bible. Shelamim, or peace offering, and todah, or thank offering, were brought either in order to pray God for a favor, or to thank him for one, or on account of a vow. Only part of it was burnt, part of it belonged to the priests, and part of it to him who brought it. The hatath, or sin offering, was brought if one unwittingly violated a prohibitive command, which if committed willfully the law punished with death. If it was the sacrifice of the high priest, or of the governor of the people, it was totally burnt. If it was the sacrifice of the prince of a tribe or of another individual, it was treated as a peace offering, with the exception, however, that all the flesh belonged to the priests. The asham or the offering of tres- pass, was brought, if one had unintentionally violated his oath, 176 APPENDIX TO or head unwittingly given false testimony, or was unclean, and not knowing it went into the sanctuary; or had unwittingly taken what belonged to the sanctuary and made restitution for it, or if he held his neighbor's property in an illegal way. which he repented of and restored. The Asham was treated as the second kind of Hatath. Besides these sacrifices there were those of the mother's sacrifice (Levit. xii, 9-8); the sacrifice of the leprous after he was purified (ibid xiv, 10-32) and the saccrifice of the Nazir (Numb. vi). These sacrifices were either bullocks, cows, heifers, goats, sheep, turtle doves, or young pigeons, the foremost of the sacred animals of Egypt. Moses desired to dethrone those demoralizing deities; but they stood too high in the estimation of the people, and he left to them part of their dignity, selecting them for sacrifices of the Lord. But at the same time he made this superstition harmless. He also gave them offerings of flour, oil, wine and incense, similar offerings being made by all the agricultural nations of old. He prohibited the libations of honey, which was offered to the sun; and of the leavend cakes which also were offered to the sun; and, as Pliny said, "Nulla sacra conficiuntur sine mala salsa," which is reckoned to be a very ancient custom. Moses maintained the custom of having salt as the symbol of constancy, at every sacrifice. The first fruits were sacrificed, as among all other nations. This short sketch of the sacrifices is sufficient to show, that Moses did not invent the custom of sacrificing, but that he only modified the custom, as it was practiced before. Still there was a great reform in the Mosaic system of sacrifices. Among the heathens different animals and fruits were sacrificed to different gods. Among the Greeks, who learned their mode of worship from the Egyptians, oil was offered to Pluto, honey to the sun, the dove to Venus, the goat to Bacchus, &c. Mo- ses reduced the system to suit the monotheism of the patriarchs, without designing to deprive the people of the means to express their repentence, obligation, gratitude or love towards God. The most abominable practices among the heathens wrere the games after the sacrifices, which were fraught with all sorts PERIOD I. 177 of immorality. Moses prohibited them at once. The one who brought the sacrifice laid his hand upon the animal, and con- fessed the cause of his bringing it, upon which the priest could instruct him on the subject. The meat of the thank- offerings was to be eaten in purity, with the sacred cakes, and in one day, and, as it appears, without using intoxicating drinks. Only the peace-offering could be eaten for two days. So Moses left to them all the elements of divine worship, to which they were in Egypt accustomed, that tended either to impress the mind with pious and moral ideas, or served to express the sentiments of the heart. But he modified them in such a skillful manner, that they represented the most sub- lime ideas, and becamo conducive to piety, morality and patriotism, and to their own gradual extinction. It was the opinion of some of the ancient rabbins, that the heights so often mentioned in the next periods of history, were not sanctioned by the Mosaic law; but the passage con- cerning them (Exodus xx, 21-23) is clearly to the effect, that Moses prohibited only the making at home of such sacrifices as should be brought to the tabernacle. The priests received from the sacrifices made at home, the shoulder, the two cheeks, and the maw (Deatr. xviii, 3), which certainly could not relate to every animal which was killed for food. The cause of the objection made against those heights by the later pro- phets (Samuel was not opposed to the practice) will be noticed in the proper place. It can not be imagined that Moses gave them no other place of worship than the one taber- nacle. It rather appears that he sanctioned the simple mode of sacrificing upon heights on altars of earth or rough stone, as once the patriarchs did, which custom was maintained, until the heights gave way to synagogues. 3. THE FEASTS. Besides the weekly Sabbath and the new-moon days, the Mosaic law has prescribed four feasts, the feast of Passover, of Weeks, and of Booths, and the Day of Memorial, and one Day of Atonement. The first was of seven days (from the eve of the 12 178 APPENDIX TO fourteenth day of Nissan or the first month, corresponding to April, to the eve of the twenty-first day of that month) in remembrance of the departure from Egypt. It should be dis- tinguished, besides, by additional sacrifices; by the sacrifice of the passover lamb on the fourteenth day of Nissan, and the offering of the first sheaf, being at the conclusion of the grain harvest, and by eating unleavened bread and bitter herbs, also in remembrance of the departure from Egypt. The second feast should be seven weeks after the first day of the passover, occuring the sixth day of Sivan, corresponding to June, which should be distinguished by bringing the flour-offering from the new flour — occuring at the time when the husbandman was done with threshing and grinding — and by other additional sacrifices. According to tradition this feast was a memorial of the glorious day of the revelation on Mount Sinai. The third feast should take place at the eve of the fourteenth day of the seventh month, Tishri, corresponding with October, and last for seven days ; to be concluded on the eighth day with a feast of conclusion. It was distinguished, besides, by the additional offerings, by the commandment to dwell in booths during the feast, in remembrance of the voyage through the wilderness, and by preparing a festive wreath for every body, consisting of a branch of the palm tree, branches of the myrtle tree, willows of the brook, and the fruit of the tree hadar, according to tradition the citron tree, to rejoice with it before the Lord. The symbolical import of that festive wreath can not be ascertained at present. The whole was intended to be a feast of ingathering of the vine, olives, figs, pomegranates and other fruits, which was a joyous occasion among all nations of antiquity. The Day of Memorial, according to tradition the com- mencement of the civil year, was distinguished by additional sacrifices, and, for astronomical reasons, also by blowing a musical instrument made of rams' horn. It was to take place the first day of the seventh month. The tenth day of that month was set apart for atonement of sins by negative afflictions, as the tradition maintained, such as fasting and repentance, while the heathens inflicted upon themselves positive punish- PERIOD I. 179 ments to appease the gods. A peculiarly solemn service dis- tinguished that day, and among the additional offerings was, most remarkably, the ram, upon which the high priest confessed all the sins of the house of Israel, and being therefore thought unworthy to be sacrificed before the Lord, he was sent to a place in the desert called Azazel, which gave rise to many superstitious theories.* It is a commonly known fact that the pagans celebrated principally two feasts at the times of the equinox, in spring and autumn, besides the feasts in honor of the different gods, among which the feast of Ceres and Bacchus, or harvest, was the most notorious for lubric practices, as those feasts in gen- eral were the days when the wildest passions were incited. Moses left to the Israelites the two feasts at the equinox, pass- over and the day of memorial, the feast of harvest of the fruits and of the new flour; but he surrounded them with a sanctifying nimbus. For every feast there were with Moses two reasons; a historical one, which gave to the feast a gloomy aspect, and an agricultural one that made it a day of rejoicing, which two reasons counterbalanced each other, producing an equilibrium of joy and melancholy. They should gather and rejoice before the Lord, at the place appointed by him and with the gifts bestowed upon them by the Lord, a part of which should be offered to him, and another part be given to the poor, the widow, the orphan, the stranger, and the Levite; the bondman and the servant should rejoice with their master, and all Israel, rich and poor, master and servant, officer and citizen, should be united before the Lord in pious and fraternal sentiments. The feasts were not new, but the ideas connected with them were original, a part of the grand whole of the Mosaic legislation. For his sublime ideas, Moses understood most eminently how to make a fitting dress, as it were, of any land of material, which he found among the nation. * Exodus xii, 14-20-, xiii, 2-10 ; xxiii, 14-19 j xxxiv, 18-23, Leviticus xvi, xxiii •, Numbers xxviii, xxix; Deuteronomy xvi. J SO APPENDIX TO 4. THE NAZIR. In the sixth chapter of Numbers we read the following pas- sage in regard to the Nazir. "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the Lord: He shall separate him- self from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes or dried. All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk. All the days of the vow of his separation .there shall no razor come upon his head, until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the Lord; he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow. All the days that he separateth himself unto the Lord, he shall come at no dead body. He shall not make himself unclean for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die; because the consecration of his God is upon his head. All the days of his separation he is holy unto the Lord. And if any man die very suddenly by him, and he hath defiled the head of his consecra- tion; then he shall shave his head in the day of his cleansing, on the seventh day shall he shave it. And on the eighth day he shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons, to the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation : And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt-offering, and make an atonement for him, for that he sinned by the dead, and shall hallow his head that same day. And he shall consecrate unto the Lord the days of his separa- tion, and shall bring a lamb of the first year for a trespass offering; but the days that were before shall be lost, because his separation was defiled. And this is the law of the Naza- rite : When the days of his separation are fulfilled, he shall be brought unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation : And he shall offer his offering unto the Lord, one he -lamb of PERIOD I. 181 the first }rcar without blemish, for a burnt-offering, and one ewe-lamb of the hrst year without blemish for a sin-offering, and one ram without blemish for peace-offerings. And a basket of unleavened bread, cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, and wafers of unleavened bread anointed with oil and their meat-offering and their drink-offerings. And the priest shall bring them before the Lord, and shall offer his sin-offer- ing, and his burnt-offering. And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace-offerings unto the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread: the priest shall offer also his meat-offering, and his drink-offering. And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congre- gation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the tire which is under the sacrifice of the peace- offerings. And the priest shall take the sodden shoulder of the ram, and one unleavened cake out of the basket, and one un- leavened wafer, and shall put them upon the hands of the Nazarite, after the hair of his separation is shaven: And the priest shall wave them for a wave -offering before the Lord: this is holy for the priest, with the wave-breast and heave- shoulder: and after that the Nazarite may drink wine. This is the law of the Nazarite who hath vowed, and of his offering unto the Lord for his separation, besides that his hand shall get, according to the vow which he vowed, so he must do after the law of his separation." It appears to us that this class of religious enthusiasts was numerous in Egypt, therefore Moses had made a law as to what they should do, and from what kind of food they should abstain; as they most likely afflicted upon their bodies cruel and lasting injuries, and abstained from all profane joys and from the necessary articles of food. They are remarkable to us, because we will meet with them frequently in this history. It would even appear to us that they were the Nethinim, from whom afterwards the Esseneans sprang, of whom we shall be obliged to speak more at length in another chapter of this work. It may suffice here to ob- serve, that they were of Egyptian origin, and that Moses, when making this law, designed to counteract the fantastic and 182 APPENDIX TO ascetic practices of Egypt rather than to sanction this institu- tion. Still subsequent generations understood it in a different way. 5. THE LAW CONCERNING THE DEAD. It is well known that the Pentateuch ordains, that not only he who touched a dead animal shall be unclean (Leviticus xi), but also whoever touched the dead body of a man was unclean, and not permitted to enter the national sanctuary until he had gone through the ceremony of purification. (Numbers xix). The priests were altogether prohibited from touching a dead body, except one of their next relatives (Leviticus xxi), and the nazir was not permitted to touch any dead body (Numb. vi). This law appears inconsistent with the general spirit of the Pentateuch; the elevation of man, to the consciousness of his own dignity, is every where in the Pentateuch visibly attempted, and it goes so far in that respect as to set man directly after, and also in direct connection with the Deity. It attempts every where to uproot the feticism of Egypt, setting man so high above the animal, whose master he is by the will of the creator; still in the law above recited, man and beast are put on the same level ; the dead bodies of both of them are impure and abominable; the very touch of which, or even abiding in their atmosphere, makes a man impure, disqualify- ing him from entering the national sanctuary. Some critics have considered this law as an indirect declaration of the Pen- tateuch, that the human preponderance is not vested in the body of man, in which respect he equals the beast of the field, but in his soul ; which puts his remains on the same level with that of the brute as soon as the soul departs from the body. How- ever correct this suggestion may be, it by no means accounts for the existence of the law. We are of opinion that there were more causes than one for this law ; for it must be borne in mind that it was given in the wilderness, where a large number of men were encamped closely together under a tropi- cal sky, and consequently every possible precaution had to be used against contagious diseases. Every physician will admit that the contagious venom can be inhaled from the exhalations PERIOD I, 183 of a dead man or animal, if such be in the corpse; and that the very process of decomposition of animal matter may render the air unwholesome. This law had then the intention of pre- venting the spread of contagious diseases. Another reason may be this ; it is well known that the car- casses of animals which died a natural death were considered an abomination among all nations of antiquity, especially among the Egyptians; this is yet the case to a great extent among modern nations. The flayer is even in our days an abominable man in all countries of central Europe, and thou- sands of superstitions surround the houses of such men in all parts of Germany. No Egyptian priest, with whom cleanliness was a principal duty, would, for any price, have touched a carcass, and if he touched it, he certainly had to undergo the same ceremonial of purification as the Pentateuch prescribes (Numbers xix). " Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests," was the maxim addressed to Israel; i. e., those degraded by oppression and slavery, should be thus raised in their own estimation, that each of them should stand as high as a priest whom they had admired so much in Egypt, and venerated for their high and esteemed position in that country ; consequently none should touch a carcass without undergoing the ceremonial of purification. But this law of impurity was not extended in Egypt over dead men, and it remains for us to investigate into its origin. Apotheosis was one of the greatest follies of ancient religions, and was in its full blast in Egypt. Cecrops, who came to Attica from Egypt in the time of Moses, erected the first altar to Jupiter, whom he called the Supreme ; still it is certain that Jupiter was a man, who was idolized in the course of time, and the people supposed so long that Jupiter was a divine being, that they instinctively called God Jupiter. The Rev. Michael Russell (View of Ancient and Modern Egypt), informs us, that "The preservation of the body in an entire and uncorrupted state during three thousand years, is understood to have been connected with the mythological tenet that the spirit by which it was originally occupied would return to animate its members, and to render it once more the 184 APPENDIX TO instrument of a moral probation amid the ordinary pursuits of the human race. The mortal remains, even of the greatest prince, would hardly have been regarded as deserving of the minute care and the sumptuous apparatus which were employed to save them from dissolution, had not the national faith pointed to a renewal of existence after the lapse of ages, when the bodily organs would again become necessary to the exer- cise of those faculties from which the dignity of enjoyment of man are derived." The belief in the resurrection of the body was not limited to the ancient Egyptians; Zoroaster likewise devotes a large chapter of his Zend-a- Vesta to the resurrection of the body. The consequence of this belief was, that the remains of great men were covered by lofty pyramids and other large buildings, which are notoriously known in Egypt. The tombs gradually became sacred spots, so that the sacred writings of the Egypt- ians were deposited in the tomb of Osymandias, as Diodorus Siculus informs us. Gradually the tombs were converted into temples; both Eusebius and Clemens inform us, that the first temples were erected to the honor of deceased persons; the Chinese even in our days know of no other temples but the ancestral halls, which are erected in memory of their deceased ancestors, and where Tien is worshiped, the Budhists not included. The tombs were easily converted into temples, as a sacred awe surrounded the spot, which inclined the heart of the visitor to worship God in remembrance of the deceased resting there. Lucian informs us, that among the most ancient Egyptians the temples were without statues. But a bust of the deceased was erected; a stone bearing an inscription in his praise, which was first read and gazed at with amazement; finally, it was adored as an idol, and the man whose name the temple bore, was idolized and made god himself. The nations who practiced no apotheosis had for a long time no temples; such were the Persians, the Chinese, the Celtic Druids and the Goths. This degradation of the human mind was entirely uprooted among Israel by the law, which declared the human body to be an impure and abominable object, equal PERIOD I, 185 to the fallen beast, and he who touched it must undergo the ceremonial of purification. The priests were altogether pro- hibited from touching the dead, except their next relatives, as certainly the Egyptian priests had their hands in the production and maintenance of that superstition; the Nazir, who is the enthusiast of the Mosaic law, such as every nation has pro- duced, was entirely prohibited from touching the dead ; for his interference was most dangerous in that respect. This law, however, had its effect ; after the Israelites went astray after the gods of other nations, they never committed the folly of idolizing a dead man; the grave of Moses was hidden, and Elijah taken, to heaven alive, in order to prevent apotheosis. XIV. TAXES AND THE TREASURY. Having reviewed the different institutions of the Mosaic law it becomes necessary to direct the attention of the reader to the pecuniary means by which those institutions were sup- ported. 1. The priests should receive from the people, besides the parts due unto them from the sacrifices in the tabernacle, and on the altars built on heights, the therumah, apart of the grains of every harvest; Moses did not say how large a portion they should be given, but the expounders of the law in after ages, fixed it to a fiftieth part of the harvest: the biccurim, or first fruits of the vine, olive, pomegranates, granates, figs and dates, and the wool of the lamb, sheared the first time; no law was given fixing the quantity of fruits to be given to the priest: the halah, part of the dough, most likely prepared to bake cakes for festive occasions: the behorim, or first-born of all the clean domestic animals, if it was a male without blemish; the first-born of the unclean domestic animals should be redeemed, and for every first born male person, the priest should be paid five shekels of silver: the her em, property, animals, or even persons voluntarily devoted to the Lord, which could be redeemed under fixed laws.* ♦Leviticus xxvii: Numbers xviii. 186 APPENDIX TO 2. The Levite should be given the tithe of all grains and of the increase of cattle. This custom was older than Moses ; Melchizedek and Jacob made mention of it. The Levites were not only the literati, assistant priests, court constables, and scribes, but they also formed the national guard; and, con- sidering that they yielded their inheritance of the land to the other tribes, this tax was by no means excessive. When the tithe was taken from the produce of the harvest for the Levite, a second tithe should be taken which belonged to the poor the second, fourth and sixth year after the year of release, besides other gifts described before; the first, third and fifth year after the year of release that second tithe should be spent to the purpose of the three annual journe}rs to the place which the Lord would choose; to this purpose was also set apart the fruit of all trees from the fourth year after it was first planted ; the fruits of the first three years were prohibited altogether. The national sanctuary itself should be supported by the free-will gifts ;* by part of the booty taken in war, which belonged to the Lord (Numb, xxxi), and, it would appear to us, by the herem, mentioned above, which belonged to Aaron as long as they sojourned in the wilderness, but afterwards to the public treasury. The treasury of the national sanctuary was the public treasury in every other respect, being deposited at that place, which was also the place of sessions for the national council and was guarded by the priests and Levites. Moses made no provision for the payment of salaries for civil or military services, nor did he mention a tax in support of the national government ; he assigned this point to the religious feelings of the community, which, however, was fixed after- wards. It is not in our province to comment on laws which exer- cised no influence on the history of the nation. We suppose, therefore, that we have said enough on the subject to give the reader a fair insight into the history of this nation. It may suffice to make the following general remarks : The laws of charity were extended also over all animals. *ExodU3 xxv; xxvii. 20; xxx, 12. PERIOD I. 187 The birds were especially protected by the law; most likely on account of their beneficial influence on agriculture. A cor- ruption of nature, the amalgamation of different kinds of animals, or of vegetable seeds, and the wearing of a garment of woollen and linen stuff, was prohibited by the laws of Moses, as well as by Zoroaster and others. Mutilation of the body, or even making cuts in any part of it, imprinting marks, and all other practices of this kind met frequently among savage nations and also in the worship rendered to different gods, were strictly prohibited; Moses went so far, in this respect, as to prohibit the cutting of the hairs which nature caused to grow. All sorts of superstitious practices, as enchantments, divinations, witchcraft, intercourse with familiar spirits, were prohibited under the penalty of death. The cruel custom of the ancient Pan worshipers, seething a living kid in the milk of its mother, and dancing around it, reciting the praise of the god as long as the victim groaned; together with the savage custom of drinking the blood of animals, gathering the rest of it in holes dug in the earth to prophesy at it, or cutting a piece of flesh from the body of a living animal and devouring it, were prohibited by Moses. It may be given as a general rule, that whatever was cruel, barbarous, or superstitious, dan- gerous to popular liberties, to a fair development of the moral sentiments and mental capacities of man, was prohibited by Moses. His laws in regard to warfare are by no means an exception to this rule, as has been explained before. He could not at once uproot all the institutions, customs, and concep- tions which he found among the people. He opposed as much as practicable, and laid a sure foundation for a gradual ter- mination of every thing which was inconsistent with divine truth, with the moral sentiments of man and with the princi- ples of political, social, and religious liberty. XV. THE PROPHECIES OF MOSES. Reviewing what has been said on the institutions of Moses, we will arrive at two results. First, that these institutions contain the verities which a careful observation of nature and 188 APPENDIX TO history represent to the human mind; and, secondly, that they were calculated to develop the moral, mental and physical capacities of the nation, and to connect the twelve independent tribes into one great and peaceable fraternity. Moses, who knew the human mind, could easily predict that his institutions would never be lost; that there would be at all ages men, who have discarded superstition and corruption, and who would comprehend and advocate his institutions. He could also know, that if the Israelites would be obedient to his laws, they would be a great and powerful nation, which could not be subdued nor annihilated ; for this law intended to make them superior to the rest of mankind, as the state of society then was, in mental, moral and physical strength, and to unite them into an inseparable union. He also knew, that the Israelites with this law would form a direct contrast to the pagan nations, denying the divinity of their gods, living separated from them, and having come into the land by means of conquest, which made the pagans their irreconcilable enemies. He there- fore could tell them, that if they would obey his laws they would be strong enough in every respect, mental, moral, and physical, to maintain themselves in their country and to chas- tise their enemies, who would gradually be convinced of the truth which pervades his laws, and would become their friends. But if they should neglect the law, immorality would enfeeble them, superstition would weaken their mental faculties, the foreign culte would disunite them, the neglect of the law would operate disadvantageously upon agriculture and industry, upon health and life ; that this would make them an easy prey to their enemies, who would easily succeed in driving them away from their country, and scatter them among nations who would hate them on account of forming a direct contrast to each of them in religion, sentiments, and mental directions. But Moses also knew, that the verities which he had promulgat- ed would never be entirely forgotten, that many would bear them also into the most distant countries, that this would always preserve in them a national pride, and a desire for their first home, and that they therefore would ultimately PERIOD I. 189 return to their land, and God would never break his covenant with them. "See, I have set before thee this day, life and the good, death and the evil; in that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes, and his ordinances; that thou mayest live and multiply, and that the Lord thy God may bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. But if thy heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hearken, and thou sufterest thyself to be drawn away, and thou worshipest other gods, and servest them; I proclaim unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, you shall not remain many days upon the land, whither thou passest over the Jordan to go thither to possess it. I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose thou life, and thou mayest live, both thou and thy seed" (Deutr. xxx, 15-19). " And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou reflectest in thy heart among all the nations, whither the Lord thy God has driven thee. So that thou returnest unto the Lord thy God, and hearkenest unto his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul: That then the Lord thy God will restore thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee. And he will again gather thee from all the nations, whither the Lord thy God has scattered thee. If thy outcasts be at the outmost part of heaven, from there will the Lord thy God gather thee, and from there will he bring thee. And the Lord thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers pos- sessed, and thou shalt possess it, and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers" (Deutr. xxx, 1-5). And here we stand, at the distance of thirty-four centuries, and look back with astonishment upon the man who stood as high above his own age as Mount Blanc over the hills ; whose words have reached the ends of the earth, and whose doctrines and principles have laid the basis to civilization, and now for the first time pervade the civilized world. Liberty, justice and 190 APPENDIX TO fraternity were his watch words, now the nations re-echo them; mental, moral and physical strength, constitute the proper man, to which superstition, immorality, opulence and luxury, are the greatest enemies ; wherefore the latter must be effectually opposed; only proper men can make a proper nation. This is the doctrine of Moses, which the world now begins to under- stand. Still he said it thirty-four centuries ago. If he were not a prophet, he certainly was the greatest man of antiquity. If it were not a history that we write, recording only what has been done, we would say without fear, Moses was a prophet, and his words are divine; and it is extremely easy to justify this idea by a legal process of logical reasoning. XVI. LITERATURE. The Hebrew alphabet is undoubtedly one of the most ancient in the world; and while the Egyptians resorted for centuries to hieroglyphics to express their thoughts, the nations of the south-western part of Asia were acquainted with letters and alphabetical writing. There was anciently a considerable communication between Egypt and Greece, and the numerous Egyptian emigrants, nocking into Greece, brought thither Egyptian civilization, arts, agriculture and religion. So the lyre of Orpheus is but an echo of the lyre of Hermes. Still the art of alphabetical writing was brought to Greece at a considerably later period by Cadmus, who is supposed to have been a Phoenician, perhaps the leader of a Phoenician colony. But be this as it may, it is undeniable that Cadmus, is derived from the Hebrew kedem, east, and that the Greek alphabet has eastern names; consequently, that alphabet came from the east and not from Egypt; which must lead to the inference, that the Egyptians were then unacquainted with the art of alphabetical writing, and there is no his- torical evidence to the contrary. The time of Cadmus's arrival in Greece is generally set 50 — 80 years after the exode. Pliny informs us (Hist. nat. 1 vii, c. 56) that the letters were brought from Assyria, which may also be understood to com- prehend Babylonia and the Chaldees. Diodorus mentions Syria as the fatherland of the alphabet (Diod. v, 74). Manetho when PERIOD I. 191 speaking of the beginning of learning in Egypt, informs us, that the second Hermes found in the Seriadic land the antedilu- vian pillars with the inscriptions of the first Hermes, which he had buried under ground. The land of the deluge must undoubtedly be sought in the south-west of Asia; the Seriadic land, Syria and Assyria, seem to have been synonymous with many of the ancient writers. We are, therefore, obliged to search for the origin of the alphabet on the banks of the Eu- phrates, which hypothesis is also confirmed by the names given to letters. 1. x alaph, Greek alpha, which signifies in the ancient lan- guage of the Chaldees a ship, but in Hebrew a bullock, which was used among the Hebrews to bear burdens, as the ship does on the sea. 2. 2 beth, Greek beta, is derived from bayith, a house, like which it looks. 3. J guimel, Greek gamma, a small bridge in the ancient Aramaic language, and camel in Hebrew. 4. i dalith, Greek delta, derived from deleth, a door, and like an open door it looks. 5. n hat, signifying "here it is." These five letters seem to have been made from one image ; one goes from the ship to the house, where he must pass a small bridge in order to reach the shore, and then he comes to the door and there he is in the house. 6. 1 vov, a nail; its appearance is that of a nail. 7. i sayin, Greek sigma, the arms, the club; and thus it seems. 8. n heth, fire-tongs; like which it looks. 9. £3 teth, Greek chi, the fist; the appearance of the closed hand is plainly indicated. 10. < yud, Greek iota, the handle of a pan or vessel, like which it looks. 11. D kaph, Greek kappa, a plate. These letters seemed to have been formed on this image: after the man is in the house, he goes to the nail on which he 192 APPENDIX TO hangs his arms or club, then he take the tongues with his fist, and lays hold on the handle of the pan, to take his meal. 12. S lamed, Greek lambda, the cane or switch. 13. D mem, Greek mu, from mayim, the water. 14. j tttm. Greek nu, the fish. Aram. 15. d samech, Greek sigma, thick. 16. p ayin, the eye. 17. 3 peh, Greek pi and phi, the mouth. 18. y tsadi, Greek zeta, the fish angle. 19. p &«/*, Greek kappa, the hole of the ear. 20. i resh, Greek rho, from rosh, the head. 21. w shin, from shen, the tooth. 22. n thof, Greek theta, a mark. The primary signification of these eleven letters may be thus rendered: The fisher takes his cane or switch, goes to the water to catch Jish, and he catches a thick or a big one, through the eye or through the mouth, with the angle, or through the ear-hole, which are on the head in which the teeth are a ma?'& of genera.* This shows, that the alphabet of the Hebrews was composed on the banks of a river, where ships arrived and where fishing was a common employment, and where both the Aramaic and Hebrew languages were known; for some letters have a Hebrew and some an Aramaic name. But as these two languages, together with the Arabic and Syriac were anciently but one ; in which age the cities of Babel, or Nineveh, were the most flourishing places, where ships and fishing were common enough; and in addition to this, the classical testimony which we adduced before, no doubt can be entertained, but that Babel, or Nineveh, is the place where the Hebrew, and conse- quently also the Arabic, Syriac, Chaldean, Greek alphabet was composed. The time of this composition must have been at a time when the Aramaic and Hebrew languages were still but one language; consequently, before the time of Jacob's return from Laban ; for then those two languages already differed from each other, so that Jacob called the heap of stones Galed, the * Vide Rapop. Erech Milin, art. din. PERIOD I. 193 heap of witness, which Laban called Yegar Sahadutho, denot- ing the same. Still it is certain that the Israelites in Egypt could not write; for had they known this art, the Egyptians would have learned it of them, which however, they did not. Moses traveled through Palestine and the adjacent countries, as his accurate knowledge of those countries testifies ; he was at the other side of the Euphrates, for also of that region he gives geographical and historical descriptions ; he coincides precisely with the Babylonian historian, Berosus, in the history of the deluge, and in other points;* he also coincides with the Vedas in this respect;! he speaks of the same giants, of which those mythologies speak. Moses was in Babylon, and read the records of the Chaldecs. after he had learned of them the art of writing; he shows this for the first time to the Israelites when bring- ing the two -tables of the covenant, and so they exclaim, "And the writing is a writing of God (no hieroglyphics) engraved on the tables." This investigation was necessary in order to meet the objection that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch, because the invention of the alphabet belongs to a later age. That Moses is the author of the Pentateuch is evident : 1. From the style in which it is written, to which none of the later writers can lay a claim ; and the productions of Ezra and his contemporaries can the least stand a comparison with the language of the Pentateuch. 2. None of the ancient writers asserted that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch, while there are traces of the Pentateuch in all the canonical and apocryphal books, as we shall notice hereafter, and as Hengstenberg has sufficiently proved.J 3. The testimony of Manetho, who, notwithstanding his profound ignorance of the particulars of the early history of the Israelites, still testifies, that their redeemer, Moses, gave * Josephus against Apion, i, 19. fSirWm. Jones's Works, vol. ii, p. 240. t Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch. Edinburgh, 1S47. 13 194 APPENDIX TO them laws and regulations, which were averse to Egyptian superstition, in teaching to believe in and to worship but one God. 4. Many of the laws contained in the Pentateuch were di- rected, as we have frequently observed, against Egyptian superstitions; while others were evidently accommodated to the conceptions of a people just coming from Egypt, imbued with Egyptian notions. 5. The author of the Pentateuch, who manifests an intimate acquaintance with the geography, history, and moral and phy- sical state of Canaan and the adjacent countries, frequently refers to Egypt for illustrations; as, speaking of Sedom, &c, he remarks that it was "as a garden of the Lord, as the land of Egypt when thou comest towards Zoar" (Genesis xiii, 10); and when speaking of Hebron, he says, "And Hebron was built seven years before Zoar of Egypt" (Numb, xiii, 22), in regard to which country he manifests the most intimate know- ledge of its geography, history, laws, and superstitions. It is therefore evident, that either Moses wrote his own words, or one of his contemporaries did it for him. But we believe that no one can accept the latter alternative. It would be entirely superfluous for us to prove that Genesis was written by Moses. We have shown plainly enough, that without the book of Genesis no historical account can be given for the laws, religion, and actions of Moses. Those who say that Genesis was written ages after Moses, have no historical source to account for the appearance of Moses. Though it must be admitted, that there are some traces of later writers in the Pentateuch; yet, they are so few in number, that they can not counterbalance our evidences in regard to the whole book, and must therefore be ascribed to those who compiled the canon and to later copyists, who confounded glossary notes with the original text. "And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book until they were finished; that Moses commanded the Levites, the bearers of the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying: ' Take this book of the law, and put it at the side of the ark of the cove- PERIOD I. 195 riant of the Lord your God, that it may remain there against thee for a witness ' " (Deutr. xwi, 24-26). The Sepher ha-Berith, book of the covenant, of which mention is made, Exodus, xxiv. 7, was, as Are have said before, Genesis, together with an extract from the history of the exode, where- fore it can not be regarded as a separate book. But the Sepher Milchamoth Jehovah, book of the wars of the Lord, which is mentioned in Numbers xxi, 14, and of which a quota- tion occurs there of seven verses, in proof that Arnon is on the boundary between Moab and Amori, must have been a book written at the time of Moses, which has not reached us. This, as well as other books, we will notice hereafter. This is probably the same book of which mention is made (Exodus xvii, 14) that Moses should record in it the enmity of Amalek; being there spoken of as a certain well known book, as the patah under the beth and the dagash forte in the samah of 13D3 plainly indicate. It has been contended that the book of Job was written in this period, and some of the ancient writers even supposed Moses to have been the author of that book (Baha Bathra, 14, b.). But this hypothesis can not be sup- ported by any kind of evidence. The poetical form of the book, the metaphysical speculations in which it abounds, and the correct views of Providence contained in it, invariably testify that this book was not written before the return from the Babylonian captivity, to the metaphysical science of which age it best corresponds. It appears that the art of writing was taught to all the Israelites in the desert, as Moses com- manded them: "And thou shalt write them upon the door posts of thy house and on thy gates." He commanded the king to write a copy of the law (Deutr. xvii, 18). He com- manded them to write the law upon stones when they had passed the Jordan (Deutr. xxvii, 3, 8). And he also com- manded them to write down his last song (Deutr. xxxi, 19). XVII. MECHANICAL ARTS. The Israelites of that period were acquainted with many branches of mechanical art. The making of the golden calf, of the brass serpent, of the golden candlestick, the ark, the 196 APPENDIX TO PERIOD I. golden table, the altar, and other utensils of the tabernacle ; the nails, the pillars covered with metal, show that they un- derstood how to work metals in different ways, and to carve and cut wood into different figures. The prohibition {Exodus xx, 25) not to build an altar of cut stones, shows that they were acquainted with that art, as also show the two tables of stone on which the ten commandments were engraved. The garments of the high priest as Moses ordered them to be made, prove that they were acquainted with the art of polishing, setting and engraving jewels. The curtains used in the ta- bernacle into which different figures were woven, show their acquaintance with spinning, artificial weaving, and dyeing, especially of woolen and linen stuffs, in purple red, purple blue, and scarlet; and the skins used in the same building show us their knowledge of tanning and currying. The pre- paration of the incense and the oil of anointment and the grinding of the golden calf, evince their acquaintance with some chemical processes. It may be seen, in the words of Moses (Deutr. viii, 9, 13), that the Israelites were sufficiently aware of the value of metals, that they understood the art of mining, and knew how to build " good houses." It is certainly unfair in many of our modern admirers of ancient Egypt to assert, that all those arts were learned in Egypt, which they make the birthplace of all useful arts. It is especially men- tioned in our records, that Eleaser, the servant of Abraham, gave to Rebecca golden ear rings and bracelets, and to her relatives he gave jewels of silver and jewels of gold (Genesis xxiv, 22, 53); that Isaac tilled the ground (ibid, xxvi, 12); that Esau had a quiver, bow and arrow (ibid, xxvii, 3); that Jabob dreamed of a ladder, consequently this instrument must have existed (ibid, xxvii, 12); that Jacob built a house (ibid, xxxiii, 17); that Jehudah had a signet, scarf, and staff, which must have been of a particular value (ibid, xxxviii, 18); that frequent mention is made of money, and of luxurious gar- ments, all of which evidently indicate an advanced state of civilization among the patriarchs, and of the knowledge of some mechanical arts. PERIOD II FROM THE ACCESSION OF JOSHUA TO THE CHIEF COMMAND TO THE END OF THE REPUBLIC IN THE TIME OF SAMUEL. (2315—2680, A. M. 1445— 1080, B. C.) BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. Joshua's administration, 25 years (Antiqu. vi, 1-29). Othniel's, 40 years (Judges iii, 11). Ehud1s' I 80 years (Judges iii, 30-31). Shamgar's, > Deborah and Barak's, 40 years (ibid v, 31). Gideon's, 40 years (ibid viii, 28). ' Thola's, 23 years (ibid x, 2). Jair, 22 years (ibid x, 3). Ebzon, 7 years (ibid xii, 9). Elan, 10 years (ibid xii, 10). Abdan, 8 years (ibid xii, 14).; Samson, 20 years (ibid xv, 20). Eli, 40 years (I Samuel iv, IS). Samuel, 12 years (Antiqu. vi, xiii, 5),* be- fore Saul, and 8 years with Saul. Total amount of years, 367 Considering the inaccuracy of the -last year of each judge (which might have been taken in full, although governing but a part of the year), it will not be much amiss to reduce the period of the republic to the round number of 365 years,* we are supposed to be entitled to the belief that Abimelech was a contemporary of Thola, and Jephtah was a contemporary of Abdon. * Vide Appendix to Period II. The Government. 198 PERIOD II. CHAPTER IV. ADMINISTRATION OF JOSHUA. (1115—1120, B. C.) After the thirty days of national mourning for Moses were ended and Joshua had promised, most likely under oath, to administer the laws, and to lead the people in the war which they were about undertaking, precisely as written in the laws of Moses, from which he would not depart "neither to the right nor to the left" {Joshua i, 7), the members of the senate, before whom this promise was given, returned to their respect- ive tribes announcing to them the orders of Joshua, to prepare for crossing the Jordan to begin the war with the aborigines, which preparation should be accomplished within three days. The heads of the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and of the half of the tribe of Menassah charged their men to remember the promise given to Moses, to go armed before their brethren until they had taken possession of the land, which the Lord had promised to them, after which they might return to their pos- sessions east of the Jordan. When the people were thus informed that Joshua had promised to govern and to lead them as the laws of Moses bid him do; they did not only take willingly the oath of allegiance, but gave him also full military powers during the time that the war lasted (ibid i, 18). The first step of Joshua was to dis- patch secretly two spies to bring him an account of the strongly fortified Jericho and the adjacent country, as he had not that minute knowledge of the country that Moses had. The spies crossed the Jordan, and acquainted themselves with the state of the Canaanites. "They took a full view of the city of Jericho without disturbance, and beheld the parts of the walls which were strong, also those which were insecure, as well as the gates which were so weak as might afford an entrance to their army. All this they effected without attracting the notice of the people of the city."* At evening they retired to an inn, which was within and near the wall of the city, and which * Joseph. Antiq. b. v. c. 1, 2. CHAPTER IV. 199 was kept by a woman whose name was Rahab. When they were there, the king of the city was informed of their presence in the inn of Rahab, and men were sent accordingly to arrest them. Rahab, however, who had concealed the spies upon the roof under stalks of flax, informed the king's messengers, that the men whom they wanted had left the city before the gates were locked; upon which the men of Jericho went in pursuit of the spies, going as far as the fords of the Jordan. Mean- while Rahab went up to the spies, and after having told them how the tidings of their passage through the Red sea and of their victorious wars against Sihon and Og had discouraged her countrymen, and convinced her that the Lord their God is the only Lord in heaven above and on earth beneath, she urged upon them to promise under oath that they would save her and her father's house, because she had saved them from certain death. The spies granted her request on condition that she kept secret their plans concerning the city, that all her relatives remain in her house, and after she had let them down by a court through her window over the wall, they added yet these conditions, that a scarlet cord be bound at this window, so that they might be enabled to ascertain the house. The spies then retired as Rahab had advised them, to the mountain, where they waited three days until those pursuing them from Jericho had returned, after which they returned to the camp. The morning of the next day was appointed to break up the camp. The people of the tribes who were to take possession of the land west of the Jordan, together with forty thousand warriors of those who were to remain east of it, marched towards that river. Having reached the banks of it, they were afraid to cross, because the current was very strong, and they were not aware of the ford where the spies must have crossed, and to which point the pursuers of Jericho went, as the point where they could pass the river. Joshua therefore commanded the priests to go before them, in order to encourage the people, which they did, after which the multitude followed according to their tribes, having their children and their wives in the midst of them, being fearful lest they should be borne 200 PERIOD II. away by the stream. But as soon as the priests had entered the river, it appeared fordable, the depth of water being re- strained and the sand appearing at the bottom; for the current was neither so strong nor so swift as to carr}>- it away by its force, so they all passed over the river without fear, while the priests were standing amidst the water.* Twelve stones were taken from the bottom of the Jordan by the twelve heads of the tribes, and when arrived at the place of encampment, which Josephus states was fifty furlongs from the Jordan and ten from Jericho, an altar was built of those stones as a memo- rial of the day when Israel passed the Jordan. While encamped there, Joshua ordered that all those born in the wilderness should be circumcised, as those who came from Egypt had been circumcised there, but those born in the wilderness were not. If all the people coming from Egypt as being above twenty years of age had died in the wilderness, then about two-thirds of the whole army had to undergo that operation, and it would certainly have been very imprudent in Joshua to expose himself to the enemy, in whose land he now was, by making two- thirds of his army unable for many days to protect themselves. The example of the city of Shechem should have served to caution him. It would appear to us, that not all the men coming from Egypt and being then above twenty years of age died in the wilderness ; this lot befell but one class of the people, which the Bible calls " men of war," and it also states more than once " for forty years the children of Israel went through the wilderness until there was spent the whole nation, the men of icar" {Joshua v, 6). "And the days which we went from Kadesh Barnea until we passed the creek of Zared, were thirty-eight years, until there was spent all the generation, the men of war, from the midst of the camp as the Lord had sworn concerning them." " And it came to pass when there were spent all the men of war dying from the midst of the people" (Deut. ii, 14-16). According to these three verses the men of war died from the midst of the people; * Antiqu. v, 1-3; Judges xii, 5; II Samuel xvii, 22-24; xix, 16, 17-19- 39; I Chron. xii, 15; I Maccab. v, 52; Robinson and Smith ii, 503. CHAPTER IV. 201 because, as we arc informed (Numb, xiv) they refused to follow Moses to take possession of the kind. It can not be supposed for a moment, that all the men coming from Egypt were warriors, since the institutions of Egypt knew but of one caste of warriors, into which certainly only a small number of the Israelites was admitted, who afterwards assisted Moses when taking Raamses, when lighting against Amalek, and on other occasions. Those men composed his principal force, and they refused to make war upon the Canaanites, and died in the wilderness. It can not be said, that scores of other men did not die of the many pestilences, recorded in the Pentateuch, or a natural death during a period of forty years ; still, the especial notice of the extinction of that whole generation appear to allude but to the men of war. If Moses had at his command six hundred thousand warriors, he could have conquered not only Palestine, but the whole of Asia, not only as it was then, but also as it is now situated. Besides this, it must be remarked, that when the first census was taken, the second year after the exode, the number of men above twenty was six hundred and three thousand five hundred and fifty (Numb, i, 45); but when the second census was taken, at the end of their travel in the wilderness, after twenty-four thousand had died in the last pestilence, noticed in the Penta- teuch (Numb, xxv, 9), there were men above twenty years, six hundred and one thousand seven hundred and thirty, which together with the twenty-four thousand mentioned before, would give a surplus above the number of the first census of twenty- two thousand one hundred and eighty, which seems to be a matter of impossibility if all men above twenty died within that time, and the unfavorable climate, the sudden change of occupation and other unfavorable influences are duly calculated. The Levites give the best proof to this effect; at the first cen- sus there were Levites above one month thirty-two thousand {Numb, iii, 39); at the second census were Levites above one month twenty-three thousand (Numb, xxvi, 62), although the Levites, always obedient to the law, could not be included in the punishment which befell the disobedient (vide Deutr. xxxiii. 202 PERIOD* II. 8-11). Eleascr became high priest after Aaron, who was surely above twenty years of age when the exode took place. The circumcision was performed on those born in the desert, and in commemoration of it, the place was called Gilgal, on account of rolling off the reproach of Egypt ; but Joscphus defining the term to denote liberty, knows nothing of the circumcision to have been performed in that place, he knows but of sacrifices brought there. It appears, however, that a circumcision must have taken place, for but a few days after this the passah feast was celebrated there, as it is recorded in both our sources, of the flesh of which none but the circumcised could partake {Ex. xii, 43-50). The first day of the passover feast was also the first day when no manna fell, and they ate of the fruit of the land. Jericho, a fortified city, and the key to that rich plain which once the patriarchs possessed, had to be reduced before they could advance into the interior. No peace was accepted by the inhabitants of Jericho, which was locked up and prepared for defence. Joshua therefore besieged it. During the seven days of passover, the processions marched around the city; an ad- vanced guard was followed by the priests, who bore the ark and blew the seven trumpets, by the members of the senate, and a rear guard. These processions were undoubtedly intended to withdraw the attention of the besieged from the undermining works which they were about constructing. On the seventh day of the feast, the procession marched seven times around the city, which probably was done in order to overcome the apprehensions of the besieged, who might have anticipated an assault that day. But, suddenly, the walls burst, parts of them sunk into the subterranean works, through the breaches of which the warriors stormed into the city with warlike shouts, to which the signal had been given by the trumpets of the priests ; the attack seems to have been a sudden and unexpected one ; the conflict was short and bloody, and those who did not flee fell beneath the swords of the assailants ; so as to have no enemy in the rear of the advancing army. Rahab, the inn- keeper, and her family were spared; and, according to a tra- CHAPTER IV. 203 diton, Joshua married her. The spoil of the city was devoted to the national treasury; the fortifications were reduced, and a curse pronounced against him who should rebuild them; because it would have been an obstacle in the way between the Israelites east and west of the Jordan. It is cei tain, that the city itself was not reduced, it is mentioned several limes in the nexi. period of history;* it was again fortified in a later time (I Kings xvi, 34). Ai was the next fortified place which offered resistance, of which the spies sent there brought an account that two or three thousand men would suffice to take that city. Accordingly, Joshua dispatched about three thousand on that expedition; but the consequences proved that the spies had underrated the valor of the inhabitants of that city, for the Israelites were defeated and retired with a loss of about thirty-six men. This defeat was fraught with ill omens, the enemy were encouraged, the Israelites disheartened, and Joshua apprehended that despair of the warriors might crush his entire plan. The defeat was not ascribed to its natural causes, but to a grievous sin which must have been committed in the camp. Joshua, laying hold upon this favorable rumor, held review in his army with the intention of discovering the transgressor; in which he well succeeded. A field camp as large as that, will scarcely be without one or more transgressors. One Ahan, son of Carmi, of the tribe of Jehudah, supposing himself the cause of that misfortune, confessed to have stolen of the spoil of Jericho, belonging to the public treasury, "a goodly Babylonish gar- ment, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight." This was a violation of the command, which, even in our days, a military commander may punish with death; and, as then circumstances especially demanded such a sacrifice, Ahan was condemned to death, and was exe- cuted in a place called, on that account, Emek Achor, valley of affliction. It has been asked, and with no small degree of justice : if * Judges- iii, 13-, II Samuel x, 5. 204 PERIOD II. Joshua had under his command above six hundred thousand warriors (as he must have had according to the statement in Numbers xxvi), was not the consternation, which the death of thirty-six out of three thousand warriors caused in the camp, a token of cowardice, and whether it can be justly supposed that men, who were so long trained in the desert, and who a short time before had so victoriously overrun the provinces east of the Jordan, should now all at once have become such cowards? It appears to us, that many of the Israelites re- mained on the other side of Jordan and in the desert, some of them emigrated to Palestine proper at a later date, and some of them continued to occupy the desert for a very long time. The tribes east of the Jordan had promised Moses, that all of them would go armed before their brethren across the Jordan, still only about 40,000 of them joined the army, which was even considered a large number (Joshua iv, 12, 13). It appears to us, that they sent warriors in proportion to the other tribes. The number of warriors of these two tribes and a half was above 110,000 (Numbers xxiv, 7, 18, 34), and adopt- ing this proportion 110,000: 40,000=600,000, it will be found that the army of Joshua consisted of 218,181 warriors, which was by no means too numerous an army for the expedition, and could not expect great success, if they did not prove themselves in arms altogether superior to the enemy. There can be no doubt, that the army was reinforced from the other side of Jordan, after some victories were achieved; but this would not have been the case if they had been de- feated on several points. Joshua took a stronger force and marched upon Ai, laying at night an ambush of thirty thousand men on the west side of that city, who had the orders not to begin the attack until a certain signal should be given them by the spear which Joshua bore, when they should set the city on fire and attack the enemy in the rear. This ambush was also intended to prevent the people of the next city, Beth El, from joining the enemy at Ai. The next morning, at the head of five thousand men, Joshua marched around Ai, and took his position on a hill CHAPTER IV3 205 north of the city, so that the enemy could not retreat into the interior. The king of Ai, on perceiving the Israelites, left the city at the head of his army to attack them. Joshua however, did not stand the attack and retreated in a north- eastern direction in order to cut off the enemy from the city. After this purpose was effected the signal was given by Joshua and the ambush rushed to the attack, took the city by storm and set it on fire ; at which moment Joshua confronted the enemy, who saw behind them the city on fire, and being unexpectedly and desperately attacked in front and rear, they hastily lied. Meanwhile the people of Beth El had arrived to assist those of Ai, but were defeated by part of the ambush, which was strong enough to fight on two different sides. Ai was totally destroyed by fire, twenty-two thousand of the enemy fell, and the rest retired to the desert. The king of Ai was caught and hung, and at evening he was taken from the gallows, and a large heap of stones was placed upon his body, as a memorial of the victorious day. • The spots called Mount Guerizim and Mount Abal were unknown as early as the first century after the destruction of the temple. It would appear that they were in the vicinity of Ai and Beth El and not in that of Shechem, as modern critics suppose; because the festivities on those mountains, as we shall describe hereafter, are recorded right after the taking of Ai without intermediate warfare. It appears to us, that Moses (Deutr. xxvii) pointed out that spot for erecting an altar, engraving and reading the law, and celebrating a national festival, on account of being the spot where Abraham first pitched his tent and built an altar, " Beth El at the west and Ai at the east." That action of Abraham was the first by which he took formal possession of the land, and by which he gave birth to a separate nationality. Therefore Joshua, after tliat spot was in his possession, brought the people into the valley, where once Abraham had pitched his tent; he built an altar of rough stones on Mount Abal, upon the stones the review of the law, Deuteronomy, was engraved, after which a great national festival was celebrated; and after having 206 PERIOD IT. returned to the camp the whole of the law was read before the assembled people, men, women and children. The expeditions of Joshua against Jericho and Ai struck with terror the hearts of many of the Canaanitish tribes, so that many regretted their rejection of the terms of peace which Joshua had offered when passing the Jordan, for now they thought it was too late to sue for peace. The in- habitants of four of the most flourishing cities in the vicinity of Jerusalem, viz : Gibeon, Cephirah, Baroth and Kiriathgea- rim, agreed upon sending ambassadors to the camp of the Israelites at Gilgal, to sue for peace. Men were appointed for this purpose, and accordingly repaired to Gilgal. But fear- ing they might be ill treated if they represented themselves as Canaanites, they resorted to a fiction. They put on old gar- ments and worn-out sandals, and took with them old bread and old bottles, and told the Israelites who were there that they came from a distant country to enter with them into a league of mutual defence. Nothing could be more welcome to Joshua than to cultivate friendly relations with foreign nations, where- fore Joshua, Eleazer and the senate, consented to enter into such a league with them, without stipulating the necessary conditions for renouncing idolatry, and submitting to the laws of the country, which must have been made, had they not positively denied to be the inhabitants of any part of Canaan. The league was confirmed by the oath of the senate, and the new friends left the camp for their home. The army of the Israelites advanced rapidly towards Jerusalem, but after a march of three days they came into that part of the land oc- cupied by the Gibeonites and those who were with them. The people murmured against the senate, that they suffered themselves to be thus deceived; notwithstanding the oath of the senate, although given in consequence of the deception, it was sacred to the people, and no hostilities were committed on the Gibeonites and their other friends. They were, however, punished for their deception, as they were at all times obliged to furnish the national council and the national sanctuary with servants to do the lower kind of labor, such as splitting wood CHAPTER [V. 207 and drawing water. It is necessary to call the attention of llif reader to the fact, that everywhere in the book of Joshua, if there is any mention of waging war against the Israelites, we find everywhere a king at the head of the hostile party. So we found it in Jcrieho, in Ai, and so we read (ix. 1-2). "And it came to pass when all the kings which are on the other side of Jordan, on the mountain and on the plain, and on all the shores of the Great sea up to the Lebanon, the Hitite, the Emorite, the Cananite, the Perizitc, the Hivite and the Jebusitc heard (those affairs) they gathered together to make war upon Joshua and upon Israel with one mouth."' It was then a covenant of kings, in which the people had but a passive part; for here in the case of the Gibeonites and the other cities, who made peace with Israel, we hear of no king whatever; we always hear of the inhabit- ants of such a city. This is sufficient proof that the war waged by the Israelites was to decide who should be master of the country, the Israelites whose ancestors had first taken possession of the land, or the Hyksos, the Anakims, who held now the land in possession, and ruled over almost all the larger cities. That part of the people who remained obedient to the Hyksos or Anakims were treated as enemies, while those who submitted to the Israelites were received as friends. But the first condition of such a submission must naturally have been the ' deposition of the Anakim kings, which the Gibeonites effected, and therefore came to Joshua as a people. The city of Jerusalem, as we know from the records of Manetho, was the principal city of the Anakims, so was Hebron, which they called Kiryath Arba, as we know from the Bible. When, therefore, those Hyksos or Anakims saw that the people of four strong and important cities had thrown off their yoke, and probably killed or driven away the kings of their race, five of them, the kings of Jerusalem, of Hebron, of Jarmuth, of Lachish, and of Eglon, combined their armies under the chief command of the king of Jerusalem to march upon Gibeon and those other cities which had submitted to the Israel- ites, and enforce obedience to their authority. The combined J>08 PERIOD II. army of the Anakims marched against Gibeon, which they be- sieged. The Gibeonites sent messengers to Gilgal to inform Joshua of their danger. This was an important affair to the Israelites. Their enemies, those whom they feared and hated most violently, had concentrated their armies, which undoubt- edly rendered their numbers formidable, for Joshua himself seems to have been afraid the result of the engagement might not be as favorable as he wished (x, 8). Joshua led the best of his troops to the spot; he came much sooner than the enemy expected him. The attack was a sudden and violent one; the enemy could not find time sufficient to organize, and were de- feated beneath the walls of Gibeon. The retreat of the enemy was in good order; but when they had reached the declivity of Beth Horon, a horrible hail storm, naturally connected with darkness, wind, and roaring thunder, caused the enemy to be thrown into disorder, so that the pursuing victors dispersed and slew them, and the five kings were obliged to seek refuge in the dark recess of a cave. The Israelites, no less frightened by the darkness which accompanied the hailstorm than was the flying enemy, were encouraged by Joshua, who showed them the shining sun standing over Gibeon, where the clouds ended, and the moon over the valley of Ayelan, where the battle was fought, smiling on their heroic actions, and waiting until they should have completed the brilliant victoiy. Joshua sent only part of his army in pursuit of the enemj- ; he himself with the principal force encamped at Makedah. Being informed that the five kings were secreted in a cave, Joshua gave orders to secure their persons, which was accordingly done. Upon return of the pursuers the captives were brought forth and executed. Joshua made the best use of this victory; after he had taken Makidah, Libnah, Lachish, and Eglon, and having defeated Horam, king of Gezer, he returned to the camp at Gilgal, and the tribes in divided batallions marched against the cities, whose principal army was defeated, and they could neither concentrate a new force nor make much effectual resistance against troops, accustomed to war and victory. The tribe of Jehudah, with the tribe of Simeon CHAPTER IV. 209 (Judges, i, 3), demanded of Joshua in Gilgal that possession be given them of the southern part of the country, which was granted to them. Caleb, son of Jcphunah, one of the twelve spies, who visited Hebron about forty years before that, and the one who together with Joshua desired the people to go up and make war upon the Canaanites, was entrusted with com- mand over the troops of Jehudah and Simeon. This force advanced towards Hebron, which they took and called again Hebron ; proceeding thence towards Debir, which the Anakim had called Kiryath Sepher. But here the enemy were so well fortified, that Caleb promised the hand of his daughter, Achsah, to him who would take that place. Othniel, the son of the younger brother of Caleb took the place, and received the daughter of Caleb as the prize of victory. They pursued the Anakims with their army from place to place; they took Har- mah, Asah, Askelon, not the one of the Phelistines, and Ekron, pressing the Anakims back to their habitations in Phelistia. Still they could not subjugate a portion of the Canaanites, who had iron chariots of war, and occupied part of the southern plains. The sons of the father-in-law of Moses came up from the southern deserts south of Jericho, and settled among the sons of Jehudah and Simeon. The tribe of Benjamin, most likely in company with the tribe of Dan, earned the fruits of the last victory, and, after having taken Beth El, they pursued the enemy and drove them into the extreme west of the country, across the Nahr Rubin, where the Anakims had their old fortifications, and were too numerous to be attacked successfully. The combined forces of Jehudah and Benjamin, however, were insufficient to drive the Jebusite from Jerusalem, which, as we afterwards learn, was too strongly fortified to be taken. The tribe of Ephraim, and half of the tribe of Menasseh, who were numerous and valorous, went further north, and suc- ceeded in driving back the Anakim into Phelistia, but they could not succeed in taking Beth Sheon, Thanach, Dor, Jibleam, Meguido, and Gezer; and peace was made with the inhabitants of those cities, who, as well as the other places which were not 14 210 PERIOD II. taken, were made subject and tributary to the Israelites, agree- ably to the Mosaic policy. The tribe of Issachar seems to have made common cause with the half of the tribe of Menassah, who afterwards dwelt together. The tribe of Zebulon went still further north, and finally obtained possession of the land between the Sea of Kinneroth and the Mediterranean, with the exception of Kitron and Nahalol. But this advance towards the north, roused the northern kings to a league of defence, consisting of the kings of Hazar, of Madon, of Shimron, of Achshof, and others, most likely assisted by the numerous warriors who were driven away from the southern part of the country ; for they concen- trated a numerous army at the waters of Merom, among which were a large number of cavalry and chariots of war, both of which the Israelites did not possess. The position of the enemy was threatening; for they not only stood ready to over- run the land east of the Jordan, which could not offer an effectual resistance, as above 40,000 men were in the camp of Joshua, but they threatened also to crush at once the entire nation. Joshua was aware of the danger; he collected his army and advanced to meet the enemy. It was again the quick motions of the army, which gave them the victory; the Canaanites with their heavy chariots and heavy cavalry, fell by thousands before the light and rapid movements of the Israelites, who were trained in the desert and practiced in many battles. The enemy were defeated and pursued in all directions; their horses were lamed, their chariots burned, their fortifications reduced, and those who could not flee swiftly, fell before the pursuing victors. The men of the tribes of Asher and Naphthali pursued after the retreating enemy to the Lebanon, and succeeding in driving them into the moun- tains, so that all but nine cities were taken by assault. Those nine cities, like the other places inhabited by the Ca- naanites, were subject and tributary to Israel. Joshua had returned to Shiloh, where he erected the taber- nacle of the congregation, making this place the capital of the country according to the last will of the dying Jacob. The land CHAPTER IV. 211 was in their possession; the forces of Guilgal had been gradu- ally reduced, as the different tribes separated from the camp and took possession of the land in the manner before described. There were but the warriors of the Reubenites, Gadites and Menassites from the eastern land, and probably a [few others with Joshua in Shiloh. It was now the duty of the govern- ment to divide the land into equal lots, as the law of Moses prescribed. The division of the land of the tribes of Reuben, Gad and half of Menassah seems to have been done by Moses, and the division of the land of Jehudah, Ephraim, and the other half tribe of Menassah had been previously effected; but the land of the seven other tribes was yet undivided. The national council assembled for this purpose in Shiloh. In accordance with the proposition of Joshua two men were appointed of each tribe to travel and to bring a description or probably a drawing of the land, and also of those parts inhabited by Canaanites, in order that the land might be fairly divided among the tribes according to their respective num- ber of men. After the drawings or descriptions of the country had been brought to Shiloh, the division of the land was effected in this manner: The southern part of the land between the Dead sea, Idume, and Phelistia was given to Jehudah and Simeon, so that the part of Simeon was bounded north and east by Jehudah, south by the desert and west by Phelistia. North of Jehudah, between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, was Benjamin on the east, and Dan on the west; Dan bounded south upon Phelistia. North of Dan and Benjamin was the mountanous country of Ephraim, between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, forming an irregular triangle with the broad side on the Mediteranean. North of Ephraim between Jordan, the Mediterranean and the Phoenician coast, was half of the tribe of Manassah, intersected by the part of Issachar; north of which, between the Lake of Genezareth and the Phoe- nician coast, was the part of Zebulon; north of which was the part of Asher in the west, and Naphthali on the east, on both sides of the high waters. The north of the whole was bounded by the Lebanon. The shores of the Mediterranean, 212 PERIOD II. with the exception of about forty geographical miles, was held by the Phelistines at the south, and the Phoenicians at the north. After the land had been thus divided by the national council, six cities were set aside as cities of refuge for the manslayer, three east of Jordan, Bezer, Ramoth and Golan, as Moses had ordained; and three cities west of Jordan, Kedesch, Shechem, where Joshua had buried the remains of Joseph, and Hebron. Forty-eight cities were then assigned to the tribe of Levi, including the cities of refuge in the different tribes of Israel. After affairs were thus far arranged, the subdivisions of the land appears to have been left to the respective tribes. Joshua called the warriors of the two tribes and a half, which had come over with them from the other side of Jordan, and after having praised their valor and faithfulness, and exhorted them to remain faithful to the God of Israel, and to the laws of Moses, and having blessed them, he dismissed them to return to their home east of Jordan. They returned richly laden with gold, silver and other metals, with garments and with cattle. When they had come to the Jordan, they built at its western bank a large monument in the form of an altar. The national council was convoked at Shiloh to consider what must be done with the tribes at the east of the Jordan, as they had erected an altar contrary to the laws of Moses. It was resolved upon sending ambassadors to them in order to ascertain the reason why they had built the supposed altar. Phineas, the son of the then officiating high priest, and ten representatives of ten different tribes, were dispatched to go beyond Jordan. When arrived there they were informed by the people, that the build- ing was not erected with the intention of violating the law, but was designed to be a memorial to future generations, that the Israelites east of the Jordan were part of that nation on the side of whom they had fought ; and that the Jordan was not a boundary between them and the rest of Israel. The ambassa- dors, highly gratified with this answer, returned to Shiloh, and brought this message to the national council, who were fully satisfied with the answer. The army which was already CHAPTER IV. 213 assembled to enforce obedience to the law was disbanded, and peace was restored. Before we proceed with our narrative, it is necessary for us to defend the old hero, Joshua, against the violent attacks of modern critics, who accuse him of three imprudent acts. 1. That he divided the army into small detachments, and instead of fighting the enemy with his whole army, he let every tribe fight separately, which lamed his forces. 2. That he became too soon tired of war, and suspended hostile proceedings before the land was brought under the sway of Israel, which became afterwards a cause of calamity to the nation. 3. That he appointed no successor to his office, which virtu- ally sundered the tribes, and suspended the Mosaic policy. In refutation of the first accusation it must be remarked, that neither Hannibal, Csesar, nor Napoleon could have acted otherwise. He first secured for his camp a firm position in the valley of the Jordan by reducing Jericho and Ai. There he was in a fertile district and in connection with the people beyond Jordan, so that he had no cause to fear the want of provisions or an attack in the rear. We do not see how he could have operated advantageously with the whole of his army in one direction, as Canaan is a hilly country, in which small and fortified towns were to be reduced before the land could be occupied. He sent small detachments against the small towns, which operated simultaneously in three directions, to the north, to the south, and to the west. As soon as the petty kings concentrated their forces, he met and defeated them in pitched battles; after which, the single detachments could continue undisturbed to reduce the smaller towns. Had he sent the whole of his army to each town, the war would have lasted about a century. If he had not maintained his position in Gilgal, the kings of the north, whom he defeated at the waters of Merom, would have cut him off from the people beyond Jor- dan, and he would have been brought between two hostile armies ; the northern Canaanites in his rear and the Anakims in his front. He maintained his position at Gilgal till he had 214 PERIOD II. nothing to fear from either side. We would not advance, that there was a demonstration of particular wisdom in his opera- tions; but we believe it must be admitted, that they were well adapted to the existing circumstances. In refutation of the second accusation it must be remarked, that Joshua effected his purpose of obtaining for the Israelites the supremacy over Palestine ; and this alone was his mission. He dethroned the thirty-one kings who governed Palestine; among whom also were the kings of those towns of which it is expressly remarked, that the aborigines continued to inhabit them, as for instance the kings of Jerusalem and Gezer.* He subjected the aborigines to the sway of Israel, as is expressly remarked.! The passage commencing the second chapter of Judges, was not set by the compiler in the right place. It is recorded, that a messenger of the Lord, or of the national government, came up from Gilgal to Bochim, admonishing the Israelites not to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, to destroy their altars, if they would not expose themselves to the danger of having the enemy of their national institutions in the heart of their^country. The messenger came from Gilgal, consequently he must have been sent from that place, when Joshua was still there, soon after the single detachments begun their operations, one of which, at Bochim, most likely, was not active enough, and did not come up fully to the orders of Joshua in regard to the ex- tinction of idolatry, so that special ordinance was deemed necessary. The passage concludes, that they wept and brought sacrifices to the Lord. This says plainly enough, in the figurative language of those days, that the message of Joshua had the desired effect. The people manifested a repentence of their conduct, and demonstrated by the act of bringing sacrifices to the Lord, that they intended to comply with the law. The document in which it is stated that Joshua did not make war upon Phelistia, Tyria and the tribes on the Lebanon and * Comp. Joshua xii, with Judges i. t Judges i, 21, 28, 30, 33, 35. CHAPTER IV. 215 east of it up to Hamoth, and that he notwithstanding should divide the unconquered provinces also among the tribes of Israel, begins with the words, "And the Lord said." If we take this as a decree of the national council, then if any blame is to be attached, it must belong to the national council and not to Joshua. But it appears to us, that it would have been both imprudent and inhuman to attack the Anakims in their strongest fortifications, which they, as their last place of re- fuge, would have defended desperately; or to continue the war against those tribes, who had fortified themselves in the mountains, and were supported, as we find afterwards, by the king of Mesopotamia. It is well known that Joshua, the faithful discple of Moses, did not attach any importance to the sea coast, especially as they were in possession of the Bays of Carmel and Joppa ; it was therefore not deemed indispensably necessary to possess it. Finally we must again remark, that the army of Joshua was by no means strong enough to under- take those hazardous expeditions, without running the risk of becoming too weak to maintain the territory which they already possessed. There was plenty of land in their power, the rest was left to the aborigines, and to those Israelites who might afterwards choose to come up from the desert, and settle in the land. In refutation of the third accusation it must be observed, that there is no positive evidence in existence, to the effect that Joshua did not nominate his successor. The biographer of Joshua every where informs us, that Joshua was a faithful administrator of the law; consequently we are entitled to the inference that he gave satisfaction to the law in regard to his successor. The biographer of Joshua mentions the death of the high priest, Eleasar, without informing us of his successor. Besides this, it must be remembered, that Othniel, the succes- sor of Joshua, had already distinguished himself at the time of the campaign in the south of Canaan, which was not long after the beginning of the war, consequently he was not a youth when Joshua died, nor can it be supposed, that Joshua would 216 PERIOD II. not have nominated him to be his successor, nor is it at all probable that he left the country in a state of anarchy. The unequal division of the land among the tribes was another cause of accusation by modern critics; but as the land was divided according to the number of persons, the inequality of the territories of the different tribes only confirms our hypothesis, that not all the Israelites came to Palestine with Joshua; the tribes of Jehudah and Ephraim were most numerous, consequently their respective territories were the largest. In consequence of their preponderance in numbers, the successor of Joshua, who was of the tribe of Ephraim, was chosen from the tribe of Jehudah, as it appears from the sequel to have been an established policy to transfer the high- est dignity from one tribe to the other. We will pass some more remarks on this subject in the appendix to this period and consequently dismiss it for the present. The author of the book of Joshua has failed to give us dates as regards the duration of the war, and of the administration of Joshua; we must therefore resort to the statements of Jose- phus. Joshua came to Shiloh after the close of # the war (Joshua xviii,), which was after the fifth year of the expedition had ended (Antiqu. v. i, 19). According to these two passages the war lasted but five years. In another passage of Joshua (xiv, 10), we are informed that Caleb said to Joshua, that he was then eighty-five years old, while he was forty years old when he went with the spies from Kadesh, which must have been seven years after the Israelites had crossed the Jordan ; still it appears that Hebron was taken after that time ; consequently the war must have lasted seven years at least, which period of time was also adapted in the ancient traditions, adding to it that the division of the land also o ccupied seven years. But from Joshua vi, 36, 37, it appears that Hebron was taken before the battle of Merom, consequently before Joshua came to Shiloh. It therefore appears to us, that the war lasted but five years; that the words of Caleb were spoken when the tribes commenced to divide the land among their respective CHAPTER IV. 217 families, and that his allusion to the conquest of Hebron is only a quotation of a historical fact in support of his demands, as the words there TI1K rurr ^ix are very indistinct ; that the division of the land among the tribes took two years ; and that the tribes commenced the division of the land among their respective families seven years after they had crossed the Jordan. In regard to the time of Joshua's administration, the Bible contains no passage entitling "to even an inference. In the ancient traditions the statements differ from fourteen to twenty- eight years, both of which are spurious, on account of being a multiple of the sacred number seven. We therefore thought best to adopt the statement of Josephus, that the administration of Joshua lasted twenty-five years (Antiqu. V. i, 29). Besides the quarrel with the people, from the provinces beyond Jordan, noticed before, no accounts have reached us of the administration of Joshua after peace was restored. The people soon yielded to the civilized habits of the aborigines, and, contrary to the law, intermarried with those who lived in separate cities, gradually yielding also to the gods of the Canaanites, Baal and Astarte, as they naturally must have done, coming from the wilderness into a civilized country, exchanging the rude and inconvenient life of the desert and of a long warfare for the ease and enjoyments of a civilized country. Civilization was then so closely connected with idola- trous practices, that they could not have embraced the former without the latter. This phenomenon was so often reproduced in history, that it is superfluous to comment on it; we only need to refer the reader to the history of the migration of nations in the middle ages, which is the best illustration of our present period. Joshua was not the man to enforce the law, notwithstanding unfavorable circumstances, as Moses would have done; nor was it an easy task to enforce the law in a country which was still in the early stage of organization. Yet it would not appear from our sources, that idolatry or illegality progressed among the people to an alarming degree during the lifetime of Joshua. 218 PERIOD II. One speech of the old warrior which is extant (Joshua xxiii, xxiv), is a proof that he was fully aware of the state of affairs, and that he opposed with all his might the progress of idolatry. The national council having been convoked at Shechem, where father Jacob had taken all the idols from his sons and had buried them, Joshua addressed them in forcible terms, imitating the bold style of his master, Moses, and also making use of the same words which Jacob addressed to his sons, on the same spot and to the same effect; he exhorted them to adhere faith- fully to the law, to worship God, and not to permit the practice of idolatry to deprive them of their national ties, the peace and prosperity of their country; he renewed with them the divine covenant of Moses and Abraham, and they solemnly promised to adhere to it, and fully to act up to the require- ments of that covenant. In commemoration of their sacred pledge 'Joshua then erected a statue under an oak near She- chem, where that convention took place, and where most likely Jacob had buried the idols of Shechem ; he then wrote the words spoken there into the " Book of the Law of the Lord," as a testimony of their promise; after which he dis- missed the princes of the people, to return home and to enforce obedience to the law. This address, accompanied by the imposing circumstances described above, had the desired effect; for " Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders, who continued to live after Joshua;" which may be adopted as a general rule, but which was not without its exceptions. It appears from Joshua xxiv, 26, that either part of that oak or the statue erected by Joshua, was kept afterwards in the sanctuary of the Lord, as a sacred relic. When Joshua was one hundred and ten years old, he died in his house at Timnath Serah on Mount Ephraim, and was buried on his estate, which was north of Mount Gaash. Shortly afterwards, also, Eleasar, the high priest, died, who was buried on the estate of his son Phineas, on Mount Ephraim. Othniel, son of Kenaz, of the tribe of Jehudah, succeeded Joshua, and Phineas succeeded his father in office (1420 b. c). CHAPTER V. 219 CHAPTER V. PROM OTHNIEL TO THE DEMISE OF SAMSON (1420-1132). After the death of Joshua, the people gradually yielded to all the corruptions of ancient civilization. While the author of Judges merely informs us, that '* The children of Israel were wicked in the sight of the Lord, they forgot the Lord their God, and they worshiped the Baalsj and the Astarte." Josephus speaks of that age in the following words: " After this, the Israelites grew effeminate as to fighting any more against enemies, but applied themselves to the cultivation of the land, which producing them great plenty and riches, they neglected the regular disposition of their settlement, and in- dulged themselves in luxury and pleasures ; nor were they any longer careful to hear the laws that belonged to their political government." He then continues, " Since they got large tri- butes from the Canaanites, and were indisposed for taking pains by their luxury, they suffered their aristocracy to be cor- rupted also, and did not ordain themselves a senate, nor any such magistrates as their laws had formerly required, but they were very much given to cultivating their fields in order to get wealth, which great indolence of theirs brought a terrible sedition upon them" (Antiqu. V. ii, 27). Josephus only informs us of the particulars of the occurences in that time, while the author of Judges speaks in general terms, " They forgot the Lord their God;" they did not observe the law. They neglected to meet at Shiloh, where the national sanctuary was erected. The national council did not meet; consequently, Othniel, the consular judge, as the head of the republic may properly be called, had no power to enforce the law, and the high priest had no opportunity to exercise a moral influence upon the com- munity in favor of the union of Israel. 220 PERIOD II. The following story is calculated to give us an insight into the state of affairs shortly after the death of Joshua.* There was a man on Mount Ephraim, whose name was Michah. He stole from his mother one thousand and one hundred pieces of silver ; he repented of that wicked act and returned the money to his mother, who having intended it for sacred purposes, took two hundred of the silver pieces and made of them an idol, and the utensils required for its worship. A young Levite, who was said to be a grandson of Moses, had left his home, and, traveling about the country, came to the house of Michah, who engaged the stranger as a priest to his idol, and perceived a special grace of the Lord in the occasion of having procured the services of a Levite as a priest of his idol. The Canaanites who remained in the southern part of the land, on perceiving the state of disunion and effeminacy among the Israelites, drew together an army provided with a number of iron chariots of war, and united with the Canaan- ites who had sought refuge in Ashkelon and Ekron. They attacked the tribe of Dan, and drove them back from the plains, so that they were obliged to retire to the mountains in the eastern part of that tribe, where they had neither the strength to attack their enemies nor land enough to sustain themselves. Still no arrangements were made by the other tribes to assist Dan. They were obliged to send forth spies in search of a parcel of land, where they might settle. Five men of that tribe proceeded to the north for that purpose, and on their journey they happened to come into the house of Michah, where they saw the idol and its priest. They had no scruples in begging the priest to ask the idol whether they would be happy on their journey, and the priest predicted to them a happy journey. They then proceeded as far north as the neighborhood of Mount Libanus, to the fountains of the lesser Jordan, where, at the great plain of Zidon, one day's journey from that city, they found a place called Lavish, where they found a peaceable and harmless people in a fertile region. Having brought these tidings to their brethren, six hundred ♦Compare Judges xviii and xix, with Antiqu. V. iii, 1, 2. CHAPTER V. 221 men of the tribe of Dan, with their families and movable property, set out to occupy that place. They came to Mount Ephraim, and having been informed of the idol by their spies, they entered the house and took with them the idol, the priest, and his apparels. Michah pursued them and demanded his idol, but the Danites threatened to kill him and his family, and so the idol was left in their possession. The Danites pro- ceeded to Layish, where they found very little resistance. They drove away the aborigines and took possession of the city, which they called Dan. The idol was set up, and the Levite and his descendants were the priests of that city, as long as the house of the Lord was in Shiloh, consequently up to the days of Samuel. The Danites of the north, most likely pro- voked by the unjudicial conduct of the other tribes towards them, separated themselves from Israel, in consequence of which they were also obliged to have a national deity of their own, which the idol of Michah was to them. The separation of that city from the rest of the country lasted until Samuel succeeded in reuniting more firmly the different tribes. It can not be ascertained precisely how long after the death of Joshua this event occurred, still the fact that the priest of that idol was supposed to have been a grandson of Moses, is a sufficient evidence that it occurred soon after the death of Joshua. This was a dangerous state for the Mosaic institutions, which would have hastened rapidly to annihilation, had it not been for an invasion and subjugation of the country by the king of Mesopotamia, which aroused the people to united action, to which end they were obliged to flock to their safest standards, the laws of Moses. Cushan Rishathaim, king of Mesopotamia, most likely at the request of the Canaanites, who had been driven into the northern mountains, invaded Palestine. The veteran soldiers of Joshua had been gathered to their fathers, the young generation was effeminated, the tribes were disunited, a national government did not exist, the consular judge had no power; consequently Cushan suc- ceeded in defeating and subjecting one tribe after the other to 222 PERIOD II. his sway. This state of things lasted for eight years, until it aroused the national pride of Israel, who in order to make atonement for the lasting disgrace united once more under their national head, Othniel, who was inspired for the cause of his nation. At the head of a small army, Othniel, attacked the garrison of Cushan, whom Josephus calls Assyrians, and defeated them on all sides. The victories had the effect of attracting numerous volunteers to the national standard. Othniel continued the war of defence, and, according to Jose- phus, he succeeded in driving the army of Cushan over the Euphrates, to the shores of which river he pursued them. This was a wholesome and electrifying shock, tending to regenerate the nation. Forty years of peace followed, which was interrupted by the following lamentable occurrence, which, however, plainly shows that the union of Israel was unim- paired, that the Mosaic institutions were reverently preserved, and that no kind of idolatry disgraced the country. A Levite, who resided on Mount Ephraim, had a concubine from Bethlehem, of Jehudah, who left her husband and went to her father. The Levite followed her, and after having spent some days with his father-in-law, the young man prepared to return home. The Levite, his concubine, and a young man, came to Gibeah, a town of Benjamin, towards evening, where an old man gave them shelter in his house. But after awhile some of the wicked inhabitants of the place surrounded the house, as once the people of Sedom did the house of Lot, and demanded to see the stranger who had come. The old man could not persuade the rebels not to commit such a Sedomite wickedness, but they would not retire to their houses until they had taken the concubine and misused her until she died. The Levite arose in the morning, took his dead concubine and returned home, when he cut her body into twelve pieces, which he sent to the twelve tribes of Israel. This had the effect of convoking the national council at a height near Beth El, and all the Israelites, eleven tribes, stood ready to punish the tribe of Benjamin. The Levite was heard before the council, and that body determined on raising an army, consisting of every tenth CHAPTER V. 223 man in Israel, to punish the inhabitants of Gibeah, of Benja- min. The army was concentrated, messengers sent to the authorities of Gibeah to demand the criminals who had taken part in the affair. But the tribe of Benjamin revolted against the nation and raised an army, competent to oppose effectually the national army. The army marched towards the rebellious city, but the first attack made upon the city by Jehudah was repulsed with a great loss on the side of the assailants. Another day a renewed attack was made upon the city with no better consequences than the first. This embittered the contesting parties, and when on the third attack the city was taken by a stratagem similar to that of Joshua at Ai, every living being was massacred, the cities were set on fire, and but six hundred men of the whole tribe escaped, and they hid themselves among the rocks of Rimon. When the army had returned to Mizpah, they swore that none should give his daughter to a man of Benjamin. But when the national council had again assembled at Beth El, the loss of a whole tribe was sincerely regretted, and means were de- vised to preserve the tribe by the six hundred men who had been found among the rocks of Rimon. It was ascertained that notwithstanding the solemn proclamation, the inhabitants of Jabesh Guilead had not sent their representation to the national council. They appear to have been determined to enforce obedience to the laws at all hazards. Twelve thousand armed men were sent to Jabesh Guilead, who massacred all that could not flee, and brought four hundred damsels as cap- tives, who were given in marriage to the men of Benjamin, and as regards the rest they were advised to lay in wait in the vineyards of Shiloh at the annual festival. And when the daughters of Shiloh came out to perform their dances, each one to take a wife from among the number, which the sons of Benjamin did, so that the oath should not be violated. The severity of these transactions can not but affect us dis- agreebly in this age of civilization and refinement; but we should remember, that less severe measures would not have been efficient to restore union and order. 224 PERIOD II. The time at which this lamentable occurrence took place can not be ascertained with certainty. Joseplms narrates it pre- viously to the victory of Othniel over Cushan Rishathaim (Antiqu. V. ii, 8); but it is evident, that before that war the tribes were not as closely united as our sources inform us that they were against Benjamin. It did not take place during that war, because they could not have undertaken such a com- mon action if they had been threatened by a foreign enemy. It could not have occurred after the death of Othniel, because Phineas, the high priest, is mentioned in connection with that story. Therefore we fixed its time during the last years of Othniel. We shall attempt in the appendix to this Period to show why the author did not mention the name of Othniel. Othniel died (about 1381 b. c), and was succeeded by Ehud, a left-handed man of the tribe of Benjamin, who most likety had been appointed to this dignity previous to the above oc- currence, but did not enter into office till after the demise of Othniel. Amnion and Moab, being actually but one nation, in connection with Amalek disturbed the peace of the Israelites. They succeeded under their king, Eglon, to subject to their sway the southern part of the country. After a series of bloody engagements, Eglon advanced as far as Jericho, where he had built for himself a palace, and where he received the tribute of the oppressed people. It must be remembered, that this inva- sion was the more threatening to the Israelites, because it cut off their way to the interior of the desert, where, as has been remarked before, many Israelites had remained. This trouble lasted eighteen years, and Ehud, unsuccessful in organizing an army in order to expel the invader, resorted to the same means to which the Roman, Mutuins Sccevola, had recourse under simi- lar circumstances. Ehud brought the tribute of the Israelites to Eglon saying, that he had a secret to communicate to him in the name of the Deity, whereupon Eglon dismissed his at- tendants and rose from his chair to hear the divine mission, which opportunity Ehud improved by assassinating the oppres- sor of his country. Having accomplished his purpose, Ehud locked the door CHAPTER V. 225 upon the expiring Eglon and hastened towards Mount Ephraim, and before the officers of the king had detected the act, he was out of their reach: lie returned to Mount Ephraim, collected an army, and attacked the invaders with great success. They were driven from the country, and Moab was humiliated before Israel. This, however, is all the historical account we have of the eighty years after Othniel. One judge more, Shamgar, son of Anath, is mentioned during those eighty years; but all that we know of him is that "he smote the Phelistines, six hundred men, with an ox-goad, and he also delivered Israel." But we have no means to ascertain the particulars of this first hostility of the Phelistines against Israel after the conquest of the land. In the song of Deborah another judge is mentioned, Jael, to have flourished during those eighty years. This passage is also in that song: " In the days of Shamgar, the son of Anath, in the days of Jael, the highways were unoccupied, and the travelers walked through by-ways. The inhabitants of the villages ceased, they ceased in Israel, until that I, Deborah, arose, that I arose a mother in Israel. They choose new gods; then was war in the gates : was there a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel? My heart is toward the governors of Israel that offered themselves willingly among the people: Bless ye the Lord (Judges v, 6-9). The forty thousand men mentioned here, having fought without shield and spear, most likely were the army of Shamgar, who fought with an ox-goad. This passage gives us a sad prospect of the condition of the country in the times of Jael, which however was not terminated in the time of Deborah, who was appointed judge of Israel about 1302 b. c. Whether she was appointed to that dignity on account of her personal qualities, having been a prophetess, and a woman of fervent devotion, or on account of her family, we do not know, although the former is much more probable. At all events, it is evident that woman held a higher position among the ancient Israelites than modern writers are willing to admit. 15 226 PERIOD II. The Canaanites of the north, as we have mentioned before, were forced back into Lebanon after the battle of the Waters of Merom. and were defeated again in the invasion of Cushan; * there they appear to have lived for a long time in organized communities; for we see them during the administration of Deborah, come down from the mountains with a well-disciplined army and nine hundred chariots, under the command of Sisera, the chief captain of Jab in, a descendant of the kings of Hazar, who resided in Haroshath Hagoyim (fortress of nations), which name seems to indicate the union of more nations. The Israelites, chiefly those of the north, suffered severely from the attacks of the enemy, who held the country in a state of sub- jection for twenty years. After this time, Deborah sent for Barak, son of Abinoam, of Kadash in Naphthali, and ordered him to collect ten thousand men of Naphthali and Zebulon, who had suffered most by the invaders, and to lead them against the enemy who held strong positions at the River of Kishon. But Barak refused to venture the hazardous expedition unless Deborah went with him, which she reluctantly did. An army of ten thousand men was collected at Kadash of Naphthali, which Barak and Deborah led up Mount Tabor. Sisera, being advised of this at his residence, hastened into the camp, which was soon after attacked by Barak, and so beaten, that Sisera, who could not flee quickly enough in his chariot, in that moun- tainous region, left it and fled on foot. On his flight he passed the tent of a Cainite, of the descendants of Jethro, whose wife, Jael, invited the pursued and tired enemy, Sisera, to her tent, and treacherously assasinated him when he was sleeping there under her promised protection. Barak cleared the country of the invaders, and restored again the independence of the nation. This heroic campaign was eternized by a beautiful epopee (Judges v), of which we learn that the other tribes despairing of the success refused to take part in the expedition, for which they are severely rebuked in the poem, while the bravery of Zebulon and Naphthali are highly praised. Only the princes of Issachar are mentioned as having promised their aid. Deborah governed the land twenty years longer, which CHAPTER V. 227 together with the time of subjection, made forty years (Don Abarbanel). Towards the end of the administration of that heroic and poetical woman, the Israelites were again visited by their enemies. It was again the southern land which was subjected to the robbing incursions of the nomadic tribes of the desert, headed by Ammonites and Amalekites, who came up in immense numbers on their camels, and robbed the fruits of the field as well as the domestic animals, destroying what they could not take along. The Israelites were obliged to retire to the mountains, their natural castles, and the land of the plains was laid waste. The invaders came up as far north as Asah, so that famine and poverty drove the Israelites to arms. In- spired speakers (Judges vi, 8) encouraged the people to a united attack upon the enemy, which soon brought its proper fruits. A messenger of the Lord, or most likely a messenger of the national council, which was in session at Shiloh, came to Gideon, the son of Joash, of the tribe of Menassah, bringing him the message that he was appointed to lead an army against the enemy who had devastated the country those seven years. Gideon was a simple, unaspiring republican, and therefore could not comprehend how he was appointed to this dignity, as his family was the poorest of Menasseh, and he was the youngest son of his father, although he was a direct descendant of the prince of the tribe; and as the expression used by him, M my thousand," and afterwards by the captive princes, telling him of his brothers, "As thou art they are, as the figure of one of the sons of the king," inform us, that he was high in rank, which his personal appearance fully indicated. The messenger that brought him the message convinced him that God would assist him, and Gideon accepted the charge. He built an altar at the place where he had received the important message, which he called, God is Peace, and which was yet seen in Ophrah at the time when the book of Judges was com- piled. He commenced his operations in a singular manner; he went at night, accompanied by ten of his servants, and destroyed the idol and the altar of Baal, for which he would have been killed by the inhabitants of Ophrah, had not his father per- 228 PERIOD II. suadecl them, that Baal, if he was a god, would take vengeance for this sacrilegious act, wherefore he was surnamed Jerubaal. He had sent messengers to the north, to those tribes who were not under the immediate control of the invaders, and he was soon surrounded by a respectable army, although the tribe of Ephraim did not send its warriors. He marched his army across the Jordan and encamped on Mount Gilead. while the enemy was encamped on the plains between the north of Mount Gilead and the Jordan. This position of Gideon was well calculated to cut off the enemy's retreat. He left twenty-two thousand men on the mountains, and descended into the plain ten thousand strong, who encamped at the foot of the moun- tains, while he with an advanced guard of three hundred advanced towards the enemy's camp. When coming at the dead of night so near the enemy's camp that he could hear them talk, telling each other discouraging dreams, and finding them altogether unprepared for a battle; he perceived that a sudden attack in the dead of night, so that they could not see plainly the number of his men, would strike terror in the whole camp, and he might succeed in routing them at once and driving them towards the interior, where they would be disarmed and massacred by the embittered Israelites. But being too far advanced from his camp to effect such a nightly surprise by an adequate force, Gideon resorted to a stratagem of a singular nature; he gave to each of his three hundred companions at arms a trumpet, a pitcher, and a torch light, ordering them to keep the lights hidden until they saw him break his pitcher, uncover the light and blow the trumpet, when they should do as he did. While the many torch lights wTere calculated to deter the enemy by the strong light, and probably also to set fire on their tents, the trumpets were intended to magnify his number. The men advanced and reached the camp about midnight, which they attacked from three different points, shouting, " For God and Gideon." The enemy could not find time to organize; the trumpets and the torch lights, and undoubtedly also the burning tents had con- fused them so much, that they fled in the greatest disorder in CHAPTER V. 909 a northern direction. But there they met with warriors from the tribes of Naphthali, Ashcr and Menassah, while those of Ephraim had come down, and had taken post along the Jordan, so that the enemy could not escape. The Ephraimites suc- ceeded in disbanding the retreating enemy and capturing two of their chiefs, who were delivered to Gideon, and executed in Jakeb Scab; but part of the enemy had succeeded in es- caping in a southern direction, and Gideon pursued them with his army. He came with his men to Succoth weary and lan- guishing. He asked of the inhabitants of that place to give him bread for his men; but they ironically refused to comply with his wishes. Gideon threatened them with severe punish- ment, but lost no time in pursuing the enemy; he proceeded to the south, and having come to Penual, he again demanded pro- visions lor his hungry warriors, but received the same refusal as in Succoth. Continuing his hasty march, Gideon overtook the wreck of the enemy's army, which he discomfited, captur- ing its chiefs, with whom he returned, and on the way severely chastising the inhabitants of Penuel, and of Succoth for their reckless behavior towards an army, which had saved the coun- try, he executed the two Midianitish chiefs for having killed his brothers, and finally reached his home. The Ephraimites were displeased, that he did not call on them especially to aid him ; still they were made satisfied by ascribing to them the principal glory of the campaign. The Israelites had taken a large booty from the enemy in gold and purple garments, and Gideon asked of each of his soldiers one of the nose rings which they had taken from the enemy, of which gold Gideon set up a monument at his place, which, as was the case with almost all monuments of antiquity, was afterwards foolishly adored, and finally worshiped as an idol, bringing disgrace upon the house of the hero. After the demise of Deborah (about 1263 b. c), Gideon succeeded her in the highest office of the nation. His victorious operations had so inspired the Israel- ites in favor of the hero, that they offered to him the heredi- tary dignity of the chief magistrate of the nation ; but Gideon rejected this offer in truly republican words: " I shall not rule 230 PERIOD II. over you, nor shall my son rule over you, God shall rule over you." He could hardly be persuaded to take the lead during nis life time, and being over-persuaded to do so, as Josephus informs us, he governed the nation about forty years, during which time peace and prosperity came home to the nation; he died and was buried at Ophroh, the principal town of the dis- trict of Ezer (AbiEser; about 1223 b. c). Gideon had left seventy sons of his numerous wives, besides one, Abimelch, of his concubine Drumah, who was from Shechem. This Abimelech went to Shechem after the death of Gideon, the inhabitants of which town assisted him with money, for which he engaged a number of unprincipled men, who went with him to Ophrah, where he slew the sons of Gideon, of whom but one, Jotham, escaped. Having returned from that horrible expedition, the men of Shechem and of Beth Mylo held a meeting at a place where a large oak stood, most likely the same mentioned in the last speech of Joshua, and proclaimed Abimelech king of Israel. Jotham the youngest son of Gideon was present, and addressed the people against Abimelech; but however true and beautiful his words are, which are preserved (Judges ix, 7-20) in the sacred records, still he was obliged to flee to Bear, a place beyond Jordan (Numb, xxi), and Abimelech was proclaimed king. The city in which the Baal Berith was set up, as a sign of the new covenant by which the old laws were dethroned, and the center of gravity of the nation, its religion, was denied, could but proclaim a despotic ruler, whose hands were covered with the blood of his brothers. "Abimelech made the government tyrannical, and constituted himself a lord, to do what he pleased, instead of obeying the laws, and he acted most rigidly against those that were the patrons of justice" (Antiq. V, c. vii, § 1). It appears from our records that his power did not reach very far, and that his own constituents soon hated him on account of his haughtiness. The inhabitants of Schechem soon repented of having assisted Abimelech, and they supported secretly a band of armed men, who laid in wait on the high- ways to assassinate the usurper; but those hirelings robbed CHAPTER V. 231 the travelers, not being restrained by any authority, and could not reach Abimelech, who had been informed of the conspiracy. The dissatisfaction of the citizens ol Shechem, however, had reached the highest point, and an outbreak was expected, wherefore Zebul, the chief captain of the city, told Abimelech to be on his guard. Gaal, the son of Ehed, with his kinsmen, had come to Shechem, in whom the inhabitants of that place had great confidence. It was at the time of vintage, which is an occasion of feasting in all wine-producing countries. In Shechem the vintage was attended with many feasts and hea- then games, at one of which the people gave utterance to their dissatisfaction towards Abimelech. Gaal son of Ehed exhorted the people to be subjects to the descendants of Hamor, the founder of that city, rather than to Abimelech; he concluded thus : "If one would give this people into my hands I would bring Abimelech out of the way." The Shechemites promised him effectual assistance, and Gaal took the lead in an open revolt against Abimelech. Gaal had intended to surprise Abimelech at his residence, but he, being informed of every thing, came up to the city with a sufficient force, and laid in ambush, and when Gaal sallied forth he attacked and defeated him. Gaal fled back to the city with a considerable loss of men, where he was received by Zebul and driven from the city as a coward. Abimelech marched the next morning to- wards the city in three divisions, massacring those who could not escape quick enough, and reduced the fortifications of the city. Those who were in the tower of Shechem fled into the fortified temple of Baal Berith, where, according to an idola- trous custom, they thought themselves safe; but Abimelech surrounded the building with wood, which was set on fire, and all that were in the temple, one thousand men, women and children, perished in the flames. Thola the son of Puah, who had been appointed consular judge after Gideon, resided in Shamir on Mount Ephraim. He did nothing against the rebellious city of Shechem and Abim- elech, although the law gave him full liberty to chastise them (Deutr. xiii, 13). It therefore appears, that the national 232 PERIOD II. government was impotent. Abimelech, encouraged by his suc- cess in Shechem, marched with his army to crush the national government. On coming to Thebez on Mount Ephraim, he found the city in a state of defence, and was obliged to take it by assault. But there was a strong tower in the city, into which the inhabitants fled. Abimelech intending to set the building on fire came near it, and was struck by a flat stone thrown upon him by a woman ; he ordered his servant to kill him, that it should not be said that he died by the hand of a woman, which his servant did. So perished the first tyrant of Israel, after an attempt of three years' duration to establish despotism upon the ruins of the republic. Tholah, son of Puah, remained in office for twenty-three years. His adminis- tration is noticed for no other event; profound peace dis- tinguished his days; he died about 1200 b. c. The successor of Tholah was Havoth Jair, a Gileadide, who had thirty sons riding upon thirty asses, after whom the thirty places of Havoth Jair in Gilead were called. His administration lasted twenty-two years, and is distinguished for his expeditions against the aborigines northeast of the Jordan. He added thirty villages to the province of Menassah, which he called Havoth Jair, on account of the name of the district to which he added them.* He was succeeded by Abzon, of Beth Lehem, about 1178 b. c, who governed the nation during seven years of peace. According to an ancient tradition, it was in the time of Abzon when Ruth, the great-grandmother of David, emigrated with her mother-in-law from Moab to Bethlehem, in Jehudah. The story was this. Elimelech and his wife Naomi had left their native place, Bethlehem, on account of a famine, and emigrated to the land of Moab. Elimelech died early, and his two sons, Mahli and Chilion, took in marriage two Moabitish women, Ruth and Orphah. After a residence of ten years, the two young men died childless. Naomi, now a childless and forsa- ken widow, intended to return to her native place ; her two * Judges x, 4 J Numbers xxxii, 41. CHAPTER V. 233 daughters-in-law insisted on going with her. An enthusiastic description of the helpless condition of Naomi persuaded Or- phan to stay in Moab, but Ruth insisted upon remaining with her mother-in-law. " And Ruth said, Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee : for whither thou goest I will go; and where thou lodgest, 1 will lodge; Un- people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if aught but death part thee and me. Naomi and Ruth came to Bethlehem two helpless widows. The piece of land belonging to her deceased husband was sold by Naomi because she could not work it, and they were obliged to make use of the charity laws for the benefit of widows. When the time of harvest had come Naomi instructed Ruth to go into the fields of Boaz, who was a relative of her deceased husband, and glean ears. Boaz on seeing Ruth, and having been informed of her name, treated her very kindly, indicating his affectionate regard for her. Ruth told her mother-in-law of the kind treatment which she received from her kinsman Boaz. Naomi, better acquainted with the mysteries of the human heart than her young and inexperienced daughter-in- law, persuaded the latter to inform him, by a strange method, that the lovely Ruth would not refuse her hand and heart to the dignified Boaz. On being informed of this, Boaz adopted measures to secure to himself the fair Ruth. He went before the court of justice, calling the next kinsman of Ruth, who had a prior right to redeem the field and to take Ruth in mar- riage, asking of him to do so, or to resign his rights to Boaz. The former resigned his legal claims in favor of the latter, and Boaz redeemed the field and took Ruthin marriage. " So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the Lord gave her conception, and she bare a son. And the women said unto Naomi, Blessed be the Lord, which hath not left thee this day without a kinsman, that his name may be famous in Israel. And he shall be unto thee a restorer of thy life, and a nourisher of thine old age; for thy daughter- in-law, which loveth thee, which is better to thee than seven 234 PERIOD If. sons, hath borne him. And Naomi took the child, and laid it in her bosom, and became nurse unto it. And the women her neighbors gave it a name, saying, There is a son borne to Naomi; and they called his name Obed; he is the father of Jesse, the father of David. Now these art the generations of Pharez: Pharez begat Hezron, and Hezron begat Ram, and Ram begat Amminadab, and Amminadab begat Nahshon, and Nahshon begat Salmon, and Salmon begat Boaz, and Boaz be- gat Obed, and Obed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David. The whole book of Ruth is written in such a pleasant style s depicting so accurately an age of innocence, honesty and aifec- tion, that its high antiquity can not be doubted. It is remark- able to us as forming a peculiar contrast to the rudeness of Jephthah— not, indeed, to the loveliness of his daughter, and Samson ; which convinces us that the heroic and chivalric age of every nation produces the same charming and attractive characters, the same innocent beings and noble affections. Our sources mention after the demise of Abzon (about 1170, b. a), two judges after each other, Elon of the tribe of Ze- bulon, and Abdon, son of Hillel, of the tribe of Ephraim; the former governed Israel ten years, and the latter eight years. Of the former no notice has reached us, and of the latter we know that he had forty sons and thirty grandsons, who rode on seventy asses; the former was buried in Ajalon, of Zebu- Ion, and the latter in Pirathon, of Ephraim. It appears from Judges, x, 7, that the forty years of the Phelistine war (ibid, xiii) commenced previously to the inva- sion of the Ammonites. It appears from the whole tenor of the story of Samson, that he made an end to the supremacy of the Phelistines, to which end also the beginning of I Samuel may safely be quoted, where we find no trace of the Phelistines during the administration of Eli. Samson governed Israel twenty years during the supremacy of the Phelistines, conse- quently the troubles with the Phelistines must have commenced as early as in the latter time of Abzon. The trouble with the Ammonites lasted eight years (ibid, x, 3); if they invaded Israel soon after the Phelistines, that trouble terminated shortly before Samson succeeded Abdon. CHAPTER V. 235 The story of those invasions appears to us to have been this : Israel had enjoyed the blessings of peace from the time of Gideon, after he had driven the Midianites from the country, to the end of Abzon's administration, above ninety years, inter- rupted only by the Abimelech revolution, which having been limited to Shechem and Thebez was of no considerable import* ance. The population increased, agriculture flourished, as we learn from the descriptions in the book of Ruth, the wealth of the country was considerably developed, and the people had preferred the implements of agriculture to the instruments of war. Prosperity and idolatry were always closely connected in Israel, as they naturally must have been. The impotence of the national government was the natural consequence of idol- atry, which distracted the union of Israel. When, therefore, the neighboring nations were convinced that a rich spoil might be obtained in Palestine, they were ready to invade it. The Phelistines, who connected commercial causes with the desire for spoil, formed an alliance against Israel with Ammon and Moab, with whom most likely also other petty nations were connected. While the Phelistines invaded Palestine in the west, and more especially the sea shores of Dan, which con- tained the bay of Joppa, and where the Danites appear to have had considerable maritime commerce (Judges v, 17) ; the Am- monites invaded Gilead, succeeded in crossing the Jordan, and made roving incursions in Jehudah, Benjamin and Ephraim. The national government was deserted, and consequently had no power to oppose effectually the invaders. While the tribe of Dan was limited to its own means of defence, Gilead was no less deserted by the rest of Israel. But Gilead was itself a nation, and most likely could reckon upon the assistance of numerous Israelites who still occupied parts of the desert. When they had been exposed for many years to the incursions of the Ammonites and their allies, no arrangements to their relief being made by the national government ; they collected an army of their own, declared themselves independent of the other tribes, and promised the dignity of being their chief magistrate to the man who would be their leader in that cam- 236 PERIOD II. paign and should succeed in chastising Amnion. None had the courage to undertake the hazardous enterprise. The rufle and warlike Jephthah was invited by the elders of Gilead to take the lead in that struggle; he was thought capable of performing the difficult task. Jephthah was the son of a man called Gilead and of a lubric woman, wherefore his brothers had excluded him from the family and their estate ; he collected around him a gang of adventurers and seized upon a parcel of land in the land of'Tob,* having already distinguished himself as a man of a warlike disposition and extraordinary valor. When the elders of Gilead had offered to Jephtah the com- mand of their troops, and the chief dignity in time of peace, he followed them to Mizpah, where the representatives of the people of Gilead received him as the chief of the land. ISo time was to be lost, for the Ammonites occupied all the plains of Gilead, while the Israelites were encamped on the hills in the vicinity of Mizpah. Operations were at once commenced, therefore, by sending ambassadors to the king of Amnion (the first historical trace of the law of nations regarding ambassa- dors), to ascertain the cause of his repeated invasions of Gilead. This informs us, that it was not deemed honorable to commence hostilities without a just cause. The king of Ammon sent him word, that the object of his invasion was to retake the land which Israel, when coming up from Egypt, had taken from his predecessor. Jephthah on having received this message dis- patched again his ambassadors with an accurate statement of facts as recorded in the Pentateuch, that the Israelites had taken no land from the Ammonites; adding, that even if they had done so, they had for nearly three hundred years been in possession of the places claimed by Amnion. Why did they not make those claims during that period ? why just now when he was called to govern the nation? " The Lord will judge, who judges to day between the children of Israel, and the children of Ammon.-' But the Ammonites insisted upon their claims, and Jephthah appealed to arms. He marched dowu from * II Samuel x, G ; I Chron. xi, CHAPTER V. 237 the north, where the .army was concentrated, through the provinces east of the Jordan, until he had reached the enemy's camp. Before the decisive battle commenced, he vowed a vow to devote to the Lord that which he should first meet when he reached his house after having defeated the enemy. The attack was made, and the enemy was routed. Jephthah pursued the retreating enemy and recaptured twenty cities which were in the hands of the Ammonites; he drove them from the country, and then returned with his victorious army; but having reached his residence, his daughter, his only child, came out to welcome him with tamborine, and dances. Jephthah tore his garments in a state of despair, telling his daughter of his horrible vow; but she, indicating not only the noblest sentiments of filial submission, but also a patriotic joy about the victory over the enemy, and a full respect to the word of her father, was willing to be the victim of her father's vow. She mourned two months in company with her friends, after which she was separated from the world, a devotee of the Lord. Four times a year the daughters of Israel came to her to praise her for her noble sentiments of filial submission. It can not be denied, that our text gives much cause to believe that she was indeed sacrificed, which is by no means unlikely if the character of Jephthah is truly considered. Still it would ap- pear to us, that this was not the case, because Jephthah had reason enough for not doing it, it being against the laws of the land, which advantage was certainly welcome to him. Still the vow itself is a proof of his rudeness and inconsideration. The men of Ephraim complained against Jephthah for not having called on them to assist in the last war, threatening to set his house on fire. If we have set the story of Jephthah in the right time, as not only mrcumstances but also the three hundred years mentioned by him confirm, then Abdon, the son of Hillel, of the tribe of Ephraim, was the judge of Israel. The sons of Ephraim defended the national government against the usurpation of Jephthah, because the judge was a son of their tribe. No blame could be attached to Jephthah for having delivered the country from the hands of the enemy. 238 PERIOD II. They could but blame him, that he did so ou his own account without summoning the other tribes in a legal way. Jephthah justified the course which he had taken by the fact, that the invasions of Amnion were repeated frequently; that his people had called on the nation for help; but were not heard. There- fore they acted on their own accord, appointing him their com- mander-in-chief. This interchange of accusations and justifications ended in a civil war. The sons of Ephraim crossed the Jordan with a considerable force. Jephthah had an experienced army, and the sons of Ephraim, or rather the army of the national gov- ernment, was routed and dispersed. The retreating war- riors were caught and killed at the fords of Jordan, so that forty-two thousand of them fell in that engagement. Pru- dence would have dictated a different course of action under the existing circumstances. Moderation on the side of the national government would have been the best policy. The forty-two thousand warriors who fell in the civil war, if assisted by Jephthah and his trained troops, might have saved the country from the Phelistines; and it could not be alleged, that Jephthah or the people of Gilead were altogether in the wrong. A government which has lost the capability to protect the country has ceased to exist, de facto and de jure. Jephthah enjoyed the fruits of his victory only six years, in- cluding probably the campaign, after which he died, and was buried in Gilead. While the Ammonites thus molested the people beyond Jor- dan, the Phelistines made great progress in the west. The country of that people reached from the Nahr Rubin to the sandy desert which separates Egypt from Palestine, along the shores of the Mediterranean, not extending more than twenty to twenty-five miles into the interior. They were in posses- sion of five principal cities, Gath,Ekron, Ashdod, Ascalon and Gaza; to each of which was attached a small district of land. Every city had a chief, called seren; the title of Abimelech, still in use in the time of Isaac, was abolished most likely by the Anakims, who were ever after their emigration the ruling CHAPTER V. 239 caste of Phelistia. It appears, that Phelistia had sent many colonies to foreign countries, by which they became a commer- cial people, as formerly the aborigines were. The five chiefs of the cities of Phelistia were united, at least in their war- like expeditions against Israel, which were carried on with some intervals of peace for more than a century, for two pur- poses: to gain possession of the coast of the Mediterranean, and to have a highway through Palestine to the interior of Asia, both of which were of no small importance to the Phelis- tines. The national government of Israel offered no effectual resistance to the Phelistines; and Dan, probably assisted by Ephraim and Jehudah, were obliged to fight for their own defence. The Phelistines had met with much success before Samson was born, who was purposely educated by his mother to redeem Israel from the Phelistines; because she knew by the message of an angel, her patriotic sentiments, that this would be the vocation of her son. The Hercules of the Israelites, who was a contemporary of the Greek Hercules,* was educated as a nazir by his father, Manoah, of the tribe of Dan, and most likely was trained in arms and gymnastical practices from his early youth. Samson soon manifested gigantic strength and a warlike disposition; when still j'oung he distinguished him- self in a battle against the Phelistines between Zereah and Eshtael, in the camp and territory of Dan (Judges xiii, 25). Having seen a woman in Thimnah of Dan, where the Phelis- tines had a settlement, she being a Phelistine, Samson desired his parent to obtain her for him, as our sources inform us, in order to have a pretext of hostility against that settlement in case the woman should be refused him. His parents consented, and when on the way to Thimnah he killed a lion. When he was in the house of his father-in-law celebrating his marriage day, Samson gave a riddle to the guests for the solution of which thirty suits of clothes should be paid. The Phelistines * It is an unquestionable fact, that nature produces in almost every century some giants, either physical or mental, and that some centuries in history are especially productive of such uncommon phenomena. 240 PERIOD II. could not solve it, which was then taken for national inferi- ority in respect to wit. They obtained the solution of the riddle from Samson through the agency of his wife, and he was obliged to pay the wager; whereupon he went down towards Ashcalon, killed thirteen of the enemy, most likely in an engagement of a small detachment of his troops with those of the Phelistines, took the clothes and paid the wager. During his absence, his father-in-law gave the young wife of Samson to another man. When Samson was informed of it, he said, "Now I am innocent as to the Phelistines if I do them evil;" then proceeding to their territory, certainly not without a strong body of warriors, he set their grains and trees on fire by a peculiar contrivance of his own. The Phelistines. byway of retaliation, burnt his supposed wife and father-in-law. For this Samson paid them with another bold incursion, ';And he smote them hip and thigh with a great slaughter, and he went down and dwelt on the top of the rock Etam." The last part of this verse plainly says, that those incursions and smaller actions were of no effect; the Phelistines were not beaten, they were only enraged, and Samson was obliged to occupy a strong place, where he could protect himself and his men; leaving the country no less exposed than before to the incursions of the enemy. The Phelistines thought of making at once an end to the dangerous and troublesome Samson; they sent a considerable army into Jehudah to bring him ; the people of Jehudah were willing to deliver him up to his enemies, and he himself made but one condition, which was that the people of Jehudah should not fight against him. He descended from the rock, accompanied by his brave band, using the stratagem of having his hands bound as a captive, in order to be permitted to come near enough to the camp of the Phelistines without the latter suspecting an assault. When he was near enough, and the Phelistines, not suspecting an attack, indicated by their shouts of joy, that they actually supposed him their prisoner, he broke the ties from his hands, and rushed upon them with the fury of a lion. The people of Jehudah and his own band certainly followed his courageous example, and the Phelistines were CHAPTER V. 241 defeated, leaving the battle-field in disorder, which was covered with one thousand of them. The name of the: place, Lehi (jawbone), and the well, En Eakora (well of the crier), of which Samson may have drunk when exhausted by the hot engagement, gave rise to the fabulous tint of the story. It appears that Samson was a mere youth when performing those valorous deeds; he attracted public notice and was thought to be the man who would save the country from the hands of the Phelistines. Therefore, when Abdon died, Samson was appointed chief magistrate in his place (about 1152 b. c), which office he maintained twenty years. The fame of Samson united the warriors under his banner. The war was continued almost during the whole of the administration of Samson {Judges xv, 20), but no account of the expeditions has reached us. The stories narrated of Samson in the sixteenth chapter of Judges, are a plain evidence that the Phelistines were utterly discomfited towards the close of his administration. Samson could go freely to Gaza; being there, on one occa- sion, paying a visit to a lubric woman in whose house he remained all night, the Phelistines determined upon assassinat- ing him; but although they surrounded the house all night, still they had not the boldness to attack him. Samson, on having learned their design, secretly left the house with his com- panions, and breaking the gate of Gaza, he and his companions took gate, bars and posts, and deposited them on an eminence in the vicinity of Hebron, as a token of the cowardice of the Phelistines. Samson subsequently formed an attachment for a woman, Delilah, of the Phelistines, residing in Nahal Shorek, and was not afraid to pay her visits at any place in the enemy's terri- tory; we are left to conjecture that he always was accompanied by a chosen band of warriors. "When the Phelistines had learned his inclination to Delilah, they promised her a large sum of money if she would contrive to deliver Samson into their hands ; the treacherous, or probably, patriotic woman, several times succeeded in bringing him to places where armed forces of the Phelistines were ready to take him prisoner. Still, the personal 16 242 PERIOD II. valor of Samson and his companions always frustrated their design, and they were several times beaten in their own country. These adventures made him bold, and he looked upon the Phelistines with a certain degree of contempt. He went to see Delilah wherever she chose to see him. She once beguiled him to meet her at a place, where an adequate force of the Phelistines was secretly collected. She most likely suc- ceeded in separating him from his companions at arms; and when intoxicated by the embraces of love, he had fallen fast asleep, the Phelistines surprised him, blinded both his eyes, which at once made him unable to defend himself, and thus they succeeded in binding him, and conveyed him in chains to the prison at Gaza. His companions most likely were mas- sacred, and the lion-like hero was lying in chains blind and miserable. His luxuriant hair, the best token of physical strength, which he wore because being a nazir, gave birth to the fabulous character of the story in regard to his hair. The Phelistines rejoiced to have in their power their most formidable enemy; a general feast was celebrated to praise Dagon for having delivered him into their hands. The blind hero was brought before the feasting multitude, to be the aim of their wit; he was posted between the two middle pillars, upon which the roof with the galleries rested most heavily. Around him stood the princes and officers of Phelistia, together with three thousand spectators, mocking and scoffing at the chained lion, which enraged him to fury. His leaders having allowed him by his request the free use of his hands, he clinched his arms around the pillars, between which he stood, and exclaimed furiously, "Now I will die with the Phelistines," he broke the pillars ; the roof and the galleries fell down and buried under their ruins the whole assembly and also Samson. (1132 b. c.) Thus a hero died. Samson had severely chastised the Phelistines. The Israelites were not troubled for about forty years. The tragical end and the heroic deeds of Samson, especially as he was the savior of his country, left a lasting impression on the heart of every patriot, and the myths could not fail in an age of poetry and imagina- CHAPTER VI. 243 tion. It may be taken as a proof, that the Israelites were not as much inclined to paganism as it is generally supposed they were; if so they would have deified him as the heathens did with their heroes. The brothers of Samson, and the whole house of his father, went down to Gaza to bring up his remains. The panic of the Phelistines must have been great, that they suffered the Israel- ites to come into their country and take these remains. He was buried between Zareah and Eshtael in the sepulchre of his father, where he first fought the enemy. CHAPTER VI. FROM THE DEMISE OF SAMSON TO THE END OF THE REPUBLIC (1132— 10S0, b. c.). After Samson was gathered in to his people, Eli, the high priest, a descendant of Aaron by Ithamar, succeeded the former in the highest office of the nation. No chief magistrate had yet been elected from the tribe of Levi since the days of Moses. This proves that the national sanctuary at Shiloh must have been held in high estimation by the people, as its highest officer was appointed to the highest political dignity in the gift of the people. We have no history of Eli, Samuel, or Saul; the royal and Davidian author of that book gave but a short sketch of those three distinguished personages, treating their history as a mere introduction to the history of David. Eli was fifty-eight years old when he was appointed chief magistrate; he occupied a lofty position in the estimation of the people, and maintained peace and good order throughout the country. When Eli grew old, so that he could scarcely see any more, his two sons officiated in the tabernacle (not as 244 PERIOD II. high priests), holding high offices. They were very licentious and frivolous, and paid not the slightest respect to female chastity and the national sanctuary. Eli was informed of the demeanor of his sons, and he exhorted them most solemnly, but it was in vain; they continued in their wickedness so that they were declared unqualified to succeed their father in his clerical dignity. This declaration, of course, came from the national council (I Samuel, ii, 27-37), and fell heavily upon the aged Eli. Samuel, too, of whom we shall speak hereafter, who had become a popular and inspired speaker, so that he had already acquired the public fame of a prophet, brought the same message to Eli. In consideration of Eli's inability to govern the nation, because of his advanced age, and perceiving the warlike preparations and most likely the hostile incursions of the Phelistines, Samuel predicted great misfortune to Israel. It appears that the bold words of Samuel aroused Eli and the Israelites from a state of lethargy in which they appear to have been sunk, so that an army was collected in haste to prevent a surprise by the Phelistines. But as soon as an army had been brought together at Mizpah, the Phelistines came through Dan with a large army. They were encamped at Aphek, and the Israelites encamped at a place near Mizpah, afterwards called Eben Haezer (I Samuel, vii, 12). The Phe- listines attacked and defeated the Israelites in a pitched battle, so that the latter left the field with a heavy loss, amounting to four thousand. The Israelites held a counsel of war in the camp to devise means for procuring a victory ; it was finally determined that the ark of the covenant, together with the officiating priests, should be brought into the camp to en- courage the warriors. Messengers were dispatched to Shiloh, who returned with the ark and the officiating priests, among whom were Hophni and Phineas, the two sons of Eli. When the ark was brought into the camp, the Israelites shouted and blew their trumpets, so that the noise was heard in the camp of the Phelistines, who were, it was thought, greatly frightened by the arrival of the Israelitish gods in the camp. The result, however, proved CHAPTEB VI. 245 the contrary to the expectation. It appears that the Phelis- tines, taking advantage of the moment when the Israelites shoutingly greeted the arrival of the ark, made an unexpected attack upon them, and besides defeating them on all points, they also captured the ark, which was at once sent as a host- age into the interior of Phelistia, to Ashdod. The field was covered with 30,000 slain Israelites, among whom were Hophni and Phineas, the two sons of Eli; part of the Israelites fled to their own tents, while the principal number of warriors appear to have sought refuge behind the walls of Mizpah; to which place the people, roused to action by the inspired speeches of Samuel, flocked from all parts of the country. Samuel, as we have noticed before, had predicted the invasion before its actual commencement, and he succeeded in rousing Eli and the Israelites from their state of lethargy. It appears (I Samuel, ii, 1) that Samuel increased his activity as the danger of the invasion increased, and he succeeded in collecting a second army at Mizpah, to join the wrecks of the defeated one. He exhorted the people at Mizpah on account of their disunion, which he justly ascribed to their inclination to serve idols and to desert God and his laws. He convinced them that they, if united, were mighty enough to chastise the Phelistines and to drive the invaders from the country. Samuel succeeded in encouraging and reorganizing the army. After they had signified their reunion by divine service, they went to meet the enemy, who had meanwhile came up to Mizpah, and, as it appears from our records, assaulted the city. The Israelites not only defended the city, but also attacked the enemy in the open field and routed them on all points. The Phelistines fled; the Israelites pursued them as far as Beth Chor. Samuel erected a monument near Mizpah, at the spot where the victory was achieved, and called it Eben ha-Ezor (stone of help). The Israelites pursued their victory; they retook all the places be- tween Ekron and Gath, which were in possession of the Phelis- tines, who were so discomlitted that they had not the power for the next following quarter of a century to disturb the peace of the Israelites. It appears that a formal peace was made between 246 PERIOD II. the hostile parties, because the Israelites could have then over- run the whole country of the Phelistincs, without any great exertion, which they imprudently omitted to do. The return of the ark and a heavy restitution and indemnification in gold, seem to have been the conditions which the Phelistines fulfilled. The places mentioned in the sacred records, where so many were ill with secret diseases on account of the ark, seem to be an emblematical representation of the panic with which the Phelistines looked upon the progress of the Israelitish arms. The Israelites, in order to recover the ark, agreed, against all rules of sound policy, to terms of peace, granting to the Phe- listines many advantages. The account of the many deaths which occurred in Beth Shemesh on account of one looking into the ark, while the inhabitants sacrificed burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, appears to us to indicate a revolt which broke out among the Israelites on account of the peace, which was concluded by pious but imprudent motives, and which cost seventy lives, which were destroyed by the fifty thousand men happening to be assembled there. The people of Kiriath Jearim, who seem to have been especially in favor of the treaty of peace, were rewarded by having the ark in their midst, which was deposited in the house of Abinadab, located on a hill, and his son Elasar was appointed to watch over it. It appears from this, that the war lasted seven months from the day when the ark was captured (I Samuel vi, 1). When the war was ended, it was natural that Samuel, who had saved the com- monwealth by his active exertions, was appointed chief magis- trate in the place of Eli, who on hearing the account of the loss in the battle, of the defeat of the army, of the death of his sons, and of the capture of the ark, fell fainting from his chair and died in consequence of the fail (about 1092, b. c). His daughter-in-law, the wife of Phineas, died, while giving early birth to a boy whom she called Ee-Kabod (the glory is gone from Israel). The story of the birth of Samuel, however interesting, is not a part of history; we are interested in the mere fact, that Samuel was educated under the superintendence of Eli; that he CHAPTER VI. 247 was already among the watch of the Levites in the sanctuary, previous to the outbreak of the war, consequently, he must have been at least twenty-five years of age. The war may have lasted one year, consequently, Samuel was of a mature age when he was appointed chief magistrate of the nation. He can not have been very old, as he was called naar, a youth, when predicting the forthcoming misfortune. Samuel was a Levite of the family of Kehath (I Chron. iv, 7-13); his father lived in Ramah (Ramath or Arimathaea), in the province of Benjamin on Mount Ephraim, where also Samuel made his residence. It can not be denied, that in a republic it frequently occurs that men are called to preside over the nation, not on account of their capability for the office, but on account of other personal qualities or political reasons. This may be of no great disadvantage in a country where every man of education is acquainted with the laws and institutions of the land; but this was not the case among Israel, where, most likely, in that age, but a small portion of the nation had much knowledge of the laws and institutions of the nation. The majority of the judges were appointed to their position on account of their military valor, as was the case with Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, and others, which circum- stance certainly exercised an unfavorable influence upon the development of the nation. Eli was a man of peace ; he main- tained the peace of the country for forty years; the land flourished, its wealth increased, and lethargy followed as it usually does. In time of peace there is a favorable opportunity for internal improvements, for the cultivation of science and arts. It is therefore plain, that civilization made a material advance among the Israelites during the administration of Eli. Thus not only was the field prepared for the benevolent activity of Samuel, but Samuel himself was educated for his mission under the superintendence of Eli, who loved the talented and ardent youth; in the midst of profound peace and general prosperity; on the side of the political men who assembled at Shiloh, to hold their three-annual sessions; at the very centre of the 248 PERIOD II. nation, where the people — at least, the better portion — assem- bled three times a year. Samuel was educated for his omce under favorable circumstances, wherefore he administrated the laws with skill and energy, so that he may be called very justly a second Moses, which was actually done by the ancients, as far as the administration is concerned (Psalm xcix, 6). A long period of peace and national prosperity is frequently productive of demoralization, as we have noticed frequently in this period of history. The wickedness of Hophni and Phineas, and again the practice of idolatry to which Samuel referred the misfortunes of the nation, prove that there was a con- siderable demoralization towards the end of the Eli adminis- tration. The war with the Phelistines, as war in general, if it lasts not too long, was a beneficent shock, which at once crushed lethargy and demoralization, and roused the energies of the people ; so that the nation after a long period of peace was electrified and regenerated, which made them susceptible of a sound progress of civilization. We may, therefore, say, circumstances were favorable to Samuel, and he was the man to make good use of them. Samuel held annually three sessions of the national council in three different places ; in Gilgal, most likely during the passah-feast, because the Israel- ites celebrated there the first passah-feast within their land; in Bethel, the classical spot, where Jacob was promised the land of Canaan, near which Abraham had pitched his tent, and Joshua had read the law. He held the meeting most likely during the feast of booths, as that place is first mentioned in the record, and the civil year of the Israelites commenced but two weeks before this feast; most likely the feast which Joshua celebrated there was also the feast of booths; the third meet- ing he held in Mizpah, commencing at the feast of weeks, most likely in remembrance of the victory achieved over the Phelis- tines. He held a perpetual court at his residence Ramah, in the part of Benjamin. This revolution accomplished by Samuel, is important in more than one respect. He moved the seat of government from Ephraim, in whose part Shiloh was, on account of their assumed CHAPTER VI. 249 preponderance over the other tribes, which they indicated on many occasions, and which was injurious to the unity and liberty of the nation. It is most likely, that the national sanctuary was moved in connection with the national council, so that the pride of Shiloh expired; the change being necessary on account of the moral debasement that seems to have dis- graced the old capital (Psalms lxxviii, CO, 07). Still, he held one session every year in Beth El, which belonged to Ephraim. The idea of moving the national council and sanctuary was agreeable to the federal constitution of the country, and calcu- lated to prevent for the future the concentration of power in one place or tribe. If we are right in assuming that Samuel moved the national sanctuary from Shiloh, then it was under the administration of Samuel that the idol of Micah in the city of Dan was discovered and removed (Judges xviii, 31). As that place was at the extreme north of the country, this fact shows us that the reforms of Samuel wrere more thorough than those of any one judge before him, and that he succeeded in erTecting a perfect union of the nation in religion, and conse- quently also in politics. According to a statement of the author of Samuel, the ark remained a£ Kiriath Jearim (I Sam. vi, 3). This was not agreeable to the Mosaic ideas, but it was not contrary to the law, as some writers supposed, nor was it contrary to custom, it being recorded that even in the time of the high priest Phineas, who was an immediate disciple of Moses, the ark was brought to Beth El (Judges xx, 27), having been first brought to Mizpah (verse 1), while the feasts of the Lord were celebrated in Shiloh (Judges xxi, 19); still, we sub- sequently find the ark again in Shiloh (I Samuel iv, 4). It is therefore plain, that the ark had no necessary connection with the national sanctuary, being more commonly destined by cus- tom to move with the army. Some later writers have supposed that there were two arks, in one being deposited the tables which Moses had broken, while in the other were the second tables brought by Moses from Sinai. But we do not see the necessity of this unfounded supposition, which is not supported by any one fact, mentioned in the records; it may be, that 259 PERIOD II. Gibeon and Kiriath Jearim are identical. The policy of Samuel in leaving the ark where it chanced to be, was to pre- vent domestic trouble, which, as we shall see hereafter, really took place when David attempted to move the ark from the house of Abinadab. The most important event in the adminis- tration of Samuel is, that he held a perpetual court at Raman. The former judges were in authority only as long as the national council was in session, which in times of peace may have been for a few weeks annually, as the Mosaic law contains no pro- vision for the length of the sessions, and if the people were addicted to idolatry they did not meet at all. The nassis of the respective tribes were the almost independent rulers for the greatest part of the year, which was not only a cause of dis- union and weakness of the national government, but was also dangerous to the liberties of the people. Samuel held a per- petual court — assisted probably by a select number of the national council, or by the whole of the senate — to administer the laws, and to secure the interests of the confederacy. This measure enabled him to secure to the nation peace at home and abroad, and to carry out his reform measures all over the country. • There was a tradition among the ancient Israelites, that Samuel founded a high school at Ramah, the pupils of which institute were called bene nebiim, pupils of the prophets, or young prophets. There are a great many reasons for believing that this tradition is founded upon fact. History mentions but a few prophets before the days of Samuel. During the latter days of Samuel, and after his demise, we meet with choruses of prophets, hosts of prophets, and sons of prophets. Besides this, it must be remarked, that the prophets follow after Samuel in regular succession, so that some prom- inent prophet is mentioned in every age. There can be no doubt, that the prophetic era commenced with Samuel, and if it be once admitted, that there must have been a cause for this phenomenon, and that great men must receive their education somewhere, there will be no difficulty in believing the tradition, that such an institute was established by Samuel. Hence it CHAPTER VI. 251 must be observed, that with Samuel commenced an era of poetry and music, and many of the psalms of David, which that bard of Israel wrote in his youth, were written in the lifetime of Samuel. There is not only eminent luxury in the language of the Psalmist, but there is knowledge and gram- matical correctness in it, which must lead us to believe that a scholastic education must have existed; without it the language could not have reached that degree of perfection, nor could such a profound knowledge of nature, as indicated in the Psalms, have existed. The first products of that school are the best information on the course of studies which was pursued in that institute. Music, poetry, song, natural philosophy, the law, the elements of rhetoric, and the divine service, most likely, comprehended the whole course of studies destined for priests, LeVites, and others who were desirous to improve their minds. 'The traditional accounts perfectly agree with this statement; Jonathan Ben Uziel, who wrote aversion of the prophetical books about fifty years before Josephus flourished, calls the pupils of that school, saphraia, the scribes, or the learned, the doctors of the law, as Ezra and the scholars sub- sequent to Ezra were then called, which would also show that writing was one of the principal branches of the school. The above mentioned ancient authority also informs us, that they did not prophesy, as the biblical term nibbehim (I Samuel xix, 20) is erroneously rendered, but that they praised the Lord. That Samuel was their teacher, and that a house on a height near Ramah, called Nayoth (a log house, a hut) was devoted to the purposes of instruction. It is evident from I Samuel (xix, 24), that the pupils of that institute wore peculiar garments, and the name of the building strongly indicates not only a simplicity beyond the general custom of that age, but even an ascetic and solitary life; but it can not be ascertained whether or not they were dressed in hairy garments, and lived as simply and soli- tary as the bene nebiim, which we meet in a later period. We have no historical sources to justify a supposition with regard to an arrangement in the Levitical services, which is ascribed to Samuel by some writers, although he may have 252 PERIOD II. carried out reforms also in that branch of the national institu- tions. No high priest is mentioned in the days of Samuel, but this is not very singular, as some writers suppose, who there- fore accuse Samuel of an usurpation of that dignity. Nothing can be more unfounded than this accusation. Two high priests, Phineas and Eli, are mentioned during a period of 328 years; the former is mentioned occasionally, and the latter is men- tioned because he was the chief magistrate of the nation. Still none will infer from that silence that former judges usurped this power. Samuel is said to have brought sacriiices; but there is not only a slight difference in Hebrew between bring and let bring, but it is even the idiom of the langague to say of one who brings the animal, that he made or brought a sacrifice upon the altar. Besides all this it must be observed, that Samuel, the zealous and inspired champion of the Mosaic law, could not act so decidedly contrary to that law; he was a Levite as remarked before, and not a son of Aaron, conse- quently the dignity of a high priest was inaccssible to him. It appears from I Samuel xiv, 3, that Ahitub, the eldest son of Phineas and grandson of Eli succeeded the latter in the dignity of high priest. The administration was a happy one, as long as he had the energies of manhood, so that he could himself attend to all the affairs of the commonwealth ; but when his energies failed, and he entrusted his sons with a portion of the public duties, he had the same melancholy experience as his predecessor Eli; his sons were not as upright and disinterested as their father was. The Bible remarks, that they were avaricious, were guilty of bribery, and diverted judgment, and Josephus adds, that they turned aside to every luxury. The sons of Samuel, Joel and Abiah, gave great offence to the people, who had so long a time been accustomed to the govern- ment of upright, simple, and disinterested men. The national council assembled in Ramah in an extra session, to devise means of securing a strong administration to the country, Samuel being disabled by age, and his sons by frivolousness, from discharging the duties of that office. They came to the conclusion to change the form of government to that of a per- CHAPTER VI. 253 manent monarchy, as all the nations around them were governed by kings. The Phclistines too had elected a king about the same time. They most likely descried the danger again threatening the country on two sides, by Amnion and the Phelistines, and thought that the strong hand of a king, in possession of a more arbitrary power, would maintain the union of the nation (the benefit of which they had learned to appre- ciate under the administration of Samuel, and most likely also of Eli), and an honorable and commanding attitude toward the many petty nations, which troubled them unceasingly. They accordingly desired Samuel to appoint for his successor a king, who should judge them, go out before them (discharge the executive duties) and fight their battles. It appears from the succeeding facts, that Samuel was desired to resign immediately the executive duties into the hands of a king, while the func- tions of the chief justice, in which capacity he also was presi- dent of the upper branch of the national council, should not be taken from his hands during his lifetime. Samuel must not only have felt seriously offended that he was desired to resign the executive duties into the hands of another man, but he was also much grieved that the republic should give way to a monarchy. He was a devoted republican, and could not all at once agree to this new project, without showing to them the danger of this change of government; how it threatened their liberty, and the prosperity of the country, as they had per- ceived only the advantages rising from a monarchical form of government, without considering also the disadvantages; con- sequently, he in the following words called their attention to the consequences, which a monarchical government might have: " He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint them captains over thousands and captains over fifties, and will set them to plough his acres, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be his confectioners, and to be cooks and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vine-yards and your olive-yards, and give them to his officers, and to his 254 PERIOD II. servants. He will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out on that day, because of the king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you on that day."* This, however, can not be understood to be the rights of an Israelitish king as granted to him by the people ; for the whole of it is contrary to the fundamental laws of the nation. Nor must it be taken for a prophesy, as Samuel never claimed for himself the honor of being called a prophet. It is the ex- hortation of Samuel to the national council, directing their attention to the miseries which might possibly spring out of a monarchical form of government. Still it must be admitted that some privileges of that nature must have been then granted to the monarch, and were commonly thought insepara- ble from the royal dignity ; for Samuel certainly had reference to grants which must be made to a king, and "which if mis- applied might produce such a state of things as the offended re- publican described, and which were verified, in part, even by the first king. Still this was insufficient to convince the uational council of the disadvantages, and they insisted upon their demand. Samuel, after having strengthened his heart in pious prayers, promised to comply with their demands at the earliest opportunity, upon which the national council adjourned. Sam- uel was an opponent to the monarchical institution, and opposed the current strongly, though in vain. This has given much trouble to the critics: why should he so sternly resist com- plying with the wishes of the people when Moses himself sanctioned the royal institute? They have speculated on the section of the Pentateuch concerning the king (Deutr. xvii, 14- 20), thinking it must be an interpolation of a later date, of which Samuel knew nothing; that the royal prerogatives were dangerous to the theocratical institutes, and especially to the power of the priests ; and that Samuel was offended, that he should yield his power to another man. Such are the different ideas on the subject. As regards the first one we do not see when the section regarding the king could have been interpo- * I Samuel viii, 11-19; Antiquities b. VI, c. iii, 5. CHAPTER VI. 255 lated; certainly not during the time of the monarchy; for if a king had been elevated without that law, he could never have admitted a law into the national code, which limits the royal prerogatives to but a few privileges. It can not have been interpolated after the captivity, on account of its peculiar pro- hibition in regard to occasioning the people to return to Egypt, which was not at all practicable after the Babylonian captivity, when the prohibition to settle in Egypt was not observed any longer. It has certainly not been inserted without a positive necessity; for without a peculiar cause none had ever the daring courage to interpolate a national code, which was re- garded as emanating directly from the Deity; wherefore we may assume with no slight degree of justice, that Samuel was aware of that section of the Pentateuch. A king was by no means dangerous to the theocratical institutions of the land, if the people were powerful enough to maintain the fundamental laws of the country, and to keep royalty within its proper limits. The priests had no political power granted to them by law, and so the second argument falls to the ground. And as regards the personal objections of Samuel, we do not see why we should charge an old and tried patriot with such a high degree of selfishness, as to oppose the popular will merely on account of himself, who had but a few years more to live, and there is not the slightest proof to justify such an accusation. It appears to us in quite a different light. The importance of the Mosaic policy is by no means dependant on the chief magis- trate of the nation; it depends solely on the maintenance of the laws, no matter who maintains them. There must be an executive head; but there is no vital importance to be attached to the name of the executive chief. It is imprudent to make laws for many coming generations, without providing for a change of government in case a sound policy should at some future time require it. If the law provides not for such a revolution, it would cost lives, and be the cause of anarchy for some time. The only question was, whether it was a good policy at that time to change the form of government; the national council thought it was, as we have seen above. Sam- uel thought it was not; for he was aware how apt the people 256 PERIOD II. were to forsake the law, and if the king in such a state of things would have improved the advantage, he might easily have set the law at defiance and reigned absolutely, which, in- deed, was the case more than once during the period of the monarchy. The words of Samuel express this most distinctly : " If ye will fear the Lord, and serve him, and obey his voice, and ye will not rebel against the commandment of the Lord, you and the king reigning over you will be after the Lord your God (within the law). But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord, and ye will rebel against the commandments of the Lord, then the hand of the Lord will be against you and against your parents" (I Samuel xii, 14, 15). At the end of the same chapter he says again, " Only fear the Lord, and serve him in truth with all your heart; for consider what great things he has done for you," which would mean in an ordinary political sense, if the people would obey the law, by virtue of which they were a happy nation nearly four hun- dred years, their king would be obliged to respect that law, and to govern accordingly, which is the only security to their national prosperity. But if they depart from the law, the king, seizing the opportunity, will assume despotical privileges, which would terminate in a dissolution of the nationality, and consequently also in the close of the royal dignity. Saul, the son of Kish of the tribe of Benjamin, who had superintended the estate of his father, without being much concerned in the political affairs of his country, had searched some time for his father's asses, which were lost. Unable to find them, he went, on the suggestion of his servant, to the abode of the prophet, to ask him about them. When there, the Lord told Samuel, that this was the man whom he had chosen to be king over Israel, which Samuel told the surprised Saul. Having honored the newly appointed king at a public dinner, Samuel annointed Saul to the royal office, and after having given him. some tokens (which speedily occurred), that he was appointed by God, he dismissed him. Samuel convoked the national council at Mizpah, and after having again exhorted them about their policy, the lot decided who should be the first king of Israel. Saul was pointed out by the lot, but he had CHAPTER VI. 257 concealed himself under the baggage. He was brought before the people, and he was one head taller than any other man present. Samuel announced to the assembly that this was their king, and all of them shouted, ''Long live the king." The multitude who feared the Lord followed him; but the lower class of people despised him. This is the quintessence of the ninth and tenth chapter of I Samuel, with which Josephus almost literally corresponds; still it would not appear to us, that the history of the elec- tion of the first king is here given as it occurred. It is stated that God told Samuel to annoint Saul, that the casting of the lot decided in his favor at Mizpah in the presence of the whole assembly; still we read in the next chapter, that the people said to Samuel, " Who said Saul shall reign over us? give us the men that we kill them;" still Samuel does not refer to those facts, he says, " I have hearkened to your voice as you have said unto me, and I gave you a king." " And now here is the king, whom you have chosen, whom you have desired, God has given you a king." Besides this difficulty in the records, it is extremely difficult to think, that either God or the aged and experienced statesman, Samuel, appointed a man to the highest office on account of his tall figure ; when it is evident by his career, as recorded in the same book, that he became a tyrant with no particular talents as a warrior or as a statesman. Was there no better man in Israel to fill that office? If we allow, that this piece has all the characteristics of a late production, and was probably written to account for the popular proverb " Is also Saul among the prophets," we will be rather inclined to take the story, which has the appear- ance of probability. The tribe of Benjamin, having advanced to power of late by the fact that it was the center of the nation during the peace- ful and prosperous administration of Samuel, thought of means to secure the general demand for a king in favor of one of its sons, in order to secure to the tribe the benefits which it had tasted during many years. A public feast was ar- ranged, Saul was brought to the prophet in such a manner as to 17 258 PERIOD II. appear a mere incidence. The prophet and Saul went together to the feast; the Benjamites hailed the approach of Saul, they honored him, and he was so much distinguished among all the people, that the prophet observed their intentions. He knew how much importance the people attached to outward appearance and was therefore convinced that the influence of the tribe of Benjamin would succeed in electing their candidate. He was entitled to propose a candidate to the national coun- cil, according to the .resolutions of that body, but he must have naturally anticipated a civil war, to prevent which he resigned his prerogative to propose a candidate, and consented to a popular election, which the inspired writer calls a decision by casting the lot. Saul informed of those plans of his tribe sought the favor of the literati, the prophets; he freely asso- ciated with them, and the proverb " Is also Saul among the prophets," shows, that he was not one of them, but only seeking their favor for the moment. The influence of Benja- min, and the personal appearance of Saul, succeeded in secur- ing to him the election at the meeting of the national council, at Mizpah; but Saul had at once great and powerful opponents, as we shall learn hereafter. Still the piece having been com- posed in the time of the monarchy, the opponents are called Beni Belial, low people. Samuel, caring now more for the maintenance of the law than for the person of the king, to which no particular importance was attached, expounded to the assembly the prerogatives of the king, which he wrote down to be preserved before God, by the priests who were the guard- ians of the written copy of the law. This is the first constitu- tion on record, and it was undoubtedly on a broad and liberal basis, as Samuel was not only a thorough republican, but also a powerful advocate of the laws of Moses, according to which the royal prerogatives were much limited. It was, as we shall see hereafter, a gentle transition from republican institutions to a limited monarchy. So the Israelitish republic ended (1080, b. c), after nearly 400 years of existence, without the slight- est disturbance of the peace, which speaks very favorably, not only for the laws of Moses, but also for the political ac- complishments of the nation. APPENDIX TO PERIOD II. 259 APPENDIX TO PERIOD II I. THE PEOPLE AND THE COUNTRY. The land was divided among all the Israelites in equal lots, as Moses had commanded. The only exception in this respect was, that the land not in their possession was also divided among the tribes, but not among individuals, as there was plenty of it in their possession to give to each a sufficient portion. There can be no doubt that the people inhabiting the land west of Jordan, yielded their pastoral occupation to agriculture, because the land was not large enough to support so numerous a population, if exclusively engaged in pastoral pursuits. The nature of the soil too, was -better calculated for agricultural than pastoral purposes. There were an abundance of tropical fruits and wine, and the soil amply repaid the toil of the hus- bandmen, only the northern district, afterwards called Galilee, was best adapted for grazing purposes, and there we indeed find the pastoral family of Heber dwelling in tents (Judges iv, 11-22), which leads us to believe, that the pastoral mode of living was continued for a considerable time in that part of the country. The passage of Josephus, quoted above,* supports our views on agriculture among the early Israelites. It is natural to think that the people east of the Jordan, and those who occupied the valleys of Arabia Petrese, being rich in live stock, occupying districts which were best calculated for grazing purposes, and having plenty of space to feed their herds, continued their pastoral pursuits for a long time, so that Deborah could still say of Reuben, " Why dost thou sit ♦Page 219. 260 APPENDIX TO among the sheepfolds to hear the bleatings of the flocks." Still we are told, that Amnion, whose invasion chiefly con- cerned the eastern provinces, came up and destroyed the seeds and crops of the land. This plainly informs us, that agricul- ture was favored also in the eastern provinces, although the pastoral employments predominated for many centuries in that part of the country. The domestic animals consisted of sheep, goats, cattle, and the ass. No mention is made of other animals. The sheep and the goat could be well sustained by the rich foliage of the mountainous regions, while cattle could be raised in the grazing districts. The bullock is mentioned as the only assistant in agricultural labor, so that in the time of Solomon the proverb was yet afloat, "Much crops are in the strength of the ox." Wherever the act of ploughing is mentioned, it is always re- presented as done with oxen. The ass was the traveling companion ; neither horse nor camel is mentioned in this pe- riod, but whenever riding is mentioned it is upon an ass. The total absence of camels and horses is no slight evidence that the Israelites did not roam in the wilderness after they had taken possession of their land, as some writers are anxious to make their readers believe, although they occupied some valleys and oases for pastoral purposes. The staple productions of the country during this period as mentioned in our sources, were wheat, olive and wine, the fig, barley, animal and vegetable honey, are also mentioned. There is a general opulence visi- ble in all the records in our possession, which it appears has been the principal cause of the different invasions, those of the Phelistines excepted, always resulting in paying tribute to the victorious enemy. These facts account for the good understand- ing which existed between Israel and Phoenicia. The latter were then the merchants of the civilized world, and the Israel- ites, as we have remarked before, were not inclined to engage in foreign commerce, which the Phoenicians most likely trans- acted for them. Phoenicia could not produce sufficient to support her people, and as it appears from the bargain of Solo- mon with Hiram (I Kings, v, 25), the people of that country PERIOD II. 261 depended on Palestine for the supply of wheat, wine, olives, and, most likely, also of wool, leather, butter and cheese. Be- sides this it was a prudent policy of the Phoenicians which they observed towards the Israelites, as the latter were their bulwarks against the roving incursions of the south-eastern nomadic tribes, who continually molested the Israelites. The same peaceable relations might have existed between the Phe- listines and Israelites, had not an old and invincible hatred separated forever the sons of Israel from the children of Anak> The unceasing hatred of the Phelistines may also have been nourished by the friendly relations between Israel and Phoe- nicia, who excluded the Phelistines almost entirely from trading with the nations of the interior, and prevented them from making new conquests in Asia. A highway through Pa- lestine to the east seems to have been the object for which the Phelistines undertook so many expeditions. We are never told that they demanded tribute of Israel, or that they in- tended to take possession of the whole land, which was then the usual result of a victory. They always proceeded from west to east, in almost a straight line. The commerce with the opulent Palestine, and a highway through that country, seem to have been the objects for which they fought. The Mazab Pelishtim, or Phelistine garrisons, which are mentioned in Samuel, seem to have been there for the purpose of guarding the highway of their commerce, which was granted to them in the peace when returning the ark, and which became after- wards, in the reign of Saul, the cause of war. Such garrisons, we are told, existed in Palestine in the days of Samuel, al- though we are informed that the Phelistines did not disturb the peace 'of the country during the administration of Samuel, which represents everywhere, and especially in the closing scene, a time of profound peace. We therefore are led to believe about those garrisons, what we have often stated, not seeing therein any contradiction of which other writers made mention. It is evident, that notwithstanding the perpetual exertions of the Phelistines, the Israelites continued to trade with the Phoenicians, so that the words Canaanite and mer- 262 APPENDIX TO chant became identical, and the Phoenicians were undoubtedly cognates of the Canaanites, with whom they afterwards largely amalgamated. The Canaanites invading the country in the days of Deborah, most likely were parts of that nation, who led a nomadic life in the valleys between Lebanon and Anti- Lebanon. The friendship existing between their king, Barak, and the pastoral family of Heber. seem to favor this supposition (Judges iv, 17). The Canaanites easily amalgamated with the Israelites, because they, as well as the Phoenicians, were their cognates, and most likely spoke the same language, although the dialect of. the Israelites was certainly strongly modified by their long stay in Egypt. All the objections that could be made to the consanguinity of the Israelites, Phoenicians and Canaanites, their descent from different sons of Noah; the two former descended from Shem, and the latter from Ham. But it is certainly of no important consideration that they were the descendants of different sons of the same father. The dis- tinctions in language, manners, customs, &c, could have arisen only when the tribes had separated from each other, and were not only exposed for a long time to the influences of dif- ferent climates, but also of different occupations, connections with other nations, and other causes. But the Canaanites, Phoenicians and Hebrews were Noachides, who inhabited the same tract of land, exposed to the same influences, and did not differ materially from each other. Abraham himself spoke to Abimelech, the children of Heth to the kings of Salem and Sedom; because then the languages of the Noachidic tribes did not yet differ so materially as that they could not understand each other, while two hundred years later the Egyptians did not understand the Hebrews, because they were long enough separated from the other Noachides. Our divisions into Semi- tic languages, Hamitic languages, &c, are not exact. They apply more to countries, where the descendants of the one or the other of the sons of Noah were more predominant. The names of Canaanitish cities, such as Jericho, Kadash, En Mishpat, Salem, Jerusalem; and of persons, as Ephron, Mal- kisedek, Adoni-Zedek, leave no doubt that the Canaanites spoko PERIOD II. 263 the Hebrew, as the Phoenicians and the Hebrews did; in the dialect only they may have differed. The iron implements of that age for agricultural and other domestic purposes are mentioned (I Samuel xiii, 20, 21), to have consisted of the ploughshare, the coulter, the axe, the mattock, the forks, and the goads. The implements of war were the sword, the spear, the bow and arrow, the sling, and most likely also the shield, the helmet of brass, the coat of mail (I Samuel xvii, 38). No mention is made of cavalry, iron chariots, or implements of siege, which they did not need, because the Israelites, in accordance with the Mosaic policy, did not invade a foreign country during the time of the repub- lic; and the arms mentioned above were sufficient to protect the country against their nomadic neighbors, although they should have had more efficient arms against the Phelistines, who, it appears, excelled the Israelites in this point. The trumpet was the principal musical instrument used in the army; wherefore the phrase, " to blow the trumpet," was significant of assembling the army. Besides this, .the tamborine, the cistrum and other musical instruments are frequently men- tioned. Fortified towns, castles and towers are mentioned also in the interior of the country, as Shechem and Tebez. Single standing houses too are mentioned; but we do not know how the houses were built and furnished. The chair — the only piece of furniture which is mentioned — shows that the Israel- ites did not sit on the floor with crossed legs, as other orientals do. Bread of wheat and barley is the principal food mentioned, besides this, we read of roasted and parched ears of corn, of meat and sauces, of salt and spices used in the food. Still, it appears, that meat was used on festive occasions only. Wine and milk were the chief drinks. The former must, however, have been considered in an unfavorable light, because both Samson and Samuel were nazirs from their birth. The family life continued in a patriarchal manner: the father was the highest authority of the house. Gideon, after having destroyed the idol, stood under the protection of his father, 264 APPENDIX TO of whom his agitated townsmen demanded him, although he was certainly considerably advanced in age, having been appointed already to the highest office. Saul traveled to lind the asses of his father, whose estate he superintended, although he was by no means a young man. Bigamy was not prohibited, but it was rarely practiced, as the genealogical tables show. The position of wonian was eminent. The greatest reward that could be promised for the undertaking of a dangerous adventure was, to give one's daughter for a wife to the victor. The daughters of Israel celebrated feasts in the vineyards near Shiloh, with music and dances. They were, therefore, not locked into harems, as among other oriental nations. They had the same political rights as men had, which becomes evident by the office held by Deborah. They held in religious affairs the same position with man. The angel appeared to the mother of Samson; Hannah prayed at Shiloh in presence of the high priest; and Elkanah never came to Shiloh without his wives. The general attention with which the returning Naomi and the lovely Ruth were treated at Bethlehem, is significant of the great respect with which women were treated. Her honor and chastity were protected, as sacred and inviolable, so much so that the behavior of some young men of Gibeah, in Benjamin, towards the concubine of the Levite was considered a causus belli. The rights and the state of a concubine are not defined in our sources. An illustration in this respect is noticed in the family of Jacob. They were handmaids, probably daughters of foreigners living in Palestine, who were sold by their parents, and afterwards liberated from bondage by their masters. Their children, as was the case with the sons of Jacob by the concu- bines, had equal rights with those of the legitimate wives. We have represented to the reader a picture of that age, which is altogether contrary to that which other historians have given, who endeavor to represent the age of the Israelitish republic as a time of ignorance, of outrage, violence and wrong. But this is positively untrue ; a people depending on agricultural pursuits, which is effected by efficient implements, and to such an extent, that it becomes the source of wealth to the com- PERIOD II. 265 munity; a people living in houses, and in fortified towns, in legitimate families, and subsisting on the best products of a fertile land; a people being four hundred years governed by the same laws without the occurrence of more than two revolutions of any considerable importance, and finally effecting a change of government without the loss of one life; a people never invading a foreign country, and still protecting its own ter- ritory against so many enemies ; a people among whom the position of woman was higher than in modern society, is a great and noble people; and there is certainly no trace of out- rage, violence and ignorance to justify those historians, who debase the whole age on account of single occurrences, ^which are completely eclipsed by numerous marks of civilization and prosperity. We may safely assert, that this period of Israelitish history has been misunderstood by almost all our predecessors. We shall show that this was the case as we proceed. II. THE GOVERNMENT AND THE LAWS. The prophet Isaiah, by birth a prince of the royal line of David, when blessing his people in inspired terms, knows of no better blessing than this, "And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning." The time of the Judges, as the period of the republic was afterwards called (Ruth i, 1), must have been a happy and prosperous time for Israel. The manly opposition to a change of govern- ment which the aged and experienced Samuel offered, is con- clusive evidence to this effect. It is a pity that it was not appreciated by the contemporaries of Samuel, and that it has been altogether misunderstood by modern historians. Before we attempt an exposition of the government, we must indulge in some remarks on the chronology of that period. There are but two statements in the sacred records in regard to chronology. Jephthah, in his message to the king of Ammon states, that Israel occupied the cities claimed by that king for about three hundred years (Judges xi, 26). The second one occurs I Kings (vi, 1), that Solomon commenced the building of the temple four hundred and eighty years after the exode, 266 APPENDIX TO This was in the second month of the fourth year of the reign of Solomon (ibid, and verse 37), consequently we reckon it as three years. The reign of David occupied forty years (I Kings, ii, 11) ; and if we add to this the forty years Israelties passed in the wilderness, and subtract the whole from four hundred and eighty, three hundred and ninety-seven years are left for the period of the republic and the reign of Saul. We have taken for this period 365 years, which leaves for the reign of Saul thirty-two years. Josephus informs us, that Saul reigned forty years;* but the number forty occurs so often as the term of a judge or of a king, that we are nowhere sure of its accuracy. The statement of Josephus assures us, at any rate, that we have not assigned too long a time to Saul, and consequently not too short a time to the judges. The chronology of the Chinese Jews,| who reckon 443 years for the period of the judges; and the statement of Josephus of 592 years. J which he himself contradicted,! are not sufficiently important to invalidate the dates of the Hebrew Bible quoted above. We therefore reckon but 365 years for this period, for which we have the authority of some ancient commentators, and partly also of Professor De Wette.|| We could not see any reason why the episode of Samson should be set in the time of Eli; as the passages in Judges (x, 7; xiii, 5) are conclusive to the contrary, and as the whole tenor of the story of Samson is of such a nature, that we are entitled to believe, that Samson made an end to the supremacy of the Phelistines in Canaan. The passage m ypinb Srr Kim SmBf " And he will commence to save Israel from the hands of the Phelistines," must be understood as Kimchi did, as a cen- sure on former judges who had done nothing towards saving the * Antiqu. VI, xiv, 19-, vide A. G. xiii, 21. f Tacit. Opp. ed. Brotier hi. 567 sqq. de Judseis sinensibus; vide A, G< xiii, 20. t Antiqu. VIII, iii, ], $ Antiqu. XX, x, 1 ; contra Apion ii, 2. H Archaeology. Leipzig 1842, $ 23-27. PEiuoD n. 267 Israelites from the Phelistines. If Samson nourished before Eli, and the invasion of the Phelistines commenced either shortly before, or simultaneously with the Amnion invasion, which lasted eighteen years, and if Samson made an end to that supremacy as Jeplithah did, on the other side, to Ammon, then Jeplithah must have flourished shortly before Samson, in the time of Abdon ben Hillell. In our sources the beginning of those invasions is noticed in the right place, after the death of Jair (Judges x, (5-10). But then the author narrated the story of Jeplithah (xi-xii, 7), because occuring previously to the administration of Samson with which Jephthah's own words agree (xi, 26). Having, finished this, our author mentioned the names of the three judges of that period (xii, 8-15). Next he had to narrate the occurrences of Samson's administration, to which he prefixed the adventures of that hero, which attracted the attention of the nation to his valor. We see no other way to account for the passage in Judges x, 6-10. Abimelech, the son of Gideon, could not be reckoned among the judges, as the whole story characterizes it as a revolution against the will of the people (Judges ix, 55), and against the will of Gideon (viii, 22, 23). The people of Shechem and some hired champions were the only supporters of Abimelech; his au* thority was limited to that one city and its vicinity. We can not imagine, that the people had no judge on account of the revolt of one city. We therefore suppose the beginning of chapter x properly belongs after viii, 35. Our author concludes the story of Gideon with the statement, "neither shewed they kindness to the house of Jerubaal, [Gideon] according to all the goodness which he had shewed unto Israel," and then, before continuing the history after Gideon, narrates in chapter ix, the story of Abimelech, concerning his summary state- ment in regard to the house of Gideon. He also remarks (x, 1), that Thola saved Israel, without, however, stating from what danger or enemy he saved Israel. But according to our arrangement of the affairs, our author referred to the act of Thoia in saving Israel from the hands of Abimelech. The terms, bxrw fix yunrh i^dok nnK.Dp,l can be rendered, " There 268 APPENDIX TO arose against Abimelech to save Israel," without forcing the original in the least* We therefore take for granted, that the period of the repub- lic occupied 365 years; that there was no interval between the death of a judge and the beginning of his successor's administration, and that the successor must have been appoint* ed during the lifetime of the officiating judge. The records of wars and subjection of the nation at diiferent times, must, of course, be reckoned in the administration of the one or the other judge as we have done. The policy of the age will become apparent by taking another view of the judges, Joshua was of the tribe of Ephraim; Othniel of the tribe of Jehudah, his successor Ehud was of the tribe of Benjamin; the tribe of Shamgar is not mentioned; Barak was of the tribe of Naphthali, Gilead was of the tribe of Menassah; Thola was was of Issachar; J air was of the tribe of Gad; so was Jephthah, probably, or of the tribe of Reuben; Ibzon was of Jehudah, Elon was of the tribe of Zebulon, Abdon was of Ephraim; Samson was of the tribe of Dan; Eli and Samuel of the tribe of Levi. This shows that it was either an accident or a maxim that the highest office was transferred from one tribe to the other. If we suppose that Shamgar was of the tribe of Simeon (his early campaigns against the Phelistines lead to this supposition) and that Jephthah was a Reubenite, we see the highest office pass through all tribes except Asher, of whom most likely, Deborah descended, so that but Ephraim and Jehudah, and at last Levi, had two judges. It must then be admitted that it was not a mere accident, but a settled policy, to maintain the equality of the tribes, without granting a supremacy to one or the other. And at last, when a king was elected, the same policy was observed. The first two judges were of the tribes of Ephraim and Jehudah, but these tribes had each two judges, it was now the turn of the tribe of Ben- jamin, from which came the third judge, to have again one of its sons elevated to the highest dignity. This consideration most likely, greatly influenced the electors in favor of Saul. The appointment of Samuel after Eli was not on the old prin- PERIOD II. 269 ciple; but here the personal qualities and services of the prophet seem to have exercised an influence against the es- tablished policy. It is evident that there was an established policy in this respect, which they did not change. They elected no chief of the house of Levi until one of each tribe had occupied that eminent position, because the first judge, Moses, was a Levite. This policy was undoubtedly established by Moses, who ap- pointed his successor from another tribe. The established custom also was, that the successor was appointed during the life of the chief magistrate, as the patriarchs and Moses had done, and as we afterwards see David do; it admits, therefore, of but little doubt, that this custom was maintained during the time of the republic. The senate had a negative vote in this respect, if the one appointed was not considered fit to fill the office ; and tradition informs us that this power was vested in the senate, even during the reign of the Davidian monarchs, with the limitation, that one of the heirs of the king was to succeed. Hypercritical historians have expressed doubts as to the existence of a national council during the time of the republic ; but we do not see why the statements of Josephus, of the national traditions, which speak of a senate during the whole of that time, and of the biblical books, in which the meetings of the elders of Israel are mentioned frequently, should be dis- credited, when the opposite side has adduced no proof to the contrary. The judges were dictators in time of war, and republican chiefs in time of peace. Their prerogatives, on one side, were limited by the law, over the letter of which the priests watched; and on the other side, by the national coun- cil. It is not necessary to go deeper into the subject. They were the governors of the nation according to the laws of Moses, and we know that law already. But our hypercritical historians also doubt the existence of the law in that time. We will, therefore, endeavor to satisfy our readers on the subject. There must have been a law, as an agricultural nation, living in houses and fortified cities, 270 APPENDIX TO existing in a prosperous condition for the term of three hun- dred and sixty-five years, bravely defending the country and successfully maintaining its independence, must have had a government and a law. There was no anarchy, although the royal author of the last and appended chapters of Judges is eager to make us believe that the time of the republic was a time of anarchy. Many years of peace intervened between the times of war without any disturbance of the public peace (the Abimelech revolt and the Benjamin revolt excepted), con- sequently there must have been a law and a government. The author of the story of the concubine at Gibeah (Judges xix xx, xxi), concludedjiis narrative with the words, "At those days there was no king in Israel, every man did what was right in his sight. But this would contradict his own account, which says, that the Benjamites were most rigidly punished for the crime committed by some of their sons, and for their disobedience to the general government, if there were not plenty of reasons for believing that this verse is an addition of some later copyist: who took a mistaken glossary remark for a part of the text. Verse twenty-four is a perfect conclusion of the narrative, and the absence of the royal power is remarked at the outset of the piece, in the same words as in chapter xviii. The only books from which we learn the history , of that period, Joshua, Judges, and the first chapters of Samuel, contain unquestionable evidences that the authors of those books were well acquainted with the Pentateuch. In not a few instances they copy literally from it. This fact has been admitted on all sides in regard to the book of Joshua, which represents itself in all its particulars as a continuation of the Pentateuch. It is so, as regards historical facts and religious precepts; so much so indeed that we might character- ize the book as a narrative of the practical applications of the Mosaic policy and polity. But the main objections of the authors we are naming are to the Book of Judges. We will, therefore, examine some of its passages, in order to maintain our position. In the first two chapters, which are the intro- duction to the book, constant reference is made to the Penta- PERIOD II. 271 tench, i, 16. We are told that the descendants of the father- in-law of Moses settled among the people; and in verse twenty it is remarked that Hebron was given to Caleb, as Moses had said (Numb, xiv, 24). The address of the angel (ii, 1-3), is, as every reader must admit, an extract of passages of the Pentateuch. The conclusion of it is almost literally copied from Exodus xxiii, 21. Verse 10 is evidently an imitation of Exodus i, 8. If we then turn to the address of the prophet (vi, 8-10), we have another instance of extracts from passages from the Pentateuch. The first passage is an imitation of the first verse of the Decalogue. In the conversation between the angel and Gideon, following next, the narrative in Exodus iii, is perfectly visible ; for we find the angel encouraging Gideon with the same words with which God encouraged Moses o "jo;? rrnK " For I will be with thee.-' Moses was encouraged by signs, and so is Gideon. Even the rod is not forgotten. Verse 23 is an imitation of Genesis xxxii, 31; and verse 39 contains precisely the same terms which Abraham addressed to God (Genesis xvii, 18), on a similar occasion. The sameness of terms can not be accidental. The message of Jephthah to the king of Ammon (Judges xi, 15-27) is conclusive: it is an extract from the Pentateuch, worded to suit the occasion. But let us proceed and consider one more passage to this effect. The story of Samson's mother, is entirely composed of passa- ges from the Pentateuch. She is told (xiii, 7), in the same manner and in the same words as Hagar, that she would give birth to a son. Hagar is in the wilderness, the mother of Samson in the field, when the angel brings them the tidings, 4< Behold thou art with child and thou wilt bear a son." This passage is expressly formed on the one in Genesis, so that even the irregulate yoladt rrrr is in both of them, while in the parallel passage of Isaiah (vii, 14), it is changed into yola- deth mS\ Next comes the Mosaic law of the nazir, literally as in Numbers vi, 1-9. Verse 18 is an exact copy of Genesis xxxii, 30; and verses 22 and 23 are imitations of Genesis xxxii, 31. As regards the two appendices to the Book of Judges, comprising the last five chapters, it is not necessary to 272 APPENDIX TO remark that the existence of the Pentateuch is strongly visible in them: xvii, 11, is a literal copy of Exodus ii, 21. The last part of verse 5 chapter xix is a paraphrase of Genesis xviii, 5. Verses 6 and 7 are a paraphrase of Genesis xix, 2, 3, as the whole part of the story when the Levite comes to Gebeah is composed in the same style as the story of the two angels coming to Sedom. This similarity becomes still more glaring in verses 22-24. where the host of the Levite speaks almost the same words as Lot spoke to the Sedomites when surrounding his house. The author no doubt purposely made use of the popular style of Genesis in the story of Sedom, to which the outrage of the young men of Gibeah had so much similarity, in order to prejudice the reader against the Benja- mites. If we next examine the Book of Ruth which was undoubtedly written in a very early period; as the artless simplicity and purity of the style, the naive representation of an act, which in another age would have impaired the character of a woman, while it is taken of Ruth as a noble virtue (iii, 8-11), and the brief and expressive words in the conversation between Naomi and her two daughters-in-law, sufficiently testify. We find in it not only reference to the stories contained in Genesis (iv, 11, 12), but also the Mosaic law in regard to the poor, the widow and the stranger, Ruth gleaning ears on the field of Boaz (ii, 2, 7, 8); the sitting of the court of justice in the gates of the city (iv, 1-4); the redemption of real estate by a relative of the original owner (verse 4); and the law in regard to the brother's widow, which is here extended to the relative, who redeemed the property, are precisely the same as ordained by Moses. It is also easy to find the Mosaic law in the other books, especially in Joshua, as every reader must admit. In Judges, the high priest, the ephod, the ark, the house of the Lord at Shiloh, the aversion against idolatry, the act of asking the Lord by the agency of the high priest, the feasts of the Lord at Shiloh, and many other facts, which are generally mentioned uninten- tionally, amount to a demonstration of the existence of the Mosaic law. If we extend this investigation to the first ten PERIOD II, 273 chapters of Samuel, we obtain precisely the same result. Elkanah, faithful to the laws of Moses, comes to Shiloh from time to time ; most likely three times annually, accompanied by his family, to sacrifice before the Lord of Hosts. Hannah promises solemnly in prayer, that her son, if God grant her one, should be a nazir as prescribed by the laws of Moses. The acts of Hophni and Phineas are recorded as illegal and are censured as such by their father and by a prophet ; but those acts, as regards sacrifices, are only illegal if the Mosaic code was the law of the nation. The ark of the covenant is brought into the camp. The people assemble before the Lord, consequently they must have been conscious of the mission of the nation as taught them by Moses. The prayer of Hannah is an improved paraphrase of the song of Moses,* Verse 28 is an extract of Deutr. xxxiii, 10. Verse 33 contains part of Leviticus xxvi, 16. Chapter iv, 20 and 21 is a paraphrase of Genesis xxxv, 17, 18. Summing up the evidences collected in the previous pages, we arrive at the following propositions: 1. The Israelitish nation can not have existed as it did with- out a code of laws. 2. The Mosaic laws and institutions are visible through the whole of the records which give us the history of that age. 5. The sentences of the Pentateuch are copied frequently and paraphrased by the authors of those books. It is there- fore evident that the Pentateuch was the written code of laws of that age. The only question is as to the integrity of the books mentioned. But this, we believe, is admitted, on all hands, as those parts which could be compared with the state- ments of other authors were found to be admirably correct. Our opponents can only say in favor of their views, that actions are recorded in those books that are altogether contrary to the laws of Moses, and that these actions could not have oc- curred had the authority of the law been known. In refutation of this feeble argument it may suffice to remark, that while the relation of the illegal actions committed prove the truth and candor of the historian, the commission of those * Compare I Samuel ii, 1-10 with Deutr. xxxii. 18 274 APPENDIX TO actions does not establish the non-existence of the law. None will doubt the existence of the codes of Theodosius and Justi- nius during the middle ages, although they were violated continually, and by the highest class of society, whose duty it would have been to protect and to enforce those laws, [n truth, all law is at times violated. And so we may conclude that though the acts of Abimelech, of Jephthah, and of Sam- son were grossly criminal, yet it affords not the slightest proof that the Mosaic code was not in existence, or that it was not the law of the land. Knowing that the laws of Moses were the national code at that period, it becomes unnecessary to make any further remarks respecting them. We shall, however, notice the legal customs which we meet with in this period. In Joshua xxii, 12, we are informed, that the national council, being also the supreme tribunal of justice, took cognizance of the erection of a monument on the Jordan by the two tribes and a half beyond that river. This was supposed to be high treason. A cotirt of inquiry, consisting of ten senators from ten different tribes and the son of the high priest — his proxy — were appointed to investigate the subject. They proceeded to the other side of Jordan, and finding the accusation to be unfounded brought the report to the national council, which suspended the cause. In Judges xx, we are informed of another cause, brought before the same body against the tribe of Benjamin, the same pro- cedure took place. But the tribe of Benjamin, the accused and convicted party, not yielding to the judgment of the na- tional council, they were severely punished. In Judges xxi, we read of another case of a similar nature, which ended with the punishment of the inhabitants of Jabash Gilead. These cases show us, that the Mosaic law in regard to the supreme tribunal of justice was then understood in the following manner : 1. The supreme court had original and final jurisdiction over the tribes in cases of high treason, and in cases of the violation of fundamental laws by individuals, if the tribe in whose ter- ritory it occurred had not properly recognized it. PERIOD II. 275 2. That body had the same jurisdiction over cities and dis- tricts, which neglected to send their representatives to the national council; which was held to be open rebellion against the union of Israel. 3. The accused parties were not summoned to appear before the national council until a court of inquiry appointed by that body had investigated the subject in the territory of the tribe, or in the city of the individual standing accused of such crimi- nal actions, and until that court had reported to the national council. Excepted of this previous inquisition were the dis- tricts which neglected to send their representatives to the national council, they were deemed guilty by the non-compliance with the fundamental laws. 4. If the court of inquiry found the accused parties guilty, it became the duty of the respective tribe to deliver up the transgressors to the national council, to receive the sentence of the law. In case of neglect the national council was entitled to declare such tribe or tribes in a state of siege, and take active measures to enforce obedience.* As regards the convocation of the national council, it ap- pears to have /been the practice, that besides meeting three times a year, the chief magistrate had the privilege to call a meeting.! Such extra meeting could be held at anyplace before the Lord, that is, within the limits of the land of Palestine, while the regular sessions were at the place of the national sanctuary. As regards military service, it was the chief magis- trate's duty to call out the warriors of one or more tribes, or a certain proportion of them, if the national council decreed it. We find but a few remarks on new customs in the civil law. In Ruth iv, 7, we learn the form of a verbal contract. He who sold a property, or resigned a right, signified his intention before a court and witnesses by putting off his sandal from his foot. But this custom is mentioned in one case in the Mosaic law {Deutr. xxv, 9). There we learn that a widow, who had no children, could be claimed by the next relative, if the other * Deutr. xiii, 13-19; xvii, 12. 13. t Joshua xxiii, 2; xxiv, 1; I Samuel x. 17. 276 APPENDIX TO heirs of the husband were either dead or unwilling to do so, such a marriage, if consented to by both parties, had the pecu- liarity, that the first male issue of that matrimony was considered by law the legal heir of all the rights and claims of the deceased husband, as in the Mosaic law, in case of taking a brother's wife (vide page 145). II. RELIGION AND IDOLATRY. What has been said above in regard to the laws of Moses decides definitely that the religion of Moses was the religion of the state, while all sorts of deviations from that religion were stigmatized as rebellion towards the Sovereign Ruler of the nation. The Israelitish people came from Egypt, the mother country of idolatry and superstition. To it Greece and Rome were indebted for their gods and their peculiar theology. Moses opposed the Egyptian superstitions with all the means at his command, and, marvellous enough, succeeded in dethroning the gods of Egypt among the Israelites. No trace is found in this history, that Isis or Osiris, Kneph or Neitha, or any other Egyptian god was worshiped in Israel. But it was easier to dethrone the heathen gods than to uproot the causes which led to worship them. In this, neither Moses nor Joshua, nor any one of the judges after him, Samuel excepted, could succeed. The chiefs of the republic offered resistance to the practice of idolatry, and they succeeded in suppressing it in public ; but they were unable to extend the severity of the law into the recesses of private families, and to uproot the causes which produced that propensity among all nations of antiquity. It is necessary for us to investigate those causes, the phe- nomena of which had become so general among the ancient nations. It has been stated before (p. 134), that cosmogony was the basis of all ancient religions, to which end the causes of natural phenomena were sought and supposed to be the Deity itself. The natural man has before him nothing but concrete ideas and tangible objects. The ideas of the existence of a supreme being, of the duty of man to worship that being, PKRIOD-II. 277 of the immortality of the human mind, of the preference due to justice before injustice, are innate with man; he is in pos- session of those ideas without being conscious of them, and lie becomes aware of them without any instruction from without. Therefore we tind them prevalent in all ages and in all heathen creeds. They form the sum and substance of primitive re- ligion, and may properly be termed the original knowledge of the mind. These ideas must have been concrete with the earlier nations, and therefore, they made them tangible; they surrounded them with a form in order to be able to compre- hend their own ideas. The doctrine of immortality could be understood only in the form of resurrection of the body or transmigration of the soul. God himself was embodied; this body was represented by different signs, names, and hiero- glyphics, as the one or the other imagined the Deity, although no image was made of the Supreme Being. Ceremonies were invented to please the Most High, and persons appointed to minister at his temples, altars, groves, or heights, or whatever places being devoted to that purpose. This not only had a certain charm for the childish imagination of juvenile nations, but it also gave, at the same time, satisfaction to the religious yearning of the heart. Still it held the intellect within narrow limits, and secured to imagination the dominion over the intel- lectual powers. They could not imagine the Supreme Being without a host of ministering spirits. Nothing could appear more worthy of being the ministers of the Deity, and nothing could exercise a deeper influence upon the lofty imagination of the ancients, than the bright luminaries which adorn the ethereal blue of heaven. Those ministers of the Deity, which were believed to be pure intellects, were worshiped, in order to procure their favor and their intercession with the Supreme Being, as also to enjoy their favor in the different departments of their government of the universe. Temples and altars were reared to them; representations of them were held up to public adoration; priests were appointed to their service, and feasts were celebrated in their honor. The primitive idea was grad- 278 APPENDIX TO ually forgotten, and they became celestial gods, interior to, and in some respects independent of the Supreme Being. After man had observed the beneficent influences of some of the forces of nature upon the prosperity of man, and, on the other side, the destructive influence of other forces, he was led to believe the existence of terrestrial gods, both good and evil ones. But as the influence of the celestial bodies upon this sub- lunar world was soon observed, the terrestrial gods were thought inferior to the celestial deities ; but they also were personified and represented by different images, and to them temples and altars were reared, priests appointed, a mode of worship in- vented, and feasts instituted. The forces of nature were soon divided into two principal classes, viz: the generative and the prolific, the two principles of which were supposed to be vested in sun and moon. There- fore the gods, the Supreme Being excepted, were represented in couples, male and female, Baal and Astarte, Isis and Osiris, Kneph and Neitha, Jupiter and Juno, Brahma and Brahmina, &c. This idea led gradually to another one. If the gods were the generative and prolific powers, they must be the prototypes of all animate beings. Man must be the image of one god, while the lion, the ox, the bear, and every other animal must be the images of other gods. But as there is not seldom a sameness of qualities in man and many other animate beings, there must be certain gods, who are the prototypes of different kinds of beings. There was no difficulty, then, in representing deities; every animal or vegetable, or even their representa- tions, every man or his image, was also a representation of a deity. The superior gods could be represented only by a com- pound of members of the bodies of different beings. The onion and other vegetables, the ox, the lion, the dog, the sheep, and every other animal, were sacred to that god, whose representation they were. This was Feticism, the worship of animals and vegetables, common among the Egyptians. It was not the animal or vegetable itself whir.h they worshipped, but their prototypes ; their deities were the universe in abstracio, and the universe was to them the gods in concrete. It was a PERIOD II. 279 dualistic pantheism. Every well-organized man, animal or vegetable, could become a subject of divine adoration, because it represented perfectly its prototype, a god. Zabiism is derived from the Hebrew, X2i* host. The admirers of that system were called so, not on account of wor- shipping a host of gods, but on account of worshiping the hosts of heaven, to which that Hebrew term related almost exclusively. The theory of Zabiism was the same with Feti- cism; they only went one step beyond the theory of Feticism. Being accustomed to look upon the celestial bodies as divine beings, the figures of different animals were descried in the groups of stars, according to which the}' were called. The influence of those bodies upon the sublunar world was known; therefore the prototypes of all animate beings, the gods, were descried in the stars, and the operative forces of nature were considered as inferior and ministering divinities, who are in- carnated in the material beings or disembodied by order of the celestial gods. The Greeks went one step beyond the original Feticism and Zabiism combined. But it is not necessary to our plan to comment on it. If the gods were the prototypes of material beings, nature in abstracto, they must be possessed of all the qualities and passions of those beings. Therefore each quality of the mind and each human passion had its tutelar deity, which was wor- shiped by the exercise of such a quality or by indulging in such a passion. There was a god of wisdom and of folly, of purity and impurity of sentiments. While one god was ho- nored by ascetie practices, the other one found pleasure in lubric and luxuriant enjoyments; and while the one divinity indulged in peace, the other one presided over war. The origination of idolatry, or the corruption of primitive religion must be ascribed chiefly to two causes. 1, To the inability of the natural man to form abstract ideas, and 2. To the propensity of man to indulge in his passions. The universe was deified to the pagan. He found a god 280 APPENDIX TO everywhere. This theology was too pleasing to the lofty im- agination of the ancients ; it gave too much satisfaction to the religious wants of man, not to impress itself deeply upon the mind of the nations of antiquity, who were juvenile, poetical and gay. It was the product of imagination, and suited to the imagination. It also was too pleasing to the sensual nature of man, to have not only an excuse for indulging freely in his passions, but also to obtain a divine sanction to it, that it should not have captivated the millions of thoughtless and sensual beings. However dissimilar were the pagan creeds of different countries, in these points they harmonized. The religion of the Mosaic dispensation was an entirely new system. It opposed the operations of imagination and the dominion of sensuality, because both were inseparably con- nected. Its principle is "Be ye holy for the Lord your God is holy." On every side there were mementos against sin, exhortations to holiness, threatenings of judgment to the rebellious, and promises of salvation only on the condition of holiness. Pure morals and an absolute dominion over brutal passions were demanded of the worshipers of Jehovah; while the heathen gods promised to supply their worshipers with "wild grapes," which Israel, like the other nations, loved (Hosea iii, 1). Joshua therefore told them " Ye can not serve the Lord, for he is a holy God, he is a jealous God, he will not bear (not sanction) your trangressions and your sins." The Israelites intermarried with the aborigines of Canaan; they traded with the Phoenicians, came in contact with Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites ; they were attracted by the pleasing satisfaction which paganism offered to the sensual nature, and they worshiped the gods of their wives and of their neighbors, as Moses, well aware of human propensities, had predicted (Deutr. xxxi, 16). The religion of the Mosaic dispensation taught, that God is a perfect and pure spirit, who alone created, governs and preserves the universe. No image can be made of him. Neither the luminaries of heaven nor the forces of nature represent him who can not be represented. All nature is but the work of his will, affording us the facts PERIOD II. 281 wherewith to learn his government, but not his essence nor his nature. This sublime idea is in itself too abstract, too far beyond the horizon of the concrete and natural man. A large portion of the Israelites could not comprehend it. The taber- nacle of the congregation was insufficient to satisfy the lofty imagination of the multitude, who lived distant from it. The gods of the heathens were visible everywhere; the yearning heart found satisfaction; the altars on the heights could be used to the service of any god; and it was natural that they should worship the gods of the heathens without denying the superiority of Jehovah, the Supreme Being, for whom the heathens had but different names. We read (Judges xvii, 3) of the strange practice of Micha's mother, who made an idol and its utensils of the silver which she had devoted to Jehovah. This peculiar inconsistency appears especially clear in the words of Samuel (1 Sam. vii). He exhorted the people to worship Jehovah alone. " And the children of Israel put away the Baals, and the Astaroth, and worshiped Jehovah alone." Whenever a misfortune overtook the nation, they returned to God, which in itself proves that Jehovah was worshiped as the Supreme God. But the gods of the heathens also were thought fit objects of adoration, so that the prophet could say, "And I have told you, I am the Lord your God, you shall not fear the god of the Emorites in whose land you dwell; but you heard not my voice" (Judges, vi, 10). Another cause of idolatry, mentioned before, was undoubt- edly the reverence attached to certain persons, whose images were kept in the houses and temples, and to monuments, which commemorated great events and great men. Time transformed the true story into fables, and the image or monument became the more important, the more luxuriantly it was supplied with myths. Popular superstitions finally brought it in a direct connection with the one or the other god whose name it main- tained. Frequent mention is made of such monuments in sacred history; there were the stones which Joshua erected in the 282 APPENDIX TO Jordan, of which the writer of the book says that they were still there in his time {Joshua iv, 9) ; those which he erected at Gilgal; the heap of stones on the body of Achar, also existing in the time of the author of Joshua (vii, 26), which was the case with the heap of stones on the body of the king of Ai (viii. 29); the altar on mouut Ebal; the large stones at the mouth of the cave of Makcdah (x, 27); the monument erected by the eastern tribes (xxii, 10); the stone set up by Joshua under the oak at Shechem, and the monument of Gideon (Judges viii, 27). It must be remembered, that rude stones were the lirst idols of almost all nations of antiquity, undoubtedly for the same reason as mentioned before, as the stones were their sacred scriptures, eternizing events. The sacred historian expressly mentions, that the monument of Gideon was worshiped (ibid). That the term teraphim signifies a bust, or a complete image of one of the family, is sufficiently proved by the following passage in J Samuel, xix, 13, "And Michal took the teraphim and laid them in the bed, and put a pillow of goat's hair for their bolster, and covered them with the cloth." The word teraphim is with the definite n, which points to well known teraphim. The whole contrivance was to delude the messen- gers of Saul coming to arrest David, by making them believe David was lying sick in the bed. It must therefore have been a bust or an image of David. That these family busts or images were worshiped is evident from many passages of the Bible, especially Judges xvi, 5. The pesel, so often mentioned in connection with idolatry, was supposed to signify an effigy. But We have a positive definition of the nature of that effigy in the words tisnti Sds "imi- tation of the ephod" (Judges xviii, 18). The ephod was an im- portant part of the high priest's clothes, because it is mentioned first in Moses's description of the garments of the priest (Exod. xxviii, 6). It was deemed indispensably necessary to those who executed the clerical functions (I Sam. ii, 18), and the priest was frequently called 113K KBn:, " One who wears an ephod." Undoubtedly a vast deal of marvelous power was attributed to it by the superstitious multitude, and thus it was deemed PERIOD II. 28)4 necessary also in the idolatrous temples. Gideon made one of gold, in which, no doubt, the twelve names of the tribes of Israel were engraved, as upon the Mosaic ephod, to represent the union of the nation. But the idea originally connected with it finally turned it to a sacred relic, and at last it became an object of adoration. It can not be denied, that pesel signi- fies any kind of eiiigy; but from the above it seems that it sig- nified then but the imitation of the ephod. Masechah signifies a molten image; but we do not know of what original. Were we permitted to judge of it ,as of the teraphim, we might say that it represented the great men of the nation. In the house of Micah it probably represented Moses or some other father of the nation. Another cause of idolatry among Israel seems to have been this. The nations who intended to cultivate friendly relations with Israel, or those who designed to make war upon them, propagated their religious doctrines among the Israelites, which assisted them in obtaining a friendly party in that nation. Patriotism and the worship of one's god was then thought identical. To desert the national gods was high treason in Greece and in Rome, and to worship the national divinities was a demonstration of attachment to those countries. Jehovah was not worshiped as the Most High only, but also as the na- tional Deity. Hence, for an Israelite to worship foreign gods was to sympathize with foreign nations at the expense of his own country. The Israelites did not for a long time worship the Dagon of the Phelistines, because they never sympathised with that nation. But no sooner did they begin to pay homage to the gods of Phelistia and Ammon, than those nations made war upon them (Judges x, 6, 7). It appears that Israelites worshiping the gods of a certain country refused to do military service against the armies of such a country. Therefore, Gideon first of all destroyed the altar of Baal, and, before attacking the enemy, rejected all such warriors as could not clear themselves of the suspicion of being Baa] worshipers.* * Compare Numbers xxv, 1-6 to xxxi. I 284 APPENDIX TO This also accounts for the prudent language of Jephthah in his address to the king of Amnion (Judges xi, 2:5. 24), maintaining that what Jehovah had given to Israel belonged to them, and what Kemosh had given to Amnion belonged to them. He had in his army Israelitish Kemosh worshipers, who would have admitted the claims of Ammon if substantiated by the will of Kemosh. Jephthah, therefore, maintained that Kemosh had not given to Ammon the part of land which was claimed. The history of idolatry among the Israelites at this period may be said to be this. Families living distant from Shiloh, erected for themselves a sort of family halls, similar to the ancestral halls of the Chinese, in which were imitations of the ephod, family images, or busts, and the molten images or effigies of illustrious men. By their amalgamation with the aborigines, and their intercourse with neighboring nations, they learned the doctrines and rites of Zabiism, which some adopted in addition to the Supreme God of the lanci, on account of the sensual enjoyment connected with those rites, and others adopted them on account of the satisfaction they afforded to the lofty imagination of the unenlightened. Becoming thus accustomed to idolatry, they also worshiped the images and busts of the departed, and the monuments of former ages. That the knowledge of Jehovah and the Mosaic law spread among other nations, in the same ratio as Zabiism spread among the Israelites, is a fact which we shall attempt to prove in another place. It is next for us to show, that Zabiism was not as general among the Israelites at this period as is generally supposed. The government, as we have seen before, was always opposed to a deviation from the laws of Moses, as is seen plainly ex- pressed in the address of Joshua (xxiv, 23); in the brief notice of the government ' of Othniel, son of Kenaz (Judges iii, 9), and of the inspired Deborah (iv, 3); in the first act of Gideon, destroying the altar of Baal (vi, 27), and especially in the address of Samuel (I Samuel vii, 3-5). If the party addicted to Zabiism had been as numerous as some historians believe, they would certainly have at least endeavored to change the PERIOD II. 285 government in their favor. Only once wo are informed, that the Baal worshipers succeeded in effecting a revolution. They assisted Abimelech (Judges ix, 4) to slay his brothers, and to proclaim himself king ; but their power was soon crushed forever. A second evidence to this effect is the fact that all the public meetings noticed during this period were before Jehovah, and that all the public speakers are called either prophets, who speak in the name of God, or angels, messengers of the Lord. And we mid also the rough Jephthah, when receiving his mis- sion from the hands of the people, declaring himself before Jehovah at Mizpah (Judges xi, 11). The customs of the nation as we find them, are another strong evidence to this effect. The common salutation of that age was, "Jehovah be with thee," or with you. To this the answer was, "Jehovah bless thee,-* The daughters of Israel celebrated, from time to time, most likely three times a year, a feast of the Lord at Shiloh (Judges xxi, 19). The people came to Shiloh to sacrifice to the Lord (I Samuel i, 3; ii, 12, 22). And, finally, it must be observed, that the only poetical compositions which we possess of that age, the song of Deborah (Judges v), and the prayer of Hannah (I Samuel ii), are written in a purely religious spirit. If we were not in possession of all the facts as quoted, we would still be obliged to maintain that Zabiism was not common among the Israelites at the period in question; for it is certainly unphilosophical to suppose so sudden a transition in history, as the spirit of the age of David would form to the period of the Judges, if then true religion had been altogether or chiefly neglected. The truth is, that Zabiism was the family religion, and its rites, most likely, were performed in secret by many Israelitish families; that the people of Shechem once openly revolted and set up a king and the Baal of Berytha, which was soon after crushed; that the government opposed those prac- tices but not with sufficient vigor; that the Levites were no less exposed to the corruptions of the age than other people ; and that the religion of Moses continued to be not only the religion of the state, but also of the vast majority of the people. * Judges vi, 12 •, Ruth ii, 4. 286 APPENDIX TO The fact, that all the national misfortunes were ascribed to the foreign worship is in itself an evidence of the high regard then entertained for the religion of Moses, which is no less evident in the act of bringing the ark of the covenant into the camp in order to obtain the victory (I Samuel vi, 3). The progress of the Mosaic institutions during this period was considerable. At first they were a mere theory, but now they were identified with the existence and the happiness of the nation, and the people had become conscious of this fact. The idolatrous party was a corrupted opposition, the like of which we meet in the history of every nation ancient and modern. III. LITERATURE. It is obvious, that the art of writing was known and practiced in this period of our history, from the following passages : Joshua wrote the Deuteronomy upon the stones of the altar, and then he read to the people portions of the law (Joshua, viii, 32-34). He proposed to the national council to appoint three men of each tribe to travel and describe the country. The proposition was agreed to, and the men appointed to this duty traveled and described the cities in a book (Joshua xviii). It would appear that they had some knowledge of geometry. Joshua also wrote his last speech, and the covenant renewed with Israel, into the book of the law of the Lord (xxiv, 25). Deborah spoke of students of the law in the family of Machir, and of dexterous scribes of the tribe of Zebulon (Judges v, 14), Samuel wrote the royal constitution in a book which was laid up before the Lord (I Samuel x, 25). However late these books may have been written, it is unreasonable to suppose that the authors would have ventured to mention the art of writing in connection with an age, if they had not been sure that this art was practiced at the stated period. The written monuments and documents especially, which the authors of Joshua and Judges mention, are a conclusive evidence to this effect, as it is most likely, as we shall see hereafter, that those were partly the basis of the works in our possession. There are three passages in the book of Joshua which de- PERIOD II. 287 serve particular notice. The first occurs chap. xv. 13, where the author mentions the singular fact, that the sun and moon stood still at the request of Joshua; in proof of his narrative, lie quotes a passage from the book Jashar, where it was writ- ten. "And the sun stood in the midst of the heaven, and he hastened not to set as on every other day." This informs us that the author made use of a written source, which we do not possess. The book Jashar must have consisted of a collection of songs, as the term jashar (I will sing) implies; and as the passages quoted from it both here and II Samuel, xvii, 27, plainly indicate, all of which arc written in the poetic style and metre. Popular songs were made among all nations of antiquity to celebrate important events in the history of the nation; among the Israelites also such songs were made and written in a book. This last term, however, deserves a par- ticular consideration. 12D, a book, can signify only a collection of narratives, as the term is derived from sirpper, to count, to narrate; the ancients did not use terms in their secondary meaning; the book Jashar must have been a collection of his- torical poems, such as Psalms lxxviii, cv, cvi, and others; the two songs of Moses, the passage quoted from the book Milha- moth (Numbers xxi, 14-20) and the like. It was customary among all nations of antiquity, that authors deposited their books in temples, trusting them to the custody of priests (Strabo, lib. xiv, p. 734, ed. Xyland). Sanchoniathan, when writing his history of Phoenicia, found the materials for it in the secret recesses of the temples (Euset. Praeb. Evang. I, 9). In like manner the kings of Sparta preserved the prophecies of the state (Arist. vol. iii, 9; Herodot. vi, 57). In Athens also the sacred writings were kept in the Akropolis, in order that they might be secure against any falsifications (Herodot. v, 90). When Heraclitus had finished his philosophical work on nature, he deposited it in the temple of Artemis at Ephesus (Diog. Laert. ix, 18). The Romans also preserved their sacred books in the same way; and the writings of Zoroaster were kept in a vault in Persepolis. Moses also entrusted his work to the custody of the priests, to be kept in the sacred Pavilion on the 288 APPExXDIX TO side of the ark (Deutr. xxxi, 9, 26, 27); so Samuel did with the royal constitution, which he wrote (I Samuel x, 25); and precisely so did Joshua. "And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of the Lord " (xxiv, 26). This is the second passage of peculiar importance to our investigation ; the speeches of Joshua were appended to the law of Moses, and the book Jashar was kept with the law of Moses, in the custody of the priests, as well as all other books of that nature, and the two different classes of documents were the basis of the present book of Joshua. A third passage important to our purpose occurs Joshua xviii, 1—10, where it is narrated that Joshua had assembled the national council at Shiloh, where the tabernacle stood, from which men were sent to describe the land according to its cities, who brought such a description, according to which the land was divided. There can be no doubt that this geographical or topographical document, together with a description of the land as divided among the tribes, was deposited in Shiloh, as the division was done at the tabernacle (xix, 51); as it was customary to deposit important writings at the national sanc- tuary, as we have seen before, Moses already having observed this custom with the manna (Genesis xvi, 33), and with the rod of Aaron (Numbers xvii, 25-26); and as this - document was of a vital importance to prevent trouble about boundaries, which in fact never occurred. Thus we are aware of all the original documents from which our author composed Joshua, and also of the placer~'where they were kept. We believe that these facts contribute materially to the his- torical importance and reliability of the book, as the materials were not exposed to interpolations, and the book could be compared with the original documents, which undoubtedly re- mained in the safe keeping of the priests. Still, on the other side, we are cautioned to exercise our own judgment in regard to marvellous events, as our knowledge of them is derived from poetical compositions, and the poet has the privilege to give a tint of his own to events, which inspire him to sing. A comparison of the 144th Psalm on the dividing of the Red PERIOD II. 289 sea, with the prosaic text in Exodus (xiv, 15-31) will serve as no mean evidence to this effect. We suppose that the book of Joshua must have been written previously to the book of Judges, as the latter book contains extracts and passages of the former. There may be objected to this that the book Jashar is mentioned again in Samuel, as containing a song of David on the death of Saul and Jonathan; but we believe that we are enabled to prove, that this is not an important objection; that the collection of historical epopees was continued in after ages, although extracts had been made from them previously. In order to reach our object, we must review the last chapter of Deuteronomy. There can be no doubt, that the said chap- ter was not written by Moses or Joshua; because, 1. It says there, " God showed to Moses the whole of Gilead up to Dan," which can mean only the city of Dan in the extreme north of Palestine; but this city was first called Laish, it re- ceived the name Dan in a later period (Judges xviii, 29), and remained unknown for some time to the rest of the Israelites (30); the author of Joshua, however, is aware of that city (Joshua xix, 47). 2. It says in the same chapter, "And no man knew his grave up to this day;" which is in itself a proof that this passage, not being written in the style of a prophecy, was written long after the death of Moses. 3. A great praise is bestowed there (verse 9) upon Joshua, which only inter- rupts the connection of the sentences, so if it be omitted the connection of verses 8 and 10 is much more proper, but which in justice to the unpretending old warrior can not be ascribed to his own pen ; it would be too much of a contrast to the actions of Moses: " And the man Moses was more meek than all other men;" " And Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone." 4. It says there, " And there arose not yet a prophet in Israel like Moses." If this was written immediately after the death of Moses or shortly after it, it was, indeed, not much of a praise, as there was no prophet in Israel before Moses, and the writer does not state " the children of Israel." But all these difficulties are overcome, if we say, the author of 19 290 APPENDIX TO Joshua found appended to the books of Moses the speeches of Joshua {Joshua xxiv, 26) which he thought improper; he therefore commenced his work with the last chapter of Deu- teronomy, narrating the death of Moses and the mourning of Israel on his behest. He then continues, in the way of excuse for separating the speeches of Joshua from the books of Moses, bestowing a proper praise on Joshua, which he concludes with the words, " And they did (in obeying Joshua) as the Lord had commanded Moses;" Joshua's wisdom also, he says, was but a consequence of Moses having laid his hand upon him ; conse- quently Moses was altogether superior to Joshua, which he re- marks in the next verse. When comparing Joshua to Moses, he says: " And there arose not yet a prophet like Moses," and therefore he thought it proper to separate those speeches from the Pentateuch, and to insert them in the right place in his work. The first chapter of Joshua is so naturally a continua- tion of the last chapter of Deuteronomy, in style and contents, that it can not be doubted that our theory is correct. The words nirr ID;*, servant of the Lord, set to the name of Moses in Deuteronomy (xxxiv, 5), occur no less than five times in the first chapter of Joshua. The words TWO m^ra minister of Moses are added to the name of Joshua, when first occurring; these words are contrasted with the words " servant of the Lord," the appellative of Moses, to give again the same sense as verse 9 in the last chapter of Deuterono- my. The author of Joshua could do so in his book and in the copy of the law wiiich was in his possession; but the copy which was laid up in the tabernacle remained the same as before. When Samuel wrote down the royal constitution, he followed the plan of Joshua and appended to it the books of Moses, as the hai included in the beth of Bassefer (I Samuel x, 25) plainly shows, according to the custom of that age, to call the Pentateuch the book par excellence. Had the author of Joshua found any other appendix besides the speeches of Joshua he would have made mention of it, especially as it would have served to magnify Moses's dignity and greatness as a prophet, if compared with others besides Joshua; it is therefore certain, PERIOD II. 291 that Joshua was written before the age of Samuel. The book Jashar which we find in Samuel must have been a continuation of the more ancient one. which most likely also contained the songs of Moses. The ancient rabbins ascribed the book of Joshua to the pen of Phineas. the son of Eleazer, the high priest. In favor of this hypothesis may be said: 1st, The style of the whole book is so much Moses-like that it may be ascribed to a direct pupil of Moses, which Phineas actually was. 2d, Whenever men- tioning Phineas (xxii, 13, 31, 32), he is described as the son of Eleazer, the priest, so that he had yet no name of any im- port; nor is he mentioned at the end of the book as the successor of his father, which suggests that he himself was the writer of it. The writer must have known more about Phineas, who was distinguished even in the latter days of Moses. It seems that the writer knew nothing of the idolatry of coming ages (xxiv, 31). The objections against this hypo- thesis are but slight, and if one considers that those who settled the canon may have added certain glossaries to a better uuderstanding of the text, which were afterwards confounded with the text, the objections fall totally to the ground. Still, there is no positive evidence in favor of Phineas being the author of the work. Next it must be remarked, that according to its style it be- longs to the first period of Hebrew literature, which reaches down to the age of David. It is extremely difficult to assert that a writer of another age forced himself into an antiquated style ; or that a later writer should have been able to write so fluently and clearly, in an age when that style had become antiquated. There is no trace in Joshua either of the graceful beauty of the second period of Hebrew literature, or of the sublimity and power of the prophetic style, or of the artifi- cial, powerless and adulterated style of the last period of biblical literature. It betrays every where the simplicity and precision of the Mosaic style, which is an integral evidence that this book, together with the books of Judges and Ruth, were written before the psalms had revolutionized the Hebrew 292 APPENDIX TO style. Still, it is impossible to say who wrote it, or how long before the Davidian age it was written. This much is sure, that it was written before Judges, because the last words of Joshua are quoted in Judges (ii, 6-9). An extract is made in Judges ii, 1-5 from the speech of Joshua (xxiii), and of the story of Caleb when taking Hebron.* If we establish the age of Judges, we shall then come nearer to that of Joshua. There can be no doubt that the last five chapters of Judges are not as ancient as the rest of the book. These chapters were written in the time of David, as we shall see immediately. Consequently Judges must have been written previous to that age. This brings the time of Joshua to at least the age of Eli's administration. There are the following reasons for believing that the last five chapters of Judges were written in the time of David: 1. It is the intention of the author to decry the republican form of government. This he evinces by stating four times, "In those days there was no king in Israel," to which he twice adds, " Every man did what he deemed right in his sight," which is an apparent endeavor to characterize the time of the republic as the time of anarchy and confusion, although he contradicts himself by the power and strictness which the national council displayed in the case of Benjamin and Jabesh in Gilead. 2. The second design of the author is to throw blame on the sons of Benjamin and the inhabitants of Jabesh in Gilead; he endeavors to depict the act of the young men of Gibeah with the horrible colors of the abhorred sons of Sedom ; he accuses all the people of the city, while Josephus justly remarks, it was the act of but a few young men. He has not a word to say why the people of Jabesh did not send their representatives, and why the people of Benjamin refused to deliver up the malefactors. He evidently represents the story in the most detestable light, and thus discloses his intention. * Judges i, 10-15, Joshua xiv, xv, 13-19. PERIOD II. 293 3. He bestows a compliment on Ephraim, representing the old man who gave shelter to the Levite to be an Ephraimite, from which province the Levite comes; and the woman together with her hospitable and highly praised lather, whose hospitality is skillfully compared to that of Abraham and Lot, are of Bethlehem in Jehuda, on whom also he bestows his com- pliments. He makes no mention of the judge then governing, because both events must have occurred in the time of Othniel, son of Kenaz, who was of the tribe of Jehudah, and he avoided giving offence to that tribe.* 4. These causes concurred in the time of David. The tribe of Benjamin and Jabesh in Gilead were the friends of Saul, and they never were satisfied with the administration of David, as we shall notice in the next period ; they produced more than one, Shimi son of Gera and Sheba son of Bichri; the rigid measures of David against the descendants of Saul, and the excavation of the bodies of Saul and his sons after the Absa- lom revolution speak for themselves, The Absalom revolution, and the next following one under Sheba were republican ones ; Absalom only desired to be judge of Israel (I Samuel xv, 4), which appears the more likely since he had no son to inherit the royal dignity (xviii, 18); and the dissatisfied people under the lead of Sheba did not choose another king; they only deserted the house of David (xx). Ephraim and Jehudah were the two most powerful and loyal tribes. This concurrence of circumstances proves clearly that the last five chapters of Judges were written in the days of David, to please the king and to defend his cause. This intention is also visible throughout the book of Ruth, although less directly betraying the design of the writer. The author of the main part of the book of Judges betrays a quite different intention. His aim is to convince his readers: 1. That all the national misfortunes under which Israel suffered have but one and the same cause, the abandonment of the religion of the nation, and the warship yf foreign gods. * Vide Rashi, Judges xvii, 1 294 APPENDIX TO 2. That the salvation from misery was effected by judges, who were faithful to God, and who succeeded in reforming the people. He dwells with a special delight on Deborah, on account of her brilliant genius; on Gideon, on account of his truly repub- lican spirit; on Jephthah and Samson, on account of their boldness and bravery. He only denounces the corruptions of the people. He never censures the judges, or any other branch of the government. He shows, that the first king Abimelech was supported out of the funds of Baal by a rebellious city, which soon felt the consequences of its wickedness in enabling a man to usurp a high station over the people and to kill his brothers. The writer of judges, it is evident, is a true-hearted republican and worshiper of Jehovah. He is an enemy of foreign worship, and entertains the hope of healing his people from the madness of paganism by showing them, that this always was the source of misery, while the returning to God was continually the source of salvation. None of these noble intentions is manifested by either the author of the appended five chapters of Judges, or by the author of Ruth. The latter authors write long stories containing all the particulars of single events. The former is a synoptician; the latter are royalists, and give us no insight into their religious views, while the former is a republican, and openly states his religious views. Therefore it is obvious that the first sixteen chapters of Judges were written by another than the author of the last five and the book of Ruth. It appears, that this book which is so highly republican, was so largely circulated among the people, that it was found necessary to add to it the last five chapters as a counterbalance to the former. There are the following reasons to believe the author of the first sixteen chapters of Judges flourished before the age of David: 1. Had the author possessed the least knowledge of the existence of a monarchical government in Israel, he would have opposed it directly or indirectly. 2. He must have added to his book the history of Eli and of PERIOD II. 295 Samuel, especially of the latter, who was a man after the heart of that author. The history of Samuel would have been the crown of the whole work. 3. The work belongs, according to its style, to the first period of Hebrew literature. The result of this investigation is, 1. The book of Ruth and the five last chapters of Judges were written in the time of David. 2. The first sixteen chapters of Judges must have been written in the time of Eli. If they were written after the death of that judge his history would be in the book, as he was such a man as the author desired to see. 3. The book of Joshua was written previously to the ad- ministration of Eli, or probably by Eli himself. The ancient Israelites had a tradition that Samuel was the author of the book of Judges; and we believe it is very easy to recognize him as the author of the first sixteen chapters of Judges. He was a devout republican and worshiper of Jeho- vah; he was no friend of the priests, on account of the sons of Eli, and of the story of Abimelech. It must not be forgotten, that Shechem was a city of the Levites {Joshua xxi, 21); and he made no mention of the Levites and priests, not even of the change of the high priesthood from the family of Eleazer to that of Ithamar. Samuel was the strongest opponent of pagan- ism; and it is most likely that he wrote the book for the very purpose of effecting the reforms which he really did effect. It appears to us, that the book of Judges was of the same import- ance to Samuel as that of Genesis was to Moses; and as the Mosaic mission and legislation can be explained only by the existence of the book of Genesis, so the mission and the re- forms of Samuel can be accounted for only by the existence of this book among the people at large. If we want to avoid violent transitions in history, which are unlikely and unphilo- sophical, we are obliged to admit that Samuel wrote and promulgated those sixteen chapters to prepare his age for the reforms which he effected. It was a book for the people, and therefore it was a mere synopsis. Still he leaves us no means 296 APPENDIX TO PERIOD II. of deciding whether it was composed out of original documents, of traditions, or was only abridged from a larger volume. There can be no doubt that records were kept in Shiloh of the history of the different judges, and these seem to have been the sources from which Samuel copied, and to which he, the favorite of Eli, had ample access. PERIOD III. FROM THE APPOINTMENT OF SAUL TO THE ROYAL DIGNITY TO THE DIVISION OF THE KINGDOM (2680—2792, a. m.) (1080—968, b. c). biblical chronology. Administration of Saul, 32 years (vide appendix to Period II). Administration of David in Hebron over Jehudah, 7 years (I Kings ii, 11). And over all Israel, 33 l< (I Kings ii, 11). Administration of Solomon, 40 years (I do xi, 42). Total number, 82 CHAPTER VII. FROM THE ACCESSION OF SAUL TO THE THRONE OF ISRAEL TO THE DEATH OF HIS SON AND SUCCESSOR (1080—1041, b. c). Saul had been appointed to the royal dignity by a free vote of the national council, and with the consent of the aged and much esteemed prophet, who reluctantly submitted to the cur- rent of popular feeling, which he could not control. The anti-republican author of I Samuel tells us, " But the children of Belial (low people) said, What shall this man help us ? And they despised him and brought him no presents. But he held his peace." Still we shall find ample opportunity in the course of this period, to observe that the republican spirit as imparted by the Mosaic institutions, and inhaled during four centuries. 298 PERIOD III. was deeply rooted in the Israelitish people; which suggests to us the supposition, that the appointment of a king was a con- spiracy of the aristocracy against the popular will, most likely assisted by the manouvres of the Benjamite politicians. Saul, being aware of the state of the popular feeling, had not the courage to take the reins of government in his hands ; he returned to his fathers estate at Gibeah, and continued to attend to his agricultural affairs for one year (I Samuel xiii, 1), until an opportunity offered to make himself popular by personal bravery and strategic dexterity ^ But even then he had not the courage to summon the warriors to active service, however important the case was, but he convoked the army in his and Samuel's name (xi, 7). This plainly proves that Sam- uel still was at the head of the government, as president of the national council, and Saul was only charged with the exe- cutive duties, which were almost limited to warlike operations. The opportunity offered to Saul was this : Nahash, king of Ammon, whose warlike intention had been anticipated by the government, surprised the city of Jabesh in Gilead. Finding the city in a state of defence, he threatened to take it by assault before an army could be brought from the other side of the Jordan. The people offered to surrender the city on con- dition of being protected against violence. But the king of Ammon made this outrageous condition, to " thrust out all their right eyes, and lay it for a reproach upon all Israel." Nahash undoubtedly intended to spread terror over the invaded country, in order to more easily achieve a victory, and take vengeance for the defeat of his progenitor by Jephthah. The elders of Jabesh offered no resistance ; they only demanded a truce of seven days, which was granted them. Meanwhile, they dispatched messengers to inform Saul of the invasion. The news made a melancholy impression upon the inhabitants of Gibeah, who had assembled to sympathize with the people of Jabesh. Saul coming "after the herd out of the field" was informed of the affair, and he eagerly embraced the oppor- tunity to signalize his name. He summoned the warriors of Israel in a peculiar manner: " And he took a yoke of oxen, CHAPTER VII. 299 and hewed them in pieces, and sent them throughout all the coasts of Israel, by the hands of messengers, saying, Whoso- ever cometh not forth after Saul and after Samuel, so shall it be done unto his oxen. And the fear of the Lord fell on the people, and they came out with one consent." Speedy action was necessary, and this was energetic language. The people speedily assembled at Bazek. Saul mustered there, as our records say, three hundred thousand men, and thirty thousand of Jehudah, who always forming the advanced guard were therefore counted separately. " They passed over Jordan, and by marching all that night, went thirty furlongs, and came to Jabesh before sunrise. •. Saul dividing the army into three com- panies, fell suddenly and unexpectedly upon the enemy on every side, and joining battle with them, slew a great number of the Ammonites, as also their king Nahash (Josephus)." Saul appears to have gone too far in his zeal; he summoned an army to rout an enemy that might have been overcome by the sixth part of it; thus needlessly alarming the whole country. Besides this, it appears that Saul had not shown in that battle much military skill, which he could not do, as it required but very little tact where the odds were greatly in his favor. Finally it must be remarked, that the principal cause by which the people were persuaded to favor a change of government — the warlike intentions of the king of Amnion — had been removed in a single battle. The people, therefore, gave bold utterance to their sentiments, saying to Samuel, "Who are the men that said Saul shall reign over us? give us the men, that we may put them to death." Samuel did not improve the opportunity to depose Saul and make an end of the paradoxical institution, because Saul was elected by the legally constituted govern- ment, and Samuel had no authority to act at his own accord. He appeased the multitude, and persuaded them to contirm the dignity of Saul on the classic spot of the first Israelitish camp, in Canaan, at Gilgal. The people willingly followed him to that place, where he again stated in his address to the people, that there was no cause for the appointment of a king but the idle fear of the king of Amnion; that he had been disinte- 300 PERIOD III. restedly devoted to the interests of the nation; and that not- withstanding all this, a king was demanded, a demand which he vainly opposed. But it was now his and their duty to support the king, appointed by the legal government of the nation, and it was the law to which every one owed uncon- ditional obedience, for the law was the expressed will of God, and they after all might be happy and prosperous if they and their king obeyed the law of the Lord; but that misery and adversity, unknown before, would overtake them if the law was set at defiance. He promised them that he would never fail to teach them the good and just way. At the beginning of his speech, he asked the people, in the style of Moses (Numbers xvi, 15), to tell him if he had ever betrayed sentiments of avarice or injustice, or if he had ever wronged one of them, and the assembly testified to the uprightness and disinterested- ness of his administration. The royal dignity of Saul was confirmed by the people at Gilgal, and Saul assumed the reins of government. He took the first step toward absolutism by forming a standing army of three thousand men, two thousand of which he commanded in person, and stationed them at Michmash and on the hill of Beth El; and one thousand of them were stationed at Gibeah, under the command of his son, Jonathan. This measure was completed in the second year of his reign (I Samuel xiii, 1); consequently, Saul was not as young when appointed to the regal office as is generally supposed. Jonathan attacked and defeated, apparently without orders, a Phelistine garrison at Geba, which, as we have stated before, was there to protect the highway of the Phelistines through Palestine, which was most likely granted to them in the last treaty of peace. Whe- ther this breach of the peace was indeed an accidental mis- demeanor of Jonathan, or whether it was a secret measure of Saul, to give to the Phelistines a pretext for war, can not be well ascertained. Saul summoned his army to Gilgal, and the Phelistines came up to Michmash. According to our source of information, the Phelistines numbered thirty thousand horse, six thousand chariots, and a numerous army of footmen. The CHAPTER VII. 301 national council seems to have had under consideration the step taken by Saul, which was considered a violation of existing treaties with the Phelistines. Saul, of course, had no right to begin active hostilities, before he had heard from the national council whether the treaties should be renewed or war be waged. He waited but seven days at Gilgal, until his army was assembled and organized, when he ordered the priest to bring the usual sacrifices, preparing the army to meet the enemy. This was a violation of his rights, an usurpation of power which threatened the nation with a despotic government. Samuel arrived at Gilgal before the army marched, and he saw in this second act of Saul, a confirmation that the attack of Jonathan upon the Phelistines of Geba, was a secret policy of Saul. Samuel, therefore, severely admonished Saul; he charged him with having violated the constitutional compact (I Samuel xiii, 13); he predicted to Saul the loss of his dignity if he thus continued to act contrary to his duty (verse 14). Saul attempted to excuse himself by expressing the fear that the people would have left him had he delayed any longer, and the excuse at least was a proof that he only thought of deceiving the national council, and not of invading the consti- tutional compact; but the prophet left him dissatisfied and returned to Gibeah of Benjamin, where also Saul had fixed his headquarters. The course taken in this matter by Samuel is another proof that he was still at the head of the national council; and his stay with the army proves, that the national council, deceived by the cunning policy of Saul, approved of the war. The Phelistines marched in three divisions upon Palestine; one division marched towards Ophra in the north of Benjamin, the second division marched on Bethhoron in the north of Dan, the third division marched into the south of Dan and Benjamin, towards the Valley of Zeboim; between these divisions marched the principal army, which formed the center of these operations, and which succeeded in coming as far as Michmash, opposite Geba in Benjamin, where Jonathan stood with his advanced guard of one thousand veteran soldiers, as has been 302 • • PERIOD III. remarked before, which was now probably strongly reinforced. The operations of the Phelistines were in a straight line from west to east, which again confirms our view on the subject that they intended but to have a free passage through Palestine to the interior of Asia. The reason why they succeeded in coming as far as Michmash, although defeated on former occasions upon reaching Mizpah, seems to have been, that the people in that part of the country were without arms, depending on Phelistine merchants for the supply of iron, and probably also for the supply of workmen. The outposts of the Phelistines were located at a rock opposite Geba, separated from the latter place by a narrow valley. The Phelistines thought themselves secured on this side against any attack, because the rock was too steep to make an attack probable. Jonathan made proper use of the means afforded, and surprised the outposts of the Phelistines, who thought it impossible for the Israelites to take that height. Twenty men of the outpost were killed; the rest fled. But at the same time, the main body of the Phelistine army was alarmed, and rushed to the attack. Jonathan stood his ground against the overwhelming numbers, probably making use of the intrenchments which the Phelistines had made to protect their outposts. Meanwhile, Saul, being quartered at Gibeah, had been informed of the bold and successful attack of Jonathan, and of the perilous state in which he now was. He marched his army upon the enemy, and being assisted by the Hebrews who were forced to serve in the Phelistine army, the enemy was routed and pursued by a victorious army as far as to Ajalon, where the people, being weary, rested during the night. The 'same night Saul was told not to pursue the Phe- listines into the interior of their own country, as was his intention, which he had already disclosed to his officers. The cause was obvious, the war was a violation of existing treaties, and an overstepping of the royal prerogative as limited by the law. Saul, who desired to make the nation believe that he was innocent, that the Phelistines commenced the hostilities in con- sequence of the attack of Jonathan upon the garrison at Geba, CHAPTER VII. 305 which was done contrary to his orders, held a court martial, tried and condemned Jonathan to death, on account of his violation of orders; but the warriors assembled around the heroic youth, and swore that not a hair of his head should fall to the ground, "And the people redeemed Jonathan, and he died not." This seems to have satisfied the defenders of the law, and confidence in the government of Saul was restored (I Samuel xiv, 47). The Phelistines repeatedly sought to effect their purpose, but in vain; they, as they formerly did, made predatory incursions into the land, but they did not meet with much success. Still, the enmity of the Phelistines never abated during the reign of Saul; and he was under the neces- sity of having a standing army on the Phelistine frontiers, in order to protect the inhabitants against their frequent incur- sions. There was the field, where afterwards David first signalized his name. Some time after the war just noticed (there is no chronology extant), Samuel came to Saul, bringing him orders — undoubt- edly agreed to by the national council — to invade the land of Amalek, the cognates of the Anakims, who always were among the enemies of Israel, and undoubtedly also were the allies of the Phelistines. They frequently invaded the south- western part of the land, plundering and devastating the country, and burning the villages wherever they could (I Sam. xxxi, 2, 14). It was, therefore, determined to drive them farther into the desert, and deprive them of the means to dis- turb the frontiers, or to support the enemies of Israel. Samuel plainly stated to Saul, that it was the will of God — revealed through the national council — that the nation of Israel do not follow the example of their neighbors, to invade countries for the purpose of taking spoils. The end and aim of the con- templated invasion being to chastise an old and irreconcilable enemy, who never ceased to molest the inhabitants of the frontiers, wherefore no spoil should be brought home. Whoever refused to seek refuge in the interior of the desert, should be killed by the advancing army. Saul summoned the army to 394 PERIOD III. Telem in Jehudah.* Two hundred thousand men and ten thousand of Jehudah, the advanced guard, assembled at the stated place. Saul marched on the city of Amalek, and after he had summoned the descendants of Jeth.ro to leave Amalek, which they did, the attack was commenced, and the Amalekites were defeated on all points, as far as to the wilderness of Shur, on the frontiers of Egypt. Agag, the king of Amalek, fell into the hands of Saul, and a large spoil of cattle was made; but, excepting Agag, all of the Amalekites who did not flee were slain. Saul returned crowned with victory.and haughty on account of his success against three of the most troublesome enemies of his country. He not only had disobeyed the express will of the national council, but he publicly demonstrated his haughtiness by setting himself a monument on Mount Carmel in Jehudah (I Samuel xv, 12), after which he marched to Gilgal. In that place he was met by Samuel, the faithful guardian of the law, which was the only security for the prosperity and liberties of the nation. Samuel suspected the conduct of Saul in the affair of the Phelistines, and the treatment of Jonathan could not satisfy the old and experienced statesman. He perceived now with alarm the disobedience and haughtiness of the king, which made him tremble for the liberties of the nation. He perceived that the course of Saul must inevitably lead to the overthrow of the law, and the establishment of a despotic monarchy, and he endeavored with that boldness and power of speech peculiar to the prophets of Israel, to arrest his designs. Samuel was confirmed in his suspicion, when he saw Agag as the captive of Saul. What other design could Saul have in the act of sparing just that one man, than to satisfy his pride in having, according to the custom of that age, a king among his servants; or probably to use him to secure the cooperation of the Ama- lekites if their service should be needed by the king to subjugate Israel to his will? Samuel in a private conversation — undoubt- edly noted down in his private journal — unmasked Saul, who stood before him as a criminal before his judge. Samuel * Compare I Samuel xv, 4, with Joshua xv, 24. CHAPTER VII. 305 admonished him not to imagine that he would succeed in establishing a despotic government, that the attempts made already had estranged from him the hearts of the leaders of the nation, and that a new attempt of this kind would cost him his office, and probably his life. Saul confessed his guilt, promised to abide by the law, and entreated Samuel not to betray him to the people. Samuel obeyed. Agag was executed, and Samuel went in company with Saul to the public worship, thanking God for the victory; but Samuel returned to his own house in Ramah, and retired from public business. Saul, according to a statement in I Samuel, xxviii, that he had endeavored to expel from the land all persons practicing arts of imposture prohibited by the law of Moses, must have faithfully administered the laws, which is especially evident from his having the high priest with him in the camp, whose voice he religiously obeyed, and from the fact that no idolatry existed in his reign. The attachment to him and to his house, which was manifested after his death, as we shall see hereafter, is no mean evidence in favor of his administration. The ad- monishing voice of Samuel seems to have had a good effect upon Saul, and he might have been the happy monarch of a happy people, if it had not been decreed otherwise by Provi- dence. The fame of the youthful and heroic bard of Israel, David, made him jealous, ill-humored, despotic, cruel, and finally also superstitious, and threw him into the yawning abyss of despair, where he ended in suicide. The internal connection of the occurrences by which this state of mind was produced, is so natural and truthful, that notwithstanding the apparent contradictions in the records, it is easy to find the connecting thread of affairs. Jesse of Bethlehem, a descendant of one of the aristocratic families of Jehudah had eight sons, three of whom served in the standing army of Saul on the Phelistine frontiers. The eighth and youngest, David, tended the flocks of his father, and followed the inclination of his mind to music and poetry. He was a beautiful lad, "good looking and with bright eyes," was so blessed with bodily strength, that he could boast of 20 306 PERIOD III. having killed a lion and a bear. He had no practice in hand- ling arms, but he understood the better how to manage skillfully the slings. He sometimes came to see his brothers in the army, to bring them provisions, in places where they happened to be stationed. During the many incursions of the Phelistines, one band of theirs signalized themselves by the valor and personal strength and courage of their leader Goliath, who was descended by his mother from the race of Anakims. As that particular band was very troublesome to the inhabit- ants of the frontiers, Saul concluded upon preventing their incursions, and he concentrated a considerable force on the frontier near Socoh in Jehudah, where the Phelistines led by Goliath were found encamped on a hill. Goliath, who saw himself outnumbered, to avoid a general battle, proposed that a single combat should decide which party should leave the field to the other. It would have been regarded dishonorable and cowardly to reject such a proposal; still no one had the courage to fight a man of such a gigantic appearance, armed as he was with a helmet of brass, a coat of mail, and greaves of brass upon his legs. The Phelistine, perceiving that none dare meet him in single combat, became insolent, and insulted not only the Israelitish nation, but also their God. David happened to come to the camp with provisions for his brothers and a present for the commander of the division; he heard the inso- lent language of the Phelistine ; his noble mind revolted against such an insult; he, notwithstanding the earnest remonstrance of his brothers and the advice of the king and his officers, stepped forward to fight the man so decidely his superior in bodily strength, in military skill and experience, and in military weapons. Goliath cursed when he saw the unarmed and beardless youth ; but David threatened to throw his flesh before the birds of prey, and the ferocious beasts. He fully kept his promise; for he was master in the art of slinging stones, and before the boasting Phelistine could gain time to strike at David, a sharp stone was lodged in his forehead, which instantly threw him senseless to the ground. David improved the mo- ment; he took his opponent's sword, separated the head from CHAPTER VII. 307 the prostrate body, and bearing both head and sword he re- turned triumphantly to the camp, where lie was greeted by a shouting multitude. The Phelistines fled, and were pursued to the very gates of Gath and Ekron, covering the roads with their dead bodies. David was introduced to the king by Abner, the chief general of Saul. Saul asked the heroic youth whose son he was: " And David said, I am the son of thy servant Jesse the Bethlohemian." A thorough examination of I Samuel xvi and xvii, reveals to the reader singular facts which are embarrassing to the histo- rian. While we are told in the sixteenth chapter, that the prophet Samuel anointed the juvenile David to be king of Israel, which was done in the presence of his father, and as it appears also in presence of his seven brothers, we are told in the seventeenth chapter, that Eliab, the brother of David, gave a thorough scolding to the lad because he left his flocks in the desert and came down to see the war. In the eighteenth t a chapter (verse 18) David himself, when he was offered the hand of the royal princess, said, " Who am I, and what is the life of my father's family in Israel, that I should become son- in-law to the king?" The fact of David having been anointed by Samuel is mentioned no more, neither in history nor in his Psalms; when he comes to Hebron, to become king of Jehudah, he is anointed by the men of Jehudah (II Samuel, ii, 4); and when appointed king of all Israel he is again anointed by all Israel (ibid v. 3), without any reference to the act of Samuel. David himself calls Saul " The Messiah of the Lord," and Saul was anointed by Samuel only; if David was anointed by Samuel, then Saul was no longer the Messiah of the Lord. Next we are told, in the sixteenth chapter (verse 18), that one of Saul's servants said concerning David: " Behold I have seen a son of Jesse of Bethlehem who is a musician, a noble hero, a warlike man, an intelligent judge, a man of figure, and God is with him," still in the seventeenth chapter We are told, that Saul said to David "Thou canst not go to that Phelistine to fight him, for thou art a lad, and he is a man of war from his youth." The implements of war are new to 308 PERIOD III. David and he can not wear them ; wherefore he throws them away (verse 39), and proceeds towards Goliath with a few stones, without any arms. [n the sixteenth chapter we are told that Saul sent for David, who came to Saul, played before him, and, with the especial permission of Jesse, David remained with Saul, who so loved him that he made him his arm-bearer. But in chapter seven- teen we are informed, that Saul on seeing David proceed to- wards Goliath, asked Abner, " Whose son is that lad?" On which Abner answered: " As thou livest, 0 king, I do not know him." David is again interrogated, and answers the king, "lam the son of thy servant Jesse of Bethlehem;" after which he was taken to the royal court, and Saul suffered him not to return any more to the house of his father" (II. Sam- uel xviii, 2). The attempts to reconcile those two chapters have hitherto proved a perfect failure. As far as our critical judgment reaches, we believe that there is a mistake, which can easily be corrected, if a proper privilege is granted to bibli- cal criticism. The campaign of the Phelistines is a fact which can not be denied; for to invent a whole campaign in as early an age as the book of Samuel must have been written in, is a matter of impossibility, especially with the author of Samuel, who betrays every where an exactness and love of truth which admits of no such accusation; he, the patron of David, records all the gross sins of David as fully as his virtues. That David actually smote the Phelistine whose name was Goliath is men- tioned in two other passages (I. Samuel xxii, 10); consequently this part of the narrative can be no interpolation as some critics supposed. That David played before Saul is no less warranted by other passages, nay it is even stated that he played before Saul every day (ibid xviii, 11). In the same place it is also stated that Saul commissioned him with the command over a thousand, which could not have been done • ..... if he had not some military distinction previous to that time. The two principal facts can not be denied on any rational ground, and we believe that the fault lies in the arrangement, a transposition of the matter on the old principle DipiD pa CHAPTER VII. 309 mira iroHD* that the narratives are not arranged in a chronolo- gical order in the Bible, will set the whole in order. Let ns set after the xv chapter, the xvii chapter, as it is, without any alteration, the campaign of the P he lis tines, the boasting of Goliath, the accidental arrival of the shepherd lad David, his indignation on hearing the insulting language of Goliath, his determination to fight the giant-like man, the consequent fight, the death of Goliath, the surprise and the inquiry of Saul, and also the consequent friendship of Jonathan (xviii, 1). However fabulous this may sound, there is so little unusual in the whole, that we can not comprehend how any thing but the daring conduct of David can be admired in the whole piece; but David himself stated that he was so expert in the art of throw- ing sharp stones that he prostrated to the ground a lion and a bear in the same way, so that he could easily kill them; pre- cisely as he did to the Phelistine. We find frequent mention of such slingers, who were very expert in the art (Judges xx, 16). What could the king do with the young shepherd who chanced to kill a man in a single combat? He could admire the courage and dexterity of the lad, and that was all. He may have bestowed upon him a due praise, laid up the sword of Goliath in the tabernacle, may have sent the head of Goliath to Jerusalem, to deter the rebellious Jebusite who held with the Phelistines, and David returned to his father. David, thus encouraged by his friends and by the king himself, and most likely still more praised by the people, attracted the attention of Samuel, who came to Bethlehem on a sacred mission, and bestowed also due praise upon the juvenile David. It was ru- mored that Samuel anointed David to be king of Israel; Saul heard it, he knew that he was disliked by Samuel, that much was spoken of the youthful warrior, who most likely practiced now more than before the art of handling arms, and the evil spirit came upon Saul. A player was proposed to the king to amuse him; David was a good player, Jonathan loved him, and caused that he be proposed to the king, who gladly embraced the opportunity to have his supposed rival under his direct control. Messengers were sent to Jesse, and David was 310 PERIOD III. brought to Saul, whose jealousy vanished on seeing the young, simple and unpretending shepherd, who indicated no such a desire as to be king or even son-in-law of the king. The amia- ble qualities of David overcame the prejudices of the monarch, and young David became the favorite and arm -bearer of Saul. But David was treated by the courtiers with marked respect on account of being the favorite of the king (xviii, 4). David also secured to himself the favor of the soldiers, and Saul's jealousy was again awakened. He attempted to kill him, but failed to do so (ibid, ii), and superstition was added to jealousy. Saul wished to dismiss David, but he could not well do it, being the favorite of the court, and he gave him the command over a thousand (verse 13). But David was successful as a warrior, and the women s.ung, " Saul slew thousands and David slew myriads (verse 7), and the jealousy of Saul found new nutriment, so that he suspected David ever after (verse 9). This sets the whole matter right. Opposed to it is xviii, 2. " And Saul took him at that day and suffered him no more to return to his father;" but Ninn UV2 (that day) is a vague term, it does not refer to the day when the Phelistine was smitten, it can mean as well any day after it. The last part of the verse speaks in our favor: he suffered him no more to return to his father, consequently he must have done so before, which is mentioned positively, xvii, 14. The three eldest brothers were continually with Saul in the army. David went to and returned from Saul to feed his father's flocks at Bethlehem. He went to Saul, killed Goliath and then he returned. Chapter xv ends with the displeasure of Samuel with Saul; con- sequently the compiler begins the next with following up the consequences of that displeasure without regard to the chro- nological order, then filling up the vacuity in chapter xvii, in consequence of which the beginning of chapter xviii is disarranged. David was well received at court. Jonathan lo^ed the youthful bard and warrior, and distinguished him by present- ing him a set of arms and a cloak. The prejudices of Saul also were overcome by the personal qualities, by the simple CHAPTER VII. 311 and unpretending behavior of David, and the king conferred the dignity of arm- bearer upon the young Bethlehemian. Da- vid was also sent for some time to the army that guarded the frontiers, either as an especial messenger of the king, or merely to satisfy his ambition. Whenever he joined the army he returned crowned with military glory, and he rose so continu- ally in the estimation of the warriors, that Saul gave him command over a body of soldiers, which pleased both the people and the royal officers. The distinctions conferred upon David by the king and the royal prince made him the favorite of the courtiers, as his personal bravery obtained for him the favor of the people. This was demonstrated by the women", who once met David when returning from an expedition, and received him with song and music. They praised the young hero in words which were dangerous, " Saul smote his thousands and David smote his myriads." The jealousy of the king was roused. This de- monstration convinced him that David was dangerous to his house, and he sought means to make it otherwise. While in a fit of passion, Saul endeavored to assassinate David, but failing in his attempt, superstition was added to jealousy and made the king the more unhappy. When the burst of passion was over, Saul repented of his conduct, and in order to appease David made him " a prince of a thousand," which signifies that he was made military commander over the warriors of one tribe. From the statement of our annalist " And all Israel and Jehudah loved David," we learn that he was charged with the command over the warriors of his own tribe. David was now enabled to act a conspicuous part in the country, and he made the best use of this advantage. He daily grew in popularity, and became always more important to the crown. Saul devised means to secure the friendship of David to his house. An opportunity soon offered, which was eagerly em- braced. Michal, the youngest daughter of Saul, fell in love with David. Saul informed the young hero, that he must gain the favor, and merit the hand of the princess by another valor- ous action. David undertook an expedition against the 312 PERIOD III. Phelistines, and laying before the king a proof that he had killed two hundred of the enemy, he received the beautiful reward from the king. David, being now the king's son-in-law, became more danger- ous to the royal house than ever before. For his sphere of action was enlarged; the respect of the courtiers and his popu- larity daily increased, which was calculated to highten the indomitable jealousy of the king. Saul thought it necessary to have David killed secretly, and communicated his plan to Jonathan, who pleaded for his friend, and Saul changed his mind again. But every new act of valor which David per- formed, inflicted a deep wound in the heart of the hapless king. When David had again defeated a division of Phelis- tines, the king attempted again, in a fit of passion, to assassi- nate his son-in-law, but he failed again to accomplish his design. David instantly left the royal palace and returned to his house. But Saul was aware of the danger which threatened his house if David was forced to act as an avowed enemy of the king; he therefore dispatched messengers to watch the house of David all night, and bring him in the morning to the king (Psalm lix). If Saul had intended to kill David he might have effected his purpose without watching the house all night. It therefore appears to us that the intention of Saul was to adopt a pacify- ing course towards David. But the gossips, such as abound in every royal court, informed the terrified Michal of the intention of her father to kill David. Michal helped David out of the house without attracting the notice of the royal guard, and he fled to the aged Samuel, who still presided over his school in Raman. The king soon learned where David was, and the apathy of Samuel against Saul being too well known to the latter, his imagination at once pictured David entering into a league with the enemies of his house, therefore no time was lost, messengers were dispatched to Ramah to bring David to the king. But none of the messengers of Saul had the courage to invade the temple of art and science, in which the aged and venerable prophet ministered; they returned without having fulfilled their mission. CHAPTER VII. 313 Saul himself then ,went to Raman, but Samuel still exercised so much influence over him, that he committed no act of violence on the person of David. Saul departed, apparently so much satisfied that the people exclaimed, " Is also Saul among the prophets?" considering him appeased with that powerful class of people, the national literati. David had no confidence in the state of affairs. He left Samuel to take up his abode in some secure retreat, but de- siring to see once more his friend Jonathan, he, in order to satisfy his longing heart, ventured to approach the region, where Saul resided. Jonathan on being informed of the pre- sence of David, went into the field to see him. The interview of the friends is depicted in our sources in the most touching manner. Jonathan did not believe it to be the intention of his father to kill David. After he had ascertained,, at the risk of his own life, the intentions of his father concerning David, he informed the latter of the imminent danger threatening him. They embraced each other again, and sealing the covenant of friendship by a sacred oath and the tears of love, they parted. David came to Nob unarmed and without provisions. He persuaded Ahimelech, the high priest, to give him the sword of Goliath and of the sacred bread. The enmity of Saul toward David was still so much a secret, that not only was Ahimelech ignorant of it, but so also was Doag, the king's officer, who was present, which confirms our view of the subject. David, proceeding to the South to seek refuge in the mount- ains of Jehudah, fell in with a party of Phelistines, who brought him captive to Achish, king of Gath.* The Phelis- tines were not sure that their captive was the heroic David; he therefore affected insanity, which gave Achish, the friend of David, an opportunity to dismiss him in peace. The friend- ship of Achish most likely should be ascribed to the fact that he saw in David an opponent of Saul. David went to Adullam, a town in Jehudah, in the vicinity of the Dead sea; he occupied a cave near that city, bearing the same name, which was of difficult access (Psalm lvii). * Compare I Sam. xxxi, 11-16, with Pasluis xxxiv. lvi. 314 PERIOD III. Saul's persecutions fell heavily upon all the friends of David, so that even his aged parents were obliged to seek refuge with their persecuted son. They came to David, at Adullam, in company with about four hundred more of his persecuted friends. David at once organized his friends, and was pre- pared to offer effectual resistance to the king's forces. He brought his old parents to the king of Moab, who entertained them hospitably for a long time, and David selected for himself and his men a fortified place, Mezudah, which according to tradition was on the Moabite frontiers, probably at*the south- ern extremity of the Dead sea. Saul saw the approach of that which he feared most. David openly opposed to his authority, holding a castle and at the head of a standing army. One day he accused his best friends of being in a secret connection with David, as was his son Jonathan. Doag, the Idumean, was the only man who an- swered; he stated that he had witnessed the hospitality of the high priest extended to David, as has been mentioned before. Saul sent fcr Ahimelech, the high priest, and his father-house, numbering eighty-eight men, who, appearing before the king, were accused of high treason. In vain Ahimelech defended himself by a profound ignorance of what had occurred between the king and David ; they were condemned to death. But there was none among his attendants to execute the horrible decree of the king, and Doag, the Idumean, was made the executioner; after which Saul dispatched a body of soldiers to Nob, who by order of the king, exterminated all living beings of that place, where the Gibeonites also suffered (II Samuel xxi, 2). This was a bad and bloody policy; he thought to strike terror into every heart, and thus to frighten every one from aiding David (Psalm Hi), but it had just a contrary effect; Ebiathar, the son of Ahimilech, the only one escaping the outrageous slaughter, went to David with the priestly apparels, who received him kindly and promised him his protection. David had now not only the prophets for his cause, but also the priests, who were loyally attached to Saul up to the occurrence of that event. Many, also, of David's companions at arms, and even foreign- CHAPTER VII. 315 ers and men dissatisfied with the government of Saul, joined David in his castle, so that he became a terror to Saul. The prophet, Gad, invited David to come into the interior of Jehudah. The prophet appears to have been a messenger of Samuel, and therefore we shall see David from this moment struggling to maintain himself in the land of Jehudah, although being ex- posed there to considerable danger and peril, lie went up to I he forest of Hareth, where he was informed that the Phelis- tincs were committing depredations in Keilah, and he resolved to attack them. His men reluctantly followed him. He went to that city, expelled the enemy and stayed there until Saul learned it and had sent a body of troops to beseige him there, when he left that place and went to Horshah, in the desert of Jehudah; in that part of it called the wildnerness of Sif. When at that place he was visited by Jonathan. They renewed their covenant of friendship, and Jonathan bid him be cheerful, as his father would not be able to injure him, that David would be king, and Jonathan second to him in authority. Some of the inhabitants of that desert (according to Psalm liv, they were foreigners) told Saul that David was in their vicinity. The Sifites brought to Saul an accurate description of the region which David occupied. Saul surprised David, who tied from Saul and his men, closely pursued by them, so that it appeared impossible to escape. At this juncture, however, Saul was called to defend himself against the Phelistines, but having terminated the trouble in that quarter, he again set out with three thousand men to take David, who was now at the rocks of En-Gedi. When on the march, Saul happened to go alone into a cave at the other end of which David and some of his men were resting. David went up to Saul and cut a piece of his cloak, despising the mean advice of his men, to assas- sinate the king, and restraining them from pursuing after Saul. David, however, followed after him, and told him in the most respectful language, that he was in his hands, that he could have killed him, as the part of his cloak plainly proved; but that he should never lay hands on the Messiah of the Lord. Saul was overcome by this token of respect, mercy, and mag- 316 PERIOD III. nanimity, by one whom he persecuted so sternly. He confessed that David was great and good, and promised to disturb him no more. It can not be ascertained whether David acted so magnani- mously on account of Jonathan and of Michal his wife, or on account of respect for the king of Israel; or on account of a sound policy, not to profane the royal dignity to which he aspired, which had plenty of opponents, and not to break for- ever with the friends of Saul. But so much is sure, that the conclusion of I Samuel xxiv, is not likely to have been said by the haughty and enraged king. The same story of Saul and David is narrated again in chapter xxvi, where the place of the piece cut from the cloak of Saul in the cave is supplied by a daring act of David, who went in the death of night, ac- companied by Abishai and by Ahimelech of Gath, into the king's camp, stealing his spear and cup, and thus demonstrat- ing his loyalty, which ends with a reconciliation of Saul and David. It is plain, that both chapters relate to the same fact, which was differently narrated; both of which indicate but one purpose, which is to say that no blood was shed in the perse- cution of David by Saul; that it was by the moderation, prudence and loyalty of David that no blood was shed. David and his men stayed after this in the wilderness of Paran, where they tarried for some time, protecting the flocks of Israelites against the roving inhabitants of the deserts (I Samuel, xxv, 15, 21), for which he seems to have received rich presents from the owners of the flocks. A man, called Nabal, who lived in Maon and had his cattle in Carmel, was one of the richest sons of the tribe of Jehudah. His flocks were protected* by the men of David. When therefore he sheared his sheep, David sent to him asking of him some presents. The messengers of David used a courteous language, peculiar to the author of Samuel. But Nabal told them that he did not know David, as there were so many servants who were dis- obedient to their masters. David on receiving this answer was much provoked, and bid his men to prepare their arms, and to follow him; four hundred followed him, and two hundred re- CHAPTER VII. 317 mained at the camp. David was on the point of shedding the blood of his countryman, which might have greatly reduced him in the estimation of the people ; but Abigail, the wife of Nabal, who had been informed of the rude demeanor of her husband towards the messengers of David, and had predicted the misfortune which might overcome him, hastened to meet and to appease David, in which she fortunately succeeded. The conversation between Abigail and David is again remark- able for the refined politeness and courtesy which distinguished that age. When Nabal died, which was shortly after this, David married Abigail, besides whom he also married Ahinoam of Jezreel; his first wife, Michal, daughter of Saul, had been given to another man. These incidents, however sterile they are in a historical respect, give us an insight into the state of affairs during the reign of Saul. The government had become almost despotic. No mention is made after the war with Amalek of a national will or influence, no prophet announced to Saul the will of God; he massacred the priests; held a standing army; perse- cuted David without asking of any one permission. Samuel attended to his school at Ramah, retired from public business, and Gad, the only prophet mentioned, favored the cause of David. Abiathar, the only descendant of the high priest, was with the ephod among the men of David, and it is not stated that another high priest was appointed, still it appears to us. that Zadok was the successor of Ahimelech. The Phelistines continued to invade the frontiers, and frequently succeeded in coming into the interior of Jehudah and Dan, and plundering the inhabitants; we find them once in Keilah (I Samuel xxiii. 1), and once in Bethlehem (II Samuel, xxiii, 14). The internal disorder and mismanagement were the cause of neglect in watching the frontiers. The southern part of Jehudah also was unsafe, so that David and his men were welcome to the shep- herds and herdsmen as faithful guardians. David studiously avoided every thing which could increase the jealousy of Saul; still he liked to hear others speak of his prospects to the throne. He confronted dangers and perils of all kinds, still he never 318 PERIOD III. left the country of Jelmdah, not venturing to enter other parts of the land; which shows that the authority of Saul was every- where in Israel more firmly established than in Jelmdah, which tribe had already omitted to send its proper number of warriors in the war against Amalek.* It appears, therefore, that this tribe was most dissatisfied, and therefore they gave shelter to David, or probably occasioned him to revolt against the author- ity of Saul. Saul punished them by exposing them to the incursions of the Phelistines and the tribes of the southern desert, which satisfactorily explains the subsequent course of David. It appears, therefore, that the government of Saul was despotic and strong, that the material wealth of the nation increased, and that science and art made considerable progress among the people; that the tribe of Jelmdah, the prophets and the priests, together with David and his men, the republicans still remaining in the land, and the Phelistines could not check the government of Saul, although they considerably impaired his strength, which made Saul furious and cruel. Samuel, who had laid the foundation for the present state of things, and who lived to see the fulfillment of his predictions in regard to monarchy, died at Eamah; and the people assem- bled in large numbers to do the last honors to a man who had regenerated the nation, and who would have made them great and happy, had they paid more regard to his words. We Can not say how old he was when he died; he must have been very old, if we set his death towards the end of the reign of Saul. The only man who exercised an indirect influence upon Saul, which he maintained even after his death, had gone home into the eternal habitation of his fathers; therefore, David no longer thought himself secure in the land, nor was he able to protect both boundaries of Jehudah at once; he, therefore, thought of making terms with Achash, king of Gath, who received him as a welcome ally against Saul. Achash gave to David the fortified Ziklag, at the frontiers of Jehudah, which David desired in order to maintain the connection with his * Compare I Sam . xv, 4, with xi, 8. CHAPTER VII. 319 tribe, and to watch them against Phclistine incursions. He made excursions to the south of Jehudah, to protect them against the roving expeditions of the tribes inhabiting the desert. Achash, however, supposed he undertook expe- ditions against Jehudah having turned an enemy to his own country, which enabled David the better to pursue undisturbed his own course of actions. Achash had no objections against the prudent and heroic David, and entrusted him with the en- tire management of his own affairs. The Phelistines, as it must be remembered, were always most desirous to break through Dan and Benjamin to the Jordan, for the purpose already stated, of having a highway to the interior of Asia; but there they always came between Jehudah and Ephraim, which two tribes they naturally considered their worst enemies. They gladly saw David engaged with Jehudah, not much caring in what way; their design was to be safe on that side, so that they could march their armies on Ephraim, which they did for the first time in all their numerous cam- paigns against Israel. They must have done so soon after David had come to Ziklag; for he was in Ziklag no longer than sixteen months (I Samuel xxvii, 7); he went from Ziklag immediately after the death of Saul (II Samuel ii), who fell on Mount Gilboah, in Issachar; it certainly took the Phelistines more than a year to force their way through Dan, Ephraim and Manasseh. The historian narrates only the end of the war, as this is the case everywhere in the records of the Judges ; but the history of the war itself we do not possess. An old docu- ment, which the author of I Chronicles has preserved for us (xii), fully accounts for the success of the Phelistines against Saul. Besides, the whole army of Jehudah, which did not assist the king, warriors and high officers of the army of the tribes of Benjamin, Gad and Manasseh, came to Ziklag to make common cause with David. It appears, therefore, that Saul had also lost the confidence of the warriors, which fully accounts for the discouraged state in which we shall see him a day before the battle; and, therefore, the author of I Samuel men- tions no numbers when giving us an account of the last battle 320 PERIOD III. of Saul. When the war began, David joined the ranks of the Phelistines at the express command of Achash, who made David and his men his body guard. It is not easily to be determined, whether David would have fought against his own nation, which he always studiously avoided. Circumstances as they were, forced him either to fight his own brethren as an ally of a foreign enemy, or to betray his friend and patron. We have no reasonable ground for deciding either way. But lucky as he was in every respect, he was happily redeemed from this peril- ous position. The princes of the Phelistines insisted upon sending him back to Ziklag, having no confidence in his fidelity. Achash yielded to his officers, and told David in very courteous terms, that he was bound to refuse his cooperation in the present campaign. David returned early the next morn- ing to Ziklag; but, to his surprise, he found the city demolished, the guards slain, women and children carried away captives, and every thing left in the city fallen into the hands of the enemy. The Amalekites, undoubtedly, in connection with other tribes of the desert, had improved the chance to take vengeance on David, who restrained them from invading Jehudah. Followed by six hundred of his men, David pursued after the roving party in great haste; but, when reaching Creek Besur, two hundred of them could march no longer, and he was obliged to continue his pursuit with but four hundred men. A man was found in the desert, who, after having been given food, said he was an Egyptian, a servant of an Amalekite, who, on account of having fallen sick left him there, where he had no food for three days and nights. He farther stated, that they were roaming in the southern part of Jehudah and Kerethi, and that they burned Ziklag with fire. The Egyptian, after having been promised protection, acted as a guide, and so David overtook the roving party encamped on an oasis, eating and drinking; he assaulted them, a hot conflict ensued, which lasted for twenty-four hours, and which resulted in the utter defeat of Amalek, of whose force four hundred, riding on camels, betook themselves to flight. The women and children were CHAPTER VII. 321 liberated, the goods and cattle taken, and they returned to the Creek Besnr. The victors disliked to divide the spoil with those tarrying at the Creek; but David decided in favor of those who remained behind, that they should have their part of the spoil, which must have been considerable; for on having reached Ziklag, David sent presents to the elders of those towns in Jehudah, who had supported him and his men, when he was a fugitive amongst them. It was necessary for us to narrate this incident in support of our statement, that David, while in Ziklag, protected the frontiers of Jehudah, which were neg- lected by Saul. The Phelistines marched their united armies upon Mount Ephraim, and succeeded in breaking through the whole country. Saul saw himself deserted by the prophets, by the priests and other eloquent men, who might have inspired the warriors to a desperate struggle. He saw himself beaten on all points, and had retreated across the whole country, being now encamped on Mount Gilboah, near Jordan. He saw himself deserted by his principal warriors, and the number of his men encamped on Mount Gilboah, was certainly but inconsiderable. His cou- rage failed; he became conscious of the great fault he had committed, in trying to govern a nation of republicans without allowing them a proper share in the government. He saw him- self now deserted by that nation whom he tried to subject to his own will. He remembered the well-intended reprimands and exhortations of Samuel, and he could not repress the desire of consulting that wise statesman; but he was dead. Super- stition, the inevitable consequence of self-contempt and remorse, had now overtaken Saul, and was dragging him to despair. He could neither eat nor drink; he saw himself approaching a fear- ful crisis, the issue of which was too certain; for'what could he do with his handful of discouraged men, in opposition to a large, spirited, and victorious army? Finally, superstition triumphed over the suspended faculties of his mind. A man in despair has lost his manhood, and becomes a credulous child. He went, disguised, and in company of two men, to the witch of Endor, and bid her conjure up the deceased Samuel^ 21 322 PERIOD III. The cunning woman soon recognized the pale, down-hearted and despairing king. She must have known the state of things ; every one in the country must have known them ; she must have seen in the countenance of the king, that he could not outlive the next two or three days, and so it was easy for her to answer for Samuel. Perhaps she also knew, what impres- sion her answer would make upon the king, who came to her as the last means to be fried, as he himself stated (I Samuel xxviii, 15); and probably she thought of taking vengeance on Saul, for his having persecuted her sister-laborers in the country. She told the king that she had conjured up the man whom he desired. On the request of the king, she described the man's dress, corresponding to that of Samuel, whom she might have seen frequently. Saul, who did not see the man, bowed down before the phantom described by the woman. On asking the supposed Samuel, the king was answered the words which this prophet once told him at Gilgal. " The Lord will tear the kingdom from thy hands," to which the woman added, "And he will give it to thy neighbor, to David;" he was also told that he and his sons would be with Samuel to-morrow. Here Saul fainted and fell to the floor; he, who had fought in so many battles, fainted; how deranged must his mind have been before he came, and during the scene. The words of the prophet, which had most likely become a common proverb, had gnawed for years on his proud heart ; these words were now sufficient to exhaust his remaining strength. The woman raised him from the floor, made him sit on the bed, and partake of the meal she had prepared for him. He then repaired the same night to his camp. Next day the Phelistines stormed the heights, of which they soon became masters ; the Israelites fled or were slain on all points; Saul and his three sons, among whom was the noble Jonathan, knowing that their entire glory lay in dying honora- bly, fought lion-like till the last; Jonathan and his two brothers died upon the field of honor like men and heroes; Saul fled, and ended in suicide, to accomplish which his strength and courage failed; at his request an Amalekite made an end of CHAPTER VII. 323 his pains. His arm-bearer had refused to kill his master, but he could not outlive him, and he also put an end to his life by the side of the dying king. The army of Saul was annihilated; the whole country exposed to the mercy of the Phelistines ; the people sought refuge in the fortified cities; the plains were deserted, and the Phelistines took possession of them. Such a state of affairs is not recorded in Israelitish histoiy, since the days of the Midianite and Phelistine invasion. This was the work of the first monarch in Israel, who lived unhappily, died miserably, and threw his country into the depth of mis- fortune and shameful subjection. The despotic rule of Saul was sufficient to hold down the enemies of the dynasty to maintain order in the country; but it checked the patriotism of the multitude, depriving them of that higher inspiration which makes a nation truly great and invincible. It made them in- different to public affairs, caring little for what the king did in peace or in war; and as Saul could not resist effectually the spirited attack of the invaders, he must fall upon the ruin of Israel's national superiority. When the Phelistines came to take the spoil from their slain enemies, they found to their astonishment Saul and his sons among the slain. They sent the head and the arms of Saul through the whole of their land, announcing the tidings of their signal victory, and nailed the bodies of Saul and his three sons on the walls of Bethshen. The brave citizens of Jabesh Gilead rose at night, and, risking their lives, succeeded in re- moving the bodies of Saul and his sons, and, bringing them to their own city, they buried them with all the honors due to the remains of such high dignitaries of the nation. This was a noble act of gratitude on the part of the citizens of Jabesh towards Saul, who had delivered them from the hands of Am- nion. Abner, son of Ner, chief captain of the host, was faithfully attached to the house of his royal master. He es- caped with one of the princes, Ish Boshcth, and reached Mahanaim beyond Jordan. Ish Bosheth was received as the legitimate successor of the late monarch, and the whole district east of the Jordan acknowledged him as their king. Gradu- 324 PERIOD III. ally, in five years, he was acknowledged king over all Israel except Jehudah, after Abner had retaken the country from the hands of the Phelistines. The north, Asher, Naphthali and Zebulon, as well as Benjamin, were not in the hands of the Phelistines, consequently they soon acknowledged the authority of Ish Bosheth; but the other tribes were under the dominion of the Phelistines, from which they had to be rescued, before they could be attached to the royal house. Our sources are altogether silent on this point ; still we have in them certain hints from which we infer that it took Abner five years before he succeeded in having the authority of Ish Bosheth acknowledged throughout all Israel, over whom he reigned two years, and was then assassinated. It is stated twice in Samuel, once in 'Kings and once in Chronicles, that David ruled over Jehudah in Hebron seven years — to which six months are added in some of the statements — and thirty-three years over all Israel. There can be no mistake on this point; the statements are too often repeated to admit of doubt. David could not be considered king of Jehudah as long as Saul lived, being himself compelled to reside in a foreign country; and besides this it is stated in unquestionable terms (II. Samuel ii) that David was anointed king of Jehudah after the death of Saul. He never considered himself a king previous to this time. Still we are informed in the same chapter that Ish Bosheth reigned but two years over all Israel, consequently it must have taken Abner five years to establish the authority of Ish Bosheth over all Israel. The writer omits the account of occurrences at that time, because it is his avowed object to establish the legitimate claim of the Davidian dynasty to the throne of Israel on the ground of hereditary rights, originally resting on a divine appointment to the royal dignity. But Saul's claims, though resting on the same ground, were lost by a sinful life, and by the conquest of the Phelistines. If Saul's life was not a sinful one, and the country was not conquered by the Phelistines, David had no legal claim to the throne. The opposition David offered to the house of Saul, before he was elected of all Israel, would have been an open revolution. CHAPTER VII. 325 He is therefore eager to show to the reader, that David him- self never claimed the royal dignity as long as Saul lived, he was persecuted for what he may have thought or desired, but not for any revolutionary act of his. After the death of Saul, the land was conquered by the Phelis tines, and as there was no king de facto David had a right to aspire to the throne. But according to the words of David (II Samuel iii, 33, 34, 38), Abner was a great man and well beloved by the people ; still we know nothing great of him, if it be not, that he retook the land from the Phelistines. We therefore fix the chronology thus; Ish Bosheth reigned five years before his authority was established over the whole of Israel, and two years after this; during which time David was king of Jehudah only ; after this he resided six months longer in Hebron before he took Zion. The young Amalekite who had made a final end to the life of Saul, took the crown and the bracelets of Saul and brought them to David at Ziklag, expecting a good reward. But after lie had communicated his story, David ordered him to be killed, because he had laid hand on the Messiah of the Lord, upon which terms David usually laid a particular stress. David had no right, according to the Mosaic law, to condemn the Amalekite to death; but he wished to remove every sus- picion of being implicated in the regicide. David mourned publicly "for Saul, his son Jonathan, and the people of the Lord which fell by the sword;" he eternized the melancholy event by a beautiful elegy (II Samuel i, 19-27), in which he deeply mourns the loss of Jonathan, and speaks in high terms of Saul. His next undertaking was to march upon Hebron, the strongest city in Jehudah, and in the centre of that tribe and Simeon, which was inhabited by priests (Joshua xxi, 11), where he was deservedly received with open arms. The men of Jehudah met in Hebron, and anointed him their king. His next step was to send messengers to the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead to express to them his sympathy, and also his admira- tion for their valorous act in taking the bodies of Saul and his sons from the walls of Bethshen ; but he did not forget to tell 826 PERIOD III. them " Therefore now let your hands be strengthened and be ye valiant, for your master Saul is dead, and also the house of Jehudah have anointed me king over them;" but the inhabit- ants of Jabcsh did not respond. David expected to gain peaceable possession of the throne. He knew he was the favorite of the tribe of Jehudah, of the prophets, and of the priests; he was formerly the favorite of the people, and had now with him high officers of different tribes; he must have been of the opinion that his election would meet with no con- siderable, objections. But his long separation from the army, and the trouble he caused Saul must have estranged him in some measure from the people; the melancholy end of Saul and of his sons claimed general sympathy, which Ish Bosheth and the energetic Abner well used in favor of the former, and to the prejudice of David. Besides this, there were yet other obstacles in the way of David. Benjamin, certainly faithful to the cause of Saul's heir, separated him from the tribes beyond Jordan; and Ephraim, held by the Phelistines, separated him from the northern tribes. He could not, without being a base traitor, attack the Phelistines; and so he was limited to Jehudah and Simeon only. We see him five years long in Hebron in perfect inactivity in regard to internal affairs, or at least doing nothing which the author of II Samuel found worth noticing. Not till Abner had expelled the Phelistines did the civil war commence, which was the next consequence of the monarchy so much opposed by Samuel. Abner seems to have been the aggressor, for he marched his men from Mahanaim, the residence of Ish Bosheth, to Gibeon in Benjamin; if he had not, still David must have thought he had the intention of attacking him, and Abner certainly thought he had a right to do so. Joab, the chief captain of David, watched the northern frontiers. Abner and Joab, each having but a few men with them, had an interview at a pond, most^likely on the boundary between Benjamin, Dan, and Jehudah. The men were sitting on both sides of the pond apparently with no evil intention. Abner desired Joab to permit some of his men to measure their strength and military skill with some of his men, in CHAPTER VII. 327 single combats, to which Joab agreed. Twelve on each side entered upon the tournament, but they made earnest of the joke, and some of them fell, which gave rise to a hot conflict, end- ing in a defeat and retreat of Abner. Of the brothers of Joab, present at the action, one Ashahcl was an eminent pedestrian; he run a long time by the side of Abner, who, not knowing his intention, cautioned him several times to leave him, as he did not Avish to kill the brother of Joab. But Ashahcl heeded not, and Abner, being in danger at every step, killed Ashahel. When Joab and his brother Abishai came to the spot where the body of their brother laid, they were infuriated, and continued their pursuit to Gibath Amah, where they ar- rived at eveninsr, and where Abner awaited them, having reinforced his ranks. Abner bade Joab return in peace, which Joab thought it most expedient to do. He came in the morning to Hebron, with a loss of nineteen men; but the author adds, that Abner lost three hundred and sixty men, which seems somewhat improbable. This was the beginning of a civil war, of which our author gives us no other account; there was cer- tainly nothing interesting in it as regards David and his army. He only informs us of the continual success of David and decline of Ish Bosheth, which is proved by the sequel. There can be no doubt that Ish Bosheth was an insignificant man, playing a part by the aid of Abner only; while David himself, an energetic and shrewd statesman and soldier, was assisted by such men as Joab and the prophet Gad. It is very natural that David should have obtained the ascendency over the house of Saul. The final catastrophe of the reign of Ish Bosheth is thus communicated to us. Ish Bosheth accused Abner of having seduced Rizpah, the concubine of Saul, which was equivalent to accusing him of a desire to usurp for himself the royal power (vide II Samuel xvi, 21). This grieved Abner the more, as he knew himself innocent. He thought of being avenged on Ish Bosheth, and at the same time of freeing himself of that mean accusation. He sent messengers to David, offering him his services in turning the current of popular favor to his 328 PERIOD III. interests, which might have been easy, as the deficiencies of Ish Bosheth became too visible when compared with David. The messengers were favorably received by David, and Abner was invited to come to Hebron in order to enter into negotiations with the king. David at the same time instructed him to bring back his first wife, Michal, daughter of Saul, to which end David also dispatched messengers to Ish Bosheth, who complied with the wishes of David, and Michal was sent to him. We do not suppose for a moment, that David acted so by an impulse of affection, for he soon after leads us to believe that he was not very much attached to her (II Samuel vi, 21-23); he had political reasons for renewing his union with the house of Saul, in order to support his claims to the throne, and to gain for his cause many of the friends of that royal house, who had become the opponents of Ish Bosheth. Abner traveled through Israel, and won the hearts of the leaders of the nation, also of the tribe of Benjamin, in favor of David. He then returned to David at Hebron, and brought him cheerful tidings. He was kindly and generously treated, and left David in order to make farther preparations for the revolution. Abner was scarcely gone, when Joab learned that he was with the king, and under the pretext that Abner only came to de- ceive David, he sent after him, caused him to be brought back and treacherously assassinated him. The author of II Samuel informs us, that David was ignorant of that horrid crime, and there is no reason to doubt it; David was unable to commit such an unwarranted murder. The death of Abner certainly made no small sensation in Israel, and David did everything in his power to convince the people of his inno- cence in the affair; that Joab had no political reason to kill Abner, but merely to avenge the death of his brother Ashahel. David gave to Abner a magnificent funeral, passed a high sounding eulogy over him, refused to take food on that day, and gave public utterance to his abhorence of that foul crime; so the people were convinced that David had no hand in the affair. Ish Bosheth was utterly dismayed on hearing of the death of Abner, knowing his inability to maintain himself on CHAPTER VII. 329 the throne. The next event shows that he was unable to take care of himself. Two officers of the army of Ish Bosheth, Baanah and Rechab, of the tribe of Benjamin, went in company of others, who came to buy wheat, into the king's residence, where finding him asleep, they assassinated him, and cut off his head, with which they fled to David. But the foul crime was not calculated to meet with the favor of David; he ordered the assassins to be publicly executed, and the head of Ish Bosheth to be buried in the sepulchre of Abner. David, as we have observed before, took great care not to be considered as cooperating in any crime, as he was aware, that if a crown be obtained by foul contrivances, the possessor may reign, but can not reckon upon the confidence and sympathy of the better class of society. He desired to establish a certain respect and sacred awe before the king, whom he always called the Messiah of the Lord. Soon after this the national council met, and agreed to offer the vacant throne to David, in consequence of which the elders of Israel went to Hebron to meet David, who saw himself at the open gates of the proud palace of his hopes; he was peaceably and honorably elected by the legal government of the nation; he made a covenant with them, that is, he gave his royal word to govern the nation within the limits of the national law, after which he was anointed king of Israel, a proof that the anointing of Samuel, if it took place at all, was considered of no avail, being an unofficial act. The author of I Chronicles, who generally delights in huge numbers, informs us of a vast army coming to David on that occasion, while we read in Samuel the more credible state- ment of the elders of Israel coming to Hebron; still it is possible and even likely, that the warriors of the different tribes came to Hebron after the anointing of David, to take the oath of allegiance, or to congratulate him, and assure him in some way of their respect and proper obedience, We learn from the same source, that brilliant fetes were given in Hebron, to which presents were brought from all quarters of the country. The joy was a national and general one; the tribe of Benjamin alone took no considerable part in it; so that 330 PERIOD III. even the author of Chronicles is obliged to confess that but three thousand warriors of Benjamin came to Hebron to con- gratulate the king. It must be confessed that there were many causes for that general and national rejoicing, of which the author of Chronicles speaks. David entitled the friends of the nation to the most sanguine hopes. He and his friends, who accompanied him through all the scenes of persecution, peril, and danger, were experienced, tried and heroic warriors, pos- sessing the confidence of every man in Israel, and known to the opponents of Israel as bold and unyielding champions. The hope could be entertained that he would protect the country more fully than was ever done before. His personal qualities, his eminent inclination to the sublime and beautiful, to poetry and music ; his good understanding with the prophets and the priests; his respect for the law and its executors, manifested in his behavior towards Saul, promised a mild, just and peaceful administration, a progress of literature and civil- ization, an efficient protection of the national religion, and the triumph of order and prosperity. Besides this, it must not be forgotten that David had, aside from the tribe of Jehudah, numerous friends, especially in the provinces east of Jordan, so that the election of David to the throne of Israel was a reunion of the nation, which had been disunited for more than ten years. CHAPTER VIII. ADMINISTRATION OF DAVID (1041—1008, b. c). The first undertaking of David as king of the whole nation, was to besiege Jerusalem, the city of the Jebusite, from which the Israelites had been expelled, most likely by the agency of CHAPTER VIII. 331 the Phelis tines, and which he intended to make the capital of the land. He had more than one reason for doing this. First, that city belonged jointly to Jehudah and Benjamin; he could thus reconcile the two inimical tribes, and then have no ene- mies among his own people. The situation of Jerusalem, on and in the midst of round or square hills, defended on three sides by ravines, made it a desirable spot for the capital of a land, which could be defended with a comparatively small number of men. For David it had the peculiar advantage of opening to him an uninterrupted communication with the tribes beyond Jordan, Benjamin and Jehudah, then the most powerful tribes of Israel. Agreeably to the Mosaic law, the Jebusites were challenged to surrender the city and the castle of Zion; but they returned the ironical answer, that the blind and the lame were sufficient to defend the city, and as long as one of them lived, David should not take it. The confidence of the Jebusites was not entirely built upon the strength of the city and the castle; they reckoned upon the speedy assist- ance of the Phelistines, who most likely were their protectors, and who still had possession of their thoroughfare, to which Jerusalem was very important. They actually appeared with a considerable force and encamped on the high plain of Re- phaim, separated from Mount Zion by the valley of Benhinom, and a hill, thus separating the plain of Rephaim from the valley of Benhinom, upon which a fort stood, which was garrisoned by David to check the progress of the enemy, and prevent him from uniting with the Jebusites in Jerusalem. David on being advised by the divine voice, revealed most likely by the national council, marched part of his army across the valley of Benhinom to the fort on the hill, from which he successfully attacked the Phelistines, who were so routed, that they left on the field their idols, probably attached to their standards, which, on command of David, were burnt by the soldiers, agreeably to the Mosaic law. The place of the battle was called Baal Perazim, the men of the siege — according to their manner of taking fortified cities, by destroying the forti- fications by battering rams — because his army consisted of a 332 PERIOD III. party of those who besieged Jerusalem. David could not pursue his victory, but returned to the city, and took it by assault. No time was to be lost; the Phelistines could return any day, reorganized and reinforced. David therefore promised the rank of chief captain to him who would be first on the- walls of the castle; Joab, the king's heroic cousin, who had lost his rank in the army, most likely on account of having assassinated Abner, was the first on the walls. He was soon followed by the invincible warriors of David, and Zion fell into his power. But the Phelistines had again made their appear- ance in the plain of Rephaim. David, who never put much con- fidence in walls, gates and bars, resolved to attack them in the open field; he was advised this time to give them a total discom- fiture, in consequence of which he fetched a compass round the enemy, and attacked their flanks and rear; when defeated, they retired to Geba, their old standing place, from which they were driven, together with all their garrisons, as far as to Gezer. We are not informed that David took Gezer; this much is sure, that he was not yet in the position to pursue his victory ; it was yet necessary for him to take proper care of the internal affairs. This first campaign occupied the first six months of his reign, after which he transferred the seat of government to Jerusalem. David repaired the breaches of the walls of Jerusalem and the castle of Zion, which he called the city of David, enriching it with additional fortifications and new buildings. He also in- tended to build there a palace for himself, for which Hiram the king of Tyre, sent him both the materials and the mechanics. The two maritime powers, Tyre and Phelistia were natural rivals ; a good understanding with either made one the enemy of the other. Saul was an enemy of the Phelistines, conse- quently, he was befriended by the Tyrian government. David was befriended by the Phelistines; wherefore, he found in Hiram a natural opponent, who most likely supported the house of Saul. The Phelistines — Achash probably was no more — alarmed by David's sudden attack on the Jebusite city, and, anticipating the loss of their highway to the interior of Asia, committed the CHAPTER VIII. 333 first breach of the peace, which resulted in a total loss of their highway through Palestine. This rendered Hiram a friend of David, which he let the latter know by his ambassadors and gifts. David seeing on a sudden a powerful supporter of Saul turned to be his friend, took it to be no mean omen of a happy reign. The intention of David was to build also a temple of the Lord in the city of David, for which he had the advice of as high an authority as the prophet Nathan ; but either on account of the low state of the treasury — numerous treasures were col- lected before Solomon could begin the work — or on account of disinclination to act contrary to public opinion, the ark of the Lord having always rested in a pavilion composed of curtains, he could not obtain the consent of the national council to this undertaking ; but he was advised to make his capital also the religious metropolis, according to the Mosaic policy, by bring- ing the ark of the Lord to the city of David,. The grandeur of the Mosaic tabernacle was most likely impaired by the gnawing tooth of time, and so David erected a new pavilion, undoubtedly on the pattern of the Mosaic tabernacle, in the city of David, and made preparations to move the ark from Kiriath Jearim to the city of David. At the head of thirty thousand people, who had assembled to take part in the solemn festivity, and accompanied by choruses of singers and musi- cians, David proceeded to Kiriath Jearim. The ark was taken from the house of Abinadab on the hill, and laid upon a new wagon drawn by bullocks, and the procession moved to- wards Jerusalem. But the apprehensions of Samuel, as noticed before, were foimd correct; a revolt broke out, which, when the people arrived at a place called the Threshing-floor of Nachon, had reached such a degree of violence, and had caused such a general confusion, that the ark was jolted on its wagon by the oxen which drew it. Uzzah, son of Abinadab, either intending to prevent its fall, or to stop its progress, laid his hand on the ark, which was the cause of his instant death; wherefore the place was called, Perets Uzzah, Breach of Uzzah. David, saw himself obliged to give up his project for 334 PERIOD III. the present, not wishing to create ill feelings by any kind of disturbance. The ark was deposited in the next house, which happened to belong to Obed-Edom, a man of Gath, and David with his suit returned to Jerusalem. It certainly did not meet with the approbation of the pious, that the ark of the Lord was deposited in the house of a Phelistine, and thus David had a good pretext to move the ark finally to Jerusalem. In order to give full satisfaction to the law and ancient custom, David ordered the Levites to attend the ceremony, who came in num- ber about nine hundred. The king, with his attendants, the high priest and proxy, the senate, the Levites, with their choruses of singers and musicians, went to the house of Obed- Edom. The ark was brought in solemn procession to Jerusa- lem, and was deposited in the new pavilion, with music and song, sacrifices and hymns, festivities and rejoicing, to the final satisfaction of all Israel. On this occasion were composed, Psalms xxiv and xxix, and, according to the author of Chronicles, also part of Psalm cv, and most likely some other poems. All but Michal were pleased with the transactions of the day. She censured her royal consort for not observing a deportment becoming the king of Israel, which was ill received by the king, so that he answered her in an offended tone, and, as it appears, the quarrel ended in a total separation of Michal from the royal bed. David neglected no chance which served to reconcile the friends of Saul to him. He craved information in regard to the descendants of his friend Jonathan ; and he learned that one son of Jonathan, Mephibosheth, or Meribbaal, survived his father. The lame prince was hidden in the house of Machir, son of Amiel, at Lo-Debar, beyond Jordan. David immediately sent for the prince, gave him all the property of his grandfather, although he also had a claim to a part of it, and granted to him the privilege to eat at the king's table, which was a par- ticular distinction at that time. Ziba, a servant of Saul, was made steward of the prince's property. This disinterestedness and friendly remembrance of his friend Jonathan, certainly gave pleasure to the friends of Saul. CHAPTER VIII. 335 Our historian also informs us, that David, as king of all Israel, was a just and righteous man, carefully and conscien- tiously administrating the laws of his country. He was assisted in the discharge of his duties by the following officers. His cousin, Joab, was chief captain of the host. Jehoshaphat, son of Ahilud, was auditor, whose office it was to hear and to record the causes brought before the king, requiring his deci- sion, interference, aid, and so forth. Zadok and Abiathar were high priest and proxy; Sheraiah was chief secretary. Adoram was collector of the taxes. Hushai, the Archite, was the king's companion; an office found also at the Persian court. Ahitophel, the Gilonite, and Jonathan, the king's uncle, were his privy counsellors. Benaiahu, son of Jehoiada, the chiefs of the two southern nations annexed to Jehudah, Cherethi and Pelethi. Eira, the Jairite, and the sons of David, composed the personal attendants of David. In all probability, the pro- phets Nathan and Gad were commissioned with the presidency of the senate. Twelve officers were appointed to take care of the king's estates and herds, which undoubtedly were con- siderable. He possessed Ziklag and vicinity (I Samuel xxvii, 6), and Sharon, which must have been a fine tract of land, according to the poems written on it; besides this, he had a large estate with his wife Abigail (I Samuel xxv, 2), and had become rich in herds by his warfares in the south of Jehudah. There is also mentioned an officer, Jehial, the Hachmonite, who superintended the education of the royal princes. These appointments of David permit us to throw a glance at the fabric of government then existing, which our historian by no means ascribed to the ingenuity of David; the offices existed, but the officers were appointed anew. Zadok seems to have been high priest in the latter part of the reign of Saul, where- fore he maintained his dignity notwithstanding the obligations of David to Abiathar. The government was well organized, the branches of public business were properly divided; the king was surrounded by counsellors and a splendid suit, without betraying any traces of oriental pomp, stupid titles, and super- 336 PERIOD III. fluous luxury. The eighteen wives of David are the only traces of oriental luxury which we meet at his court. The misfortunes of Saul in his campaigns against the Phe- listines, had taught David the important lesson that a more practical military organization had become necessary; the three thousand men of Saul's army were found insufficient to protect the country against sudden attacks from abroad, while a large standing army was both dangerous to the king in cases of military revolt, and to the liberties of the people, threatening a military despotism, and being injurious to the industry, and especially to the agricultural interests of the state. All these disadvantages were overcome by the following organization; twenty-four thousand men were to be in active service for one month annually, after which they were replaced by other twenty-four thousand men; so that an army of 12 x 24,000 was trained and accustomed to bear arms. An army of two hun- dred and eighty-eight thousand trained troops, under the com- mand of David and Joab was formidable; and this fact alone can account for the conquests of David. The Levites also required a new organization; their numbers had increased, they were scattered over the whole country, and no order had been established amongst them. David divided the priests into twenty-four divisions, each of which had the divine service two weeks, annually, under their own family chief assisting the high priest or his proxy. Shemaiah, son of Nethaniel, the Levite, is mentioned as the king's scribe in sacerdotal affairs. The Levites were divided into judges and officers, denned before, guardians, musicians, singers, and as- sistants of the priests. The judges and officers numbered six thousand, there were four thousand guardians, four thousand musicians, and twenty-four thousand assistant priests. The latter were divided into twenty-four divisions, each of which served two weeks annually, so that nine hundred Levites were always present in Jerusalem, besides one division of priests. The sacred place, which included the different courts of jus- tice, the meeting rooms for the national council, the public CHAPTER VIII. 337 treasury, and the office of the high priest, was manned by about one thousand Levites and priests, who in the mean time were priests and guardians both of the law and its executors. The Levites, as had been stated before, were the national guard, the literati and the guardians of the law ; to this Moses appointed them. David but reorganized them, to secure proper order. The most prominent of them in musical attainments were Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun; the sons of all of them and the three daughters of Heman, are mentioned as artists in music and song, and as having assisted divine worship in the taber- nacle. The poetical compositions of the three forementioned men, and those inaccurately ascribed to them, are too numer- ous to be quoted. The military organization was well calculated to protect the country against foreign invasions, and to train a large army without its being a cause of fear, and without injuring industry, while the organization of the Levites was calculated to secure domestic tranquility and the administration of the law by the very means of the Mosaic law. The sojourning of each Levite and priest in Jerusalem for two weeks annually was new, and well calculated to prevent jealousy and to improve their literary condition. Both organizations were wisely constructed to prevent conspiracies at the capital. How long it took David to complete this internal organization, and how long he main- tained peace with the surrounding nations can not be said, it certainly required a considerable time to complete the work. The war with the Phelistines, of which but a brief state- ment has reached us,* took place, it would seem, previously to all the other warfares of David . The following causes led us to this opinion. 1. In the synopsis of the Davidian warsj mention is made first of all of a war with the Phelistines, which ends in the capture of Metheg ha- Amah, according to the author of Samuel, which is Gath and its districts according to the author of Chronicles. * II Samuel xxi, 15-22; II Chronicles xx, 4-8. t II Samuel vinyl Chronicles xviii. 22 338 PERIOD III. 2. In the last campaign the Phelistines were left at Gezer of Ephraim (II Samuel v, 25). This is also the point where the second campaign was commenced (II Chronicles xx, 4). We can not imagine for a moment, that David made conquests in foreign countries, while the strong Gezer was left in the hands of a foreign power. 3. It is also mentioned there, that the Phelistines held Nob, which, according to what has been said before was near Gibeon. It would be very uncritical to suppose that the Phelistines took Nob after David had taken Damascus, Petra and the two Rabbah. It therefore appears tons, that while David was engaged with internal improvements, as noticed before, the Phelistines at- tempted to regain their highway through Palestine, which occasioned David to wage that war. The first attack in the present campaign was made upon the Phelistines in Gezer. The engagement was so hot and despe- rate, that David, fatigued by a long conflict, was unable to defend himself against the violent attacks of a gigantic Phelis- tine, who is said to have been the brother of the celebrated Goliath. David would have become the victim of an enraged enemy, had not his brave cousin, Abishai, brother of Joab, come at the right time to his assistance, who killed the Phelis- tine giant and saved David. Gezer was taken, and the Phelistines were driven back. The men of David had sworn he should not accompany them in the war, and so Joab led the army against the enemy. Nob, we have said before, was near Gibeon, near the boundary of Dan and Benjamin, on the same range of mountains with Gezer; there the Phelistines found a new point to organize, and there probably they received rein- forcements. Two desperate battles were fought at that place, at each of which fell another giant brother of Goliath. The Phelistines were finally defeated and driven from their position back to their own country, to the city of Gath, the residence of their kings. The guerilla campaigns of the Phelistines dis- turbing Israel during all the reign of Saul, sufficiently cautioned David not to rest satisfied with having driven the Phelistines CHAPTER VIII. 339 from the Israelitish territories ; it became his duty to render them incapable of injuring his country. The army was ordered to invade Phelistia. They took the fortified Gath and its adjacent territory, from which place it was easy to hold in check the weakened Phelistines. The people of Gath seem to have remained faithful friends of David ever afterwards, so that even six hundred of them followed David when he fled from Jerusalem before his son Absalom (II Samuel xv, 18). David's army must have conquered the whole of Phelistia; for we find that during the whole of the reign of Solomon the Israelitish territory extended to the river of Egypt beyond Gaza, still no mention is made of another campaign against the Phelistines. The sacred historian mentions only the cap- ture of Gath, because that was then the capital, the residence of the king of all Phelistia. The term DjTjm " He caused them to submit" (II Samuel v, 1) confirms our view. Ammon and Moab were but one nation; the children of Lot, divided into the two tribes of Ammon and Moab, were governed by kings of either tribe, according to which the nation was then called either Ammon or Moab. Moses always considered them as one nation (Deutr. xxiii, 4). The first in- vasion of Moab under their king Eglon was effected in company with Ammon (Judges iii, 12, 13). When Ammon invaded Israel, for which a seizure of territory in the days of Moses was men- tioned as the pretext, the messengers of Jephthah were told, it was the territory of Moab and not of Ammon about which war was waged (Judges xi, 13-18). It was impossible, therefore, for David to wage war against Moab (I Samuel viii, 2) and maintain friendly relations with Ammon (ibid x, 2). David sent messengers to Hanon, son of Nahash, who is mentioned as the king of Ammon (I Samuel xi), to condole with him on the death of his father, who is said to have done favors to David. Still our historian did not mention any such favor, notwith- standing the pains he took in giving us all the particulars in the early history of David. There is no fact mentioned which could be made a pretext for an invasion of Moab, while every other foreign war of David was based upon some aggression on 340 PERIOD III. the side of the enemy. The truth must be this: David when persecuted by Saul, brought his parents and their families into a city of Moab under the protection of Nahosh, the enemy of Saul, who probably then resided in Moab, the country having two capitals of the same name, Rabbah of Ammon, Philadel- phia and Rabbah of Moab, Areopolis. When, therefore, Nahash died, David sent ambassadors to his son Hanon, to condole with him on the death of his father. But the officers of the king of Ammon and Moab, convinced by the Phelistine cam- paign that the private relations of David had no influeuce upon him in the discharge of his royal duties, persuaded their ruler, that it was not the sentiments of gratitude and friendship prompting David to this act of courtesy; that it was his inten- tion to invade the country, and that his ambassadors were but spies sent under the mask of friendship. Nahash was foolish enough to believe his counsellors ; he insulted the ambassadors of David in a manner then held to be outrageous. Their beards were cut and their cloaks were mutilated. If David had previously beaten Moab and the Syrians, Nahash would have carefully avoided insulting David so imprudently. The ambassadors returned to Jericho, being ashamed to come to Jerusalem, and word was sent to David of what had occurred. The Israelites had certainly not forgotten the unjust attacks of Ammon and Moab upon their territory in the times of Ehud, of Jephthah, and of Saul. The disgraceful demand of Nahash, which he made to the besieged people of Jabash in Gilead, must have been especially fresh in their memory. This pro- voking act of Hanon was but a kindling spark thrown in the midst of accumulated combustibles ; the Israelites were enraged ; brave, warlike, and accustomed to victory as they now were, David could not stop the popular current, had he attempted to do so, and was obliged to invade Moab. The first campaign took place in the province of Moab ; and it appears to have been an easy work for the Davidian army to occupy the Moabitish territory; although the Moabites so bravely defended their country, that two-thirds of the^- army covered the battle fields; still the conquest was completed, and Moab was made tribu- CHAPTER VIII. S41 tary to David. The conquest of Amnion could not be under- taken immediately, for David saw himself threatened with war from two sources at the same time. Edom was alarmed by the conquest of Moab and made pre- parations to invade Moab in favor of Amnion. The Edomites marched towards the Dead sea, and encamped in the Salt val- ley, most likely in the Salt marsh, south of the Dead sea, where they were protected on all sides against sudden attacks, and from which point they were enabled to operate against Moab and Jehudah. The position of the Edomites was the more dangerous to the Da vidian army, as it cut off their re- treat into Jehudah. Abishai, mentioned before as the savior of David, was left in charge of the southern army, and, as it appears, in a critical condition; for attention was attracted towards the north, where a more powerful enemy threatened to invade and to subjugate the country, as he had done with Damascus. Hadarezer, son of Rehob, king of Zobah, had risen to great eminence in Syria and Northern Mesopotamia. Whether Nisibis or Aleppo was then the headquarters of the Syrians is of no importance to us ; it is sufficient for us to know, that Hadarezer the Zobaite, had marched a victorious army as far west as Damascus, conquering cities and armies, which were calculated to stop the progress of the victorious army, chiefly composed of cavalry, and so he succeeded in holding in subjection a large part of Syria and Mesopotamia, including Damascus and Aleppo. Thoi, also, king of Hamath or Emesa, north-east of Palestine, was involved in war with Hadarezer. After Hadarezer had garrisoned Damascus, he in- tended to conquer Palestine before returning to the Euphrates, and marched at the head of a considerable army towards Pales- tine to effect his purpose. David most likely met him in the moun- tainous region at the head waters of the Jordan, where Hada- rezer could not use the cavalry to any advantage, and the Davidian infantry, the slingers and archers so useful in such territories, were certainly superior to those of Hadarezer. He had committed the imprudence of exposing an army, trained and accustomed to fight in plains, to the attacks of brave and 342 PERIOD III. practiced mountaineers in a mountainous territory, every hill of which was known to David and certainly occupied to the best advantage, while it was foreign to Hadarezer. The con- sequence was a signal defeat of the victorious army of the Syrians, with a loss of seventeen hundred horse and twenty thousand foot. This loss by no means discouraged Hadarezer; he renewed the attack after having been reinforced by fresh troops from Damascus ; but was again defeated with a loss of twenty-two thousand men. David pursued his advantages, marched on Damascus, which he found evaluated by the enemy, and garrisoned it and the dependent towns. He did the same with Betah, or Heliopolis, and Berothi, or Bostra, so that in the north he came in immediate contact with Thoi, king of Ha- math, or Emesa, who made considerable presents to David, having sent to him his own son Joram, as an indemnity for a part of the expenses incurred in the campaign against Hadarezer who was now driven from this part of the country. David had in the north a friendly ally. In the south this conquest brought him to the northern frontiers of Amnion, which was now exposed on three sides to the Davidian armies. The position of the southern army under the command of Abishai was, as we remarked before, in a critical state. Still he succeeded in maintaining himself in Moab. The prayers of David during his engagement in the north (Psalms lx and lxx, and others), and his song of victory after the battle which we shall next describe (Psalms lx and cviii), fully indi- cate the dangerous state in which David considered the coun- try during this double war. When, therefore, Hadarezer was defeated, and while David still operated in Syria, Joab was dis- patched with an aggregate force to join the southern army. Joab most likely marched through Jehudah, and attacked the Edomites in their encampments in the Salt marsh, in which battle he defeated the Edomites, who left twelve thousand men on the battle ground. While David was occupied in the north, as described before, Joab completed the conquest of Edom (I. Kings xi, 15), while Abishai prevented the Ammonites from j oining with the Edomites. David returned to Jerusalem with CHAPTER VIII. 343 rich spoils in gold, silver and copper, which he deposited in the national treasury. Joab and Abishai, however, were ordered to continue the war against Amnion, who had engaged a Syrian army of twenty- two thousand strong. Joab and Abishai con- centrated their forces to attack the enemy ; but they were out- manouvered by Hanon, so that the Israelites came between two armies ; the Ammonites came upon them from the city, Rab- bath Ammon, while the Syrians at the same time arrived, threatening to attack their rear. Joab when aware of the imminent danger, choose from the army the veteran troops to attack the Syrians, leaving the rest under the command of Abishai to attack the Ammonites, maintaining a communica- tion between the two divisions, in order to be able to render assistance to each other if possible and necessary. The short address of Joab is no mean testimony of his soldier-like cha- racter: " Be of good courage, and let us be strong on behalf of our people and the cities of our God, and the Lord do that which seemeth him good." Joab begun the attack upon the Syrians, and put them to flight, which so discouraged the Am- monites that they too hastened back to the city, which afforded them ample protection for a long time. When Hadarezer had received information of the defeat of the Syrians, he sent a strong force, chiefly consisting of caval- ry and chariots, under the command of Shobach, his chief captain, to repel Joab from the Ammonitish territory. The Syrian army encamped at Helam. David, informed of the approach of the Syrians, collected his army and crossed the Jordan to meet the enemy. We are not informed about the particulars of the battle, which must have been a desperate one, for the Syrians were defeated with a loss of seven hundred chariots and forty thousand horse ; the Syrian commander lost his life on the battle field, which undoubtedly gave rise to the twentieth Psalm. We are not informed, that at this time David observed the Mosaic command, to lame their horses and to burn their chariots, as he had done in the first campaign. David had now learned to value the advantages of a good cavalry on plains, and he was now master of Syria as far as 344 PERIOD III. the Euphrates, and so he could not well do without a cavalry, which was not necessary to defend Palestine. Eabbah held out, although Hadarezer had sued for peace, and became tributary to Israel. David returned to Jerusalem, and Joab was left at the head of a force to reduce Kabbah, after the rest of the country had been occupied. Many assaults of Joab upon the city were effectually repelled, in one of which Uriah fell, according to the will of the king, as we shall see hereafter. Joab finally succeeded in taking that part of the city where was the royal palace, and the reservoir, which supplied the city with water. The city could hold out no longer, and so Joab sent to David to come and complete the work, else he would take the city and call it by his name. David came with an additional force, and took the city. He appropriated to himself the precious crown of Amnion, besides large spoils which he took in Rabbah and other cities. The heroic defenders of their country were transported from their homes, and made to labor with the heaviest iron tools. David and his army returned to Jerusalem; he was now master of all the territory between the Mediterranean and the Euphrates, a few small districts excepted, as Moses had set down the landmarks of Israel. It was not taken in wars of conquest; David was provoked, was affronted, and he only defended the honor of the nation ; the results were by no means premeditated. The war could have been extended over the rest of Syria, farther north and east; but neither the policy of David nor of Israel was a hostile one ; precisely as Moses had founded it, so it still was. What plan of government David now pursued is difficult to say; there was now a new state of things in existence. Israelitish garrisons were at Damascus, and other Syrian cities, as well as Idumea. Gath, as well as Ammon and Moab, could not well be held without a garrison, and there can be no doubt, that a new plan had to be adopted in this respect; but no inform- ation on this point has reached us. We occasionally learn, that foreigners served in the army, that Cherethites, Peletites and Gathites were in Jerusalem, when the Absalom revolution CHAPTER VIII. 345 broke out; still, we are entirely ignorant of the manner of keeping up a standing army and governing conquered pro- vinces. It is most likely, that the soldiers stationed in foreign countries were volunteers of different nations ; that aside of the twenty-four thousand Israelites, which were always on duty in the inland places, and especially at Jerusalem, there were also enlisted a corresponding number of the depending nations to do service on the same plan as the Israelites. How were the annexed countries governed? The piety of David and his aversion to idolatry, would suggest that they were governed by the Mosaic laws ; but there are no historical ves- tiges in proof of this suggestion, as in fact we have no historical ground to decide for or against. Still, the customs of ancient nations would speak in favor of this decision : the gods of the victorious nation were always considered superior to those of the conquered, the gods and the laws of the respective gods were identical with all eastern nations. How long a time was spent in those campaigns? This is another important question which can not be answered, since the time of their beginning can not be ascertained. The end of the war was almost simultaneous with the birth of Solomon (II Samuel xii, 25). That Solomon was still young when David died is frequently remarked in Chronicles ; but that he was not so very young as is generally supposed, is evident from the fact that he reigned but about forty years, still, it is said of him, that he was led astray when he had become old (I Kings xi, 4). It will, there- fore, be safe to say, the Davidian campaigns ended about twenty years before the demise of that king. It is extremely difficult to govern a nation with such a demo- cratic spirit, laws and institutions as the Israelites had, after the people had become conscious of their immense power by a long and chivalric warfare, proud of their position among other nations, made rich by a fertile soil, and the spoils of their enemies, intelligent by the labors of a large number of national literati, and united by the ties of a common language, religion and nationality. As soon, therefore, as war was waged no more, dissatisfaction became visible against the government of David, 346 PERIOD III. of which Psalms xvii, xxv, xxvi, xxvii, xxviii, xxxi, xxxv, xxxviii, xl, xli, and other Psalms too plainly speak to require another demonstration at our hands. David himself, as heroic, prudent and pious as he was, gave considerable reason for dissatisfaction; although the dissatisfaction of Jehudah, most likely, must be ascribed to their claims of supremacy which David did not much favor. David considerably lessened his glory by his endeavors to secure to his family the hereditary and exclusive claim to the throne of Israel. It is no wonder that he effected his design, being the favorite of the prophets and of the Levites, having in his favor the immense services rendered to the nation, the military glory which covered his head, the literary and political talents which made him the favorite of the multitude, his pious and punctual adherence to the law and religion of the nation, which obtained in his favor also a majority of the national council. And, in fact, it can not be said, that the favor was unmerited. Still, the events of the future history will show, that this was not the will of the nation. That it gave rise to civil war, and, finally, to the divi- sion of Israel. It is impossible that a nation trained for four centuries in a republican life, should at once give up for ever its right to govern itself. The author of Samuel, aware of the mischief which grew out of this bad policy, both of David and the national council, sets the document relating to it before the Syrian war, although there was then no cause to bestow such a peculiar favor on David, in order to give to the transaction the appearance of neutrality on the part of David ; and in his general style, or probably in the style of those who compiled the canon, and as the Israelites generally did and still do, when a misfortune befalls them, we are told God has done it, conse- quently, we must submit to the consequences. The second cause of dissatisfaction given by David was his conduct towards Uriah and his wife, which our sources com- municate in the following manner. While Joab and Abishai besieged Rabbath Ammon, after peace was concluded with Haderezer, David walking on the roof of his palace saw a woman of eminent beauty, who, on inquiry, he was told that CHAPTER Villi 347 she was the wife of Uriah, one of his prominent heroes and friends. He, notwithstanding, was unable to bridle his pas- sions. The woman was brought to the royal palace, and seduced by the king. The consequences of that immoral act were soon felt by the faithless woman, Bath Sheba, and the king was in- formed of it. He saw himself in an embarassing condition, and desirous to cover his sin he sent for Uriah, who was in the army with Joab, hoping that he would stay with his wife for a time, and so the affair would remain a secret. This part of the narrative speaks for itself. David, intoxicated by success, and surrounded by luxury, yielded to the demands of his pas- sions ; but, fearing the censure of the people and the consequences of an act which the law punished with death, he endeavored to conceal his crime. Uriah came to David, apparently, as a bearer of dispatches from the army. The expectations of the* king were not realized ; for the patriotic Uriah sternly refused to go home and enjoy the pleasures of domestie happiness, as long as his superiors and comrades were exposed to the incon- veniences of a campaign. He was intoxicated at the royal table, but neither did this produce a change in his patriotic resolution. The king was disappointed in his expectations. Uriah left Jerusalem to return, probably, as an accuser of the king before the tribunals of justice. David had the alternative either to expose himself to the people, or to remove Uriah from his way. He dared not to have him assassinated or con- demned by a legal tribunal, as Jezebel did to Naboth, and so he wrote a letter to Joab, ordering him to cause the death of Uriah in a maimer that would not excite suspicion, which command was speedily obeyed. When the king was informed of it he took Bath Sheba in marriage, thinking that the whole would remain a profound secret. Still it remained no secret; Bath Sheba gave birth to a child much before the usual time. The king did not abandon her, but his attendants suspected, investigated, and the hor- rible crime was soon disclosed. The friends of legal liberty trembled for the consequences. If the laws of the land, if the life of one of his most devout friends and patriotic citizens 348 PERIOD III. were sacrificed in such a criminal way, the whole nation was in danger. David had hoped to cover his guilt, but the prophet Nathan corrected his mistake. He told the king, whether by his own impulse or by secret orders of the senate, in the name of God, who abhors impurity and crime, that he had forfeited the confidence of his friends, that the sword would not depart from his house, which indicated that revolu- tions would break out in consequence of the stain on his character, and the apprehensions of the people. David con- fessed his guilt, he acknowledged that he had disgraced his dignity and violated the laws of the land. This humble con- fession was a sufficient guaranty to the prophet, that the crime was not committed in defiance of the law ; that it was but a momentary forgetfulness of his duties, and consequently that the people had no cause for farther apprehensions. This was the whole object of the prophet's mission, and therefore he promised to David the pardon of the Lord, or the farther support of the senate to maintain him on the throne, which was after all very prudent, for in grateful remembrance of the glory and prosperity to which David elevated his nation, and in consideration of his eminent abilities to govern the land, as well as of his numerous friends, it would have been wrong and imprudent to farther expose him to the people, or to dethrone him on account of a private crime, which he con- fessed and repented of. But the people thought differently from those high in office. The moral feelings of the multitude were offended. In vain did the king fast and pray for seven days, when the child begotten in the sin was taken sick; in vain was it circulated among the people that David's trans- gression was obliterated before the Lord, who punished him with the death of the child; in vain the most beautiful poems, depicting the repentance of David and the pardon granted by God (Psalms xxxii, li, lxix, and others), were circulated; his enemies had found a cause to blame him, and innocent people know of no prudence. Their moral feelings were offended, and all the virtues and greatness of David were forgotten. The friends of the house of Saul, the friends of the republic, the CHAPTER VIII. 349 enemies of David for other causes, and gangs of idlers in which every country abounds, and who thrive best in making opposi- tion to the existing state of things, and slandering whoever is great in the estimation of others, had now a reasonable cause to make themselves heard, and to overturn the throne of David. Another cause of dissatisfaction given by David was his want of energy in the exercise of his paternal authority, which brought disgrace on his neglected sons. David had nineteen legitimate sons and one daughter, besides the children of the concubines (I Chron. ii\), of which Amnon, son of Ahinoam, the second wife of David — Michal had no children — was the firstborn. Absalom, son of Maachah, who was the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur, a Syrian province, was the third son of David. He had a sister, named Thamar, with whom Amnon fell in love. The prince grieved much about his un- happy love, so that a prudent courtier, Jonadab, the nephew of David, observed the melancholy humor of the prince, and succeeded in learning the secret cause of it. Amnon succeeded, by the cunning advice of his cousin, in bringing Thamar to his private apartments, where he not only violated the chastity of his half-sister, notwithstanding her truly intelligent and persuading prayer not to disgrace her, but also rudely misused her after the diabolical act was committed. The melancholy complaint of Thamar grieved David very much, but he did neither punish nor even admonish Amnon. Absalom was infuriated by the disgraceful act, and thought of vengeance. He made no show of his anger, but patiently waited for an opportunity to give satisfaction to his sister. Absalom had an estate in Baal Hazor, in Ephraim, to which place he invited the royal princes, with permission of the king, to the annual festivities, on the occasion of shearing the sheep. He suc- ceeded in bringing Amnon to that place, who, when he had partaken freely of the wine, was, by orders of Abasalom, attacked and killed by the servants of the offended brother; upon which Absalom sought refuge with his grandfather, the king of Geshur. David mourned the loss of his eldest son, but he took no measures to punish Absalom. Three years of 350 PERIOD III. absence had not only obliterated the crime of Absalom from the memory of David, but he also desired to see him again. Joab observed that desire, and by a prudent contrivance of his own, and the cooperation of a wise woman from Thekoa, he persuaded the king to recall his son from exile. The words of the woman are strongly characteristic of the high state of mental culture of that age, and the respect paid to the law and the king. Absalom returned to Jerusalem, but he was excluded from the court and all the honors connected with that station. Joab refused to plead for him with the king and to visit Absa- lom. The latter resorted to the strange stratagem of setting on fire the barley on one of Joab-s fields, which caused Joab to pay a visit to Absalom, demanding explanation of the strange behavior. Joab was won in favor of the prince, the king was reconciled, and Absalom again took his station at the royal court, which he desired, as the consequences show, for the purpose of having a better chance to conspire against his own father. He not only indulged in an unusual luxury, in order to win the hearts of the friends of royal pomp and splen- dor, in which every capital abounds, which was the more dangerous to his father, on account of the distinguishing beauty of the prince ; but he also persuaded, by promising and win- ning words and deportment, the good natured country people, who happened to meet him, that there was no justice in the land as long as David reigned, and that he would ameliorate the condition of the people, if the destinies of the land were placed in his hands. Still David did not perceive the danger- ous abyss in which his son was preparing to plunge him. Absalom was aware that his father would not make him his successor to the throne, and therefore he endeavored to de- throne him and assume the royal dignity at the earliest oppor- tunity. Ahitophel, the private counsellor of David, was the chief leader of affairs for Absalom, and so this ambitious and reckless youth suceeeded in producing a secret and wide-spread conspiracy against his father. He sought to unite in his own favor all the enemies of David; speaking only of his desire to be judge of Israel, as in the times of the republic (II Samuel xv, CHAPTER VIII. S51 4), which was the more credible, since he had no son (ibid xviii, 18): he won for himself both the republicans and oppo- nents of a hereditary power. The friends of Saul gladly embraced the opportunity to dethrone David, and the men of Jehudah thought of rising again to supremacy under the youth- ful ruler. The fratricide of Absalom was considered, as it would have been among most of the ancient nations, a just revenge for the degradation of his sister, while the faults of David were thought unpardonable. The beautiful appearance and the luxury of Absalom, swelled the sum of his advantages. The fact that Ahitophel and Amasai joined in the conspiracy, gives us just ground to suppose that many more of the high officers of David were connected with Absalom. The time of this revolution can not be fixed precisely, but so much is sure, that it occurred during the first half of the last ten years of the reign of David. The king of Geshur certainly did not give his daughter to an adventurer. "We may therefore take for granted, that this marriage of David took place while he was king of Jehudah, as the author of Chronicles informs us that Absalom was born in Hebron. He was not a lad when he killed his brother Amnon, after which he stayed three years in Geshur and two years in Jerusalem. Consequently he must have been now nearly thirty years of age, which brings the event up to the thirty-second year of the reign of David. Absalom, on permission of the king, went to Hebron to pay a vow, as he told the king, which he had made in Geshur. Accompanied by two hundred innocent men, he arrived at He- bron, where on a given signal the conspirators assembled around him, and he had in a short time a sufficient army to march against Jerusalem. When the king received information of the conspiracy of his unnatural son, he was so unprepared, that he could not take any effectual measures against the rebels. His active army stationed at Jerusalem was numerically insignificant — which is strong evidence against the existence of a military despotism which some say existed under David. David never put much confidence in walls, gates and bars; in the present instance he was even afraid the capital might suffer 352 PERIOD III. too much by the attack ; and so he left the city with all possible speed, accompanied by his veteran soldiers and officers of the army, the faithful Joab and Abishai, the Cherethi, Pelethi and six hundred men of Gath, who happened to be in the capital, Ithai, a man of Gath, the high priest, his proxy and all the Levites on duty with the ark, and the king's family, with the exception of ten concubines. David fled. The man who never fled before an enemy, never was moved by the approach of danger; the man who fought so many battles, routed so many armies, before whom so many had trembled, now fled before his own son, accompanied by a lamenting multitude. The fidelity of Ithai, as described by our sources, is a moving example of friendship, and testifies to the best advantage of the good gov- ernment of David in Gath. Crossing the brook Kidron, the king observed the priests with the ark. He ordered them back to the city, in order to serve his cause there, where they natu- rally must have been of more service to the king than on the road. David then ascended Mount Olive, where he learned that Ahitophel was among the conspirators, which was a sor- rowful message to the king, knowing the abilities of his counsellor. But in the mean time he recognized his friend Hushai ; this man was as high in authority as Ahitophel. He was sent back immediately to counteract the advices of Ahito- phel, he was told to communicate with the high priest, and his proxy, who by means of their two sons would inform the king of all steps taken in the capital. The greatness of David was never manifested to better ad- vantage than by these hasty measures, taken in a moment of adversity, confusion and feebleness, for these measures saved him. When proceeding, he was met by Zibah, the stewart of Mephibosheth, who brought asses, provisions, and wine, informing the king of the joy of Mephibosheth at the flight of the king. David knowing the part which the friends of Saul had in the present conspiracy, believed the false re- port, and presented Zibah with the whole property of Mephi- bosheth. Proceeding eastward toward the Jordan they reached Bahurim where a man of the family of Saul, Shimei, son of CHAPTER VIII. 353 Gera, came out, cursed the king and threw stones at him and his friends. Abishai, enraged by that behavior, begged leave of the king to slay the dog, as he called Shimei; but David, not losing his patience for a moment, forbade him to touch the man. The king and his suite rested at Bahurim. The words of David and the psalms composed on this occasion (Psalms iii, lv, and others), are truly heart-rending and indicative of a pious, strong and confident mind. David in his misfortune is greater than ever. Absalom had taken possession of Jerusalem, and received the congratulations of the people. The appearance of Hushai, the friend of David, surprised the ambitious youth ; but the ex- perienced statesman knew" how to win the confidence of the new king, to whom his wise counsel was welcome. On the advice of Ahitophel, Absalom took formal possession of the concubines of his father, showing his intention to step into the rights of the king. Ahitophel advised him to pursue David without delay, before the king succeeded in collecting and organizing an army, which would result in the destruction of David; but Hushai was not satisfied with the advice of Ahito- phel; he supposed it to be a hazardous movement to attack the heroic band of the king in the open field with so small an army as Absalom had; the loss of the first battle would lessen the confidence of the people; and besides this, it was certain that the king did not stay with his army, consequently could not be captured. His advice was to concentrate a large army, then to crush at once the king and his small force. Hushai informed the high priests of the advice of Ahitophel and also of his own, not knowing yet which would be adopted. The sons of the high priests were dispatched to David, who took the pre- caution to set over Jordan that very night. The plan of Hushai was adopted at Jerusalem ; David had respite to gather and organize an army. Ahitophel saw that the cause of Absa- lom was lost, that death awaited him, when the king returned, and so he left Absalom and committed suicide. Amasai, the son of a half sister of David and of a Jishma- lite, the same who made common cause with David when he 23 354 PERIOD III. was persecuted by Saul (I Chron. xii, 18), was appointed chief captain of the army of Absalom, which, when numerically strong enough, crossed over the Jordan to attack David, who had made his head quarters at Mahanaim, the former residence of Ish Bosheth. It must be noticed here, that while in Mahanaim David was visited by Shubi, son of Nahash, a royal prince of Ammon; Mahir, son of Amiel, the former host of Mephibo- sheth, and Barzilai a Gileadite, who provided the king and his army with all the necessary articles. This again speaks highly in favor of the Davidian government in the conquered provinces. Gilead was a loyal land, David always mentioned Gilead first when speaking of his possessions. The warriors of Gilead flocked to the standards of David ; troops could also be obtain- ed from the garrisons of Ammon, Moab, Bostra and Damascus; and so David succeeded in concentrating a considerable army around Mahanaim. The troops were divided into three divisions under the command of Joab, Abishai and Ithai, and in this way they marched to meet the enemy, who was stationed in a forest near Mahanaim, called the forest of Ephraim. David, by the ex- press will of his officers, had to remain in the city, on which occasion the Psalm ex was addressed to him. The Davidian army opened the attack upon the numerous army of Absalom in the forest of Ephraim. The experience of Joab and Abishai and most likely also of Ithai, the bravery of their veteran troops, and the inspiration of the Gileadites for the cause which they served, did not leave room to doubt the success of the Davidian troops. The army of Absalom was defeated, covering the battle field with twenty thousand dead, and Absa- lom fled. Riding on a mule, his hair caught in the branches of a tree ; the mule ran off, and he was found by a soldier sus- pended on the tree. The soldier who discovered him, remem- bering the express command of the king, did not kill Absalom, but he told Joab of his situation. Joab with his arm-bearers hastened to the spot, and notwithstanding he was put in mind of the king's orders, he bade his men kill Absalom, who im- mediately executed the orders of their chief. A heap of stona CHAPTER VIII. 355 covered the body of the unnatural son, who had been ambitious enough to erect to himself a monument in a place called king's valley, that his name might be remembered; who was base enough to conspire against the life of his own father; and who was vain enough to believe himself sufficiently prudent and powerful to dethrone David. There was buried an am- bitious, vain, base and dangerous man; Joab had a right to kill him. David was aware, that it was the advice of Ahito- phel, and his own carelessness and fondness of his sons, which misled Absalom to that impardonable step ; he therefore or- dered his officers not to kill him, and when the victorious army returned to the city, David, who had been informed of the death of his son, did not receive them as was expected under such circumstances. He retired to a chamber, and gave himself up to a heart-rending lamentation for his son. Who can blame the father for lamenting over his son. David was one of those precious characters, whose human sentiments were not crushed, either under the weight of a crown, or under the iron practice of a military life. He was a poet of profound sentiments, a too-fond father and husband, although he was both a bold warrior and a prudent statesman. The lamentations of the king embarrassed the army, and Joab moved the king by rational grounds and mean menaces to ad- dress his warriors, which David reluctantly did. Absalom and his army were slain; but the nation bled from twenty thousand wounds. No enthusiastic voice greeted this time the victory of David, none told him to return to Jerusalem ; the friends of David in vain praised his exploits, his services rendered to the country. The embarrassment of David must have been considerable; to march upon Jerusalem and take possession of the throne with military force was a hazardous game, which might have estranged from him even the hearts of his friends ; delay was no less dangerous, the land was without a government, another adventurer might succeed in collecting an army, which, if better managed, might secure success. David waited in vain for the voice of the people. Nothing was heard; a death-like silence pervaded the country, and he saw himself 356 PERIOD III. obliged to resort to a secret policy, in which Zadok and Abiathar, high priest and proxy, were his agents. The secret promise given to Amasai, Absalom's chief captain, to let him into the high position he then occupied, proves sufficiently, that the enemy was only restrained, by no means annihilated. It must be remembered, that David had a right to depose Joab, who had acted contrary to the express orders of the king, and no monarch in our days would hesitate to dispose of a disobe- dient officer, whatever services he might have rendered. Zadok, Abiathar and Amasai succeeded in winning over the tribe of Jehudah, who sent ambassadors to David to bring him back to Jerusalem. On reaching the Jordan, the king was met by Shimei, son of Gera, who came at the head of a thousand Ben- jamites, and Ziba, with fifteen sons and twenty servants, to beg pardon of the king. David, notwithstanding the sanguinary advice of Abishai to the contrary, was prudent enough to grant pardon. Barzilai too had come to accompany the king across the Jordan. The king offered to his loyal benefactor the hos- pitality of the royal court, which Barzilai, being eighty years of age, respectfully declined, recommending his son Chimhon to the royal patronage, who followed the king to Jerusalem. Arrived at Gilgal the king was received by the deputies of half of the people besides Jehudah, who brought him back to Jerusalem. But our a,uthor has not a word to say of any kind of enthusiasm greeting the king in the country or in the capi- tal; no hymn, no psalm has reached us indicative thereof; which fully justifies us in believing that there were no manifest- ations of joy on the king's return to the government. David punished none of the rebels; Amasai was made chief captain, Benaiah, son of Jehoiadah, the commander of the Chereti and Peleti, was appointed to the place of Ahitophel, the government had resumed its former appearance, when a debate of the national council suddenly gave rise to a new and more threat- ening revolt than the first. The cause of the protracted debate was the arrogance of Jehudah in recalling the king without the consent of the other tribes; the desire of Jehudah for suprem- acy was too visible in the act to have passed unnoticed. The CHAPTER VIII. 357 representatives of Jehudah became insolent, and the excitement run high. Sheba, son of Bichri, a Benjamite, residing on Mount Ephraim, was present, and, improving the opportunity, he succeeded in turning the scale in favor of republicanism. Open rebellion against David was proclaimed in many districts, and the representatives of the tribes, Jehudah excepted, left the national council. The king gave orders to Amasai to call out the warriors of Jehudah to quell this new revolution; but he did not succeed in so doing in the time given by the king. Being afraid the warriors of Jehudah might again betray him, David apprehend- ed more danger from Sheba than from Absalom ; consequently he gave orders to Abishai to take the troops ready for action and pursue after the republican leader. Abishai left Jerusalem at the head of the troops, accompanied by Joab, whose address and courage was for this time almost indispensably necessary. On reaching Gibeon they met with Amasai. Joab reenacted the foul play of which Abner had been the victim ; he assassinated his own cousin Amasai. One of the warriors exclaimed: "Whoever loves Joab and David follow after Joab," and the whole host followed after Joab. So this violent and cruel man was again at the head of the army. He again signalized his name. All gates were open before the man whose very name struck terror to every heart, and spread dismay far and wide; the warlike flocked again to his standards, and he pursued after Sheba, whom he finally found confiding in the strong walls of Abel-Beth-Maachah. But the man who had taken Rabbath Aramon and Petra; who was the first upon the walls of Zion, did not pay much attention to fortifications. Arrangements were made to take the city by assault, which a wise woman prevented by assassinating Sheba and throwing his head over the wall. The death of the leader discomfited the party, and peace was restored to the country. David, it appears, was unable to depose Joab, who was the soul of the army, however desirous he was to do so, as the Psalm ex, and other psalms plainly suggest, as he in fact had twice attempted in vain. Tranquility and confidence in the 358 PERIOD III. government gradually returned; and David, as Psalm xviii shows, thought himself secure on his throne; but it was not so with the hereditary interests of his family. The last commo- tion convinced him, that the house of Saul had more friends than he had supposed; and there were still alive several mem- bers of that family. A famine, which lasted for three years, gave a pretext for the horrible act of extinguishing that un- fortunate house. Phenomena of an unusual nature were always taken as a proof of God's wrath on account of a par- ticular sin; this time David was informed, our text says by God, that the famine occurred on account of the sins of Saul, in having massacred the Gibeonites, well known for their treaty with Joshua. But it is evident that God never before commu- nicated with David, which justifies the critics in suspecting this passage. The tradition says, that seven of the Gibeonites, being em- ployed in the lower kind of work for the national sanctuary, were killed with the priests at Nob ; it is therefore likely, that the priests cooperated with David in this most abominable act. The Gibeonites were asked, what should be done to them to reconcile them ? They demanded seven men of the unhappy house of Saul to be executed for their brethren killed by order of that king. David without asking the advice of any one on that serious demand, and in defiance of the laws (Deutr. xxiv, 16), delivered up to the Gibeonites the two sons of the faithful Rizpah, daughter of Aiah, concubine of Saul, and the five sons of Merab, eldest daughter of Saul, who executed them on a mountain, and, again in defiance of the laws (Deutr. x, 22, 23), merely to frighten the friends of that unhappy house, they remained unburied for many weeks. Only Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, the devoted servant of David, who being lame was not dangerous to the Davidian dynasty, was spared; but he was unjustly deprived of half of his property, which David gave to Zibah, who betrayed his master, and imposed falsehoods upon the king. There is no law for kings when the interests of the dynasty are in danger? the Davidian dynasty too was established upon the blood of many innocent persons, CHAPTER VIII. 359 and against the will of the people. Rizpah, the unfortunate mother, watched the bodies of the seven executed sons and grandsons of Saul, protecting them from the hungry birds of prey and ferocious beasts. David was informed of it, cer- tainly not in the most pleasant manner ; the superstitious may have been satisfied, but the just and enlightened certainly were not. He disinterred the bodies of Saul and Jonathan at Jabash, and together with the bodies of the executed members of that house, they were buried in the sepulchre of Kish, Saul's father. What can justify David for this act of inhumanity? If the famine was a consequence of the late commotions, as it most likely was, which was chiefly ascribed to the friends of Saul, it was deemed necessary to crush that party; David, in order to prevent the reenactment of such scenes of convulsion and bloodshed, had a certain right to resort to these bloody measures, if the voice of God ordaining this decree was the voice of the senate. But could not the same end have beeu reached in a more humane way, if David had possessed the moral courage to resign the claims of his unborn successors to the throne? Many misfortunes of the nation would have been prevented, and David's name would be the glory of kings, and the pride of humanity. The next care of David must have been to secure to the capital the predominance over all other cities, so that the royal court and the officers of the government be surrounded by a sacred nimbus ; to which purpose he had brought the ark to Jerusalem, had erected for it a new pavilion, and surrounded it with all the pomp which the law permitted. His endeavors to build a temple were in vain, the people considered it an innovation, God had never commanded any one to build him a temple, was the very message which David received by the prophet Nathan; they especially considered David, who had shed so much blood, unworthy of such a sacred enterprise. The sanctity and importance of the Davidian tabernacle was greatly diminished by the existence of the Mosaic tabernacle at Gideon, a city of priests, where the people still sacrificed and which was still in high estimation among the pious; so 360 PERIOD III. Jerusalem was not yet the center of the land; the center of gravity of the Mosaic policy still was in Gibeon (I Chron. xxi, 29). An accident, of which David made the right use, brought him also nearer to the execution of this most requisite enter- prise. Joab, by order of the king, took the census of the people, and he found in Israel eight hundred thousand, and in Jehudah five hundred thousand men, able to do military service. The total number of souls must have been near five millions. A plague raged afterwards in Israel for one day, and swept away seventy thousand victims. The popular aversion to the act of counting the people at large, was rationally based upon the fear of a consolidation of power in the royal government, and crushing the independence of the tribes. The wrath of God, in having sent a plague, was for this time ascribed to the impiety of David, who had taken the census in opposition to ancient custom, which gave this right to the heads of the dif- ferent tribes.* But David knew how to use every event advantageously. While yet the plague was raging, he ascended Mount Moriah, the third hill of Jerusalem, occupied by Anion, the Jebusite, and erected an altar to stop the plague, because he could not go to Gibeon, fearing the rage of the angel of destruc- tion— (I Chron. xxi, 30) — in the threshing-floor of Arnon, which he bought of that descendant of the royal line of the Jebusite for fifty shekels of silver. The prophet, Gad, assisted the king, and the plague was marvelously stopped. This stratagem was a happy one; the place was consecrated; the altar by which the miracle was wrought remained there; the king succeeded in arresting the dreadful malady ; there must be the portals of heaven; a temple must be erected on the spot to eternize the glorious event. David completed a plan for the temple, the execution of which was entrusted to his successor in office, as he himself had become too old to execute his gigantic idea, besides, the current of popular prejudices was too much opposed to him. The days of David were numbered; his energies gradually * Numbers i, 2-17: xxvi. CHAPTER VIII. 561 vanished ; and even the beautiful Abishag-ha-Shunamith suc- ceeded not in reanimating the declining spark of life.* It was time now to appoint his successor. He, therefore, appeared before the senate (I Chron. xxviii), and stated to them his will, that Solomon, his son, should reign after him; whom God had chosen to succeed him, and to build the temple on Mount Mori ah, for which he had made the plan, that was now laid before them. The senate consented to the choice of the king among his sons, as Solomon must have been a beloved and known poet, and renowned for his brilliant endowments, although he was but a 3roung man. Adoniah, son of David, and Hagith, and, as it appears, also the other royal princes, were not satisfied with the appoint- ment of Solomon. Joab also disliked Solomon on account of his peace-loving policy; and Abiathar, the high priest's proxy, who supposed he had a rightful claim upon the highest dignity, also assisted Adoniah. This prince, comparing to Absalom in beauty, reckoning upon the fondness of his father, his slackness of energy on account of old age, and upon the army being on his side on account of Joab, proclaimed himself successor of his father. David was informed of this second revolt of his sons, which was supported again by Jehudah, and all the royal princes. Bath Sheba, the mother of Solomon, and Nathan, the prophet, persuaded the king to take speedy and efficient mea- sures. But this time it was only necessary to declare by a public act, that Solomon, and not Adoniah, was appointed to succeed the king. The high priest Zadok, the prophet Nathan, president of the senate, and Beniali, son of Jehoiada, first counsellor of the king, were appointed to anoint Solomon, and to proclaim him successor of David. The act took place pub- licly at the Creek Gihon, where the people assembled to a great feast, and cheered the young king. Adoniah on hearing this tidings, fled into the tabernacle, fearing for his life; but Solomon * According to R. J. Wunderbar, the story of Abishag proves, that the physicians of that age were acquainted with the effect of the animal mag- netism of Gerocomy. The embraces of Abishag should enliven the energies of David (Biblisch-talmudische MeJicin, 2 Heft, s. 15, Leipzig, 1S51). 362 PERIOD III. assured him of his fraternal intentions, and so no other conse- quences were feared. Shortly after this event, David charged his son to govern the nation according to the laws of Moses, which would make him wise and happy. He recommended to his especial favor the sons of Barzilai, who supported him in Mahanaim. He also exhorted him not to let the crimes of Joab, and the curses of Shimei, son of Gera, go unpunished. Abishai probably died shortly before. David died at the age of seventy years, after a reign of fort)^ years. He was great as a poet, a soldier and a mili- tary leader, but still greater as a statesman. His prudence, sagacity, and quietude in the management of public affairs, is an eminent example of statesmanship. He received a country surrounded by enemies, and distracted by internal discord; he left after thirty-three years the same land rich, prosperous, united, strong; its boundaries widely enlarged, and its enemies subdued. Literature, intelligence and enlightenment progressed rapidly under his sway, and Israel had reached the highest pitch of national prosperity. His private sins and faults can not impair his glory, for the work which he left to posterity was great and strong. He was buried in his own sepulchre, in the city of David. CHAPTER IX. ADMINISTRATION OF SOLOMON (1008—968 B. C). Solomon succeeded David in the government, and was now no longer limited by the presence of his old father; he, conse- quently, could wield his sceptre according to his own views. The virtues of Solomon were great; he was a splendid and ingenious writer, had brilliant wit, was a scientific man, and CHAPTER IX. 363 although the son of a sinful mother, still he was a favorite of the prophets, which speaks well for the mental endowments of Solomon. But he had also his vices ; he was neglected in his moral education, as were all the other sons of David, growing up in harems, which deprived them of that energetic activity characterizing their father. He, being the favorite son of the king's favorite wife, certainly found a sufficient number of flatterers, who praised'his wit and admired his ingenuity, so that he early learned to look upon the people as beings inferior to himself in every respect, who were destined to observe his plans. This made Solomon unfit not only to be an Israelitish king, the agent of Jehovah, but also to be a constitutional mo- narch; the venom of despotism corrupted him in early youth, and nothing truly great could be expected of him. It appears, indeed, that demonstrations against Solomon took place in dif- ferent parts of Israel, and in the foreign provinces, on which occasion either Solomon, or another poet, composed the second Psalm; still, the unimpaired strength of the Davidian army, now under the command of the veteran, Benaiah, son of Jehoiadah, crushed every attempt of this kind. The king's elder brother, the aforenamed Adoniah, had not entirely discarded his desire to mount the throne of David; a secret conspiracy with Joab, now deposed of his office, and with Abiathar, the second high priest, was still in existence. Still, the extent of the conspiracy is not known. It seems, that the beautiful Abishag, David's last wife, or rather nurse, whom Adoniah wished to possess, was also concerned in the conspiracy, who should strengthen by her hand the claims of that prince. He succeeded in engaging the interest of Bath- sheba, mother of Solomon, to make his suit to the king for the hand of Abishag. The unsuspicious woman preferred her request to the king on behalf of his brother. But Solomon understood the motives of this especial love to Abishag, and he gave orders to his chief captain to slay the prince, which orders were promptly executed. The guilt of Joab was suffi- ciently demonstrated by his flight into the tabernacle, and taking hold of the altar when he had heard of the fate of his 364 PERIOD III. royal friend. Custom prohibited among almost all nations of antiquity, the taking of an offender from the altar of God. Moses had the precaution to state, " If a man come presump- tuously upon his neighbor to slay him with guile, thou shalt take him from mine altar that he may die." Joab, notwith- standing his valor and brilliant achievements, was an assassin; the blood of Abner and Amasai defiled his fame. Solomon, therefore, gave orders to kill him at the altar, if he insist upon dying there, which was done accordingly. Joab was an eminent soldier, a shrewd chief, a faithful friend of David, a patriotic citizen; still, he was a violent character, one who cared little for the lives of a few men, and he was deservedly executed. Abiathar was exiled from Jerusalem to his country seat at Anathoth, from which he was afterwards recalled. Shimei, son of Gera, was commanded, under the penalty of death, not to leave Jerusalem ; but he subsequently pursued some fugitive slaves of his to Gath, which cost him his life. There can be no doubt, that others were concerned in this conspiracy, and that more than one life was sacrificed before Solomon sat safely upon the throne of David. Solomon's first step towards despotism is communicated in a characteristic manner. He sacrificed to the Lord at Gibeon, after which God appeared to him in a dream, and at the re- quest of Solomon, political and judicial wisdom superior to all men before him, was granted to him by the favor of God; wealth and glory also were promised to him on a grand scale. It is evident that Solomon must have communicated this pecu- liar dream to his friends, who most likely took proper care to have it published far and wide, that Solomon was the wisest of men, gifted with a superior and divine intellect, so that he needed not the advice of the prophets, the priests, the national council or of any other man, as he in fact never asked any man's advice, acting generally on his own responsibility. The question can only be whether Solomon indeed had such a dream? and if he had, whether it was anything more than a common dream, as our sources plainly say, " And Solomon awoke and behold it was a dream!" The consequences show CHAPTER IX. 365 that he displayed frequently a pitiable deficiency in governing the nation, and that he disregarded the rights and laws of his subjects. If he indeed was in possession of a higher wisdom, then wisdom itself is by no means a desirable object to the welfare of man and to the competency of kings. To us this dream appears as the first step to absolutism ; the brilliant fete which he gave to his courtiers when again in Jerusalem, was a cool policy to give publicity to this alleged dream, with which view the author of I Kings perfectly agrees, for he communicates to us a story, which the people took as a proof of Solomon's superior wisdom, in which we discover no very remarkable display of sagacity. The story is this: Two harlots, each having given birth to a son on the same day, lived alone in one house. One of the women suffocated her child, which she then, favored by the sound sleep of the other woman, exchanged for the living child. Each woman claimed the living boy as her son; no witness was there in favor of either one, and the cause could not be decided in any court, wherefore it was brought before the king, who relying upon the maternal affections, gave orders to divide each of the child- ren into two parts, and to give each woman one half of each child, which, however, had the desired effect. The mother of the living child entreated the king not to kill the boy, to give him to the other party; according to which emotion the king decided, and the child was given to its mother. It is plain that but little knowledge of the human heart was required to make this decision; and that the courts, who have to decide accord- ing to the letter of the law could not resort to such means. It is after all questionable whether the decision was just. In the appointments of Solomon to office we see nothing which entitles us to suppose a change of policy had taken place. Solomon appointed Benaih chief captain of the host, in place of Joab, who was a faithful friend of David as well as Joab, and held the highest positions in the Davidian court. The auditor of David maintained himself in this office, although we are not informed how long he held it under Solomon. Zadok and Abiathar also maintained themselves in their priestly 366 PERIOD III. dignity, and were afterwards replaced by their sons. Adoni- rom, son of Abda, was appointed collector of the taxes. Sabud, son of Nathan, became companion, or friend of the king. Only two new officers are mentioned; Ahishar was appointed major domus, governor of the palace, and Azariah, with twelve inferior officers, was appointed provisioner of the king's household; but these last appointments were not made at the beginning of this administration, because sons-in-law of Solomon are mentioned among the officers. Besides these officers, mention is made of three secretaries of the king — Azariah, son of Zadok, the high priest, Elihoreph and Ahiah, sons of Shisha — while but one secretary was retained at the Davidian court. It is likely, however, that the two privy counsellors, mentioned to have been at the court of David, are here called secretaries. No account is given of the ap- pointment of other officers. The places of Nathan and Gad were afterwards occupied by Ahiah of Shiloh, and Iddo the seer, who presided over the senate. The policy of Solomon is marked more clearly and definitely by his marriage to a daughter of Pharaoh. Palestine then bordered on Egypt; Idumea was a Palestinian province. Amalek and the other tribes of the desert, together with Gaza, were subjected to Israel. At the time of Solomon Egypt was united and strong. A war with Egypt would have been more dangerous to Solomon than the attack of Hadarezer was to David, for Solomon was a man of peace. Palestine was the key to Egypt, and Egyptian produce could reach the interior of Asia through Palestine only. Egypt was rich in good horses, in linen, fish, and other articles which were consumed in Palestine and other Asiatic countries; while the wine, olives, honey, and wheat of Palestine, and the manufactured articles from the interior of Syria must have been desirable articles for the Egyptian market. A commercial treaty between the two nations must have been advantageous to both. A closer alliance with Egypt must also have had the effect of deterring the subdued provinces from rising against Solomon, and to put down also the dissatisfied parties in his own land. But this CHAPTER IX. 367 alliance was opposed by ancient prejudices, which was rooted deeply in the hearts of both nations, and by an express state- ment of the law, still the eminent popularity which Solomon enjoyed, made it possible for him to overcome this prejudice, and to have the law expounded in his favor. He married the daughter of Pharaoh, and made her his favorite queen, build- ing for her a separate palace. This royal alliance inspired an unnamed poet, of the sons of Korah, to a beautiful love song, making now the forty-ninth chapter of Psalms, in which all the causes of that alliance are set forth in a poetical but truth- ful style. Pharaoh went up to Palestine at the head of an army, and took the strong Gezer from the hands of the abori- gines, and gave it to his daughter as a dowery. Solomon himself was not permitted by the law to take the city from the aborigines, still it was part of his policy to crush them entirely, and he resorted to this policy in regard to Gezer. Solomon also cultivated the friendship of Hiram, most likely the second, king of Tyre, with whom he made a covenant (I Kings v, 27), which indicates a closer alliance than the one existing before. He had inherited a strong empire with rich resources, and being now an ally of the powerful Egypt and the rich Tyre, he was powerful enough to maintain peace in his country, and with the neighboring nations, and to develop the resources of his empire. Our author informs us, " Jehudah and Israel were sitting secure, every one under his vine and under his fig tree, from Dan to Bear Sheba, all the days of Solomon." We are also informed, that Solomon reigned over all the land, from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean, and the river of Egypt, consequently the Phelistines must have been entirely subjected to the scepter of Solomon; and also across the Euphrates was his power felt. Whether he com- pleted the conquest of the kingdom of Hadarezer, and took Hamath, as appears from II Chronicles, viii, 3, or whether David completed it, as appears from I Kings v, 1-5, is hard to say, as no direct accounts are before us either way, although it is evident from direct statements and circumstances, that the dominion of Solomon extended at least as far as to the Euphrates, if not across that river. 368 PERIOD III. Chariots of war and cavalry were not employed by the Israelites, although the aborigines made use of them. The army of the Israelites was at first calculated, as we have stated before, to protect the country, but after the dominion of Israel was extended over the vast plains of Syria, chariots and caval- ry became indispensably necessary. David himself seems to have been opposed to such an innovation before the third battle against Hadarezer, and his army was capable of defend- ing any territory, but Solomon, who was a peculiar friend of reforms, not only introduced in his army twelve thousand cavalry men, and had forty thousand horses for the chariots and private use, but he also fortified many cities besides Jeru- salem, among which are mentioned Hazor, Megido, Gezer. Beth Horon, the upper and the lower, Baalath, Zoba, and other cities, which he garrisoned with Israelites only, and where the chariots and cavalry also were posted. The connection of Damascus, Heliopolis or Baalbec, Emesa and Bostra, with the Euphrates, somewhere at Thapsacus or Thipsah, was effected by the building of a new city, the renowned Tadmor, or Pal- myra, in the Syrian desert, which enabled Solomon to hold direct and uninterrupted communication through the whole of his territory, and to maintain his authority in Syria. Palmyra may also have been built as a place of resort to the caravans from and to the Euphrates, but its primary object certainly was to have a direct military line between Jerusalem and the Euphrates. Jerusalem itself was strongly fortified, and the Millo, the citadel of Jerusalem, was also provided with new and strong works. When all these works were commenced, and when they were finished can not be ascertained from our meagre resources, but whenever finished, such strong places, such a standing army, and such immense wealth, were certainly not calculated to maintain a constitutional government, in the sense of the Mosaic law; the propensities of Solomon, together with these means, must have made of him what it would make of almost any ruler in our days, a sensual, pleasure-loving, and self-willed despot. CHAPTER IX. 369 The safeguard of political liberty was among the Israelites the divine sanctity of the law, and the rights preserved to the tribes, which formed a check upon the royal prerogatives. David had already made attempts to centralize the nation; but Solomon divided the land into twelve equal districts without regard to tribes ; from which he was provided with the articles of food for his household and for the army. It is not said whether those articles were exacted as a tax or were pur- chased, [the latter of which seems most plausible; but either way, the division was contrary to the constitution of the land, although it may have exercised no direct influence upon the present circumstances of the nation. The system of centraliza- tion makes a large, strong and attractive capital necessary. Dayid was aware of this, and his plans to this effect are known. The building of a splendid temple was only subservient to this political end. Still, David could not effect his purpose; it was reserved for Solomon, who resorted, besides the building of the temple, to two other means, tending to the same end; first, to an unusual patronage of learning, and second, to a still more unusual pomp and luxury. Solomon was himself a learned man, and to him was ascribed the authorship of three thousand proverbs — few of which have reached us — and one thousand and five poems, besides, a botany and a zoology, so that he was supposed to be superior to the wisest men of his own country, of the east, and of Egyyt; he also patronized learning to a considerable extent. The simple institute once founded at Raman by the venerable Samuel, produced now a rich harvest at Jerusalem. The mental horizon of the Israelites had been considerably enlarged during the reign of David; they had come in contact with Egypt and their priests, and with Syria and the Chaldees. The spirit of the Mosaic laws, history and religion, had been reproduced in numerous poems and psalms ; the juvenile portal to the mansion of science was opened, and so a scientific era commenced with Solomon. Numerous literati sprung up in Israel, whose favor was of no small importance to the king. He secured their favor by his patronage of letters ; and their cooperation in his own cause was a sure consequence 24 370 PERIOD III. of his policy in making Jerusalem the chief seat of learning,, the central point of the literary strength of the nation. In this he succeeded so well, that the curious and inquisitive of many foreign nations were attracted to Jerusalem to hear the wisdom of Solomon, which must have been no mean cause of ambition among the Israelitish students, and certainly gave great satis- tion to the literati or prophets, whose influence upon the nation was considerable. The building of the temple was especially calculated to win the hearts of the people and of the priests, and to make Jerusalem the center of the nation; the work, therefore, was commenced as soon as Solomon had established his power. But, however sacred was that building, it was like all large buildings of anti- quity, together with all the other buildings Of Solomon, a monument of despotism. Seventy-eight thousand of the abo- rigines were unjustly forced to work for the public buildings; seventy thousand of which were forced to bear burdens, and eight thousand of them worked in quarries. Thirty thousand Israelites too were forced to work four months annually for the public buildings, so that always ten thousand men worked one month, and remained in their homes for two months. The whole work was superintended by three thousand and three hundred officers under the lead of Adoniram. There is nothing unlikely in this account; the fortification of so many cities, the new citadels, Tadmor, and the numerous mansions which Solomon built, made such a multitude of laborers necessary. Moses had expressly stated, that they are only permitted to buy slaves of the aborigines, which could be done with their consent only; the Gibeonites deceived the Israelites, still they were not enslaved, they had only the duty to send drawers of water and hewers of wood to the house of the Lord, to which certainly but few men were wanted; and David gave them a bloody satisfaction for the death of seven of their brethren.1 The per- sonal liberty of the .Israelite was sacred in the laws of Moses. But Solomon was the wisest among the wise, he was a cool and calculating man; nothing, neither the laws and customs of the nation, nor the personal rights of man, laid any considerable CHAPTER IX. 371 weight into the scale of his gigantic plans. Forced labor, un- doubtedly, was illegal; but, at the same time, it must be con- fessed, that it was prudently applied. The Israelites learned in this way many of the useful arts from the Phoenicians ; and the aborigines, who had always coincided with the enemies of Israel, were made powerless of harm. Solomon had made a treaty with Hyram, according to w*hich, Solomon was provided with Tyrian artists, with cedars and cypresses, which were cut on the Lebanon, transported on the shoulders of the enslaved aborigines across the Phoenician territory to the sea, and then in rafts to a Palestinian harbor; for which Solomon gave annually to Hyram twenty thousand chor of wheat, and twenty chor of olive oil. Our sources make no mention of where the quarries were, from which the "large and precious stones were cut, in order to lay the foundation of the temple with square stones," although there was no scarcity of stones in Palestine; still, it appears, that the stones also were brought from the quarries east of the "Red sea, formerly belonging to Egypt. Ten thousand Israelites continually worked in company of the Tyrian artists, who mostly came from Gebel, a place in Phoenicia, distinguished for its artists; architecture, sculpture, carving and the kindred arts were in this way learned from the Phoenicians, who had reached distinction in those branches. The foundation of the temple was laid four hundred and eighty years after the exode ( 1005 b. c), in the second month of the fourth year of Solomon's reign, and the building was finished in seven years, which sug- gests, that the numerous workmen mentioned were not em- ployed in building the temple alone, but all the public buildings ; the temple being made the pretext for forced labor. The temple itself was not an extensive structure; the prin- cipal building ran seventy cubits (one hundred and twenty-two and a half feet) in the clear from east to west, as all other ancient temples did, and twenty cubits (thirty-five feet) in breadth from north to south; which was divided into three apartments; at the eastern end was a porch or ante-chapel, which occupied ten cubits of the entire length, called in Scrip- 372 PERIOD III. ture, ulam. The main department, or hechal, ran forty cubits in clear, and, consequently, was forty by twenty; after which came the most holy, or sacred shrine, entirely on the plan of the Mosaic tabernacle. The height of the first two departments was thirty cubits, and of the debir, or the most holy, was twenty cubits, which was also its length and its breadth. Around the three sides of the temples ran a piazza supported by columns, which was five cubits broad at the base, and to which a door opened at the south side of the main building ; at the height of ten cubits, to which a flight of winding steps led, the breadth of the piazza increased one cubit each story, as the diameter of the wall decreased, which was also the case at the highest story, so that the piazza was five, six and seven cubits broad. The whole piazza rested on columns of cedar wood, and was surrounded with light wood work of the same kind. The main building was of square stones with glass windows, which was then quite a novelty, even among the Phoenicians. Inside, the walls were covered with wood work of cedars, and the floor was covered with timber of cypress wood; all of which was carved in an artistical manner, and covered with mosaic works, resembling blossoms and berries. The same kind of cedar partition separated the sanctuary from the most holy, which was covered with gold plates, and orna- mented at the top with gold chains. Two cherubims of olive wood ten cubits high and ten cubits for the span of the wings, were placed at the extreme west side of the most holy, and covered with gold, under the wings of which was placed a postament in the form of an altar covered with gold, upon which the ark should rest. The floor also was ornamented with gold blossoms, berries, cherubims, and other figures ; so was the partition separating the sanctuary from the most holy. The door between the most holy and the sanctuary represented a pentagon consisting of two wings, made of olive wood highly ornamented with golden mosaic. The door of the sanctuary was made of two wings of cypress wood, and ornamented in the same manner. The whole building was surrounded by a structure of square stones on three sides, and a trellis of cedar CHAPTER IX. 373 wood on the east side, which made the enclosure of the temple square, the size of which is unknown, containing the halls of the priests, and other halls, called the hall of the Israelites, the hall of women, the public treasury, the departments of the temple officers, the session rooms of the national council and the courts of justice. The temple itself appears to have stood on higher ground than the surrounding buildings, and was it- self higher, so that it could be seen from all parts of Jerusalem. The brass work of the temple consisted chiefly of two highly ornamented pillars placed within the ante-chapel, called Jachin and Boaz; a large tank of brass, supported by twelve oxen of brass; ten baths of brass ornamented with figures of lions, oxen and cherubims, and resting npon four wheels each, besides other utensils and vessels. The artist in this branch was Hyram, the son of a Tyrian and a woman from Naphthali, who made his master-pieces in the plain of Jordan in earthen forms, somewhere between Succoh and Zarthan. The principal golden works were ten golden lamps and gold-covered tables — as one of each stood in the Mosaic tabernacle — besides other utensils and vessels. No mention is made of new altars in Kings; Chronicles informs us that a new altar was made. The large bath stood outside the temple, the ten small ones were on the opposite sides of the porch, between which stood the brass altar. The ten golden lamps and tables stood on the two opposite sides of the sanctuary, amidst which was placed the golden altar; the most holy contained but the ark and other sacred relics, as the pot of manna, the rod of Aaron, the book of the law, &c. In the main, the temple of Solomon was built on the plan of the Mosaic tabernacle; the figures of cherubim, blossoms, fruits, &c, already existed in the Mosaic sanctuary; the figures of animals, as of the ox, the lion, and the wheels were new. As Moses had taken Egyptian figures to enliven the fancy of the worshiper, so Solomon made use of the most sacred figures of the Zabians; the ox, the ground of creation and its beginning, the wheel, the line without end, the orbit of the stars, the number ten, an expression for every thing that is pure and 374 PERIOD III. perfect, and the pentagon, the most sacred hieroglyphic of the Zabians, were the principal figures. Solomon like Moses made use of the prevalent ideas of his age to captivate the attention, enliven the fancy and direct the mind to the throne of Jehovah. It appears from I Kings (vi. 11-13), that dissatisfaction prevailed among the people during the process of building the temple and other structures; heavy taxes and forced labor may have been the cause ; still Solomon was encouraged by God, who most likely revealed his will through the national council, to continue the sacred work, which was finished in the eleventh year of Solomon's reign and in the eight month of that year (Tishri 997 b. a), when Solomon convoked the national council to dedicate the temple. The people from all parts of the land, and as the passage in Solomon's prayer indicates (I Kings viii, 41-43) slao numerous foreigners, flocked to Jerusalem witness the grand fete. The first day of the feast of booths was fixed for the commencement of the dedication festival. The priests, accompanied by the choruses and the guards of the Levites, opened the grand procession, removing the ark of the covenant from Zion to the temple, which was followed by the king and his suite, the national council, and a large con- course of people. The ark was brought into the most holy and received with the song and music of the Levites, numerous sacrifices, and hymns of the king and the people. After divine service Solomon recited an elaborate and appropriate prayer, after which he addressed the people in short and impressive terms. The president of the senate responded to the king's address,* assuring him that God had listened to his prayers and granted his request; that this house was sacred, over which God would continually watch, and that the king also would enjoy the protection of the Lord, and his descendants sit safely on his throne, if he and they would continue to re- spect the law of God. and administer it in uprightness and sincerity. But that this house would be destroyed, his throne overturned, and Israel fall into the hands of their enemies, if he or his descendants should desert the law. The feast of * Compare I Kings ixt 2-9 with II Chronicles vii, 12-22. CHAPTER IX. 375 dedication lasted fourteen days, at the end of which the king again addressed and blessed the people, who left Jerusalem highly gratified with the splendor and glory of the capital, the king, and the national sanctuary. The Mosaic tabernacle was deposited in the temple, the vessels and utensils also were used there, and so the sanctity of the edifice was doubted no longer, and the purpose of Solomon and David was reached, in making Jerusalem to be the center of the nation. As regards the unusual pomp and luxury of Solomon, which, as we remarked before, was calculated to attract for- eigners to the capital and exercise a moral influence upon them, first must be mentioned the numerous structures with which he enriched the capital and its vicinity, to which belong his own palace, his queen's palace, his piazza, his porch of judgment, and his house of the forest of Lebanon, so called from the nu- merous columns of cedars, which was the royal arsenal; all of them were finished in the twentieth year of his reign. What- ever wealth and art could afford at that time was exhausted in those structures; his throne of ivory, the golden shields of his guards, the splendor of his court, as admired by the queen of Sheba, and the large presents which he 'gave to Hyram testify for themselves. The splendor of an eastern court is only com- plete when amidst wealth and luxury the greatest female beauties are found; in this point Solomon excelled all other monarchs. Seven hundred wives and three hundred concu- bines, the select beauties of all neighboring nations and of Israel, shared the love of Solomon with his queen, the daugh- ter of Pharaoh. Solomon indeed succeeded in attracting numerous strangers to Jerusalem, among which was also the queen of Sheba, a south-eastern province of Arabia, who had heard of the brilliancy of Solomon's wit, and of the splendor of his court. She came with the intention of satisfying herself as to the fame of Solomon ; she found Solomon and his court worthy of the fame bostowed on them, and she freely expressed her admiration. She made large presents to the king in gold, spices and precious stones, for wbich she also received rich presents in return. 376 PERIOD III. This anecdote as unimportant as it is in itself, still shows, that Solomon succeeded in his attempts to make Jerusalem an attractive center not only to the Israelites, but also to other nations. If the foregoing facts are well considered, it will be seen, that an increase of commerce came by itself. The connection of the Israelites with Phoenicians, Egyptians, and especially Tyrians, improved the industry of the nation. The luxury of the court reacted, also, on the people, and the consumption of foreign goods and products, must have increased annually. The straight and safe road between Egypt, Phoenicia, and the Euphrates, made Palestine the commercial center of those countries; and the concourse of strangers in Jerusalem, as well as the numerous and continually increasing population, wealth, and luxury of that city, had a like influence, also, on this inland emporium. Solomon favored this state of things by entering into a closer connection with the maritime enter- prises of Hyram. The Israelites were unacquainted with ship construction and navigation, wherefore a commercial fleet was constructed, most likely in Joppa, which, manned by Tyrians and Israelites, went to Tarshish, which was probably the name for all the known coasts of Africa and Europe, because ships sailed to Tarshish from Joppa and Eziongaber. They returned once every three years, loaded with gold, silver, ele- phants, apes, parrots, and other articles of foreign countries. The time taken in performing the voyage, and the articles which they brought justify the opinion, that Tarshish was not a country of either Europe or Africa. That those ships must have touched upon Spain is a matter of course ; that the Phoenicians had settlements in Spain, and traded with the aborigines of that country, is pretty well established, but that Israelitish colonists settled in that country in the time of Solomon, that a letter to this effect is still in existence, requires a more solid historical foundation. This much is sure, that the Israelites took an active part in the Mediterranean trade, which poured additional wealth, not only into the coffers of the king, but also into the nation. CHAPTER IX. 377 A difficulty had arisen between Solomon and Hyram, which, however, was amicably settled. After Solomon had done with his private and public buildings, he ceded to Hyram twenty cities of Galilee, as a compensation for the assistance received of Hyram, in materials, as well as artists. These cities ap- pear to have been in the extreme north of Palestine, not inhabited by the Israelites, and not belonging to the land proper. But Hyram was dissatisfied with so meagre a com- pensation, wherefore he called the district the land of Chabul (of disgust), and he refused to occupy it. Solomon gave to Hyram the immense sum of one hundred and twenty talents of gold, and opened the district to Israelitish occupants. Solomon did not rest satisfied with his Mediterranean trade, he was desirous to have communications also with those eastern nations, which were beyond his reach by his eastern landroad; he went down to the Elanic gulf of the Red sea, in Idumea, and finding the old head-quarters of Moses, Eziongaber or Berenice, a suitable spot, he turned it into a sea port, from which ships, manned by Tyrians and Israelites, were dis- patched to Ophir, which according to all probabilities, was India, and was to the land and to the king an immense source of wealth. Caravans now crossed the desert in all directions ; shippers and merchants were busily engaged to supply the markets of the different cities and countries, and the attention of the people was directed towards commerce and luxury. The precious almug wood was so plenty, that the stairs and pillars of the temple and of the king's palace, as well as the harps of the king's musicians were made of that wood ; precious metals, stones and wood, were in superabundance in the land; the kings of Arabia, the pashas and kings of Syria, paid tri- bute to Solomon, and most likely the Israelites monopolized the trade of those countries. Notwithstanding the illegal means of Solomon, it must be confessed, that he succeeded. in raising his nation to the high- est pinnacle of national prosperity, according to our modern conception of that term. On the other side it can not be denied, that he totally departed from the Mosaic policy ; his 378 PERIOD III. immense wealth, his importation of horses from Egypt — the horse trade is mentioned as an extensive branch of busi- ness— and his magnificent harem and pompous court, were in direct opposition to the law of Moses. The extensive com- merce, the accumulation of wealth, and the maintenance of such a large army, was an entire breach of the Mosaic policy. But new circumstances make a new policy necessary. Moses legislated for a nation of simple peasants, and his policy was suited to the state of things, as it then was. Solomon inherited a vast empire, in which heterogeneous interests and multifarious exigencies had to be considered. He lived in an age of enlight- enment, learning, and advanced civilization, wherefore a change of policy might be excusable, if the new course had been chosen with discretion, and had been judiciously pursued. Solomon not only discarded the Mosaic policy, but he also revolted against the Mosaic religion, to maintain which, his predecessors had taken the greatest pains, and which was the safest bond of union to the nation. This was an attack upon the root of the national strength, downright high treason, a total neglect of the constitution, and a threatening danger to Israel's future. The law of Israel was closely connected with its religion. It was guarded by the barrier of religious sanc- tity which surrounded it; if this barrier was once broken through — and the worship of foreign gods was the very act of breaking through that barrier — then no guaranty whatever was left to the people against the despotic will of one ruler. Solomon, in order to please his foreign wives, and probably also to please the strangers coming to Jerusalem, reared tem- ples and altars to foreign gods, on the hills around Jerusalem. The same king who had built the temple of Jehovah, brought sacrifices to Chemosh and Moloch; he, who pretended to have been gifted with divine wisdom, was weak enough to yield to the sensual charms of Astarte worship. This stirred up at once the most influencial class of society, the prophets, the Levites, and the priests. A message was sent to him, most likely by the senate, telling him in plain terms, that he was guilty of high treason against the nation, and that there was CHAPTER IX. 379 such a general dissatisfaction in Israel, that all the tribes, except Jehudali, would refuse allegiance to the dynasty; and Jehudah's fidelity must be ascribed to the respect entertained for the chivalrous David. This mission was brought to the king by the prophet Iddo (II Chron. ix, 29). The last part of this message suggests the idea, that Solomon, according to ancient custom, desired the consent of the senate to his ap- pointed successor, which was refused by all, except the senators of Jehudali. But that severe message did not effect the king, who had given himself up to all the sensual pleasures connected with the worship of the beforementioned gods. Another occurrence calculated to increase the agitation, took place about the same time. Rezon, a son of Eliada, whose father was a captain of a squadron, in the same army of Hadarezer which David defeated before he went to Damascus, succeeded in collecting a band of armed men, and favored by the feeble- ness of Solomon, he laid great obstacles into the way of the eastern trade, most likely robbing the caravans and making the road unsafe, so that one of the principle sources of the wealth of Jerusalem was cut off. Solomon had not the energies to crush that threatening revolt in its infancy, and it grew more formidable from year to year, finally resulting not only in the loss of his valuable Syrian [possessions, but in creating a pow- erful and irreconcilable enemy to Israel, which, however, did not occur until after his death. The same check, although not to such an extent, was put upon the southern trade. An Idumean prince, when quite young, escaped from the hands of Joab, and found shelter in the royal court of Pharaoh, where he afterwards married the queen's sister. The king of Egypt had several reasons for opposing the progress of Palestine, which was now a powerful rival in the Arabian gulf and the Indian sea, where, as the similarity of Indian and Egyptian institutes, superstitions, public buildings, and peculiar notions sufficiently demonstrate, Egypt had anciently a considerable traffic, and most likely opened that highway of commerce. If the communication between Eziongaber and Jerusalem was interrupted, the Ophir 380 PERIOD III. commerce was at an end. Besides this, it appears that Pha- raoh hoped to see a son of his daughter upon the throne of Israel, in which he was disappointed, as the king nominated his oldest son, Rehoboam, to succeed, who must have been born before Solomon married the Egyptian princess, as this marriage was contracted during the reign of Solomon, who reigned forty years. Rehoboam was forty-one years old, at the demise of his father. In addition to this, Solomon may have neglected the Egyptian princess, yielding to the unchaste worship of Astarte. Either one or all of those causes altered the policy of Pharaoh towards Solomon, and he gave permission to Hadad, the Idumean prince, to return to his own land, who, most likely by the secret assistance of Egpyt, suc- ceeded in collecting a band of armed men, and to check the communication between Jerusalem and Eziongaber, which was another misfortune for the trade of Jerusalem, and to the king's treasury. Solomon neither met the Idumean with promptitude, nor curtailed the insane luxury of his court, and had therefore to resort to a heavy taxation. These facts, to- gether with the indignation of the senate, produced, as they naturally must have done, a dangerous insurrection in the capital, which was headed by Jeroboam, son of Nebat, and sanctioned, if not agitated, by the prophet Ahiah, of Shiloh, the president of the senate, who promised to Jerobeam the allegiance of all the tribes except Jehudah, provided he pro- mised obedience to the laws of the land and longed not for a hereditary throne. This promise was not given of his own ac- cord, but, as it appears, by order of the senate. Jeroboam was the son of Nebat, of the tribe of Ephraim, who had distinguished himself in the service of the king, and was therefore promoted to higher offices. The insurrection was quelled, Jeroboam escaped to Egypt, and was hospitably entertained by Shishak, most likely the son of the Pharaoh who died shortly before. Solomon was now entrapped by the hostile Egypt, the progress- ing revolutionists of Syria, and the agitated Edom, while at home a hostile feeling against his government manifested itself every way, No doubt he dissolved the senate, and took active CHAPTER IX. 381 measures against Hadad, in Edom, but he had outlived his popularity ; his energies were exhausted in the intoxication of luxury and sensuality; his policy had proved a failure, and in the midst of this confusion he died not above the age of sixty, leaving to his son an agitated nation, surrounded by threaten- ing enemies. Solomon was undoubtedly the greatest and smallest man of our history; his wisdom only served to shake the Israelitish commonwealth to its very foundation. He died 968, b. c, and was buried in Zion. The national council was convoked at Shechem, to order the succession to the throne, and it was concluded upon maintain- ing the Davidian dynasty, on condition that the successor of Solomon alter his policy, and release them from forced labor and excessive taxes, two things which were felt most severely among the mass of the people. The proposition of the na- tional council was moderate and fair ; they seem to have been eager to maintain the union, and to guard against violent eruptions, and Rehoboam could have honorably accepted these terms, nay, if prudent he must have accepted them. The prince demanded a respite of three days, in order to reflect on the conditions. Old and experienced statesman advised the prince to yield to the demands of the nation, as there was no right in favor of the king to reject the moderate propositions made to him, and as they said, " If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and will serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants forever." The prince also asked the advice of his juvenile friends, who had been brought up with him, under the intoxicat- ing influence of an insane luxury, sensual pleasures, and wild enjoyments, accustomed to look upon the people as the mere instruments wherewith to bring about the means of indulging in all sensual pleasures, as a host of creatures subservient to the cause of the dynasty, which is the center of existence. The question was now, whether or not the nation should have the right to restrict the extravagance of the court, and to direct the public actions of the king, which, of course, the ju- venile friends Of the prince answered in the negative, advising 382 PERIOD III. him to intimidate the national council by menaces. The sequel proves how very little they understood the character of a nation apprized of an injustice which they are not bound to suffer. Rehoboam, as he naturally must have done from his own point of view, preferred the advice of his juvenile friends, and after the elapse of the respite, he answered the national council: "My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke; my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions." Every reader must feel how mean this arbitrary answer sounds, if contrasted with the humble and just requests of the national council; it was calculated to stir up the calmest mind, to heighten the excitement to uncontrollable violence. Protracted debates ensued, all means of persuasion were tried in vain with the prince, he insisted upon the arbitrary policy; the excitement and the indignation increased daily, the prophet Ahiah, also, may have contributed his share in behalf of his favorite Jeroboam, in whom he thought he detected another David; at last, the national council formally and legally deposed the Davidian dynasty, after which it adjourned its sessions. The representatives of Jehudah and Benjamin confirmed, with- out a particle of right, the claims of Rehoboam, most likely entertaining the hope that the other tribes would yield, as they had done in the time of David; but when the king's collector of taxes tried to discharge his duties in the name of Rehoboam, the people of Shechem stoned him to death, and Rehoboam himself narrowly escaped the same fate. Having returned to Jerusalem he collected his military force, consisting of one hundred and eighty thousand men, to enforce his authority upon the revolt- ing tribes. But this time it was not the ten tribes who revolted; they stood upon the firm ground of the law. The national council, the supreme authority which the law of Israel sanc- tioned, had justly and legally deposed the Davidian dynasty. It was Jehudah and Benjamin who were the revolting party, they supported an usurper on account of private interests, because they had the capital of that dynasty in their midst. Therefore, the prophet Shemaiah argued the cause in favor of CHAPTER VIII. 383 the ten tribes, and succeeded in preventing civil war. This Shemaiah appears to have been the successor in office of Ahiah, who was deposed by Solomon. Meanwhile, Jeroboam informed of the state of affairs, had returned from Egypt; the national council assembled again in Shechem, and Jeroboam was duly elected king of Israel. Had Jehudah and Benjamin yielded to the will of the majority, as they ought to have done, the history of Israel would have taken another and more fa- vorable course ; but the violence of Jehudah dissolved the union and forced the kings of Israel to a schism in religion. One century had scarcely elapsed since Samuel told them, "And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you, and the Lord will not hear you on that day." Civil wars, revolutions, foreign wars, and ojjpres- sion at home, overbalanced by far the national prosperity enjoyed under the three kings. The progress achieved during this period was a natural consequence of the development of the national resources, of the Mosaic law, and the school of Samuel. This period of greatness was sure to come. If Saul, David and Solomon had been judges, as were Samuel and Eli, — and there can be no doubt that other men of the same, if not higher talents, existed simultaneously with the former — the same progress would have been achieved; while the massacre of thousands of Israelites would have been prevented, and the interests of the nation would not have been sacrificed in favor of a dynasty. A king is a man who dies ; a republic is an immortal party. The former advances the interests of the nation if they come not in collision with his interests or those of his descendants ; a republic takes care of itself. The down- fall of Israel must be dated, if not from the date of Saul's elevation to the throne, or David's success in securing to his family hereditary claims on the crown — from the revolt of Jehudah and Benjamin against the will of the majority. The people and the prophets understood the national disease, and proposed a radical cure by changing again the supreme autho- rity into an elective monarchy. But Jehudah and Benjamin pposed that salutary reform, and the consequences were the 384 APPENDIX TO dissolution of the union of Israel, which had lasted five cen- turies. The union cemented by Moses, strengthened by- Samuel, and completed by David, was destroyed by the folly of Eehoboam, and the obstinacy of Jehudah. APPENDIX TO PERIOD III I. THE PEOPLE AND THE COUNTRY. All the energies of the Israelites, as a people, and all the wealth of the fertile Palestine were developed during this period. While already in the time of Saul, the southern and south-eastern enemies of Israel — Ammon, Moab, Amalek and others pressed into the desert by the Israelites — were severely chastised by the Israelitish warriors, David not only took ample revenge on all the surrounding nations for the wrongs inflicted upon the Israelites during the preceding centuries, breaking the power of the Phelistines, of Edom, Ammon, Moab, and of the other tribes of the desert, but he also defeated the victorious armies of Haderezer, before which Syria trembled. Israel ruled on the Euphrates; the utmost power which Moses imagined for the future of Israel; and Solomon discomfited forever the hostile aborigines. The military glory of the Israelites was so honorably ac- knowledged, that Solomon notwithstanding his admiration of every thing that was foreign, employed no foreign warriors (II Chronicles viii, 9). The treaty with Egypt, the visit of the queen of Sheba, at Jerusalem, and the frequently mentioned fact, that the kings PERIOD III. | 385 of Arabia and of Syria, beyond the river, brought presents to Solomon, demonstrate that Israel was acknowledged a first rate power, whose friendship was thought valuable. The numerous and costly buildings of Solomon, his immense luxury, and the large standing army, together with the expenses of the temple, the priesthood, the Levites, and scholastic oilier is, together with the silence of the people about heavy taxes until after the demise of Solomon, and the large commercial connec- tions with transmarine nations, convince us, that a general opulence must have been enjoyed by the Israelites, which fa- vorably compared with Tyre, Carthage and Alexandria in the days of their glory. The flourishing state of the literature of this period, of which we shall treat under another head, the accomplishments in music and poetry of that age ; the politeness and even courtesy distinguishing the style of that time, in every literary com- position that has reached us ; the importance attached by them to learning and literary endowments, to the works of Tyrian art, and their connections with the most civilized nations of that time, Egypt and Phoenicia, who laid the foundation of the civilization of the west; speak highly in favor of the Israelites, who were not excelled by any other nation of antiquity. Many of the psalms and of the proverbs which undoubtedly originated with the contemporaries of David and Solomon, and the songs of Solomon, are of themselves sufficient to set the Israelites of that age far above other nations of their time, both in refinement, scholastic endowments, moral wealth, purity and correctness of conception. How far short fall the literary fragments of antiquity, the Vedas, Puranas, and Kings included, if compared with the scriptures of the Israelites of this and the preceding periods ? Still, considerable pains have been taken to deny to the ancient Israelites that high state of civilization which is manifested in their scriptures. The military glory acquired in so many battles did not prompt the Israelites towage wars of conquest, nor did it result in a military despotism, nor in a disposition to anarchy and self-rule — a fact well worthy of an especial record, because it 25 386 APPENDIX TO is an exception to the general rule in the history of nations. Justice and equity continued to be highly regarded, so that the cause of Solomon's popularity for wisdom was a wise judgment given in the cause of the two harlots. It is said in praise of David, " And David did justice and equity to all his people." David's behavior towards Saul, at the death of Saul, of Abner and Ish Bosheth, show a profound respect for justice. The entire secresy under which he endeavored to conceal the Bath- sheba and Uriah affair, the subsequent admonition of the pro- phet and the revolutions, are no mean demonstration of a ge- neral sentiment of justice among the people, and decided respect for the laws of the land. The case of the rich man who robbed the poor of the only sheep he possessed, laid before David by the prophet Nathan (II Samuel xii); the case of the wise wo- man of Thekoah in regard to her son who killed his only brother, who therefore was in the hands of justice, while the mother was to lose her last son (ibid xiv); and the judgment which David rendered on those cases ; the facts that one of the means used by Absalom to excite the indignation of the people against the king, was the assertion, that no justice would be done by the king to the complaining parties (ibid xiv, 2-4) ; that also two women of ill repute could reach the king in cases of justice and demand his judgment (I Kings iii, 16); that a recorder was appointed at the royal court to register the grievances brought to the kiug; and that Solomon built a porch of justice attached to his palace, are conclusive evidences that justice and equity were held in high estimation by kings and people. The massacre of the priests of Nob, and the execu- tion of the descendants of Saul made an exception to the general state of justice. The ancient rabbins justified those transactions by an existing law. Wealth, luxury, an extensive commerce, the importation of foreign articles, such as gold, precious stones and spices, the love of justice and respect for the law protecting the feeble, generally render a nation effeminate and make it submissive to the despotic will of the ruler. But this was not the case in Israel. There was a buoyancy in that nation which the PERIOD III. 387 Mosaic laws and institutions must have naturally produced. The voice of the people was so much feared by David that he covered his crime committed on Uriah and Bathsheba under the veil of profound secresy. The same voice of the people makes itself heard on a number of occasions, which we have noticed before, under Absalom, Sheba, Jerobeam and other occasions. Also after the death of Solomon the native buoyancy of the people is unimpaired, notwithstanding the splendor of the royal house, of the capital and temple, and the influence of the priests and Levites, exercised in favor of the Davidian dynasty, as they uaturally must have done, and did do, as we shall notice hereafter; and notwithstanding the threatening attitude of Rehabeam, the voice of the people made itself powerfully- felt, and in spite of these adverse circumstances the will of the people proved victorious. It would surprise us that men have in the face of all these fates, denied national vigor and greatness to the ancient Israel- ites, were we not aware of the partiality which went to a study of their history. While by the one class all that is eminent and great was ascribed to the energies of one or two great men of every age, who received their eminence directly from God, and every thing mean and sinful was thrown upon the people at large, standing as a mere zero on the side of one or two inspired men; the other class, suffering under the delirium of the spirit of negation, became blind to every thing not. suit- ing their prejudiced scheme of this history. To these came yet a third class, who, misled by a pseudo-liberality and hyper- criticism, found nothing but fault and trouble in the whole course of history. Not only were learning, the arts, industry and commerce extensively cultivated during this period, but agriculture and horticulture had also reached a high state of perfection, and the culture of live stock, especially sheep, employed many a husbandman. Nabal of Carmel had three thousand sheep (I Samuel, xxv, 2). Saul superintended the estate of his father, and David was a shepherd, The Amalekites sent away large droves of live stock from the south of Jehudah (I Samuel > 388 APPENDIX TO xxx). David had appointed seven officers to manage his pri- vate estates and live stock, consisting of oxen, camels, asses and sheep. Joab was engaged in agriculture, and Absalom had flocks of sheep at Baalhazor in Ephraim. Threshing floors and wine presses are mentioned almost every where. The large consumption of live stock, flour, wine, olive oil, and spice at the different feasts, which we noticed; the immense consumption at the court of Solomon, and the gifts of that king to Hvram in wheat, wine and olive oil, notwithstanding the large population of Palestine at the same time, are calcu- lated to impress us with a favorable idea of the then state of agriculture and breeding of live stock, which was an employ- ment so honorable, that the king, the princes, the chief offi- cers of the state, were engaged in it. Camels and horses were introduced in Palestine during this period, still the riding on asses continued. It appears, that camels were used as the means of conveyance through the Syrian plains and the Idu- mean deserts only, while the ass and the mule were employed in the hilly regions of Palestine; and horses were used for military and luxurious purposes only. The ark was drawn by oxen because the ox belongs to the clean animals. Feasting on solemn and secular occasions, besides the three national feasts (II Chronicles viii, 13), especially at the corona- tion of the king, at the in-gathering of grapes, the shearing of sheep, and on other occasions, was a common affair; at which meat, cakes, fruits and wine were the principal dain- ties. Different kinds of cakes, sauces and soups are mentioned in our sources. II. THE GOVERNMENT. It is evident from the facts, that Samuel wrote a constitution and deposited it in the tabernacle (I Samuel x, 25), that the national council is continually noticed in our sources and still existed after the death of Solomon, that every king asked ad- vice of the Lord in different affairs, that the government was a constitutional monarchy. The king elected by the national council had a right, based PERIOD III. 389 upon ancient custom, dating as far back as the Patriarchs, to nominate his successor with the consent of the national coun- cil; as Moses did with Joshua (Numbers xxvii, 15-23), as David did with Solomon (I Chronicles xxviii and xxix), and as Solomon most likely did with Eehabeam. The king had a right to appoint one of his sons to succeed him (Dculr. xvii, 20), as it is clearly indicated in the words of Samuel addressed to Saul (I Samuel xiii, 13), and in the words of Saul ad- dressed to Jonathan (ibid xx, 31); while the republican chief could appoint for his successor a man of another tribe only. David succeeded in concentrating the claims to the throne in his family, so that none but one of the Davidian blood could occupy the throne, while formerly the national council might reject the whole royal family, if cause was found for so doing (II Samuel vii, 11-16, 26, 27), which was afterwards the cause of difficulties between Jehudah and Israel. The later ex- pounders of the law also understood it in this way. The public ceremony of the inauguration of the king con- sisted in the unction or anointment with sacred oil by the prophet or the high priest, wherefore every king was called Messiah of Jehovah, anointed to represent God as the political head of the nation. He was subject to the laws of the land as every other individual was (Deutr. xvii, 19, 20), and liablo to be tried and punished by the supreme tribunal of justice, as the later expounders of the law asserted, and as it appears clearly from the following passage: II Samuel vii, 14, 15. " I will bejris (the successor of David) father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of man, and with the punishments of the children of man; but my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee." This passage and Psalm lxxxix, 20-34 informs us clearly enough that before David the law must have been, -that a king can be removed from office for misdemeanor; but a monarch of the Davidian dynasty could not be removed from office for misdemeanor. He could be punished even with corporeal chastisement, if he transgressed the law. §#11 it appears from the case of David, when he 390 APPENDIX TO stood convicted of a double crime, the one of which was re- cognizable by capital punishment, that the law was a mere theory, only empowering the senate to set it in force if circum- stances should require it. The prophet Nathan indeed pro- nounced on the king the penalty of the law : but at the same time also told him, that the senate would not set it in force on account of David's confession and repentance (II Samuel xii, 13). In the case of Solomon worshiping idols, which the law also considered a capital crime, the senate suspended the penalty of the law; but they considered the claims of the Da- vidian dynasty to the throne as forfeited (I Kings xi, 11); because the foundation of the compact between the people and the dynasty, as was expressly stated to Solomon (ibid ix, 4, 5,), was violated by the king himself, worshiping Idols; he had actually ceased to be the Messiah of Jehovah. Still this did not exclude Rehabeam from the right to be among the aspirants to the throne. Had this prince been elected by the national council, he would have been the rightful king; Solomon's misdemeanor annulled the dynastical claims only. The king was the commander-in-chief of the army, with which office he could commission another man, as Abner, Joab, Amasa and Benaiah were. The later jurists understood the law to be that the king could call the army into active ser- vice to repel an invasion, or to quell a revolution; but in order to invade a foreign country the consent of the senate had to be obtained. Still this appears not so from our sources. Saul summoned the army to repel Ammon in his and Samuel's name; and David asked advice to repel the Phelistines, who had advanced as far as the plain of Rephaim. It appears therefore, that the consent of the senate was necessary to every war, although this law might have been repealed in after ages. Samuel ordered Saul to invade the territory of Amalek. The invasion of Gath by David was but the continuation of a war to which he had obtained the consent of the senate. No evidence to the contrary can be deduced from the silence of our sources on the other warfares of David, because the existence of such a law is established by positive evidence. It appears PERIOD III. 391 from Psalm ix, 8-10 and Psalm cviii, 8-10, that the consent of the senate was obtained to the invasion of Moab and Eclom. The military duties of the people have been mentioned before. The later expounders of the law also assert, that the kings of the Davidian dynasty also presided over the senate; but from our sources it appears, that this prerogative was exercised only in cases of extreme importance, as at the nomination of the royal successor. But usually this office was entrusted to two other officers, the prophet and the seer, as Nathan and Gad, in the administration of David, Ahiah and Iddo, in the administration of Solomon. The non-exercise of this pre- rogative most likely gave rise to the more recent law, that the king should not be allowed to preside over the senate, nor should he be entitled to an official seat in that body. We also learn from the expounders of the law, that the king had no jurisdiction in legal matters, except in cases of high treason and conspiracies against his person, consequently Saul had a proper excuse to massacre the priestq of Nab, and to persecute David; and in cases of general corruption or disobe- dience to the law, he might condemn such persons, as had been cleared by courts of justice on account of a want of suffi- cient testimony. But then he had the right to condemn to death by the sword, as Saul did, the priests of Nab, and as Solomon did Adoniah, Joab and Shimei. He had no right to deprive one of his personal liberty, or to confiscate his property during his life-time. This law may have originated at a time when it was dangerous to entrust the kings with the right to annul the judgment of a court of justice, on account of their opposition to the law, and their manifest desire to invade it; in order to protect the nation against malefactors who enjoyed the favor of the king. In this period we are sufficiently informed that the king not only had the jurisdiction! as mentioned before, but he also was invested with the power to punish an offender with more severity than the law pre- scribed if the nature of the case was especially abominable. This is clearly involved in the fictitious case of the rich man robbing the poor of his only sheep, which Nathan submitted to 392 APPENDIX TO David (II Samuel xii). This act the law could punish as nothing greater than larceny; consequently no other punish- ment could be imposed upon the offender than to give four sheep for the one he robbed (Exodus xxii, 37). David on hearing the cause, said to Nathan, "As the Lord liveth the man who hath done this thing is a son of death (he shall die). And he shall restore the lamb four-fold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity." This judg- ment appears to have given birth to the following verses of Proverbs xxii, 22, 23, " Rob not the poor because he is poor; neither oppress the afflicted in the gate (the seat of the court). For the Lord will plead their cause and spoil the life of those that spoiled them." 2. The king was also invested with the power to render judgment in causes where the courts of justice could not de- cide for the want of evidences, as it clearly appears from the cause of the two harlots brought before* Solomon. Traces of the perpetual exercise of this prerogative are scattered over the whole book of Proverbs (xvi, 10; xvii, 15; xxi, 1-3; xxv, 5; xxix, 4, 14, 26). 3. The king was invested with the power to pardon the crimi- nal already condemned by the sentence of the law, which is clearly involved in the fictitious case of fratricide, submitted to David by the wise woman of Tokea, praying the inter- ference of the king (II Samuel xiv). We have yet to quote in support of our view, that when first a king was demanded, it was expressly stated, " Set a king over us to judge «s as among all the other nations " (I Samuel v, 5); that the repub- lican officers replaced by the kings were called Judges; that the people actually came to David in matters of justice (II Samuel xv); that Solomon built for himself a porch of judg- ment; that a recorder was appointed to register the causes submitted to the king; and that the Jpoet addressing the se- venty-second psalm to Solomon, said (verse 2), "He shall judge thy people with righteousness, and thy poor with judg- ment;" (verse 4) "He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and he shall break in PERIOD in. 393 pieces the oppressor;*' (verses 12-11) " For he shall deliver the needy when he criethj the poor also, and him that hath no helper. He shall have mercy on the poor and needy, and shall save the lives of the needy. He shall redeem their lives from deceit and violence, and precious shall their blood be in his sight." This passage would indicate that the king had appellate and original jurisdiction in all cases submitted to him; but it is dangerous to rely to the letter upon the products of imagination. Still it is evident that the poet could not have spoken of it, if the king had nothing to do with the dispensation of justice. The cases and passages quoted before show that the king had an appellate jurisdiction, and was obliged to su- perintend the proper dispensation of justice. We have no means of ascertaining the extent of that power. The income of the king appears to have depended on his private estates, conquests in foreign countries, and private undertakings, as the commerce of Solomon. The expounders of the law affirm, based upon a passage in which Samuel en- deavored to deter the people from electing a king, that he had a right to demand the tithe of all the products of the land, and of the increase of the livestocks. Still there is no trace in our sources, that such a prerogative was either granted or exercised by the kings of Jehudah or of Israel. The public treasury attached to the house of the Lord was not under the immediate control of the king; it was guarded by Levites and not by the king's soldiers. It appears that no officer had a fixed salary, that the officials depended on their private estates, and on the presents given to them by their constituents. The army of course, the Levites, and the priests, as remarked before, were exceptions in this respect. t The public treasury, too, appears to have depended on the booty taken in war, and on the voluntary gifts of the people, as before.* The half- shekel tax for each person above twenty years of age, which Moses levied, was maintained under the name Maseath Mosheh, * Leviticus xxvii, v, 14; Numbers xxxi; Joshua vi, 24; I Samuel xv, ]5; ibid xvi, 20-, ibid xvii, 17, 18; ibid xxx, 20-31 ; 71 Samuel viii, 11, 12; I Chronicles xviii, 8-11; ibid xxvi, 20-28; ibid xxix, 6-8; II Chron. v. 394 APPENDIX TO tax of Moses. But this tax is not mentioned before the time of king Joash, and then it is mentioned only for the purpose of renovating the temple (II Chronicles xxiv, 9). The king appointed his officers, and he could also remove them, as David removed Joab twice from office. The ex- pounders of the law assert, that it was not in the power of the king to appoint a high priest, or to remove him from office, which appears also in our sources. If David had been entitled to appoint the high priest, he would certainly have conferred that dignity on Ebiathar, whose family was massacred on account of David, and who remained faithful to htm ever after- wards, accompanying him through all scenes of persecution; And if Solomon had the power to remove the proxy of the high priest, Ebiathar, the friend of Adomiah, would not have been recalled to his office from his private estate. In respect to the senate we notice the alteration, that the king's officers, and the military commanders, appear to have had a seat in that august body (I Chron. xxviii), which was necessary in order to represent the interests of the king and the army. In all other respects the law of Moses was in full force, as is clearly seen by the frequent reference made to it in the literature of that age, as we shall notice hereafter, and in the whole course of affairs, as described in our sources. The government, as the reader must have observed, was a moderate transition from the republic to a monarchy, still con- taining the patriarchal character of the Mosaic institutions. No other form of monarchy could be imposed upon a people who had lived for four centuries under the republic with the Mosaic laws. And there is no other rational ground to ac- count for a constitutional fabric of government, so perfect and liberal as the one just described, of which no other nation of that age can boast, as the respect felt for the Mosaic laws by the people at large. The policy of the kings of Israel differed materially from that of Moses. The acquisition of territory under Saul and David, and the necessity of supporting a standing army in the conquered provinces, changed entirely the state of affairs. PERIOD III. S95 To this came yet an extensive commerce in the days of Solo- mon, which produced new relations to foreign powers, and new interests at home. The equality of material possessions which formed the basis of the Mosaic policy, could be main- tained no longer. We may safely say that the Solomonic ago was the end of the Mosaic policy, and the beginning of a new political epoch. The prophets, the staunch defenders of the Mosaic law, opposed the innovations of the king, which most likely tended to the worship of foreign idols, the insignia of a new policy. We know of no other way to account for the sudden change in the religious views of Solomon. But we conclude this subject for the present, intending to treat on it more fully hereafter. III. RELIGION. Religion is an important matter in the laws and policy of all nations, ancient and modern, the United States excepted; and so it was, especially among the ancient Israelites. A united adherence to the national religion, marked also at the same time their respect for the law, their love of justice* and right- eousness, their national pride, and their strong union, to which their religion was the center of gravity. From the first days of Samuel to the last days of Solomon, no idolatry, no dissenting from the national religion is noticed, which is a negative proof e silentio, that the national religion, as instituted by Moses, was generally acknowledged, revered, and practiced. But wc have too much positive evidence to this effect to need an argument e silentio. There was yet in existence, in the days of Solomon, the same ark, containing the same tables that existed in the days of Moses. In Gibeon stood the same tabernacle, with the same altars and sacred vessels, at which Moses and Aaron worshipped the Lord of Hosts ; and officers of the same tribe, charged with the same duties and possessing the same privileges, without having changed even the names of the respective offices, superintended divine worship at Gibeon and Jerusalem,, as once in the Wilderness of Sin. The temple of Solomon was, in its principal parts, an imitation of the 396 APPENDIX TO Mosaic Tabernacle, and it was erected to the same glorious ruler of the universe, who proclaimed his majesty and his will in the rolling thunders of Sinai to an amazed multitude. The same celestial fire which once consumed the dedicatory sacri- fices of Moses also consumed the sacrifices of Solomon, and like Moses also, Solomon celebrated that feast for seven days, to which both of them appear to have added seven days more. As Moses and Aaron did, so also did Solomon bless the people after the solemn services were ended ; and the ark occupied the same apartment in the 'temple of Solomon which it once occupied in the tabernacle of Moses. If we consider the love of innovation which characterised Solomon in connection with this strict adherence to Mosaic institutions and ceremonies, we may deduce from it a strong testimony of the general rever- ence entertained for the national religion. To this we may add the endeavors of David to have the ark and the tabernacle removed to Zion; his failing endeavors to build a temple; the immense treasures collected for that purpose, and the general satisfaction which was felt by the erection and dedication of Solomon's temple; the persecution of witches and enchanters by Saul ; the burning of the Phelistine idols captured in the battle at the plain of Rephaim by David; the care bestowed upon the organization of the priests and Levites ; the marked influence of the prophets; the indignation of the senate when Solomon yielded to the idolatry of his wives, as our sources call it; the pretensions to a divine revelation by David, in his endeavors to secure the crown to his dynasty, and of Solomon to win the confidence of the people to his wisdom. All these facts satisfy us that an eminent piety and a decided veneration for the Mosaic religion pervaded the generality of the people, which obliged the rulers and officers to act accordingly. The best testimony to this effect is the literature of that age — on which we shall next treat— in which is perceptible the same subfime spirit, pure sentiments, lofty flight of imagina- tion, pious maxims, reverence of monotheism, and attachment to nature and its maker, which are impressed on the Mosaic scriptures, and of which it appears as the grapes of the same PERIOD III. 397 vine. The poetical literature may safely be considered as the mirror of the age, for the poet acquires not his ideas by the wearisome toil of study, as the philosopher who transcends his age; he is impressed with that which surrounds him, and pours forth his inspiration on subjects most admired or most venerated in his time. In times of political convulsions, political poems are most predominant. The lyric poet nourishes in times of peace, when a refined taste and an admiration of the beautiful have become general. The pious poet could exist only in an age of piety. If Baal, Moloch, Adonis, and the literature of Hermes, had engaged the admiration and reverence of the generality, their praise would resound in the poetical literature of that age, as this is the case in the mental productions of the respective nations; but it is the praise of Jehovah and of the law of Moses, which reechoes in the sublime productions of Israel's inspired [bards. There is no evidence that the divine service of the temple differed from that of the Mosaic tabernacle. The three na- tional feasts, and the new moon's day, continued to be dis- tinguished by additional sacrifices. The sanctity of the sab- bath also was signalized by additional offerings.* Incense was burnt, the lamps were kindled daily, and all other cere- monies as prescribed by Moses, were conscientiously observed. The people continued to be mere spectators, for which pur- pose the temple had outside galleries, from which its interior could be seen through windows, and a large enclosure, called the court of the temple (Isaiah i, 12). The only alteration consisted in the progress made in the art of music and poetry, which were rendered subservient to the imposing grandeur of the divine ceremonies, and gave the Levites a larger share of public favor than the priests. Prayer appears to have been a part of public worship.* Preaching and the reading of the law in public are not noticed during this period, but sacred hymns are frequently noticed by the author of Chronicles, as II Chronicles viii, 13; Isaiah i, 13-14. f I Kings viii, 22; II Chronicles vi, 14; Isaiah i, 15. 398 APPENDIX TO having been part of the divine service. These were sung by the choruses of Levites, assisted by cantrices. On the whole we may safely say, that the Mosaic laws and religion had reached the zenith of power during this period, although the Mosaic policy was materially changed. IV. MUSIC. If it be true, what so many philosophers affirm, that the love of Music indicates a refined taste and noble sentiments, then the ancient Israelites could boast of both a refined taste and noble sentiments, for the practice of music was one of their favorite amusements. They could so little think of man without music, that they ascribed the invention of it to a patriach (Jubal) of the antediluvian period. We have no- ticed the existence of musical instruments through the whole of history up to this period. The school of Samuel appears to have been the nursery of this art, so that we read I Samuel x, 5: " And it shall come to pass, when thou (Saul) art come thither to the city, that thou shalt meet a company of prophets, coining down from the high place with a psaltry, and a tabret, and a pipe, and a harp before them." Of David, too, we learn (ibid xvi, 18) that he was an eminent musician when quite young, and that his tunes alone succeeded to pacify the agitated mind of Saul. When David took the ark from Gibeah, we read (II Samuel vi, 4): "And David, and all the house of Israel, played before the Lord on all manner of instruments made of fir- wood, even on harps, and on psaltries, and on timbrels, and on cornets, and on cymbals" (verse 15). " David, and all the house of Israel, brought up the ark of the Lord with the sound of the tamborine and the trumpet," which musical choruses are beautifully described in the sixty- eighth Psalm (25-26), apparently composed on that occasion. " The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after; among them were the damsels playing with timbrels. They praised God in choruses, even the Lord from the founda- tion of Israel." In the tabernacle of David, as has been noticed before, four thousand Levites were instructed in music PERIOD III. 3i>9 and song by two hundred and eighty-eight teachers, to assist in divine worship, under twenty-four different leaders. This art was yet improved in the days of Solomon, as is evident from the precious ahnug of which the instruments were made, and from the general patronage of Solomon to art and science. But music was not merely used for sacred purposes, it was in common use also. The women met Saul and the heroic David with songs and music, with tamborines, joys, and triangles (I Samuel xviii). Chanters and cantrices were employed at the Davidian court (II Samuel xix, 36), and at the court of Solo- mon. Both of these monarchs were musicians and singers.* In private companies, too, music formed one of the attractions, so that Isaiah could say, ■* And the harp, and the viol, the tabret, and pipe, and wine are in their feasts." On the whole we find mentioned eight different kinds of stringed instru- ments, seven different kinds of wind instruments, six different kinds of percussion instruments, and seven of an uncertain character, viz: Muthlaben, shoshanim, jonath-elim-rehokim, ayelethhashahar, shushaneduth and jeduthun, which teach us that this art had reached a high degree of perfection among the ancient Israelites. If we estimate the state of the art from the number of performers and instruments employed, we may say that it stood as high, if not higher, than at the present time. The Hebrew term for singer is derived from the verb shur, to look at; whether on account of the singers looking at notes, or at the text of the song, can not now be ascertained. That they were acquainted with the principles of rhythm is evident from the poetry of that age. That so many different instru- ments could not be used without an understanding of the laws of harmony is self-evident. That signs existed to mark those relations is unquestionable, although we are not acquainted with their character. The Hebrew idiom, " He knows to sing and play," instead of he can sing and play, convinces us that music was regarded as a science as well as an art, and that musical signs — though now lost — existed among the Hebrews. *I Kings x, 12; Ecles. ii. 8. 400 APPENDIX TO V. LITERATURE. The fragments of the literature of that age which have reached us are well calculated to make us regret the loss of the greatest part of it. Numbers of authors are mentioned during this age, such as Ethan ha-Ezrahi, Himail, Chalchol, Darda, and others. The names of different books too have reached us, the book of Jashar (II Samuel i, 18); the three thousand pro- verbs, one thousand and five songs, and the natural history of Solomon (I Kings v, 12, 13); the book Dibrai Shelomoh (1 Kings xi, 42); the three books of Samuel, Nathan and Gad (I Chronicles xxix, 29) — which appear to have contained a detailed history of the known world at that time — the pro- phecies of Ahiah and of Iddo concerning Jeroboam (II Chron. ix, 29), and the Meshal Kadmoni (the eastern proverbialist), which David mentioned to Saul (I Samuel xxiv, 14), by quoting from them thus: " Wickedness comes of the wicked." But if we had not these traces of books from that age, the productions before us could not fail to suggest the idea, that many more writers must have flourished then ; for it is a matter of impos- sibility that only one or two writers so eminent as the authors of Psalms and Proverbs should exist in an age without being accompanied by minor talents. Those productions could ori- ginate in a literary age only. The author of Chronicles also informs us, that there came to David, in Hebron, two hundred chiefs of Issachar, all of whom were learned lawyers. Some suppose the term signifies chronologists. It has, at least, the effect of showing that learning was extensively cultivated before the age of David. We possess of that age the following books : Samuel, parts of the Psalms, Proverbs, and the Song of Solomon, on which we shall treat in order. Ecclesiastes, is, as its style and con- tents abundantly testify, a much later production. It was written by one who understood perfectly well the moral con- dition of king Solomon, when he had exhausted the cup of pleasure, and had learned to despise the charms of wealth, pomp and luxury, and when with the energies of the body tho buoyancy of the mind was also wasted. Such an exhaustion PERIOD III. 401 of the energies produces effeminacy and scepticism, which determine either in despair, in atheism, or in blind piety. The author of Ecclesiastes supposed that the latter was the case with Solomon. We will treat at length on that book in another place. The ancient rabbins were of the opinion that Samuel himself wrote part of the book bearing his name, but the author makes no such pretension. In I Samuel iii, we read, "The word of the Lord was precious in those days, there was no vision general."' I Samuel v, 5, we read, " Therefore neither the priests of Dagon, nor any that came into Dagon's house, tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod unto this day. I Samuel ix, 9, it is stated, " Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he spoke, Come, and let us go to the seer; for he that is now called a prophet was beforetime called a seer." On the other side, it must be remarked, that the author nowhere gives the least reason to suppose this book had not been written shortly after the death of David. In I Samuel xxx, 25, we read. "And it was so from that day forward, that he made it a statute and an ordinance for Israel unto this day;" and II Samuel xviii, 18, "And he called the pillar after his own name, and it is called unto this day, Absalom's Place." These are the only references as to time; and there is no cause given to make us suppose the book did not originate with one who nourished in the days of Solomon. It must also be remarked that the history of David, and that part of the history of So- lomon up to I Kings iv, have many peculiarities. While the books of Judges and Kings are mere synopses of larger works, bestowing more care in the history of wars, of public works, and of the punishments of God in consequence of idolatry, the author of Samuel and of the three first chapters of I Kings bestows little attention on warfare, noticing the different cam- paigns in a concise style, and gives a more thorough history of events, which have a bearing on the character of his principal men, and on the age. The style of Samuel and of the first three chapters of I Kings is entirely different from any other historical books of the Bible. It is a clear, concise and ener- 26 402 APPENDIX TO gctic prose style interwoven with pieces of poetry, which he ascribes to other authors.* The speeches recorded in it are remarkable for their boldness, and bear the stamp of originali- ty; and the conversations which the author preserves, are distinguished for beauty of language and opulence of thought. All these characteristics point to the age of Solomon. Hence we may remark, that it is rather peculiar that the last part of the history of David commences the book of Kings, while the book of Samuel was evidently written with the view to give a full and impartial history of David; that the second chapter of I Kings ends with the phrase, " And the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon;" and the fourth chapter begins with " King Solomon was king over all Israel;" that it is mentioned in the second chapter, verse twelve, Solo- mon sat upon the throne of David his father, and his kingdom was established greatly," which sufficiently informs us of the extent of Solomon's empire, having been that of his father. Still the fifth chapter begins (in the English authorized version iv, 21): " And Solomon was the ruler over all the kingdoms from the river (Euphrates) to the land of the Phelistines and to the boundaries of Egypt." In the third chapter we are told of the dream of Solomon, in which he pretended to have received of God especial wisdom, concluding with, "And Solomon awoke and behold it was a dream," the author clearly suggesting to the reader his own idea on the subject ; he then continues to show that his fame as a wise man was acquired by the judgment rendered in the case of the two harlots, with- out bestowing one word of praise on the wisdom of Solomon — a method which the author of Samuel strictly observed. Still in chapter v, verses 9-11 we are told again, that God dis- tinguished Solomon with wisdom of the highest order, that he was wiser than the wisest of his nation, the wise men of Egypt and of all the sons of the east, v, 26. We are told again, " And the Lord gave wisdom to Solomon, as he had said unto him." Hence it is remarkable that the earlier history of * 1 Samuel ii, 1-10 •, II Samuel i, 17-27; iv, 33,34; xxii; xxiii, 1-7. PERIOD III, 403 Solomon, like that of David, is complete in all its particulars, while the later history, commencing with the fourth chapter of Kings, is deficient both in materials, arrangement and chro- nology, falling rather into the mythical tone, so that it is almost evident, that while the book of Samuel and the first three chapters of Kings, .belonging to the same author, were written in an age when the history of David and of the first part of Solomon's reign were yet fresh in the memory of the people, the other part of Solomon's history was written centuries after his death. If we are not greatly mistaken, the facts adduced demonstrate, that the first three chapters of I Kings properly belong to II Samuel, having the same author. If so, we have ascertained the precise time when the book of Samuel was written. It must have been during the first years of Solomon's reign; for had it been after the bnilding of the temple, the author would certainly have mentioned the fact. The author has no knowledge of the final degeneracy of Solomon; for he informs us, iii, 3, that Solomon loved the Lord and walked in the statutes of David, his father. It is easy to explain how those three chapters came in the book of Kings. The books of Samuel and Kings were considered one book as late as the time of Josephus and Philo, as, indeed, Kings is but a continu- ation of Samuel. When afterwards those books were separated, the last part of the history of David, forming the introduction to the history of Solomon, was prefixed to the book of Kings. The author of Chronicles furnishes us with the original sources, and of which the book of Samuel was compiled, viz: the three books of Samuel, Nathan and Gad (I Chron. xxix, 29). The name of the author can not be ascertained, so many literati having flourished in that age.* The frequent imitation * Traces of the Pentateuch in Samuel; compare I Samuel ii, 1-10 with Deutr. xxxii: ibid iii, 19-21 with Genesis xxxv, 10-18; ibid vj, 0 with Exodus x, 1-2; ibid vii, 3 with Genesis xxxv, 2; ibid xiv, 23 with Exodus xiv, 30; ibid xv. 2 with Exodus xvii. 14; ibid xv, 29 with Numbers xxiii, 19; ibid xvii. 40 with Deutr. xxviii, 25, 20; ibid xxiv, 13 with Genesis xvi, 5; ibid xxx, 23 with Numbers xxxi; ibid xxxviii, 22-24 with Genesis xviii, 1-9. In I Kings ii, 14, occurs the phrase. " As is written in the book of the law "of Moses." Mosaic laws are mentioned in Samuel; the prohibition to 404 APPENDIX TO of verses of the Pentateuch in I Samuel, seems to indicate that it was extracted from the proper book of Samuel, in whose time the Hebrew style had not yet become sufficiently inde- pendent and original. II Samuel is written in an altogether independent and original style. It has been remarked before, that the last five chapters of Judges and the book of Ruth belong to this period. The one hundred and fifty psalms, which have reached us, were divided by the compilers of the canon into five books. The first book includes the forty -one psalms from chapter i to xli. The second book includes the thirty-one psalms from chapter xlii to lxxii. The third book contains the seventy psalms from chapter lxxiii to lxxxix. The fourth book con- tains the sixteen psalms from chapter xc to cvi. The fifth book contains the forty-three psalms, cvii to cl. Each of those books, viz : the last verse of psalms xli, lxxii, lxxxix, cvi, and the cl, ends thus, " Praised be Jehovah the God of Israel from eternity to eternity, amen and amen," which is altered, at the end of the whole, into " Every soul praise the Lord, Halelu- jah;" so that the intention of having the whole divided into five books is evident. But the second book — Psalm lxxii — concludes with, "The prayers of David, son of Jesse, are ended," which shows that the compiler of the first seventy- two psalms was ignorant of the rest of them. The fact that in the second book, two psalms of the first book occur (com- pare Psalm liii with xiv, and lxx with xl, 14-18) strongly supports the idea that the first forty-one chapters are the most ancient collection of psalms — made shortly after the death of David — which the compiler provided with an introduction, making now the first chapter, and with an appropriate conclu- sion (xli, 14), which was imitated by every subsequent com- piler. This hypothesis is supported also by the fact, that all the psalms of the first book with the exception of Psalms i, ii, eat blood, I Samuel xiv, 34; circumcision mentioned indirectly ibid xviii 25; the festivities of the new moon's day, ibid xx, 5-18; not to eat of the sacrifice when impure, ibid xx, 26; the shewbreads belong to the priests and must be eaten in purity, ibid xxi, 5-7; the avenger of blood, II Samuel xiv, 2 PERIOD III. 405 x, and xxx, are expressly ascribed to David, among which is also Psalm xviii, for which we have the testimony of the author of II Samuel (xxii) that it originated with David. Psalm i is an introduction to the collection; Psalm ii is, as we have remarked before, the production of Solomon;* the collection being made under his supervision, his psalm was set at the head of the book. Psalm x is considered by the most eminent critics as a part of Psalm ix, and Psalm xxxiii, to which the last verse of Psalm xxxii gave the leading idea, appears to be rather the work of the more scientific Solomon than of David ; being also a response to Psalm xxxii. This first collection must have been made before Solomon married the daughter of Pharaoh; for if before, the forty-sixth Psalm, being a nuptial ode addressed to Solomon on that occasion, would have been inserted. Psalm lxxii was addressed to Solomon at an ad- vanced period of his reign. | Psalm cxxvii, also ascribed to Solomon, was not made until after the dedication of the temple, and is a response to the address I Kings ix, 3-9. This col- lection was made after the author of Samuel had completed his work, for Psalm xviii is much improved. It was made by Asaph — wherefore it was called " the words of David and Asaph the seer " — for the purpose of divine worship (II Chron. xxix, 30). All the objections that can be urged in opposition to this view is the concluding verse of Psalm xiv, when the return of the captives of Jacob and Israel is mentioned. The same conclusion occurs when this Psalm is repeated (liii). The reason of this seems to be, that this chapter was not found complete, having no conclusion whatever, wherefore the last compiler added this verse to both those chapters. There is no historical evidence in existence, that David wrote more than the eighteenth psalm, which our historian mentions (II Samuel xxii). Nay, there is even a strong argument e silentio, that David either wrote none of the psalms except the eighteenth, or that his poetical compositions were so incon- * Compare Psalm ii. 7 with II Samuel vii, 14. t Compare Psalm lxxii, 10 vmh I Kings x. 406 APPENDIX TO siderable, that the historians did not notice them. The author of Samuel, who collected every particular of the history of David, tells us, that he composed three poems; the author of Chronicles was especially careful to elevate David, omitting all those parts of David's history which threw a stain on his character. Should they not have mentioned the numerous poems of David in such a way as the author of Kings mentions the literary productions of Solomon? The term inS, which stands at the head of the seventy- two chapters commonly ascribed to David, can not be rendered " Of David " or " By David;" for there are Psalms bearing this head which were not written in his age (Psalms lxix, li); Psalm ex, having the same head, is evidently addressed to David, and other psalms of the same head are evidently but a faint imitation of previous chapters.* There may be here and there a Davidian psalm among them, but on the whole the head nnS says no more, than that those psalms were written to David, in which style after- wards new psalms were composed, as late as the time of the Maccabees. The antiquity of only the first book of Psalms can be de- fended, although there are in the other books also some very ancient compositions so that even Jeremiah (xxx, 10), quoted passages of the psalms (c, 1; cvi, 1). In Jonah appears a whole prayer (ii, 3-10), composed of passages of psalms ;| and the author of Job not only quoted extensively from Psalms, but the last chapters of that book (xxxviii-xli) are totally based upon Psalms viii, xix, xxix, and civ. The other four books, although containing chapters belonging to this period, must be considered in another part of this history. We see in Psalms xc — cv, very ancient productions. There are good reasons to believe in the rabbinical tradition, that these Psalms were composed in a pre-Davidian age, of which only the ninety-ninth psalm might be an exception. We have the same opinion of Psalms cxi-exviii, the high antiquity of * Compare Psalms lxx with xl; cxliv with xviii. t Psalms v, 8; xviii, 5, 7; xxxi, 7, 23; xlii, 8; ciii, 4; cxvi, 3, 17, IS; cxlii, 4. PERIOD III. 407 which is also admitted by the ancient rabbins. We consider them as the hymns of the Mosaic tabernacle. Psalm lxxx must have been composed in the time of Joshua,* or in the time of Ishboslieth, son and successor of Saul. The history of the psalmodic literature must be dated as far back as Moses; his two songs and his prayer were the prototype of all psalms. Succeeding generations, down to the Davidian period, produced new compositions of this nature and in this style, in which may be classed the song of Deborah and the prayer of Hannah. When, in consequence of the scholastic institute of Samuel, poetry and music had attained a high degree of perfection — which was in the time of David — this kind of poetical composition became very popular, and found many friends. Hymns, epopees and prayers were com- posed, not only for the tabernacle, but for numerous occasions. This favorite literature did not terminate with David, it was continued to a very late date. The compilers of the Bible saved for us one hundred and fifty chapters of the numerous productions of that nature. The Solomonic productions can be ascribed to that king with historical certainty, as he is mentioned in history as a promi- nent author, of whom we possess but two books. The Song of Songs, as it is called in the original text, is a collection of love songs composed by the juvenile Solomon. Those poems have no connection with each other. The commentators, both ancient and modern, have in vain wasted their time to find in that production any other meaning but the tender affections of a youthful and loving heart ; or to bring the detached poems into a connection that might form a unity. The head of the book states clear enough that it is a song of songs, collected in one volume on account of having one author, and treating on the same sentiments. The second book of Solomon, that has reached us, is the Book of Proverbs, we call it the second book; for there can be no doubt, that the Song of Songs was composed when the wise king was yet a youthful admirer of female beauty, with a heart * Compare Psalms lxxx, 2, 3, with Judges i, 22. 408 APPENDIX TO full of glowing passions, which were expressed in beautiful poems; while the style and contents of the Book of Proverbs indicate the mature age of the author. The book is divided into three distinct parts, the first of which embraces the first nine chapters; the second part embraces the fifteen chapters from x to xxiv, and the third part embraces five chapters, from xxv to xxix, to which are affixed the poems of Agur (xxx), and of Lemuel (xxxi). The first two divisions commence plainly with the words, " Proverbs of Solomon," to which is added in the first division " Son of David, king of Israel." The third division commences, " Also, these are proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah, king of Jehu dah, collected." Here, we have plain dates for this book. The first division was written either before Solomon mounted the throne of David or shortly after, when the name of the author was not yet as popular as it subsequently became, and so he was obliged to add to his name, " Son of David, king of Israel." The second division was written at a later period when his name was well known as an author, wherefore it plainly commences, " Proverbs of Solomon." The head of the third division, mentioning the men of Hezekiah as the compilers, plainly indicates that the first two divisions existed previous to the latter. A short investigation of the contents of the three divisions will conduct us to the same historical result. The first division of our book is erroneously called Proverbs, for it contains few, if any, pro- verbs. The Hebrew term ^D, may be rendered, parables, or poems, just as well as proverbs. It is a book on wisdom, as the highest good which man may obtain in this sublunary world, which is the cause of virtue and happiness, and, conducive to true religion and piety, which are closely con- nected with wisdom and happiness, as folly, crime, misery and impiety are the links of one chain. "Wisdom is per- sonified as a virtuous and faithful wife, while folly is represented as a vicious and faithless consort. These per- sonifications are characteristic of the period in which these chapters were written. Woman was regarded as superior in wisdom and eloquence to man. Saul questions a woman about PERIOD III. 409 his future ; Abigail prevents David from the commission of an act, which, as she justly remarked, would have been a disgrace to his name and an obstacle in his way to the- throne; Michal saved David by a cunning contrivance of her own; Joab, in order to persuade the king to recall his son, resorted to the assistance of a wise and eloquent woman of Tekoa; and the insurrection of Shebawas brought to a close by the contrivance of another wise woman. These facts sufficiently prove, that^ exalted notions were then entertained of the intellect and eloquence of woman, which notions resound in the personifica- tions of Solomon, in the first division of our book. The inspired poet, who had celebrated his ardent love in the beautiful songs collected in the Song of Songs, now turned his lofty imagina- tion and brilliant ingenuity towards another goddess, wisdom, which he worshiped; and this noble genius of humanity be- comes in his phantasy an accomplished and virtuous woman. It was but one step forward: he proceeded from the beautiful form, which he celebrated in the Song of Songs, to the mental excellencies of woman, as he had changed his theme from love to wisdom; but, still, the same lyric beauty, the same sublimity of style, the same profundity of sentiment, and frequently also the same words * characterize those two kindred productions of Solomon; so that it admits of no doubt, that the first nine chapters of Proverbs were written shortly after the poems composing the Song of Songs, when Solomon was yet quite young. The contents of this division of Proverbs is another testi- mony to our hypothesis. While he describes in the first chapter — from 1 to 6 is a mere introduction — the misery originating from the neglect of wisdom, he continues, in the second chapter, to describe the consequence of the attainment of wisdom, the highest of which is to comprehend the fear of the Lord — which was an expression for the eminence of piety, and which it must be remembered, Moses characterized as the utmost which God required of Israel {Dent, x, 12) — to keep on the path of justice and piety; to guard against superstition, perversion and vice, which conduct to death and destruction. After he had remarked * Proverbs v, 19-, vii, 1C-1S. 410 APPENDIX TO in the beginning of the third chapter, that wisdom must be accompanied by piety and charity, he continues to describe the consequences of wisdom. It brings wealth, a long and happy life, and peace; it makes fearless in the hour of danger, and brings fame and glory, to which end is the whole of the fourth chapter. With the fifth chapter a new section begins, in which he first describes how wisdom guards against the illusions of vice and leads to the pleasant embrace of virtue, to industry (chapter vi), which connected with wisdom is another guardian angel against vice, which he describes most powerfully in the seventh chapter. The eighth and ninth chapters concluding this division, contains a song which wisdom sings in its own praise, where all excellencies, both divine and human, are ascribed to the power of wisdom. If we cast a glance upon the dream of Solomon (I Kings iii, 5-14), we will find there either the prototype or the epitome of these nine chapters. Solomon required wisdom in order to be able to dispense justice among his people. That wisdom is conducive to this end is plainly stated (Proverbs viii, 15, 16). He required wisdom to be able to distinguish good from evil. This sentiment per- vades the whole of the nine chapters under consideration. Wealth and glory, the consequences of wisdom, are granted to Solomon in the same dream. These we have 'also noticed in Proverbs as the consequences of wisdom. The dream concludes with the declaration, that his days would be prolonged, if he would observe the laws of the Lord. This idea is also a lead- ing one in Proverbs.* It is therefore evident, either that this division of Proverbs was written in consequence of that dream, or the dream was a consequence of the active imagination and the glowing devotion of the poet to his favorite goddess, toisdom. The idea expressed in the dream and the first division of Proverbs, was a new and dangerous one. It set aside the necessity of prophets and of the urim to consult God on occasions of particular importance. Wisdom to comprehend the law of God, was regarded as all-sufficient to govern the nation, to dis- * Proverbs iii, 1, 2, 11-18; ix, 10, 12. PERIOD III. 411 pense justice, and to constitute a happy, virtuous and pious man. This is the leading idea of that part of Proverbs. Wis- dom of a superior nature was granted to Solomon ; consequently, he needed not the advice of either prophet or priest, wherefore we marked that dream as the first step towards absolutism . If the dream was a consequence of the composition of those chapters of Proverbs, then they were written before he mounted the throne. Solomon was honest both in regard to the dream which he may have had, and also in regard to his policy. It was but the exaggerated confidence he put in his personal wisdom, which made him an unhappy and despotic king. But if these chapters were written in defense of an alleged dream, as the author of the first three chapters of Kings appears to have believed, then Solomon was a shrewd, calcu- lating and cunning man, who defiled the eminence of poetical and intellectual powers for which he was distinguished, to the mean purpose of subjecting the people to his own will and designs. But, however, this may be, it is established that the first division of Proverbs was written, either shortly before or soon after he mounted the throne of David. The second division of Proverbs is altogether different from the first one. It is a proverbial philosophy without any en- deavor at beauty or poetical charm. All the relations between man and man, the moral, civil, political, commercial, and all religious relations are not merely touched upon, but the soundest maxims, the best rules of conduct are prescribed in such short terms, that it is easy to keep them in memory. Every verse is a prolific theme, on which chapters might be written, yet few of the verses contain in the original more than six or seven words; scarcely any exceed eight words. The most general form is, that the first part of the verse consists of four words, and the latter part of three words. The last part of the verse forms almost always a contrast of sense to the first part, which enforces the maxim contained in the first part of the verse, as the shade elevates the light of a picture. This method of ar- rangement is peculiar to this book. The parallelism of other Hebrew poems is so constructed, that the second line is a sup- plement to the sense of the first, so that it may properly be 112 APPENDIX TO called a rhyme of sentiment instead of sounds. This novelty through the whole division is no mean testimony to the inge- nuity and skill of Solomon. The leading ideas are not new. His views on the fear of the Lord, wisdom, honor, glory, wealth and happiness, are nearly the same as in the first divi- sion. The maxims of the Mosaic dispensation are applied to all the relations of life; industry and honesty are highly praised, and all the chords of the human heart are skillfully touched. The second part of Proverbs appears to us to be the most valuable of all the post-Mosaic writings ; and we know of no work in ancient or modern literature that contains more sound matter or more valuable verities in so small a space. It is every way calculated to reconcile one to Solomon notwith- standing his many imperfections. That one man should be thus acquainted with all circumstances of human life, seems almost a matter of impossibility. It appears to us, that Solo- mon collected the proverbs which circulated among the people, and combined them with his own. We may therefore properly call it a proverbial philosophy, a book of the people and for the people; one which enables us to judge of the high state of civilization of Israel at that age. The last division of Proverbs is a gleaning of the Solomonic compositions. This is especially remarked and is visible in the style and form of the proverbs, many of which are embo- died in the former division. The style is not as concise as in the preceding parts, nor is the same form observed through the collection. It can not be ascertained when chapter xxx was written, although it has all the characteristics of an ancient composition. Chapter xxxi, before which a fictitious name is set, is undoubtedly an address to king Solomon denouncing luxury and bigamy, both of which must have been odious to the nation. The author succeeds well in describing an indus- trious, wise and faithful wife, which he contrasts, at the conclusion, with the vanity of beauty. This kind of Hebrew literature did not end with Solomon, We find continuations of it it in almost all periods of this history.* * Vide L. Dukes Rabbinische Blumenlese. Leipzig 1844. PERIOD III, 413 The literature of this period indicates a slow and regular progress. The heroic age was also that of poetry and music. The Israelites were the nation of Jehovah. This exalted idea was never forgotten; and so the current of poesy flows in the same direction. The Psalms, expressing as their chief charac- teristics, almost every relation between God and man, an un- paralleled confidence in, as well as a glowing devotion and ar- dent love to God, were the eminent productions of that era. The era of poetry was followed by the age of philosophy, as among all nations of antiquity. Solomon worshiped at the altar of wisdom. The philosophical productions of the age were not reduced to scientific forms; they appear in the fresh and flowery gar- ment of poesy. What had been in former ages matter of presentment became now matter of consciousness. The spirit of research endeavored to explore the whole field of sentiment and faith, having only intellect as its guide. We see no longer before us a youthful nation living in a world of sentiments, consciousness and rational conviction covered the field of the mind; the spirit was emancipated and manly; but with the victory of wisdom we see united the decline of the prophets, who had scarcely any influence in the days of Solomon. What influence this progress exercised upon the neighboring and depending countries may be easily imagined. We shall take notice of it in the next period, when meeting with the conse- quences of that influence. We have not done full justice to the literature of this period; but our space does not permit us to enter more at length upon the subject, which would require an additional volume. We had only to ascertain their histori- cal data. P E B I 0 D IV FROM THE DIVISION OF THE EMPIRE INTO THE KINGDOMS OF JUDAH AND ISRAEL TO THE FALL OF SAMARIA (2792—3039 A. M. 968—721 B. C.). BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. Kings of Judah. Kings of Israel. Years. Years Rehabeam, - 17 Jerobeam, - - - - 22 Abiam, - 3 Nadab - - - - 2 Baesha - - - 23 Asa, - 41 Elah, - - - - 2 Zimri. seven days. Jehoshaphat or Civil war between Thibni Josbaphat, - 25 and Omri, - - - 4 Omri, - - - 7 Ahab, - - - 21 Jeboram or Joram. - 8 Ahaziah, - - - 2 Ahazariah, - 1 Jehoram, - - - - 12 Atbaliah, - 6 Jehu, - - - 28 Jehoasb or Joash, 39 Jehohaz, - - - 15 Amaziah, - 17 Jehoash, - - - - 16 Azariah or Uziab, 52 Jerobeam II, Zechariah and • - - 41 Jotham, - 16 Shollum - - - 1 Ahaz, - 16 Menahem, - - - 10 Hezikiah, - 6 Pekahiah, - - - 2 and twenty three years Pekah, - - - 20 after this. Assyrian dominion, - - 10 Hosheath, - - - - 9 kings and one queen. 247 20 kings - - - 247 CHAPTER X. 415 CHAPTER X. FROM JEROBEAM AND REHABEAM TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE OMRI DYNASTY. (90S— 873 B. C.) Eighty years ago the unhappy house of Saul struggled against the spirited hero, whose grandson now saved his life by flight from Shechem — giving rise to the eighty-ninth psalm — which he most likely intended to make his capital, in order to satisfy the disaffected sons of Ephraim. The heir of David stood now opposed by the prophets, rejected by the ten tribes — Menassah must be counted as two tribes, as it really was according to territory; for it is evident that Simeon was counted with Je- huda, having no separate territorial existence — and threatened with an invasion from Egypt. Still Rehabeam's power was not as insignificant as might be supposed. He was in pos- session of the national and of the royal private treasures ; of the Idumean seaports, which were a source of wealth, and of a rich and well cultivated land, crowded with a numerous population, so that he was able to muster an army of one hundred and eighty thousand men (Kings xii, 21), a force strong enough to hold in subjection Edom and Phelistia, which he maintained, and to maintain the independence of the land in opposition to Jerobeam and others. He sat upon an established throne, which was guarded by the loyalty of his subjects, and by the priests and Levites throughout the country, who were na- turally drawn towards the center of their power and splendor, which was the temple of Jerusalem. Not quite so favorable was the position of Jerobeam. He was far superior to his rival in numerical strength — as two to one (II Chron. xiii, 3) in the extent of territory, being in possession of Ammon and Moab, and as it appears, in the sequel, also in mental energies. Still Jerobeam was without material means, he had no disciplined army and no organized government ; he had a new and fomenting people that expected a new organization from his hands. Besides these disadvan- 416 PERIOD IV. tages he had in his territory a vast number of priests and Levites, who were opposed to a separation from the house of David, and there were, most certainly, many more friends of the Davidian dynasty among the ten tribes, who were not favorably disposed towards the new king. Under such cir- cumstances, Jerobeam could not enforce his authority in Judah by arms. Had Rehabeam executed his intended invasion of the ten tribes, little doubt can be entertained as to the defeat of Jerobeam. But the intention of Rehabeam was frustrated, as we have remarked before, by the energetical interference of the prophets, who supported their favorite Jerobeam, whom they justly acknowledged the legal king of Israel. Both mo- narchs, therefore, were obliged to maintain the peace, although occasional hostilities of little importance could not be pre- vented, which most likely now and then occurred on the frontiers. They directed their sole attention to the mainten- ance of the statu quo, to which end Jerobeam fortified and aggrandized the ancient city of Joshua, Shechcm, and in the provinces beyond Jordan he fortified Penuel in order to secure his authority in that part of the country, from which side alone, Amnion and Moab could be held in subjection. He himself took up his residence in Tirzah, of Menasseh, almost in the center of his territory. Rehabeam on his part, fortified and garrisoned fifteen cities, so that an invasion by Jerobeam would have been ineffectual. The policy of Rehabeam was of such a nature that he could expect to succeed gradually in winning again the affections of the people. He married daughters of the house of Jesse, only knowing that his father's marriage of foreign wcmen gave offence to the people. He conferred all the privileges of a favorite queen upon a granddaughter of Absalom, and he also promised to her son the royal power (II Chron. xi, 22); know- ing that the memory of Absalom was yet dear to many an Israelite. He maintained the splendor of the temple, and its ministers, in order to attract the picus to the capital, in which plan he actually succeeded. The military pomp, too, which most likely was displayed in the frontier cities, was attractive. CHAPTER X. 417 Jerobeam and his friends must have observed the imminent danger threatening them from the peaceful policy of Judah, and measures were taken to render it ineffectual. Those measures existed in changing the national religion, deposing the tribe of Levi from the sacerdotal oiliees, and engaging the assistance of Egypt. Jerobeam had lived in the capital of Egypt ; there he had seen the pomp and splendor of Egyptian worship, audits influence upon the people, who willingly bowed down before the priests, the strongholds of the throne. He found that worship best calculated to political purposes. Be- sides this, it was to the interest of Jerobeam to secure to his cause the friendship of Egypt, and there was no surer way to secure the affections of an ancient nation, than by adopting its form of worship. Two temples were erected, one in Dan, the extreme north of the Israelitish territory, and one in Beth El, the extreme south of the land; in which golden calves were set up. There can be no doubt, that both temples and idols were on the Egyptian plan; for the author of I Kings xii, 28, lets Jerobeam say the same words, as were once exclaimed in the wilderness, when the golden calf was made (Exodus xxxii, 4). " Behold thy gods, 0 Israel, which have brought thee up from the land of Egypt," to which the author of II Chronicles adds, that they also worshipped the Saeerim (xi, 15), which deities were also opposed by Moses, as Egyptian corruptions (Levit. xvii, 7).* The staunch opponents of Jerobeam, the Levites, were removed, and the sacred offices were given to men of the people, which brought to the king many influential friends, while it took away the power of his enemies, many of whom emigrated to Judah. He postponed the feast of booths to the fifteenth day of the eighth month, while it was observed in Judah on the same day of the seventh month, in order to effect a decided separation from Judah. He interdicted then * The term Saeerim is erroneously rendered Devils, or Evil Sjririts; while this term, whenever occuring in the Bible, i3 rendered Goats or Rams, and it is well known, that the ox and the cow were sacred to Isis, the rarr; was sacred to Jupiter Amnion, and Pan, was venerated at Mendis, by the symbol of a goat.. Neither of those gods was considered an evil spirit. 27 418 PERIOD IV. going to Jerusalem according to the Mosaic command, which he knew to be one of the chief bonds of the national union. This interdiction is strongly condemned in three beautiful psalms, which appear to have originated at that time with one of the poets living on the banks of Jordan. We mean Psalms xlii, xliii, and lxxxiv, in which the poet pours forth a current of offended sentiment about the interrogation of his neighbors, "Where are thy gods," relating to the proclamation of Jero- beam, quoted above. His complaints equal those of Philomele; his longing to appear before God, to see his temple and his altar; his recollections of the past when he went in joyous processions to the temple, are truly affectionate and indicative of a sensitive and severely offended heart. The hopes which he entertains for the future, and which uphold his declining life, are pious, confident and noble. Sentimental as is the author of the two first mentioned psalms, still he can not help calling his people an impious nation, and Jerobeam a cunning and violent man (xliii, 1). The author of Psalm lxxxiv, says, " 0 Jehovah, Lord of hosts, hear my prayer; give ear 0 God of Jacob. Selah. Behold, 0 God our shield (the union) and look upon the face of thy Messiah (Rehabeam). For a day in thy courts (the temple of Jerusalem) is better than a thousand; I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than to dwell firmly in the tents of wickedness " (the temples of Jero- beam). The measures of Jerobeam are sufficiently justifiable in point of policy. In regard to religion his schism was not as violent as it is generally supposed to have been. Moses retained many Egyptian symbols and customs, as has been mentioned before. Solomon, too, not only retained the Mosaic symbols, but also added symbols of the Zabians. The wor- ship of Jerusalem was symbolical, and besides the hymns and choruses of the Levites, nothing but symbols and emblems, and typical ceremonies, in which the people could take no active part, constituted the solemn rites. The unquestionable sanctity of the temple could not have yet been established at that time, because little more than thirty years had elapsed since its dedication, and such a short time is by no means CHAPTER X. 419 sufficient to give to a place that sanctity, which the temple had in after ages. Moses made use of Egyptian symbols to express the ideas of true religion, to lead the people from the gods of the heathens to the worship of Jehovah. Solomon adopted the same plan to the same end. Jerobeam, too, adopted the same plan to dissolve the union of Israel and to secure himself on his throne. The symbols were changed, but not the ideas. The marked influence of the prophets upon the kings and people of Israel in all epochs of their history, even in the time of Ahab, and also upon foreign nations; the facts that the land of Israel was always called the land of Jehovah;* that no immoral practices connected with idolatry were intro- duced by Jerobeam; and that the anger of the prophets was especially aroused against Ahab for his introduction of Tyrian gods, are sufficient to show, that but the symbols and not the fundamental ideas were changed. It was but an external and no internal change of religion, When the temple of Jerusalem could boast of occupying the classical spot of Mount Moriah; the temple of Jerobeam in Beth El could point back to father Jacob, who sanctified that spot to become a house of the Lord, which undoubtedly exercised a considerable influence upon the minds of many, wherefore the principal feast was celebrated at Beth El. There can be no doubt that Jerobeam found plenty of false prophets to advocate and sanction the schism. The people were led by the practices of Solomon to regard such changes less seriously than the prophets did; religion had be- come with them more an internal than external affair, as many psalms and the Proverbs clearly indicate ; consequently external changes did not materially affect them; besides, the new symbols must have been considered but a slight change from the old ones. To this must be added the political fanati- cism, which is by no means milder than the religious one; all the wrongs of which the Davidian dynasty was guilty, the illegal obstinacy of Judah against the overwhelming majority of the nation, and the violation of the law involved therein, * I Kings xx, 23-28; II Kings xvii, 24-34. 420 PERIOD IV. were certainly enough to incite political fanaticism — the con- ciousness of being right in political respects, and the example which Solomon had set and which the elders of Jehudah had imitated to violate the law. It must therefore be confessed, that the seism of Jerobeam, was neither a violent transition, nor a despotic measure; it was but an alteration of the law, and most likely with the consent of the majority of Israel. There can be no doubt, that many adhered to the temple of Jerusalem, but they were in the minority. The prophets, oi:f their part, could not consent to the mea- sures of Jerobeam, although they never declared in favor of any kind of external ceremonies, or of the temple of Jerusa- lem and its ministers, and had themselves deserted the house of David ; for their policy was to maintain the union of Israel by no other means than by the laws of Moses. They could easily forsee the conduct of Rehabeam, who would not be able to play the hypocrite for a long time, but would soon worship foreign gods; such an occurrence, had Jerobeam remained firm in the law, would have afforded them ample chance, to carry out the determinations of the majority in regard to the crown, to give satisfaction to the law, and to reunite the house of Israel. Besides this, the schism of Jero- beam was not a transitory one ; the close connection of the new worship with the laws of Moses threatened to produce a more lasting breach in Israel, as it indeed proved to be, than if he had been more inclined to idolatry, which would have met with the dissatisfaction of the people. The prophets strongly denounced the policy of Jerobeam, as they naturally must have done, and to which they were fully entitled; for besides the lasting disunion of Israel which that policy threatened, it was a violation of the laws under which Jerobeam was elected to the throne, and of the express condition under which the crown was given him. "And it shall come to pass, if thou will hearken to all which I command thee, and thou wilt walk in my ways, and thou wilt do what is right in my sight, to observe my statutes and my commandments, as David my ser- vant has done; then I will be with thee, and I will build up CHAPTER X. 421 to thee a faithful house, as I have built to David, and I will give Israel to thee." Such were the conditions under which Ahiah offered the crown to Jerobeam; and there it is said in unquestionable terms, that Jeroboam's duty was to adhere incessantly to the laws of the nation, in default of which his heirs forfeited their claims to the throne, as the heir of Solo- mon had on account of his father's conduct. And, therefore, the same Ahiah who offered the crown to Jerobeam, also told him, that the claims of his sons were forfeited on account of his illegal conduct. Rehabeam, as has been suggested, could maintain his hypo- critical policy for no longer time than three years ; then he followed the example of his father and the advice of his mother, Naamah of Amnion, and not only worshiped the foreign gods, but also indulged in the debauchery connected with the worship of Astarte, so that soon Sodomites and demoralized idolaters filled the capital. The immoral practices, which were so much opposed by the laws of Moses were so extensively intro- duced, that even the author of I Chronicles is bound to admit, that Rehabeam and all Israel with him, forsook the law of the Lord. If the conduct of Jerobeam was calculated to give dis- satisfaction to the prophets and their party, who were by no means inconsiderable both in Israel and Judah, the conduct of Rehabeam must have appeared to them outrageous and insuf- ferable. It is therefore not difficult to say how Shishak or Sesostris II, or Shishank (being the same personage), king of Egypt, came to invade Judah. The opposition of that king to the aged Solomon, his friendship to Jerobeam, the endeavor of the latter to please Pharaoh, and the necessary hatred of the party of the prophets against Rehabeam, leave no doubt, that Shishak was invited by Jerobeam, with the consent of the party of the prophets, as it appears clearly from the words of Shemaiah (II Chro::. xii, 5), with a view to restore the union of Israel, which gave to the party of the prophets the hopes of seeing, also, the Mosaic rites reestablished, as they could expect from Jerobeam if acknowledged by the whole nation. In the fifth year of the reign of Rehabeam, Shishak, or Sesos- 422 PERIOD IV. tris IT, invaded Judah, leading a large army of cavalry, infant- ry, and chariots. The author of Chronicles gives us the number of chariots twelve hundred; and the number of the cavalry sixty thousand; the number of the infantry he did not know. The strength of the Egyptian army must have been considerable, because it consisted not only of Egyptians, but also of Ethiopians, Lybians, and Succites, which most likely were the troglodytes in the east of Egypt, where the first of the encampments of Israel is called Succoth. That this king was the distinguished Sesostris II has been ascertained by Champol- lion, who detected among the hieroglyphics, representing the kings conquered in battle by that Alexander of Egypt, the tall and beautiful figure of a man, on whose shield is the inscription " King of Judah," and under the figure is remarked " Land of Mountains"; to this must be added the fact, that on the rocks near Beirut traces of Egyptian hieroglyphics are found, among which, as Dr. Lepsius says, the name of Sesostris is found twice. No particulars of this important fact have reached us. Still so much is evident, that it was not so easy to take Jerusalem, which was not only almost invincible, as the sequel will show, but was surrounded by other strongly fortified places, which had to be reduced before the siege of Jerusalem could be under- taken; nor is it at all likely, that such an army as Rehabeam had, could be thus totally discomfited in one or two battles, so that Jerusalem was taken in a short time. We have no account in our sources that Jerusalem was taken at all by Shishak; we only read that "he went up towards Jerusalem," it is not even mentioned that he beseiged it. The result of the invasion we are told was the spoliation of the public and private treasury of the king, leaving it uncertain whether Shishak took the treasures by force or with the consent of Rehabeam. The author of II Chronicles also informs us (xii. 7, 8.), that a dependency of Judah on Egypt wa; another consequence of that invasion, which, however, lasted only a short time, (ibid, verse 12,) probably to the death of Shishak. It appears therefore to us, that Reha am, dreading the coali- tion of Shishak and Jerobeam, submitte 1 to the former, (ibid verse 6,) and most likely also convinced the Eg^ ptLn monarch, CHAPTER X. 423 that it was not to the interest of his country to dethrone Reha- beam in favor of Jerobeam ; that the commerce of Egypt was much more favored if Judah remained cut off from Phoenicia ; and that his undertaking could not be brought to an end in so short a time as he might expect. Shishak therefore consented to accept an indemnification of the expedition and the sub- mission of Rehabeam to the superiority of Egypt. That indemnification and the subsequent tribute which Rehabeam was obliged to pay to the Egyptians, reduced the coffers of the king and the national treasury, to such an extent that for the golden shields of Solomon, made for the body-guard of the king, were substituted those of brass. It appears that while prudence dictated that policy, circumstances were too threat- ening to allow Rehabeam to enter upon active hostility against an enemy powerful as Shishak and Rehabeam. The sharp lessons which the son of Solomon had received during, the first part of his reign, were not effective enough to make of him anything like a good monarch. He continued to spend his life in a seraglio of eighteen wives and sixty concu- bines, worshiping Astarte in the fullest sense of the word, although he did not neglect to visit the temple regularly (1 Kings, xiv, 28). Such a life of sensual excess must, naturally, have made him a weak and despotic ruler, regarding neither law nor justice; so that even the author of II Chronicles is bound to confess that he was a wicked king, whose heart never inquired after the Lord. How insane was the obstinacy of Judah and the zeal of the Levites, supporting a dynasty so degenerated, in opposition of the laws and the will of the nation, and at the expense to the union, prosperity and national existence of Israel! The death of Rehabeam occurred in the eighteenth year of his reign, at the age of fifty-eight, after which he was entombed in the royal sepulchre in the City of David (951 B. C). His successor, Abiam, son of Maachah, the granddaughter of Absalom, was in no respect better than his father. He also wasted his time and his energies in a seraglio, in which he held fourteen wives ; and in the service of Astarte and other 424 PERIOD IV. foreign gods, which sanctioned a life of debauchery and excess; nor did he pay much attention to the laws of the land, or to the rights of the people. Still, he, like his father, neglected not to uphold the splendor and the pomp of the temple and its ministers, as we see by his proclamation sent to Israel before the war, which signalized his reign, lasting only three years. But, before Ave take notice of that war, we must continue to review the government of Jerobeam. The invasion of Shishak, had entirely failed to realize the expectations of Jerobeam, or of the party of the prophets. Jerobeam afterwards succeeded in establishing his throne firmly, and in silencing his opponents. The prophets, although opposed to his policy, still, choosing the least of two evils, must have preferred to support the throne of Jerobeam, before that of the corrupt rulers of Judah, considering the former the legitimate Messiah of the nation. The exhaustion of the national treasury of Jerusalem, the unpopularity and feebleness of the deceased king, which he most likely overrated; the dis- satisfaction of the pious regarding the idolatrous practices of the king, were indeed favorable to the invasion of Judah, and indicative of certain success. To this must be added the fact, that Jerobeam was most likely in close alliance with the king of Damascus, who effected his sole independence during the political convulsions of Israel, and which Jerobeam was obliged to recognize. Still, he did not undertake such an invasion during the administration of Reh abeam. But, when that prince was dead, the change of government added one more chance to many others, and Jerobeam collected an army to invade Judah, with the intention of making himself master of the throne of Jerusalem, and to reunite the nation. But it could not be expected that he would renounce his schism in favor of the ancient religion of Israel. It would have been inconsistent and unlikely for Jerobeam, after he had defended it so many years. This especially could not have been expected, had he entered Jerusalem a victorious conqueror. It was much more to be feared that he would have imposed his schism upon Judah too, which the party of the prophets wished to prevent. Their CHAPTER X. 425 hopes of a reunion of Israel under the ancient banner of its law, was deferred to a period after the death of Jcrobcam, and to the reign of a new dynasty, as we shall sec hereafter. There- fore, when Jcrobeam stood at the altar in the temple of Beth El burning incense, most likely the usual preparation for battle, a prophet from Judah stepped up to him, and brought him an oracle of God, predicting that this altar would be desecrated by sacrificing upon it human bones and burning upon it its own priests, and then the altar would be overthrown by the son of David — the name Joshiah is a later addition — if he invade Judah (I Kings xiii, 2, 3). Jerobeam felt offended by being thus boldly confronted, and thought of punishing the fearless speaker. But he was too well aware of the danger of such an undertaking, to do harm to one of the favorites, and most likely, to the foremost men of a large, influential and dissatis- fied party, while being involved in a foreign war. This is beautifully expressed in our sources, by the " drying up of the king's arm/' He recalled his orders for the arrest of the pro- phet, who after all refused to eat with the king. The army, with which Jerobeam intended to invade Judah, was, according to II Chronicles, eight hundred thousand strong, which was opposed by four hundred thousand men of Judah. These numbers are evidently exaggerated, although it maybe expected that Jerobeam strained every nerve to make himself master of the whole land; and, on the other side, it was natural that every exertion was made to defeat the in- vader, who was considered an usurper and an apostate. Yet, there could not have been thirteen hundred thousand warriors in active service ; for with such a numerous army one might then have conquered all Asia. Still, we see Damascus had effected her independence, which was undoubtedly a serious loss; for so Tadmor and the Solomonic high road of commerce were lost for Israel. It may be, that so many men could have been brought into the field, or were really armed for defence, in case the war took an unfavorable turn. Abiam, on learning the intention of Jerobeam, collected an army, and occupied the northern region of Benjamin; making 426 PERIOD IV. his headquarters Zemaraim, near Beth El, where he expected the invading army. He sent a proclamation to the Israelites, in which lie asserted his dynastical rights to be still in force though his father was unable to chastise the rebels. He de- clared Jerobeam an usurper, who was but a servant of Solomon, and he termed the friends of the former, " Vain and low- minded men." He strongly condemned the schism in the national religion caused by Jerobeam, and overloaded with praise the temple of Jerusalem, its ministers, its rites, and the musical performances connected with it. He admonished them, in the conclusion, not to fight against his army, which stood under the blessing of God, whom they had deserted, and who had therefore forsaken them. This proclamation, or probably, harangue, very naturally had no effect; it being well known, that the king himself was addicted to an idolatry of the vilest nature. The scorn with which these words of Abiam were received in Israel, is well expressed in the satirical answer of the poet, as preserved in the fiftieth psalm. Jerobeam had resorted to an old stratagem of encompassing the enemy's flanks, and then opened the attack in front and rear simultaneously. But the position of Abiam was of such a nature, that he not only defended himself effect- ually, but after, as it appears, Jerobeam had wasted much strength in the attack of the heights occupied by the men of Judah, Abiam took the offensive part, and gave Jerobeam a signal defeat, who, appearing to have been anything but a sol- dier, retired, and left in the power of Abiam, Bethel, Jeshanah and Ephron, with their respective districts. Ephron, most likely should be read Ophra, between which and Bethel the Jeshanah, mentioned above, must have been situated. This was an important loss to Jerobeam, and the prediction of the pro- phet no doubt was literally fulfilled in regard to the altar of Beth El, as our text indeed mentions (I Kings xiii, 5). Jerobeam had dearly paid for his attempt to rule over all Israel. He returned to Tirzah, discomfited, discouraged and with a heavy loss in men and territory. He had lost many of his most devoted friends, which exposed him to the opposition CHAPTER X. 427 party in his own land. He had undertaken an unfortunate war against the will of the prophets and their party, which must only have offended, that party, while the loss sustained by the king must have been a welcome instrument to them to under- mine his popularity. The son, and most likely the intended successor of Jerobeam, was taken dangerously sick, so that his recovery was doubtful. Jerobeam, wishing to know the sentiments of his old and now blind friend, Ahiah of Shiloh, in regard to his heir, and also wishing to have those sentiments concealed, if unfavorable to his cause, induced his wife — he appears to have had but one wife — to disguise and thus to ask the old prophet in regard to their son. The queen did so; but, notwithstanding her disguise and the blindness of the prophet, he was aware of her coming, and when approaching him, he told her that her son would die; that the house of Jerobeam was outlawed in the council of God's prophets, that all were doomed to destruction, and none of that family, except Abiam, should be buried: " Who of Jero- beam will die in the city, the dogs shall devour; and who of him will die in the field the birds of heaven shall consume." The cheerless mother, terrified by the dreadful oracle, returned to Tirzah, and found her son dying, which was the cause of general mourning in Israel. The fact that our historian attaches so much importance to the death of that prince, who had the same name as the suc- cessor of Rehabeam, that his death was so generally lamented by the nation, and that the prophet himself said of the young man that he was the only one of the house of Jerobeam who should have a burial, " Because there is found in him a good thing before Jehovah, the God of Israel, in all the house of Jerobeam;" powerfully suggest, that the deceased was the in- tended successor of Jerobeam, a promising young man, and in possession of the confidence of the people ; who was brought out of this world by some foul contrivance of the enemies of Jerobeam, in order to exterminate his house. The next son of the king appears to have been an inexpe- rienced lad, who possessed neither the confidence nor the affec- 428 PERIOD IV. tions of the nation. When, therefore, Jerobeam, crushed under the weight of incessant cares, vigilance and misfortunes, died in the twenty-third year of his reign (946 e. c), and Nadab, his son, mounted the throne of Israel; the friends of the royal house were few in number, and cool in affections. The young king, in the second year of his reign, was slain in the midst of his friends, by one of his own superior officers, Baashah, son of Ahiah, of the tribe of Issachar, who rigidly executed the decree of the prophets against the house of Jerobeam, of which no living being was suffered to escape. Baashah, son of Ahiah, was, with the consent of the prophets (II Kings xvi), elevated to the throne of Israel, not fully twenty-five years after the division of the kingdom (944 u. a). In order to preserve the connecting links of history, we must now return to Judah. When Abiam had closed, by an early death, his inglorious reign of three years of debauchery and excess, Asa, his son, mounted the throne of Jehudah, two years previous to the demise of Jerobeam (948, b. c). The death of Abiam appears to have given rise to the seventy-third psalm, in which the poet describes the sudden and early death of a proud, vile, and luxuriant tyrant, who deemed himself elevated above the fate of common people, but was finally overreached by the fate common to all men. It is true, that the poem could have been composed just as well on the death of Caligula or Nero, as of Abiam; but it was certainly com- posed on the death of an Israelitish tyrant, and at an early age of history; and there we know of none, who deserved such a eulogy but Rehab earn or Abiam, the latter of which died so young, that it could be directed but to him. Asa, thus informed of the state of popular feelings, and, taking warning from the short and unpopular reign of his father, radically reformed the policy of his predecessors ; so that it could afterwards be said of him, he was as pious as his grandsire David. His first endeavor was to purify the land from the idols, altars, temples, groves and institutes of Astarte, which defiled it for a period of about thirty years. He afterward went so far as to depose his grandmother, CHAPTER X. 429 Maachah, from the dignity of king's mother (which, as we learn on this occasion, was a high office at the court of Juclah as well as at the Persian court, where even a mother could be adopted for political causes), because she worshiped an idol of Astarte — connected with the- wildest debauchery — which he burned at the Brook of Kidron. This regeneration met with the approbation of the people, as we may justly infer from the prosperous state and general satisfaction of the people during his long reign. Asa's activity was not limited to the salutary reforms in religion, his attention was also directed towards other most necessary improvements. He fortified several cities, if we correctly understand the expression of II Chroni- cles, nSxn D'Hyn, it was Beth El, Ophra and Jeshana, which he fortified, and armed the people at large. Three hundred thou- sand men of Judah were armed with targets and spears, and two hundred and eighty thousand men of Benjamin were armed with shields and bows. This general armament of the people is a strong proof of the change of policy, to which Asa may have been forced by the people, having partly been armed for defence of the country in the late invasion of Jerobeam. The governmant of the former kings of Judah was an accomplished despotism, which was patiently borne by the people as long as the spirit of opposition animated the generality, and as long as danger wTas apprehended from the ten tribes. But that spirit had subsided with the disappearance of danger, crushed by the hand of the people; it is, therefore, most likely that Asa was forced into those reform measures by their will. We may also mention in support of this view, the fact that Asa never acted in the beginning of his reign on his own accord, but he spoke to Judah before he effected any of these reform measures. We see again, for the first time since the memorable session of the national council at Shechem, a representation of the people of Judah, This wras naturally connected with the reforms in religion; for the abolition of foreign gods and their rites was on its positive side the endeavor to set the Mosaic law in full force, according to which there must exist a certain representation of 430 PERIOD IV. the people to limit the royal power. We are at a loss to say, how that representation was organized, for onr sources are entirely silent on the point, and the Mosaic mode of composing the national council was no longer applicable after the union of the nation was dissolved, and there are no traces of a federal government any longer. Asa acted in the capacity of a con- stitutional monarch; in this capacity, also, he deposited the public funds in the public treasury, which is especially noticed in our sources. The authors of II Chronicles and Josephus, inform us of an invasion of Ethiopians during the eleventh year of Asa's ad- ministration, which the author of I Kings has not noticed. Although we can not see any cause why those two authorities should have, or how they could have invented a fact of such importance in a time when the traditions of the people must have exercised control in such affairs, and when the book of Kings was already received in the canon of the prophets. Still we know of no other method to account for the silence of the author of I Kings, than by referring to the imperfection of that historical sketch, the principal end and aim of which appears to be, to give a short digest of the history of Israel, Judah being mentioned only when necessary, in which more than one fact has passed unnoticed. The Ethiopians came under the command of their king Zerah, with a vast number of warriors and three hundred chariots of war. Dismay and consternation went before those southern invaders; and Asa saw them, with terror, take Mareshah, a town in Judah, fortified by Rehabeam. But be- tween Mareshah and Jerusalem is that mountanous region, where David with his few hundred men maintained himself against the power of Saul. There Asa concentrated his army, from which point he could safely operate against the enemy. The principal battle was fought in the valley of Zephatah, near that town, where Asa, after having addressed a hearty prayer to heaven, attacked and routed the enemy, who in his flight found himself in want of provisions, so that many of them were starved to death. Asa pursued them and drove them CHAPTER X. 431 out of all the towns in the vicinity of Gerar and out of Gerar, until they finally left the country, leaving behind them a rich spoil in camels, cattle and sheep, most likely the spoil they had taken in Arabia, with which Asa triumphantly returned to Jerusalem. For the first time we hear again the voice of a prophet in Judah. The reforms and the valor of Asa, and as we shall see hereafter the policy of the king of Israel, roconciled that party with the king of Judah. It was Asariah, son of Oded, who meets the returning king and army, assuring them that God would be with them if they would be with him; and that God would forsake them, whenever they would forsake him. He then continued, that there were many days in Israel without a true God, an instructing priest, and a law; that they returned to God in the days of adversity, and that in those days of impiety there was no peace, but war and insurrections. He concluded with the admonition to be strong and confident, for their labors would be rewarded. This speech, however short, is of vital importance to us. The prophet assured Asa of the favor of his influential party, having been formerly hostile to the Davidian dynasty. But he at the same time told the king, that their favors depended not on any dynastical predominance, but on the king's piety in administering the laws of God. He justified the hostility of his party towards the Davidian dynasty by the impiety of the former kings and the consequent illegality and violence which defiled the land. This address produced the expected effect. Asa rigorously enforced the laws of Moses against all sorts of idolatry and foreign rites, not only in Judah, but also in his possessions on Mount Ephraim. This policy won over to him a large and influential party which stretched its arms over the whole land. Many of Israel came again to Jerusalem, to worship God according to the national rites and laws, which could but increase the influence of Asa in Israel, whose king must have looked upon this policy with just apprehension; for this was the best policy for reuniting Israel under the scepter of the Davidian ■ dynasty. The apprehensions of the king of Israel must have been remarkably increased, when Asa in the 432 PERIOD IV. fifteenth year of his reign called a convocation of all Israel to Jerusalem, to renew their covenant with Gocl on the day when the revelation on Mount Sinai had taken place, to which call the clause was added " Whoever shall not inquire for the Lord, the God of Israel, shall be put to death, from little to great, from man to woman," which was nothing short of a declara- tion of war indirectly sent to the king of Israel, who accepted the challenge. While the people were yet assembled in Jerusalem in conse- quence of that call, to renew the covenant of the Lord, and before Asa could prepare for the attack, Baashah stood in Raman at the head of his army, but forty furlongs from Jerusalem, from which position he could govern the whole territory of Benjamin, and which place he attempted to fortify hastily. The author of Chronicles dates this invasion the thirty-sixth year of Asa (II Chron. xii), while we are informed (I Kings, xvi, 8), that Baashah died in the twenty-sixth year of Asa; which leads us to believe, that the date of Chronicles is from the beginning of the separate monarchy of Judah, which brings the invasion to the fifteenth year of Asa, as we set it. Before we can proceed, we must review the administration of Baashah. Baashah mounted the throne of Israel over the car- cases of the proscribed family of Jerobeam, whose claims on the throne were considered forfeited on account of the schism of Jerobeam. Consequently it must have been expected of the new king, and it appears from I Kings xvi, that such was the express condition, that he would renounce the schism, and restore the national religion, which, as we have seen before, he could not do without running the risk of being dethroned in favor of the king of Judah. It would have been imprudent of him to run the risk after Asa had become so popular in Judah; wherefore he supported the schism for the same causes that ori- ginally produced it. The prophets and their party found them- selves disappointed for the second time, and the dynasty of Jerobeam had been exterminated without producing a favor- able effect. This must have greatly afflicted the prophets ; for, while one of them assured Asa of the favorable disposition of CHAPTER X. 433 his party to the government of Judah, we see now another, Jehu, son of Hanani, announced to Baashah the same terri- ble decree which Ahiah, of Shiloli, had pronounced on the house of Jerobcam; because that new king had stepped into the path of the preceding one. Baashah had now to contend with the same opposition as his predecessors. His position was most dangerous, because Asa's administration was better calculated to regain the affections of the people than that of Rehabeam and Abiam; wherefore hostili- ties between Baashah and Asa never ceased, though they n< ver took a serious character. But when Asa had succeeded in driving the Ethiopians from his territory, to secure to his cause the favor of the party of the prophets, and then pursued boldly and openly a course which was calculated to undermine the house of Baashah, the latter was naturally induced to think of means for his own security and self-preservation, to which end he entered into an alliance with the king of Damascus, which appears to have been a secret in Judah. When Asa had convoked all Israel to Jerusalem, Baashah improved the chance and marched his army to Ramah without meeting with much resistance. Asa fully understood his position; he had lost the best part of Benjamin, was cut off from the plain of Jericho, and had the enemy close at the capital; an enemy much too strong for him, for it was the united armies of Baashah and Benhadad, the king of Damascus. Asa must have thought it imprudent to attack the enemy in the hilly „ regions where he was posted, holding the strong position of Geba, Michmash and Bethel, and being so much superior to himself in numerical strength. The prophets desired him to trust in God and to throw him- self into the arms of the people, who most likely would have flocked in great numbers to his standards, while a general insur- rection would have takan place in Israel in favor of Asa. They saw now the best chance to reunite Israel. If the unit- ed armies of Baashah and Benhadad had been defeated by the people headed by Asa, the reunion of Israel would have been questionable no longer. But Asa was terrilied by the 28 434 PERIOD IV. threatening danger, his throne being at stake; he had not con- fidence enough in the prudence and influence of the prophets, and so he resorted to measures by no means honorable in a king. He sent to Benhadad the gold and silver of the national and private treasury of the king, to move him to determine his alliance with Baashah, and turn his armies against the latter, which Benhadad treacherously did. Surprising the north of Israel, he took Eyan, Dan, Abel-Beth-Maachah, the district of Chinnerath, and finally almost the whole territory of Naphthali. Baashah, thus betrayed by his ally, hastily returned to Tirzah to protect his own territory. Asa made the best use of this sudden change of affairs ; ho fortified Geba and Mizpah with the very materials which Baashah had brought to fortify Ramah. He also fortified Jeri- cho, to be safe against a surprise from the east, although Joshua had pronounced a curse upon him who would do so. But the cause of that curse — not to impede the communica- tion between the land east and west of Jordan — was regarded as existing no longer. The prophets who never ceased to hope for the reunion of Israel, took offence that the curse of Joshua was disregarded (I Kings, xvi, 34). The conduct of Asa in the late war greatly offended the prophets; Hanani was the man who boldly admonished the king on account of his con- duct, which the prophet characterized as having been both impious and imprudent, as it indeed was. It gave rise to a long series of national misfortunes to both divisions of the nation. The mountain barriers, with which nature protected the northern frontiers of Israel against the Syrians, and which enabled David to overcome Hadarezer, were lost by the abomi- nable treachery of Benhadad and the cowardice and mean policy of Asa. The territory of Israel was laid open to Syrian invasions; and the sequel will show, that the prophets well understood the whole extent of that loss, and therefore con- demned the foul policy of Asa. Asa felt offended by the bold words of the prophets. He threw Hanani into the lunatic asylum ; and as the event caused much sensation among the friends of the prophet, which most CHAPTER X. 435 likely led to an active demonstration in favor of the latter, Asa imprisoned many of the people at that time (II Chronicles, xvi, 10). So the friendly relations between the prophets and the house of David were again at a close after a short duration. The pride of Asa made him overbearing and unable to endure the bold words of truth, and so he committed violence on the person of a prophet, who not only spoke in the name of God and the law, which the king was obliged to respect, but also expressed the sentiments of a large, influential, and patriotic party of the nation. This was an act which no king of Israel dared to do; but the kings of Judah boasted of their dynastical preference, and were backed by a large and powerful priest- hood. The rest of the administration of Asa was not signalized by any event of importance, which however speaks favorably of his administration. In the thirty-ninth year of his reign he was attacked with the dropsy, which finally put an end to his existence in the forty-first year of his reign (907 b. c.). The pomp and display which were made when he was laid in the sepulchre of his fathers in the city of David, are a testimony of the satisfaction which his administration gave to the people. Baashah governed Israel about twenty-three years, to the twenty-sixth year of Asa, consequently he reigned ten years after the late war; but nothing remarkable occurred at that time. It is not said in our sources how far Baashah recovered from the late misfortunes, whether or not he recovered the territory of Naphthali; nor is any thing said about the boun- daries between Judah and Israel, although it is remarked (II Chronicles, xvii, 2) that Asa took cities on Mount Ephraim. The fact appears to be, that the king of Damascus claimed the supremacy over the northern territory, although he sent his army only for the purpose of supporting Asa ; and that Asa probably took some cities in the west of Benjamin, while he lost some others in the north, among which most likely was Beth El and Ophra. Baashah died in the twenty-fourth year of his reign, and was succeeded by his son Ailah, of whom we know nothing; except that in the second year of his reign, while sitting drunk in the house of Arza. his major doinus, 436 PEKIOD IV. Simri the commander of half ot the chariots of war, who had conspired against him, assassinated him and usurped the throne. During his reign of seven days he executed the above mentioned decree on the house of Baashah and on his friends, which must have been a terrible slaughter. But he was not willing to renounce the schism, for which the house of Baashah and of Jerobeam were condemned to suffer such a miserable end. This revolt took place while part of the army under command of Omri besieged Gibbethon, a town inhabited by Phelistines and claimed by Dan {Joshua xix, 44). When tidings of the regicide had reached the camp, Omri was proclaimed king of Israel, who marched with his army to Tirzah, which lie took by assault. When Zimri saw that the city was cap- tured, he went into the royal palace, set it on fire, and died in the flames, leaving the royal power in the hands of Omri. But another party of the people were desirous to have, at the head of the nation, Thibni, son of Ginath. A civil war began which lasted four years. We are not informed respecting the nature of that struggle, whether it was of a mere parliamentary nature, or whether active hostilities occurred. We do not know the motives of that opposition. We are plainly and dryly informed that the difficulties were settled after the death of Thibni, which occurred four years after the death of Ailah, and that Omri maintained himself on the throne. If we may deduce from inferences, we might say, that there were no active hostilities of a serious nature, for if so the author would have informed us of the facts, and Asa would have taken advantage of the civil war, which the author of Chronicles would not have for- gotten to record. The severe criticism passed on Omri, al- though nothing very bad could be said of him, except that he adhered to the schism, suggests that Thibni was the candidate of the prophets and their party, who lost the field this time; wherefore they had no communication with Omri, and were hated by his son Ahab. Omri became sole king of Israel and founder of the third dynasty about 915 b. c. Two important facts must here be CHAPTER X. 437 noticed, which acquaint us with the endeavors of this king to secure himself and his posterity upon the throne of Israel. He obtained the hand of Jezebel, daughter of Ethbaal king of Tyre, for his son and intended successor, Ahab. It appears that this union of Israel and Tyre was intended to counter- balance effectually the growing power of the king of Damascus, who stood in friendly relations with the king of Judah. The second important occurrence was this : Omri bought a hill of Shemer for two talents of silver, upon which he com- menced the building of a city, which he called Shomcron or Samaria. This city was destined henceforth to be the capital of Israel, and also gave the name to the middle division of Palestine. Shomeron or Samaria was situated on the line be- tween Ephriam andMenassah on an elevation, which Dr. Kitto calls " An oblong mountain of considerable elevation and very regular in form, situated in the midst of a broad, ^deep valley, the continuation of that of Shechem, which here expands into live or six miles. Beyond this valley, which completely iso- lates the hill, the mountains rise again on every side, forming a complete wall around the city. They are terraced to the tops, sown in grain, and planted with olives and figs. The hill of Samaria itself is cultivated from its base, the terraced sides and summits being covered with corn and olive trees. About midway up the ascent, the hill is surrounded by a narrow ter- race of level ground, like a belt, below which the roots of the hill spread off more gradually into the valleys. Higher up are the marks of slight terraces, once occupied perhaps by the streets of the ancient city. The ascent of the hill is very steep." If this description of Dr. Kitto is considered enough, it must be confessed that Omri judiciously selected the spot for the new capital, which in point of situation was not sur- passed by Jerusalem. A war between Benhadad and Omri, in which the latter lost some cities and was obliged to assign tra- ding stations in Samaria to Benhadad, is but briefly noticed (I Kings xx, 34), and no particulars arc transmitted to us. We are not informed directly of the causes of that war, nor what cities were lost. 438 PERIOD IV. The marriage of Ahab and Jezebel secured to Tyre advan- tages in trade over the Syrian merchants, which most likely was the cause of Benhadad's invasion, and which at the same time explains the reason of the lanes of Samaria which were ceded to Benhadad. If this was the cause we might expect that the cities lost by Omri were the last of those which com- manded the passes from Hollow Syria and the proper land of Damascus into the Israelitish territory. If so, this was an important loss; for it opened a road to a powerful neighbor into the heart of the land ; still it appears to have been so from the numerous invasions, which we shall have to record in the sequel. What part the prophets and their party acted in that war is not recorded ; but if Thibni really was their can- didate for the throne, which the policy of the house of Omri strongly confirms, and if we add to this the marked influence of the prophets on the Syrian rulers, as we shall see hereafter; it would suggest the idea that they favored the Syrian invasion. Omri supporting the schism of Jerobeam from obvious causes, died in the thirty-eighth year of Asa after a reign of seven years, and he was buried in his new capital. Ahab, his son, succeeded him (908 b. c). This king, being ruled by his wife Jezebel, attempted a total change of policy, which, however, caused the loss of much blood, without effect- ing any good, and without enabling him to make the survivors happy. The policy of Jerobeam had been followed up about sixty years, and it had proved successful to maintain internal peace; but it was opposed by a strong party, which had ex- terminated two dynasties ; and it was too closely suited to the Mosaic laws, so that the monarchs had no power to quell effectually the opposition, or to maintain themselves on the throne against the will of that party. They did not dethrone the king, who mounted the throne with their consent, although he acted contrary to their wishes; but they proscribed his family and effected their ruin. The total silence of the pro- phets during the reign of Omri, and the severe judgment passed on him by the author of I Kings, support our con- jecture that Omri was opposed by the party of the prophets, CHAPTER X. 439 hence, little doubt can be entertained that attempts were made to make the family of Omri harmless to the land. But the former kings resided in the beautiful but weak Tirzah, which could be taken easil}r, if the people wished to dispose of an unpopular ruler; Ahab resided in the strong Samaria, secured against the will of the populace. The party of the prophets were terrified and discomfited by the massacre of their chief men, of which but one hundred escaped by the agency of Obadiah, the major domus of Ahab. Tyrian religion and Tyrian policy were substituted for the liberal policy previously maintained, that policy was absolute and tyrannical. The temples of the Tyrian, Baal and Astarte occupied the height of Samaria, which were guarded by a host of priests, the agents of despotism. Notwithstanding the cruel efforts of Ahab to convert Israel into a pagan and despotic kingdom, we find among the highest officers of his court, one who was a devout servant of Jehovah. He did not succeed in annihilating that party who were opposed to illegality and despotism. There was one man, who effectually opposed the shrewdness and cruelty of Ahab, and this was the prophet Elijah, from Thoshab in Gilead; none knew from whence he came, whither he went, or how he acted. A man grown up in the rural dis- trict of Gilead, who wore a hairy garment, and had made the solitary desert his home, was the most powerful opponent of Ahab. He had the courage to censure the conduct of the king and to threaten him with the punishmnnt of God. A famine, which also transpired in Judah, in consequence of three dry and sterile years, was a welcome chance to the defender of the Mosaic law. It was on account of the wickedness of the king, that God sent that terrible punishment. Such, most likely, was the theme of the inspired patriot, who crossed the land in all directions, to agitate the public mind. The vigi- lance of Ahab and his painful endeavors to get the agitator in his power remained fruitless. When he was told Elijah was on the Brook of Cherith, where the Arabs provided him with food, he was again gone and lived in the house of a widow in Zarephath, whom he supported as lon£ as ho was there, and 440 PERIOD IV. whoso son be saved from death before be left her. And where- ver that favorite of the pious and good arrived, be was a wel- come stranger; and whenever he left, the people were inspired by him, and told marvelous things of him; which were ag- grandized with the growth of admiration and veneration to the man, and with the lapse of time. So he secured to himself the popular feelings, and based upon that favor he returned to see Ahab. The famine had reached an alarming degree, and Ahab saw himself in a critical position. Our account tells us Ahab went into the country in company with his major domus, to find some grass in order to preserve an animal, which at any rate informs us, that Elijah met Ahab in the country, probably not venturing to go to Samaria. Ahab on seeing the prophet asked him, "Art thou the agitator of Israel;" on which the bold patriot answered: " Not I have agitated Israel, but thou and the house of thy father, by forsaking the commands of Jehovah and walking after Baal." This brief conversation fully informs us of the state of affairs, as they were at that time. Elijah had thus mastered the king, that he not only gave his consent to, but also officially called a public convention 10 Mount Carmel, that the people might decide whether they should serve Jehovah or Baal, which is to say, whether the king's tyrannical policy should continue to displace the ancient laws of the nation, which were the barriers of the popular liberties, enjoyed for nearly six centuries. A modern traveler thus describes Mount Carmel: "The sea washes the foot of the hills on each side, and stretches out full in front till lost in the distance. To the east and north- east lies that extension of the splendid plain of Esdraelan, which reaches to the white walls of Acre, and through which, that ancient river, the river Kishon, was winding its way to the sea, not. far from the foot of Carmel. To the south is seen the narrow plain between the mountains and the sea, which after- wards expands into the plain of Sharon. And along the ridge of Mount Carmel itself is a range of eminences, extending many miles to the south-east, all of them presenting a surface CHAPTER X. 441 of table land on the top, sometimes bare and rocky, and some- times covered with mountain shrubs. Carmel is not remark- able for height; and is nowhere in scripture celebrated for its loftiness. At the point overhanging the sea it is less than nine hundred feet high. To the south-east it rises to the height of twelve hundred feet, which is its greatest altitude. But then the range of hills runs nearly eight miles into the country, and was in former days fruitful to a proberb. Indeed, the name Carmel, signifying a fruitful field, was given to it evidently for this reason. And when this vast extent of fruitful hills was covered over with vineyards, olive groves, and orchards of iigs and almond trees, not on the side alone, but also along the table land of its summit; Carmel, worthy of its name, must have appeared an immense hanging garden in the midst of the land.* The praise which Solomon and Isaiah bestow on Carmel gives us an exalted view of its beauty and pristine luxuriance. This spot was judiciously selected by the inspired patriot for the great convention. The heart of man beats high and free, his sentimens are expanded and purified, and a sacred awe and a reverence for truth overwhelms the heart, when standing on such a height as Carmel was, beholding around and at his feet the brilliant scenes and luxuriant vegetation, testifying to God's benignity and majesty. There assembled the thousands of Israel, and Ahab, too, appeared in company of four hundred and fifty of the prophets of Baal, and four hundred prophets of Astarte. Eight hundred and fifty advocates of fiction and despotism had to combat with but one simple champion of truth and popular liberty, and the people should judge' on whose side was true salvation. Elijah gave the preference to the majority of his opponents; they should first try to win the people to their doctrines. They exhausted all the arts that imposing ceremonies, eloquent speeches, and popular superstitions afforded; but no fire came from heaven, cold and frigid their hearts remained, and their arts met with the acute irony of the unmoved spectators. But when the day declined, *The Hebrew Observer, 1, 24. 442 PERIOD IV. the man with the hairy garment, the simple and unpretending man of the people, erected an altar of twelve stones, which was calculated to remind his audience, that "before God the twelve tribes of Israel were an indivisible unity. On this altar the prophet sacrificed an ox. according to the simple ceremonies of the patriarchs, and then he prayed to God, to the One and Immutable, and the words which he then spoke to the assembled multitude must have been simple, sublime and powerful. What eight hundred and fifty agents of despot- ism and fiction could not produce, the simple Elijah could; he summoned down the fire from heaven; he inspired the hearts of the thousands of Israel, who unanimously exclaimed "Je- hovah is the true God." This was a loud and unreserved condemnation of the policy of Ahab, who must have stood terrified and amazed, and most likely ashamed of his infirmi- ties, when at the command of Elijah all the advocates of Ahab's policy were seized, dragged to the nearest river (Kishon?), and killed there as a sacrifice for the prophets who were massacred by the command of Jezebel. But none touched or insulted Ahab, which again demonstrated an honor- able moderation amidst the most intense excitement. Still Elijah, who most likely protected the person of the king, must have feared the populace would assault the king, wherefore he went with him as far down as Jezreel. Ahab reached his palace mortified and, as it appears in the sequel, determined to change his policy; but the queen, Jezebel, was enraged at hear- ing of the miserable end of her favorites, who had eaten at her table, and in her rage she threatened to take vengeance on Elijah, but he being informed in due season, made his escape to Bear Sheba in Jchudah, where he left his servant and retired into the desert, from which he, after some time, returned with the mission to anoint Jehu, son of Nimshi, to be king of Israel, Hazael, king of Syria, and Elishah, son of Shaphat, from Abel Meholah, to be his own successor. This informs us of two important facts. First we learn the spot where the prophets held their councils, in the desert, one day's journey from Bear Sfreba. They were the national coun- CHAPTER X. 443 cil of their party, and their decrees were considered as sacred as formerly those of the national council, constituted under the laws of Moses, which it was their sole end and aim to main- tain. That those decrees were considered to emanate directly from God, can not surprise the reader if he will recall what we have said on the subject in our introduction to this volume. In the second place we learn from this statement that the party of the prophets was not limited. to Palestine, they had their friends and followers in all the provinces of Syria, as we shall see still more plainly hereafter, which entitles us to the belief, that the principles of the Mosaic law traversed the plains of Syria in the days of David and Solomon, after which time the friends of that law, both in Palestine and Syria, acted in per- fect unison, under the guide of the prophets, who maintained the national council, over which now Elijah presided, and after him his successor, Elisha. They maintained their preponderance and influence without any other power than the force of truth and a superior intellect. Their decrees were enforced, although opposed by those who were in power, which fact gives us an exalted idea of both their numerical and intellectual forces. This decree of Elijah should most likely come after Ahab had again yielded to the wickedness of his wife, when we shall find Elijah again conversing with Ahab. We noticed it here, because the author of I Kings sets it in this place, in order not to interrupt the following eventful affairs. Benhadad, king of Syria, making the best use of the famine, and the political differences of the land of Israel, invaded the country at the head of the united army of thirty- two petty kings, in which the chariots of war and the cavalry played a prominent part. That hilly region of the country, where David once routed the army of Iladarezer, was now in the hands of Benhadad. The land was open for the advance- ment of the cavalry and the chariots, and so Benhadad meeting with no effectual resistance in the northern plains, succeeded in occupying the valley between Samaria and the northern range of mountains, in the center of which Pentcromias most likely marks the spot of Benhadad's headquarters. Being thus 444 , PERIOD IV. situated, lie must have thought it very easy to take Samaria; he, therefore, sent ambassadors to Ahab, demanding of him to acknowledge the superiority of Benhadad, and, consequently, his right of possession to all the property as well as to the wives and children of Ahab, who submitted to his demand. Benhadad, on having convinced himself of the weakness of Ahab, again sent his ambassadors into the city, demanding actual possession of all the treasures and the seraglio of Ahab, and of all his ministers; announcing at the same time, that, if this demand be refused, he would send to-morrow his armies to spoliate Samaria. Ahab was willing to sacrifice his own property, but he had no right to dispose of the property of his subjects; he, therefore submitted the cause to the national council, who unanimously refused to comply with the igno- minious demands of Benhadad. On being informed of that refusal, Benhadad threatened to reduce Samaria; on which Ahab's laconic answer was, " Let not him that girdeth, boast as him that putteth off" (the sword). Benhadad gave orders to assail the city, which was done by a division of the army, while he and his associate kings remained in their head- quarters, where we are told he was drunk; which most likely accounts for his defeat. For no sooner had it been observed by one of the prophets, who had their men in Samaria and in the camp of Benhadad, that the movement of the Syrian army was an imprudent one, than a prophet stood before Ahab advising him to attack the enemy in the field. Ahab went out of the city at the head of seven thousand troops, who were officered by two hundred and thirty of the young aristocracy, and attacked that division of the Syrian army which advanced to assail the city. Benhadad, instead of setting the cavalry in motion, gave orders, as an intoxicated man would do, to catch them alive. ' The Syrians in the valley were routed, the Israel- ites succeeded in reaching the mountains, on which the prin- cipal army was stationed; and there the Syrians were lost; for the Israelitish warriors were far superior to the heavy chariots and cavalry of the Syrians. Benhadad sustained a heavy defeat, and himself escaped only by the swiftness of his horse. CHAPTER X. 445 The victory was thought to be a decisive one; but the pro- phets, better informed on the subject than Ahab, advised the latter to prepare for another campaign, as the invasion would be repeated the ensuing year, of which advice Ahab made the best use. He extended his line of defence as far north as pos- sible ; but the northern cities remained in the hands of the Syrians, and, consequently, the strong Aphek put a stop to the progress of Ahab. Benhadad, on the advice of his servants, fitted out another expedition against Ahab; but he was cau- tioned not to fight the Israelites on the mountains, as their God was reported to be the Lord of mountains, and not to take with him a company so seductive as thirty-one kings ; he pre- ferred to have them replaced by so many pashas. The next spring Benhadad proceeded with his army as far as Aphek, where he found his progress checked by the Israelitish army, which was far inferior in number to his own. Again, one of the prophets was present in the camp of Ahab, who knew what had been spoken in the council of the king of Damascus; consequently, he was also aware of the strength and position of the enemy. Ahab, thus informed of the enemy's intentions and positions, certainly took appropriate measures. He lingered on the hills for six days, most likely until the Syrians in the plain were outgeneraled. The seventh day Ahab attacked them in the plain, and forced them to retire to Aphek, where part of the walls gave way, and fell upon twenty-seven thousand of the enemy, which made the defeat of Benhadad complete, so that he himself could not make his escape, and was obliged to hide himself in a house in the city, which was surrounded and garrisoned by the Israelites. Most likely we are to understand the number twenty-seven thousand as the whole number of those killed in consequence of the breach in the wall, which probably was made by the battering rams of the Israelites. Benhadad was in a critical situation, and he had no other way of escaping than to sue for mercy. His servants informed him, " that the kings of Israel were merciful kings/' Benhadad sent his humble petition to Ahab, praying him to spare his life; he was not mistaken in Ahab, who, on hearing 446 PERIOD IV. that his antagonist yet lived, not only granted his petition, but also honored him with a seat in the royal carriage. Peace was concluded, the terms of which were, that Benhadad should evacuate all the cities belonging to the territory of Israel, which were taken in former years by the father of Benhadad, and that trading stations should be given to Ahab, in Damascus, as the father of Benhadad had received in Samaria, which was to establish a free trade between the two countries. Benhadad gave his word of honor to this treaty, and was dismissed as an ally of Israel. When Ahab returned to Samaria, he was met on the way by one of the prophets, who admonished him about the imprudence thus committed, in dismissing Benhadad without having any other guaranty for the fulfillment of the treaty than his word of honor; which the prophet, knowing Benhadad better than Ahab did, knew to be insufficient, as it indeed proved. He told Ahab that his magnanimity would be returned with vengeance and bloodshed. This message made an evil impression on the mind of- the king, who had otherwise much cause to rejoice in his brilliant victory. Still, the army of Benhadad must have been considerably weakened; for there was peace for the next three years, and then Ahab wras the aggressor. The whole deportment of Ahab, since the convention on Mount Carmel, was strictly within the limits of the law, although it appears that he did not prohibit his wife and sub- jects from the worship of Baal and Astarte, but it remained a private, and, most likely, a secret affair. We, therefore, found him on the best terms with the prophets, who advised and cooperated with him for the welfare of Israel, and to whom he paid a marked respect. His conduct toward Benhadad was marked by bravery, success and humanity, and there was no cause for complaint against him. But, alas! the unfortunate Ahab could not possibly continue this course of action, for he was the weak husband of a treacherous, reckless and vain princess ; and the devices of his wife prevented him from being the beloved and honored ruler of a happy people. Adjoining the estate of Ahab at Jezreel, Naboth possessed a CHAPTEK X. 447 vineyard, which Ahab wished to add to his estate, offering to Naboth a fair compensation, which he refused, as a wickedness to dispose of the inheritance of his father. Ahab was grieved by that refusal, and on request he communicated to his wife, Jezebel, the cause of his grief. The Tyrian princess could not comprehend how an humble subject dared to refuse to the king such a plausible prayer; but the laws of Moses granted that right to the humblest inhabitant of Palestine. Still Jezebel had not the courage to invade the laws openly, and she resorted to a foul contrivance. Secret instructions in the name and under the seal of the king were sent by Jezebel to the officers of that place, to hold a public meeting, to set Naboth at the head of the people, to have seated next to him two unprincipled men, to accuse him of having blas- phemed God and the king, to try him on that offence, and condemn him to death. The officers of the town of Jezreel obeyed, and Naboth was condemned to death, after which Ahab took possession of the estate of the executed Naboth, whose mournful end could not have remained a secret to the king. While both the secret instructions of Jezebel to the offi- cers of Jezreel, and the procedure in the cause against Naboth are admitted to be an unquestionable testimony of the exist- ence of the Mosaic code in the kingdom of Israel, it was maintained, that the confiscation of the property of a delin- quent, who was executed for high treason, was not founded on the Mosaic law. The expounders of the law maintained, that the established law mentioned in this cause was founded on the Mosaic custom,* which was adopted by Maimonides (Kings iv, 9). There is no law in the Mosaic code to this effect; still the words of the daughters of Zelaphad, when they claimed the lot of their father, is an unquestionable proof, that such a law was established in regard to the estate of a convict for high treason. They said, " Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered them- selves against the Lord in the company of Corah ; but died in 448 PERIOD IV. his own sin, and had no sons (Numbers xxvii, 3). These words imply clearly, if their father had been in the company of the rebels headed by Corah, their claim to the estate of their father would have been forfeited. The objections of Rabbi Je- hudah against this law, which Maimonides disregarded, were raised against the confiscation of personal property only. This foul act of Ahab and Jezebel roused again the indig- nation of the party of the prophets, who thought to be con- vinced, that the submission of Ahab to the law was but a submission to necessity, while his heart was as wicked as ever. A man who thus invaded the laws was unfit to administer them, and justice demanded that Ahab be deposed from office. This is the proper place for the decree of Elijah mentioned above, when not only Ahab had given ample cause for such a decree, but also Benhadad by his breach of the stipulations of a treaty, which was sealed by his word of honor and which saved his life, for he evacuated not the^1 cities of Israel. Eli- jah left his solitary resort and proceeded to Jezreel. On the road Elijah passed Abel Meholah, at the foot of Mount Gilboa, where he met Elisha ploughing the field, whom he apprized of the fact that he would be his successor; then he wrent in com- pany of Elisha to Jezreel, where he found Ahab in the vine- yard of Naboth. Ahab knew what brought the prophet to that place, and therefore asked him, "Did my enemy find me?" The prophet did not confess to be his enemy, but he announced to him not only the same horrible decree which had made a lamentable end to two dynasties preceding his own; but he also predicted terrible evils to befall the king, and especially his in- famous consort, Jezebel. Ahab confessed his wickedness, and felt extremely mortified about his crime; he also expressed his repentance, and the prophet assured him, in consoling terms, that the evil would not come in his days. In order to follow up a straight course of history we must now direct our attention to Judah, and we will find that the affairs transpiring in Israel had a considerable effect on Judah. Jehoshaphat succeeded his father Asa to the throne in the fourth year of Ahab. This king changed in no wise the policy CHAPTER X. 449 of his father J he was opposed to idolatry, was favorably inclined to the Mosaic law, and consequently also willing to protect the liberties of the people, and to administrate justice and equity. The political commotions in Israel and the hos- tile attitude of Syria towards that land made Jehoshaphat cautious; he garrisoned the principal places, especially on Mount Ephraim, and completed the armament of the people, to which he gave a military organization to have effect in case of war. The warriors of Judah were divided into three divisions, under the command of one superior and two inferior officers; and the warriors of Benjamin were divided into two divisions under the command of one superior and one inferior officer. In regard to internal improvements two facts are mentioned, which laud the wise and truly judicious administration of this prince. He traveled through the whole of his land to gather correct information regarding the state of the people and the exigencies of the age. Finding the dispensation of justice de- ficient on account of the want of a sufficient number of high courts — for according to the Mosaic law there was but one high court in every tribe, and the jurisdiction of the local courts was remarkably limited, so that every capital cause had to be brought before one of the tribunals at Jerusalem — Jehoshaphat divided the land into as many judicial districts as there were fortified cities, for each of which he appointed a tribunal of justice with the power to decide on all capital cases, as well as on minor cases, both criminal and civil, giving them the proper number of shoterim, or civil officers of the tribe of Levi, to execute the will of the court. The reform consisted merely in the division into districts, and giving to each district a tribunal invested with th^ powers which formerly were possessed only by the courts of the tribes. The executive officers stood as before, under the principal command of the nassi in civil affairs, and under the high priest in sacerdotal affairs. In Jerusalem also this prince instituted a new court of justice to have jurisdiction in civil and criminal affairs, composed, according to the Mosaic law, of the heads of fami- lies and priests, with Levites as executive officers. This new 29 450 PERIOD IV. court appears to have been situated in Jerusalem for the same purpose as those of other cities, while the two courts of the two tribes were given an appelate jurisdiction only, as they had ever afterwards, till the destruction of the second temple. His second measure, which the author of Chronicles mentions first, was to send sixteen officers into the country, which was, most likely, divided into sixteen districts, to expound to the peo- ple the law of the Lord in all of the towns of Judea. This proba- bly was the beginning of synagogues, which gradually displaced the altars on the heights of the land, which offered so many opportunities to practice idolatry. This measure is dated the third year of Jehoshaphat, consequently it was in the sixth or seventh year of Ahab, which was either the same year or the year after the convention of the people on Mount Carmel. It undoubtedly exercised no slight influence on the conduct and measures of Jehoshaphat, who saw Ahab subjugated to the laws of Moses by the popular will. The author of II Chroni- cles informs us, that these measures of internal improvement commanded the respect of the neighboring nations, and gave full satisfaction not only in Judah, but also in the depending provinces of Phelistia and Arabia; under the latter he most likely understood Arabia Petreas only. The country flourished, and the public wealth increased so remarkably, that the king could build new castles and store houses in fortified cities, which were well filled. The private wealth also of the king greatly increased. The next event of importance in the administration of Jehoshaphat is the marriage of Jehoram, his son and intended successor, with Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel. This marriage is therefore of importance to us, because it is a demonstration of the peaceable policy of the two monarchs of Israel towards each other, acknowledging each other's legiti- macy after a fruitless contest of nearly seventy years. On the other side it confirms our view of the policy of Ahab, after the convention on Mount Carmel; for if Ahab had not been considered an adherent to the laws of Moses, Jehoshaphat could not have purposed that intermarriage, the people would CHAPTEli X. 451 • not have consented to it, and the dissenting voice of the prophets would have made itself heard. It is necessary to ascertain the precise date of that marriage, because it throws light on subsequent facts. Ahaziah, the son of Jehoram, was twenty-two years old when his father died, consequently Jehoram, who lived but forty years, was eighteen years old, when this son was born. His other sons appear to have been from another wife, for it is said that on the death of Ahaziah, she saw that her son died ; consequently Ahaziah was the only son of the daughter of Ahab. If Ahaziah was born one year after his parents' marriage, Jehoram was seventeen years old, when ho married the daughter of Ahab ; being thirty-two years old when his father died, who reigned twenty-five years, this marriage must have taken place in the eleventh year of Jehoshaphat, and the fifteenth year of Ahab, the year previous to the inva- sion of Benhadad. This chronological investigation will explain the causes of the following attack made upon Judah. When Benhadad had advanced as far as Samaria, and in the east-Jordan land at least as far south as Raman in Gilead, if not beyond this, it was very natural for him to apprehend a coalition of the two kings of Israel, who were now relatives. Besides this, it was an act of prudence on the side of Benhadad to revolutionize the dependencies of Israel, viz., Amnion and Moab. He therefore, at the same time when he marched on Samaria, sent an army to Ammon and Moab, who as subse- quent facts show, were dissatisfied with the government of Samaria, and therefore that army easily succeeded not only in revolutionizing Ammon and Moab, but in obtaining reinforce- ments from the dissatisfied portion of Idumea. When this was effected, the united army of Syrians, Ammonites, Moabites, and Idumeans, marched against the territory of Judah. This was a threatening event on account of Idumea, to lose which would have been fatal to the commerce of Judah, on which the nation greatly depended. The position taken by Benhadad's army appeared especially calculated to liberate Idumea; for he was encamped at Engedi, at the south-westurn extremity of the Dead Sea, fronting the territory of Judah, and covering 452 PERIOD IV. Idumea. This position was taken in order to give them time to organize an insurrection, and to join the Syrian standards. Jehoshaphat acted promptly. He called out a sufficient num- ber of troops, held a solemn service at Jerusalem, eloquent speakers encouraged the warriors, and then he marched to meet the enemy. The army proceeded as far south as the valley under Mount C arm el in Judah, where the battle was fought. It continued for three days and ended in the total defeat of the enemy, who left the field of battle covered with their dead and a rich spoil for the victors. The place was called the Valley of Praise, and afterwards was called the Valley of Jehoshaphat. The king and the army returned in triumph to Jerusalem, where God was praised in another im- posing service. The provinces depending on Judah were thus preserved by the prompt action of Jehoshaphat. The defeat of Benhadad in Aphek and in Engedi were most likely simultaneous, and deprived him of strength to return witli an army. The Moabites and Ammonites thus defeated, were easily held under the sway of Israel by the conduct of Ahab after the defeat of Benhadad. Three years elapsed after the conclusion of peace between Ahab and Benhadad, and yet the latter had not executed the stipulations of that treaty. He held Ram ah in Gilead, and most likely many other places in the provinces beyond Jordan. This was not only an impediment to the communica- tions between Israel and Moab, but also threatening to Judah. Being a violation [of a treat}-, Jehoshaphat, at the request of Ahab, joined his army to that of the king of Israel to take Eamah from the hands of Syria. When Jehoshaphat was in Samaria with Ahab, the latter assembled four hundred of the prophets to ask their advice in the matter. They unanimously advised bim to go to war, and predicted success. Jehosha- phat suspected the sincerity of that council and desired to see another prophet of the Lord. Michiah, son of Jemleh, was sent for, and he was disliked by Ahab, because he always predicted evil to him. Meanwhile the council of the prophets, headed by Zidekiah, son of Chenaanah, insisted upon the truth of CHAPTER X. 453 their prediction. This lie expressed by peculiar symbols. Michiah came and confirmed the statement of the others; but he did it in such a manner, that the king observed, that it was not his opinion, and therefore demanded sternly of the prophet to give his own view of the subject. Michiah answered in parables, which let Ahab know, that his death was concluded upon in the council of the prophets. Zidekiah struck the prophet on the cheek and gave him the lie; Ahab ordered him to be imprisoned, and fed upon bread and water till he returned. But still Michiah insisted upon his prediction, that tho king of Israel would fall in battle. Ahab thereupon took every possible precaution, he secretly changed his dress before the action. But in vain. The Syrian king had given instruc- tion to two or three ehicftians of his chariots to have no other aim in battle but the death of the king of Israel. Was not this an understanding with that party of the prophets which spoke to Ahab in Samaria ? The engagement before Raman in Gilead commenced; the chariots ordered for that purpose reached Jehoshaphat, and taking him to be the king of Israel, bore down upon him; but they became soon convinced of their mistake. They could not find Ahab among the multitude as he was in disguise. But one man (Syrian or Israelite?) shot at the king, and the arrow hit him between the joints of the harness. Our historian informs us that the man shot at a ven- ture ; but the facts coincide so well with the words of Michiah, and the delusive council of prophets in Samaria, that there can be no doubt the death of Ahab was a willful and premeditated murder. In the execution of Naboth, Ahab acted not half so atrociously as David did in case of Bath Shcba. Still, the leaders of the nation then acted more wisely. Ahab had saved Israel from the hands of Benhadad, and had it not been for the treachery of Benhadad he had completed that work, and the history of Israel would have taken a more favorable turn. Ho wisely and moderately governed the nation within the limits of the law ever after the convention on Mount Carmel ; and the pre- sent warfare was a just one on the side of Ahab and Jehosha- 454 PERIOD IV. phat. This horrible regicide was not committed with the consent of all the prophets, as the words of Michiah and of Elijah (I Kings xxi, 28, 29) sufficiently prove. There was a breach in the party of the prophets, which we shall have to notice frequently. The consequences of this regicide were unfortunate for Israel and Judah ; and when it was learned in the army, that the king would die in consequence of his wound, the consternation was so great that the battle-field was abandoned immediately. We shall have to record afterwards the loss of Ammon, Moab and Edom, in consequence of the act. Ahab was brought dead to Samaria, where he was entombed by the side of his father Omri, after a reign of twenty-one years (887 b. c), which he signalized by the building and for- tifying of several cities. It is doubtful whether the Beth ha- Shen, mentioned in our sources, was a new city, or whether he improved the fortifications of the old Beth Shen, or whether he built a house of ivory. Ahaziah, son of Ahab, succeeded his father on the throne of Israel. Jehoshaphat went back to Jerusalem, grieved by the sad results of the campaign. A prophet, Jehu, son of Hanani, most likely the son of Hanani mentioned in the time of Asa, met the king and rebuked him on account of his assisting Ahab, exclaiming, " Must one assist the wicked, and didst thou love the enemies of the Lord? for this the wrath of the Lord is upon thee." But, it appears, Jehoshaphat did not pay much atten- tion to these words; for we shall soon see him again making common cause with the king of Israel, which prudence prompted him to do. The consequences of the loss sustained in Ramah of Gilead, were soon felt. The people of Ammon and Moab, supported by the Syrians, rose in a general insurrection under their king Meshah, and the loss of the large tribute formerly paid to Israel by that province (II Kings iii, 4), was a consequence of it. Ahaziah could make no attempt to quell the insurrection ; for on the east side of Jordan, he was cut off from that terri- tory by the Syrian army. He could only march through Judah CHAPTER X. 455 and Edom, to which Jehoshaphat gave no permission; for the friendly relations between the royal houses of Israel and Judah were interrupted by the policy of Ahaziah. This is conceivable in the refusal of Jehoshaphat to enter with the latter into a common expedition to Tarshish (I Kings xxii, 50), although the fleet of Jehoshaphat was destroyed by storm a little before. Then such an assistance would have been welcome to the king of Judah, if offered by another king; but he could not make com- mon cause with Ahaziah, although such a mutual understanding existed at the beginning of Ahaziah's reign. The misfortune sustained at sea was ascribed to that sinful alliance, and so Jehoshaphat was induced to suspend it. The policy of Ahaziah was that of Ahab when he mounted the throne, and most likely for the same reasons. Ahaziah certainly hated the prophets and their party on account of the miserable end of his father; and, like his father, he did not know how to distinguish friends from enemies. Ahab con- sidered Elijah and Michiah his enemies, and those who assas- sinated him he considered his friends. Ahaziah hated all of them without distinction. There can be no doubt, that endea- vors were made by the party who assassinated Ahab, to dethrone the proscribed dynasty, in which they, most likely, were not countenanced by Elijah and his party; consequently, Ahaziah had a second reason for hating them. If we add to this the influence which his mother, Jezebel, might have exercised over him, and the exhaustion of the people in the previous wars and famine, we shall find it very natural that Ahaziah made the attempt and also succeeded in depriving the people of their ancient religion, laws and liberties, which were replaced by Tyrian religion, laws and absolutism. This was an odious innovation, not only to the party of the prophets, but also to the people at large, both in Israel and Jehudah; and conse- quently, Jehoshaphat was obliged to withdraw from an alliance with Ahaziah. In consideration of the state of affairs as they lay before us, it is natural to [suppose that the insurrection in Amnion and Moab was contemplated ever since the second invasion of TJenhadad: but it could not come to an outbreak, on 45G PERIOD IV. account of the double loss sustained by the Syrians and the defeat of the Ammonites and Moabites by Jehoshaphat. But when the war against the Syrians was recommenced, and the Israelites were routed at Eamah, the insurrection could easily break out, and it was to the interest of Syria that it should do so. Therefore we believe that it did 'tbreak out immediately after the death of Ahab (II Kings i, 1). Ahaziah could not attend to foreign affairs, because he was occupied in the altera- tion of his internal policy ; and after those changes were effected, the friendly relations with Jehoshaphat were at an end, and he could not conduct an army into the rebellious proA'inces. An accident suddenly changed the state of affairs; Ahaziah fell from the battlements of his palace in Samaria, and became dangerously sick. It is not stated in our sources, whether the fall was accidental, or he was thrown down by one of his enemies, who was about him under the disguise of friendship, as Obadiah was about Ahab ; the state of things leads us to believe the latter. He sent messengers to inquire of the oracle of Baal of Sebub — most likely a small town near Ekron — whether he would recover from the disease. He had no con- fidence, it would seem, in his own gods and oracles, and yet did not ask the prophets. This was not only a proof of his hypocrisy, but also of his contempt of the national religion. Elijah, who was always well informed on the state of affairs, met the messengers of the king, and bade them in the name of God to return and tell the king that he would not recover from his sickness. The messengers silently obeyed — this is no mean testimony for the established authority of the prophets — and brought the serious message to the royal patient, who anxiously inquired into the outward appearance of the divine; and, on being told that he was a hairy man, with a leathern girdle about his loins, he dis- covered in the horrid harbinger the supposed enemy of his house. A band of armed men were instantly dispatched to take Elijah prisoner. But when the soldiers were about ful- filling their duty according to orders, the prophet called down that fire from heaven, which once declared in favor of popular liberty on Mount Carmel, and the soldiers were furiously at- CHAPTER X. 457 tacked by the populace, as once the prophets of Baal and Astarte were on Mount Carmel. A reinforcement of soldiers was of no avail; finally, a third detachment arrived and again it was in vain. Elijah did not recall his statement, nor could the soldiers make him prisoner. The warriors were obliged to retire without effecting their purpose, leaving dead two-thirds of their number. This occurrence must have caused Elijah to retire altogether from the field of action. Occurrences of that nature were inevitable on account of his popularity with the people, and his unpopularity at court, where he was considered a danger- ous individual. Still such scenes were dangerous in a time when Syria had taken a threatening attitude, and Amnion and Moab were in a sta,te of open revolution. Elijah was obliged to retire into the solitary desert, which appears to have been his most desired abode, resigning his functions into the hands of Elishah, who was respected at court and esteemed by the people. lie was the man of the age. In company with Elishah, who was not welcome to the prophet, most likely desirous to conceal his retired abode, Elijah crossed the Jordan in the vicinity of Jericho, and retired to some solitary abode, from which we will hear his voice but once more (II Chron. xxi, 12). The party of the prophets informed that Elijah was trans- ported from the earth to the regions of bliss and glory, venerated Elishah as the pupil and worthy successor of Elijah, who was even supposed to be wiser and more inspired than his master (II Kings, ii, 9, 10, 12). Elishah, after having sweetened the waters of the wells of Jericho — by the very best means — that of throwing a quantity of salt into the wells; after having been abused by the children of Beth El, forty-two of whom were afterwards devoured by ferocious beasts, which deed was naturally ascribed to their sin committed against Elishah; and after he had vistcd the sanctified summits of Carmel, which was a powerful declaration on the side of Elishah to follow faithfully the instructions of his great master, he went to Samaria to exercise his influence over the new king, which Elishah was unable to do on account of his unpopularity at court. 458 PERIOD IV. Ahaziah died, as Elijah had predicted, in the second year of his reign; and in default of male issue, his brother Jehoram mounted the throne of Israel, in the eighteenth year of Jehos- haphat (885, b. c). The miserable end of his brother, the scene occurring at the attempt to make Elijah a prisoner, and most likely also the influence of Elishah, who stood at the head of a powerful party, caused Jehoram to change his policy. This prince restored the Jerobeam policy, which, although not being altogether satisfactory to the party of the prophets, still was welcome under present circumstances, because it restored the Mosaic laws to the country, and abolished the obnoxious Tyrian superstition. Having thus reconciled government and people, which was also calculated to secure again the friend- ship of Judah, Jehoram prepared measures to quell the insurrection in Amnion and Moab. After an adequate army was organized, Jehoram sent to Jehoshaphat, desiring his co- operation in the designed campaign, whom he found ready to comply with his desire; for the interests of Judah were, under present circumstances, closely connected with those of Israel, not only on account of Edom, the revolt of which was much to be feared, as it indeed followed, if Aramon and Moab main- tain their independence, but also on account of the trade with Egypt as well as with Arabia and Tarshish, which Judah almost monopolized, as we shall see hereafter, and to which end Judah was obliged to be on good terms with Israel, almost embracing the territory of Judah on the land sides. The question was now whether the campaign should be undertaken at the provinces beyond Jordan, which made an attack upon the Syrians inevitable, or whether the way through Judah and Edom should be preferred. Prudence dictated the latter, which was preferred. The united army of Jehoram and Jehoshaphat, together with the garrisons of Edom, commanded by the viceroy of that province — one of which appears to have been in every province since the days of David — marched through the southern deserts towards the Moabitish territory. Their progress was suddenly checked by the want of water. The prophet Elishah being with the army, was called forth to save CHAPTER X. 459 them from the besetting calamity. After having passed a severe rebuke on the king of Israel on account of his parent's idolatry, the prophet, well acquainted with the wilderness and its peculiarities, ordered them to dig wells, which at once filled with water, and the periodical rain soon supplied the river. The red bottom of the water and the rising sun deluded the king of Moab to mistake the water for blood, and to be- lieve the allied armies fought against each other, which em- boldened him to fall upon the camp of the Israelites, with the intention of spoliating it, but he was thrown back with great slaughter. That injudicious attack of the Moabites made the victory easy to the allied army of Israel. The Moabites retired from place to place; their cities were reduced, all the good trees were cut down, all the wells were stopped up, and each man of Israel cast his stone on every good piece of land, and drove the king of Moab into his last fortified city. The king of Moab, in company of seven hundred swordsmen, ventured a desperate attack upon the division commanded by the viceroy of Edom, but it was without any other effect than taking prisoner the son of the viceroy of Edom, whom he sacrificed on the wTalls of Rabbah (Amos ii, 1). This action informs us of the strength of the fortifications in which the king of Moab confided. The Israelites could not continue the siege, as there was great misfortune in Israel, for Benhadad, most likely the second, on learning the success of the Israelitish arms in Moab, again sent his hosts against Samaria, and the king of Israel was obliged to march his army against the Syrians, and Moab, though desolated, was independent. Elishah's activity and vigilance saved Jehoram from a dis- astrous surprise. For Jehoram on returning to Samaria resolved upon attacking the Syrians, who had secretly occu- pied the roads on which the army of Israel had to pass the Jordan, in order to reach the Syrian army which still remained, in the provinces beyond. Elishah and his disciples had establish- ed a new settlement in that region of the country, and conse- quently he had a chance to learn the motions of the enemy, of which he informed the king, who immediatelv returned from 460 PERIOD IV. Moab, and convinced himself of the truth of Elishah's state- ment, and^adopted a plan of action counteracting the secret plan of Benhadad. The monarch, thinking he had a traitor among his officers, accused them of having betrayed his plans to the king of Israel, upon which he was told that it was Elishah, who knew all the secret transactions of his court. The Syrian king, on learning that Elishah was in Dothan, in the vicinity of which place most likely the new settlement was, dispatched a body of armed men to take Elishah prisoner. The Syrian detachment arrived in the vicinity of Dothan early in the morning, and the town was not strong enough to hold out until assistance could arrive from Samaria. The demand of the Syrian detachment was learned, and there appeared no way for Elishah to escape. But presence of mind saved the prophet. The man of God went out to the Syrians, succeeded in persuading them that he was not the man, that this was not the town they sought, and promised to guide them to the right place. The Syrians, among whom most likely were many friends] of the prophet, were deceived by the eloquence and boldness of Elishah; they followed him, and he led them away into the city of Samaria. Jehoram on seeing the Syrian host asked the prophet, " Shall I beat them, my father?" But Elishah answered this question in the negative, and on his request they were hospitably entertained and suffered to return to their king, who was now convinced that it was impossible to effect any thing in Israel by stratagem or small detachments, sent a strong army against Samaria. This succeeded in hemming in the Israelitish army and their king at Samaria, so that they could not escape; and also cut off all communications between the city and the country. This brought on such a dreadful famine in the city, that the inhabitants resorted to human flesh, and a woman was even supposed to have boiled and eaten her own son. A complaint which was brought before the king by a woman, that she had given up her son for food on condition that another woman should do the same with her son, shows how the famine raged in the city. The answer of the king, CHAPTER X. 461 "Jehovah docs not help thee, how shall I do it," confirms our view, that the Jerobcam schism was not a denial of Jeho- vah. The king, on learning the horrid state of suffering in the city, concluded to have Elishah killed, who presided over the national council which opposed the surrender of the place, expecting aid from abroad. Elishah, who had friends in all places, was informed of the intention of the king, and that men were already dispatched to kill him. He announced to the council the intention of the king, and the doors of the house were locked. The men sent by the king, finding no ad- mission, the king himself came and uttered his complaints thus; " Behold this evil is from Jehovah, why should we any longer wait for Jehovah?" But the prophet assured the king that succor would come within twenty-four hours. This was doubted; nevertheless the succor came, the Syrian host was suddenly recalled by the king of Syria. Elishah on seeing the success of Benhadad's army, and anticipating the danger which threatened Samaria, hastened to Damascus, where he found Benhadad dangerously sick. On learning that Eli- shah had arrived, the Syrian king sent to him his superior officer, Hazael, to inquire of the prophet if he would recover. The prophet answering in the negative, looked into the face of Hazael and wept before him. On being asked the reason, Elishah answered that he knew what harm Hazael would do to Israel, " Their strongholds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with child." Hazael denied having such intentions, upon which the prophet announced the message, "Jehovah has shown thee to me king of Syria." Hazael returned to the palace, the king died the next morning, and Hazael was proclaimed king of Syria; in this the prophet and his friends in Damascus certainly had a great share. Meanwhile Elishah returned to Samaria and promised succor to the king and the suffering people of Samaria, which indeed came, as the prophet had predicted. 1 [azael, grateful to Elishah and to his party, suddenly recalled the besieging army, who knew of no Other cause for this than that the king of Israel 4G2 PEKIOD IV. must have hired foreign armies to fight against them whose approach they supposed they already heard, and therefore broke up the camp in haste and retired in silence under the cover of night. That sudden retreat is also to be ascribed to the dis- tressing famine of seven years duration then raging in Israel, so that the besieging army also suffered much for want of pro- visions, and therefore, glad of the orders to break up the siege, retired hastily to places where provisions were more abundant. Four leprous persons, who, according to the laws of Moses, were in the hospital without the walls of the city, driven by hunger, went to the Syrian camp, which they found deserted, and filled with many valuable articles. Those four men gave notice to the city sentinel of the strange occurrence, who in- formed the king of it; and after assuring himself that it was not a stratagem of Syria, he ordered the city gates to be opened, and Samaria was saved by the prudence and activity of Elishah, whose influence at the courts of Samaria and Da- mascus, and whose general popularity is finely narrated in II Kings. In order to have a proper understanding of the history of the last campaign, we must review the history of Judah up to that date. The expedition against Moab most likely did not take place before the second or third year of Joram, king of Israel; nor was the campaign ended before the fourth year of Joram, which was about the last year of Jehoshaphat, who died in the fifth year of Joram, after a reign of twenty-five years, aged about sixty. He was succeeded by his son Jeho- ram (882 b. c), the son-in-law of Ahab, who was at the time thirty-two years of age. This prince did not follow the wise example of his father and grand-father, although the policy of the former had proved every way beneficial to the nation. He commenced his reign by assassinating his brothers, to whom his father had bequeathed considerable wealth, and had made them commanders of fortified cities. Jehoram then adopted the Tyrian worship and form of government, which gave general dissatisfaction; so that he lost entirely the affections of the people. A letter of the prophet Elijah, in which the aged CHAPTER X. 463 prophet strongly censured the conduct of the king, and pre- dicted to him a miserable end, was of no effect. The dissatis- faction of the people and most likely the inability of Jehoram to wield the scepter, favored an insurrection in the depending provinces. Edom, that had belonged to Judea at least one hundred and forty years, and the most precious jewel in the Da vidian crown, revolted against Jehoram and appointed an independent king. Jehoram did not acknowledge the independ- ence of Edom without a severe contest; he invaded that country and succeeded in surprising and defeating the insur- rection. But he could not reoccupy the land because the people utterly disapproved of his undertaking. "And the people fled to their tents." Edom succeeded in maintaining its independence; and this encouraged the Phelistines and the Arabian chiefs in the south of Judea, not only to revolt, but also to invade and plunder Judah. The provinces con- quered by David were thus lost, the treasury was emptied, and the nation deprived of the commercial interests connected with the sea ports and the land route to Egypt. This occa- sioned great misery. That the dissatisfaction of the nation with Jehoram's sudden change of policy was one of the chief causes of the success of revolting provinces, is made evident by the revolt of Libnah, a town in the southern part of Judah, and inhabited by priests* The inhabitants of that place made common cause with Edom and succeeded in making themselves independent of Judah. That these wars lasted a long time is proved not only by the exhaustion of the national treasury, but also by the fact that all the sons of Jehoram except one, fell into the hands of the enemy. After an inglorious reign of eight years, Jehoram died and was buried in the sepulcher of his fathers without receiving the usual honors of a king. The people could not mourn over the death of a sovereign who had ruined them. Ahaziah was the only son left by Jehoram. He must have been extremely unpopular on account of his being the grandson * Joshua xv, 42 -, xxi, 13. 464 PERIOD IV. of Ahab by his daughter Athaliah. It was not the people, but only the inhabitants of Jerusalem, who elevated him to the throne. We have no account that the people generally sanctioned this act of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The apprehensions of the people proved to be well founded ; Ahaziah was but twenty-two years old when he mounted the throne. He depended upon his mother Athaliah, and his grandmother Jezebel; and, as a matter of course, the Tyrian worship and policy was rigorously maintained, to the detriment of the nation. Jehoram could not assist the king of Israel against Syria, because he was continually employed on his own account against Edom, Phelistia and the Arabian provinces. Now after every thing was lost, Ahaziah could assist the king of Israel against the Syrians, who still occupied Ramah in Gilead. It is evident, that neither Israel nor Judah could regain the lost provinces as long as they were backed by Syria. But it is no less evident that Israel, impoverished by famine, and by severe losses in Moab, and against the Syrians, and Judah, no less enfeebled and destitute, were not in the position to attack the Syrians with the least hope of success. Hazael, as we have remarked before, had suspended hostilities against Israel, which most likely, also, was the cause of the present peace in Judah, and it was to be expected that he would not renew his attack speedily, because he was elevated to the royal dignity by the influence of Elishah, who had induced him not to besiege Israel. Prudence, therefore, dictated the monarchs of Israel and Judah to maintain peace and cultivate the friendship of Hazael, until the nation had regained its strength. This seems to have been the advice of Elishah; but it did not suit the will of the princes. They broke the peace with Syria by a united attack upon Ramah in Gilead, which resulted, not only in a defeat of the Israelitish army, but also in a series of misfortunes, which we shall hereafter mention. The family of Ahab had added a new wound to the many which they had already inflicted upon the nation. They had exhausted the patience of Elishah and his party, and they were ready for destruction. The chance soon offered; the armies CHAPTER X. 465 were united before Ramali in Gilead, the king of Israel was lying wounded in his palace at Jezreel, at the very spot where Naboth bled; his nephew, the king of Judah, was also present, the whole seductive and misguided family could be destroyed at one blow. Elishah improved the chance — he discharged a painful duty as the chief leader of a large and dissatisfied party, who wept over the calamities of the nation — he sent one of his disciples to the camp near Ramah in Gilead, to anoint Jehu, son of Jehoshaphat, king of Israel. The disciple of Elishah promptly fulfilled his secret mission. When it be- came known in the camp that Jehu was anointed king of Israel by the prophet, he was instantly proclaimed by the officers of the army. The plan of the party of the prophets was to extinguish the whole house of Ahab, to which also the king of Judah and his family belonged, and then to reunite the nation. So we understand the words of the prophet, "Thus saith the Lord the God of Israel, I have anointed thee to be king of Jehovah's people of Israel." Jehu should be king of the sole nation of Israel after the house of Ahab, now govern- ing both in Israel and Judah, was extinguished. Jehu selected a number of warriors from the army, and rode towards Jezreel. The two kings, amazed by the furious haste in which he came, went forth to meet him. Joram saluted Jehu, with the customary " Is peace, Jehu? " To this the lat- ter harshly responded, telling him, there could be no peace on account of his mother's inchastity and witchcraft. Joram fled and told his nephew to do the same, for there was a con- spiracy; but Jehu shot an arrow after the former, which struck his heart, and the dying king was thrown upon the spot, once belonging to Naboth. Ahaziah fled through the garden of the palace, but Jehu pursued him and shot him at the height near Jibleam. The wound proved fatal, and the king of Judah died on reaching Megido. The sons of the brothers of Ahaziah shared the same fate, and the whole family of Ahab, reigning in Judah, with the exception of Athaliah, was extinguished. Jehu then returned to Jezreel, where Jezebel was thrown into the street from the window of her palace. Jehu then wrote 30 466 PERIOD IV. letters to Samaria, commanding the ciders of the city and province, and the officers of the king to select one of the family of Ahab to be successor to the throne. The elders and officers were afraid of Jehu, and they sent him word that they would serve him and no other man. Upon this Jehu ordered them to send him the heads of all the members of the royal family, which demand was instantly complied with, and seventy heads were sent to Jehu at Jezreel. These he exhibited to the peo- ple in his own excuse, as though the elders and royal officers of Samaria had done it of their own accord, in compliance with the decree of Elijah. Jehu found an accomplice in the person of Jonadab, son of Rechab, father of the Rechabitcs, with whom he went to Samaria. There he put to the sword who- ever was favorably disposed towards the house of Ahab. Not yet satisfied, Jehu also assembled from the country all the friends of the overthrown government, under the treacherous pretext of having a great feast of Baal. The friends of the old government came to Samaria; and when they were assem- bled in the temple of Baal, they were massacred in cold blood; after this the Baal temple and images were destroyed. This cruel butchery of Jehu fills the mind with disgust; but it is one of those horrible scenes that occur so often in history. The massacres by Marius, Sulla, Ceasar, Brutus and Octavius, were much more atrocious than this of Jehu's; but, still, they do not receive so general condemnation by historians. The reason is, because they can not accustom themselves to the idea, that the history of Israel is of the same nature as the history of France, or of any other country, that Jehu was no worse a man than Cromwell, and the party of the prophets was no worse than the Independents of England. There was a change of dynas- ties; parties fought for principles, and blood was shed. This is the whole sum of it. This was the tragical catastrophe of the third dynasty of Israelitish kings. They had misgoverned the nation, ruined the country, impoverished the people, and caused their own destruction (873 b. c). None of them was left but Athaliah. All this was chiefly the work of one treacherous, vain and CHAPTER XI. 467 obnoxious woman, Jezebel; whose passions were indomitable, who governed her husband, her sons, and her son-in-law, and her grandson to their own detriment, and to the misfortune of the whole nation. CHAPTER XT. FROM THE EXPIRATION OF THE OMRI DYNASTY TO THE FALL OF SAMARIA. (873-721, b. c.) Athaliah, mother of the king of Judah, saw her son brought dead to Jerusalem, where he was buried honorably, on account of having been a grandson of Jehoshaphat. She assembled the members of the DavidiaU family who escaped the havoc made among them previously, and persuaded them to confer upon her the royal dignity in order to save the family. The royal descendants, consisting of females and of princes under age, dreaded undoubtedly, the approach of Jehu, and the disaffections of the people. Knowing the abilities of the shrewd woman to maintain that dignity, they consented to her demand. But as soon as Athaliah had assumed the reins of government, she condemned to death all the male issues remaining of the house of David. The princess'Jehoshabeath, the wife of the high priest Jehoiada, succeeded in saving Joash, the infant son of Ahaziah, and concealed him and his nurse in the temple. Had Jehu now made peace with Syria and invaded Judah, he would have undoubtedly succeeded. In vain did the party of the prophets promise that the throne should be secured to his family to the fourth generation j^he was 468 PERIOD IV. intoxicated by his success against the Omri dynasty, and con- tinued the war against Hazael, with the intention probably of invading Judah, after having recovered from Hazael the pro- vince beyond Jordan. But Jehu never could expel the Syrians from those provinces; the whole land east of Jordan, from the Creek of Arnon to the Mountains of Bashan, was lost. The people of that district were treated cruelly by the Ammonites (Amos i, 13), and many of them were sold into slavery or condemned to hard labor by the Syrians (ibid i, 3). This con- quest was not completed during the reign of Jehu. History ascribes some part of it to the reign of his son. Jehu died in Samaria after an inglorious reign of twenty-eight years (845 b. c.) and was succeeded by Jehoahaz his son. Nothing had been gained by the extinction of the Omri dynasty. The nation remained divided into two kingdoms. The schism of Jerobeam was supported by Jehu. The country was in as unprosperous a condition after the death of Jehu as it was after the assassination of Jehoram. Athaliah after having usurped the throne of Judah, followed in the path of her mother, main- taining in Jerusalem a temple and numerous altars of Baal ; having appointed Nathan her high priest, the laws of the land were suspended, and the will of the sovereign substituted for them. This was a state of things which the people of Israel never suffered for a long time. Still it was the wisest policy which Athaliah could adopt; she was hated by the people on account of her parents as well as on account of her husband and her son, who most likely would have never mounted the throne if it had not been for the inhabitants of Jerusalem ; and that hatred certainly increased after she had assassinated all the princes of the house of David. Had she suffered the laws of Moses to be set in force, she would have been the first who would have felt most severely their strict justice, as she was not only guilty of crimes which the law punishes with death, but was also, according to that law, destitute of all claim to the crown. She had either to fall or maintain herself by the severe rule of absolutism. The latter was preferred. Athaliah must have been a woman of extraordinary talent and energy ; CHAPTER XI. 469 for sho maintained herself for more than six years upon the throne, against the will of the people and the priests. The fact, that only the people of the country participated in the conspirac}- against her, and that only the people of Jerusalem elevated Ahaziah to the throne, leads us to look into the state of corruption that predominated in Jerusalem. The Tyrian form of worship and government, connected with the vilest excess, debauchery and extravagance, was especially well calcu- lated to please the corrupted taste of a degenerated capital, and therefore Athaliah, reinforced by fugitives from Israel, could maintain herself six years upon the throne of Judah. The interests of no class of the people were so much affected by that innovation as those of the priests and the Levites, The fact that the high priest's wife was a princess of the house of David, shows that the sacerdotal office was in high estima- tion in Judah. Jehoiada, the high priest, was the man who secretly organ- ized a conspiracy against the obnoxious queen. He first com- municated his plan to five captains of the royal guard (II Chron. xxiii) who traveled through the country and succeeded in bringing a great number of the dissatisfied people to Jeru- salem. Jehoiada meantime won over to his plan the Levites who had the service of the week, and those which came to replace them, being nearly two thousand men. After the plan was thus far matured, he guided the multitude into the court of the temple showing them the infant prince, Joash, and causing them to take a sacred oath before the Lord to support the young king and the law. After this was done, arms were distributed among the people ; the gates of the temple and the whole court were guarded by the friends of the insurrection. The king was led to the royal tribune and crowned by the high priest, under the vehement cheering of the multitude. The news of a great commotion in the temple soon spread over the city, the people rushed up, and the queen came too, to learn the cause of the extraordinary commotion. The guards had orders to suffer none to attack them, and it appears none had the courage to do so. When Athaliah saw the king 470 PERIOD IV. on his platform, she exclaimed " treason, treason"! tearing her garments. The excited multitude would have most likely torn her in pieces, had not the high priest commanded the mnot to kill her in the temple. The queen was led back to her palace, and killed. It was the seventh year of her reign. Joash mounted the throne, being but seven years old, under the regency of the high priest Jehoiada. The covenant be- tween God, the king, and the people was solemnly renewed, which means, that the oath of allegiance was taken on the side of the people, and that the king swore to the laws of the land, which he was bound to administer, and to regard in his individual transactions as the faithful representative of God. The country people destroyed the temple and altars of Baal. Mathan suffered death, and probably many more of the priests of Baal, although, on the whole, the revolution cost but very few lives. Our authorities say, " The country people rejoiced, and the city was quiet." The city certainly did not rejoice much in this sudden change. It might appear rather singular, that no voice of a prophet was heard in this revolution so favorable to the Mosaic law. But we have accounted previously for this silence. Jehu was anointed by Elishah. Consequently they could not counte- nance a revolution, which directly opposed their will to unite the whole nation. Still they could not well oppose that revolu- tion, for it was in favor of the very laws which they zealously protected. If we may draw conclusions from the general tenor of their words and conduct, we are enabled to state, that they by no means rejoiced much in the dominion of priests, to whom they never were very friendly ; nor could the corona- tion of an infant king meet with their approbation; their choice always fell upon active and energetic men ; nor could ;hcy truly rejoice in any national measure which tended to naintain the schism. The policy of Jehoiada may readily be anticipated; he placed a strong garrison in the temple to keep Jerusalem quiet; and in all other respects he was a faithful follower of Asa and Jehoshaphat. The laws of Moses were faithfully adminis- CHAPTER IX. 471 tcred, and the land enjoyed profound peace and tranquility. The king Joash, who appears to have been an insignificant personage in the government during the lifetime of the high priest-regent, after having reached the age of manhood, was desired to repair the temple, which had been much mutilated during the reign of his three immediate predecessors. To this end he demanded of the priests to deliver up, to the temple treasury, all those moneys which the law appropriated to public and sacerdotal purposes, and which the priests illegally appropriated to themselves, granting to them the surplus after the repairs should have been completed. But in the twenty- third year of the reign of Joash, the temple treasury was as empty as before, and the repairs had not been accomplished. The king became impatient and took other measures to effect his design. He gave orders to the priests to take no more money of the people, and he himself undertook the necessary repairs. By order of the high priest, a box with a small hole' at the top, was placed at the right-hand side of the altar, in which the voluntary gifts of the people were deposited. An edict was issued, that the half-shekel tax, introduced by Moses for sacerdotal purposes, should be paid, which was also de- posited in that box. After it was filled, the king's scribe and the high priest opened it, and the money was appropriated to repair and fortify the temple, which was done by officers, of whom no account was required. The moneys were entrusted to them upon their own faith, which we should judge to have been an improper way of disposing of the pubic funds ; but the king had already granted the surplus to the priests, and the officers thus entrusted with the superintendence of that public work, most likely were but priests. Our annalist complains, that the funds did not suffice to make the silver and the golden utensils of the temple. Jehoiada died shortly after the temple was finished, at the advanced age of one hundred and thirty years. Joash was no longer governed by the inflexible will of his aged patron. No sooner had he assumed independently the reins of government than he fell back into the sins inher- ited of his progenitors. He gave a willing ear to the flattering 472 PERIOD IV. princes, and attempted to suspend the laws and to usurp des- potical power, with which the introduction of idolatry was closely connected. The prince who but a few years before manifested so much zeal on behalf of the temple of God, in- troduced in Jerusalem the image of Astarte and other idols, and he himself worshiped them. This would seem a great inconsistency, if we had not seen it before in Solomon, lleha- beam, and Abiam. The voice of the prophets, which was silent through the time of repairing and fortifying the temple, made itself heard now. But it was in vain; no human voice is strong enough to regenerate a corrupted court and capital. Sacheriah — the son of the late high priest, whose influence over king and people must have been considerable, on account of his deceased father — mounted the public tribunal in the court of the temple, and in strong language rebuked the wick- edness of the age. The king, probably fearing an insurrection, gave secret instructions to the corrupted adherents to his new policy to stone to death the prophet, the son of a benefactor who had saved his life and elevated him to the throne. A riot was made in the court of the temple, and the secret instruc- tions of the king were faithfully executed. The inspired man of the people died with the words on his lips, " God will see it and require it." The king certainly affected ignorance on the subject. But history is an impartial judge, and the looks of a nation are piercing, penetrating into the secret recesses of royal intrigues; therefore the hatred of his subjects and the con- demnation of history fell upon Joash, on account of that black crime, which has, no precedent in the history of Israel. The liberty of speech was the best arms of which the patriots made use to defend the laws and liberties of the nation. But this sacred right was invaded at the death of Sachariah, and the patriots looked despondingly into futurity. The offended nation soon found a chance to liberate itself of that w icked king. The king of Syria, Hazael, invaded Phelistia, and coming up from Edom, after having taken Gath, he marched towards Jerusalem. Joash met him with an army, and was himself wounded in the battle; he was obliged to keep confined CHAPTER XI. 473 in a place between Jerusalem and Silla, most likely a summer residence of the king. Whether llazael was or was not invited by the enemies of Joash, we will not undertake to decide. At any rate, it appears that Joash did not succeed in collecting an army strong enough to meet the enemy in battle. The presence of a foreign army was dangerous to the interests of the king and an encouragement to the people. Joash, there- fore, thought it prudent to obtain peace at any price. He took all the money which was in the public treasury and in the royal coffers, and sent it to Damascus, suing for peace, which was granted. But no sooner had the foreign army left the country, than his enemies caused his assassination. The late Jezreel scene was reenacted at Beth Millo in a ruder style. Two assassins, Jozachar and Jehozabad, the former an Am- monite and the latter a Moabite, came into the bed chamber of the king, and assassinated him who had himself assassinated Sechariah. This occurred in the fortieth year of his reign. His son, Amaziah, succeeded to the throne when he was twenty-five years of age (818, b. c). It has been mentioned before, that Jehu, king of Israel, and his successor, Jehoahaz, who ascended the throne in the twenty- first year of Joash, were almost continually engaged in de- fending the country against the armies of the powerful Hazael, king of Syria, who elevated the Syrian monarchy to the highest degree of splendor. This war ended in the loss of the land beyond Jordan, and of the invaluable Bashan. After this, that king directed his designs to the south, invading Edom, where his army took Elath, and most likely also Petrea. Marching thence into Phelistia as far as Gatli, from which point they returned to Damascus, either on account of the death of Hazael, or on account of the money sent there by Joash. While Hazael's army was engaged in the south, Israel whose army was reduced to fifty-horse, ten chariots, and ten thousand foot, enjoyed a period of peace, for which probably they paid a heavy tribute. The people recovered slowly from the long wars with Syria; but the king did not improve the time of peace to promote the welfare of his people. He yielded to the vile pleasures of 474 PERIOD IV. Astarte worship, whose idol he secretly erected in Samaria. He died after an inglorious reign of sixteen years, and was succeeded in the thirty-seventh year of Joash by his son Jehoash, who' appears to have been a strong monarch, and an intimate friend of Elishah. This is to us a testimony of his popularity, although our authorities regard him as a wicked king on account of his maintenance of the Jerobearn schism. Had he understood his true interests, and invaded Judah at the time when Joash was hated by the people, he might have succeeded in reuniting the nation. But his army was prob- ably too weak at the time of the reign of Joash, and during the reign of his successor the opportunity had passed, as the sequel will show. In the fourth or fifth year of Jehoash, king of Israel, Hazael died, leaving the powerful monarchy in the feeble hands of his son and successor, Benhadad III, and Israel was reanimated with the hope of reconquering the east-Jordan provinces. Shortly after this the old and venerable prophet Elishah, the man who had elevated to the throne, the ruling dynasties of Israel and Syria, and who must have been about one hundred years of age, was now taken sick, and his reco- very was doubtful. Jehoash, the king of Israel, came down to some place on the Jordan in Ephraim (II Kings, xiii, 20), and finding Elishah near dying, he fell upon his face, and wept, exclaiming " My father, my father; Israel's chariot and riders!" From this we learn both the eminent position which Elishah held, and the high regard paid to him by the king. Elishah encouraged the king to attempt the reconquest of the provinces beyond Jordan. He died lamented by the whole nation (about 826 b. c). War was now inevitable ; for the Moabites undertook roving incursions, distressing the people; and a war against Moab was connected with a war against Syria, which protected if it did not possess Moab. Jehoash invaded the provinces beyond Jordan, and vanquished the Syrians in three battles, recaptur- ing all the Israelitish cities which were in the hands of Syria. And now for the first time since the days of Baasha, the land of Israel was again free from foreign troops. CHAPTER XI. 475 111 Judah we meet again a total change of policy. Ama- ziali mounted the throne in the second or third year of Jehoash. The young king probably was terrified by the tragi- cal end of his father, or what is more likely was forced by the triumphant party of the patriots to take the oath upon the laws of Moses, to administer which was his duty. According to that law the assassins of his father were condemned to death. Their children, however, were spared. The progress of Jehoash against Syria encouraged the king of Judah to make an attempt to recover Edom from the hands of Syria. He armed the people, whose number had decreased since the time of Jehoshaphat (about fifty-four years) from 1,160,000, to three hundred thousand men, able to bear arms. For this, neither the wars of former kings of Judah, nor the loss of Phelistia, Edom, and other dependencies, fully account. It appears to us, that in the time of Jehoshaphat the wholo people were armed, while now only the Bahur or select men were. That the people were disarmed ever after the death of Jehoshaphat admits of no doubt; for Jehoiada distributed arms when revolting against Athaliah, and Joash preferred paying a heavy sum to Hazael rather than arm the people. Amaziah appears to have had the desire to maintain this safe policy of his predecessors; but still he desired to recover Edom, and he hired one hundred thousand experienced war- riors of Israel, for which he paid one hundred talents of silver. This was done in secret, and the people were only apprized of it when the warriors of Israel had reached the capital. This policy greatly offended the people, and the politicians, aware of the real cause of that measure, opposed it. A prophet expressed to the king the sentiments of the people. The king was obliged to send back the Israelitish troops, and to arm his own people, as has been stated before. Amaziah invaded Edom at the head of his troops, and suc- ceeded in capturing Petra, the capital of Edom, after he had beaten the united army of the Edomites and Syrians, who left ten thousand dead on the battle field. After he had taken the city of Petra or Sela, which signifies the same, ten thousand 476 PERIOD IV. more were hurled down from the rocks which environed the city. The city was then called Jaktheal, meaning, God reduced it. Our authorities do not inform us of the causes which produced such a sudden change of fortune in the Syrian arms. That Syria possessed Edom is evident from II Kings, xvi, 6. That it had lost now the best part of it is no less evident. It appears that the dominion of Syria was limited to Elath, while Judah was again in possession of Ezion-gaber and the road from that port to Jerusalem, as in the times of Jehosha- phat. Whether this double progress of the Israelitish arms must be ascribed to the utter inability of Benhadad III, to manage the affairs of his country," or whether internal commo- tions in Syria lessened her influence abroad, or whether Ben- hadad was concerned in a warfare with Assyria in the time when Acrapazus fought against the Medes,is difficult to ascertain, although the latter supposition is most likely. This much is certain, that Israel's defence for a whole century, against the Syrian, Idumean, Moabitish and Ammonitish armies, is a strong proof, that its military strength has been much underrated by the writers on the subject, and that the numbers of the Book of Chronicles are by no means exaggerated when taken in the sense which we gave to them. Amaziah returned triumphantly to Jerusalem, whose splen- dor was restored once more, for the Idumean sea port was again accessible to the merchants of Judah, commerce flourished once more, and wealth poured again into the capital. We are told in II Chronicles xxv, 14, that Amaziah worshiped the gods of Edom, which appears to us to be a figurative express- ion relating to the elation of the king in consequence of his victory in Edom, a victory which he did not pursue to the best advantage; for instead of taking Elath from the Syrians, he declared war against the king of Israel. This was opposed by the people, whose sentiments a prophet declared to the king. There can be no doubt, that peace between Judah and Israel would have been now the best policy, not only on account of the commercial interests of Judah, but also in order to recover CHAPTER XI. 477 from the misfortunes which both parts of the nation had suffered during so many years. But Amaziah harshly silenced the prophet, threatening to put him to death if he continued opposing his royal will. Again the will of the people was silenced, and the king again acted on his own will, which, however, this time, was not a violation of the laws, for according to the settled principle of Judah, the kmdom of Israel was considered in a state of revolt to the Davidian dynasty. The pretext for the declaration of war was, that the troops of Israel, dismissed by Amaziah, had ravaged the country. For this, probably, indemnity had been demanded, and refused by the king of Israel on the ground of the offence given to the troops by Amaziah in dismissing them. The declaration of war was thus answered by Joash, "The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Le- banon, saying: Give thy daughter to my son to wife; and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon, and trod down the thistle. Thou hast indeed smitten Edom, and thine heart has lifted thee up ; be thou honored, and tarry at home : why shouldst thou expose thyself to evil, and why shouldst thou fall and Judah with thee?" Amaziah's army was encamped in the vicinity of Beth Shemesh, a town in Judah, on the frontiers of Dan, ready to invade the territory of Israel. But Joash attacked the army of Judah and routed it in a pitched battle, notwithstanding the strong position which Amaziah occupied. He drove before him the army of Judah to Jerusalem, which he besieged and finally took by storm, having previously captured king Amaziah, whom he held in custody. He razed four hun- dred cubits' length of the walls of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim to the gate of the corner. Amaziah was thus forced to sue for peace, which was granted to him after having paid heavy sums. Having delivered up to the king of Israel a num- ber of hostages, the latter returned to Samaria. The policy of Jehoash was by far superior to that of Amaziah. Being in possession of Jerusalem, Jehoash might have succeeded in occu- pying the whole land of Judah; but it was questionable whether those internal broils would not have given a new chance to 478 PERIOD IV. Syria to invade the provinces beyond Jordan, and Jehoasli pre- ferred to conclude an advantageous peace with Judah, which the party of the prophets disliked. Jehoasli died (814 b. £.), shortly after this campaign, after a reign of sixteen or seven- teen years, in the fifteenth year of Amaziah, leaving a strong and prosperous country to his son Jerobeam II, a man who proved to be an efficient ruler and successful warrior. This prince encouraged by the prophet Jonah, son of Ami- thai, of Gath-Hepher, a town in Zebulon (where the sepulcher of that prophet was yet shown in the days of Jerome) con- tinued the war against Syria with success. We are not in possession of any particulars of that important campaign. According to Josephus it was not successful in the beginning, and this is ascribed to the mismanagement of Jerobeam II., who is said to have been the cause of ten thousand misfortunes to Israel; but at length the city of Hamath, or Emesa, on the Orontes, was taken. This was considered as belonging to the kingdom of Israel. We are further informed that he extended the eastern frontiers of Israel from Hamath to the sea of the Plain, or to Lake Asphalties, as Josephus says, and this leaves us in ignorance of the precise boundary line, whether or not Heliopolis, Damascus, Bostra, and Philadelphia, equally claimed by the Israelites, were included in that line of the eastern boundry. The fact that a successor of Jerobeam pro- ceeded with his army to the Euphrates, and that Emesa could hardly be reached without the previous reduction of Damascus and Heliopolis, favors the hypothesis, that Jerobeam II, was in possession of those latter cities, and this would indicate the Syrian desert to have been the eastern boundary of Israel at that time. It must be borne in mind that the same prophet Jonah, who encouraged Jerobeam II to this campaign, preached in Nineveh, and that the people of that ancient metropolis paid attention to him. Nahum, too, and Zcphaniah, we shall find afterwards interfering in the affairs of Nineveh. We can not believe for a moment, that a man unknown in that city, without friends and influence, should go there on a sacred mission and that he CHAPTER XI. 470 should be listened to. The fact, therefore, appears to be, that the influence and the friends of the prophets reached beyond the great rivers of Euphrates and Tigris ; that it was by the influence of the prophets that Acropazus, and after him Sar- danapalus, made war upon Syria, taking from Benhadad III Mesopotamia. Meanwhile Jerobeam II could successfully invade Syria and recover the district between the desert and the Lebanon mountains. When Arbaces threatened to over- turn the Assyrian empire, it was Jonah's duty to go again to Nineveh, and to caution the king and people to guard against the Medes and their leader, because it was feared that the fall of Assyria would give a chance to Syria to recover its power and press again upon Israel and Judah. Jonah, who reluct- antly went the first time to the distant Nineveh, preferring to go to Tarshish, from which he was prevented by a storm, went gladly the second time, to Nineveh (Jonah iii, 1), to deliver his message. The fact that the names of Omri and Jehu, kings of Israel, were found inscribed in the black obelisk, in Nineveh, paying tribute, or bringing gifts to the king of Assyria, is doubted no longer. On the same obelisk were found the names of the king of Syria, Hazael, and of Ithbaal, father of Jezebel (Literary Gazette, March 18, 1852). This fully entitles us to the belief, that Hazael, and his predecessors, were assisted by Assyria; that Omri and Ithbaal, and their successors, and also afterwards Jehu and his son, were plun- dered by Hazael, who paid a certain tribute to Assyria, not to be interrupted in his cause by an Assyrian invasion, and that the prophets succeeded in winning the king of Assyria in favor of Israel and Judah, after Hazael was dead. While Jerobeam II recovered the ancient glory to the house of Israel, the people of Judah were also ready to rise once more to national glory. King Amaziah, after having recovered his throne from the king of Israel, was disliked by the people, and he could only maintain himself upon the throne of David until one of the royal princes was deemed capable of replacing him. A revolt broke out in the capital, and the king fled to Lachish (in the third year of Jerobeam II, 811, n, c), where 480 PERIOD IV. he lived to the twenty-seventh year of that king, when for unknown causes he^was killed, and afterwards interred in the sepulchcr of his fathers in Zion. When Amaziah had left Jerusalem, the royal dignity was unanimously conferred upon his son, Azaria or Uziah (which two names signify the same), who was but sixteen years of age. This time the people of Jehudah, who appointed the king, were united in their purpose and most likely preferred the young prince to his eldest brothers. The first enterprise of the young king was the capture of Elath, which was to the commerce of Judah an important acquisition. This appears to have been the last stronghold of the Syrians on the peninsula, which now rapidly fell into the hands of Judah. He subdued the Arabs and the Moabites, living in that region, extending again the western frontier of Judah to the Heropolitic gulf. This king built a city on the Red sea (probably Surabit-el-Kadim), in which he placed a garrison. The Syrians being cut off from the southern coun- tries. Phelistia had to submit again to Judah; the fortifications of Gath, of Jabneh, and of Ashdod were razed to the ground, which left Phelistia at the mercy of Judah. The Ammonites and Moabites, who constituted but one country, escaped the victorous arms of king Uziah by paying tribute. So the ancient empire of David, as bounded by Moses, was restored, and flourished once more, although under two kings, each of whom was prudent enough to maintain the internal peace, and to raise the nation to a high and glorious position. Uziah, we are informed, had an army of three hundred seven thousand and five hundred men, well armed with swords, lances, shields, helmers, brazen bucklers, breast plates, bows and slings, besides the engines of war for besieging cities; precisely the same arms, which we meet up to the discovery of gun powder. The whole army was regulated by two thousand and six hundred officers. After his conquests were completed, Uziah directed his attention to internal improvements. He repaired the fortifications of Jerusalem, which were somewhat neglected by his predecessors; he built high towers in tthe walls of Jerusalem, which, as we shall see in the sequel, were CHAPTER XI, 481 of considerable strength, The nature of the engines based upon mathematical calculations, to throw arrows and large stones, standing upon the towers and corners of the walls, of which the author of Chronicles speaks (II Chron. xxvi, 15), and which were so much admired in foreign countries, is un- known to us, and this is the more deplorable since it would give us an idea of the state of science in those days. Uziah was a friend of agriculture, which he not only largely patronized, but personally engaged in. He likewise improved the southern wilderness to pastoral purposes, by digging numer- ous wells and defending the shepherds with garrisons. Among the officers of Uziah are mentioned Jeaiel the scribe, Maasajah the executive officer, which is most likely identical with the major domus mentioned before, Hananiah, the chief captain, and Sacheriah the wise man, identical with the friend of the king, at the court of David. The numerous internal improvements of Uziah, and the statement of Josephus, that Jerobeam passed his life in great happiness, lead us to suppose that the wars did not last for many years, after which a period of rest and general prosperity was enjoyed, and during this time, commerce, arts, and agriculture considerably improved, which was productive of a general opulence, luxury, and cor- ruption of morals, as has ever been the case among men. Two prophets, whose inspired words still resound through the civilized world, give us an eminent picture of the opulence, luxury and corruption of morals of those days, which they opposed in fervent speeches. We mean Amos and Hosea. Amos was a common peasant, as he styles himself (Amos vii, 14) from Tekoa, a town in Judah. That bold man addressed the people at Beth El, where still a numerous concourse of worshipers had met ; his speeches were so much feared by the king's officers, that Amaziah, the priest at Beth El, sent word to king Jerobeam, "Amos conspires against thee in the midst of the house of Israel, the land can not bear all his words." Upon hearing this, Jerobeam bade the prophet leave his terri- tory, which he did with reluctance. Two years after this 31 482 PERIOD IV. prophet was exiled, a horrible earthquake visited the land.* To this visitation, Palestine was especially subjected; but the general supposition was, that the misfortune predicted by Amos, in too general terms to be applicable to any national misfortune, had already overtaken the country. This may have had a salutary influence upon the state of morals. The other prophet, coming probably shortly after Amos, and most likely in the last year of Jerobeam II. Hosea, was especially severe on the demoralization of Israel; he complains of immo- rality, of superstition and injustice. His whole intention appears to have been the improvement of morals and religion, and the reunion of Israel under the scepter of the Davidian dynasty {Hosea iii). The peculiarity of these two prophets consists in their imitating the style of the Pentateuch, more so than any other prophet. | This shows us that they had not enjoyed the benefits of a liberal education, having collected their knowledge from the popular books of the nation, and being gifted with a vehement eloquence. This is supported by the statement of Amos himself, and by the silence of the historical sources on those two prophets, which must naturally lead us to suppose they did not occupy a prominent position in society. If this was so, those two prophets are a fair mirror to show us the literary accomplishments of that age. If two uneducated and little regarded men were capable of producing, what those two prophets really have produced, the age must have been highly distinguished for literary eminence. Opulence and luxury are always the forerunners and supporters of great talents ; a flourishing state of agriculture and commerce among a people, with a national literature, as the Israelites had, must produce extraordinary literati. The literary and educational affairs of the Israelitish nation were certainly much impaired by the century of continual misfortunes. The prophets of that century were powerful, active men, but were not eminently literary. No work of that age has reached us, * Amos i; Zechariah xiv; 5. t See Appendix to this Period. CHAPTER XI. 483 with the exception probably of a few psalms. But simultaneously with the recovery of the nation, we also witness a powerful revi- val of letters. We deem these observations necessary in order to a full understanding of that age, and as a preliminary to what follows. If we may confide in the statements of the two prophets, just named, Jerobeam II did not only discontinue to act as a constitutional king — and Israel could bear no other ruler — but his administration of justice was very deficient.* These things, despite his conquests, made him many enemies among the nation. Still, he ended his days in peace, dying after a reign of forty-one years in the thirty-eighth year of Uziah (773 b. a). Sechariah, the son of Jerobeam, endeavored to mount the throne of Israel, but he did not succeed in his attempt; for after six months he was assassinated by one of his officers, Shallum, son of Jabesh. This act met with the condemnation of the people, who not only remembered gratefully the services rendered to the country by the Jehu dynasty, but also the promise given to Jehu, that his fourth generation should occupy the throne of Israel. Menahem, son of Gedi, came up from Thirzah at the head of a considerable force; he succeeded in taking Samaria, and in putting Shallum to death. Menahem mounted the throne of Israel in the thirty-ninth year of Uziah. Menahem, of Thir- zah, we are informed by a brief notice in II Kings, captured Thipsah or Thapsacus on the Euphrates, which formerly was the most eastern city of the Solomonic empire; Menahem prac- ticed the same cruelties on the city which the prophet Eli- shah apprehended that Hazael would commit in Israel. We are not told, whether this was done while Menahem was king, or under his predecessor. Josephus inclines to the former opinion, admitting, that the campaign was rcassumed under Sechariah, son of Jerobeam II. This campaign must have been undertaken either from Emesa or from Damascus, which made it necessary that Palmyra or Tadmor should be occupied by Israelitish troops. This shows, that Damascus * Amos ii, 6; v, 12-14; Hosea iv, 1-4. 484 PERIOD IV. was in possession of the Israelites; for we do not see the pos- sibility of undertaking such an expedition across the Syrian desert, without being in possession of Damascus. Jerobeam II was wise enough not to proceed beyond the desert, but Secha- riah, either attracted by the interned troubles of Assyria, or thirsting for the fame of having extended the kingdom to the banks of the Euphrates, penetrated the desert, sending his army to Thipsah. After he was assassinated, Menahem completed the design by taking and occupying that city, which brought him in direct contact with Assyria. When Pul had secured himself upon the throne, he naturally directed his attention across the river, from whence his predecessors in the royal office had received large sums of tribute; he threatened Menahem with an invasion. Menahem not being very secure on his throne dreaded an invasion; he, therefore, paid to Pul one thousand talents of silver, for which Pul supported him on the throne of Israel. The money was collected in the army. Every officer paid to the king fifty shekels, which leads us to believe, that Israel was under a military despotism, which despotism was assisted by Assyria during the reign of Menahem. This idea explains many of the complaints of the prophet Hosea, and the denunciation of that inspired bard against the king of Israel, and his desire to reunite the nation under the scepter of the Davidian dynasty, then represented by Uziah, who governed the nation in strict accordance with the laws of Moses. Mena- hem died after a reign of ten years, and was followed by his son, Pakahiah, of whom nothing is known, but that he reigned two years. After which Pekah, son of Remaliah, one of the officers of the army, conspired against the king, assisted by Argob, Ariah, and fifty men of Gilead; they entered the palace at Samaria, where they slew the king. After which Pekah mounted the throne of Israel (760 b. c). The death of five kings in a period of from thirteen to fourteen years, three of which were assassinated by officers of the army, who occupied the throne of their victims, is no mean evidence in support of our position, that from the last days of Jerobeam II, a military despotism rose up in Samaria upon the ruins of the laws and CHAPTER XI. 485 liberties enjoyed so long by the people of Israel. This* was one of the great causes of the dissatisfaction existing between the party of the prophets and the kings of Israel, whose bloodshed during this short period is not recorded in the historical synopsis of that age; but which naturally must have accom- panied those horrid regicides which were noticed in the inspired pages of the prophetical literature. The principal cause of that party's inclination now to the Davidian dynasty, contrary to their former policy, and their desire to reunite Israel under the scepter of the king of Judah, was the prosperous condition of Judah during the administra- tion of Uziah and his son Jotham. As a specimen of legal exactness in Judah, we mention the fact of Uziah's leprosy, and his abode in a solitary place. King Uziah came in col- lision with the priests. The author of Chronicles informs us, that he encroached upon their official duties, burning incense upon the altar of the Lord; but the law was so religiously regarded, that king was obliged to give way to the legal rights of the priests. Shortly after this Uziah was visited by leprosy, which was the legal duty of the priests to inspect (Levit. xiii, 2). Again we see the king of Judah submitting to the laws, although falling into the hands of his opponents. The priests, whether honest or dishonest, declared the disease of the king to be the real leprosy, specified in the Mosaic code, and the king, agreeably to the law, left the city, taking up his abode in a retired residence without the city walls, called Beth ha-Haphshith (house of liberty). Jotham, the son of the king, and his intended successor, was appointed major domus. This, however, must have transpired in an advanced period of his reign, for when dying, in the fifty-second year of his reign, at an age of sixty-seven or sixty-eight years, his son Jotham, who succeeded him, was but twenty-five years old. In the last year of Uziah, we hear the first sounds of the royal Isaiah (Isaiah, vi; 759 b. c.) whose father Amoz was a brother of king Amaziah, as we are informed by tradition. His first vision, in which he was sanctified to be a prophet of the Lord, is grand and sublime, bespeaking pious devotion, lofty imagina- 486 PERIOD IV. tion, powerful eloquence, sacred desire to serve his nation, and an intimate acquaintance with Zabian images. His first vision was directed against the military despotism in Israel, which the people unresistingly bore, blinded by the splendor of the court, and its power, which extended to the banks of the Euphrates. He foretold their ruin as a consequence of their submission to the government. King Jotham was a man of eminent talents, and all his endeavors were for the benefit of the people ; he continued not only the policy but also main- tained the conquests of his father. Being master of Edom, he directed his operations towards Moab and Amnion. It appears that his conquests in that land did not go north of the River Arnon, which was the boundary of Israel. He received, as the author of Chronicles informs us, an annual income from the country of one hundred talents of silver, ten thou- sand cor of wheat, and ten thousand cor of barley. This heavy tribute was relaxed after three years. The conquest of Moab and Amnion was most important, because it gave to Judah the desert as a frontier in the east against the grow- ing power of the Assyrians, and secured to them the advantage of an uninterrupted trade with Arabia, which appears to have been the principal object in view. Jotham did not neglect internal improvements. He fortified many cities of Judah. He also, as Josephus informs us, took care of the foundations and cloisters of the temple, and repaired the walls, that were fallen down, and built very great towers, and such as were almost impregnable, applying thus the wealth of the country to its defence. Jotham was a very pious man, but he did not visit the temple. This neglect of his throws light upon the rupture between the royal family and the priesthood, noticed before. The prophets and the priests were never on friendly terms. The influence of the former upon the policy of Uziah and Jotham shows that the in- fluence of the priests was remarkably limited. The prophets themselves appear at that time to have been differing in senti- ment; one part of them supporting the throne of Judah and opposing the military despotism of Israel, while another por- CHAPTER XI. 487 tion stigmatized by the former as false prophets, adhered to Israel, still hoping to revolutionize the kingdom, and to restore the ancient policy. This led the former to despair, and to cling to the throne. This conflict in the great party of the prophets is thought to have been one of the causes of the fall of Israel. Jotham's administration was every way beneficial to the people; but he could not prevent the consequences of an extended commerce and increase of wealth. There was a luxury in Jerusalem at that time which baffles description. The prophet Isaiah, a few years after this, declares that the land was full of silver and gold, that their treasures were immense (chap, ii), and also (chap, iii) enumerates no less than twenty-six different articles of luxury of the daughters of Zion. Besides this we IV. 501 mit to a despotic government, nor fall into a general abyss of ignorance and stupidity. The largest party of the nation was the party of the prophets. That the prophets were the poets, orators, teachers, lawyers, physicians, statesmen and judges of the nation, has been remarked before. We will add here a few details. It can not be denied, that some medical knowledge was exhibited by Moses in the laws regarding leprosy, sexual diseases, and com- munications. It has also been stated above, that he had some knowledge of chemistry. Clemens Alexandrinus (lib. i, p. 413), conjectures, that Moses was instructed in the medical science by the Egyptian priests. The means of curing appears to have been cold water, and some special and simple medical extracts ; the whole of which was but an empirical knowledge. The priests, the literati, were entrusted with the medical prac- tice in as far as it was connected with the law of the land, leaving the science itself and its practical application free to the public. Samuel, the second Moses, introduced into his school, whatever that time had produced, in knowledge and science, so that the Z/'ne' ha Ncbiim, or pupils of the prophets, were also the physcians of the nation. As among all other nations of antiquity, science was not divided into its proper branches ; the learned man was bound to know every thing. It can hardly be imagined, that those physicians gave their medi- cines to the patient without praying for him to God, and bestowing a blessing upon the sufferer. Therefore, the medical practice, as almost every thing else, was a religious affair, as among all nations of antiquity. When Ahaziah sent to the priests of Baal Zebub, to inquire of the priests in regard to his disease, it was both a contempt of his own priests and of the prophets. The remark of the author of Chronicles in regard to Asa (II Chron. xvi, 12), that after his rupture with the prophets, when taken sick he did not inquire of God, but of the physicians, is another evidence to the same effect. The advice of the prophet Ahiah was asked by the wife of Jerobeam, when her son was sick (I Kings xiv, 12). The prophet Elijah cured the son of the widow in Zarephuth, who, in consequence of a 502 APPENDIX TO disease, was so exhausted, that he swooned away, as our text (I Kings xvii, 17) clearly expresses, which has been falsely- understood to signify, that the lad was dead; his diagnosis sent to king Joram (II Chron. xxi, 19), and to king Ahaziah (II Kings i, 4), proved exactly true. The prophet Elishah excelled his master in the medical art. The tradition says about him, that he was the first who cured dangerous dis- eases.* He restored to life the son of Shunamith, who was apparently dead, which appears to have been the consequence of a sunstroke; he knew that salt was the best means to improve the waters of Jericho; he healed Naaman from his leprosy; he knew that a dosis of flour makes harmless the cucumis colocyn- this or the cucumeres agrestes (II Kings iv, 39-41), and the prognosis which he made to Benhadad (II Kings viii, 10), was correct. Solomon mentions the medical art and medical extracts (Prov. iii, 8; vi, 15; xii, 18; xxix, 1), and Josephus (Antiq. b. viii, c. 2), tells us of Solomon, that he understood how to banish evil demons that caused evil diseases, most likely insanity. To this, Josephus adds, that he witnessed a medical cure performed on an insane man, by one whose name was Eleasar, and in the presence of the emperor, Vespasian. Eleasar cured his patient by placing a root in his nostrils, which cure he knew to be a tradition dated from king Solomon. In Armenia and Abyssinia the natives still speak of traditions in the medical knowledge, which originated with king Solomon, and which are yet applied in practice. f The tradition men- tions,! that Solomon composed a medical treatise, Sepher ha- Rephnoth, which is called in the Jerusalemitic Talmud, Tables of Cures (Pesachim 89), something like the Anathemata of the Greeks, which the king Hezekiah hid, so that it was found no more. This event receives some evidence from the fact, that that king broke the brass serpent which Moses had made, *Baba Meziah, 865 and Sandhedrin, 107. f Kerem Chemed II, p. 4t. t Berachoth 49; Erubin 57 and Said. I, p. GS1. PERIOD IV. 503 to which the children of Israel brought sacrifices, and called it Nehushthan; as the serpent of Esculapius was called by tho Syrians. It appears that those tables of cures, together with the brass serpent of Moses, misled the people to the worship of Esculapius, who had then his temple in Zidon. This would show, that the medical knowledge was not limited to mere traditions, which is almost improbable in consideration of the early practice of writing among the Israelites ; and that this knowledge had reached such a degree of eminence, that Heze- kiah could hide the old tables of cures, around which the superstition of the people was attracted, without running the risk of extinguishing that knowledge altogether. The high esteem which the prophets enjoyed among the people was well deserved; they defended boldly the rights and liberties of the people, they instructed the ignorant, procured justice for the offended, and cured the sick. The passage II Chronicles xxvi, 15, shows that a knowledge of arithmetic must have existed among the Israelites. The construction of ships, their voyages on the sea, and their numerous fortifications and castles, bear evidence of this fact. We have no means of ascertaining the degree of perfection reached in this science. The best evidence, however, of the high state of mental culture is the nature of the government, and the literature of the age, on which we shall directly treat. This state of mental culture, commerce, agriculture and luxury, did by no means effeminate the nation, although it was productive of profligacy in the capitals and other large towns. The natural buoyancy and unabated vigor of the nation is shown to the best advantage, not only in the almost continual subjection of Phelistia, Edom, Moab and Ammon, but also in the century of the Syrian war. The Syrians outnumbered the Israelites con- siderably; they were most likely supported by the Assyrians, and were not under the necessity of maintaining garrisons in depending provinces. The best evidence to this effect is the final catastrophe of Samaria, taking the colossal army of As- syria three years to reduce that small proviuce. 594 " appendix to II. THE GOVERNMENT. It has been noticed above, that during this period three political parties existed in Israel. In Judah was the Davidian party, which supported most loyally the Davidian dynasty, and were always desirous to reunite Israel under the Davidian scepter. To this party the priests and the Levites belonged, because they supported the temple of Solomon, and maintained the Levites in their legal dignities. It was by the blind efforts of that party, that the kingdom was divided, and that the kings of Judah could commit so many follies and crimes. "We find at a later date that party divided in their sentiments on many im- portant subjects. Next we meet in Israel the royal party supporting the ruling dynasties, the religious schism in oppo- sition to the temple of Jerusalem, and the idolatry introduced by Ahab and others in support of the king. It was by their support that the kings of Israel committed so many wrongs on the people. While the Davidian party was at a later date of this period, almost exclusively confined to Jerusalem, the largest towns of Judah and the priests; the royal party of Israel was almost entirely limited to the city of Samaria, the largest towns of Israel, and the priests of Beth El, of Dan, Baal, Astarte, &c, &c. Opposite these two parties stood the party of the prophets, who supported no dynasty, favored nO temple, and granted no privileges; they defended the laws of Moses, and favored only those rulers who faithfully executed those laws. In this respect they were the conservative party. They acknowledged the hereditary monarchy based upon a primary election of the people, as long as the ruler did not forfeit his claims to the throne by a violation of the national compact, but if such claims were forfeited, they would not suffer the son of the king to maintain the throne, never de- posing the king they had elected. In this respect they were the revolutionary party. In science as well as in religion, as we shall notice hereafter, they were the progressive party. They were for the most time strongly united; only in the time of Elijah have we observed a rupture in their ranks, which however was repaired by the prudence of Elijah and the paci- PERIOD IV. 505 fying course of Elishah. During the last years of Jerobeam II that party was disunited on account of the military despot- ism then beginning in Israel, which gradually prepared the fall of Samaria. In Israel that party was omnipotent, their decrees were unalterable, and their will made and dethroned kings. In Judah they exercised some influence in the first years of Asa, but they lost it again; they exercised a marked influence under Jehoshaphat. Their weight was most felt in Judah after they had abandoned the government of Israel in the time of Uziah and his immediate successors, having come to full power under Hezekiah. They had a regular organization throughout the land, maintaining their council, in which the decrees] were passed, and then pronounced by their representative. As the defenders of the Mosaic laws they considered Israel as one nation, and continually endeavored to unite the two kingdoms. They were opposed to the Davidian dynasty, because they were in power contrary to the will of the majority of the people. Still they supported monarchs of that dynasty if their admin- istration was beneficial to the community. As the defenders of the Mosaic laws they never forgot the ideal of that law, viz : the mission of the nation to promulgate the divine verities upon which the Mosaic dispensation was based, in politics, justice, morals and religion. This sublime idea resounds in all their speeches, and is reflected in all their actions. In this sense they operated upon all nations with whom they came in contact. Always keeping in sight that ideal of the nation, they did not sacrifice its future interests for transitory ones, and ^therefore they were opposed to an extensive com- merce. This doctrine was laid down by Moses, and it was immutably defended by the prophets. Commercial enterprises always bring the wealth directly into the large cities, and especially into the capitals of commercial countries, although it naturally reacts upon the whole country, therefore the party of the prophets was weakest in the capitals and large towns, numbering its strength among the country people. Elijah, who appears to have been most inspired by the idea of maintaining the Mosaic laws, never ventured to show himself 506 APPENDIX TO either in Samaria or Jerusalem; in Judah, which had a much larger share in the commerce of the nation than Israel, the prophets had considerably less influence than in Israel. We may therefore say, that there were but two parties during this period; a commercial part)', which was thoroughly royal in Judah and in Israel, and an agricultural party which was thoroughly democratic. While the former party always sup- ported the governments apprehending danger to the commerce in violent changes of the government ; the latter supported the law, opposing every one who acted contrary to it, without fearing the inconveniences and dangers arising from such erup- tions. The kings of Judah were themselves merchants, and favored commercial enterprises, but as soon as the weight of the prophets was strongty felt, Uziah favored agriculture by personal attendance (II Chron. xxvi, 10). In Israel, however, after it had reached again a considerable height of prosperity under Jerobeam II and Menahem, the nature of its enlarged territory and of its connection with the Euphrates enlarged also the commercial enterprises. Therefore the party of the prophets was most strenuously opposed, and a military despot- ism usurped the place of law and liberty. Still the prophets would have found opportunity to dethrone that new system, as well as they succeeded in reforming Ahab ; but the evil which they had predicted came too soon; the colossal Assyria, attracted by the wealth of Israel and Tyre, put an end to the opposition of the parties. This view of the subject also explains the intro- duction of Tyrian idolatry under Ahab, its connection with the assassination of the prophets, and their peculiar aversion to it. It has been asserted, that this opposition of the parties naturally ruined the country, which is by no means true. Nothing but the immense power of Assyria and the attractive wealth of Israel and Tyre ruined Israel., The conflicts of the parties were well calculated to maintain the country in continual activity, so that despotism could not triumph for a long time, while the exertions of the other side, being the livelier on account of the opposition, tended to maintain and improve the commerce. The consequences would have been, that the party PERIOD IV. 5(,7 of the prophets would have strongly united with Hezekiah, to Which the foundation had been previously laid. The ancient opposition between the two kingdoms would have been easily overcome, after Israel had suffered for some time under the yoke of military despotism, and the nation would have been reunited. So at least an ancient oracle, recorded in Sanhcdrin, says, rrffD irrprn nwyb mpn vpa "God desired to make Jfezekiah to the Messiah " to the ruler of the whole nation of Israel. Having described the interests, views and demands of the different political parties, it will be easy for the reader to look through the political fabric of the governments. The consti- tution and the laws of both kingdoms underwent no material change, with the exception of the manner of representation of the people, and the judicial reforms of Jehoshaphat. In Israel, the constitution and laws appear to have remained unaltered,' slight amendments excepted. The attempts of Ahab and others to abolish that constitution have been noticed before. Towards the close of the administration of Jerobcam II, the constitu- tional rights of the people were invaded, and we hear the prophets complain about violence and injustice; but Iloscah, the last king of Israel, restored the constitution, as our histo- rian testifies (II Kings, xvii, 2). In Judah after the first excitement was over, Asa reorganized the representation of the people, and the constitution was restored, which was fre- quently suspended, by the son and grandson of Jehoshaphat, and by Athaliah, and towards the end of this period by Ahaz, but the other kings never dared openly to invade the constitu- tion and the laws of the country, as has been remarked in former places. On the whole, it may be said that no attempt of the rulers and their parties proved successful to deprive the Israelites, for a considerable time, of their constitutional liberty, which is more than ordinary proof of the intelligence of that people. III. RELIGION. Religion was too much identified with the laws and the policy of the country for it to be expected that the political 538 APPENDIX TO parties should not also differ in religious respects. The royalists of Judah clung to the temple of Jerusalem, and to^all its im- posing ceremonies, the splendor of the court making no mean part of them. Jerusalem was the ecclesiastical capital of Judah, and the king was the most important joersonage in the temple after the high priest; wherefore we see even the most wicked kings of the Davidian dynasty, as the most pious of them, publicly venerated the temple, and its ministers; in which only the descendants of Jezebel made an exception, and the pious Jotham, on account of his fathers' difficulties with the priests. It was therefore not unusual that one paid homage to the different idols, and at the same time did not neglect to visit the temple and devote a sacrifice to the chief God of the land, to Jehovah. The tenrple service soon degenerated, as it naturally must have done, to mere formality, and outward worship {Isaiah i, 10-18; ibid xxix, 13, 14). The royal party in Israel adhered to the temple at Bethel; the one at Dan had fallen into neglect on account of that place having been occupied for nearly a century by the Syrians ; and it fell again into the hands of the Assyrians about twenty years previous to the fall of Samaria. The worship at Beth El, as has been remarked before, differed from the one at Jeru- salem only in symbols, which however represented the same ideas. Every symbol worship, however ingenious and plain, is conducive to real idolatry, and in fact produced always the same effect among all nations of antiquity. The symbols of the tem- ple at Beth El finally degenerated into idols, as well as the brass serpent of Moses, and the whole of the temple at Jerusa- lem, which became, so to say, one huge idol. The prophets of that time inform us, that the symbols at Beth El were idol- ized, and that at Beth El and Jerusalem the same veneration was paid to insignificant forms and external ceremonials which exercise no benevolent influence upon the heart of the wor- shiper.* The author of the book of Kings had before him the * Hosea iv and v. Amos v, iS-27, who speaks almost the same words as Isaiah I. PERIOD IV. 5C0 Beth El worship in its worst corruption, for which reason ho condemned it in the strongest terms. This state of religion together with the general prosperity and the opulence of the class which were principally merchants, were the efficient causes of the progress of idolatry among the people. The kings introduced it for political reasons, and the friends of inno- vation, of external pomp, of brilliant ceremonies, of unmeaning forms, the gay, the licentious, and the llattcrcrs of the kings, easily and gladly embraced it. The altars on the heights were convenient places to wor- ship numerous deities besides Jehovah. When a king changed the policy of his predecessor, he could destroy the temples, altars, idols, and statues erected in the cities to different gods; but he could hardly control those heights where Jehovah, no less than Baal, was worshiped. Therefore the prophets opposed those heights notwithstanding their being sanctioned by the lavr ; and the priests who received their portion of the sacrifices brought on those altars, supported them. The prophets were opposed to all sorts of sacrifices, which was one of the causes producing the conflict between priests and prophets. The latter appear to have been in favor of the plain synagogue worship, which was attempted at the time of Jehoshaphat, but which could not be introduced generally on account of the altars on the heights and the opposition of the priests. The author of Kings, who as his accounts of Elijah and Elishah prove, was one from the party of the prophets, therefore, zeal- ously opposed the heights. Still the fall t of those altars and the triumph of synagogue worship was not eifected until the reign of Hezekiah. The class of people which most easily and readily embraced idolatry, was chiefly confined to the two capitals, wherefore the prophet Micah, who flourished at the end of this and at the beginning of the next period, could say, "What is the transgression of Jacob? is it not Samaria? And what are the high places of Judah? are they not Jerusalem ??' (i, 5.) There can be no doubt, that many in the large towns both of Judah and of Israel, yielded to the same corruption; but the majority 510 APPENDIX TO of the people, the party of the prophets, were sound in morals and politics, and also in religion, which was with them but a part of the whole system. In the time of Solomon we observed already a mighty change in religion, losing its mystical and symbolical character, and appearing in the pure light of intellect; it ceased to be a matter of sentiment, of dim presentiments, and became a matter of consciousness, striking its roots into the intellect. Forms and ceremonials play but a very small part in the Davidian psalms and in the Solomonic writings. Justice and righteous- ness, virtue and charity, wisdom and truth, are the abstract ideas which they desired to see realized by the religious actions of man. In this sense religion was understood by the prophets, who adhered for a long time to the kings of Israel, notwith- standing the golden calves at Beth El and Dan; and protested against the house of David, notwithstanding the temple of Solomon. They raised their exhorting voice against the cere- monialists of the temple, no less than against those of the Baal temples; and the priests of Jerusalem, no less than the priests of Beth El, were not seldom the objects of their sore displeas- ure.' No prophet encouraged Joash when renovating the temple, nor did ever one of them exhort the people to support priests, and Levites, and temple and altar. The pious Jotham never went to the temple ; still neither Isaiah nor any other prophet spoke about it. Samuel, the father of the prophets, already said: I Samuel, xv, 22, 23, "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice; and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry." The same voice is echoed by David in Psalms li, 18, 19, and xl, 7; by Asaph, ibid, 1, 8-15, by Isaiah, Hosea Amos, and espe- cially by the prophet Micah, who said vi, 6-8: "Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my PERIOD IV. 511 first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" " He hath shewed thee, 0 man, what is good ; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" This voice still echoes in the words of the prophet Jeremiah vii, 21-23: " Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices and eat flesh. For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices; but this thing commanded I them, say- ing, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people : and walk ye in all the ways that I have command- ed you, that it may be well unto you." It is evident, that the prophets never brought sacrifices, nor did they teach their friends to do so either in Jerusalem or in Beth El. To them religion was not a set of observances, but a set of principles. They distinguished in the Mosaic dispensation between the divine ideas of eternal truth, and the external forms, which, on account of necessity, were adopted by Moses. Their religion consisted in a firm confidence in God, in the practice of justice, righteousness, charity, patriotism and humanity, and in the endeavor to purify the heart and to elevate the mind of all men. Their religion was not confined to either the walls of a temple or the limits of a country; they bore their sublime principles as far as the merchants of Israel traveled to buy or to sell goods. Where others sought for material gain, they promul- gated the principles of the Mosaic dispensation, mindful of the mission of Israel to other nations. The wealth accumulated by their commercial brethren vanished; but the spirit of those heroic champions of truth still resounds from sunrise to sunset, and still animates the hearts of civilized nations. We have seen the influence which that party exercised at Damascus and Nineveh. No doubt can be entertained that the influence rested upon the basis of religion. The intelligent portion of the East sympathized with the pure and sublime principles of the prophets, which, as the sequel will teach, undermined hea- thenism. To this not only the dispersed Israelites who adhered 512 APPENDIX TO to their religion contributed considerably, but also those who embraced heathenism. Religion made immense progress during this period, not only in regard to the development of its vital principles and bring- ing them before the light of consciousness, but also in regard to the number of the faithful, a mighty progress was achieved; for the party of the prophets by far outnumbered the other parties, as we have seen in the political history. Idolatry was by no means so common nor so revolting as it appears to be from a superficial examination of the prophetical scriptures. The sabbath, feasts, new-moon days, as prescribed in the Mosaic laws, were observed both in Judah and Israel, with the exception of the feast of booths, which Jerobeam post- poned to the fifteenth day of the eighth month.* The names and kinds of sacrifices, too, remained unaltered; so that we may say, the external religion of Israel remained unchanged, with the exception of the symbols, which were different in Israel, and entirely disregarded by the prophets. IV. LITERATURE. While the political agitation after the death of Solomon exercised a disadvantageous influence upon the literary employ- ment of the prophets and Levites, so that the whole of the literary productions consisted but of a few psalms which we have noticed in the political history, the period of the Syrian war set a total stop to the progress of literature, and it is only in the time of Jerobeam II, when prosperity was restored to the country, that we see a revival of letters. This, however, was not the case with the historical literature. The author of Chronicles and also the author of Kings, have preserved the names of authors and of books which have not reached us. The words of the prophet Shemaiah, and Iddo the seer, concern- ing Rehabeam (II Chron. xii, 15). The inquirers of the prophet Iddo concerning Abiarn (II Chron. xiii, 23). The Book *Vide I Kings xiii, 32; II Kings iv, 23; Hosea ii, 13; Amos v, 21; Isaiah i, 13, 14. PERIOD IV. 513 of the Kings of Israel (II Chron. xx, 34). The Inquiries into the Book of the Kings (II Chron. xxiv, 27). The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel (II Chron. xxv, 26; xxvii, 7; xxviii, 27; 1 Chron. ix, 1). The Book of the Word of Solo- mon (I Kings xi, 41). Chronicles of the Kings of Israel (I Kings xvi, 19, &c), and Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (I Kings xvi, 29, &c). The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, mentioned by the author of Kings, may be identical with the Book of the Kings of Israel, mentioned by the author of Chronicles; and the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah mentioned by the former, may be identical with the Inquiries into the Book of the Kings; which two books appear to have been composed from the ori- ginal chronographic compositions mentioned before. But the Book of the Kings of Judah and of Israel is by no means identical with the Book of Kings, which we possess; because the geneological tables mentioned to have been contained therein are not found in our book, and reference is made to it as containing more particulars of history than the Chronicles, which is by no means the case with our Kings. The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel is first mentioned in Chronicles, after the death of Uziah, in the period of the revival of letters. It appears, therefore, that about the time of the exile of Israel a large Chronicle of the two kingdoms was written, in which all the former sources and traditions were used. The histories of the kings were not written by one man. The history of each king was written in one of those respective books by another man. The prophet Jehu wrote the history of Jehoshaphat in the Book of the Kings of Israel, because that king maintained friendly relations with Israel. Isaiah wrote the history of Uziah. Those books appear to have been de- posited in the royal archives, and were controlled by the private compositions of the prophets, from all of which two books were afterwards composed, the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel mentioned above, and the abridgement of history, or the Book of Kings, which is in our possession. Being aware of the sources which the author of Kings pos- 33 514 APPENDIX TO sessed, it is proper to inquire into the age of that book. That the first four chapters of Kings belong to the Book of Samuel has been stated before. We shall now attempt to prove, that this book originally extended from I Kings v to II Kings xvii, 7. The rest of the seventeenth chapter is an addition made by the compilers of the canon, and the last eight chapters were writ- ten in a much later age, as the conclusion of the twenty-fifth chapter clearly indicates. The author of the last eight chapters distinguishes himself from the author of the former part : 1. In his praise and his censure passed on the kings. He says of Jlezekiah (II Kings xviii, 5, 6), "He trusted in the Lord God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him. For he clave to the Lord, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the Lord commanded Moses." Of Joshiah, he says (II Kings xxiii, 25), " And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him." Of Menassah, he says (II Kings xxi, 2), "And he did that zvhich was evil in the sight of the Lord, after the abomina- tions of the heathen, whom the Lord cast out before the children of Israel." Of Jehoahaz, he remarks (II Kings xxiii, 32), "And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his fathers had done." Of Jehoiakim, he says (II Kings xxiii, 37), "And he did that which teas evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his fathers had done ; " quite different from the author of the former portion of the book. 2. While the first author but once mentions the laws of Moses when quoting from it (II Kings xiii, 6), and then says plainly, " the book of the law of Moses;" the author of the last part frequently mentions >the laws, not only after the Book of the Covenant was found, but also before that (II Kings xviii, 6, 12; xxi, 8), setting frequently to the name of Moses, the epi- thet " my servant," which is not met with in the former part. 3. He speaks of the Hebrew language under the name of Jehudith (II Kings xviii, 26, 28), which word is of a very late PERIOD IV. 515 origin, while the prophet Jonah calls himself still a Hebrew {Jonah i, 9), although that book was written but shortly before the exile. The author of II Kings xviii, 9-12 narrates, again the end of the kingdom of Israel, to which the whole of the former chapter is devoted, which plainly indicates a different author. The former part of Kings was not written in Judah, for the most of its space is devoted to the kings and prophets of Israel; the kings of Judah are only mentioned on account of the proper connection of history; and the prophets of Judah, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Obadiah and Isaiah, are not mentioned at all, which would certainly not have happened, had the book been written in Judah. "VVe are the more entitled to this assertion, as the author devotes a large space to the prophets of Israel. When arrived at Jerobeam II, our author becomes uncommonly brief and dry, which must be ascribed to the disgust of the prophets, at the military despotism then beginning, which was the cause of their losing their influence upon the government, and to the supposition of the author that the facts having recently transpired, were still living in the memory of the people. All these circumstances conduct us to the date when that part of Kings containing the history of this period and of Solomon was written; it must be placed shortly after the fall of Samaria, to which there are two more evidences. 1. I Kings viii, 8, when speaking of the deposition of the ark and the tables contained in it, it is stated, that they were there up to this day. Ibid, xii, 19, when speaking of the revolt of Israel of the house of David, our author says, that they were separated from the house of David up to this day; consequently both the temple and the throne of David must have existed in the time of our author. II Kings, viii, 22, when speaking of the revolt of Edom, it is stated that the Edomites ever after attempted to throw off the yoke* of Judah up to this day ; con- sequently Edom must have been under the government of Judah in the time of our author. Our author. Kings xiv, 7, when * ppfi'l comes riot with a following a but with mri 516 APPENDIX TO speaking of the recapture of Edom, says, that its capital was called Jekatheal up to this day, of which name no trace is found after the exile. 2. The frequent quotation, and imitations, of verses of the Pentateuch and other ancient authors, shows that he did not flourish after the Hebrew literature had received a new impulse, and had become original by the labors of Isaiah. The quota- tions and imitations are so numerous that we can refer to but few of them: I Kings v, 9, of Genesis xxii, 17; ibid viii, 9, of Exodus xl, 20, xxxv, 27; ibid verse 12, of Levit. xvi, 2; ibid verse 31 of Levit. iv, 27; ibid verses 33, of Numb, xiv, 42; ibid verse 35, of Deut. xi, 17; ibid verses 46-50, of Deut, xxx ; ibid ix, 6, of Deut. xxviii 15; xi 16; ibid verses 7-8, of Deut. xxviii, 37, xxix, 23; ibid xi, 2, of Deut. vii, 2-4; ibidxii, 24 of Deut. i 42; ibid verse 28, of Exodus xxii, 4; ibid xvii, 31, of Genesis xxxvii, 10; ibid verse 38, : of Genesis xxii, 9; verse 39 of Lev. ix, 24; ibid xix, 8, of Exodus iii, 1, xxiv, 18, II Kings 1, 3, of Exodus xiv, 11; ibid iv, 16, of Genesis xviii, 10; verse 17, of Genesis xxi, 2; ibid xiv, 6, of Deut. xxiv, 16, &c. These testimonies lead us to the conclusion, that the book of Kings, from I Kings v to II Kings xvii, 7, was written by one of the friends of Israel, either priest or prophet, in commemora- tion of that kingdom, and that it was written shortly after the fall of Samaria. This prompted the author of Chronicles to compose a similar synopsis of the history of Judah, which We shall treat upon in its proper place. The history of the kings of Judah must not be supposed to be found in the book of Kings, and consequently the history of the priests and Le- vites must not be sought there. The Pentateuch embrar.es, besides the law, three different kinds of style; historical, psalmodical, and prophetical. The former two gave the impulse to two divisions of the Hebrew literature, the historical and psalmodical, which go through all periods of history, as the legal portions of the Pentateuch was the impulse to the proverbial philosophy. The prophetical style of the Pentateuch, the chief portion of which is in Deuteronomy, gave birth to the prophetic literature, which PERIOD IV. 517 had its origin in our period. Aside of the compositions of this kind that have not reached us, Amos was the first who wrote prophecies, to the proper understanding of which we have already contributed our share. This prophet flourished in the days of Uziah and Jerobeam II (Amos i, 1). The fact, that but two kings are mentioned to have coexisted with the prophet, while with Hosea and Isaiah a larger number of kings is mentioned, leads us to believe, that he flourished between the 27th year of Jerobeam II and the death of that monarch. As the first writer in that branch of literature, he depended yet considerably on his pattern, the Pentateuch, which he anticipates with his hearers, and to which he continually resorts for words, phrases and pictures, and not seldom also for transi- tions; so *that the whole composition still sounds like the Deuteronomy of Moses. Among the numerous references to the Pentateuch we will notice but few. Amos i, 2; the history of Esau, Genesis xxvii, and the law regarding Edom, Deut. xxiii, 8, are assumed to be known. Chapter ii, 2, is taken from Numbers xxi, 28, and xxiv, 17; ibid 6-12, is entirely composed of terms of the Pentateuch. Ibid iii, 2, is taken from Deut. xiv, 2; ibid verse 7, from Genesis xviii, 17; ibid verse 14, from Exod. xvii, 2, xxix, 12, Levit. iv, 25; ibid iv, 4, from Numb, xxiv, 3, Deut. xiv, 28, xxvi, 12; ibid verse 11, from Genesis xix, 25; ibid v, 21, from Numb, xxix, 35 ; ibid verse 25, from Deut. ii, 7 ; ibid viii, 5, from Deut. xxv, 13-16. The whole composition is impressed with the character of the zealous peasant, who without pretensions to learning poured forth a current of inspired words against the wickedness of king and people disobeying the God of Israel, magnifying in many respects the existing evil, as the moralists of all ages and nations have done, and speaking so much in general terms, that the expounders of the Bible have frequently been led into the mistake of supposing the whole nation was corrupted, as if there was a possibility that prophets could be educated in a corrupt community, and forgetting that the prophet spoke to the wicked only. The younger contemporary, who outlived Amos, was the 518 APPENDIX TO prophet Hosea, upon whom the former exercised no influence. He flourished between the last year of Jerobeam II, and the first year of Hezekiah {Hosea i, 1), about fifty-three to fifty-four years, and must have reached an advanced age. In connection with Amos, Hosea may safely be called the father of the prophetic literature. His speeches totally emerge from the Pentateuch, which he assumes to be known by all, and with- out the aid of which many passages of the book of Amos are altogether unintelligible. In the first three chapters, the union of God with Israel is so plainly identified with the state of marriage union ; idolatry and apostacy are so unceremoniously represented by adultery and whoredom, that many of the com- mentators were led to believe the prophet really referred to outward unchastity, upon which he touches as a consequence of spiritual aberrations; so that we can not suppose for a moment, the prophet did not refer to images and phrases well known to the community, which we really find, Exodus xxxiv, 15, 16, Leviticus xix 29, xx, 5, 7, Numbers xiv, 33, and Deut. xxiii, 17, 19, which he assumed as known to every one of his hearers and readers. The peculiar terms of pnx, hdt, S^nn, tsnp, ntrjp, and the hiphil form mm with the following nnx are peculiar to the passages of the Pentateuch and the chap- ters of Hosea referred to above. It is therefore evident, that the prophet had those passages of the Pentateuch in view. Our position is sufficiently supported by the frequent quotations from the Pentateuch by that prophet. We shall set down some of them. Hosea ii, 1, is taken from Genesis xxii, 17, xxxii, 13; ibid verses 9-11, the association of ideas of Deut. ix, 14-16, is precisely imitated; ibid verse 13, is taken from Exod. xx, 8-11; xxiii, 14, and Numbers xxviii, 11; ibid iv, 10, is an idiom of Levit. xxvi, 26; ibid verse 6, of I Samuel viii, 7, xv, 26; ibid verse 8, is unintelligible without its original, Levit. vi, 19; ibid v, 7, DH'pbn nx refers to that por- tion of the priests described in the Pentateuch; ibid verse 9, the term mDKJ refers to Deut. xxvii, 59; ibid, verse 10, is taken from Deut. xix, 14, xxvii 17; ibid verse 14, from Deut. xxxii, 39; ibid verse 15, from Deut. iv, 29; ibid vi, 1, and v. PERIOD IV. 519 14, from Deut. iv, 30, xxxii, 39; ibid verse 2, from Genesis xvii, 18; ibid verse 3, from Deut. xi, 14; ibid viii, 2, from Deut. viii, 5; ibid verse 13, from Deut. xii, 15, xxviii, 68; ibid ix, 10, from Deut. xxxii, 10; ibid verse 12, from Deut. xxxii, 25; ibid x, 4, from Deut. xxix, 17; ibid verse 11, from Deut. xxv, 4; ibid verse 14, from Genesis xxxii, 12, Deut. xxii, 6, ibidxi, 3, from Deut. i, 31, and Exodus xv, 26; ibid 12, 4, from Genesis 'xxv, 26, xxxii. 25; ibid verses 13-15, from Deut. xxiv, 5, and Genesis xxvii, 43; ibid xiv, 2, from Deut. iv, 30, xxx, 1, &c. It requires but an unbiassed mind to find in Hosea not only the hortatory character of Deuteronomy, but also the same formation of sentences, attempt at brevity, precision in the use of terms, and nearly the same euphony. We see in Amos and Hosea the first attempts of a poetical literature of the horta- tory character of Deuteronomy, among which was their pattern. While the first chapters of Hosea depend almost totally on the Pentateuch, the last chapters assume a certain character of originality and independence of style, which the prophet must have acquired by practice, and by the progress of scholas- tic education. More original and independent than the former was their younger contemporary, Isaiah, who could not have flourished before the last year of Uziah (Isaiah vi, 1), should he have outlived Hezekiah, as the tradition informs us, which would have been a period of above sixty years. Isaiah, as the nature of a progressive literature requires, stands above his predeces- sors in originality, sublimity, and beauty of language, but he has not the boldness, the impressive exhortations, and sim- plicity of his predecessors; he often glides into an elegiac style, which is very sentimental and touching; but it frequently lacks that overpowering opulence of ideas, which distin- guishes Deuteronomy and its aforementioned imitators. The prophet Isaiah belongs to the beginning of the next period, where we shall treat of him more at length. Micah, the younger contemporary of Isaiah, was of Moreshah, a village in the south of Judah. He prophesied in the reign of Jotharn, Ahaz and Hezekiah (Micah i, 1). He must have flourished in the time of Ahaz, although it is said in Jeremiah 520 APPENDIX TO (xxvi, 28), that ho prophesied in the time of Hezekiah. This probably should read " up to the time of Hezekiah." Part of his prophecies may have occurred during the reform of Heze- kiah. References to other works are less frequent in this prophet than in Amos and Hosea.* He depends more fre- quently on Isaiah,j which makes him the fourth of the prophets in the same period. His style is nervous, concise and elegant; often sublime and poetical, but sometimes obscure from sudden transitions. He commits the same fault as Amos and Hosea, aggrandizing the wickedness of his age, and speaking too much in general terms. Obadiah, we may say, with Du Pin, flourished in the time of Ahaz, and commemorated, by his short prophecy, the hostility of Edom in connection with Rezin and Pekah against Judah, and its recapture by Ahaz. The fact that Jeremiah imitated ObadiahJ is conclusive, that he was one of the earlier prophets. His mention of emigrants is explained by the term kenaanim, merchants. There can be no doubt that many Israelitish merchants emigrated long before that time to different parts of Syria, Assyria, Egypt and other countries. The critics in general seem to have forgotten that the inhabitants of Galilee and the provinces beyond Jordan, emigrated to Assyria about twenty years before the fall of Samaria ; that those provinces were for a considerable time in the hands of Syria; and that certain quarters were granted in Damascus to the Israelites in the days of Ahab. The five prophets just mentioned were the representatives of their century (800 — 700, b. c). The literary productions of the others have not reached us, nor are we in possession of all the productions of the former. It is extremely easy to show hiatuses in those scriptures, especially in Isaiah. These * Compare Micah i, 3, 4, with Deutr. xxxii, 13-] 4; ibid verses 2-10 with II Samuel i, 20-, ibid vi, 4, with Exodus xx, 2; ibid verse 5 with Numbers xxii, 5-6, xxiii, 19. t Compare Micah ii, 1, 2, with Isaiah v, and Micah iv, 1-5 with Isaiah ii, 1-5. {Compare Obadiah verses 1-6, 8, with Jeremiah xlix, 7, S, 10, 14-16. PERIOD IV. 521 gave rise to many misinterpretations. Still the little fragments in our possession suffice to convince us, that the century just mentioned was a literary epoch, like that of Augustus in Rome, and of Plato in Athens. The only difference is that the lit- erati of Rome and Athens wrote for the learned and the opulent, while the literati of Israel appealed to the people and plead in behalf of justice and liberty. The former searched for truth, and the latter only advocated it, as their most valuable possessions. PERIOD V . FROM THE FALL OF SAMARIA (3039, a. m., 721, b. c.) TO THE FALL OF JERUSALEM (3J72, a. m., 588, b. a). BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. jiezeKiau in ims periou, Menassah (II Kings xxi, ]),.... ..55 " Amon (II Kings xxi, 1), .. 2 u Joshia (II Kings xxii, 1),.... ..31 " Jehoahaz (II Kings xxiii, 21),. 3 months. Jehoiakim (II Kings, xxiii, 36), . . 11 years. Jehoiachin (II Kings xxiv, 8),. 3 months. Zedikia (II Kings xxiv, 18), . . • . . 11 years. • 133^ years. CHAPTER XII. FROM THE FALL OF SAMARIA TO THE BATTLE OF MEGIDO (721—611, b. c.) Samaria had fallen; Tyre was besieged by the Assyrian troops; an Assyrian fleet, most likely constructed somewhere near Mount Carmel bay, threatened to attack Tyre from the sea side, and Judah trembled. Still no preparations were made to submit again to the eastei*n power, although a large party of the people wished to do so. The prophets and the psalm poets were again as before on the side of popular liberty, and consequently they favored the independence from Assyria, prophesying the speedy ruin of Assyria by its numerous con- quests, and the dissatisfied nations held in a state of subjec- tion. In the midst of this consternation a gleam of hope darted across the horizon of Judah, for, 720 years, b. c, Tig- PERIOD V. 523 lath-Pilesser, the conqueror of Samaria died, and if we under- stand rightfully the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah (verses 1-27), he died in the city of Babel. The prophet commences with a description of the fall of the Babylonian conqueror, and con- cludes (verses 25-27) with the hope that the Assyrian power would be crushed upon the mountains of Israel. The death of Tiglath-Pilesser was too important an alfair to be allowed to pass away without profit, which Hezekiah well under- stood. He therefore made an attempt to revolutionize Samaria, to which end letters were sent through all the provinces from Dan to Bearsheba, inviting the people to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passah feast, the day of the first declaration of independ- ence, which day was best calculated to inspire the people to fight again for their freedom. But as the time was too short to effect such a convention on the fourteenth day of Nissan, im- purity on the side of the priests was made a pretext for postponing the celebration of that feast to the same day of the second month, agreeably to an express provision of the Mosaic laws {Numbers ix, 9-14). The king's heralds traveled through the country, exhorting the people to return to God, which was identical with a revolt against Assyria, for to serve Assyria was considered a revolt against Jehovah, the only king of the country. The people of Samaria were weary; the last campaign had exhausted all their national resources and their confidence in a successful opposition against the colossal power of Assyria, a new insurrection might result in a total depopu- lation of Samaria, and transportation to foreign countries. The greater number of the patriots had been driven from the country by Salmanessar and Tiglath-Pilesser, wherefore the heralds did not succeed in inspiring the bulk of the population of Samaria for the plan of Hezekiah, Still numerous indi- viduals in the northern provinces, especially of Asher, Menas- sah and Zebulon, went to Jerusalem to sympathize with Judah. The Passah feast, although not altogether satisfactory, still turned out a magnificent alfair, on account of the great number of people assembled at Jerusalem, who renewed the covenant of Israel with Jehovah, which, as we have remarked 524 CHAPTER XII. before, circumstanced as they were, was significant of the determination of the people to maintain their independence, notwithstanding the opposition of Assyria. Public speakers succeeded in causing the patriotic sentiments to arise in the hearts of the people, and to reanimate the natural detestation of the people against foreign dominion and foreign worship. Hezekiah himself contributed his share to the extinction of the ancient prejudices between Judah and Israel. The priests and Levites also were active in making the public worship imposing and captivating. All these causes produced an enthusiasm and an unanimity among the numerous assembly, which had not been witnessed in Jerusalem, as our historian justly remarks, since the days of Solomon. After the seven days of the feast were thus passed in pious and patriotic exercises, the people returned home in a high spirit, destroying in the country every vestige of foreign dominion and foreign worship, which was also done in the provinces of Ephraim and Menassah. The people of the northern provinces could not do so, for there can be no doubt that Assyrian garrisons were placed there to keep up the military line between Tyre and the Assyrian cities. Hezekiah on his part did not neglect to make use of the prevailing state of excitement; he not only stored plenty of provisions, which were taken from the people for the priests and Levites, as the laws ordained, and kept in Jerusalem and in other fortified cities, but he also repaired the fortifications of Jerusalem, and provided the city with a new wall, and with a supply of water, so that it was almost next to an impossibility to take Jerusalem in so short a time, that the enemies of Assyria should not have plenty of time to unite with Hezekiah, if Jerusalem was be- sieged. The country was in a state of defence, and the people were willing to defend it; more than this was not necessary for the present. Sannacherib, the Assyrian king who followed Salmanessar, was himself soon obliged to raise the blockade of Tyre, not only on account of the bold position of Hezekiah, but also on account of the loss of his Mediterranean fleet (vide Psalm PERIOD V. 525 lxxvii) in a naval battle between his predecessor and Eluleus, king of Tyre, whose fleet was reinforced with sixty ships and eight hundred men from Phoenicia, which is a certain evidence that the whole west of Asia was in a state of commotion against the Assyrian conquerors. The revolt of Ilezekiah most likely was not an isolated event, as we have noticed be- fore; other Syrian provinces undoubtedly followed or set the example, which were overcome by Salmanessar. But when Sannacherib mounted the throne the revolts were l-enewed. In Media and Babylonia, too, the spirit of independence held the people in a state of fomentation, to which the imprudent policy of Salmanessar, transporting his natural enemies, the Israelites, to Media, largely contributed. With regard to the revolution in the city of Babel, we possess a fragment of Alexander Polyhistor, preserved in the Armenian version of Eusebius, and quoted by Dr. Bonomi.* This ancient fragment states, that the brother of Sannacherib wTas, de facto, king of Babylonia; that after his death Acises was appointed in his place, 'who reigned only thirty days, after which he was slain by Marodach Baladanus, who held the empire by force during six month; he was slain and succeeded by a person named Elibus. But in the third year of his reign, Sannacherib levied an army against the Babylonians ; and in a battle in which they were engaged, routed, and took him pri- soner with his adherents, and commanded them to be carried into the land of the Assyrians. Asordanius, the son of Sannacherib, was appointed king of Babylonia, after which Sannacherib retired again into Assyria. According to the late discoveries of Mr. Layard, this expedition was undertaken in the first year of Sannacherib. | Comparing this with Isaiah xxxiv, we learn, that Merodach Baladan, the revolted satrap of Babylon, sent ambassadors and presents to Hezekiah, be- cause they were the common enemies of Assyria, but apparently the ambassadors came .to sympathize with Hezekiah on account of his recovery from a dangerous disease. The illness of the * Nineveh and its Palaces, p. 51. t Monthly Christian Spectator, June 185^. 526 PERIOD V. king is also noticed in Isaiah xxxviii; but both stories are communicated after the Assyrian war which we shall notice directly, not because they occurred after that event (the terms nnn D^^ are very vague), but, because the compiler first completed the prophecies relating to Assyria and its fall, im- mediately after which, he placed the story of the Syrian invasion; after this he filled up the vacuity. Still, it must be confessed, that according to the Bible, this sickness of the king, and the siege of Jerusalem, must have been simultaneous, for the date of the Syrian invasion is the fourteenth year of Hezekiah, who governed twenty-nine years; we also learn there, that he governed fifteen years after recovering from that disease. In Psalm cii, which was most likely composed on this occassion, and which alludes plainly to Isaiah xxxviii, 56, those two events are also connected. Still, this chronology does not agree with the late discoveries of Mr. Layard, who informs us, that Merodach Baladon, and not the Elibus of Polyhistor, was defeated by Sannacherib in the first year of his reign. In the second year, that king undertook expe- ditions to the north of Nineveh. In the third year he invaded Syria, then called in Nineveh, Chitthi, conquered Tyre and Zidon, Zidkabal, king of Ascalon, and also Hezekiah. The messengers of Merodach Baladon must have come to Jerusalem at least three years previous to the Syrian invasion, and the disease of Hezekiah must have occurred before that. Isaiah first thought the disease of the king incurable, and told him, "Thus saith the Lord, Order thy house, for thou wilt die and thou wilt not live." But a remedy was revealed to Isaiah, as he said, by a special divine communication, which was applied and which cured the king so rapidly, that after three days he could go to the temple. The nature of the disease is unknown to us. It is also impossible to ascertain the precise meaning of the terms mbynn bx ' ' The shade of the scales which went down on the scales of Ahaz," erroneously, rendered sun-dial. It relates to some astronomical instrument not now known. After the king had recovered, the ambassadors of Merodach Baladon came to Jerusalem, undoubtedly for the purpose of CHAPTER XII. 527 forming an alliance with Hezekiah against Assyria. Hezekiah received the ambassadors in the best spirit of friendship, show- ing them the wealth stored in the public and private treasury, and dismissed them with friendly feelings. Isaiah well knew, that Babylonia could not maintain her independence of Assyria for a long time, and therefore he not only cautioned the king against his alliance with that country, but he also reprimanded the king for having made a childish show of the wealth of the state, which could not tend to any possible good; but would attract the eastern warriors, whose avarice he well knew, and against which he often and loudly protested. Sannacherib, in the third year of his reign, invaded the revolting provinces of Syria with the intention also to invade Egypt. The Assyrian army marched successfully from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean, taking many cities, including Tyre and Zidon. Sannacherib then invaded Judah, entering this country between the Medi- terranean and the central mountains, and on his way to Egypt took some of the fortified cities in the west of the land. In Egypt, where the military caste was dissatisfied with the innovations of the king, Sethos, no measures were taken to assist Judah, in order to spare their own country a foreign invasion. Ethiopia, then governed by Tirhekah, one of the most distinguished warriors of antiquity, still beheld the Assyrians at too great a distance to give him cause of fear for his own safety, and therefore remained neutral. Tyre and Zidon were exhausted by the late wars, and again overcome by the conqueror. All Syria was in the hands of Sannacherib. So Hezekiah saw himself forsaken by all his neighbors, upon whose cooperation he naturally must have calculated, and at- tacked by an enemy far superior in the number of warriors and in material resources. Still, Hezekiah might have succeeded in defending the country against the invader, as his means of defence were not inconsiderable; but Sannacherib resorted to the same policy as the Syrians formerly did on similar occa- sions; he revolutionized the depending provinces of Judah, Ammon, Moab, Edom, and others, which we learn from the eighty-third chapter of Psalms, which was written undoubtedly 528 PERIOD V. on that occasion, and from which it appears that the Tyrians were in the Assyrian army. If Hezekiah had succeeded in repelling the invaders, he would have been left exhausted, and an easy prey to Egypt or Ethiopia, and even if they had spared him, the depending provinces of Judah, and with them the best part of the commerce and of the income of the state, would have been lost at any rate. If he did not succeed in repelling the invader, he was sure of sharing the same fate with the last king of Samaria, to be transported with the best part of his people, to some of the eastern provinces of Assyria. Under these circumstances, submission was the best policy. If San- nacherib overcame the king of Egypt, Ethiopia would be com- pelled to fight for its own safety; and Hezekiah stood a new chance to gain his independence. If the Assyrians were defeated, in Egypt, the chances of Hezekiah would have been better to administer the fatal blow to the army of the invader. Hezekiah, therefore, sent ambassadors to Lachish, which city Sannacherib besieged, to signify his submission to the king of Assyria, and to declare himself ready to pay such tribute, as he might deem right, on condition however, that he would leave the country. Sannacherib demanded the enormous sum of three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. Hezekiah collected that sum from the public treasury of the king and of the temple, adding to it the gold plates with which he had covered in better days the doors and the posts of the temple. According to the Assyrian accounts it was thirty- talents of gold, and eight hundred talents of silver, which is evidently an exaggeration. This policy has been severely cen- sured by later critics, but we consider it very prudent in every respect, and the silence of the prophets and of the psalmists in regard to these measures, confirms us in our view on the sub- ject. The articles of peace between the two kings have not reached us. The Assyrian army left the territory of Judah, marching on Egypt, after the friendship of Phelistia was secured. None can say what would have been done, had Sannacherib returned from Egypt victoriously. CHAPTER XII. 529 Setho, king of Egypt, arrested the progress of the Assyrians by an army of volunteers, who would most likely have been overcome by the Assyrian forces ; but no sooner had the Assy- rians crossed the Egyptian frontiers than Tarhekah, king of Ethiopia, made active preparations for the assistance of Egypt. Sannacherib on hearing this, left his encampments at Pelusium and returned to Judah, which offered him the best position to expect the attack of the united armies of Ethiopia and Egypt. His unexpected retreat from Egypt gave rise to the myth of the mice, recorded by Herodotus (Euterpe, cxli), which was connected with the marble statue of Setho in the temple of Vul- cano, bearing the inscription, "Whoever thou art, learn from my fortune to reverence the gods." Sannacherib expected to find all the gates open in Judah ; but Hezekiah had paid him the immense sum mentioned before to evacuate the country, and so he had a right to protest against the reoccupation of the land. He undoubtedly knew the cause of Sannacherib's sud- den retreat from Egypt, and was determined to hold out until the Ethiopian and Egpptian forces would arrive. The fortified cities were locked up before the Assyrians, the wells of water were destroyed in all parts of the country where the enemy was expected (II Chronicles, xxxii, 4); provisions most likely were removed into the fortified towns, where also the people sought refuge. Sannacherib was not only terrified by the daily- expected approach of the Ethiopian aud Egyptian forces, and was obliged to combat against strong and fortified cities gar- risoned by a people determined to defend them ; he was also exposed to the most terrifying enemy, want of water and pro- visions, and only a sudden and successful attack on the principal points of Judah, or an unconditional retreat to his own country, could save the Assyrian army from utter destruction. The latter plan, as the sequel shows, was impracticable on account of the want of provisions to retrace the Syrian desert, where- fore the former plan was preferred. Forty-six cities in the west of Judah were taken and given to the king of Askalon, Sannacherib, called Sargon by Isaiah, marched upon Lachish, which was an important outpost of Jerusalem, fortified by Re- 34 530 PERIOD V. habeam. From this place, which he had taken and given permission to plunder and massacre the inhabitants, he dis- patched a body of troops under the command of Rabshekah, the cupbearer, to summon the city of Jerusalem to surrender* Rabshekah encamped his forces by the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field. Hezekiah sent three officers to hear the message of the king of Assyria. Rabshekah addressed them standing on the city walls amid a crowd of spectators. Amid the haughtiest boasting relative to the king's conquest and immense forces, Rabshekah demanded the uncon- ditional surrender of the city, promising to transport the people to a land which flows with milk and honey, exhorting them not to rely on the empty promises of Egypt, nor on the boastings of Hezekiah, nor on their God; for neither kings nor gods were powerful enough to save their respective countries from the hands of Assyria. When the officers of Hezekiah desired Rabshekah not to speak to them in Hebrew, as they understood the Aramaic, fearing his speech might make an evil impression upon the people, Rabshekah — of whom Dr. Prideaux conject- ures that he was an apostate Israelite, which also the ancient rabbins supposed — continued to harangue the people in the Hebrew; but none answered him, as the king had ordered them to remain silent. The officers returned to the king and told him the haughty message of the Assyrian embassador, and the king, Hezekiah, sent the same officers to Isaiah, or to the pre- sident of the senate, to hear their opinion as to the measures to be taken. The message sent to Hezekiah by the prophet, in the name of God, was decisive in its efficacy not to surrender the city. The senate undoubtedly consented to this message. Rabshekah, after having received this answer, returned to his royal master, whom he found besieging Libnah in the south of Judah, where Sannacherib heard the answer of Hezekiah, and was also informed of the approach of Tarhekah, king of Ethio- pia, Rabshekah was ordered to return again to Jerusalem, again to summon the city to surrender, and if refused to take it by assault. But the advice of Isaiah was again the same as the first time, and Hezekiah again refused to surrender. CHAPTER XII. 531 The want of provisions and of water, as we have noticed before, not only disheartened the Assyrian warriors, but also produced in their ranks numerous diseases. To this came yet a blast, as Isaiah called it, probably that pestilential and scorching wind called simoon, and the Assyrians died away by scores. When, therefore, the army of Tarhekah approach- ed nearer, and no prospect was left to take Jerusalem, to protect themselves there against the approaching army, San- nacherib was obliged to leave Judah and retrace the Syrian desert. According to our sources one hundred and eighty-five thousand Assyrians were buried in the territory of Judah, which the angel of the Lord had smitten, among which number, pro- bably, those are included who fell in the desert during the retreat from want of water and provisions. So Judah was saved again from a formidable enemy (713 b. c), as Isaiah had justly predicted. The event was a glorious one, and was com- memorated by many songs of triumph, among which we may reckon Psalms lxxv and lxxvi, which refer especially to the address of Rabshekah; Psalms lxxviii, in which the poet speaks of the fall of Ephraim (verse 67), and then concludes with the wonderful escape of Judah, Zion, and the house of David. The most beautiful composition of this nature and on this occasion is the triumphal song of the prophet Isaiah (xxxii and xxxiii), in which the condition of the country during the inva- sion, the fall of the invader, and the consequent triumph of the country, are depicted in the most brilliant colors. The next transaction of Hezekiah after the retreat of San- nacherib was the subjection of the revolting provinces, and the punishing of the leaders, who supported Sannacherib. Edom was the most valuable of the provinces, on account of its sea- ports, and the Idumeans joined the ranks of the enemies of Judah on every occasion. Hezekiah, therefore, was especially severe in that province {Isaiah xxxiv). The inhabitants of the rest of Arabia Petraea were especially pleased by the resub- jection of Edom; as they were almost cut off from the interior of the country, which impaired their interests as well as those of Jerusalem (Isaiah xxxv). This was one of the principal 532 PERIOD V. causes of calamity during the invasion, and therefore Sanna- cherib attempted to take Libnah, which was the port to that desert. Therefore the prophet commemorated the recapture of Edom in two chapters. The best part of Samaria, if not the whole, fell into the hands of Hezekiah, as the sequel shows. The Assyrian power was crushed in this part of the country, and reestablished only after several years. Commerce and agriculture revived, and the land soon recovered from the losses sustained during the last invasion. No account has reached us of the last part of Hezekiah's administration. He died in the twenty-ninth year of his reign, and was buried with especial honors in the sepulcher of his fathers. The prophecy concerning him, that he would be great in peace, great in war, and great in council (Isaiah, ix, 5), was literally fulfilled. He was succeeded by his son Menassah (698 b. c), who was but twelve years of age. Tradition informs us, that Hezekiah did not assume the marriage relation before he was sure that the land would not fall into the hands of Assyria, in order not to see his children led into captivity. After the retreat of Sannacherib he took in marriage the daughter of Isaiah, whose name was Hephzi-boh, corresponding to the English phrase J like her, who gave birth to Menassah. This reckless youth, not comprehending the true interests of the nation, yielded to the corruptions of idolatry, which he extensively introduced into Judah, and also into Jerusalem. He went so far, even, as to erect an idol in the temple of Solomon; the author of Kings informs us, that it was the statue of Astarte, which is calculated to show us the abyss of debauchery into which that reckless youth plunged; but the author of Chronicles informs us that it was the image of Semel, which was then an appellative of Mercury, the god of com- merce (Ezekiel, viii, 3-5). It is probable that both these idols were erected in the temple ; for according to the tradition (Sanhedrin, 103, b.) the statue of Astarte was erected in the interior of the temple, and according to Ezekiel the image of Mercury was erected at the northern entrance. This change of policy was, according to our view of the subject, a triumph CHAPTER XII. 533 of the mercantile party over the party of the prophets. The triumphant party attached their insignia to the temple as well as to every other public building. Menassah, who had grown up in the midst of opulence and luxury, and who saw only wealth poured into the country by the enterprises of that party, and being young, inexperienced, and disposed to enjoy as much of the sweets of life as could be obtained, forgot that the kernel of the nation, the agriculturists, the working and the righting portion of the people , were attached to the party of the prophets and to the laws of Moses; and contrary to the policy of his father, which had proved wise and happy, threw himself altogether into the arms of one party, which neces- sarily must have embittered the other. A tradition informs us, that the old and venerable Isaiah opposed this change of policy, for which he suffered death; it may be, however, that the silence of the Bible about the death of Isaiah, gave rise to the tale. Many of the prophets, as it must naturally be ex- pected, raised their voices against the administration (II Chron. xxxiii, 10); they were not only altogether disregarded, but they were murdered by the scores, as in the reign of Ahab (II Kings xxi, 16.). The law of Moses was suspended. Zabaism and despotism with all their horrible attendants, were imposed upon the land, the patriots sighed, and the throne of David was once more defiled by the revolt of its own possessor against the laws which secured to him that very throne. Psalm xciv appears to us to be one of the outcries of the over- ruled patriots of that age. The fact that no name is attached to it only tends to confirm our opinion, for it appears in the sequel, that Menassah not only persecuted his opponents, but also the writers of the scriptures, which had a national tend- ency in the sense of the prophets ; so that the ruin of Judah is emphatically ascribed to the wickedness of Menassah (II Kings xxiv, 3, 4), to which he had sufficient power, on account of the wars of Hezekiah, leaving to his disposition a disci- plined army, and a prosperous country. The prophet Habakkuk, who is, as it were, a powerful echo of the royal Isaiah, has left us in his inspired speech, 534 PERIOD V. consisting of but three chapters, a distinct picture of the maladministration of Menassah. He describes the injustice and violence committed on the nation under that king (I Habak. 1-3), and also informs us of the total suspension of the law (verse 4). He threatens the king with another Assyrian invasion (verse 6), and predicted that the people would not now as in the days of Hezekiah defend the throne of David, and sacrifice every thing to the independence of their country. But his words were spent in vain, Menassah maintained his ruinous policy, hastening the land to the brink of destruction. Com- merce certainly flourished under the administration of that king, and wealth was poured into the public treasury and private coffers ; but this only tended to attract the attention of the eastern conquerers, and to irritate their avarice. It is the satisfaction of the people which defends thrones — not the accumulated wealth. It was the law which gave to Israel that innate and indestructable buoyancy to maintain their independence in opposition to powerful neighbors, and not the flourishing state of its commerce. This the prophets well under- stood, and perpetually advocated, but the kings seldom com- prehended it fully, and Menassah did not understand it at all. Another Assyrian invasion took place, as the prophet had pre- dicted, and the people did not rise as in former days to defend the throne of David. . Menassah soon felt the consequences of his error. The prophet Habakuk called the Assyrians, Chaldees, (i, 6), for obvious causes which we shall set forth directly. It is necessary to a proper understanding of our history, to take first a short review of Assyrian history. Sannacherib returned to Nineveh discomfited and disheartened (713, b. c). He was assassinated by his two sons, who fled to Armenia. It is supposed by some that Sannacherib governed but six years, and that he was assassinated, sixty days after his return from Judah. This is not only denied by the best modern critics, but it is also contradicted by the late discovery of Mr. Layard, according to which Sannacherib was the founder of the palace of Couyunjic, which was not finished in less time than a quarter of a century. We are therefore inclined to follow in this re- CHAPTER XII. 535 spect the date of Mr. Samuel Sharpe, that Sannacherib reigned from 720 b. c. to 683 b. c* Sannacherib having returned to Nineveh persecuted the unfortunate Israelites in his empire. Many of the unfortunate were slain {Tobit I, 18) and were denied a burial (ibid 18, 19). Media was inhabited by a strong and liberal people, among whom also large numbers of Israelites lived, brought there by former kings of Assyria, and to which country presently many of the persecuted Israelites fled. Taking advantage of the paralyzed state of the Assyrian army, Media again revolted, 711, b. c.;f independence was gained, the republic proclaimed, and maintained, with the exception of a short interval, until Dejoces converted it into an independent kingdom. It was not recorded what part the exiled Israelites took in the insurrection of Media. Still their natural apathy to As- syria, their perpetual connection with the mother country, which was facilitated by the expeditions of Sannacherib, the republican spirit of that portion of the people which was transported to Media, and the direct testimony of the two apocryphal books, Tobit and Judith, lead us to believe that they took an active and considerable part in the insurrection of Media. We shall notice in the sequel that the Medes were favorably disposed towards the Israelites for this very reason. Sannacherib died (683, b. c.) and was succeeded by his son Esserhaddon, the Asordonius of Polyhistor, formerly viceroy of Babylonia. The two princes, Adarmelech and Shadarezer, who assassinated their father in the temple of Nisroch, fled to Armenia, leaving their brother in the possession of the entire empire. The Chaldees, the castes of priests and of warriors of Babylonia, gained greater influence over the Assyrian go- vernment than they .had before possessed. Therefore the sacred writers of this period frequently blend Assyrians with Chaldees, and Nineveh with Babel. Esserhaddon, supported by the Chaldees and no longer impaired by the never resting Media, could direct his attention more effectually to the west than his father could. * Bonomi, Nineveh, £c, p. 72. 536 PERIOD V. The Israelites of Samaria and Galilee fraternized with Judah. Although the Assyrian monarchs did not bestow much attention upon those depopulated provinces ; still Esserhaddon sent colonists there, on whose loyalty he could depend, from different parts of the Assyrian empire. His object was to enfeeble Judah and to open the road to Phoenicia. Menassah did not oppose these dangerous measures, which probably gave much cause for complaint against that king. It appears, how- ever, that the colonization of Samaria had not the desired effect, for the lions who had taken possession of the thinly inhabited country, greatly endangered the safety of the colo- nies. The friends of the laws of Moses succeeded in making the colonists believe that this terrible disaster occurred in consequence of their ignorance as to the manner of worshiping the god of the land ; they therefore embraced the laws of Moses as the religion of Jehovah, the God of the country, although it was supposed that many of them also worshiped their idols as well as Jehovah. This had the effect of connecting them more closely with Judah than with Assyria, which intimacy existed till the final downfall of Judah. The Assyrian invasion in the time of Menassah is recorded in II Chronicles (xxxiii, 11) without date, and without the least vestige by which to ascertain it. The fact that the author of Kings informs us that Menassah died in his wickedness, while the author of Chronicles asserts that he repented, after returning from Babel, leads us to believe that it occurred in the latter part of his reign, so that he had no longer any chance to re- pair the breaches which he had made in the nation. We there- fore suppose that this campaign is identical with the one narrated in the book of Judith.* The king of Assyria is called there Nebuchodonosar or Sardochaeus, who, in the forty-eighth year of Menassah, declared war against Arphaxedor Phraortes, then ruling over Media, to which end he called upon all his vassals and friends to assist him, which was refused him. He advanced with his own unaided army; gave battle to Arphaxed on the plain of Ragau, overthrew his power, secured Ecbatana, his * Benomi, Nineveh and its Palaces, p. 52, CHAPTER XII. 537 capital, took him prisoner and put him to death. Returning from Ecbatana he sent an army to the west. Holofernes, his general, commanded the troops, consisting of one hundred and twenty thousand foot, and twelve thousand horse, besides the chariots. Holofernes proceeded westward, punishing the Syrians for their disobedience, and subjecting them again to the Assyrian scepter. He finally crossed the northern frontiers of Israel, where according to the author of Judith, the people were altogether united with Judah, and refused obedience to the king of Assyria. Menassah hastened with his army to meet the enemy, but being unable to levy an army as numerous and inspired as the occasion required, he was routed, taken captive and sent to Babel (II Chronicles xxxiii, 11). The loss of the battle was no defeat of the nation; their mountains, fortified cities, and the brave defenders were not yet overcome. The absence of the king was not a cause of anarchy, it was not the king but the law which governed the nation. The threatening danger roused the patriots to defend the country. The high priest, Joakim, or Hoseah, according to others, assumed the reins of government, and after he had sanctified the vessels, the altar and the temple, after the profanation of Menassah, (where the author of Judith assumes the narrative), orders were given by the senate at Jerusalem to the people to possess themselves of the tops of the high mountains, to block the passages through the valleys and to guard them, to fortify the villages, and to secure all the provisions, and maintain the defensive against the enemy, which was an imitation of the policy of Hezekiah, sixty or sixty-two years before this. The destruction of the wells of water is not expressly mentioned here as in the invasion under Hezekiah, but the eagerness of Holofernes to secure the fountains of water near Bethuel, is an evidence that this stratagem was also necessary for their aid. Meanwhile the enemy overrun the western country, precisely as Sannacherib had done, coming in from the north, forming a military line from Abel-Maim in the province of Naphtali, in the north, to Bethuel, a town of Simeon (Joshua xix, 4), in the 538 PERIOD V. south, reaching as far east as Dotham, in Ephraim, twelve miles north of Samaria, and as far west as Cyamon, a town opposite Esdraelon, in the plain of Jezreel. The sea shores, as well as the central mountains of the country, were strongly fortified and vigilantly guarded. The dependent provinces of Judah were not reached by the enemy, which appears to have been the plan in the southward pro- ceeding of the army ; still numerous deserters from Amnion and Moab, and from the Syrian provinces, swelled the ranks of Holofernes to one hundred and seventy thousand foot, and twelve thousand horse, while the deserters from Judaic pro- vinces served him as guides and informed him of the territory. Another Ammonite, however, Achion, who held a high position among his people, advised Holofernes to discontinue the war, as the Israelites, now united before God, could not be beaten by his army; which advice was haughtily rejected, and Achion was delivered up to the Israelites of Bethuel, who, however, treated him with respect. Bethuel appears to have been an important and strong place, which Holofernes could not take, nor could he proceed any farther south. It was decided to blockade the place, cut off the supply of water, and thus force them to sur- render, which indeed would have been the case after a few days, had not the beautiful Judith, a pious widow of that town, succeeded in coming into the camp of Holofernes, in securing his passions and in winning his confidence, which she used in behalf of her country. When at night alone with him in his tent, and he, after an intemperate enjoyment of wine, had fallen fast asleep, Judith took his own falchion and beheaded him, and retured to Bethuel with the head of Holofernes. The next morning when the people of Bethuel assumed the appear- ance of fighting the Assyrians, the latter were alarmed, took their position, and waited for the chieftain. But when they learned the miserable end of their general, they, as every other eastern army would have done under similar circum- stances, betook themselves to flight. The news rapidly spread throughout the country, and the people came forth from their fortified villages and towns, pouring down from the mountains CHAPTER XII. 539 making havoc among the fast-retreating enemy. Thus the country was a second time delivered from the invading armies of the then greatest power in existence. But this time the heroism of a patriotic woman was one of the prominent causes of the victory. Menassah, meanwhile, had made good his escape from Babel (II Chron. xxxiii, 13); the accompanying circumstances of the fact are not preserved. He returned to Jerusalem, and there found the people under arms, the party of the prophets in power, the constitution and the laws in full operation, the country well defended, and he saw himself obliged to submit to the present state of things. He gave his sanction to the total removal of the idols and the altars erected to them ; and after the invading army was driven from the country, he, in fear of another invasion, fortified and garrisoned many cities, and improved the fortifications of Zion. But notwithstanding his pious prayer, which he is said to have directed to heaven while a captive in Babel, preserved in the apocryphies (II Chronicles xxxiii, 13), and, notwithstanding his change of policy, to which adverse circumstances forced him, posterity considers him a wicked and despotic ruler, who was unable to heal the wounds which he had inflicted on his people. He died in the fifty-fifth year of his reign, and in the sixty-seventh year of his age, but was not buried beside his predecessors ; his remains were de- posited in the garden of his palace. Amon, the son of Menassah and Meshulemeth, succeeded his father to the throne, in the twenty-second year of his age (644 b.c). This prince reenacted the scenes of his father; he again wrested the power from the hands of the people, that just now had saved the house of David from extinction. The commercial party was reelevated to power, their insignia, the idols of Zabaism, were again held up to public worship, and the country was again obliged to suffer the impositions of a self-willed monarch. The opposition made by the patriots did not receive the attention of the king; he maintained his detest- able policy, notwithstanding the loud opposition of his own officers, who finding him incurable, conspired against him and 540 PERIOD V. assassinated him in his own palace, in the second year of his reign, and buried him by the side of his wicked father. The representatives of the people, however, did not leave this regicide unpunished. The conspirators were tried and con- demned to death, which not only shows that the power was not vested in any other person or body, but in the people, but also that justice was dispensed, and the stability of government was secured against illegal intruders. The same body appointed Joshiah, the son of Amon and Jedidah, who was but eight years old, to succeed his father (642 b. c). It appears, that the conspirators intended to wrest the scepter from the dynasty of David, which the representatives of the people prevented, prompted either by their attachment to the dynasty, or by the law of the land maintained since the days of David, or fearing to see the same detestable scenes reenacted in Judah, which disgraced the throne of Israel after the death of Sechariah, son of Jerobeam II. We are not informed in our sources who was entrusted with the regency during the minority of the king. The high priest Hilikiah, does not play so prominent a part in this administra- tion, as to entitle us to the assertion that he was the regent. It seems, therefore, that the regency devolved on the king's mother, as in the case of Athaliah. No material alterations took place during the first seven years of Joshiah, but in the eighth year of his reign, when he still was a lad (I Chronicles xxxiv, S), which is to say, still being under the guide of a re- gent, he begun to inquire earnestly after the laws of God, and the policy of David his ancestor; and in the twelfth year of his reign, in the twentieth year of his age, we see him first act independently, in as far as the king of Judah was empowered to act so. He gave strict orders to remove all the idols from the land, to cut down their groves, and to demolish and dese- crate their altars, which orders were not only given in Judah, but also in Samaria and Galilee. Still, it appears from the sequel, that the orders of the king were not rigidly executed, nor was he himself sufficiently aware of the strictness of the law against all sorts of idolatry. Josephus informs us, that CHAPTER XII. 541 the king was no less rigid in his measures against injustice than against idolatry, "Moreover, he ordained certain judges and overseers, that they might order the matters to them severally belonging, and have regard to justice above all things, and dis- tribute it with the same concern they would «have about their own souls " (Antiq. b. x, c. iv, 1). These facts show us, that Joshiah restored to the people their rights and liberties; to the protection of which the judiciary, so much neglected and vio- lated in the time of Menassah and Anion, was again placed on that independent footing, which is necessarily required to dis- pense justice among the people. These measures of the king met, as a matter of course, with much opposition among the opposite party, who had been in power for many years, and who were not effectually held down during the minority of the king. This state of affairs inspired one of the most gigantic charac- ters of the prophets, of the noblest patriots and boldest speakers of ancient Israel. This was Jeremiah, the son of Hilikiah, from the priests of Anathoth, consequently, of the Ethamar family (I Kings ii, 26), and not the son of the high priest. His first speech is dated in the thirteenth year of Joshiah. Lion-like, that man rose up in defence of the king's well-digested policy, he poured forth a current of thunder-like admonitions upon the idolatrous party, who sacrificed the rights and liberties, the religion and the nationality of Judah and Israel, for temporal gain and enjoyment; priests and prophets, and people opposed to the present administration, or whose piety consisted in mere outward forms and sacrifices, were equally and boldly attacked by the man of the inspired words, in every sound of which echoes a great and noble heart, beating only for his nation and for the land of his fathers. That this Jeremiah was president of the representatives of the peo- ple, as well as Isaiah and Elishah, admits of no doubt; no other hypothesis suffices to account for the almost unlimited influ- ence which those three men exercised upon the whole nation. Eloquence alone, without occupying an elevated position among the official dignitaries of society, never procured such an im- mense influence over a community; and, on the other side, it 542 PERIOD V. is unlikely, that the men thus esteemed and loved by the nation should not have been elevated to the highest positions. This alone accounts for their boldness and for their care on behalf of the nation. The words of Josephus must not be over- looked in this respect, "And thus he (Joshiah) acted, in fol- lowing the wisdom and sagacity of his own nature, and in compliance with the advice and instruction of the elders; for, by following the laws it was that he succeeded so well in the order of his government, and in piety with regard to the divine worship " (Antiq. b. x, c. iv, 1). It was the prophet Jeremiah, who brought him officially the instruction of the elders. Joshiah, being thus powerfully assisted by Jeremiah, main- tained his constitutional policy. He was desirous of renovat- ing the temple, to which end he collected, according to Josephus, free-will gifts for this purpose, which was done with the inten- tion to ascertain the feelings of the people. The result was very satisfactory; for in the eighteenth year of his reign plenty of money was collected to effect this purpose. Shaphan, the scribe, Maaseiah, the mayor of the city, and Joah, the recorder of the king, were commissioned to complete the work in com- pany with the high priest, Hilikiah. On this occasion a singular event occurred, which gave a new impulse to the piety and energy of Joshiah. The original copy of the laws, supposed to be written by Moses himself* was found in the temple by the high priest, who delivered it to Shaphan, the king's scribe, by whom it was read to the king. Since the hypercritics of our days attach so much import- ance to this event, drawing from it the conclusion that the kings, prophets and people of Israel previous to this date were altogether ignorant of the laws of Moses ; and since some of them went even so far as to suppose the Pentateuch was then composed secretly, and published as the composition of Moses, we must stop here to make some remarks on the sub- ject. We have proved that the style of the Pentateuch is imitated and whole sentences copied in all the books after Moses, that its laws, religious and political principles and * Antiq. b. x. c. iv, 2. II Chr. xxxiv, 14. CHAPTER XII. 543 institutions not only continually existed up to the reign of Menassah, but also inspired the prophets and psalmists as well as the historians. It can therefore only be asserted, that during the reign of Menassah and Amon, the Mosaic law was thus neglected, or burnt, as the ancient rabbins supposed, that no copy of it remained at court. For that no copy should have been left in the whole country, and among the Israelites in exile, is a matter of impossibility. But even granted that no copy of the Pentateuch existed at court, would not the governors of the people during the absence of Menassah, or would not Menassah himself, when he had returned from captivity, or would not the pious and popular Joshiah, so much influenced by Jeremiah, have endeavored to procure a copy of it ? And if he had made such an attempt, would he not have been supported by the party then in favor of the administration who must have been in possession of numerous copies? From the words as they occur in the respective passages,* it is plain, that the regret of Joshiah found its cause in the fact, that his predeces- sors have not observed every thing as written in that book.* The Mosaic laws were in force, but not everything was done as those laws prescribed. We are also informed about the particular cases, which were not done in strict accordance with the laws. The symbols of foreign gods were not only suffered to be kept sacred in the country, but also occupied places in the temple, although idolatry was abolished; and the symbols introduced by Jerobeam still occupied their place at Bethel, and idolatry was practiced in the dependencies of Judah (II Chron. xxxiv, 33), all of which was against the Mosaic laws, which permitted only the introduction of such and of no other symbols, which the law specified. The groves in which idols were worshiped still existed, and places devoted to such worship were still considered sacred; the theraphim, or house gods, the wizards and the conjurers of the spirits also existed in private, all of which was opposed to the Mosaic laws. As regards the symbols of foreign gods, Solomon already laid the foundation to naturalize them even in the temple. Jerobeam introduced other symbols, which practice afterwards * II Kings xxii, 13, xxiii, 25. II Chron. xxxiv, 21. 544 PERIOD V. remained both in Israel and Judah. If a king abolished the idols, he did not think it sinful to deposit in the temple the vessels which bore the symbols of foreign gods, or other marks of art, which again led to idolatry. The fact appears to be that the Mosaic laws in regard to the punishment set upon idolatry, and the practices connected with it, were amended in an early stage of this history, probably as early as the days of David, who found it impracticable to eradicate idolatry in the conquered provinces, as the law ordained; or in the days of Solomon, who introduced foreign symbols in the temple of God; if not so early certainly in the days of Jerobeam and Rehabeam and their immediate successors. It is a matter of impossibility, that the kings of Judah and of Israel could have so often introduced idolatry, or that the kings of Israel could have introduced an entire new set of symbols, in a land where the laws were considered the only safeguard of the people, and where every thing points so distinctly to the Mosaic laws, if such amendments had not been adopted by that body, which was entrusted with expounding the law to meet the exigencies of the age. The amendments were incorporated with the law, were copied and passed into the hands of the people, although many unadulterated copies of the law certainly were preserved, which most likely was one of the differences between the parties. Finally the amendments were considered of the same origin with the law, and those who protested against it had nothing to prove it. Therefore Joshiah left in the temple the altars of Menassah, the vessels and the works of art of different gods, although he had abolished idolatry; therefore the altar of Bethel was spared, although the place was in possession of king Hezekiah. But when now the original copy of the law was found, the quarrel of the parties was decided, the illegal- ity of the proceedings, and unconstitutionality of the amend- ments was evident: and therefore when that original copy had been read to the king, and he heard the downfall of his country prophesied in it as a consequence of idolatry, and that every symbol not prescribed by the law was considered the same with idolatry; when he heard that it was the duty of CHAPTER XII. 545 Israel to eradicate idolatry and idolatrous practices in all the lands which they should possess, the neglect of which would be the cause of their final downfall, which however, was altogether neglected; the king, a firm believer in the word of God, tore his garments, as a token of grief and regret. He sent, besides llilikiah, the high priest, four other officers of the royal court to the prophetess Huldah, the wife of Shalum, overseer of the gadrobe, who resided in a suburb of Jerusalem, to inquire of her, whether indeed all the consequences of idola- try as predicted in the law, would befall this country? The prophetess answered that query in the affirmative, but at the same time stated, that it would not come to pass in the days of Joshiah. Right she was in the first point, if Israel and the nations bowing to its sceptre had been united by the common ties of one religion as one language united them, and as the Mosaic policy ordained, the nation would have been powerful enough to stand opposite Babylonia and Egypt; but now ic was too late, a large number of Israelites was scattered over many foreign countries, and the government was not strong enough to effect that extraordinary measure, But as regards the second point (II Kings xxii, 20), she was not well informed, for Joshiah died in consequence of a wound received in battle, and not in peace as she predicted. The revolution in the Eastern empire, which we will notice hereafter, entitled her to the hope, that no invasion would occur during the lifetime of Joshiah ; but she forgot the intentions of Egypt, which we will soon see. Joshiah was not discouraged by the answer of the prophetess, he rather took active measures to enforce the law as laid down in the original copy which was found. A large convention of the people met at Jerusalem by order of the king, and the law was read to them, after which the king made a new covenant with the people to the effect, that henceforth the law should be administered as laid down in the original copy, to which the people consented. Agreeably to that consent, orders were issued to destroy all vestiges of idolatry and idolatrous practices wherever found in the city of Jerusalem and in the provinces of Judah, and to read the words 35 546 PERIOD v. of the covenant, as the newly found copy of the law was called, in all places of Judah {Jeremiah xi). These orders were promply executed in the temple and in the city and vicinity of Jerusalem; also in the country the priests (also those who served at the heights) actively executed the orders of govern- ment. This severe measure, as it naturally must be expected, met with a great deal of opposition, so that a conspiracy against the government was discovered in Jerusalem {Jeremiah xi, 9). Jeremiah pronounced the anathem against all those who continued to oppose the measures of government, which found a powerful and eloquent advocate in the prophet Zepha- niah, whose eloquent speech, consisting of three chapters, has been preserved in the minor prophets. Still the opposition was not silenced, which strange enough was very loud in Anathoh, where the priests of the line of Ithamar resided, and in Beth El. The king was obliged to proceed at the head of an army to Beth El and other places to enforce the law ; and he succeeded in uprooting idolatry entirely, which no more found its way into Judah. He also crushed forever the schism of Jerobeam, and extinguished idolatry in the dependencies of Judah. After the king had returned to Jerusalem, he called another general con- vention of the people to meet in Jerusalem, at the Passah feast. The people met at Jerusalem in large numbers; the feast of reconstitution of the nation was so unanimously and pompously celebrated, that the historians of those days sup- posed no such occasion had occurred in Jerusalem since the days of yore. For the first time since the days of David all vestiges of idolatry were extinguished, and for the first time this was the case in the dependencies of Israel. The party of the prophets fully triumphed, the opposite party was annihi- lated, and rose no more. Still this religious political revolution was effected in a short time; its beginning and its end is dated in the eighteenth year of Joshiah, which leads us to believe that the resistance offered b}r the opposition was inconsiderable; the greatest number probably were convinced that the book found was the original of the law, and were willing to obey it. Joshiah governed twelve or thirteen years after this, and no CHAPTER XII. 547 occurrence interrupted the peace and prosperity of the country, until, towards the end of his reign, Necho, king of Egypt, disturbed that peace. But before we can narrate that event we must cast a glance abroad. After the defeat of Ilolofernes the Assyrian power rapidly declined. Nabopolassar, the Babylonian satrap, one of the Chaldees, or according to others, one of the Curds, revolted against the last king of Nineveh, Chyniladan, who mounted that throne about four years before the death of Menassah. In the seventeenth year of Joshiah (625. b. c), Nabopolassar was independent king of Babylonis, which most likely encouraged Joshiah to effect the thorough reforms in his country noticed before, not fearing an enemy from abroad. The same was done by Cyaxares, son of Arphaxad, king of Media, who succeeded in gaining the in- dependence of Media. An inroad of the Scythians into the Assyrian empire is recorded by Herodotus to have taken place at the same time, which, however, deserves but little credit. 623, b. c, Nabopolassar marched against Nineveh, which gave rise to a protracted civil war. Finally Nabopolassar succeeded in capturing Nineveh, and establishing the Babylonian empire upon the ruins of the ancient Assyrian one. The fall of Nineveh, which most likely occurred shortly before the death of Joshiah, made an end to that civil war; still the new empire was much exhausted, and could not enter upon a foreign war, which encouraged the Egyptians to make new conquests in Syria, as we shall notice directly. It is not likely that Nineveh was destroyed by Nabopolassar, it only ceased to be the queen of the east, which dignit}' was now assumed by the proud city of the Chaldees, which was three hundred miles nearer to the sea, as Egyptian Thebes had already sunk under the cities of the Delta. It must naturally be expected that the Israelites, wherever they lived, supported the enemies of Assyria; for which belief we have the direct testimony of the book of Tobit, who in- structed his son to leave Nineveh, which must be set after the death of Amon, because both Menassah and Amon are men- tioned in the book (xiv, 10). Tobias, the son of Tobit, left 54S PERIOD V. Nineveh after the death of his parents, making Ecbatana, the capital of Media, his new residence, on account of the prophesy of his father, that Nineveh would be destroyed. There can be little doubt that many more Israelites left the country and made common cause with either Media or Babylonia. The words of the prophet Zephaniah, when alluding to Assyria and Nineveh (ii, 13 — iii, 8), which were spoken at the beginning of the civil war, are another evidence of the sympathy of the Israelites with the enemies of Assyria. The prophet also hoped from the fall of Assyria the triumph of true religion (iii, 8, 9), probably being encouraged in his hopes by the rapid progress of the doctrines of Zoroaster, before which the idol, their temples and altars, vanished among the enemies of Assyria, which may have been one of the efficient causes of those revolutions in the east. We next may quote the shout of triumph, which resounds in the short speech of the prophet Nahum, on the downfall of Nineveh, which event he takes to be a guaranty for the peace of Judah (ii. 1). This prophet also speaks of the destruction of the idols of Nineveh (i, 14), and Nahum lived in Al-Kusi, near Nineveh, where his sepulcher is still shown in a village of the same name (i, 1); he certainly was well informed on the subject. It is evident, therefore, that the Israelites, not only on account of their just enmity towards Assyria, but also on account of the hopes entertained for the safety of Judah, and for the downfall of idolatry in the east, sympathized with the enemies of Assyria, and while those in the exile supported Media, where the doctrines of Zoroaster best succeeded, those of Palestine sympathized with Babylonia. Still we have no direct statement to ascertain to what extent that sympathy was carried. Amidst of the thousands who sympathized with Babylonia, only one raised his voice against every hope based upon foreign friendship. This was again the gigantic son of Hilikiah; he hoped for nothing from abroad; he advised them again and again to trust in no foreign power; to have confidence in God, and to be united when the misfortunes, which he thought inevitable, would break in upon the land. " Then said I, Ah, Lord God! CM API Eli XII. 549 behold the prophets say unto them, Ye shall not see the sword, neither shall ye have famine, but I will give you assured peace in this land. Then the Lord said unto me, the prophets prophesy lies in my name, I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake I unto them; they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart ?' (Jerem. xxiv, 13, 14). A drought, which not unfrequently occurs in Palestine, brought over the country the misery of famine,* to which now was added the terror of war, and of a raging pestilence (ibid xiv, 12-18). The cause of this war was this: Pharaoh Necho, attracted by the exhaustion of the eastern empire, proceeded at the head of a large army to the Euphrates to make conquests in that part of Syria, to which end he must have crossed the territory of Judah. The general sympathy for the east prevail- ing in the country was certainly one of the reasons that caused Joshiah's refusal to comply with the demand of the king of Egypt; but besides this there were still other causes. Egypt had betrayed Israel in the days of Setho, it had not aided Samaria as it had promised, nor had it done anything for Heze- kiah; had it not been for Tirhekah, he would have been left to struggle alone against their common enemy. If Egypt should have returned victoriously from the east, Judah would have been placed between the Egyptian provinces, and would have surely fallen into its hands; while, if opposing Egypt, hopes could be entertained of assistance from Babylonia. Joshiah collected an army to oppose the passage of Necho, but the Egyptian army found their way through the country, and urged the king of Judah to a joint battle at Megiddo, which Herodotus by mistake called Magdolas, a city in the province of Menassah,* in the plain of Esdraclon. The Israelitish army was routed, and the king severely wounded, in consequence of which he died at Megiddo, and was brought back to Jerusalem, where he was buried by the side of his fathers, after a reign of * Jeremiah iii, 0; xii, 4; xiv. L. * Joshua xvii, 11 j Judges i, 27. 550 PERIOD V. thirty one years, 611 b. c. Jeremiah himself eomposed an elegy, eulogizing the pious and beloved king, which was sung by the cantors and cantrices on all mourning occasions, and was kept in the book of the elegies, which we possess no more, if parts of it are not contained in the lamentations of Jere- miah. With the death of Joshiah, JudalTs independence terminated. CHAPTER XIII. FROM THE CORONATION OF JEHOAHAZ TO THE DESTRUC- TION OF JERUSALEM (611— 588 B. C). The time had come when Judah must suffer by reason of its geographical position. The kingdom of Israel, placed between Phoenicia and Assyria, fell under the heavy weight of Assyria in its longing for the Phoenician coast and cities. Judah was situated between Babylonia and Egypt, two gigantic empires, each of which longed for the supremacy of Syria; Judah could no longer maintain its independence, The power of Babylo- nia had just begun to emerge from the ruins of Assyria, and Egypt had just undertaken to conquer Syria. Circumstances had changed so unexpectedly and suddenly, that none could comprehend them, none knew what to do, or what to refrain from doing. Only Jeremiah appears to have understood the state of affairs ; but he was overruled by a general confusion of opinions and schemes. After the battle of Megiddo had been lost, and Joshiah was buried, the people of the country exercised for the last time its CHAPTER XIII. 551 independent rights in electing a king from the four sons of Joshiah. Among the sons of the late king (I Chronicles ni, 14) the choice of the people fell on Sholluni (Jeremiah xxii, 11), whose name was changed into Jehoahaz. Not one of the pre- vious kings had changed his name on mounting the throne. It appears that this was a new custom brought from the east. This election did not take place immediately after the death of Joshiah; for Jehoahaz governed but three months, when he was deposed by Necho who returned from the Syrian expedition, which could not have been completed within three months. Jehoahaz, we are informed, was a wicked king; but we are not told in what his wickedness consisted. Most likely he was censured by the prophets because he neglected to cultivate the friendship of the king of Babylonia, which the party of the prophets earnestly desired and which would have been a pru- dent polic)'. But Necho did not give time enough to the new king to take measures for the benefit of the country. After he had overrun in a short time the whole of Hollow Syria and a part of Syria without meeting with much resistance, he returned and overran Palestine. The prophet Joel has left us an account of that invasion in his prophecy, consisting of four chapters, in which he says: " That which the palmer worm hath lefc has the locust eaten ; and that which the locust has left hath the canker worm eaten; and that which the canker worm hath left hath the caterpillar eaten." According to that prophet the Idumeans played a prominent part in the army of Necho, the Phelistines and Phoenicians also came to ravage the country, and take captives, whom they sold as slaves to the Greeks. The whole land was plundered and devastated, the people were murdered in cold blood and sold into slavery. The people having dearly paid for their independence in elect- ing a king, sued for peace, which was granted on hard condi- tions. The king was dethroned, and being the favorite of the people, was sent to Egypt as a hostage, where he died. The pillaged country was obliged to pay a fine of one hundred talents of silver and one talent of gold; and the worst condi- tion was, that they were obliged to obey a king whom Egypt 552 PERIOD V. appointed, and who obeyed Egypt. Necho appointed to the regal dignity Eliakim son of Joshiah, whom he called Jehoia- kim, and who was tributary to Egypt (610 b. c). Jehoiakim was. in the strict sense of the word, the collector of taxes for the king of Egypt. Deprived of its dependencies and consequently also of the sea ports and the foreign commerce, and spoiled by the enemy. Judali sighed under the heavy bur- dens imposed upon it by Necho, through the agency of Jehoiakim. The priests and Lcvites, as always before, supported the dynasty of David, which was done also by those who were con- cerned in the Egyptian trade, in return for which they were favored by the government. But the patriots sighed, the pro- phets mourned, and the agriculturists bore reluctantly the foreign yoke. Uriah, one of the prophets, gave utterance to the dissatisfaction of the people. But the time of free speech was no more. Uriah was obliged to flee to Egypt, where he was captured and executed by Necho to deter those bold apostles of law and liberty. The patriots still expected the return of Jehoahaz from Egypt, to lead the party to fight for their independence {Jeremiah xxii, 11, 12), which was another cause of slaughter made among them by the government. Jeremiah was the only man who had the boldness to speak against those wo oppressed the people and persecuted the patriots {Jeremiah xxii and xxiii). He uttered dreadful de- crees against Jehoiakim, his adherents and accomplices, but it was in vain; the king needed the protection of Egypt to tyrannize over the people, who considered him a usurper, and consequently the words of Jeremiah were not heard. The effects of this maladministration were soon felt. Necho, who had in the course of three years taken all Syria to the Euphrates, found his progress checked by the warlike prince of Babylonia, Nebuchadnezar, who was the son and intended suc- cessor of Nabopolassar, king of Babylonia, and son-in-law of Cyaxares, king of Media. This prince united under his com- mand the armies of the two above mentioned countries, at the head of which he crossed the Euphrates, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (GOG b. c), to arrest the progress of Egypt and, CHAPTER XII I. 553 if possible, reconquer Syria. Necho went to the army to take the chief command, and was defeated at the battle of Carchamish. Nebuchadnezar could not learn the fruits of that victory; for at the same time the king of Babylonia died, and the prince successor was obliged to return in order to take possession of the throne. Necho remained in possesion of Judah and a part of Syria for a longer period. This was the time for the king and people of Judah to throw off the Egyptian yoke, and to call in the assistance of Nebuchadnezar if required. Jeremiah comprehended the exigencies of the age, and he exercised his influence to this end not only by speeches but also by writings {Jeremiah xxxv, xxxvi and xlvi). The people were on his side, and even the officers of the king were not disinclined to listen to the advice of the patriotic son of liilikiah. But the king, stricken with blindness to his and to his dynasty's destruction, burnt the scroll in which Baruch had written the words of Jeremiah, and sent officers to arrest Jeremiah and Baruch, his scribe, who did not find them. After Nebuchadnezar had arranged his domestic affairs, he again crossed the Euphrates (603 b. c.), at the head of a formi- dable army, and overran all Syria without meeting much resistance. Jehoiakim, forsaken by Egypt and deserted by his people, was unable to offer an effectual resistance; he therefore submitted to the conqueror without trying his fortune even in one battle. No king of Judah or Israel, except Rehabeam had ever done so. Jehoiakim was confirmed in his dignity by Ne- buchadnezar; Jeremiah and his party were satisfied and we hear nothing more of them during the next three years. But when Necho died, and his son Psammis succeeded him, the hopes of Jehoiakim revived, and he revolted against the east- ern power. This was an act of madness, which Jeremiah firmly opposed; he was imprisoned by orders of the king. An army composed of Chaldees, Syrians, Moabitcs and Ammonites was dispatched by Nebuchadnezer to chastise Jehoiakim. It appears (from II Kings, xxiv, 7) that an Egyptian army assisted the king of Judah; but both armies sustained an utter defeat. The Egyptians were driven back into their own country, from 554 PERIOD V. which they did not return till the close of this period. Jehoia- kim fell in battle (599 b. c), and was succeeded by his son Jehoiachin, who was but eighteen years of age. The new king did not change the policy of his father. The war against the invaders was continued, and apparently without the slightest hope of success. The fortified cities surrendered rapidly to the formidable army of Nebuchadnezar, and after three months, from the death of the late king, he stood at the head of his army before the walls of Jerusalem, which stood now in the midst of Judah as a forsaken widow, as the prophet Jeremiah called it in the first chapter of Lamentations. Johoiachin, either forced by the people or acting from a noble impulse of the heart, surrendered the city together with his own person and family to Nebuchadnezar, in order to save the city. The king, his family and superior officers, were transported to Babel after he had reigned one hundred days. The gold and silver of the temple and of the royal palace, were delivered up to Nebuchad- nezar as a fine for the revolt. Ten thousand of the defenders of the city, together with the executive and the legislative councils of the king,* and seven thousand of the citizens and one thousand mechanics, undoubtedly the foremost of the Egyptian party, were led away captives to Babel. Mathaniah, the third son of Joshiah, and uncle of the captive king, was elevated to the regal office by Nebuchadnezar, and was called Zedekiah. The Chaldees evacuated the country, which bled from many thousand wounds, and order was restored. It is remarkable, that no acts of violence or cruelty are recorded during this campaign. The first chapter of Lamentations, which appears to have been composed on this occasion, only mentions sufferings and calamities, which befell Jerusalem in consequence of the war and the siege; no cruelty is ascribed to the enemy. To this must be added, that Zedikiah was the legal heir to the vacated throne, which convinces us that it had been the avowed intention of Nebuchadnezar to gain the affections of the people for his cause. This Jeremiah and his * Vide II Kin^s xxiv, 14, "nxa by Wolf Mayer. CHAPTER XIII. 555 party well understood, wherefore they wished to submit to Nebuchadnezar, as they were convinced that the independence of the country could not be maintained in its present position between two powerful and hostile powers. Besides this, Jere- miah, and probably many more politicians of that age, were aware that Egypt could not maintain the supremacy of Syria if opposed by the united armies of Babylonia and Media, and he prophesied the speedy fall of all Syrian countries and of Egypt before Nebuchadnezar. But he was no less aware of the internal deficiency of Babylonia, an empire forced together by the edge of the sword and held together by the personal abili- ties of its ruler, which finally must disunite into its original parts. He was aware of the inconstancy of Media, which would not maintain a union with Babylonia for a long time. He preconceived and prophesied the fall of Babel, and therefore he desired his countrymen to submit to that power, and wait patiently for the moment of its fall, which was sure to come. Had this policy been adopted, Judah would not have been exiled, and our history would have taken quite a different turn. But the sons of Joshiah, supported by a party connected with Egypt by commercial interests and by the priest and Le- vites, preferred an alliance with that country; most likely because they could exercise the most despotical power under the supremacy of Egypt, to which probably other promises were added by that country being the weakest party in the struggle. This policy ruined Judah and made a miserable end to the Davidian dynasty. Zedikiah mounted the throne of Judah (599 b. c.) as a tributary king of Babylonia, when he was twenty-one years of age. The enfeebled state of Egypt under Psammis allowed the king no hope from that side, and so he was obliged to maintain peace. But when (596 b. c.) the king of Media died, leaving the country in the hands of his effeminate son Astyages, and difficulties arose between the two oriental powers, originat- ing frcm a boundary question, the politicians of Judah, Edom, Tyre, Zidon, Ammon and Moab, entertained strong hopes of gaining their independence (Jeremiah xxvii). Many patriotic 556 PERIOD V. speakers advocated a league between those countries and a rupture with the East. One Hananiah, son of Asur the prophet, was foremost among those who prophesie I great success to that enterprise. It was again the prophet Jeremiah, who, knowing that the eastern difficulties were but of a transi- tory nature, opposed the scheme, and he succeeded in convinc- ing king and people, that these were but illusory hopes, that the enterprise Avould terminate in the misfortune of Judah and of the captives in the East. The scheme was abandoned. Zedikiah in company with Elashah and Gemariah went to Babel to avoid suspicion. The agitation had seized also upon the captive Israelites, wherefore Jeremiah sent to them letters, advising them not to revolt against Nebuchadnezar, to be peaceable citizens of the country of their captivity, and to wait patiently for the fall of the Babylonian empire, which was sure to come, and which would restore independence to Judah. He also com- manded his friends to throw the letter fastened to a stone into the Euphrates after it was read, so that none but they might read it (Jeremiah xxix; li, 59, GO). So the storm once more was turned from unhappy Zion by the vigilance of Jeremiah. This commotion among the captive Israelites and the letter of Jeremiah addressed to them was noticed by Ezekiel, the son of Busi the priest, who was a man of high standing among the captives, and is the third of the three great prophets. He assumed public functions in the fifth year of Zedikiah, when he himself was thirty years of age. His speeches are in the main part a faithful echo of the speeches of his older contemporary, Jeremiah. He also prophesied the fall of the western nations under the Babylonian scepter, and the final and speedy down- fall of Babylonia; and he therefore also advised the Israelites, both in Judah and in captivity, to wait patiently for tlrat moment of resurrection. He, like Jeremiah, predicted the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and the ruin of the nation, if attempts were made to throw off the Babylonian yoke. Ezekial lived in the Israclitish colony on the Al Habor* *Videpage 409 CHAPTER XIII. 557 the head of which he appears to have been. The peculiar style of language in which his book is written, the strange visions in which it abounds, and e specially its pictures of the divine throne which betray a Zabiistic origin, prove suffi- ciently cither that he was a native of that region, or that he emigrated there when quite a child. His knowledge of the temjDle was obtained from descriptions and verbal informations, and the idolatry of which he spoke, belonged to the ; - Menassah, in consequence of which the present disaster was supposed to have overtaken the nation. Zedikiah after his return from Babel continued to acknow- ledge the eastern supremacy to the seventh year of his reign. About this time Psammis, the king of Eg}*pt, died (593, 13. c.) and was succeeded by his son Hophra or Apries, who was an enterprising and successful prince. Hophra resumed the struggle against Nebuchadnezer; he took Gaza {Jeremiah, xlvii.) fought a naval battle against Tyrians, and sent an army into Phoenicia. Zidekiah, after having formed a secret compact with Hophra, revolted against Babylonia. It was a hazardous game which the king of Judah played; the advantages offered to him by Egypt must have been considerable, to have caused him to take such a dangerous step. It appears to us, that Zedikiah acted on a different principle from his predecessors. He indeed thought of saving the country from the foreign yoke. He set in force the Mosaic law in regard to the liberty of person, and all persons bound in service to others were set free {Jeremiah, xxxiv, 8), and he was eagar to unite the parties, to fight for the independence of the country. The secret motives of the king can not be ascertained; but the people certainly had no other motives than the fervent desire to become independent ; to embrace the opportunity offered by Egypt in order to restore liberty to the country. The inspira- tion was a general one; the people at large were under arms, and nobly determined to die or to regain their liberty and inde- pendence. One man did not rejoice in this general inspiration of the people; he was not carried off by the current of agitation; no 558 pexiod v. sanguine hopes found space in his wounded heart; and this one man was Jeremiah. The hapless, afflicted and despairing patriot was too well aware of the gigantic power of the East, to en- tertain the least hope of success. He preconceived the dreadful catastrophe of unhappy Judah, if the Eastern Hon was driven to the extreme, if his wrath was irritated, and a dissolution of the nation deemed necessary. Jeremiah boldly denounced the league with Egypt and the revolt against Babylonia. His tears must have reached the hearts of his audience, his words must have rushed thunder-like through the multitude whom he ad- dressed; for he was imprisoned because deemed dangerous. In the ninth year of Zedikiah (590 b. c), the army of Nebuchadnezar came to Palestine, to enforce obedience. Every city was garrisoned and every one could be taken by assault only ; but one after the other fell before the enemy. The king entreated Jeremiah to pray to the Lord for the suffering country, to predict success, that he might set him free; but Jeremiah did not change his views, nor could he be persuaded to speak what he did not believe. Only his spotless character, his acknowledged autho- rity, and the gray hairs sparingly covering his head, saved him from the fury of the agitated warriors ; he sighed away his days in a prison, awaiting with terror the catastrophe which he had predicted. The enemy forced its way through the country, and the tenth day of the tenth month (Tebcth, January), the army of Nebuchadnezar appeared before Jerusalem, the siege of which was now commenced and continued for nineteen months, inter- rupted only for a short time by the following event. The king of Egypt came with an army to assist Jerusalem, but was de- feated by the troops of Nebuchadnezar. All the different detachments of that powerful army were concentrated before Jerusalem. The city was thus hemmed in, so that no provisions could be procured by the besieged. Famine, and pestilence raged within the city to an alarming degree, still none thought of surrendering ; nor could the besieging army succeed by any method of attack then known, in making a breach in the wall, or in taking it by storm. The city held out to the eleventh year CHAPTER XIII. 559 of Zedikiah (588 b. c). On the ninth clay of the fourth month (Tamuz, July) of that year, the besieging army succeeded in taking the outer walls of the city {Jeremiah xxxix), and, finally, also Mount Zion, the City of David. But the king and his officers, and his guard, had fled previously through a secret gate. The king made his escape towards the plain of Jericho. But pursued by the Chaldees and deserted by his guard, he was overtaken and brought captive before the king of Babylonia at Riblah. He was dreadfully punished for his revolt. His sons were killed before his face, after which his eyes were blinded, and in company with his friends, he was transported to Babel, and condemned to die in prison. Zion was taken, the royal palace and the house of the peo- ple were burnt down, the outer walls destroyed, and no hope dawned; still, the people held out in the city until the tenth day of the fifth month (Ab, August), when Nebuzradon, the general of Nebuchadnezar, succeeded in taking the city. The temple, together with all public buildings, were plundered and set on fire; the walls of the city were razed; those of the people who had escaped starvation, the pestilence, and the sword of the enemy, were led away in captivity. The high priest and his proxy, the military commander of the city, the seven coun- sellors of the king and his scribe, were executed at Riblah. The vessels of the temple were brought to Babel. None but the agriculturists, the party of the prophets, were left in the country, which was stripped of all its wealth and of all means of again revolting. Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, was appointed governor of Judah, which now was a province of Babylonia. Jeremiah was taken from his prison, and was among those who were trans- ported; but when at Raman, he was set at liberty by Nebuzradon. The choice was left with the prophet to stay in the country or to go to Babel, the former of which he preferred; he went back to weep upon the ruins of his beloved city. The sighs of the greatest heart that ever beat in a manly breast were converted into the words composing the Lamentations of Jeremiah. The seventy-ninth psalm is a painful but faint echo of those un- rivalled tunes of a broken lyre, of a weeping bard, of a despairing 5G0 PERIOD V. patriot, of an afflicted man, who exerts his last strength to give utterance to his pain and grief. Israel had maintained its nationality for nine centuries ; for the most of the time it was a free, independent and happy nation. It fell heroically under the blows of a power which it could not effectually resist. It had produced the greatest characters of antiquity, and left a wonderful history to posterity. Judah's sin was its obstinacy against the national council in Shechem after the death of Solomon; and, subsequently, its unwilling- ness to bear the yoke of Babylonia any longer. But who dare condemn a nation for preferring death to dependency! Israel existed gloriously, and fell heroically. ' ■ ! I t1 ~ &3 \L**\ ■ K * 4-v I* BS1197.W81 History of the Israelitish nation, from Princeton Theological Semmary-Speer Library 1 1012 00029 2252 y (a:-T, m ill i||';U \ W i ■ ■■' ! ■ ! i I1 \ " [f ill if ■ ;. ;' ';/ 'v- .:•• *, "