THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 
 THE DECLINE AND FALL 
 OF THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH
 
 BY THE SAME AUTHOR 
 
 THE TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS 
 OF ANCIENT ISRAEL 
 
 A NEW STUDY OF GENESIS AND EXODUS 
 Demy Bvo. Cloth. Price 1 5S. net. 
 
 CRITICA BIBLICA 
 
 Demy 8vo. Cloth. Price 15s. net. 
 
 OR IN FIVE SEPARATE PARTS, VIZ. 
 
 PART I. Isaiah and Jeremiah, price 2s. 6d. net. 
 PART II. Ezekiel and Minor Prophets, price 3s. net. 
 PART III. The Books of Samuel, price 3s. net. 
 PART IV. The Books of Kings, price 3s. net 
 PART V. Joshua and Judges, price 3s. net. 
 
 A. & C. BLACK, SOHO SQUARE, LONDON, W.
 
 THE 
 
 DECLINE AND FALL 
 
 OF THE 
 
 KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 BY 
 
 THE REV. T. K. CHEYNE, D.Lrrr., D.D. 
 
 FELLOW OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY 
 
 LATE ORIEL PROFESSOR OK INTERPRETATION IN OXFORD UNIVERSITY 
 AND CANON OF ROCHESTER 
 
 LONDON 
 
 ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK 
 1908
 
 DS 
 
 f/7 
 cy 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 I WOULD most gladly have offered the reader results of 
 study which involved somewhat less unpopular critical 
 presuppositions. The time for that does not seem to have 
 come, but I think that with a good will students who have 
 not gone as far as I have will be able to find many useful 
 facts and ideas in my book. The Introduction contains an 
 explanation of a theory which is assumed in the following 
 studies, and which ought to be called, not the Jerahmeelite, 
 but the North Arabian theory. It also contains answers to 
 critics, many of whom, as it seems to me, have continued 
 the bad tradition of controversial unfairness which has been 
 handed down to us from an earlier age. I hope that those 
 who misapprehend and misrepresent, or who not less unfortu- 
 nately ignore me, may be brought to a sense of their in- 
 justice, without having their feelings wounded, by what I 
 have written. I should not have sought to answer them if 
 the injury done to the cause of free inquiry had not been so 
 great. 
 
 Part I. gives an account, as complete as the often 
 doubtful evidence allows, of that interesting and changeful 
 period which begins with the finding of the great law-book 
 in the Temple under Josiah, and ends with the destruction 
 of Jerusalem. It has, of course, not been possible to treat 
 this portion of history without reference to an earlier period. 
 The contents of the work called Traditions and Beliefs of 
 Ancient Israel have therefore had to be frequently referred 
 to. As to the higher criticism, it will be clear that my
 
 vi DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 conclusions on Genesis and Exodus throw considerable 
 doubt on the strict accuracy of its results. The time has 
 not come, however, to revise these results. I have, there- 
 fore, provisionally adopted the generally accepted statements. 
 Professor Eerdmans' relative conservatism in textual matters 
 makes it unwise to follow him implicitly, suggestive as his 
 recent work on the composition of Genesis may be. I am, 
 however, glad of his support in the view that the narrators 
 of Genesis, generally speaking, believed in more than one 
 god. If he has ignored my own work, that is no reason 
 why I should ignore or depreciate his. 
 
 Part II. contains a study of the Israelite law-books, 
 with the exception of the Priestly Code, which, though it 
 certainly contains a kernel of older date, is in its present 
 form naturally considered to be post-exilic. Both here and 
 elsewhere the point of view is that set forth in Traditions 
 and Beliefs and in the Introduction, which, while recognising 
 both direct and indirect Babylonian influence on Palestine, 
 finds in the extant evidence a larger amount of reference to 
 N. Arabian influence, both political and religious. 
 
 In conclusion, I may draw attention to a passage in the 
 Introduction relative to the one-sided character of the 
 literary monuments of the pre-exilic period, which helps to 
 account for the large number of problems which are very 
 plausibly solved by the N. Arabian theory. I think that 
 this suggestion makes for peace. The present condition ol 
 the study of the Old Testament is far from satisfactory; 
 there is still a sad amount of partisanship, though the points 
 at issue have changed. ' Give peace in our time, O Lord ! ' 
 
 OXFORD, Sept. 18, 1908.
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 INTRODUCTION ix 
 
 PART I 
 
 THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE KINGDOM 
 OF JUDAH 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 INTRODUCTORY FROM HEZEKIAH TO JOSIAH ... 3 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 THE STORY OF THE FINDING OF THE BOOK ... 8 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 HULDAH THE PROPHETESS AND THE REFORMATION . . 1 6 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 JEREMIAH'S ATTITUDE JOSIAH'S DEFEAT AND DEATH 
 
 FEAR OF THE NORTH ARABIANS 32 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 JEHOAHAZ JEHOIAKIM HlS CONTEST WITH JEREMIAH 
 
 PORTRAITS OF KINGS IN JEREMIAH JEHOIAKIM TO 
 HAVE NO PUBLIC MOURNING LITANY OF LAMENTATION, 
 ITS VALUE FOR THE HISTORY OF RELIGION . . -44 
 
 vii
 
 viii DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 PAGE 
 
 JEHOIAKIM (continued} THE INVASION (OR INVASIONS) THE 
 Two BABELS JEHOIACHIN JEREMIAH'S AND EZEKIEL'S 
 UTTERANCES JEHOIACHIN'S CAPTIVITY TURN IN HIS 
 FORTUNES 56 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 ZEDEKIAH MORALITY AND RELIGION EZEK. vin. . . 70 
 SPECIAL NOTES 85 
 
 PART II 
 THE LAW-BOOKS (EXCEPTING THE PRIESTLY CODE) 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 THE Two DECALOGUES THE BOOK OF COVENANT . . 99 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 DEUTERONOMY INTRODUCTORY 109 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 THE LEGISLATIVE KERNEL (CHAPS, xn.-xxvi.) . . .112 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 THE FIRST PREAMBLE (i. i-iv. 43) 133 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 THE SECOND PREAMBLE (iv. 44-xi.) 145 
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 CONCLUDING SECTIONS (XXVH.-XXXIV.) 153 
 
 INDEX .185
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 THE ' JERAHMEELITE l THEORY' A MISTAKEN NAME FOR 
 A GENUINE THING, WITH AN ANSWER TO CRITICS, 
 AND OTHER PRELIMINARIES 
 
 I 
 
 IN the present Introduction the writer, with much reluctance, 
 deserts the paths of simple inquiry and exposition. He 
 will not, however, try the reader's patience by condescending 
 to the procedure of ordinary controversialists. The attacks 
 directed against him may often have been of a singular 
 vehemence. But the only mode of self-defence that he will 
 adopt is the removal of misapprehensions. Very likely the 
 most violent of his assailants may pass over these pages, 
 but there must still be some unspoiled Bible-students who 
 value the jewel of an open mind, and who would say to the 
 writer as the Roman Jews said to St. Paul, " We desire to 
 hear of thee what thou thinkest." What is it, then, that 
 requires to be freed from misapprehensions ? It is the 
 N. Arabian theory in its fullest form. It is here con- 
 tended that Arabia, and more distinctly North Arabia, 
 exercised no slight political and religious influence upon 
 Israel, especially upon the region commonly known as 
 Judah. And now, as always, the writer will combine this 
 with a Babylonian theory, viz. that, subsequently to a great 
 migration of Jerahmeelites and kindred Arabian peoples in 
 a remote century (B.C. 2500 ?), and again later, Babylonian 
 
 1 The present Introduction, in a shortened form, has appeared in 
 the Hibbert Journal, October 1908. Hence the irregular spelling, 
 ' Jerahmeel' for ' Yerahme'el,' ' Mizrim' for ' Misrim.'
 
 x DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 culture exercised a wide influence on Syria and Palestine, 
 and that South Arabia too, which was within the Baby- 
 lonian sphere of influence, and about which we may hope 
 soon to know much more, 1 profoundly affected North Arabia, 
 and, through North Arabia, South Palestine. Both directly 
 and indirectly, therefore, Palestine received a powerful and 
 permanent stimulus from Babylonian culture. 
 
 The portion of this complex theory which is most 
 sharply attacked is one which claims to be based, not only on 
 inscriptional evidence, but also on passages of the Old Testa- 
 ment. The question whether it really has an Old Testament 
 basis has not yet, I think, received half enough attention. 
 This is unfortunate. The South Arabian evidence may be 
 only probable ; the Assyrian and the Hebrew may, in my 
 opinion, be called decisive. Open-minded students may 
 well be surprised that there should be Biblical scholars of 
 the first and second rank who fail to see this, and who, 
 strong in their presumed security, not only attack the N. 
 Arabian theory themselves, but warn their pupils or readers 
 against it as a phantasy. 
 
 It may perhaps be objected that the keenest adversaries 
 are a relatively small number of persons, who, being on 
 these questions orthodox, may be expected to show the 
 qualities characteristic of orthodoxies. In reply, lapsing 
 into the first person, I admit that the most hostile writers 
 may be comparatively few, but when a number of the larger 
 and less bitter class, in paraphrasing a simple narrative of 
 the origin of a book, succeeds in transforming an act of 
 generosity into an act of calculating prudence, 2 even a saint 
 might feel justified in breaking silence. Is this, then, the 
 right way for a young convert to the historical spirit 
 (for such Prof. Witton Davies is) to treat a work of some 
 originality ? I know that it is hard to enter into a new 
 point of view, but those who cannot yet do this are scarcely 
 
 1 The death of Eduard Glaser the explorer makes it probable that 
 the inscriptions (about 2000) which he had collected will soon become 
 available to scholars. 
 
 2 I am sorry to have to point this out, for Prof. Davies is zealous for 
 the higher education in Wales. But it is inevitable. See Review of 
 Theology, etc., edited by Prof. Menzies, May 1908, p. 689, and cp. 
 Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel, p. v, ' To the Reader.'
 
 INTRODUCTION xi 
 
 qualified reviewers. It is disappointing, but I must confess 
 that hitherto only ' one man among a thousand have I 
 found' (Eccles. vii. 28), and he is an American. Prof. 
 Davies says that he is also an ex-Baptist, and that he has 
 ' defended some points of Jerahmeelism.' Apparently the 
 two things go together. 
 
 Professor Nathaniel Schmidt (the ' one man ' referred 
 to) has written an article in the Hibbert Journal (January 
 1908), entitled 'The "Jerahmeel" Theory and the Historic 
 Importance of the Negeb.' The opening words remind me 
 too much of the misleading title of another American article, 
 ' Israel or Jerahmeel.' * The truth is that there are other 
 ethnic or regional names of N. Arabia Mizrim, Asshur, 
 Cush which would have as much right to form part of the 
 title of the theory as Jerahmeel. I would dissuade, how- 
 ever, from parading any of these names in a title. Let the 
 names be well studied, remembering the important questions 
 symbolised by them, but let not any one of them be singled 
 out to the disparagement of the rest. If I now give an 
 incomplete study of one of the names, the reader will under- 
 stand that it is not with the object of making a new title 
 for a theory. 
 
 The passages which I am about to consider are some of 
 those which contain the N. Arabian regional name, Asshur 
 (or Shur) or Ashhur, perhaps the A'shur of Minaean inscrip- 
 tions. 2 And first, let us study Gen. xxv. 3 and Ezek. 
 xxvii. 23. In the former, Asshur[im] 3 is connected most 
 closely with Dedan, and only less closely with Sheba, which 
 are both admittedly N. Arabian. In the latter, Asshur 
 stands between Sheba and Kilmad, both which one expects 
 to be N. Arabian. Kilmad is no doubt corrupt, but the 
 origin is plain. KLMD has come from RKML, which, like 
 the place-name KRML, represents Jerahmeel. 
 
 Next Gen. xxv. 1 8. Here, certainly, Asshur is best 
 explained as a N. Arabian regional name. The true 
 
 1 See American Journal of Theology, October 1907 (article by 
 Prof. H. P. Smith). 
 
 ~ See the inscription Glaser 1155, first pointed out by Hommel. 
 See p. xv (n. 5). 
 
 3 Prof. Ed. Meyer is bold enough to question the existence of 
 Asshurim {Die Israeliten, p. 220).
 
 xii DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 rendering is, ' And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, 
 which is in front (i.e. eastward) of Mizrim. 1 To this an 
 ancient gloss is added, ' in the direction of Asshur ' ; Shur 
 is the short for Asshur. 
 
 Another passage is Gen. xxiv. 63. Here no doubt 
 the text is corrupt, but the right correction, for those 
 who are not ' naturally prejudiced,' is transparent. But 
 let us first look at the traditional text, which may be 
 represented thus, ' And Isaac went out to x in the field 
 at eventide.' Here x stands for a word which is corrupt 
 and untranslatable in short, an unknown quantity. A list 
 of the widely different renderings of commentators would at 
 once make this clear. And until we try some new methods 
 we shall still continue to be bafifled ; x will remain x. If, 
 however, we overcome our ' natural prejudice ' and apply the 
 new methods, we shall see that the true reading (for x} is 
 1 to Asshur,' which should probably be restored to verse 62, 
 where a place-name is really wanted. Thus we get for 
 verses 62, 63, ' Now Isaac had come to Ashhur from the 
 way (i.e. the caravan road) to the Well of Jerahmeel, for he 
 was a dweller in the Negeb. And Isaac went out into the 
 field at eventide,' etc. Ashhur was probably, not the region 
 so called, but the city where Ephron and, for a time, 
 Abraham dwelt, and which was called, corruptly, Kiriath- 
 arba', i.e. Ashhoreth-'Arab. 1 The Well of Jerahmeel, mis- 
 called Beer-lahai-roi, was no doubt the great central well of 
 the north Jerahmeelite country. For a definite view of the 
 situation of this country we may turn to Gen. xxv. 18, 
 already explained. 
 
 Another interesting passage is I Sam. xxiv. 14 (cp. the 
 parallel, xxvi. 20). Does our Bible really give us the 
 original writer's meaning ? With tasteless servility the 
 chivalrous David is here made to say what every one 
 remembers and wonders at. The true reading, however, of 
 the closing words is, not TTFN tmriD, but "intDN N~ID, 'a wild 
 ass of Ashhur.' A good part of the wide region called 
 Asshur or Ashhur was no doubt steppe country, where wild 
 asses delighted to roam (Job xxxix. 5-8). That, surely, is 
 a figure both fine in itself and specially appropriate for 
 1 See Traditions and Beliefs, pp. 337/, 349/
 
 INTRODUCTION xiii 
 
 David, who roamed at large in the south country like a 
 wild ass. 
 
 We have seen where an early narrator placed the N. 
 Arabian Asshur. It is quite another thing to be able to 
 locate it on the map. It is also troublesome that we 
 have two N. Arabian Asshurs to provide for, there being 
 apparently two uses of the name, a narrower and a 
 wider. 1 There was an Asshur which probably adjoined, 
 and anciently may have included, the Negeb, and another 
 which was some way from Southern Palestine, and whose 
 king at some period claimed suzerainty over the smaller 
 kingdoms to the north, including especially Mizrim. One 
 might possibly identify this with Meluha, which, as an 
 inscription of Sargon tells us, adjoined Muzri. The capital 
 was probably called Babel. 2 
 
 II 
 
 I have mentioned these things, partly to justify my 
 objection to the phrases ' the Jerahmeel theory ' and 
 ' Jerahmeelism,' partly because of the intrinsic importance 
 of the result to which the facts appear to point, viz. that the 
 rulers of a distant Arabian land, called conventionally by the 
 Israelites Asshur or Ashhur, were strong enough to invade 
 the Negeb and the land of Judah, and were confounded by 
 later scribes with kings of Assyria. The cause of the 
 confusion is obvious ; it is that the tradition of Assyrian 
 invasions was still in circulation. Parallels for the con- 
 fusion are given elsewhere (pp. 86 ff.). I may therefore now 
 proceed to explain another regional name Mizrim, or, in 
 Assyrian, Muzri or Muzur, which I have already had occa- 
 
 1 Hommel, however, who knows only of one Asshur, thinks that it 
 extended from the Wady el-Arish ( = the nahal Mizrim ?) to Beer-sheba 
 and Hebron, and that it is the A'shur mentioned, together with Muzr, 
 in a Minaean inscription dating, according to him, before 1000 B.C. 
 Winckler, however, makes the inscription several centuries later, and 
 others (e.g. N. Schmidt) bring it down to Cambyses. It is interesting 
 that in crusading times there was a thick forest, called Assur, near 
 the coast, some way to the north of Jaffa (Maspero in the Leemans 
 memorial volume). 
 
 2 Among the curiosities of Prof. Witton Davies (Rev. of Theology, 
 p. 692) is a Babel in the Negeb, for which I am not responsible.
 
 xiv DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 sion to use. Whether it means ' border region ' seems to 
 me doubtful ; the true meaning of regional names is not 
 always the most plausible one. There is, however, one 
 result of criticism which seems to me to have not been 
 overthrown either by Ed. Meyer, or by Flinders Petrie, or 
 by the newest writer, A. T. Olmstead : l it is that there 
 was a second land of Mizrim or Muzri, not indeed in the 
 Negeb (as the latest writer strangely supposes Winckler to 
 think), but in a tract of N. Arabia extending perhaps as far 
 south as Medina, and in the north probably not far removed 
 from the better-known Mizrim, 2 i.e. the Nile Valley. Many 
 equally strange doublings of regional names will at once 
 occur to the scholar. For instance, it is an irrefutable 
 historical fact, not dependent on I K. x. 18, 2 K. vii. 6, 3 
 that there was a third Muzri in N. Syria. 4 The Assyrian 
 inscriptions state that it sent tribute to Shalmaneser II., and 
 that its king was afterwards a vassal of Damascus. 
 
 About the second Muzri there is, I admit, much dispute. 
 Among younger scholars one may refer with pleasure to 
 L. B. Paton and Wilhelm Erbt, but it is a misfortune that 
 Prof. N. Schmidt's pupil, A. T. Olmstead, should have ex- 
 pressed himself so strongly against Winckler (other critics 
 on the same side are not even mentioned), because strong 
 language always makes it difficult to turn back, especially 
 when you have made such a huge mistake again and again as 
 to represent your opponent as believing in a Negeb Muzri. 
 I sorely fear that Prof. Ed. Meyer is not unaffected by this. 
 Fortunately Winckler is great even as a controversialist. 
 Fortunately, too, it is admitted by all that there are some 
 inscriptional references to Muzri which cannot possibly 
 mean either a N. Syrian state or the land which we know 
 as Egypt. 
 
 Things being so, we must give our best attention to any 
 evidence adduced from Assyrian or Egyptian sources, and 
 
 1 Western Asia in the days of S argon of Assyria (1908), pp. 56-71. 
 
 2 Mizrim and Mizraim are virtually the same. See Enc, Biblica, 
 ' Mizraim.' 
 
 8 The plausibleness of Winckler's view may be frankly admitted. 
 Olmstead's remarks (pp. tit. p. 58) hardly do justice to this. 
 4 According to the later boundaries.
 
 INTRODUCTION xv 
 
 the newest writer on Biblical archaeology l refers me, in 
 correction of my own views, to Prof. Flinders Petrie. Be 
 it so. Eager and impetuous, alike as an explorer and as a 
 writer, Prof. Petrie must produce some effect, even though it 
 may not be altogether what he desires. I therefore turn to 
 his latest expression of opinion, and what do I find ? He 
 tells us that the theory of a second Muzri is a fantastic 
 result of unchecked literary criticism. 2 Have we really to 
 believe this ? I admit that all unchecked criticism is 
 dangerous ; but how can the Muzri theory (for me, a part 
 of a larger theory the N. Arabian), based as it is on 
 inscriptional as well as literary evidence, be an example of 
 this ? Or will it be asserted that unchecked inferences from 
 inscriptions are less dangerous ? Can one, for instance, 
 infer from the fact that ' Sinai ' contains Egyptian monu- 
 ments down to the 2oth dynasty (Petrie, 1202-1102 B.C.), 
 and from that other fact (if it be such) that the Egyptian 
 frontier stretched across into S. Palestine at many periods, 
 that a Hebrew writer would call the added region Mizraim ? 
 Yet Prof. Petrie draws this inference, while frankly admitting 
 {Researches, p. viii) that ' there is no trace (in Sinai) of any 
 permanent garrison.' Elsewhere 3 this scholar speaks of the 
 supposed Muzri as situated in ' the almost uninhabited 
 desert.' Such an assertion, however, is arbitrary. As 
 Hugo Winckler remarks, ' If Roman civilisation penetrated 
 into this region under Roman rule, Oriental civilisation 
 penetrated before under Oriental rule,' nor can we doubt 
 that stimulating influences came from the more developed 
 culture of S. Arabia, especially if Winckler is right in 
 supposing that the king of Meluha (W. Arabia), who was 
 probably the suzerain of Muzri, was the head of the Minaean 
 empire, 4 i.e. that the archaising phrase, ' king of Meluha,' 
 should rather be 'king of Ma'in.' 5 At any rate, N. 
 
 1 See Prehistoric Archeology and the Old Testament, by H. J. 
 Dukinfield Astley, M.A., Litt.D., 1908. 
 
 2 Researches in Sinai, p. 195. 
 
 3 History of Egypt, iii. 283. 
 
 4 KAT^\ pp. 141/5 cp. Musri, Meluhha, Ma'tn (Mitteil. der 
 Vorderasiat. Ges.), 1898. 
 
 5 There is a Minaean inscription (Glaser 1155) in which a district 
 called Misran (postpositive article) and another district called Ma'in
 
 xvi DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 Arabia cannot fail to have been affected in many ways 
 by the more civilised south. The tillage of any productive 
 parts of the land, especially the important oases, would 
 certainly not have been exempt from this influence. 
 
 I have now to speak of passages respecting Muzri in the 
 Assyrian inscriptions. And first of all, of the passage in 
 which Tiglath-Pileser III. states that he appointed Idi-bi'lu 
 (evidently an Arabian, not [as Meyer, Kiichler, Olmstead] a 
 tribe) to be kepu (ktyutu), or, as we, thinking of Indian states, 
 might say, a ' resident ' over Muzri. 1 Where was this Muzri 
 situated? In 1889 Winckler supposed the reference to be 
 to the N. Syrian Muzri, but in 1893, with more Tiglath- 
 Pileser texts before him, he was able (in my opinion) to show 
 that a N. Arabian Muzri would alone satisfy the conditions 
 of the case. Prof. Petrie, however, whom our latest Biblical 
 archaeologist brings up against me, interprets this Muzri as, 
 not indeed the Nile Valley, but either what he calls Sinai or 
 the isthmus of Suez. One or two chiefs on the eastern side 
 of the Egyptian empire, who had acquired their independence, 
 may have made their submission, and received an Assyrian 
 resident. The theory takes no account of the other facts 
 adduced by Winckler, and implies that the Assyrian king 
 had an ill-served intelligence department. 
 
 Next, I will refer to an inscription of Sargon. It tells 
 how Jamani (probably a Jamanite or Javanite of N. Arabia), 2 
 an adventurer put up by the anti-Assyrian party in Ashdod, 
 
 Misran are mentioned as being under a Minasan viceroy (123). See 
 Winckler, Altor. Forsch. \. 29, 337. According to Olmstead, the 
 Misran here mentioned is 'naturally taken (by Winckler) to be his 
 Negeb Musri ' (Sargon, p. 59). That is not the case. Winckler says, 
 'only the N. Arabian region el-Misr and the Minasan colonies in N. 
 Arabia (inscriptions of el-Oela !) can be meant.' It should be noticed 
 that A'shur is also mentioned, and carefully distinguished from Misr. 
 The question arises, Is this the N. Arabian Asshur of the O.T. which 
 the commentators agree to pass over ? 
 
 1 See Winckler, Die jitngsten Kampfer wider den Pa>:-Babylonismus, 
 p. 42. 
 
 2 Less probably a Phoenician or (so, after Winckler, Olmstead, 
 Sargon of Assyria, pp. 77 /.) a Greek from Cyprus, or (Winckler, 
 Musri, etc., p. 26, n. i) a man of Jemen (Yemen). Like Jamani, Omri, 
 Zimri, and Tibni were all probably adventurers from N. Arabia (see 
 E. Bib.}. As for Winckler, what is the history of the name Jemen ? 
 Did 'Jaman' ( = Jerahmeel, p. xxxvi) extend to S. Arabia?
 
 INTRODUCTION xvii 
 
 fled before Sargon ' to the region of Muzur which is at the 
 entrance to Meluha.' This at least is Winckler's present 
 translation. I do not know whether it is the correct one. 
 It is possible to render ' to the border of Muzur, which (i.e. 
 Muzur) is beside Meluha,' which Prof. Petrie paraphrases, ' to 
 the frontier of the Egyptian power in Sinai which joins on 
 to Arabia.' This, he says, is 'a perfectly sound expression.' 
 It is at any rate sound English, but in what sense can it 
 have been said that the region which Prof. Petrie designates 
 Sinai was distinct from Meluha? And can Meluha be 
 rightly paraphrased ' Arabia ' ? The inference which Prof. 
 Petrie, and now too (June 1908) a young American scholar, 1 
 have not drawn from the Assyrian phraseology, but surely 
 ought to have drawn, is that the Muzur referred to by Sargon 
 needed to be distinguished from some other Muzur, i.e. 
 naturally, from Egypt. 
 
 I see no necessity for discussing these points further. 
 Dr. Astley has accused me (not discourteously) of rashness 
 on the ground of historical statements of Prof. Petrie, and 
 these statements, upon examination, prove to be very 
 doubtful. The chance, however, remains that some other 
 writer may compel my assent. Let us search the more, 
 recent books and magazines. 
 
 I have no doubt that all honest work contains elements 
 of truth. But though both Kiichler 2 and Olmstead 3 are 
 promising young scholars, and have really worked at the 
 inscriptions, they are (as I have pointed out elsewhere) not 
 open-minded enough for their criticisms on older scholars 
 (which contain serious inaccuracies) to be accepted. Prof. 
 Eerdmans, too, a scholar of higher rank, in his notice of my 
 second Psalter in the Theologisch Tijdschrift, has fallen into 
 grave misapprehensions, and is hampered by an inflexible 
 textual conservatism. I turn therefore unsatisfied from 
 Leyden to St. Andrews, and look into the useful review 
 
 1 See Olmstead, Sargon, p. 79, who remarks, most unsatisfactorily, 
 ' When Musuri is said to be ska pat of the region of Meluha, need it 
 mean more than that the fact of Ethiopic control was known in Nineveh?' 
 
 2 Die Stellung des Prophetenjesaja, etc., Tubingen, 1906 ; reviewed 
 in Rev. of Theologv, Jan. 1907. 
 
 3 Western Asia in the Days of Sargon of Assyria, New York, 
 1908. 
 
 b
 
 xviii DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 edited by Prof. Menzies. Here another young scholar 
 appears, Prof. Witton Davies by name. I have already 
 had to speak of him ; he doubtless wishes to promote Old 
 Testament researches, but I cannot see on what lines he 
 expects to do this. At any rate he firmly holds that every 
 form of the N. Arabian theory is ' impossible.' How, he 
 demands to be told, can two peoples, both called Mizrites, 
 ' have existed side by side without some notice of the fact ? ' 
 And must not an exodus from a N. Arabian land of Mizrim 
 ' have been known to at least the oldest writers (Amos, etc.) 
 of the Bible, who connect it with the well-known Egypt ? ' 
 To Drs. Kiichler and Olmstead I need not reply here ; 
 indeed, I have elsewhere criticised them already. To Prof. 
 Witton Davies, however, I may continue my remarks. First, 
 it is too much to assert that ' no notice of the fact ' was ever 
 given. One notice we have found already in Sargon's 
 inscription, and in such O.T. passages as Deut. iv. 20, 
 Ps. Ixxviii. 51, cv. 27, cvi. 21, 22, a reference to N. Arabia 
 (rather than to Egypt) is guaranteed by the rule of 
 synonymous parallelism. Prof. Witton Davies may indeed 
 question this in Deut. iv. 20, but the phrase 'the furnace of 
 iron ' has no meaning, and only prejudice can oppose the 
 methodical textual correction, ' the furnace of Arabia of 
 Ishmael' (see p. 144). Still less can it be denied that 
 ' Mizrim ' in the passages from the Psalms is synonymously 
 parallel to ' Ham.' What, then, does this strange, short name 
 signify? I think I have answered the question elsewhere 
 (see p. xxvii). It is an abridgment of the form ' Jarham/ 
 and is therefore equivalent to the racial as well as tribal name 
 'Jerahmeel.' Passing to the second point, how can any 
 critic prove that references in Amos and Hosea to ' the land 
 of Mizrim ' in connexion with the exodus mean ' the land 
 of Egypt ' ? A thorough study of Amos and Hosea seems 
 to point rather to the land of Mizrim in N. Arabia. 
 
 Ill 
 
 I turn much more hopefully to Prof. Nathaniel Schmidt, 
 both because he has attracted the censure of an opponent of 
 my own, and because I know that, like Chaucer's priest,
 
 INTRODUCTION xix 
 
 'gladly would he learn and gladly teach.' Indeed, his 
 previous changes of opinion conclusively prove this. He is 
 aware of the complexity of the problems before us, and fair 
 enough to hold that neither Winckler's theories nor my own 
 can possibly be as absurd as Prof. Eduard Meyer and 
 his younger allies suppose. At present he inclines to think 
 that the kings of Muzri spoken of in certain Assyrian 
 inscriptions were not kings or viceroys of a somewhat ex- 
 tensive N. Arabian region, but dynasts residing either in 
 Egypt or in districts adjoining it on the east, and also that 
 the region called in these inscriptions Meluha was not 
 Western Arabia, but Ethiopia. I am sorry that Prof. 
 Schmidt should defend this, and against it would refer to 
 Prof. Winckler's able reply to Eduard Meyer. 1 The latter 
 scholar is widely different in tone from Prof. Schmidt, and 
 his self-confidence seems to me unjustifiable. 
 
 Still, I do not myself belong to the irreconcilables, and, 
 agreeing on this point with Winckler, am willing to make an 
 admission in the interests alike of peace and of truth. It 
 may be true that Meyer's view of Muzri and Meluha has 
 fewer elements of truth than Winckler's in the inscriptional 
 passages to which a Muzri and Meluha theory is applied. 
 But it seems possible that Egypt and Musri alike, and Magan 
 and Meluha, represented to the Babylonians the southern 
 part of the earth. 2 The door is thus opened for different 
 geographical uses of these names. Magan, for instance, may 
 mean the east and south of Arabia, but also Nubia. At the 
 same time, how can we believe that any Hebrew writer can 
 have regarded Hagar as an Egyptian ? The connotation of 
 Mizrim must by a certain time have shrunk, leaving room 
 for a twofold interpretation, Egypt and N. Arabia. Similarly 
 Meluha may perhaps have come to mean either Ethiopia or 
 West Arabia. 
 
 Prof. Davies is shocked by all this ' confusion which, 
 according to Winckler, abounds in our Bible,' and, referring 
 elegantly to myself, finds it ' impossible that all our notions 
 of ancient geography should be so muddled and muddling.' 3 
 
 1 Die jiingsten Kdmpfer wider den Pan-Babylonismus, Leipzig, 
 1907. 2 See Winckler, E. Bib., ' Sinai,' 4, 7. 
 
 3 Review of Theology and Philosophy, May 1908, p. 697.
 
 xx DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 But can any critic assert that our c notions ' of ancient 
 Arabian geography were ever precise? This was Prof. 
 Schmidt's great difficulty. For a long time he hesitated as 
 a student of the new theories because of his c ignorance of a 
 region of which we had no good maps and no accurate 
 descriptions.' Hence, when Winckler ceased to identify the 
 nahal Mizrim (usually Mizraim) with the Wddy el-Arish, and 
 maintained that it was ' the stream that rushes into the sea 
 at Raphia,' he reserved his own opinion till he could examine 
 the locality. Winckler's difficulty, of course, was that he 
 was loth to accuse a capable Assyrian scribe of topographical 
 vagueness. Nor does Winckler speak of a ' rushing stream.' 
 He is much too careful for that, and expressly remarks that 
 even an insignificant water-course might have political and 
 legendary importance. Whether this is a conclusive argu- 
 ment, is very doubtful. A water-course like the Wady 
 el-Arish must surely have been specially distinguished in 
 phraseology. I have not myself seen the wady, but the 
 description of it given by the late Lieut. Haynes seems to 
 me ground sufficient for adhering to the usual view. 
 Winckler's comment on the Assyrian passage, however, is 
 certainly interesting. 
 
 But the Cornell professor's interest centres in the Negeb 
 that region at the extreme south of Palestine which forms 
 the transition to North Arabia, and which his assistant, 
 Dr. Olmstead, so strangely makes Winckler identify with 
 Muzri. The cause of his interest is manifest it is the close 
 association of localities in the Negeb with the history of 
 religion. Some of the eloquent sentences in which he sums 
 up his views sound almost like passages from the article on 
 Prophecy in the Encyclopedia Biblica. Nor can I avoid 
 mentioning that he still holds the opinion that ' the Jerah- 
 meelite [rather N. Arabian] theory unquestionably promises 
 to throw much light on the obscure history of the Negeb.' * 
 Among the points of detail referred to by Prof. Schmidt is the 
 origin of the Cherethites, who, in David's early time, occupied 
 a section of the Negeb. Were they really Philistines who 
 had come over from Crete ? Prof. Schmidt thinks so, and the 
 view is widely held ; it is indeed as old as the Septuagint. 
 1 E. Bib., ' Scythians,' 8.
 
 INTRODUCTION xxi 
 
 We know, however, that Cherethites and Pelethites formed 
 the bodyguard of King David, and it cannot be called likely 
 that this force was composed partly of Semitised descendants 
 of a Cretan race (Cherethites), partly of fully Semitic Arabian 
 tribesmen, akin to David (Pelethites). The prevalent theory 
 is based on I Sam. xxx. 16 (cp. v. 14). But is it certain 
 that ' the land of the Philistines ' is not equivalent to ' the 
 land of the Pelethites ' ? Is it certain, too, that David's 
 suzerain the king of Gath was a Philistine? 1 If Achish 
 were a Philistine, is it likely that he would have accepted 
 David as a vassal, or that David would have wished to 
 become one ? And is it not plain that Gath and Ziklag 
 lay farther south than is consistent with their being in the 
 ordinary sense Philistian localities ? 
 
 Who the Cherethites were, will, I hope, appear presently. 
 At present I devote myself to the very difficult name 
 ' Philistine ' (TIB^D). It is most obvious to identify it with 
 ' Purusati,' the first on the list of the ' sea-peoples,' which, 
 perhaps about 1230 B.C., invaded Syria from the north, and 
 were opposed on land and sea by Rameses III. We cannot, 
 however, infer from this (assuming it to be correct) that Saul 
 and David had to deal with Semitised descendants of the 
 Purusati. Indeed, with Hommel I am of opinion that those 
 of the Purusati who remained in Palestine found it convenient 
 to settle in the north. Prof. Schmidt will admit that this 
 view is perfectly tenable, and that my theory that the seem- 
 ingly express references to Philistines in the O.T. are due to 
 a confusion between Pelishtim and Pelethim is at any rate 
 plausible. For my own part I cannot recall any other 
 critical theory of which even this can be said. The confusion 
 referred to must have spread widely in Palestine, and have 
 been current even among the most highly educated class, 
 from whom, in the eighth century, the Assyrian scribes must 
 have derived it. We need not therefore emend ' Philistines ' 
 into ' Pelethites,' provided that, in our translations, we attach 
 to the former a marginal gloss, ' that is, Pelethites.' There 
 is evidence enough that the O.T. writers really meant, not 
 
 1 A king of Ekron is called I-ka-u-su in an inscription of Esarhaddon. 
 But (i) the reading is somewhat uncertain, and (2) in any case a Pelethite 
 might have borne the name.
 
 xxii DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 what the ordinary student means by ' Philistines,' but some 
 population in South Palestine or North Arabia which in- 
 habited not only the Negeb (i Sam. xxx. 16), but Gerar 
 (Gen. xx., xxvi.) and the so-called five Philistine cities 
 (Josh. xiii. 3). 
 
 And who were those ' Pelethites ' l whom I am virtually 
 substituting for the familiar Philistines ? Let us look at the 
 evidence. 2 (a) In three of the so-called Philistine cities 
 Joshua is said to have found Anakites (Josh. xi. 22) ; now 
 pss is to be grouped with ps, ;pi?, ]pjr, psD, p^DS, all of which 
 names (even pDD) are of N. Arabian origin, 3 and very possibly 
 arose out of popular corruptions of fpNDnT. (b} In I Sam. 
 vii. 14, after a statement that Israel recovered its lost 
 territory from the Philistines, we read that ' there was peace 
 between Israel and the Amorites.' Now, the probability 
 is that "ION, like the clan-name ION from Q-IN, has come by 
 a popular transposition of letters from DIN, ' one belonging to 
 (the southern) Aram.' (c) In Judges xiv. 3, xv. 18, I Sam. 
 xiv. 6, xvii. 26, 36, xxxi. 4, 2 Sam. i. 20, we find *ns 
 (Arel[ite]) ( D*6"ii? (Arelites), either in the text or as a gloss, 
 where ^ntD^D (Pelishti), DTIB&D (Pelishtim), or rather TI^D 
 (Pelethi), n^n^D (Pelethim), are meant. Now Arel[i] is only 
 a popular corruption of Jerahmeel[i], unless indeed any one 
 deliberately prefers the tasteless and misleading traditional 
 rendering. 4 (d} In I Chr. ii. 25-33, which is based on old 
 traditions, we have a record in genealogical form of a 
 number of Jerahmeelite peoples or clans. If we look closely 
 at the names we shall see that some of them at least are 
 corruptions either of Jerahmeel, or of some equivalent name, 
 such as Ishmael, Asshur, Ashkar, or Ashtar. Thus, Ram is 
 the same name as Aram (see p. xxxv) ; Jether comes from 
 Ashtar ; ' Atarah also from Ashtar, but with the feminine 
 ending; Jamin is a modification of Jaman (see p. 64, n. i), 
 
 1 See E. Bib. Pelethites ' ; T. and B. p. 3 1 2. 
 
 2 The difficulties in Josh. xi. 22 and i Sam. vii. 14 have already 
 been pointed out by Mr. S. A. Cook (Critical Notes on O.T. History, 
 
 P- 44). 
 
 3 T. and B. pp. 121, 175. 
 
 4 If the reader will hunt up the references to ' uncircumcision ' in the 
 O.T., and avail himself of the help I have offered, he will receive an 
 agreeable shock of surprise.
 
 INTRODUCTION xxiii 
 
 and ' Eker of Ashkar ; while Peleth, like Tubal (Gen. x. 2) and 
 Tophel (Dt. i. i), comes from Ethbal, an ancient corruption 
 of Ishmael. In short, the phrase Peleth ben Jerahmeel 
 indicates that the Pelethites were one of the many peoples 
 into which the ancient Jerahmeelite or Ishmaelite race broke 
 up. According to Am. ix. 7 the Philistines, i.e. the Pelethites, 
 came from Caphtor, and the original reading of Gen. x. 14 
 probably agreed with this ; Caphtor (YinDD) is not Crete, 1 but 
 an Arabian region, and by a permutation of letters the name 
 has not improbably come from JYQm (Rehoboth). Thus 
 we see at last what the Cherethites were, viz., certainly N. 
 Arabians, and probably Rehobothites ; and since Cherethites, 
 like Cherith, has almost certainly the same origin as Caphtor, 
 and the Pelethites, in the true text of Amos, are said to have 
 migrated from Caphtor, we may reasonably hold that tradi- 
 tion admitted no difference between Cherethites and Pelethites. 
 See further on Dt. ii. 23, and T. and B. pp. 191 f. 
 
 So much for the names, which, here as elsewhere, 
 symbolise historical facts. But was David really (as I have 
 said) a kinsman of the Pelethites ? Most probably. How 
 else could he so easily have obtained a hold on the Negeb, 
 and become, as Prof. Schmidt puts it, ' the creator of the 
 Judaean state ' ? Did not one of his sisters marry an 
 Ishmaelite z (2 Sam. xvii. 25), and he himself take one of his 
 two first wives from (the southern) Jezreel (i Sam. xxv. 43)? 
 It is true he is said to have been born at Bethlehem of Judah 
 (i Sam. xvii. 12). But there were doubtless several places 
 called Bethlehem ; ' lehem ' is a popular variation of some 
 shortened form of Jerahmeel (like melak in the witty phrase 
 ge-melak, ' valley of salt ' !), so that we can well believe that 
 there were several Bethlehems, and that one was in Zebulun, 
 another (Beit-Lahiii) in the later Judah, and another in the 
 Negeb of Judah. It is also true that David's father is called 
 
 1 See T. and B. p. 191. That there are graves in a certain stratum 
 of the remains of Gezer (supposed, from 2 S. v. 25, to be a Philistine 
 city) containing objects which show a fairly strong Cretan affinity' 
 (Myres), must not override the strong textual evidence adverse to the 
 identification of Caphtor with Crete. 
 
 2 See i Chr. ii. i6/. In 2 Sam. I.e. Ishmael is confounded with 
 Israel, as probably in Ezek. viii. 10 (see pp. 74/).
 
 xxiv DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 an Ephrathite (i Sam. xvii. 12). But the same appellation 
 is given to Samuel's father (i Sam. i. i), who was doubtless 
 of southern origin ; indeed, the Septuagint expressly calls 
 him a ' son of Jerahmeel ' (the Hebrew text has ' son of 
 Jarham,' which means the same thing). Hence, unless we 
 assume two inconsistent traditions, and neglect i Chron. 
 ii. 19, 24, we must obviously hold that there was a Calebite 
 or Jerahmeelite district called Ephrath. 
 
 IV 
 
 Thus on the Philistine question I agree more nearly with 
 Mr. Stanley A. Cook (Critical Notes, 1907) than with Prof. 
 Schmidt. But I have still quite sufficient points of contact 
 with the latter respecting the Jerahmeelites and the Negeb. 
 Not that even here we are completely agreed. I think that 
 Israelites and Jerahmeelites began to mingle as early as the 
 Exodus. 1 It also seems to me to stand to reason that the 
 Jerahmeelites called Cherethites and Pelethites not merely 
 served David in his bodyguard, but intermarried with Israel, 
 and settled in the enlarged territory of Judah. I should not 
 venture to say without qualification that it was David who 
 made Yahweh the god of Israel, for I think that long before 
 David's time the priesthood represented by Jethro incorpor- 
 ated a number of Israelite clans into the people (federation) 
 of the Jerahmeelite God Yahweh, an event which marks the 
 entrance of the original Israel upon a more settled stage of 
 life. But we must, of course, acknowledge that David did 
 much to heighten the prestige of the cult of Yahweh as 
 practised at Jerusalem. 
 
 With regard to Moses, Prof. Schmidt held at one time 
 that he was the historical creator of Israel, who gave to this 
 people a new divinity, Yahweh. Now, however, he sees 
 that Moses is a ' mythical figure/ whose home was first in 
 Midian and then in Kadesh-Barnea, agreeing in essentials 
 with the article 'Moses' ( 14, 17) in the Encyclopedia 
 Biblica. In details the writer of that article might not always 
 agree with the American professor. But on this important 
 
 1 See T. and B. p. 546, and cp. p. 382.
 
 INTRODUCTION xxv 
 
 point he has the support both of Prof. Schmidt and of 
 Prof. Ed. Meyer, viz., that ' modern historical research, when 
 it seeks for the earliest history of the Hebrew tribes, must 
 travel away from Egypt into N.W. Arabia.' Whether these 
 two scholars agree in inferring from the supposed Egyptian 
 names Moses and Phinehas that the priestly families of 
 Kadesh must have had some connexion with Egypt, I do 
 not know. It is at any rate Prof. Meyer's view, but I trust 
 that no one will be so rash as to adopt it. I observe that 
 Prof. Schmidt congratulates himself (p. 338) that his own 
 and Prof. Meyer's main conclusion ' does not in the least 
 depend upon the acceptance of the Muzri theory.' The 
 statement is literally correct. I venture, however, to think 
 that the conclusion referred to would be stronger if the two 
 scholars did accept that theory, and if one of them at least 
 did not support a disproved explanation of rrt&D (Moses) and 
 the less probable of the two explanations of Phinehas. 1 It 
 may be added that even if the tradition of the sojourn of the 
 Hebrew clans in Muzri be rejected, it supplies valuable 
 evidence of the N. Arabian connexion of the Israelites and 
 of Moses. But I for my part question whether that tradition 
 ought altogether to be abandoned. 
 
 On another matter this fair-minded critic proclaims his 
 agreement with me (p. 333). He thinks that I have ' rightly 
 divined ' Jerahmeelite influence upon Judah in post-exilic 
 times. It is indeed certain that Jerahmeelite tribes under 
 whatever names were driven north in the Persian period by 
 the advancing Edomites (themselves pressed by the 
 Nabataeans), and so infused a N. Arabian element into the 
 weakened population of Judah. There is evidence for this 
 in Ezra and Nehemiah, and to some uncertain extent in 
 Chronicles. Thus in the post-exilic catalogue of ' the men 
 of the people of Israel ' (Ezra ii., Neh. vii.) we find among 
 the names, as given in the Hebrew text, the bene Par'osh 
 (the Flea-clan !) and the bene Pashhur (unexplained), 
 designations which (like most others) have had a strange 
 history, and ultimately come, each by its own road, from 
 bene 'Arab-Asshur and its equivalent bene 'Arab-Ashhur 
 respectively ; also the bene 'Elam Aher, i.e. bene 'Elam- 
 1 T. and B. pp. 173, 521.
 
 xxvi DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 Ashhur ; the bene Ater, i.e. bene Ashtar ; the bend Salmai, 
 i.e. the bend Salmah ; the bene 'abde Shelomoh, i.e. bene 
 'Arab-Salmah. We find, too, the place-names Tel-Melah 
 (see p. xxiii), i.e. Tubal-Jerahmeel, and Tel-Harsha, i.e. Tubal- 
 Ashhur. These names prove that many families from the 
 region still conventionally called Asshur (Ashhur, Ashtar) or 
 Jerahmeel were admitted into the renovated Israelite com- 
 munity. Presumably they were proselytes or the children 
 of proselytes. We also hear much in Ezra and Nehemiah 
 of the abundance of mixed marriages, which, however, were 
 not recognised by the religious authorities. In Neh. 
 xiii. 23, 24, wives of Ashdodite origin are specially men- 
 tioned ; Ashdod (Asshur-Dod) is a regional name of North 
 Arabia. Another witness for an Asshurite or Jerahmeelite 
 immigration. Let us turn next to the list of builders of the 
 wall (Neh. iii.). The goldsmith and the spice-merchant in 
 v. 8 were, surely, a Zarephathite and a Korahite respectively. 
 The ' ben Hur ' in v. 9 was of an Ashhurite family. In v. 14 
 we meet with a Rechabite, i.e. a Kenite, and at the end of 
 the list with a number of Zarephathites and Jerahmeelites 
 (surely not goldsmiths and merchants). Two of these, it 
 will be noticed, are heads of political districts. 
 
 It would not be wise to reject this criticism as speculative. 
 Evidence from names, critically treated, is almost irresistible. 
 I will not, however, deny that its value would be increased by 
 monumental evidence. It is, of course, too soon to say that 
 no monuments exist, for we have not yet looked for them. 1 
 Prof. Schmidt's recent expeditions into the Negeb, when 
 director of the American School of Archaeology, were rather of 
 the nature of preliminary surveys than of explorations, and 
 the N. Arabian Muzri, supposed by Winckler and myself, 
 was out of his range. 2 He informs us that he found but few 
 tells in the Negeb, and specifies but one site (not a tell} which 
 looked very ancient (Meshrifeh), and which he identifies with 
 the ancient Zephath. The fewness of the mounds may 
 surprise us, considering the long list of 'cities' in Josh. 
 
 1 Cp. Winckler, in Helmolt's Weltgeschichte, iii. 230. 
 
 2 Since the above was written, Olmstead's remarkable statement in 
 his Sargon of Assyria, p. 6r, came to hand, the Negeb taking the 
 place of Egypt for several centuries ; obviously, a mistake.
 
 INTRODUCTION xxvii 
 
 xv. 21-32 (cp. Neh. xi. 25-30). We need not indeed 
 suppose that that list accurately represents the Negeb of 
 early times ; still the early cities (partly disclosed to us by 
 textual criticism of legend and history) cannot have been 
 much fewer. Let us remember, however, that ' city ' in the 
 O.T. may mean very little. Many so-called ' cities ' were of 
 highly perishable materials, and would be easily effaced by 
 the destroyer's hand. 
 
 One criticism I cannot help making, that Prof. Schmidt, 
 like Prof. Meyer before him, confines the Jerahmeelites within 
 too narrow an area. It is true that in i Sam. xxvii. 10, 
 xxx. 14, the Negeb appears to be divided into sections, one 
 belonging to Judah, and others to the Jerahmeelites. But, 
 properly speaking, Jerahmeel was not a tribe but a race, and 
 is to be distinguished from the tribes which broke off from 
 the parent stock, and sometimes even developed into peoples. 
 At this point I must ask leave to enter into more details, for 
 of what use would unsupported general assertions be ? There 
 will have to be details about names explained from the point 
 of view of my theory. And why not ? Until any other 
 point of view produces more natural explanations of the 
 names I see no reason for retracing my steps. My present 
 object is to demonstrate that the name Jerahmeel or Ishmael 
 has more than a tribal reference. 
 
 I must, pause for a moment, however, to justify, so far 
 as space allows, the equivalence of these two names. To 
 me this is a fact, but Prof. Meyer's recent work on the 
 Israelites and their neighbours does not even mention it as 
 a possible theory. And yet it appears certain that neither 
 this scholar nor Prof. Schmidt will be able to solve the 
 problems of Gen. ix. 20-27 and x. without this assumption, 
 and if it involves the novel identification of Ham with 
 Yarham or Yerahme'el, and of Shem with Ishma or Ishmael, 
 yet the popular shortening of ethnic names is no new 
 phenomenon. Just so, in that much - disputed passage, 
 Num. xxiv. 17, Sheth is a shortened form of Ashtar. This 
 passing notice seems all the more called for, since Prof. 
 A. R. Gordon has revived the interpretation of bene Shem as 
 ' sons of renown ' and of bene Jepheth as ' sons of beauty,' l 
 1 The Early Traditions of Genesis (1907), pp. 182, 184.
 
 xxviii DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 while Prof. Witton Davies is even so kind as to make me 
 say that ' Shem and Ham are in reality one word, viz. 
 Yerakhaman, miswritten through ignorance or prejudice or 
 both.' l I may add that it is difficult to read the prophets 
 critically with a view to textual restoration without 
 perceiving that the early editors and gloss-makers regarded 
 ' Jerahmeel ' and ' Ishmael ' as equivalent. 
 
 The evidence which I have to offer for a wide reference 
 of these names is drawn from the traditions of Babylonia, 
 Phoenicia, and Israel. I. Babylonia. It is the opinion of 
 Hommel 2 that Sumu, in the royal names Sumu-abu and 
 Sumu-la-ilu in the first dynasty of Babylon, means ' his 
 name,' which is a periphrasis for God (sumu-hu being con- 
 tracted into sumti) ; he compares the Hebrew Shemu-el, the 
 Phoenician Shem-zebel, 3 and the Palmyrene (Aramaic) Shem- 
 rapha. Other names of the same early period are Shumu- 
 hammu, Sumu-ramu, Hammu-rabi. Hommel would call this 
 dynasty ' Arabian,' while Winckler prefers to call it 
 ' Canaanite.' Certainly the names must be either North 
 Arabian or Canaanite. To me it appears that Sumu in 
 Sumu-abu, as in the Hebrew Shem, Shemuel (Samuel), 
 Shebuel, and Shobal, is to be connected with Ishmael, while 
 Ramu in Sumu-ramu is to be grouped with Ram or Aram, 
 i.e. Jerahmeel (see below). The stages of development we 
 cannot, with our scanty evidence, determine. Zebel too in 
 Shem-zebel, not less than ^11 in Judg. ix. 28, is a corruption 
 of Ishmael, the origin of which was early forgotten, just as 
 the meaning of many religious phrases of the Bible was 
 doubtless almost or quite forgotten long before the time of the 
 writers who used them. Rapha is possibly an early popular 
 corruption of 'Arab 4 (Arabia). Ham, presupposed by 
 
 1 Review of Theology (Menzies), May 1908, p. 695. Elsewhere, 
 incredible as it may seem, ' Yerahme'el ' is given as ' Yerakh.' 
 
 2 Grundriss der Geogr. u. Gesch. des Alien Orients, i. 95 (n. i); 
 Anc. Heb. Trad. p. 100. Winckler too (Gesch. Isr. i. 130, n. 3) 
 recognises Sumu-abu and Sumu-la-ilu as Canaanitish. 
 
 3 T. and B, p. 117 (n. i). 4 Ibid. p. 240.
 
 INTRODUCTION xxix 
 
 Hammu (which need not represent DS) in Shumu-hammu 
 and Hammu-rabi, is exactly parallel to Shem and has been 
 already explained. These are, of course, not the only 
 personal names which admit of a ' Canaanite ' or North 
 Arabian explanation, but may suffice for our present purpose. 
 And among ethnic or tribal names special attention may be 
 called to the name Ahlami in the Tel el-Amarna tablet No. 
 2 9 !> given to an Aramaean tribe in the steppe country 
 between the mouth of the Tigris and the Euphrates and the 
 mountains of Edom, 1 which had some relations to the king 
 of Babylon early in the fourteenth century. Like HD^nN 
 in Ex. xxviii. 1,9, and D^n, niON^Tr in 2 Sam. x. 16 f., it 
 probably comes from ^NcrrT. Evidently the Jerahmeelite 
 migration was widespread. 
 
 2. Phoenicia. Here again the royal names are specially 
 instructive. 2 Two will suffice here, Hiram and Ithobal. The 
 former is clearly the same as Ahiram (Num. xxvi. 38), which, 
 according to analogy, should represent Ashhur-Ram ( = 
 Aram ; cp. I Chr. ii. 25), and the latter is, in its origin, 
 identical with Abitub ( I Chr. viii. 1 1 ), i.e. 'Arab-Tub, 
 which is a shortened form of 'Arab-Tubal. It should be 
 remembered that the early Hebrew traditions represent the 
 Israelites, the Jerahmeelites, the Mizrites, and the Philistines 
 (Pelethites) as speaking either the same tongue, or not 
 widely different dialects of the same tongue ; such a com- 
 munity of language certainly existed between the Phoenicians 
 and the Israelites. No wonder, then, that a series of names 
 should be held in common by these peoples. If we accept 
 these traditions, I see no possible doubt but that N. 
 Arabian names were carried northward by the Jerahmeelites. 
 
 3. The Israelite traditions. We know (see p. 64) that 
 there was an Asshur in the N. Arabian border-land, and also 
 one that was called ' a far-off land,' a phrase which reminds 
 one forcibly of Sargon's description of Meluha. 3 It appears 
 from an ancient gloss inserted by mistake in the original 
 text of Isaiah x. 5, that the far-off Asshur was considered to 
 
 1 So Sanda, Die Aramder (in Der Alte Orient, iv. 3), p. 4. 
 
 2 T. and B. p. 46. 
 
 3 Has Meluha, like Ahlami, come from Jerahmeel ? Hebrew 
 parallels are m:o (Judg. xiii. 2), nnuD (Judg. xx. 43), nmo (Gen. xxxvi. 23).
 
 xxx DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 be 'in Jarham.' It is true the traditional text says, not 'in 
 Jarham,' but ' in their hand,' and Duhm, who holds that 
 DTI Nirr is a correctly written gloss, thinks that the gloss- 
 maker had taken offence at the poetical statement that 
 Asshur himself was a staff or rod. Poor silly annotator ! 
 But was he really so dull ? Do not commentators sometimes 
 nod ? There are not a few geographical glosses in the 
 Hebrew Bible, 3 and surely this is one. The gloss, in its true 
 form, runs thus : DnT3 Nirr, ' it (viz., Asshur) is in Jarham ' 
 (i.e. in North Arabia). 
 
 Another tradition of great interest is given in Num. 
 xxiv. 20, ' Amalek was the first of the nations.' Certainly 
 the first of the nations must have spread itself out widely. 
 But what is this strange-sounding name Amalek ? Evidently 
 transposition and permutation of letters has taken place ; 
 p^>D2, like ^Niop, comes from ^NDrrP. Hence the Kenites 
 can be said equally well to dwell near the Amalekites and 
 near the Jerahmeelites (i Sam. xv. 6, xxvii. 10, xxx. 29). 
 We even find the same geographical limits given to the 
 Ishmaelites in Gen. xxv. 1 8 a and to the Amalekites in 
 i Sam. xv. 7. 
 
 We cannot, then, be surprised that Mizrim too (see p. 
 xviii) was considered Jerahmeelite and Asshurite. In Gen. 
 x. 6 the pointed text calls the second of the sons of Ham 
 Mizraim. But, as Mr. S. A. Cook perceives, 1 Ham is, to 
 say the least, a S. Palestinian name, so that the reading 
 Mizraim (Egypt) is at once condemned. In fact, as we have 
 seen, Ham is a shortened form of Jarham. Psalmists too 
 support the view expressed in Gen. x..(Ps. Ixxviii. 5i> cv. 23, 
 27, cvi. 22). They actually make Mizrim parallel to Ham. 
 Ham, as usual, is = Jerahmeel, and though some commentators 
 defend a reference to Egypt by adducing the native name 
 for Egypt kemet (the black country) the improbability 
 of this is obvious. We also find Ham as the name of a 
 southern stock to which the original inhabitants of a valley 
 near Gerar (which in Gen. xxvi. I is a Philistine, i.e. Pelethite, 
 country) are said in I Chr. iv. 40 to have belonged. 
 Comparing v. 40 with v. 43, we see that Ham and Amalek 
 are here synonymous, so that one branch of the Hamites went 
 1 Critical Notes, p. 58 (n. 2).
 
 INTRODUCTION xxxi 
 
 by the name of Amalek, which is indeed merely a modifica- 
 tion of Jerahmeel. To the confusion of Mizrim and Mizraim 
 we shall return later. 
 
 Summing up, it has been shown by the above facts that 
 the Jerahmeelites were a widely-spread race, portions of 
 which, starting from Arabia, settled in Babylonia, Syria, 
 Phoenicia, and both the north and the south of the land of 
 Israel. 
 
 I will now turn to some of the other personal and 
 place-names in the Hebrew traditions upon which I have 
 endeavoured to throw some fresh light. My friend Prof. 
 Schmidt may or may not see that I am on the right track, 
 but he cannot avoid recognising the precariousness of the 
 current conjectures. Nor can he help regretting the tone 
 of the following sentence in an article, already (p. xi, n. i) 
 referred to, by Dr. H. P. Smith, a professor at Meadville 
 Theological Seminary (U.S.A.) : ' We are at a loss to 
 discover why Jabal, Jubal, Mahalaleel, Lamech, . . . should 
 not have been allowed to appear in their original form as 
 Jerahmeel, or why Joktheel should supplant Jerahmeel as 
 the name of a city, or why Beer-lahai-roi should be forced 
 into the place of En-Jerahmeel.' Allowed ! Supplant ! 
 Be forced ! Could there be any greater proof of un- 
 willingness to enter into a new point of view than this ? 
 Surely the first duty of the critic is not to tell the world 
 whether he agrees with, i.e. is prejudiced in favour of, some 
 other scholar, but to show that he comprehends the other's 
 point of view. And the second duty is ' like unto it ' : it is 
 to study the new tracks which the new point of view has 
 suggested to that other, and state where he understands and 
 where he requires further help, and also no doubt where he 
 can himself offer help to that other. And the whole in- 
 vestigation should be permeated by the spirit of fairness 
 and accuracy. 
 
 But no, the critic is not to be the fellow-student, and in 
 some sense the disciple, of that other, but his judge. As if 
 any critic could venture either to praise or to blame a book 
 of extensive range and originality, except with modesty, and 
 as the result of sympathetic study. A judge, indeed, is not 
 called upon to be modest, but how can any critic pass
 
 xxxii DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 sentence on a book of this character ? If he assumes the 
 r61e of judge, is he not in imminent danger of hindering the 
 progress of his study, and discouraging that originality which 
 is the salt of learning, and the prize of long years of critical 
 research ? 
 
 For his own part, the Meadville professor is convinced 
 that ' proper names, both of persons and places, are 
 tenacious of life.' That is not untrue, but life assumes 
 many forms, and no verbal forms are so apt to suffer change 
 as personal and place-names. In the case of the Hebrew 
 names this transformation was greatly facilitated by 
 historical circumstances. The stories which underlie the 
 Israelite legends were, many of them, brought from a 
 distance, and with the stories came the names of the 
 legendary places and the legendary heroes. These stories, 
 if I see aright, were derived from different tribes, all Jerah- 
 meelite, and it is probable that almost in each the name 
 Jerahmeel took a different form, or different forms. That 
 ethnic names like Jerahmeel, Ishmael, Asshur, Israel, should 
 be worn down by use, was inevitable, and the attrition would 
 have different results among different groups of people. 
 When therefore it is said that Jabal and Jubal are forms of 
 Jerahmeel, and that Tubal is a form of Ishmael, it is not 
 meant that they have come directly from Jerahmeel or 
 Ishmael, but from some popular or tribal corruptions of 
 those names. As for these much-suffering proper names, 
 I cannot discover that here or elsewhere Prof. H. P. Smith 
 explains them. But in case he should say that ' praise of 
 God ' is a credible meaning for Mahalaleel, and ' strong 
 young warrior ' (Dillmann and A. R. Gordon) for Lamech, 
 I can only regret that such statements should still be within 
 the bounds of possibility. In 1903 Prof. Smith considered 
 that Mehujael might mean ' wiped out by God,' which seems 
 to me worse even than explaining Methushael ' man of 
 Sheol.' l Or can Prof. Smith really think that tradition 
 would substitute for the genuine names of ancient tribes 
 other names of artificial origin which indicated that the 
 tribes had become ' wiped out,' and had as it were gone 
 down to Sheol ? Some readers may think these problems 
 1 Old Testament History, p. 24.
 
 INTRODUCTION xxxiii 
 
 trifling. They are not trifling ; they affect many more 
 questions which have not been answered with such a skill 
 and insight as would justify the contemptuous rejection of 
 new methods and results. As I have pointed out (T. and B. 
 p. 107), these names contain corrupt forms of SNDTTP or 
 f?NSDBr. No other methodical explanation has yet, so far 
 as my long experience goes, been offered, except, indeed, by 
 extreme mythologists. 1 
 
 With regard to the place-name Joktheel, there is one 
 important point which this critic (like many others) appears 
 to have overlooked. It is that the scene of the battle 
 between Amaziah and the Edomites, 2 K. xiv. 7 (or, perhaps, 
 the Arammites) was ' in the valley of [hamjmelah/ i.e. ' in 
 the valley of Jerahmeel ' (' melah,' like ' lehem,' being a 
 witty popular corruption of that widespread racial name). 2 
 Joktheel is therefore most naturally viewed as a Jerah- 
 meelite, Ishmaelite, or Asshurite name. In applying this 
 key I have myself wavered. Most probably, however, the 
 original name was equivalent to Ashkar-el, 3 i.e. ' belonging 
 to Asshur-Jarham. The unsatisfactoriness of other theories 
 must be my excuse for making the present explanation thus 
 prominent. Many parallels to the name will be found in 
 Joshua, in the lists of Israelitish towns. 
 
 VI 
 
 I will now mention some other forms assumed by 
 the names Jerahmeel and Ishmael in their wanderings. 
 Beginning with Jerahmeel, one may refer in particular to 
 Rekem, Kerem, Kedem, Aram, Javan. 
 
 (a) Rekem 4 (Dpi), i.e. Yarham, occurs as a Midianite 
 
 1 Boklen, for instance, thinks that ' man of Sheol ' may be right, 
 and refer to the chthonic side of the moon-god (Adam und Qain, 1907, 
 p. 132). But Prof. Smith does not belong to this school. 
 
 2 Probably Dr. H. P. Smith will be driven to defend the ancient 
 but difficult explanation ' Valley of Salt.' 
 
 3 Vnpiv = Vxpnx = Supe-N = 'jN-oE'N. Cp. Sarn and pSpe-N, and on "n in 
 ne-N see next note. ^ is merely formative. 
 
 4 We also find both T and pi for opn : the former in -pan (Gen. 
 xli. 43, T. and B. pp. 462 /), T"n (Zech. ix. i), and run, a place-name 
 in M. Pognon's famous Aramaic inscription ; the latter in Gen. xx. 1 1 
 (see T. and B. pp. 313, 467). 
 
 c
 
 xxxiv DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 name in Num. xxxi. 8, a Hebronite in I Chr. ii. 43 f. 
 (brother of Shema = Ishmael), a Manassite in I Chr. vii. 16 
 (close by are Raham and Jorkeam, which can hardly be 
 explained except as popular corruptions of Jerahmeel). 
 Rekem is also used in the Targum for Kadesh-Barnea, and 
 it is extremely probable that the unintelligible WQ (Barnea) 
 has arisen by transposition of letters from pN*i, i.e. JON"), an 
 equivalent of Jerahmeel. Eusebius and Jerome assert that 
 " Petra, a city of Arabia, in the land of Edom, surnamed 
 Joktheel, is called Rekem by the Syrians ' (Eus., Assyrians). 
 The identification of Joktheel with Petra can hardly be 
 maintained ; no doubt more than one N. Arabian city bore 
 the name of Rekem. () Kerem ( = Rekem, by transposi- 
 tion and change of k into k) has received a superfluous and 
 misleading article in the place-name Beth-hakkerem, Jer. 
 vi. i, and by scribal error has become Beth-kar, i S. vii. 1 1. 
 It is also presupposed by Karmi in i Chr. iv. i (where 
 Karmi corresponds to Kelubai and Kaleb in i Chr. ii. 9, 1 8). 
 (c} We find the name Kedem in the phrases ' the sons, land, 
 mountains of Kedem ' (' the east ' is, of course, inadmissible). 1 
 This is a further modification of Rekem, and though 
 seemingly a scribal error, may have arisen very early from 
 causes on which it would be vain to speculate. In Judg. 
 vi- 3> 33> vu - I2 > 'th e Amalekites ' ( = Jerahmeelites see 
 p. xxx) is inserted as a gloss. 
 
 (aT) Aram (Assyrian, Arimi, Aramu) is familiar to us as 
 the name of a land and people to the N.E. of Palestine. But 
 it is also, as recent scholars agree, the name of an Arabian 
 people. This Hommel infers 2 from Gen. x. 23, xxii. 21. 
 I should hesitate myself to assign these Arammites to ' a 
 large part of Arabia ' on Biblical grounds ; the traditions of 
 Israel seem to me to point more definitely to N. Arabia as 
 the original seat of this people. In Num. xxiii. 7 we find 
 ' Aram ' parallel to ' the mountains of Kedem,' and Kedem, 
 as we have just seen, is an early modification of Rekem, i.e. 
 Jarham. That Balaam was a N. Arabian soothsayer, has 
 surely been proved. 8 As to the name Aram, we can hardly 
 
 1 See T. and B. pp. 179, 200, 372 ; E. Bib., 'East, Children of; 
 'Rekem.' 2 Grundriss, p. 188. 
 
 3 T. and B. pp. 40 (n. 3), 41, 179, 190, 314, 430.
 
 INTRODUCTION xxxv 
 
 doubt its connexion with Jerahmeel (cp. Shem = Ishmael ; 
 Sheth = Ashtar). A shorter form is Ram (in i Chr. ii. 9, 
 brother of Jerahmeel and Kelubai). We have it in the 
 patriarchal name Abram, which is doubtless equivalent to 
 Abraham ; at least, no other equally probable account can 
 be given of these two forms than that ' ram ' comes from 
 ' Aram,' and ' raham ' from ' raham,' i.e. Jarham. The name 
 Aram must have gone northward in the migration. In 
 Amos ix. 7 the Arammites (who follow Israel and the 
 ' Philistines ') are said to have been brought (by Yahweh) 
 from Kir or (see 0) Kor ; possibly Ashhur in the wider 
 sense is meant. From another point of view one might place 
 Kir ' somewhere in S. Babylonia on the Elamite border.' l 
 
 (e) There remains Javan ( = Jaman). The identification, 
 so widely accepted, of Javanites with lonians, seems to be 
 only tenable in Dan. viii. 21, x. 20, xi. 2, and even here the 
 question arises whether in an earlier, underlying form of the 
 Book of Daniel 2 the name Javan may not have had a 
 different meaning. Everywhere else, at any rate, Javan can be 
 shown to have sprung either from Jerahmeel or from Ishmael. 
 For the O.T. passages, and such criticism as was possible 
 to me when the article was written, reference may be per- 
 mitted to ' Javan ' in the Encyclopedia Biblica. In my later 
 works 3 the best explanation known to me was pointed out 
 more and more clearly. It was added that the Jamani who 
 displaced Sargon's nominee as king of Ashdod (p. xvi) may 
 have been, like other adventurers (e.g. Omri, Zimri, Tibni), 
 a N. Arabian. 4 This will gain in probability if the Jamnai 
 whom Sargon (KB ii. 43) 'drew like a fish from the midst 
 of the sea' can in any sense be N. Arabians. And why 
 should they not be? It seems clear that the N. Arabians, 
 in their migrations, carried their names with them, and in 
 the present case it is noteworthy that one name for 
 Phoenicia till quite late times was most probably Jam, 
 
 1 Sanda, Die Aramder (in Der Alte Orient, iv. 3), p. 8. 
 
 2 T. and B. pp. 159 (n. 2), 160. 
 
 3 Crit. Bib. Part II. (1903), p. 104 ; cp. Part I. p. 48 ; T. and B. 
 pp. 6 (n. 3), i6o/, 210. 
 
 4 Winckler suggests Jemen as his origin (Musri, Meluhha, Ma'in, 
 p. 26, n. i).
 
 xxxvi DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 i.e. Jaman ( = Javan). The equation Jam = Jaman is by 
 no means arbitrary. In the Hebrew Bible, as I have 
 pointed out elsewhere, 1 Jam is sometimes a shortened form 
 of Jaman, and it is difficult to resist the view, which (taken 
 in connexion with certain parallel theories) smooths over 
 exegetical difficulties, that in Phoenician inscriptions too 
 Jam means Jaman (' Zidon of the sea ' should be ' Zidon of 
 Jaman '). I hold, therefore (after E. Robertson), that the 
 Jamnai of Sargon are the Phoenician inhabitants of Arvad, 
 which was an insular city, 2 and support this by the similar 
 figurative phraseology of Ashurbanipal (KB iii. 170, n. 2}. 
 
 It is true, Robertson gives the theory a different setting. 3 
 He is of opinion that the original Javanites were that highly 
 civilised people which preceded the Semites in Babylonia, 
 whence, as he thinks, they spread to the Mediterranean, 
 and became known as the lonians ; while some settled in 
 Phoenicia, and ' developed that navigation which they had 
 learned on the Lower Euphrates and Persian Gulf.' The 
 theory, as proposed by Robertson, has a wide basis, taking 
 in the 'Iaoye<? of Greek and the Javana of Sanskrit literature. 
 Whether the facts adduced are all relevant may be matter 
 for debate. The result which appears to me the most 
 satisfactory is based solely on the Hebrew, the Phoenician, 
 and the Assyrian evidence. Except in our present text of 
 the Book of Daniel, Javan or Jaman is equivalent to 
 Jerahmeel or Ishmael. 
 
 It is now time to refer briefly to the corruptions of the 
 name Ishmael. I give a larger number than in the case of 
 Jerahmeel, because Ishmael has not taken so much hold on 
 my critics as the parallel name. Here, then, are some of 
 those disclosed by the new methods, SDBT, SDB), Nlttf, 
 
 \DT, DT. The only remark on these names that I can 
 allow myself is this, that a considerable number of theories 
 (e.g. the existence of traces of totemism in the O.T., 4 and 
 
 1 T. and B. pp. 44 / 2 See E. Bib., 'Arvad.' 
 
 3 'Notes on Javan,' Jewish Quarterly Review, April 1908, pp. 
 466-508. 
 
 4 Prof. Witton Davies states in his article (p. 704) that the present 
 writer ' nowhere shows the slightest interest in totemism.' A reference 
 to the index (s.v. Totemism) will disprove this hasty statement.
 
 INTRODUCTION xxxvii 
 
 the mention of the north pole as the seat of the supreme 
 God) l are shown by a keen criticism of the names to be 
 fallacious. For further information I may refer to passages 
 in the present work and in Traditions and Beliefs, and for 
 the name Simeon to T. and B. p. 375, and Meyer's Die Isr. 
 p. 425. 
 
 I trust that I have not exhausted the patience of my 
 readers. I would far sooner have refrained from anti- 
 criticism, but the injury done to the cause of free inquiry 
 was too great. My anti-criticism, however, has not excluded 
 explanation ; indeed, it has to some extent facilitated it. I 
 will now venture to ask, What are the most probable reasons 
 for the violent and uncomprehending opposition to these 
 researches ? 
 
 The reason that I shall mention first is by no means 
 devoid of plausibility. It is that some may question the 
 possibility of solving so many problems by a single key. 
 This I meet by the admission that all pioneers are liable to 
 go too far. Aware of this, I have not waited for helpers, but 
 have to a large extent criticised myself. And yet, even 
 after this, a huge number of cases remain, in which the 
 only complete explanation of the problems cannot be 
 ignored. Is there no consideration which may conciliate 
 opponents, and induce them not to go on ignoring ? There 
 is. It is plain that when Samaria was taken the catastrophe 
 which ensued was not only political but literary. What was 
 saved of the N. Israelitish records must have been scanty in 
 extent, and the S. Israelites or Judaites did not care to 
 preserve it except in a mutilated, confused, and altered 
 form. Hence by far the greater part of the extant literary 
 monuments of ancient Israel are precisely those monuments 
 whose producers were most preoccupied by N. Arabia. 
 This is why the history both of Israel and of Judah has 
 found such a one-sided representation in the Old Testament. 
 This, too, is why the N. Arabian key has plausibly solved 
 so many problems that critics who have not gone deeply 
 enough into the matter are repelled. Had a different class 
 
 1 On safon see passages referred to in the index of this work and 
 of T. and B. ; also Jensen, Kosmologie, p. 23; Zimmern, KAT, pp.
 
 xxxviii DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 of documents been transmitted, the N. Arabian key might 
 not have equally fitted the new problems. 
 
 VII 
 
 Still the repugnance to progress on these lines would 
 not be quite so keen but for some additional reasons. 
 These are: I. The opinion of conservative critics that the 
 results to which the multitude of new facts (or asserted 
 facts) seem to lead are intrinsically improbable. Prof. 
 H. P. Smith, 1 for instance, has said a great deal on this 
 head, and asked many questions which we have not the 
 means of answering. But this scholar and those who go 
 with him seem to have approached the study of the new 
 theories at the wrong end. Sound method requires us to 
 begin with the facts, and only after a sufficiently long and 
 unprejudiced study of details can we venture either to 
 maintain or to oppose a historical theory. We must not 
 say with Olmstead 2 that ' we are naturally prejudiced against 
 such a theory.' Imperfectly known truth always appears 
 improbable, but it cannot be natural to a candid student to 
 meet any theory based on real or, at least, asserted facts 
 with a dogmatic denial suggested in the first instance by 
 prejudice. 
 
 2. The second reason is that the textual critics of the 
 day do not probe the Hebrew, and, one may add, the 
 Septuagint text, half deeply enough, and lack that wide 
 acquaintance with the textual phenomena, the habits of the 
 scribes and editors, and recurring types of corruption, which 
 has to be superadded to the practice of the older critical 
 methods. 8 This must surely be the case with Professor 
 Witton Davies in the Review of Theology? who falls into the 
 error of supposing me not to ' bother myself about versions,' 
 and with Prof. Gordon of Montreal, who, with unconscious 
 arrogance, speaks of my work as ' unfortunately dominated 
 
 1 American Journal of Theology, October 1907. 
 
 2 S argon of Assyria, p. 60. 
 8 Cheyne, Crit. Bib. Part I. (1903), pp. 3/ 
 4 Article on T. and B., May 1908, p. 696.
 
 INTRODUCTION xxxix 
 
 by peculiar textual principles.' l Until the old methods fail, 
 I am heartily with these scholars and with their teachers. 
 But I certainly am convinced that the old methods, including 
 the old method of using the versions, will not go far to help 
 us with really hard problems. 
 
 3. The third is that these critics seem to mix up 
 conceptions of their functions which ought to be kept 
 distinct. I mean that they seem to have no clear idea of 
 the twofold task devolving upon them, viz. first to find out 
 the meaning which the latest ancient editors put upon the 
 text which they had themselves corrected, and next, to get 
 as near as possible to the underlying original text and its 
 meaning. It is of no use to try to perform both these 
 duties simultaneously. The result can only be a form of 
 text which, as a whole, never existed, and a largely imaginary 
 exegesis. The traditional text has its own historical rights, 
 and so also have the fragments of the original text which 
 may still be detected underlying the text transmitted by a 
 late tradition. 
 
 But let us now return to the first- mentioned reason 
 for the vehemence of the opposition to progress on the 
 new lines. I spoke of the probability that the new key 
 has been applied somewhat too often. More than this I 
 cannot say, for the pioneering work has in a multitude of 
 cases been fully justified, and not un frequently, even if the 
 solution offered was incorrect, the pioneer was nevertheless 
 on the way to truth. I venture to add that a pioneer of 
 criticism would not be worth his salt if he did not sometimes 
 go too far. It is in the interests of critical study that some 
 one should at first make the utmost of a new theory. 
 Winckler is, I think, unwise in not always doing this, 
 when the correction of the text is concerned. Without a 
 more consistent and methodical criticism of the text I do 
 not see how his historical constructions can be defended in 
 all points against the enemy. 
 
 But what is to be done if both Winckler's Babylonian 
 
 and my own N. Arabian theory are rejected ? It is, of 
 
 course, far too late to seek shelter with Gesenius and 
 
 Ewald ! Shall we be content with a strictly moderate 
 
 1 The Early Traditions of Genesis (1907), p. viii.
 
 xl DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 Babylonian theory, using Babylonian illustrations for 
 exegesis, and drawing on the Assyrian lexicon for the 
 explanation of strange-looking Biblical words ? Our newer 
 dictionaries and commentaries betoken a growing tendency 
 towards such a course. I do not believe, however, that it 
 will suit the conditions of the case. For an example take 
 Amos v. 26, where Nowack, adopting just such a moderate 
 theory, renders, ' Therefore shall ye take up Sakkuth your 
 king, and Kewan, your images which ye made for yourselves, 
 and . . .' We may, however, safely decide that a by-name 
 of the god Ninib (himself nowhere mentioned in the O.T.), 
 would not be handed down in a Hebrew prophecy. 1 Nor is 
 there any passage of Amos which refers to the worship of 
 Assyrian gods by the Israelites. And even if this argument 
 were repelled, how could the carrying away of Assyrian 
 gods by captive Israelites into Assyria be put forward in a 
 threat ? 2 
 
 From the strictly moderate point of view here indicated, 
 many other O.T. passages might be provisionally illustrated. 
 One might, for instance, utilise the suggestions of Winckler 
 for Gen. xiv. and Judg. v., and those of other critics for the 
 Book of Nahum and other parts of the O.T. But I have 
 not the requisite space to enter into further detail, and I 
 hope that the reader will see that one whom Giesebrecht 
 has attacked for being too courteous and respectful to 
 Winckler is not likely to cavil at Babylonian or Assyrian 
 explanations of Hebrew difficulties, when they are in a high 
 degree plausible. Only too often, however, I am brought 
 into contact with some preliminary textual problem, the 
 solution of which by new and more adequate methods 
 removes the ground for reference to Babylon. So far as 
 I can as yet see, it is only now and then that the textual 
 critic derives undeniable assistance from the inscriptions. 
 
 1 On the question of a Ninib cultus in ancient Palestine see Zimmern, 
 KAT ( *\ pp. 410/5 Pinches, 'Was Ninib the "Most High God" of 
 Jerusalem?' PSBA, June 1894; Budde, Buck der Richter (in KHC) 
 p. 15. 
 
 2 From the earlier point of view, E. Bib., 'Amos,' 13; ' Chiun 
 and Siccuth' ; Muss-Arnolt, Expositor, ii., n.s., pp. 414^ (1903).
 
 INTRODUCTION x li 
 
 VIII 
 
 The most striking instances of such assistance are 
 passages in which Mizraim has been misread (i.e. mispointed) 
 for Mizrim, or Zor misread for Mizzor (Mizrim and Mizzor 
 both meaning the N. Arabian Muzri), or Mizri, Mizrim, 
 misinterpreted as ' Egyptian/ ' Egyptians.' The passages 
 referred to are (i) Gen. x. 6, xiii. 10, xvi. I, xxi. 21, 1. 1 1, 
 i Sam. xxx. 13, 2 Sam. xxiii. 13, i K. iii. i, xi. 18, 40, 
 Isa. xx. 3, Am. i. 9, Isa. xliii. 3, xlv. 14, Joel iv. 19, Ps. 
 Ix. 11, Ixxxvii. 4 ; (2) Gen. xxv. 3, Lev. xxiv. 10, i K. iv. 30 
 (v. 10), x. 28 f., xiv. 25, 2 K. vii. 6, Isa. xxx. 2, xxxi. i, 
 Ezek. xvi. 26, xxviii., Ps. Ixxxiii. 8, and other passages ; 
 (3) Gen. xii. 10-20, xxxvii. 25, 28, 36, xxxix. I, etc., 
 i K. vii. I3/, 2 K. xxiii. 29, etc., Isa. xix., Ezek. xxvi., 
 xxvii., xxix.-xxxii. Of these three classes the first contains 
 nearly all the most obvious cases of the misreading (Miz- 
 raim) ; it is the list offered by Winckler. 1 The second, 
 those which require in general a little more explanation 
 than the preceding ones. The third, those which originally 
 referred to Mizrim, but have been manipulated by editors 
 so as to seem to refer to Mizraim. Manipulation has done 
 its utmost in the story of Joseph. I might also have 
 included the story of the Exodus, which in its original 
 form probably referred to Mizrim in N. Arabia. This, 
 however, is so contrary to traditional opinions that, in this 
 highly condensed essay, I refrain. 2 
 
 The textual evidence is of considerable value as supple- 
 menting the too scanty details of the inscriptions. At the 
 same time, we cannot say that the Hebrew writers coincide 
 altogether with the Assyrian scribes. I may here state 
 briefly, on the basis of Winckler, what it is that these scribes 
 partly state, partly seem to imply. Their references to 
 Muzri in N. Arabia occur from the time of Tiglath-Pileser 
 III. to that of Esarhaddon; 3 the king of Muzri seems to 
 
 1 KAT, pp. 144^ For the other passages see Cheyne, Bible 
 Problems, pp. 167-178 ; Hommel, Aufstitze, pp. 304 f. 
 - On the Exodus passages see Cheyne, T. and B. 
 3 See Winckler, KAT, pp. i 50 f.
 
 xlii DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 have been, subsequently to the fall of the Assyrian kepu, the 
 vassal of the king of Meluha, or, more correctly, Ma'in (the 
 Minaean empire). Danger constantly beset the N. Arabian 
 kingdoms from Assyria. Among these was the people or 
 state called Aribi on the east of Muzri, whose queens were 
 brought to acknowledge the suzerainty of Assyria ; its 
 capital may have been Tema. 1 This was in the reign of 
 Tiglath-Pileser III. Under Ashurbanipal we meet with the 
 Kidri (Kedar) and the Nabaiati (Nebaioth) by the side of 
 Aribi. It is a natural inference from what is said in the 
 inscriptions that the kingdom of Muzri was involved in the 
 misfortunes which shortly after befell the Minaean empire, 
 and that the Kidri and the Nabaiati, with perhaps other 
 tribes, settled in the region once known as Muzri. It must 
 be remembered, however, that in Gen. xxv. 1 3 Nebaioth 
 and Kedar appear as Ishmaelite tribes, 2 and that between 
 Ishmaelites and Jerahmeelites there was no marked 
 difference. 
 
 Of the history of the Arabian Kush still less can be 
 said. 3 This region is certainly referred to in the inscriptions 
 of Esar-haddon, but only four times. Was it in S. or in 
 N. Arabia ? The name may perhaps have had a variable 
 significance. Esar-haddon speaks of ' the people of Kusi 
 and Muzur,' which apparently means S. and N. Arabia. 
 Some of my own textual results, however, point rather to 
 N. than to S. Arabia as the seat of the Kushites, and con- 
 sidering that the name Achish (Akish) seems to be closely 
 related to Ashhur, and that there was probably, according 
 to Hebrew writers, both a nearer and a more distant Ashhur, 
 the question arises, whether Ashhur and Kush may not 
 have had the same origin, and have been nearly or quite 
 equivalent. Eduard Meyer, consistently enough, denies 
 the Arabian Kush, but he is ably answered by Winckler, 
 who of course explains the identity of the names of Ethiopia 
 and S. Arabia by the na'fve geographical views of early ages 
 (see p. xix). 
 
 1 Winckler, I.e. For the Aram, inscription of Tema see Cooke, 
 North Semitic Inscriptions, pp. 196-199. 
 
 2 It is true, the twelve sons of Ishmael are from P. But P's source 
 need not have been post-exilic. 3 See Winckler, KAT, pp. 144^
 
 INTRODUCTION xliii 
 
 There is a fairly large group of passages in which the 
 N. Arabian Kush is probably or certainly referred to, viz. 
 Gen. ii. 13, x. 6, Num. xii. I, Judg. ii. 10, 2 Sam. xviii. 21, 
 2 K. xix. 9, Isa. xviii. I, xx. 3, xliii. 3, xlv. 14, Hab. iii. 7, 
 Zeph. ii. 12, iii. 10, Ps. Ixxxvii. 4, 2 Chr. xiv. 9, xxi. 16. 
 For explanations I may refer to my own recent works, as well 
 as to those of Professors Winckler and Hommel. It may be 
 added here that the phrase ' king of Kush/ l and similarly 
 the phrases ' king of Mizrim,' ' king of Aram,' ' king of 
 Asshur,' and perhaps ' king of Kush,' were used archaistic- 
 ally even after the political situation had altered. This 
 seems to me the only way to reconcile the statements of 
 the inscriptions with the results of a thorough textual 
 criticism. 
 
 The conclusion at which we are arriving is that a full 
 N. Arabian theory, suggested and helped by the cuneiform 
 inscriptions, together with a keen textual criticism, can 
 contribute most to the solution of our textual and historical 
 problems. And if any further proof is needed, it will be 
 the wreckage which strews the shores of ' moderate ' criticism. 
 A whole volume would be required to indicate these critical 
 failures in detail, but a few instances seem to be not un- 
 called for. Let us begin with the Book of Genesis. The 
 most recent commentator 2 makes this remark on the ' short 
 tribal poem' in Gen. ix. 25-27 : 
 
 ' It is difficult to understand how a poem of that date 
 (the early monarchy) could still look back upon the 
 Canaanites as " brethren " (v. 25). The tendency at that 
 period was rather to obliterate all trace of their kinship. . . . 
 For a period when the term " brother " could be applied to 
 Canaan we must go beyond the Exodus and the wars 
 between Israel and Canaan that followed it. In this respect 
 no time seems so suitable as the Amarna period, when Israel 
 and Canaan fought side by side against their Egyptian 
 overlords.' 
 
 The improbability of this view is manifest. A real 
 monument of the nomadic period (as Gordon supposes the 
 song to be) would have had much more colour than the 
 
 1 See Crit. Bib. pp. 3837 
 2 Gordon, The Early Traditions of Genesis (1907), p. 183.
 
 xliv DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 song, at any rate in its present form, can be said to possess. 
 The true solution of the problem must take account of the 
 facts already mentioned respecting Shem and Ham, and ot 
 the other fact (which is a result of wide textual observation) 
 that 1TIN is not unfrequently a corruption of YintBN. 1 
 
 I may also refer to the Ur-kasdim problem. As Prof. 
 Meyer points out, Gen. xxiv. 4, 10 expressly states that 
 Abraham's country from which he migrated (Gen. xii. i) 
 was Aram-naharaim. At any rate, such is the reading of 
 the present text. But according to Gen. xi. 31, xv. 7, the 
 patriarch's starting-point was Ur-kasdim, i.e., as we are told, 
 but without sufficient proof, the old Babylonian city of Uru. 
 Prof. Meyer 2 evades the difficulty by the supposition that 
 the ancestors of Abraham belonged to Babylonia, not he 
 himself. This solution, however, is arbitrary, and the full 
 difficulty of the statement in Gen. xi. 3 1 (as this passage is 
 usually interpreted) is not even hinted at by this scholar. 
 For a full setting forth the student is referred to the 
 Encyclopedia Biblica (' Ur of the Chaldees '), where the N. 
 Arabian theory suggests an adequate solution, which, in a 
 modified form, is further justified in Traditions and Beliefs 
 (see below). The riddle of Arpakshad (Gen. x. 22) is 
 equally baffling to the current criticism. It is closely con- 
 nected with the problem of Ur-kasdim, as Hommel, though 
 not Prof. Meyer, is fully aware. It is usual 3 to invoke 
 the help of the Arabic lexicon, but the true origin is plain 
 as soon as we throw off the prejudice against the new 
 theory. YIN is from 'IN, i.e. either D~IN, or, better, mr, and 
 (in TB^D-IN) is from ms. 1W3 in the latter word is from 
 , and this from mtDD, i.e. DIN inm**. For further 
 explanations see T. and B. pp. 178, 214. 
 
 i Sam. ii. 36 (as the text stands) spoils the prophecy. 
 Nor is any great improvement effected by appending miT, 
 and so eliminating the troublesome word HD. The passage 
 must be studied as a whole, and suggestions taken both 
 from the N. Arabian theory and from one of the famous 
 
 1 See T. and B. p. 153. 
 
 2 Die Israeliten, p. 284 (n. i). Gordon's suggestion (Early Tradi- 
 tions, p. 174) is less arbitrary, but also less plausible. 
 
 8 So Gordon, ETC, p. 322.
 
 INTRODUCTION xlv 
 
 Elephantine papyri, which throws a flood of light on an 
 important problem. See p. 24, n. i. 
 
 The last two words of I Sam. x. 27 have caused much 
 perplexity. We have been told that certain discontented 
 Israelites brought the new king no presents. Then follow 
 the words, Bmno, TPI, which is thought to mean, ' and he 
 (Saul) made as though he did not observe it.' There are 
 several corrections of the text, but none of them very 
 plausible. Is it not therefore time to appeal to a new 
 theory for a new suggestion ? The suggestion, when 
 methodically carried out, seems to me altogether adequate. 
 It is that BmnoD "TTI comes from D*itDm Him, and that 
 this is a gloss on ' Jabesh-gilead,' indicating that this Jabesh 
 was not in the trans-Jordanic Gilead, but in an Asshurite 
 region which was also called Gilead. This result throws a 
 fresh light on the impossible words ^>N*iDt& "irrN*l in xi. 7. 
 That Samuel took part in Saul's enterprise cannot be 
 maintained (see I Sam. x. 7). The words should be 
 ^MSDBF 1 intDNI, which ought to follow WlttP, or perhaps, 
 omitting the \ to be substituted for ^MlQT. 
 
 Among the other highly corrupt passages in i Samuel, 
 I may at least mention xv. 9, which I cannot bring myself 
 to think that Wellhausen has healed. Why should it be 
 emphasised that the oxen were ' fat,' when just before the 
 narrator has referred to ' the best ' of the cattle ? Why 
 should the synonymous terms min and riDNDS be combined ? 
 And why is D"nD left uncorrected, considering that in the 
 parallel passages, vv. 1 5 and 2 1 , the lambs are not men- 
 tioned ? And considering, further, that in v. 20 (cp. v. 8) 
 the ' devotion by slaughter ' (o v inr7) is mentioned with 
 express and undeniable reference to the Amalekites, are we 
 justified in retaining unaltered the latter part of our v. 8, 
 the phraseology of which is itself peculiar enough to en- 
 courage emendation ? To me Wellhausen's treatment of 
 the text seems superficial and unsatisfactory. But grant 
 that the Amalekites were a branch of the Jerahmeelites, 
 and that Jerahmeel (or Jarham) and Ishmael are equivalent 
 (see p. xxviii), and suitable corrections at once suggest them- 
 selves. D^D, like DID (p. xxxiv), represents DHT (Jarham), 
 comes from D^ntD, i.e. D^ngr (see p. xxxvi), 'DN^Q from
 
 xlvi DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 D^?D3 ( = Jerahmeelites), 'no:) and DD3 from [o^aotD. See 
 Crit, Bib. pp. 222 f. ; 71 <372<aT .#. p. 59. 
 
 I cannot attempt to be exhaustive, but must at least 
 refer to some of the prophets. Amos ii. 6 is a testing 
 passage, and I am afraid that the old methods alone will 
 not enable us to explain the difficulties. The A.V. makes 
 Yahweh threaten Israel with an irreversible punishment, 1 
 ' because they sold the righteous for silver, and the poor for 
 a pair of shoes.' Explanations of this are numerous, but 
 who can help feeling that neither ' for silver ' nor ' for a pair 
 of shoes ' is natural ; the one is weak, the other grotesque. 
 The N. Arabian theory, however, suggests probable correc- 
 tions of the text which bring the lines into perfect parallel- 
 ism. What one expects is regional names, such as Kasram 
 and 'Arab-Jerahme'el (cp. on Isa. xlviii. 10, p. 144), which 
 should be substituted for *pD and DTHQ "ills respectively. 
 
 Another such passage is Amos iii. 12, which the A.V. 
 renders thus, ' As the shepherd taketh out of the mouth 
 of the lion two legs, or a piece of an ear, so shall the 
 children of Israel be taken out that dwell in Samaria in 
 the corner of a bed, and in Damascus in a couch.' ' A 
 piece of an ear ' is very odd ; were the ears of the goats 
 referred to specially large ? And does ~rn really mean 
 1 piece,' and ptDDT ' damask ' (so Harper) ? The N. Arabian 
 theory gives the only remedy (see Hibbert Journal, July 
 1905, p. 831). 
 
 I will only cite one more passage of Amos (ix. 1 1). It 
 is at the opening of the epilogue, and runs thus in the 
 A.V., ' In that day will I raise up the tabernacle (lit, booth) 
 of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof.' 
 Elsewhere in the epilogue the style is quite clear ; how, 
 then, came the writer to use at the outset such an obscure 
 expression (Amos ix. 11) as 'the booth of David that is 
 fallen down ' ? The explanations are very various, but none 
 is satisfactory. How can a booth have ' breaches ' like a 
 walled city ? But are the points of n?D right ? Referring 
 to 7. and B. p. 397, should we not read n3p, i.e. rof?D (see 
 on Deut. iii. 10)? In this case ~PVT should be TT7, which 
 
 1 Prof. Hogg's plausible explanation of uaw* N 1 ?, ' I will not turn 
 him (i.e. the dreaded invader) back, deserves notice, however.'
 
 INTRODUCTION xlvii 
 
 was a regional as well as a divine name (T. and B. p. 47). 
 The idea is that when Salekath, that important city of the 
 N. Arabian border-land, has been reoccupied by the Israelites 
 and rebuilt, it will be easy for them to subjugate all the 
 border-kingdoms. 
 
 Much more might be added to show the unsatisfactory 
 state of the current criticism of the O.T., and the help which 
 the new methods, largely directed by the N. Arabian theory, 
 are able to give. My limits, however, compel me to con- 
 dense, and in my recent works, including (particularly for 
 Jeremiah) the present work, there are many things which may 
 serve to fill up the lacunce of this essay. I may, however, 
 call attention again to two or three passages in the obscure 
 Book of Habakkuk. 1 That nothing can be made of niO3 t*h 
 at the end of i. 1 2 a is generally admitted. Marti would 
 therefore remove these words to the margin, as a gloss to 
 v. 12 b. But is such a gloss needed ? Surely mc3 has 
 come from pon, i.e. blnn, which is often a corruption of 
 ^NSDBT. The two disputed words are a gloss on the corrupt 
 word hpSG (v. 4), which should be bDp (cp. bmDp). ' Is it 
 not Ishmael ' is a perfectly correct gloss, SNDTTP (underlying 
 'D) and fpNSDBT 1 being equivalent. 
 
 A similar case meets us in Hab. ii. 2. iNTi has not, so 
 far as I know, been really explained. The same word 
 occurs in Deut. i. 5, xxvii. 8, on which see at a later point 
 (pp. 135, 154). "iNn has probably come from 3fjs Nirr, ' that 
 is Arabia,' a gloss on 7NcnT underlying 11 Nip. The pre- 
 ceding words p-p ]$&h should be p-p 'h, so that the sense 
 produced is, ' in order that Jerahmeel may be broken.' It 
 is, in fact, not the Chaldaeans but the Asshur-Jerahmeelites 
 from whom the danger of invasion threatens. Let us now 
 pass on to the series of woes in chap. ii. Nothing can 
 possibly be made of Till pn ^D ?IN*I (v. 5). pn should 
 surely be "^YTT, ' the Javanite ' ; the Javan meant is in 
 Arabia (see p. xxxv). Similarly in Hos. iv. i i p should 
 doubtless be p* 1 ; the whole verse, when corrected, runs 
 thus, ' Shamnith of Javan and Ashtar take away the under- 
 standing.' And again, in Isa. xxviii. I p i&hn probably 
 comes from p" 1 ^NonT (glosses) ; see p. 88, n. i. 
 
 1 'Criticism of Habakkuk,' Jewish Quarterly Review, Oct. 1907.
 
 xlviii DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 It must now be plain that there are excellent reasons for 
 a far-reaching and yet methodical treatment of the text, and 
 in my opinion, to guard in some measure against arbitrari- 
 ness, it is well to have some external check. Such a check 
 is supplied by the N. Arabian theory, and considering the 
 great results which the new critical methods, directed by 
 that theory, have produced, it seems to me impossible that 
 the hypothesis should be wholly wrong. No doubt some 
 clever scholar, making use of freshly discovered facts, may 
 be able to improve it, and that is why I appealed to 
 fellow-students (not to judges) for a help which has hardly as 
 yet been given. None of us is infallible ; why, then, should 
 not both Professor Winckler and I, and even our critics, 
 have made many mistakes ? As Professor William James 
 well says, 1 ' The wisest of critics is an altering being, subject 
 to the better insight of the morrow, and right, at any 
 moment, only " up to date " and " on the whole." When 
 larger ranges of truth open, it is surely best to be able to 
 open ourselves to their reception, unfettered by our previous 
 pretensions.' It is these previous pretensions which seem 
 to me among the greatest hindrances, both in the pursuit of 
 truth and in the fair estimation of the work of pioneers. 
 And which of us has not made such pretensions ? Let us 
 then have the courage to confess that many of them prob- 
 ably were mistaken pretensions, and be thankful to those 
 who shake us out of our slumber. 
 
 1 The Varieties of Religious Experience, p. 333.
 
 PART I 
 
 THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE KINGDOM 
 OF JUDAH
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 INTRODUCTORY FROM HEZEKIAH TO JOSIAH 
 
 FEW things are more uncertain than the exact course of the 
 history of Judah from the time of Hezekiah to the fall of 
 Jerusalem, and few subjects raise more difficult questions. 
 Did the king of Assyria in the time of Hezekiah really 
 perform all that by the common interpretation of the Hebrew 
 traditions is ascribed to him? Did Hezekiah, like Josiah, 
 initiate and complete a considerable religious reformation ? 
 Was Manasseh really carried captive to the city called Babel, 
 and if so, what was the country in which this city was 
 situated ? What was the nature of the religious reaction 
 connected with the name of Manasseh ? Did Josiah really 
 go to Megiddo, and contend with a king of Egypt on his 
 way to the Euphrates, or has there been some misunder- 
 standing of the original tradition ? What was the nature of 
 Josiah's reformation, and how far, geographically, did it 
 extend ? Who was the great enemy of the kings of Judah 
 after Jehoahaz ? or were there more such enemies than one ? 
 Into the hard questions relating to Hezekiah and 
 Manasseh I cannot at present enter, though later on I shall 
 have to refer to some plausible results of criticism. It is 
 Josiah and his successors who just now claim our attentions, 
 though for the sake of Josiah's reformation I must refer in 
 passing to that of Hezekiah. But, first of all, to clear the 
 air of some prejudices, let me recall the fact that religious 
 innovations are not uncommon in the history of Babylonia 
 and Assyria, while in that of Egypt we can refer particularly 
 to the well-known religious revolution of Khu-en-aten (Amen- 
 hotep IV.). For examples of the former one may mention 
 
 3
 
 4 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 the supremacy accorded to Marduk, the god of the city of 
 Babylon, by Hammurabi, and the overshadowing and 
 ignoring of Nabu. Also the reaction, under the Assyrian 
 king Adad-nirari III., against Marduk in favour of Nabu, 
 indicated by the inscription on a consecrated statue ' Trust 
 in Nabu, trust not in another God.' 
 
 Let us now turn to Hezekiah. Tradition is on the 
 whole unusually communicative respecting his reign. The 
 same remark may indeed be made with regard to the reign 
 of Josiah, but whereas in the case of this king warlike matters 
 have but slight and religious matters very extended mention, 
 in Hezekiah's it is religion which on the whole comes rather 
 short, while a foreign invasion is related with much 
 particularity. According to the statement of 2 K. xviii. 3-6 
 Hezekiah was a fervent puritan, and abolished the time- 
 honoured sanctuaries where the cult was polytheistic, with 
 the accompanying sacred objects ; he is also said to have 
 broken in pieces a famous serpent of bronze, to which, as 
 inhabited by a divinity, the people still offered sacrifice. It 
 is reasonable to assume that some historical fact lies at the 
 foundation of this statement ; in particular, the tradition of 
 the destruction of the sacred serpent (see special note I ) has 
 every appearance of truth. But exactly when this reform 
 movement took place, and to what extent it proceeded, we 
 can hardly conjecture. According to some, 1 it was a kind 
 of thank-offering to Yahweh for the withdrawal of Sen- 
 nacherib from Jerusalem, and was promoted by the preaching 
 of the prophet Isaiah. The Assyrian inscriptions, however, 
 say nothing about this withdrawal. This may of course be 
 due to accident, but it is also possible that the Hebrew 
 redactor fell into a confusion between two invasions, that of 
 an Assyrian and that of a N. Arabian Asshurite king. 
 What the inscriptions do mention is a punitive mutilation of 
 the territory of Judah by Sennacherib, and this (if it was 
 carried out) was hardly calculated to dispose the king and 
 
 1 Stade, GVI i. 623; W. R. Smith, Prophets, p. 359; Cheyne, 
 Introd. to the Rk. of Isaiah, p. 165 ; M 'Curdy, History, Prophecy, and 
 the Monuments, ii. 385. For other views, see Cheyne, E. Bib., 
 'Hezekiah,' 2; 'Isaiah,' 15 ; Winckler, KAT, pp. 271 /. (the 
 reform after Sennacherib's second expedition to the West).
 
 INTRODUCTORY FROM HEZEKIAH TO JOSIAH 5 
 
 people of Judah to adopt the practice of a purified Yahwism. 
 Such an event would appear to them to show that Yahweh's 
 power was limited, and that he could not save them from a 
 powerful and determined enemy. 
 
 The Chronicler, however, has no scruple in exaggerating 
 to the utmost what little he may have learned from tradition 
 (2 Chr. xxix. 3-xxxi. i). According to him, Hezekiah was 
 to a large extent the forerunner of Josiah, and anticipated 
 the remedies for the religious abuses applied by that king, 
 with this important exception that Hezekiah's measures are 
 not related to have been taken on the authority of an ancient 
 law-book. The Chronicler's narrative, however, is obviously 
 not history ; it is rather a development of what is related in 
 2 K. xviii. 4 a, and it serves as an explanation of the 
 prosperity ascribed by the Chronicler to Hezekiah. Here, 
 said this pious writer, is an opportunity of proving on a 
 grand scale that righteousness exalteth a king as well as a 
 nation. The law-books of antiquity bid the Israelites break 
 the idols of Canaan in pieces, and abolish all heathen symbols 
 (Ex. xxiii. 24, xxxiv. 13, Dt. vii. 5, xii. 2 f.}. Surely there 
 must have been some kings of the Davidic line who carried 
 out these iconoclastic injunctions and were rewarded for it. 
 The most exemplary of these kings, according to the 
 Chronicler, were Hezekiah and Josiah. 
 
 This view of history appeared to the Chronicler to 
 be supported by the contrasted fortunes of the royal 
 representatives of Yahwism and of Baalism respectively. 
 Hezekiah, for instance, opposed the Baalistic or N. Arabian 
 type of religion, and was recompensed by a marked inter- 
 position of Yahweh against the ' camp of Asshur.' l His son 
 Manasseh, on the other hand, supported a religious reaction, 
 and was punished by an invasion of his land by the same 
 warlike king, and by his own captivity in the chief city of 
 his conqueror 2 (2 Chr. xxxiii. 11). Josiah returned to the 
 courses of Hezekiah, whom in fact he outdid, and was 
 
 1 2 K. xix. 35. The king referred to, as one must on the whole 
 believe, ruled over Asshur or Ashhur, one of whose vassals was the king 
 of Misrim. 
 
 2 Why this is not mentioned in 2 K. is a secret of the last 
 redactor.
 
 6 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 rewarded by a long period of peace. 1 His son Jehoiakim 
 restored the old ' abominations ' (2 Chr. xxxvi. 8 ; cp. 2 K. 
 xxiii. 37), and received his retribution (virtually) at the 
 hands of the victorious king of Babel. 2 
 
 Between Manasseh and Josiah in the list of kings of 
 Judah comes Amon, who is said by the chronologist to have 
 reigned two years. Just so, between Josiah and Jehoiakim 
 comes another son of Josiah, Jehoahaz, who is credited with 
 a reign of but three months. Amon continues the religious 
 policy of Manasseh ; Jehoahaz is the religious forerunner of 
 Jehoiakim. Amon is assassinated ; Jehoahaz is carried 
 captive to the land of Misrim (see chap. v.). To this un- 
 fortunate king we shall return later ; we are now more 
 concerned with his father. Tradition says that the ' people 
 of the land,' i.e. the freemen at large, slew the assassins of 
 Amon, and made his son Josiah king in his stead, i.e. 
 perhaps, confirmed the claim of the latter prince to the 
 succession. 3 Josiah is said to have been only eight years old 
 on his accession (2 K. xxii. I, 2 Chr. xxxiv. i). The original 
 text, however, may perhaps have said ' eighteen years.' 4 
 We can hardly suppose that the assassins of Amon were 
 religious reformers, and anticipated the accession of a mere 
 child under the tutelage of the leaders of the reforming party. 
 On the other hand, if ' eighteen ' is correct, Amon must have 
 come to the throne earlier than 2 K. xxii. 19 states. 
 
 Only two events are recorded (from different sources) in 
 the reign of Josiah, his reformation and his ill-fated encounter 
 with a foreign king. Nothing is said of any embassy being 
 sent on his accession to the potent king who had made 
 Manasseh his prisoner (2 Chr. xxxiii. 11); nothing too of 
 the counsellors who were at the helm of the state during the 
 king's childhood (accepting the ' eight years '). Did Josiah 
 fall at once into the moulding hands of the friends of 
 
 1 It is of course adverse to the orthodox view that Josiah fell fighting 
 against an enemy. 
 
 2 Asshur and Babel are, when N. Arabia is concerned, equivalent. 
 See 2 Chr. xxxiii. 1 1. 
 
 8 Of course, there may have been a son of Amon by another wife, 
 who might have succeeded, but was passed over, just as Jehoiakim was 
 passed over on the first vacancy. 
 
 4 So Klostermann and Stade.
 
 INTROD UCTOR YFROM HEZEKIAH TO JOS I A H 7 
 
 Yahwism ? And what were the political results of this 
 tutelage ? 
 
 The Chronicler, after his manner, fills up the gap with 
 an account of a religious movement. In the eighth year of 
 his reign Josiah ' began to be zealous for the God of David 
 his father,' and in the twelfth to ' purge Judah and Jerusalem ' 
 (2 Chr. xxxiv. 3). It so happens that if the accepted 
 chronology is correct the twelfth year of king Josiah was 
 the death-year of the last great Assyrian king Ashurbanipal 
 (B.C. 626). The change which this event marks in the 
 fortunes of Assyria may, as Erbt thinks, 1 have encouraged 
 the advisers of the young king to initiate a reform movement. 
 It is possible indeed that the ' book of torah ' was brought 
 forward in the eighteenth year, but surely the root and 
 branch reform ascribed to Josiah must have taken longer 
 than would appear from the account in 2 K. May not the 
 movement really have begun in the twelfth year? This is 
 indeed only an ingenious surmise, and may, to some, appear 
 discredited by its connexion with the Chronicler. Still 
 intelligent surmises are often called for, and may we not 
 must we not believe that the Chronicler had access to and 
 used, even if uncritically, older historical sources ? His facts 
 may sometimes be right, even if the setting or the colouring 
 is wrong. 2 
 
 1 Die Sicherstellung des Monotheismus, pp. 4-6. 
 2 On the problems of the reign of Josiah, cp. E. Bib., 'Josiah.'
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 THE STORY OF THE FINDING OF THE BOOK 
 
 LET us now turn to a narrative much more likely a priori 
 to contain historical elements (2 K. xxii. 3-xxiii. 25). It 
 opens with an account of the reparation of the temple 
 (vv. 3-7, 9) which is meagre in details, and consequently 
 obscure. We must not, however, omit to refer to it here in 
 conjunction with the story of the reparation of the temple 
 by Jehoash in 2 K. xii. 4-16. The two stories are in fact 
 closely parallel, and it is very surprising (i) that the kings 
 of Judah should have repeatedly allowed their own 
 sanctuary to get so thoroughly out of repair, and (2) that 
 the narrators of both reparations should have worked on 
 the same model. 
 
 The most probable explanation appears to be that in 
 both cases the story of the reparation of the temple is an 
 imaginative addition to the story of the destruction of 
 heathenism. 1 The Chronicler's account of Hezekiah's refor- 
 mation is not without a faint trace of a similar supplement. 
 In 2 Chr. xxix. 3 it is said that in the first year of his 
 reign, in the first month, Hezekiah opened the doors of the 
 house of Yahweh (which had been shut up by Ahaz), and 
 repaired them. Nothing of this kind is ascribed to Hezekiah 
 in 2 Kings, nor to the reforming king Asa either in Kings 
 or in Chronicles, but we do hear, in both, of the dedicated 
 vessels of silver and gold which Asa brought into the house 
 of Yahweh. Altogether it would seem as if the narrators 
 felt that merely to uproot bad religious growths was not 
 enough ; for a king to win his full meed of praise he must 
 
 1 So in the main Erbt, OLZ, Feb. 15, 1908. 
 8
 
 THE STORY OF THE FINDING OF THE BOOK 9 
 
 be shown to have rendered some signal service to the 
 sanctuary of the true God. 
 
 The account of the ' finding ' of the Book and of the 
 subsequent religious revolution is much more full of circum- 
 stantial details. We must, however, be on our guard, and 
 not assume that the traditional story has altogether escaped 
 imaginative expansion or redactional manipulation. A 
 moderate view of the redactor's alterations will be found in 
 Prof. Kittel's Commentary. It is there pointed out that 
 ' high priest ' (xxii. 8, etc.) should be ' priest,' that the close 
 of v. 1 8 has been omitted, 1 and that v. 20 is not the original 
 close of the oracle ascribed to Huldah. Prof. Kittel is 
 also of opinion that xxiii. 4^, 5, 7 b, 14, 16-20, 26 f., and 
 perhaps 24 f., are redactional insertions. 2 What remains 
 this scholar regards as on the whole historical. More 
 radical critics, however, reject the whole story of the reforma- 
 tion as an imaginative representation of facts not handed 
 down historically, 3 or as ' a late fiction of men who wished 
 to give credence and authority to this law-book with its 
 purer morals and its more pronounced recognition of 
 Yahweh as the God of Israel.' 4 Lastly, Prof. R. H. 
 Kennett, without rejecting the narrative in toto, considers 
 that the story of the desecration of Bethel is a later insertion. 
 He also supposes that the book which so powerfully affected 
 the king was ' some denunciation of sacrifice such as we find 
 in either Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, or Micah,' and that 'this 
 might have been described in the earliest form of the story 
 as a book of tdrd, which in later times would be interpreted 
 as a book of the tora, i.e. the Deuteronomic Law.' 5 Accord- 
 ing to this view, the writing ' found ' in the temple was not 
 the Deuteronomic Law, which was of post-exilic origin, but 
 a prophetic utterance on sacrifice. 
 
 I must confess that extreme negative theories seem to 
 
 1 Stade and Schwally in S BO T'are not satisfactory. 
 
 2 Cp. Stade, GV1 ' i. 652 f.\ Benzinger, Kon. p. 297. 
 
 3 Erbt, 'Der Fund des Deut.,' OLZ, Feb. 15, 1908. Es gilt 
 also die Geschichte vom Funde des Dt. als Aussenstehender zu be- 
 trachten, fur den sie ja auch erzahlt ist.' 
 
 4 E. Day, Journ. of Bibl. Lit. xxi. 198 ff. [1902]. On the late date 
 of Dt. see L. Horst, Rev. de rhist. des religions, xvi. 20-65 (continued). 
 
 5 'The Date of Deut.,' Journ. of Theol. Studies, July 1906, p. 492.
 
 ro DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 me at present unwise. I am not opposed to the admission 
 of imaginative elements, and I own that a strictly logical 
 reconstruction of the later pre-exilic history would be easier 
 without the reformation ascribed to Josiah. But I doubt 
 whether history is always logical, and whether these negative 
 conclusions both as regards the tradition and as regards 
 Deuteronomy can be justifiable till we have made more sure 
 that we have rightly understood the documents. It seems 
 to me that the critics may have relied too much on im- 
 perfectly scrutinised texts. If so, what we have to aim at 
 first is a keener textual criticism, and such an interpretation 
 of the contents as the revised text may seem to require. 
 
 Let me as briefly as possible recall the religious situation 
 in the eighteenth year of Josiah. The controller of the 
 Divine Company was no longer Yahweh but Baal, and the 
 impure worship of the goddess Asherah had become gener- 
 ally prevalent. In short, the heathenish reaction which had 
 set in under Manasseh was still in full force. This appears, 
 not only from the earlier prophecies of Jeremiah, but from 
 the drastic measures which, as we shall see, the royal 
 reformer considered necessary, when, after long waiting, he 
 set himself to purify the land. 
 
 Such was the state of things when Hilkiah, as we read, 
 found a book in the temple (2 K. xxii. 8). The story of its 
 ' finding ' is in fact the second part of the preface to the 
 story of the reformation, the first being the incomplete story 
 of the reparation of the temple. We are told that, exactly 
 as in the restoration under Jehoash, the king's scribe was 
 sent to the temple to count the money that had been 
 collected, and to give directions as to its disposal. It was 
 just then (so the text may once have stated) that Hilkiah 
 the priest found a book which he unhesitatingly recognised 
 as the book of tdrah. Hilkiah told this to Shaphan the 
 scribe, and then handed the book to him to read. The 
 questions now arise, What did Hilkiah mean by ' the book 
 of tdrah' and what by his statement that he had ' found ' it ? 
 
 The first question can be answered at once. By ' the 
 book of tdrah,' Hilkiah must have meant some written 
 record which surpassed every other in the distinctness with 
 which it defined the ' ways ' pleasing to Yahweh, and the
 
 THE STORY OF THE FINDING OF THE BOOK n 
 
 torah, or body of directions, contained in it, must have taken 
 the form of commands. Such a law-book might naturally 
 claim to be Mosaic. Indeed, earlier law-books, such as the 
 Book of Covenant, had doubtless already made the same 
 claim, for the priests of the greater sanctuaries, when they 
 gave toroth or ' directions,' must have done so under the 
 authority of Moses. It stands to reason that the writer of 
 the greatest of the law-books did not neglect older works 
 of the same kind, which served as links between himself and 
 the great reputed law-giver Moses. It was on the basis of 
 such earlier books that the kernel of our Deuteronomy may 
 be considered to rest, and no purely conjectural writing 
 (such as that suggested by Prof. Kennett) can have such a 
 claim to be Hilkiah's ' book of torah ' as is possessed by the 
 kernel of Deuteronomy, when duly provided with prologue 
 and epilogue. 
 
 The second question is more difficult. In what sense 
 did Hilkiah ' find ' the book ? Had the book once been 
 known to the priestly keepers of the archives, and been lost 
 sight of during the religious troubles of Manasseh's reign, 
 till by a pure accident Hilkiah's eyes rested on the precious 
 roll ? Or does the phrase imply a theory, which, though 
 incorrect, was thought necessary for the success of the law- 
 book, viz. that a statement of fundamental laws given of old 
 had been lost for centuries, and just now been recovered? 
 Both these theories imply that ' found ' is to be taken 
 literally. The interpretation has the merit of simplicity, but 
 when an Oriental text is in question simplicity is not 
 necessarily a recommendation. Oriental phraseology must 
 be interpreted in accordance with Oriental ideas and 
 customs. Now it is an idea of Oriental priesthoods that 
 religious authority needs to be kept up by illusion. We 
 may assume, therefore, that Hilkiah was not groping in the 
 dark, but saw what, from a priestly point of view, had to 
 take place for the good of religion. Acting according to 
 an ancient priestly custom, which involved illusion, he took 
 the recently composed law-book to the temple that he might 
 ' find ' it there. 
 
 One may venture to speak of ' custom,' in spite of the 
 fact that there is no distinct reference to such a custom in
 
 12 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 the Old Testament. For what is the Old Testament but a 
 selection of those relics of the old Hebrew literature which 
 approved themselves to exilic and post-exilic editors? A 
 lacuna such as that referred to is unimportant, and is 
 compensated for by parallels to the single piece of evidence, 
 derived from external sources. 
 
 Certainly, of such parallels there is no deficiency. How 
 the priesthoods of Assyria and Babylonia acted, is no secret. 
 The royal inscriptions are our sufficient authority. For 
 where religion is concerned, the real speakers in these are 
 the priests. Take, for instance, the oracle said to have been 
 given by the goddess Nannai, ' Ashurbanipal shall deliver 
 me from wicked Elam ' ; a 1635 (1535) years passed, and 
 the fulfilment came. Needless to say who wrote the oracle, 
 and who fulfilled it. 
 
 If more decisive parallels are asked for, they can be 
 supplied. That the kings of the New Babylonian Empire 
 were great builders of temples, is well known. Perhaps the 
 greatest of them all was Nabu-na'id (Nabonedus), who, if 
 the inscriptions may be trusted, undertook no important 
 temple-restoration without seeking the foundation stone of 
 the original builder. 2 In almost every case so he declares 
 he found it. How great is his self-admiration when he 
 tells (or is made to tell) how he met with the foundation- 
 stones of Ibarra, the temple of Shamash in Sippar, ' which 
 for 3200 years no king had found who lived before me,' 3 or 
 of lulbar, the temple of Ishtar in Agani, which Nebu- 
 chadrezzar, that great builder, had vainly sought ! 4 Such 
 are the inscriptional statements ; can we regard them as 
 historically true ? Is it at all probable that Nabu-na'id was 
 really so keen an archaeologist ? May we not assume that 
 the modern Babylonian priests not only inspired the inscrip- 
 tions, but produced the old foundation-stones in accordance 
 with their inherited belief in the necessity of illusion for the 
 
 1 Keilinschr. Bibliothek (KB\ ii. 211. 
 
 2 Rogers, Hist, of Babylonia and Assyria, ii. 359-363. The 
 parallel was noticed by Erbt, Sicherstellung des Monotheismus (1903), 
 pp. "^ff.'i Die Hebraer (1906), p. 165. 
 
 3 KB iii. 2, p. 105. 
 Ibid. p. 85.
 
 THE STORY OF THE FINDING OF THE BOOK 13 
 
 religious authority? If they did so, let us not be rash 
 enough to condemn them. 
 
 Next let us turn to Egypt In remote ages the imperial 
 people of the Nile valley must surely have exercised some 
 religious influence on Palestine, which was counteracted 
 indeed by much stronger influences, but may be supposed, 
 in some points of detail, to have continued. 
 
 Now there was a practice of Egyptian scribes, first 
 pointed out by Maspero, and among Biblical scholars in 
 1888 by the 'present writer, 1 which bears closely on our 
 subject. It was the custom of these officials to insert in 
 transcripts of important works, whether purely religious or 
 quasi-scientific, and whether ancient or not, a statement that 
 the writing in question had been ' found ' in the temple of 
 some deity. For instance, a chapter in the medical papyrus 
 now in the British Museum has this rubric, ' This cure was 
 discovered at night by the hand of a minister of the temple 
 of the goddess who happened to go into the hall in the 
 
 1 My attention was turned to this matter by a suggestion of 
 M. Maspero's in the Revue critique (1878 or somewhat later) and 
 again in his Histoire ancienne de P Orient (1875), PP- 73.A 45 1 - 1 
 Jeremiah, his Life and Times (1888), p. 85, I collected the available 
 Egyptian facts, and mentioned the possibility that Hilkiah's ' finding ' 
 might be like the ' finding ' of the Egyptian officials. I hesitated, how- 
 ever, to adopt this view for want of an O.T. parallel or analogy. I 
 have long felt that the objection is not a serious one. In 1906 
 eighteen years afterwards Prof. Budde referred to Maspero's illustra- 
 tion in his Geschichte der althebr. Literatur (1906), p. 109 n. I. In 
 1907 M. Ed. Naville published his article 'Egyptian Writings in 
 Foundation-walls, and the Age of the Book of Deuteronomy,' PSBA, 
 xxix. 232-242 (1907), which was noticed by Erbt in OLZ, Feb. 15, 
 1908, and has stirred up a little controversy in that learned periodi- 
 cal. The authorities cited by me in 1888, besides Maspero, are 
 Brugsch, Gesch. Aeg. pp. 60, 84; Birch, Aeg. Zt., 1871, p. 63. To 
 these should now be added Ed. Meyer, Gesch. Aeg. pp. 79, 303 
 (referred to by Marti) ; Lepage Renouf, TSBA ix. 2, pp. 295 /, 
 PSBA xv. 6 (1893), and Naville (as above). [Prof. Marti informs me 
 that he too in 1892 took up the subject, mentioning my own book, in 
 an article in the Zt. fur Theol. u. Kirche, p. 44. M. Naville, in a 
 letter to the author, draws a distinction between M. Maspero's theory 
 and his own, in that the former considers the documents said to have 
 been ' found ' to have been forgeries, while he himself regards the rubrics 
 as veracious. I do not, however, see the necessity for such a distinction, 
 and incidentally I think the word ' forgeries,' with its Western associa- 
 tions, should be avoided.]
 
 14 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 temple of the city of Tebmut in the secret places of that 
 goddess. The land at the time was in darkness, but the 
 moon shone on that book all over it. It was brought as a 
 valuable treasure to His Majesty King Kheops.' Similarly 
 it was claimed for a copy of one of the medical treatises in 
 the Berlin papyrus, edited by Brugsch, that it ' was found in 
 ancient writing, in a coffer of books at the feet of the god 
 Anup of Sekhem, in the days of the holiness of the king of 
 the two Egypts, the Veracious.' Again, in the ' Book of the 
 Dead ' (Naville) there is an important chapter entitled the 
 ' chapter of the heart,' and supposed to be spoken by a 
 deceased person to his heart when it was weighed on the 
 scale in the judgment. The rubric attached to it runs thus, 
 ' This chapter was found at Shmun (Hermopolis) on a slab 
 of stone of the south, written in true lapis under the feet of 
 the god.' There is also another chapter (Ixiv.) of the same 
 ' Book of the Dead ' (Naville), which, in one of its versions, 
 has the following rubric, ' This chapter was found in the 
 foundations of Amihunnu by the overseer of the men who 
 built a wall, in the time of king Usaphais ; its figures are 
 mysterious, nobody has seen them nor looked at them.' The 
 meaning appears to be that the writing, which was ancient 
 and difficult, had been placed in a foundation-wall, and that 
 it was found afterwards by the overseer of a party of masons 
 engaged in repairing the temple. And just so, in a very 
 late text (time of Ptolemy XIII.) on a wall of one of the 
 crypts of the temple of Denderah, it was stated that 
 Thothmes III. 'found the great rule of Denderah . . . inside 
 a wall of bricks of the southern house in the time of the 
 king of Upper and Lower Egypt, the lord of the two lands, 
 Meri Ra, the son of Ra, the lord of diadems, Pepi.' l 
 
 Now, it is of course conceivable that copies of ancient 
 and important Egyptian writings may sometimes have been 
 placed, as soon as written, in temples, either near ' the feet 
 of the gods ' (i.e. near their statues) or in foundation walls. 
 But that all the written documents for which this claim is 
 put forward were really ancient and from the first so placed, 
 
 1 One may add that Philo of Byblus (second century A.D.) asserts 
 that the Phoenician history of Sanchoniathon had been brought out of 
 concealment by himself.
 
 THE STORY OF THE FINDING OF THE BOOK 15 
 
 is most improbable. There must generally have been much 
 illusion in the matter. It must be repeated that our own 
 standards of morality cannot be applied to ancient Oriental 
 priests or scribes. One must, I think, agree with Maspero 
 and Hugo Winckler that this would be undue modernising, 
 and would not correspond to our experience of the habits of 
 the ancient priesthoods. 
 
 Two incomplete analogies for the course here ascribed to 
 Hilkiah may be adduced from the Old Testament itself, 
 (i) In Neh. xiii. i ff. it appears as if the passage, Dt. xxiii. 4-6, 
 was for the first time ' found written ' in the ' book of Moses ' 
 in the age of Nehemiah. Yet it was only ' found ' there 
 because it had lately been inserted. And (2) in Dt. xxxi. 26 
 Moses is said to have commanded the Levites thus, ' Take 
 this book of tdrah, and put it beside the ark of the b2rlth of 
 Yahweh your God.' The late writer of this passage must 
 have known the narrative of the finding of the law-book, 
 and may have sought to justify the ' finding ' by a tale of 
 the original depositing of the previous roll, not indeed in the 
 temple, but in the most honourable position possible, beside 
 the ark of Yahweh.
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 HULDAH THE PROPHETESS AND THE REFORMATION 
 
 LET us now return to the story in 2 K. xxii. No import- 
 ance attaches to the fact that Shaphan and not Hilkiah is 
 expressly stated to have read the book that was found. 
 Even if the reformers had taken the trouble to put the law- 
 book into ancient Hebrew script, yet we might fairly assume 
 that priests of high rank would be able to read it, otherwise 
 how could they hand on the old religious traditions, or adapt 
 old laws to the use of a later age ? M. Naville, therefore, 
 has no solid ground for maintaining that Shaphan the scribe 
 read the book to Josiah because he had enjoyed a better 
 literary training than Hilkiah. He read it because it was 
 his function to do so, just as a secretary in our day would 
 naturally read a newly found document to his superior. 
 Whether any one else heard it besides the king, we are not 
 told. But we are informed that as soon as the reading was 
 over (it cannot have taken long), the horrified king sent a 
 deputation, including both Hilkiah and Shaphan, to obtain 
 an oracle from Yahweh. It is evident that some part of 
 the book was of a highly threatening import. Most probably 
 there were solemn curses imprecated upon the people, in the 
 event of its disobedience to certain fundamental laws, and 
 forming a suitable close to the entire law-book. 
 
 Can this part of the traditional story be altogether 
 historical ? Surely Josiah and his priest must have been at 
 one as to the best means of reforming religion. Surely, too, 
 Josiah must have foreknown and approved the choice of a 
 prophetic adviser made by the deputation (cp. 2 K. xix. 2). 
 The choice fell, not, of course, on Jeremiah, who was out of 
 
 16
 
 HULDAH THE PROPHETESS & THE REFORMATION 17 
 
 sympathy with book-religion, but on the prophetess Huldah. 
 She is described (xxii. 14) as being 'the wife of Shallum, 
 son of Tikvah (or as otherwise called), son of Harhas, keeper 
 of the garments.' So at least the traditional text says, but 
 some of the words appear to be wrong, and the whole 
 description may have been misunderstood. The name 
 Huldah, for instance, is neither an epithet of a deity l nor a 
 monument of early Semitic totemism, 2 but, like Hadlai in 
 2 Chr. xxviii. 12, is of Ishmaelite or N. Arabian origin ; 3 so 
 too, obviously, is Shallum 4 (cp. i Chr. ii. 40). Tikvah 
 (' confidence ' !) is not less transparent ; it is a corruption of 
 Teko'a. More than one Teko'a probably existed ; 5 the one 
 meant here was in the district called Harhas (in 2 Chr. 
 Hasrah), i.e. Yarham-Ashhur. 6 Next comes the strange title 
 shomer begddlm, which is usually explained as ' keeper of the 
 royal wardrobe.' The theory has very slight probability. 
 Nowhere else does such an official title occur, and there is 
 nothing in the context to suggest that the royal attire is 
 referred to. It is reasonable to suspect corruption of the 
 text. 
 
 Let us act on this suspicion, and begin with nnil. 
 Sound method requires us to group this word with similar 
 corrupt combinations of letters, the key to which has been 
 found. Such combinations are D^TDi in Ezek. xxvii. ii, 7 
 and D'HID in 2 K. xix. 35. 8 The former occurs among a 
 number of ethnics or place-names in a poetic description of 
 the commerce of Sor, i.e. Missor (the N. Arabian Musri) ; 
 D-1D1 is of course miswritten for D"nQ}, which should be the 
 plural of -HD}, from the well-known but much misunderstood 
 (Gen. x. 2, Ezek. xxxviii. 6), which, like on in "j^a oil 
 
 1 'The Ever-young Virgin' (Winckler, Krit. Schriften, ii. 45/). 
 
 2 See E. Bib., ' Shaphan.' 
 
 3 If the d in both these names, as well as in the Nabatasan Haldu 
 (G. A. Cooke, N.-Sem. Inscr. p. 256) is an error for r, we may group 
 them with Rahel, which is probably a popular corruption of Scrn = 
 
 (71 and B. p. 373). Cp. SrnnN, i Chr. iv. 8, i.e. Ashhur-Yerahme'el. 
 
 4 E. Bib., Shallum.' 
 
 5 Ibid., ' Tekoa.' 
 
 6 71 and B. pp. 23, 205, etc. 
 
 7 Crit. Bib., on Ezek. I.e. 
 
 8 Ibid., on 2 K. I.e. ; 71 and B. p. 147. 
 
 9 71 and B. p. 157. 
 
 2
 
 1 8 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 (Zech. vii. 2), comes from DHT (Yarham-Yerahme'el). 
 occurs in the narrative of the destruction of an Ashhurite 
 king's army, where again the original is D'no}. There 
 remains iot&, which is probably the short for ]notD, an 
 expansion of the clan-name notD, such as may have existed 
 in more than one district. It is not, therefore, a court title 
 that we have before us, but a geographical gloss stating that 
 Dmn is = D'no} piniD, ' Shimron of the Gamrites (Gomerites).' 
 And our total result is that Shallum at any rate was a native 
 of N. Arabia, and that Huldah as well as Shallum has a 
 name of N. Arabian affinities. 
 
 These facts are not unimportant, for the original centre 
 of prophecy was not in Palestine but in N. Arabia. Some 
 at least of the O.T. prophets can be shown to have originated 
 in N. Arabia, i.e. in that part of the N. Arabian border-land 
 which appears to have been occupied, at any rate at intervals, 
 by Israel. It was indeed the Holy Land of the Israelites ; l 
 there was the scene of their most sacred stories, and though 
 there were great religious risks, yet those very risks called 
 forth the heroic courage of the few, chief among whom were 
 Elijah and Elisha. Could we then be surprised if a 
 prophetess like Huldah, with her N. Arabian though Israelite 
 husband, resided among the Israelites in that region ? And 
 it so happens that in 2 K. xxii. 14 there is a parenthetic 
 note which refers to Huldah's place of residence, and 
 probably supports my suggestion. Usually it is supposed 
 to state that ' she dwelt in Jerusalem, in the second quarter.' 2 
 But how can this be correct ? Surely it is most unimportant 
 whether the prophetess lived in the first quarter or in the 
 second. The lexicons, it is true, confirm the explanation of 
 mishneh as ' second quarter ' by Zeph. i. I o, but that passage 
 too has been misunderstood. For the most probable view 
 of mishneh in Zeph. i. I o is that it is a popular corruption 
 of Ishmanah or Shemanah 8 (fern, of Ishman or Shemen, i.e. 
 
 1 See Introduction (on the Negeb). 
 
 2 For another view see E. Bib.^ ' College,' ' Hassenaah,' ' Huldah. 
 The explanation of mishneh given above will also suit for Gen. xli. 43, 
 2 Chr. xxxv. 24 (see T. and B. p. 462, with note 3). 
 
 3 Following Marti as to the extent of the strophe, but using our own 
 lights as to mishneh and maktesh, we obtain this sense
 
 HULDAH THE PROPHETESS &> THE REFORMATION ig 
 
 Ishmael), and that this was the designation of a quarter of 
 Jerusalem specially appropriated to N. Arabians, including 
 the numerous class of magicians. A gloss in v, I I explains 
 that ' all the people of Canaan are destroyed, all that practise 
 secret enchantments l are cut off.' What Canaan is we may 
 learn from Zeph. ii. 5 ; it is the land of the Philistines, and 
 the Philistines are not Semitised Cretans, but a tribe of 
 Ishmaelites, as their name, duly criticised, shows. 2 
 
 But to return to 2 K. xxii. 14. The note may con- 
 ceivably state that Huldah resided ' in Jerusalem, in the 
 N. Arabian quarter.' I think, however, that the other view 
 is much more attractive, viz. that the prophetess resided in 
 Israelitish N. Arabia. In this case we must suppose that 
 Ishmanah or Shemanah in the note is a place-name, and 
 that Yerushalaim has sprung (as in some other passages) 
 from an ill-written Ishmael, and the note will state that 
 Huldah dwelt in the country of Ishmael (i.e. N. Arabia), in 
 a place called Ishmanah. I call this view the more attrac- 
 tive one, because, since the greatest moral dangers arose 
 from the borderland, it would be natural to seek counsel of 
 one who resided in the neighbourhood of those dangers. 
 May I not go even further, and suggest that Huldah may 
 not merely have been consulted on the occasion related 
 in 2 Kings, but have already been specially concerned in 
 the expansion of Yahwistic laws. It is not unreasonable to 
 assume that an earnest effort had been made to keep 
 Israelitish residents in N. Arabia in the right path. The 
 effort would naturally take the form of the preparation of a 
 law-book claiming divine authority. It had very possibly 
 done so before this time, and a careful scrutiny of Deuter- 
 
 Hark ! a cry from the fish-gate, 
 A howling from Ishmanah ; 
 Great wailing from the hills, 
 The dwellers in Methukash howl. 
 
 Ishmanah and Methukash are parallel, and have the same meaning. 
 eoiriD ( = -ITOK VVDHK), underlying man here, and rrnB>D in 2 K. xxiii. 1 3, 
 means the N. Arabian quarter. 
 
 1 Read ^B-D trSo (cp. DTi 1 ?, D'on 1 ?). 
 
 2 ' Pelethites ' and ' Philistines ' have been confounded, i.e. D'nc-Ss 
 should be D'nSs ; cp. oVs and nVs, also *?sn (Dt. i. i). All these latter 
 forms originate in Ethbaal= Ishmael. On the Philistine question see 
 Introduction.
 
 20 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 onomy may show us that it did so in the time of Josiah. 
 Among the chief helpers of such an attempt we may perhaps 
 venture to reckon the prophetess Huldah. 
 
 We can now understand better on what grounds Hilkiah 
 and the others probably selected their counsellor. It was 
 not the first time that they and she had met either in 
 Jerusalem or in the N. Arabian border-land. The law-book 
 ' found/ or brought forward, by Hilkiah was really a revised 
 and adapted form of a law-book intended for Israel in 
 Arabia. And it is reasonable to surmise that Josiah knew 
 this, and that the account of the visit of the deputation to 
 Huldah is far from corresponding to facts. Indeed, would 
 it not be passing strange if all that the deputation had to 
 do was to report the nervous prostration of Josiah, and his 
 inability to determine upon a course of action ? And then, 
 as to Huldah's answer (xxii. 15-20), to what state of 
 mind can it be said to be related ? Is it to that described 
 in vv. 11-13? Surely not. How would it comfort Josiah, 
 or restore his moral energy, to be told that Jerusalem and 
 all its inhabitants except himself should be destroyed ? Or 
 is it to that which is here supposed to be his true mental 
 state viz. abounding joy at the happy completion of the 
 law-book ? Still more certainly not. 
 
 The most probable view seems to be that Huldah if 
 she gave any oracle at all had an eye at once to religion 
 and to politics. She knew that there was constant danger 
 from one or another troublesome potentate. Assyria, 
 indeed, was sinking into decay, but more than one 
 N. Arabian power was capable of disturbing the peace of 
 Judah. The oracle which one naturally expects would 
 have contained something like this : ' Danger still threatens, 
 not from Assyria, but from the land of Saphon. 1 There- 
 fore, O king of Judah, reconcile thyself and thy people with 
 thy God. The book of the torah of Yahweh is before thee. 
 By obedience to its precepts shalt thou be exalted above 
 thy foes. Otherwise great evil shall fall upon thee and 
 upon thy people, and ye shall die in a land which ye have 
 not known.' 
 
 1 The region whence the invaders come is commonly so styled by 
 Jeremiah. See below.
 
 HULDAH THE PROPHETESS & THE REFORMATION 21 
 
 Let us now return to the tradition. There is no trace 
 of moral discouragement in the resolute and imperious 
 monarch who, at the head of his people, accepts Hilkiah's 
 law-book (2 K. xxiii. 1-3). He knows his strength and he 
 uses it. The phraseology of the narrative may have been 
 manipulated, but if there was an assembly at all, the circum- 
 stances must have been somewhat as they are here described. 
 Prophets must have been there as well as priests and elders 
 of the people, and the position taken up by the king in 
 order to read the law-book (in this copy, then, the letters 
 were not archaic) is entirely in order, as we shall see by 
 comparing v. 3 with the statement in 2 K. xi. 14, 'and 
 when she looked, behold, the king (Jehoash) stood by the 
 pillar, as the usage was.' The pillar, in both cases, was no 
 doubt that called in the Hebrew of I K. vii. 21 Yakln. 
 This appears to be a corruption of some form of Yerahme'el 
 (such as Yakman), the name of one of the holy Two, or 
 Three, who formed, in N. Arabia, the divine Company. It 
 will be remembered that Yakin and Bo'az l (in (j| 1! Yakum 
 and Balaz the latter points to some corrupt form of 
 Ishmael) were the two bronze pillars erected in the porch of 
 Solomon's temple. The original names were not such as 
 Josiah would have sanctioned. But he did not scruple to 
 station himself by one of them after the objectionable names 
 had (probably long ago) been modified. There it was that 
 he read the law-book aloud, and there that he made a 
 covenant or compact before Yahweh (as Jehoiada in the 
 name of Jehoash had done before) to walk before Yahweh, 
 and so to verify the words (promises) of this compact that 
 were written in this book (xxiii. 3). 
 
 The ease with which the revolution was effected may 
 well startle us. How many there must have been in that 
 assembly who had luxuriated in the enjoyment of the 
 popular cults ! Yet now such persons gave up their most 
 cherished practices, and accepted the yoke of a book- 
 religion. It is passing strange. Had Josiah the assistance 
 of a second wonder-working Elijah ? No ; but he had on 
 
 1 See E. Bib., 'Jachin and Boaz'; Crit. Bib. p. 324 ; T. and B. 
 pp. 30 (n. 2), 369; Nikolsky (Hilgenfeld's Zt., 1904, pp. 1-20); 
 W. E. Barnes,/, of Theol Stud., April 1904, pp. 447^
 
 22 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 his side not only the two chief priests l and the three 
 keepers of the sacred threshold, 2 but most probably, like 
 Jehoash, at no great distance off, the royal guards. 
 
 The work assigned to the great temple ministers at 
 once suggests the real nature of the reformation. It was 
 an attack on that harmful type of religion, established by 
 Manasseh, which most 3 regard as Assyrio-Babylonian, but 
 which, more probably, was N. Arabian. At the king's 
 command (v. 4), Hilkiah and his fellows brought out all the 
 vessels of Baal and Asherah, 4 and of all the host of heaven 
 (see p. 25). These were burned outside Jerusalem in the 
 smelting-furnaces (?) 5 of the Kidron ; their ' dust,' we are 
 told, was taken to Bethel, i.e. probably to the bdmaJi made 
 by Jeroboam, and destroyed (as we shall see) by Josiah. 
 From the same source (probably) we learn that the venerated 
 symbol of Asherah in the temple (v. 6 ; cp. xxi. 7) was 
 carried to the Kidron, where it was burned and actually 
 stamped to powder (cp. vv. 12, 15), as if to minimise the 
 risk of malign supernatural influence. Nor was even this 
 enough to satisfy the foes of heathenism. To desecrate this 
 image still further, the powder was despitefully cast upon the 
 common burying-place (xxiii. 6). 
 
 Already, perhaps, we can see the real nature of the 
 movement. It appears that Baal (or Yerahme'el) and 
 Asherah, or sometimes Ashtart, were combined in a 
 N. Arabian divine duad, and if it be urged that Yahweh 
 may also have been worshipped by the N. Arabians, yet 
 the directing member of the triad thus produced was, not 
 Yahweh, but Baal. (To these deities we shall return.) As 
 
 1 That is, the priest of Jerusalem and the priest (not priests, see 
 xxv. 18) of the second rank (in xxv. 18 parallel to 'the chief priest'), 
 or perhaps the priest of Shemanah, i.e. Ishmael (see p. 1 9). The title 
 may have been borne by the priest of the sanctuary of the Israelites in 
 N. Arabia (see on Dt. xii. 5). The writer of xxv. 18 may not have 
 known the true origin of mishneh ( = Shemanah). Huldah, as we have 
 seen, was probably a prophetess of Shemanah. 
 
 2 See E. Bib., Threshold.' 
 
 3 E.g. M'Curdy, Hist., Proph., and Man. ii. 385. 
 
 4 In v. 5 Mazzaloth (Yishme''elith) stands for Asherah (T. and B. 
 p. 19, n. 2 ; Crit. Bib. p. 390). In i K. xv. 13 we meet with the name 
 miphleseth, which may have the same origin as mazzaloth 
 
 5 nurro (Klostermann).
 
 HULDAH THE PROPHETESS 6^ THE REFORMATION 23 
 
 the foe of Ashtart, Josiah was, of course, violently opposed 
 to all that belonged to the cult of that goddess, and 
 especially to the sacred prostitution suggested by the names 
 kedeshim (xxiii. 7 a) * and fyedeshoth. The men and women 
 so called were numerous both in N. Arabia 2 and in the 
 land of Judah. 3 The urgent need for a distinct prohibition 
 of that unhappy devotion was met by the command in 
 Dt. xxiii. 1 8. Not less numerous were the priests called 
 kemarim. This we learn, not only from the narrative before 
 us, but from a much-vexed passage in Isaiah (ii. 5), where 
 the reason why Yahweh has forsaken his people is stated to 
 be their addiction to foreign magic and soothsaying ; evidently 
 mikkedem should be kemarim. The name is suggestive ; it 
 shows that the priests so styled had N. Arabian affinities. 4 
 On the whole passage, see chap. v. 
 
 The fact is that religion was a specialty of the 
 N. Arabians, and priests as well as prophets travelled about 
 Judah in search of occupation (xxiii. 5). Wherever there 
 was a bdmah their services were in request ; the kings of 
 Judah had themselves 'ordained' or sanctioned this custom. 
 Now, however, the priests had to retire in obedience to a 
 fresh command. They were the guardians of all those 
 practices which Josiah most abhorred. It was essential to 
 save the people from their pernicious influence. They were 
 therefore deposed. According to another account (v. 9), 
 the priests (koh&ne) of the bdmoth were allowed to eat 
 unleavened bread among their brethren, though they might 
 
 1 The gloss in v. 7 b is obscure. 
 
 2 T. and B. p. 448. Simulation of this cult was one feature of this 
 cult in N. Arabia (see on Dt. xxii. 5, 9-11). 
 
 3 See i K. xiv. 24, xv. 12. 
 
 4 The name almost certainly comes from o'op-i. opi is a frequent 
 corruption of Dm' = '?Karn < (see T. and B., pp. 62, 376 ; cp. 372). The 
 kemarim are also mentioned in Hos. x. 5, Zeph. i. 4, and probably 
 Job iii. 5, where the text is plainly wrong, and should be read innjD* 
 }D' nD3, 'let the priests of Yaman affright it.' The origin of the word 
 goes back into remote antiquity, at least if kamiru in the Amarna 
 Tablets has the meaning ' priest.' It also occurs in an Aramaic form 
 in the first of the Elephantine papyri edited by Sachau (1907), where, 
 as in the Hebrew Scriptures, it is doubtless used without knowledge of 
 its origin. In fact, the writer who speaks for the Egyptian-Jewish 
 community uses K'TOS of the priests of the Egyptian god Khnum.
 
 24 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 not take part in the altar-service at Jerusalem. Apparently 
 these priests either were or became Yahwists. It is of the 
 distress of such persons that a pathetic account, in the 
 style of prophecy, seems to be given in I S. ii. 36. They 
 are represented as the descendants of Eli (i.e. Abiathar), 
 displaced by the ' faithful priest ' (Zadok), to whom they 
 come crouching for some humble priestly office, as a means 
 of livelihood. The one objection to this is that there are 
 two glosses 1 in v. 36, which (critically restored) run thus, 
 ' with regard to the temple of Kashram, Ashkar- Yerahme'el,' 
 and ' with regard to Ashkal, Beth-Yerahme'el,' implying 
 that the priests are Yerahme'elites, and that they are in 
 search of posts in their own chief sanctuary (see p. 27), 
 called sometimes Ashkar - Yerahme'el, sometimes Beth- 
 Yerahme'el. It is possible that in xxiii. 9 D^tDIT has been 
 substituted by the redactor for SNSDBT (Ishmael = Yerahme'el). 
 At any rate, these priests seem to be worshippers of Yahweh. 
 They may perhaps have traced their origin to Eli. The 
 Shiloh referred to in I S. i.-iv. was probably in the 
 N. Arabian border-land. A third statement about the 
 priests (xxiii. 20) is probably a late fiction. 
 
 Among the worst abominations were sacrifices of 
 children. They were offered to Melek, 2 who was the great 
 N. Arabian god, regarded no longer as the giver of vegeta- 
 tion, but as the stern ruler of the underworld, and who was 
 also called Ethbal, i.e. Ishmael ( = Yerahme'el). This we 
 learn from 2 K. xxiii. 10, where the impossible *r\f?}f? 3 is 
 simply miswritten for ^arw'p (cp. ^rhl from SnriN in Isa. 
 x. 4), which is a gloss on ij^oS. Child-sacrifices in Canaan 
 
 1 The words cnS 133 p3 ninnS and cnS-ns Ssw 1 ? are glosses. The text 
 needs correction. In the former gloss, 103, as in Isa. xlviii. 10, comes 
 most probably from onos = oirn (see note on onrs). nun is the Aram. 
 KTUK, which, in the Targums has the late meaning ' heathen altar,' but 
 in the Aramaic papyri (see especially those of Elephantine) is used of 
 the temple of Yahu ( = Yahweh). Thus, an O.T. passage for the first 
 time receives a natural and a practically certain explanation, thanks to 
 an unexpected find of papyri. In the latter, *?3K, as often, represents 
 hiv* ( = Asshur- Yerahme'el) ; Sa*^, presupposed by in v. 28 
 (<ts /3p<lj<Ti.v), has the same meaning as here, viz. ' with reference to 
 Ashkal.' ns represents rra ; on 1 ? is a popular corruption of Som ("jKorrr). 
 
 2 See E. Rib., ' Molech ' (Moore) ; T. and B., pp. 50-54. 
 
 3 Not recognised by @, Pesh.
 
 HULDAH THE PROPHETESS &- THE REFORMATION 25 
 
 are proved by the explorations ; 1 in N. Arabia, by the 
 original underlying text of Gen. xxii. They are denounced 
 and forbidden in Dt. xii. 31, xviii. 10, though the strongest 
 prohibition is in Lev. xviii. 21. Jeremiah 2 (xix. 4 _/!, 
 xxxii. 35) and Ezekiel (xx. 26) are equally vehement, and 
 it was only to be expected that what Manasseh had 
 sanctioned by his own practice Josiah should do his utmost 
 to extinguish. 
 
 Sun-worship was also prevalent in Judah (yv. 5, 1 1 /.). 
 Ezekiel (viii. 16) tells of men who worshipped the sun 
 towards the east, with their backs towards Yahweh's temple. 
 Predecessors of Josiah had dedicated horses (of bronze?) to 
 the sun. These Josiah destroyed ; the chariot (so Stade, 
 after (J|) of the sun-god he burned. Whence came this 
 sun-worship ? Perhaps from Assyria. But it is very 
 possible that Baal or Yerahme'el in one of his aspects was 
 the sun-god, 3 and that this is the source of Manasseh's sun- 
 worship. In v. 5 ' the sun and the moon ' may be an 
 interpolated gloss on ' Baal and Mazzaloth ' (i.e. Yerahme'el 
 and the Ishmaelite goddess), and it is certain that in v. 4 
 (cp. 2 K. xxi. 3) the cult of Baal is closely joined to that of 
 1 all the host of heaven.' The fusion of the cult of Baal or 
 Yerahme'el with that of the sun in Judah may perhaps be 
 placed in the reign of Manasseh (2 K. xxi. 5). 
 
 Even the bdmotk of Solomon were not spared. Sidonian, 
 Moabite, and Ammonite cults should no longer defile the 
 neighbourhood of the temple. The description of the site 
 of these places is remarkable. It was east of Jerusalem, 
 and south of the har hammashhlth, ' the mount of the 
 destroyer.' Most probably, however, mashhlth (like maktesh 
 in Zeph. i. 1 1 ; see p. 18, note 3) comes from some form 
 like methushah, i.e. ' Ishmael-Ashhur. 4 The name of the 
 hill alludes to the fact that the original inhabitants of the 
 district were Jebusites, i.e. a tribe of Ishmaelites. 
 
 And now a grave difficulty arises. We are told in 
 
 1 Pere Vincent, Canaan (1907), pp. 188, 195. 
 
 2 Jeremiah, in xix. 4^, speaks of Baal, but clearly Baal and Melek 
 are parallel (Jer. xxxii. 35). 
 
 3 See T. and B. p. 273 (on the connexion between Ishmael and the 
 sun, and the origin of the name Bethshemesh). 
 
 4 See T. and B. p. 107.
 
 26 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 2 K. xxiii. 4 that the ' dust ' of the vessels that were burned 
 outside Jerusalem was carried to Bethel, and in v. 15 that 
 Josiah broke down the altar and high place of Bethel. To 
 reject the Bethel-episode would be arbitrary. Shall we, 
 then, suppose that, in the enfeebled condition of Assyria, 
 Josiah felt the stirrings of ambition, and aspired to re-unite 
 north and south under one sceptre ? l The theory is in 
 itself plausible, and harmonises with the statement that 
 Josiah went to meet an Egyptian army at Megiddo in 
 N. Israel. Still, apart from the uncertainty of the reading 
 ' Megiddo,' the close political and religious relations between 
 Israel and N. Arabia, which I have tried to point out else- 
 where, may lead one to think that another theory has a still 
 greater probability. The theory is, that Bethel (which, like 
 TiSl, 2 K. xxiii. 10, probably comes from Ethbal, i.e. 
 Ishmael) may, in vv. 4, 15, be the name of a place in 
 the N. Arabian borderland, to which region therefore Josiah 
 must have extended his iconoclastic operations. And why 
 should Josiah not have done so ? Obviously the reforma- 
 tion was needed in N. Arabia as much as in Judah, and 
 Josiah was not the man to leave his work half done. If 
 he occupied the Israelite territory in N. Arabia, he would 
 feel bound to make it genuinely a Holy Land. As to the 
 evidence, the whole story of the reformation is presumptive 
 evidence. 
 
 It is an important fact, which I must not omit to point 
 out, that by this theory, and this alone, is it possible to give 
 a perfectly natural correction of the text of xxiii. 8 b. This 
 is how the passage runs in the A.V., ' and brake down the 
 high places of the gates that were in the entering in of the 
 gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on a 
 man's left hand at the gate of the city.' ' The high places 
 of the gates ' ; how impossible ! If, however, we correct 
 r, not into D^TStoiT, ' the satyr-like demons,' but into 
 
 1 The Chronicler (2 Chr. xxxiv. 6f., 33) may have had a similar 
 notion respecting Josiah, but there is reason to think that the state- 
 ments of the earlier writer on which he built may have had a different 
 reference. This means correcting the two corrupt words at the end of 
 v. 6 into onr mama, ' in Yarhamite Rehoboth,' indicating that the icono- 
 clasm took place in some part of the N. Arabian border-land. This 
 affects the correctness of 2 Chr. xv. 19, xxx. i, io/, 18, xxxi. i.
 
 HULDAH THE PROPHETESS &> THE REFORMATION 27 
 
 D'ntdNn, 1 ' the Asshurs,' i.e., the symbols of the N. Arabian 
 god Asshur,' 2 we shall have taken the first step towards a 
 consistent sense. And how improbable are both the defini- 
 tions of the situation of the bamoth ! Neither Kittel nor 
 Stade suggests any probable or even plausible emendations. 
 Perhaps it is some defect in their point of view which 
 hinders them. At any rate, we surely want, not a personal 
 name like Yehoshua, but a place-name. Tsrrito stthrr 
 should probably be Tsn I^Nirp, ' the city Yehoasshur,' 3 or 
 perhaps TSH IBJN'DOTi ' the city Yarham- Asshur.' It is 
 probable that the equivalent forms Asshur- Yarham and 
 Ashkar-Yerahme'el underlie cryptic phrases in Dt. xii. 5 
 and i S. ii. 36 respectively, and that it is the name of the 
 place where was the central sanctuary which claimed the 
 exclusive veneration of N. Arabian Israelites. Almost the 
 same name (SNSDOT'TEZJN) underlies part of the equally 
 corrupt second descriptive clause (tZTN ^INDtB'f 
 what remains (Tsn "isBEl) represents beyond doubt Tan 
 ' in the city Asshur.' Thus, omitting incorrect variants, we 
 obtain this simple and natural sense of the original, under- 
 lying text, ' and broke down the bamoth of the Asshur-idols 
 which were in the entrance of the city Yarham-Asshur.' 
 
 We cannot, however, pass over the first part of xxiii. 8, 
 which states that the bamoth on which the priests had 
 offered illegitimate sacrifices were spread ' from Geba to 
 Beer-sheba.' These places, it may be objected, were not 
 in the N. Arabian border-land, but formed the northern and 
 southern boundaries respectively of the land of Judah. If, 
 then, we have found the right explanation of v. 8 b, it would 
 seem that this passage cannot be the right sequel of v. 8 a. 
 It would indeed seem so. But must we not go further, and 
 say that v. 8 a, if the ordinary explanation is correct, 
 excludes the view that Josiah carried the reform to any 
 
 1 Asherlm (from Asher) is a parallel form to Asshurim (from Asshur). 
 See T. and B. p. 24. The Asherim were, of course, destroyed by 
 Josiah, xxiii. 14, cp. Dt. vii. 5. 
 
 2 See T. and B. p. 24. 
 
 3 The form would be unusual ; cp. the personal name ewv. 
 
 4 The first half of the clause represents Asshur-Ishmael,' the second 
 ' Ishmael-Asshur.' trx comes from B-K, i.e. IB-K. The two forms, of 
 course, refer to the same city.
 
 28 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 district or region outside Judah proper? And yet, as we 
 have seen, to deny that he crossed the border at all, would 
 be arbitrary. The solution of the problem is that either 
 v . 8 a belongs to a different source from v. 8 b a source 
 which did not refer to the extension of the reform beyond 
 the limits of Judah proper, or else the Geba and Beersheba 
 referred to were not in Judah but in the N. Arabian border- 
 land. 1 In the latter case, a shortened form of ' Yerahme'el ' 
 must have been mistaken for a shortened form of ' Yehudah ' ; 
 i.e. for ' out of the cities of Judah ' we should read ' out of the 
 cities of Yerahme'el.' 2 
 
 The conclusion here arrived at is not without conse- 
 quences. If there is a N. Arabian Bethel in 2 K. xxiii., 
 there must also be one, not only in i K. xiii., but in I K. 
 xii. (the steers of gold), and why not also in Gen. xxviii. and 
 in the Book of Amos ? The truth is that the different parts 
 of the Old Testament are so closely connected that we 
 cannot change our opinion on one without having to 
 reconsider our opinion on some of the others. As another 
 instance of this, take the story in Jer. xli. 5 respecting the 
 eighty men from Shechem, Shiloh, and Sh5meron, who came 
 in mourning guise to Mizpah, the seat of government of the 
 hapless Gedaliah. 3 Their object is said to have been to 
 bring offerings to the ' house of Yahweh.' What was this 
 ' house of Yahweh' ? ' Most reply, the great one at Jeru- 
 salem. But how came pilgrims from the land of N. Israel 
 to be so deeply interested in the fallen sanctuary of Judah ? 
 Must we not exchange our point of view for one in 
 harmony with the preceding results ? As I have pointed 
 out already by anticipation, the Israelites in the southern 
 
 1 Geba is only another form of Gibeah. Beer-sheba = well of 
 Shema (Ishmael), not 'well of the Seven-god.' Bethel = Ethbaal = 
 Ishmael (T. and B. pp. 31 1 /, 371). 
 
 2 Cp. I S. xxx. 26, where, in the original text, as restored, David 
 sends presents to the elders of Yerahme'el. In the M.T. of v. 29 we 
 actually find the two glosses, ' in the cities of the Yerahme'elites ' and 
 'in the cities of the Kenites.' See Crit. Bib. p. 245. 
 
 8 It is here supposed that Gedaliah was governor of the ' cities of 
 Yerahme'el ' (reading thus in Jer. xl. 5 instead of ' cities of Judah,' as in 
 2 K. xxiii. 8. Cp. Crit. Bib., p. 73, and on the story in Jer. xli., The 
 Historians' History the World, ii. 7.
 
 HULDAH THE PROPHETESS & THE REFORMATION 29 
 
 border-land occupied by Josiah had probably their own 
 sanctuary. It has also been shown that Shechem, Shiloh, 
 and Shomeron (or Shimron) were most probably N. Arabian 
 as well as N. Israelite place-names, the Yerahme'elite clans 
 having carried these names with them in their migrations. 
 The pilgrims, therefore, were very possibly Israelites of N. 
 Arabia, who resorted to their own sanctuary, situated 
 perhaps near Mizpah. 1 
 
 The destruction of the altar and bdmaJi at Bethel 2 
 (v. 15) was only to be expected considering their history. 
 From some other source it is added (v. 1 9) that what Josiah 
 had done at Bethel he repeated at all the houses of the 
 bamotk that were in the cities of Shomeron, 3 and that he 
 slew all the officiating priests. The latter statement need 
 not delay us ; it may be a mere fiction suggested by I K. 
 xiii. 2. As to Shdmeron or Shimron, it is plainly in the 
 same region as Bethel, i.e. in N. Arabia. As we know 
 already (p. 18) there was a Shomer5n or Shimron of the 
 Gomerites ; Huldah's husband was a native of this place or 
 district. It is also noteworthy that in Am. vi. I |V2 and 
 |ViDtD should be parallel, which can only be the case if |V2 
 can be corrected into psi2, i.e. not ' hyna,' but ' Ishmael.' 4 
 In other words, in Am. vi. I Shomeron is a N. Arabian name. 
 And still more important is it that in 2 K. xvii. 6 there appears 
 to be a confusion between the Assyrian capture of the city of 
 Shomerdn in the north, and the Asshurite conquest of the 
 region of Shomer5n or Shimron in the south. 5 
 
 The only other important detail of the reformation is 
 that in xxiii. 24, relative to magic and all heathenish objects 
 (teraphim, etc.), and practices surviving in the land of Judah. 
 By abolishing these, Josiah undid the mischief caused by his 
 
 1 There were many hill-towns called Mizpah. Cp. Crit. Bib. on 
 i K. xv. 22. 
 
 2 For Winckler's ingenious but arbitrary correction see KA T (3 \ 
 
 P- 277- 
 
 3 Shomgron here, as in I K. xvii. 24, etc., is a regional name. 
 
 4 See Introduction (on forms of Ishmael). 
 
 5 See Special Note. The names of places and deities in i K. xvii. 
 l^ff. point in different directions. One may, however, venture to lay 
 the most stress on those which point to N. Arabia, for what redactor 
 would have inserted these among Assyrian-sounding names ?
 
 30 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 reactionary grandfather (xxi. 6). Manasseh was a pro 
 Asshurite king, and among the most popular Asshurite or 
 N. Arabian religious forms were those which opened the door 
 of the unseen world. How earnestly the Deuteronomist 
 dehorts from such practices, is well-known (see Dt. xviii. 
 10^-12). One may greatly doubt, however, whether Josiah 
 did permanently abolish them (see Zech. x. 2). 
 
 The reformation being finished, the workers ' returned to 
 Jerusalem.' Was there any concluding celebration ? From 
 2 K. xxiii. 21-23 we might suppose that there was viz. 
 the passover. The account may, however, be a mere 
 appendix, as the highly artificial narrative in 2 Chr. xxxv. 
 undoubtedly is. On the other hand, in the Hezekiah- 
 narrative the passover precedes the reformation (2 Chr. 
 xxx.-xxxi. i). The probability is that there were two 
 forms of tradition, 1 according to one of which the covenant, 
 and according to the other the passover, was the sign that 
 Israel had again become Yahweh's people. It was not easy 
 to work these two forms of tradition together, and the 
 compilers took different lines. It will be noticed that both 
 in 2 Kings and in 2 Chr. the reformation -passover is re- 
 garded as the first legal one (cp. Dt. xvi. 2, 5-7). Forgetful 
 of his own elaborate account of Hezekiah's national passover, 
 and with only slight variations on 2 K. xxiii. 22 (cp. Neh. 
 viii. 17), the Chronicler fervently declares that such a 
 passover as this had not been held since the days of Samuel, 
 nor had all the kings of Israel kept such a passover. How 
 far even the brief notice in 2 Kings is based on fact, it is 
 impossible to say. Most probably the reformation-passover 
 has but a symbolic value. 
 
 It is much to be regretted that the imaginative element 
 in this lengthy narrative is so considerable. In Wellhausen's 
 abridgment of the Book of Campaigns of the Messenger of 
 God by Wakidy, we find a striking sketch of the Arabian 
 reformer overthrowing the 360 idols around the Ka'ba at 
 Mecca, and looking on while, at his command, the great 
 image of Hubal was broken in pieces. A description as 
 full of colour of Josiah's proceedings would have been very 
 
 1 So first Erbt, OLZ, Feb. 1908.
 
 HULDAH THE PROPHETESS &* THE REFORMATION 31 
 
 precious. We may note, by the way, that Mohammed does 
 not seem to have shown any hostility to Arabian dolmens, 
 which militates against Colonel Conder's theory 1 that the 
 paucity of such stone monuments in W. Palestine is due to 
 the iconoclasm of Josiah. For my own part, I think that 
 the amount of Josiah's iconoclasm has been exaggerated. 
 To have ordered the universal destruction of bamotJi would 
 have been futile ; the order would not have been carried out. 
 I base my scepticism on these two grounds. The first is 
 the fact that the old Canaanite and N. Arabian cults at 
 once regained their prominence on the death of Josiah. A 
 similar reaction took place in Egypt on the death of the 
 ' heretic king ' Amen-hotep IV., and its violence unmistak- 
 ably shows that the religious revolution set on foot by that 
 king had not been at all universal or complete. 2 The second, 
 that among the virtual opponents of Josiah were not only 
 the partisans of the displaced religion, but also the adherents 
 of a diametrically opposite school. It was a school with a 
 moral strength out of all proportion to its numbers, and its lead- 
 ing member was that lofty prophet and soldier of God, whose 
 greatness cannot have been wholly unseen during his lifetime, 
 but was first fully recognised after his passing Jeremiah. 
 
 That Jeremiah, a pioneering thinker, was opposed to 
 book-religion will be one of the acquisitions of our next 
 chapter. In justice, however, to the school of Hilkiah and 
 Josiah, let it be acknowledged that Jeremiah, saintly as he 
 was, lacked that faculty of persuasion which the Second 
 Isaiah seems to have possessed, and without which Jeremiah 
 and his disciples could not possibly have converted the 
 unspiritual minds of their countrymen. Nor must our 
 inherited prejudices hinder us from assimilating the lesson 
 of Jewish history that it was the combination of legal and 
 prophetic elements which alone saved Israel, and enabled 
 it to remain unmoved, though not unaltered, amidst the 
 tempests of the centuries. 
 
 1 Syrian Stone-lore, p. 126 ; cp. Vincent, Canaan (1907), p. 423. 
 
 2 Erman, Handbook of Egyptian Religion, p. 64. ' It is easy to 
 understand that for ten or twenty years the new faith actually prevailed, 
 at least among the upper classes of the people.' The qualification is 
 important.
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 JEREMIAH'S ATTITUDE. JOSIAH'S DEFEAT AND DEATH. 
 FEAR OF THE NORTH ARABIANS 
 
 WE have seen that the traditional account of Josiah's 
 reformation is in some respects not fully trustworthy, and it 
 would be natural to hope that the Book which bears the 
 name of Jeremiah would compensate us for our disappoint- 
 ment. To some extent it certainly does, but only on con- 
 dition of our applying a keen criticism to the contents. 
 Scholars like Duhm and Cornill are well aware of this, and 
 the experience of the last half-century has taught them to 
 distinguish better than their predecessors between that which 
 is and that which is not genuine in this prophetic collection. 
 They have also, perhaps I may say, learned more fully that 
 the non-genuine passages by which a redactor has supple- 
 mented the fragmentary relics of the true Jeremiah may 
 contain valuable material for the later history of Israel's 
 religion. 
 
 There is one result of recent criticism which is of special 
 importance for the history of the reformation. Through 
 insufficient criticism of chap, xi., which certainly contains 
 some work of Jeremiah's, the French scholar Dahler 
 (1825-30) was led to believe that Jeremiah was so friendly 
 to the reformation that he actually became an itinerating 
 advocate of the claims of Deuteronomy. Not in deference 
 to Josiah, but following an inward divine call, he is thought 
 to have proclaimed ' all these words (i.e. the words of this 
 covenant) in the cities of Judah and in the streets of 
 Jerusalem.' The passage on which this view is based is Jer. 
 xi. 1-8, which is not only poor in diction and devoid of 
 
 32
 
 JEREMIAH'S ATTITUDE JOSI AH* S DEATH 33 
 
 metre, 1 but quite out of harmony with what Jeremiah says 
 elsewhere. Take for instance Jer. viii. 8, 
 
 How can ye say, We are wise, 
 And the torah of Yahweh is with us ? 
 Verily, into a lie has he made it 2 
 The lying pen of scribes. 
 
 Could there be a plainer contradiction of those who asserted 
 that they had Yahweh's direction in a written form ? And 
 how can one who wrote thus have been a friend of 
 Deuteronomy and the reformation ? 
 
 Nevertheless, Jeremiah was at one with Josiah in his 
 abhorrence of the Baalistic religion established by Manasseh. 
 What the religion of Jerusalem was like before the reforma- 
 tion can be seen from Jer. ii. 28 b (see ^). This is how, 
 most probably, the text originally ran, 
 
 For as many cities as thou hast, 
 
 So many gods hadst thou, 
 
 And as many streets as Jerusalem has, 
 
 So many sacrifices have they burned to Baal. 
 
 Some early scribe altered the text of the fourth line, which 
 in the M.T. runs thus, ' so many altars have ye set up to 
 Bosheth, altars to burn sacrifices to Baal.' The scribe's 
 explanation is perfectly good, only we must restore the name 
 of Baal's consort, here miscalled ntDl (Bosheth), to its true 
 form rrmtB = rPSDttP, one of the titles of the great N. 
 Arabian goddess and consort of Baal. 3 To Jeremiah, the 
 most damning sin of his people is frequenting the house of 
 Ashtart. This appears from Jer. xi. 15, where the opening 
 words should run, ' What has my beloved to do in the house 
 of Ashtart ' ; 4 also from Jer. v. 7, where the Israelites are 
 accused of cutting their flesh (to propitiate the deity) 5 in the 
 
 1 The most certain prophecies of Jeremiah are distinguished by 
 their metrical character. 
 
 2 Reading ftvy with Cornill and virtually Duhm. Driver's 'hath 
 wrought falsely ' is surely too vague. 
 
 3 See T. and B. p. 18. 
 
 4 Reading mns-y, for nnirv. Cp. on nx^, Gen. xlix. 3(7". and B. p. 
 500) ; also on Judg. xiii. 19, Hab. i. 7. 
 
 5 Cp. Dt. xiv. i, I K. xviii. 28, Jer. xvi. 6, xli. 5, xlvii. 5, Mic. 
 iv. 14. 
 
 3
 
 34 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 house of Sibeonah. 1 We may also compare Jer. vii. 1 7 f., 
 where, ' in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem ' 
 the prophet sees the ritual cakes being prepared for the 
 1 queen of heaven, ' 2 i.e. for Ashtart. 
 
 On the popular religion of Judah which, as we shall see, 
 revived after Josiah's death, I shall speak again in chap. v. 
 I have now to follow our only authorities, who pass abruptly 
 from the religious revolution to the ill-advised warlike under- 
 taking in which Josiah met his death. How gladly would 
 we have had more information alike as to the years of peace 
 which preceded and as to the disaster itself ! I have already 
 treated this subject, 3 but must return to it again in this 
 connexion. 
 
 The text of 2 K. xxiii. 29 runs thus, ' In his days 
 Pharaoh-Neko, king of Egypt, went up against the king of 
 Assyria to the river Euphrates ; and king Josiah went to 
 meet him ; and he slew him at Megiddo when he saw him.' 
 
 A number of questions now suggest themselves. Thus, 
 with regard to Josiah. (i) Was it ambition that stimulated 
 him (p. 26), an ambition which may have been strengthened 
 by the belief that Yahweh was now on good terms with his 
 people ? It may have seemed worth while even to run a 
 considerable risk for the prize of the hegemony of the peoples 
 of Palestine. It is probable, however, that Josiah's ambition 
 was of a more limited range, and was satisfied by the 
 occupation of the N. Arabian border-land. (2) Did Josiah 
 fight among other Assyrian vassals against the foe of his 
 suzerain ? 4 But the growing dangers which now beset 
 Assyria must surely have incapacitated its king from putting 
 any pressure upon Palestinian rulers. Ever since the death 
 of Ashur-bani-pal ' the air must have been filled with 
 rumours of rebellion and with murmurs of dread concerning 
 the future.' 5 Or (3) Did several Phoenician and Palestinian 
 
 1 wit is a corruption, probably not undesigned, of rays i.e. nnjns. 
 Sibeon = Ishmael (T. and B. p. 19, n. i). 
 
 2 But see T. and B. p. 18. 
 
 8 ' The Decline of the Kingdom of Judah,' Nineteenth Century and 
 After, May 1908, pp. 811-818. 
 
 4 W. Max M tiller, Studien zur vordcrasiat. Geschichte, p. $4f.', cp. 
 . Bib., < Necho.' 
 
 5 Rogers, History of Babylonia and Assyria, ii. 285.
 
 JEREMIAH'S ATTITUDE JOSIAWS DEATH 35 
 
 princes combine on their own account against the new 
 would-be suzerain under the leadership of Josiah ? 
 
 Next, with regard to ' Pharaoh - Neko.' There are 
 arguments which have to be considered both for and against 
 the traditional view. It must be admitted that an ambitious 
 Egyptian king might well determine to profit by the decay 
 of Assyria, and revive the ancient claims of Egypt to the 
 overlordship of Syria and Palestine. The sovereign of 
 Egypt at this time was Ne-ka-u or Niku ( = Heb. Neko) II., 
 the son and successor of Psametik I. (26th dynasty). His 
 enterprising character is sufficiently clear l from Herodotus 
 (ii. 158 f.}, who states, near the end of his eulogy, that 
 Nekds ' made war by land on the Syrians, and defeated 
 them in a pitched battle at Magdolon, after which he took 
 Kadytis, a large city of Syria.' That the Syrians here 
 referred to are the Assyrians, 2 seems most unlikely ; the 
 battle intended is most probably that in which Josiah fell, 
 only the scene of the contest is, not Megiddo, but Migdol. 
 There were of course many Migdols ; Winckler thinks of 
 Caesarea ; my own view will be mentioned presently. As to 
 Kadytis, in Herod, iii. 5 it is thought to be Gaza; here, 
 according to PraSek, 3 it is Kadesh on the Orontes. This, 
 however, depends on our general view of the narrative. 
 
 To the statement of Herodotus we may add the evidence 
 of a small monument found (it is said) at Sidon. It is a 
 fragment of a thin tablet of basalt, on which is part of a 
 royal figure holding staff and mace. In front of this is a 
 scrap of a cartouche with the legs of a bird remaining. 4 The 
 cartouche is that of Niku II. The fragment having probably 
 been found at Sidon suggests that in Phoenicia at any rate 
 Niku had acted as suzerain. 
 
 I am afraid, however, that neither Herodotus nor the 
 basalt slab supplies perfectly decisive evidence. The ' father 
 of history ' had no immunity from error. In the present 
 case he may have confounded a little-known N. Arabian 
 
 1 The circumnavigation of Africa is now proved by Bouriant's 
 scarabs. 
 
 2 S. Reinach, Revue archeologique, xxvii. 366. 
 
 3 Forschungcn zur Gesch. des Alterthums, ii. pp. 3 f. 
 
 4 F. LI. Griffith, ' A Relic of Pharaoh Necho from Phoenicia,' PSBA, 
 Jan. 1894, pp. io/
 
 36 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 king with a well-known king of Egypt, just as, in ii. 141, he 
 or his authority apparently confounded a little-known king 
 of the Arabian Asshurites with a well-known king of Assyria. 1 
 And as to the slab of basalt, it will only prove that Niku 
 had close relations with Sidon, not that he defeated Josiah, 
 and became suzerain, as the M.T. of xxiv. 7 tells us, of the 
 territory between the torrent of Egypt and the river 
 Euphrates. 
 
 Against the opinion that Niku really did what he is 
 commonly represented to have done, these arguments may 
 be adduced, (i) It is not in itself probable that an Egyptian 
 king should have intervened in the affairs of Palestine with- 
 out there being any reference to this in the prophetic writings. 
 On a close critical examination of the occurrences of D'HSQ 
 in the prophets, we find that by this name not Egypt, but 
 the N. Arabian Musr or Musri is generally intended. Of 
 references to a possible Egyptian domination of Judah there 
 is no trace. It is true, the prophets do not mention every- 
 thing, nor have we all that they wrote. But what external 
 evidence of such a domination is there ? (2) There are only 
 two cases of the prefixing of mriD to the name of a king ot 
 D'HSD ; ' Pharaoh-Neko' is one, ' Pharaoh-Hophra ' is the 
 other. Now Hophra (see p. 80) forms no part of the true 
 text of Jer. xliv. 30 ; it is probable therefore that Neko too 
 should be omitted, rttHD should probably be lino, ' the 
 name (as we may suppose) of some Misrite king who became 
 famous. At any rate, it (Pir'u) was the name of a king of 
 Musri in Sargon's time. 2 3. In 2 K. xxiii. 34 we are told 
 that the Misrite king changed the Judaite king's birth-name 
 Eliakim to Jehoiakim. Had the suzerain been an Egyptian, 
 he would have given his vassal a name connecting him in 
 some way, secular or religious, with Egypt. 4. In the 
 parallel, 2 Chr. xxxv. 21, Neko sends a message to Josiah, 
 which, from a religious point of view, 3 would be entirely 
 
 1 See E. Bib., ' Sennacherib,' 5 ; Crit. Bib. p. 393. The Sethos 
 of Herodotus is surely Seti, and not, as PraSek supposes, Taharka, nor, 
 as W. M. Miiller (Eg. Researches^ p. 33), Merneptah. 
 
 2 T. and B. p. 223. 
 
 3 Note the emphatic reference to Elohim, and cp. an Asshurite's 
 reference to Yahweh in 2 K. xviii. 25 (see p. 89).
 
 JEREMIAHS A TTITUDEJOSIAWS DEA TH 37 
 
 congenial to that king. Surely the writer on whom the 
 Chronicler depends had in view, not a king of Egypt, but 
 one in some respects not unlike the N. Arabian king or 
 chieftain Abimelech in Gen. xx. 1 
 
 We see, then, that there is evidence both for and against 
 an Egyptian intervention in Judah, and it may not un- 
 reasonably be held that the arguments against it are on the 
 whole the weightier. That the final editors or redactors of 
 Kings and Chronicles, and of the headings of Jer. xlvi. and 
 xlvii., believed in that intervention, may be granted, but we 
 cannot tie ourselves to their opinions or surmises. It is 
 possible that, like Herodotus, they made a confusion between 
 two different kings. The king who really intervened was a 
 Misrite of N. Arabia, but they, like Herodotus, confounded 
 him with a better known king of Misraim. The textual 
 results of this view are, that Par'oh should probably be Pir'u, 2 
 that Neko (Nekoh) should be omitted, that Misraim should 
 be Misrim, that Karkemish (Chronicles, Hebrew but not 
 Greek) is miswritten or substituted for Rekem - Kush 3 
 ( = Kushite Yarham), that Megiddo should be Migdol (one 
 of the southern Migdols ; see Jer. xliv. i, for a Misrite 
 Migdol), and that the highly improbable phrase (2 K. 
 xxiii. 29) inN iriN-O, ' when he saw him,' should be corrected 
 in the light of the preceding emendations. Exegetically, too, 
 some changes are necessary. Asshur is not Assyria, 4 but 
 the territory of a king who at any rate claimed to be 
 suzerain of all the Yerahme'elite kingdoms, including Misrim. 
 Perath is not the Euphrates but the Ephrath, a N. Arabian 
 district. 5 
 
 And now as to the words in 2 K. xxiii. 29, in which the 
 latest commentator finds the suggestion of an assassination, 
 paraphrasing, ' the Egyptians killed him (Josiah) in Megiddo 
 as soon as he came within sight of their king.' One would 
 be sorry if criticism could do no better than that ! From 
 
 1 See further below. ' l T. and B. p. 223. 
 
 8 Ibid, pp. 170 /, 179. 4 Ibid. pp. 171-173. 
 
 5 Ibid. pp. 91, 262 ; and below, on Dt. i. 7. 
 
 6 Barnes, Kings (Cambr. Bible), 1908, p. 316. Winckler and 
 Benz. suggest iiw noftf>, which is improbable. See also E. Bib. col. 
 261 1 (n. i).
 
 38 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 our point of view, and granting the value of experience of 
 recurring types of corruption, the text which has most 
 probability leaps into view. iriN is a dittograph which 
 arose after the preceding word had been corrupted. That 
 word is the astonishing iriN-O. iriNT has come by trans- 
 position from YiriN, and this (one letter being dropped, as in 
 from "in&N) represents Yint&N, an incorrect form of 
 D, naturally, has come from }. Thus Josiah fell ' in 
 Ashtar.' The place or region was, or had been, dedicated 
 to the god Ashtar (the masc. of Ashtart). ' It was against 
 such a deity that Josiah had striven. But what did the 
 place-name matter, if only the dangerous N. Arabian cults 
 were abolished ' ? That Ashtar is sometimes = Asshur and 
 Ashhur, has been pointed out elsewhere ; l it is one of the 
 regional names of the N. Arabian border-land. 
 
 That names such as Misrim, Asshur, Ashtar, were used 
 by the Hebrew writers with historical precision, no scholar 
 would assert. A change in the dominant race involves the 
 introduction of new ethnics and regional names. Still the 
 old names are tenaciously preserved by neighbouring 
 peoples and used by their writers. Nor could I, of course, 
 maintain that 2 Chr. xxxv. 2 1 f. correctly represents the 
 relation of the two religions the Judaite and the con- 
 temporary ' Misrite.' According to this passage, the Misrite 
 king knows and reveres Elohim (i.e. Yahweh), from whom he 
 receives oracles, either directly, through travelling prophets 
 of Yahweh (cp. Elijah, I K. xix. 15), or indirectly, through 
 information, somehow obtained, as to Hebrew prophecies 
 against Asshur 2 (cp. Cyrus's reference to II. Isaiah, 2 Chr. 
 xxxvi. 23). 
 
 I will now endeavour to sketch the outlines of the 
 historical and exegetical picture. At the end of Josiah's 
 reign the king of Misrim conceived the idea of annexing 
 the N. Arabian borderland of Judah. This territory was 
 claimed by the king of Asshur, but had been occupied by 
 
 1 T. and B. p. 70. 
 
 2 I Esd. i. 28, ' Howbeit Josias . . . presumed to fight with him, 
 not regarding the words of the prophet Jeremias (spoken) by the mouth 
 of the Lord.' Jeremiah, however, does not seem well-chosen (cp. Jer. 
 xlvi. I/).
 
 JEREMIAfTS ATTITUDE JOSIAffS DEATH 39 
 
 Josiah, as the vassal of the Asshurite suzerain. In this 
 capacity, and perhaps with the help of Asshurite troops, 
 Josiah went out in the direction of the stream of Ephrath, 
 to meet the Misrites. 1 The battle-field was near a Migdol, 
 or fortified tower, in a district called Rekem-Kush or Ashtar. 
 Josiah was mortally wounded, and had to be conveyed to 
 Jerusalem in another chariot. A comparison of 2 Chr. 
 xxxv. 24 with Gen. xli. 43 enables us to say what this 
 chariot was ; it was one of those which passed among the 
 Israelites as ' Ishmael-chariots ' 2 (see p. 18). In an earlier 
 form of the text it was merely stated that Josiah's men 
 removed him (his own command was, ' Remove me ') to 
 Jerusalem on the Ishmael-chariot which he had. He died, 
 universally mourned (2 Chr. xxxv. 24). How highly 
 Jeremiah respected him, we shall see later. 
 
 The tragedy of this king's death may be variously 
 interpreted. It is often held to consist in the disappoint- 
 ment of his earnest faith that having obeyed the prescriptions 
 of legal righteousness he was sure of the divine protection 
 against his enemies. But it may also be considered to arise 
 from the fact which we have just now brought to light that 
 Josiah sacrificed his life in the cause of a foreign despot, 
 whom all in Judah but a few interested partisans agreed in 
 hating. The evidence of this strong national feeling is to 
 be derived from the prophets. This may seem to many 
 impossible, but a keen scrutiny will show that Nahum, for 
 instance, is thinking, not of Assyria but of Asshur when he 
 says (iii. 19), 'All that hear the report of thee shall clap 
 the hands over thee.' 
 
 Certainly it is of N. Arabia that he is thinking when he 
 bids Nineveh, or the city whose name underlies ' Nineveh,' 
 take warning by the fate of No-Amon (iii. 8-1 1). If I may 
 be allowed a brief digression, this appears from two parallel 
 and interdependent passages, which Nahum evidently has in 
 
 1 Observe, it is not said, as we should have expected, 'and the 
 king of Asshur went to meet him,' but ' and king Josiah went to meet 
 him ' ; so ' king Josiah ' must in some sense be equivalent to ' the king 
 of Asshur.' 
 
 2 On the rarity of chariots in Judah see Duhm on Isa. xxii. 18 ; the 
 passage, however, originally said nothing of chariots. For 
 
 read imup, ' thy sepulchre.'
 
 40 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 mind. The first is Isa. x. 9-n, 1 where Asshur (v. 5), i.e. 
 the king of Asshur (which, as a gloss tells us, is ' in 
 Yarham ' 2 ) arrogantly declares that, as he has done to 
 certain other cities, so he will now do to Jerusalem. Where 
 are those other cities ? A careful scrutiny shows that they 
 are in N. Arabia. Jerusalem, says the king, cannot expect 
 to fare better at the hands of the N. Arabian Asshur than 
 Kalno (?) and Rekem-Kush, Hamath and Arpakshad, 
 Shimron and Ramshak. The second is Am. vi. 2, 3 where 
 the Israelites are bidden to study the fate of Kalneh (?), 
 Hamath of Arabia, Gath of the Pelethites. Except 
 Jerusalem, all the cities spoken of in these passages are 
 most probably N. Arabian. It is therefore a priori likely 
 that No-Amon in Nah. iii. 8 is a corruption of some N. 
 Arabian place-name. That it can hardly be the Egyptian 
 Thebes, W. Max M tiller has shown ; 4 some city in the 
 Delta, standing on a mound and surrounded by canals, 
 would be more conceivable. 
 
 If we are right (as surely we are) in grouping the three 
 parallel passages, and interpreting them on the same lines, it 
 is plain that unless there is any strong objection drawn from 
 the rest of Nahum (omitting the spoiled alphabetic poem at 
 the beginning), the city of the oppressors is in N. Arabia, 
 and presumably one of the chief cities of the Asshurite 
 kingdom. As for objections, the strongest (if correct) would 
 be the occurrence in Nah. iii. 17 of two Assyrian loan-words 
 under the forms T?3D and nDDto. The Assyriological 
 explanations, 5 however, though tempting, are not suitable 
 enough, and against these supposed indications of Assyria 
 may be placed several possible or probable references to 
 N. Arabia. 6 ' Nineveh ' therefore, in ii. 8, iii. 7, must be a 
 
 1 Karkemish is no doubt a real name, but it is substituted here for 
 pircpn (see p. 37). nsiK is a short way of writing IBOB-IN, on which see 
 T. and B. p. 178. pron = nrm (T. and B. p. 249). 
 
 2 DT3 Kin should be orrva Kin. That Kin often introduces a gloss, is 
 well-known. See Introduction. 
 
 8 Underneath rm ncn lies probably :nj> 'n ; under D'nr^s lies D'nSc, i.e. 
 D'^yanK (T. and B. p. 192 ; and cp. on * Tophel,' Dt. i. i). 
 
 4 E. Bib., ' No-Amon.' 
 
 6 See Crit. Bib. p. 169 ; E. Bib., ' Scribe,' 4. 
 
 6 E.g. O-IKD, D'yWic, and i"?jnn (ii. 4), which are probably corrupt 
 fragments of N. Arabian ethnics. Also the place-names in iii. 8 f.
 
 JEREMIAffS A TTITUDEJOSIAITS DEA TH 4 1 
 
 corruption. The original name can most probably still be 
 traced underneath it. The initial n is a dittograph ; what 
 follows should be read 'Yewanah' (rnv). It is a feminine 
 form of ]V = ]Cty a shortened form of ^NnrrP. 1 All that 
 need be added is, that, as the heading informs us, Nahum, 
 like Huldah the prophetess, was an Israelite of North 
 Arabia. 2 
 
 The digression is over. Has it not become evident that 
 if any Hebrew poet, projecting himself into the future, raised 
 a song of triumph over the fall of Nineveh, it was not 
 Nahum ? Also that for anything that we have lost we 
 have been adequately compensated ? A prophetic song of 
 triumph over N. Arabian oppressors is not to be undervalued. 
 And we can see now that there was an added bitterness in 
 the lamentations for Josiah in the thought that he fell in the 
 cause of an abhorred tyrant. And yet, if he had not gone 
 out to contend with the Misrites, might not some worse 
 thing have happened ? For, not without excuse, dread of 
 the Asshurites oppressed the minds of all the people of 
 Judah. Jeremiah himself gives the most powerful descrip- 
 tions of the foe, one of which I will quote. 3 
 
 Behold, he cometh up as clouds, | and like a whirlwind are 
 his chariots ; 
 
 Swifter than eagles are his horses ; woe unto us ! we are 
 destroyed (iv. I 3). 
 
 Bow and spear they grasp, | cruel are they, without com- 
 passion ; 
 
 Their voice roareth as the sea, | on horses do they ride, 
 
 Arrayed like a man for war | against thee, O maiden 
 Zion. 
 
 We have heard the report thereof ; | our hands slacken ; 
 
 Anguish hath seized us, | pain as of a woman with child. 
 
 Go not forth into the field, | nor walk in the way, 
 
 For there is the sword of the foeman. | (Gloss, Corner 
 Ishmael.) 
 
 1 See Introduction, and cp. T. and B. pp. ibof., 188. 
 
 2 ' Nahum the Elkoshite ' should be ' Nahum the Ashkalite.' On 
 Ashkal, see T. and B, pp. 18 (n. 4), 23, 40 (n. 3). 
 
 3 It will be noticed that for a'aoo nuo I read 'ao 1 iaii ; cp. 02;, the 
 name of a branch of the Ishmaelites.
 
 42 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 O my people, gird thee with sackcloth, | wallow in ashes, 
 Make for thee the mourning of an only son, | bitter 
 lamentation (vi. 23-26^). 
 
 Again and again the invasion is spoken of, and even 
 Jeremiah's supplementers knew how to write what, except in 
 form and style, recalls Jeremiah. It is from Saphon that 
 the invasion comes (see Jer. i. 13-15, vi. I, 22); all are 
 agreed about that. To render ' the north ' introduces an 
 intolerable vagueness ; a large number of passages (see e.g. 
 Isa. xiv. 13, xiv. 31, Jer. xlvi. 6, Ezek. xxxviii. 6), have 
 become obscure in consequence. Saphon is really the name 
 of a region ; it is a dialect form of Sibe'on, i.e. Ishmael. 1 A 
 passage from Zephaniah (ii. 1 2 /!), who must have been 
 contemporary with Jeremiah, will further illustrate, not only 
 this point, but also the strong feeling of the time against the 
 N. Arabian peoples called (loosely enough, probably) Kush 
 and Asshur. 
 
 Ye too, O Kushites, (shall be) | slain by my sword. 
 
 And I will turn my hand against Saphon, | and destroy 
 
 Asshur ; 
 And I will make Yewanah [see p. 41] a desolation, | dry 
 
 like the wilderness. 
 
 The two following verses 2 are also interesting. Verse I 5 
 indeed must be a later insertion, but it is at any rate a 
 judicious one. Just as v. 14 has points of contact with the 
 oracle on Babel in Isa. xiii., so has v. I 5 with the taunting 
 song on Babel in Isa. xlvii. To appreciate this, let us 
 remember that Yewanah and Babel both belong to the great 
 kingdom of Nimrod (Gen. x. 10 f.) often spoken of as 
 Asshur, but also sometimes, by a lax usage, as Babel. By 
 good fortune the ' exultant city ' of Zeph. ii. I 5 is explained 
 by a gloss to be ' the city of Yewanah.' The gloss pene- 
 trated into the text of iii. I , the words nsv TS being misread 
 
 1 T. and B. pp. 32, 50 (n. 3). Ishmael, or Yerahme'el, and Asshur 
 may be used in a wide sense. 
 
 2 I leave the strophes (see Marti) undetermined.
 
 JEREMIAH'S ATTITUDE JOSIAWS DEATH 43 
 
 by the redactor rnV 1 "P$, after which each word was provided 
 with an article. 1 
 
 Such was the feeling towards the troublesome peoples 
 of N. Arabia not unnaturally entertained by their less 
 warlike neighbours. Let us now pass on to the unhappy 
 story of Josiah's successors. 
 
 1 The other occurrences of nr. (Kal) are in Jer. xlvi. 16, 1. 16, and 
 no doubt also Jer. xxv. 38. In each case we should read 'jvn avr, ' the 
 sword of the Yawanite.' On 'Yawan' see Introduction.
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 JEHOAHAZ JEHOIAKIM HIS CONTEST WITH JEREMIAH 
 
 PORTRAITS OF KINGS IN JEREMIAH JEHOIAKIM 
 
 TO HAVE NO PUBLIC MOURNING LITANY OF 
 
 LAMENTATION, ITS VALUE FOR THE HISTORY OF 
 RELIGION. 
 
 IT was a perilous time. The king had been defeated and 
 had died of his wound, and no one could tell what would be 
 the conqueror's conditions of peace. The 'people of the 
 land' those who were freemen and proprietors took 
 Jehoahaz, a son of Josiah, and anointed him as king 
 (2 K. xxiii. 30, 2 Chr. xxxvi. i). He was twenty-three 
 years old. The ' epitome 'in 2 K. xxiii. 3 2 speaks badly 
 of him ; doubtless in the same sense, and with as much or 
 as little cause, as in the case of his successor Jehoiachin. 
 For reasons of his own the Misrite king was discontented 
 with Jehoahaz. Perhaps of his own accord, or perhaps sent 
 for, Jehoahaz went to the Misrite head-quarters at Riblah 
 in the land of Hamath. We must remember that there was 
 a southern as well as a northern Hamath ; l most probably 
 there was also a southern Riblah ; both names seem to be 
 Yerahme'elite. 2 The alternative is to suppose that we have 
 here a mixture of the reports of two distinct invasions, one 
 Egyptian, the other N. Arabian. 
 
 Three months, no more, had the reign of Jehoahaz (or 
 
 1 See T. and B. p. 196. 'Riblah' is generally supposed to have 
 been on Israel's ideal northern or north-eastern border (Num. xxxiv. n, 
 Ezek. vi. 14). In Ezek. xlvii. 16 Hamath seems to take the place of 
 Riblah. See E. Bib., ' Riblah.' 
 
 2 Cp. ^ya-r and ^a-w. 
 
 44
 
 JEHOAHAZJEHOIAKIM IN HISTORY fr PROPHECY 45 
 
 Shallum ; see p. 49) lasted. Very possibly it was not so 
 much ' the people of the land ' who made him king, as a 
 royal lady, whose combined energy and ambition check- 
 mated the adherents of Josiah's eldest son. This lady was 
 Jehoahaz's mother Hamutal (^tolDn), who, in Ezek. xix. 2, 
 is represented allegorically as a lioness. 1 She was also the 
 mother of the well-meaning but incapable Zedekiah, to 
 whom we shall return. Her name may be connected with 
 the southern place-name Hamath (see above) ; cp. rrttDn, 
 Josh. xv. 54. Her favourite son Jehoahaz was succeeded 
 by Neko's nominee Jehoiakim, who was twenty-five years 
 old, and whose mother was named Zebudah. 2 It is this 
 lady who is referred to in Jer. xiii. 1 8 as ' Mistress,' this 
 being the title of that exalted personage the queen-mother. 
 The king's own name had been Eliakim ; the Misrite king 
 (more competent, surely, than the Egyptian Niku) changed 
 it to the equally Judaite name Jehoiakim 3 (cp. 2 K. 
 xxiv. 1 7). This was merely a sign of his overlordship ; we 
 can hardly suppose, with Professor H. P. Smith, that a 
 contrast is intended between the meaning of ' Jehoahaz ' 
 and that of 'Jehoiakim.' Regarding these names as 
 religious, there is no substantial difference between them. 
 
 Jehoiakim is reported to have reigned eleven years. 4 
 His first business was to raise a large sum of money either 
 as a war-fine or (Winckler's opinion) as an acknowledgment 
 of the conqueror's royal grace in placing him on the throne. 
 It is disappointing that so little should be told us in 2 Kings 
 of this important period. Fortunately we are helped by 
 the Book of Jeremiah, for though narratives from the 
 prophet's biography cannot be trusted in all details, yet 
 we may assume that they have at any rate more or less 
 foundation in traditional facts. The Book also contains 
 (see p. 32), genuine prophecies of Jeremiah, and these are 
 of course first-rate historical sources. 
 
 1 See Kraetzschmar, Ezechiel, ad loc. 
 
 2 Cp. Zabud (i K. iv. 5), Zebadiah (son of Yeroham = Yarham, 
 i Chr. xii. 7 ; in Ezra viii. 8, son of Mika'el = Yerahme'el). 
 
 3 Eliakim interchanges with Jehoiakim as Ilubi'di with Yaubi'di 
 (names of a king of Hamath). 
 
 4 See 2 K. xxiii. 36 ; 2 Chr. xxxvi. 5. Kittel questions the tradition. 
 In fact our evidence is too scanty to permit either affirmation or denial.
 
 46 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 It is best, wherever this can be done, not to mix up 
 heterogeneous material. Let us therefore begin with some 
 narratives and prophecies from the Book referred to. This 
 involves putting Jeremiah very much in the foreground, but 
 how can we avoid doing so ? The evidence before us 
 clearly shows that Jehoiakim and Jeremiah were the two 
 great powers in the land, even though the action of the 
 latter was not marked by the usual signs of success. What 
 Jeremiah was, we have seen ; he belonged neither to Hilkiah's 
 reforming party, nor to the party of the heathen reaction ; 
 one thing he did, both in season and out of season, he 
 preached the necessity of spiritual conversion. Jehoiakim, 
 on the other hand, was the impersonation of the Baalistic 
 revival. His name, it is true, may plausibly be offered as 
 evidence for his Yahwism, and the narrative in chap, xxxvi. 
 may be taken to imply that he was no Baal -worshipper. 
 But while not denying that Yahu is one element in the 
 king's religious name, I cannot hold that Jehoiakim is rightly 
 described as a Yahwist. It is certain from Jer. vii. 9, 1 8 l 
 that the people at large worshipped Baal and Ashtart, as 
 well as ' other gods ' ; the reference surely is to the early 
 part of Jehoiakim's reign, when the reaction was again in 
 full force. 
 
 Into the question of the position of Baal and Ashtart in 
 astral mythology we need not enter at length. Inscriptions 
 appear to suggest that at a late period Yerahmeel ( = Ba'al) 
 was identified with the sun-god, and many besides Schrader 
 (/.r.) have taken Ashtart to be the moon-goddess, in spite of 
 the fact that the Babylonian Ishtar was connected with 
 Venus. Theologians may have seen the sun and moon 
 deities in Ba'al and Ashtart, but the people at large, always 
 conservative, doubtless retained earlier conceptions, even if 
 some of them were inconsistent, also a popular failing. She 
 was above all, the goddess of fertility, and we can well 
 understand what treasures of love and gratitude were poured 
 out upon the Dodah or friend (p. 54). But to those whose 
 view of religion was fundamentally ethical, Ashtart was not 
 a good but an evil goddess. The consecrated prostitutes 
 
 1 Cp. Schrader, Sitzungsber. der konigl. Preiiss. Akad., 1886, 
 xxviii. ii ; Zimmern, KAT (Z \ p. 441.
 
 fEHOAHAZJEHOIAKIM IN HISTORY 6- PROPHECY 47 
 
 belonged to her, and how much the ethical religionists 
 abhorred the custom referred to, we see again and again. 
 To admit such a deity as Ashtart into the Divine Company 
 was revolting. 1 That the people beloved of Yahweh should 
 be found in the house of Ashtart (Jer. xi. 15, see p. 33), 
 was an insult to Yahweh. What indeed was a Yahweh 
 who would tolerate Ashtart as his companion ? How could 
 such a Yahweh be the God of Israel ? 
 
 In Jer. xxxvi. we have a record, partly fact, partly fancy, 
 of a duel between the representatives of the two Yahwehs, 
 not unlike the great contest, now in the remote past, between 
 Ahab and Elijah. Certainly the combatants do not meet 
 face to face, but Jehoiakim knows full well that the roll 
 which he treats with a kind of personal hatred has been 
 dictated by Jeremiah, and in fact makes an attempt to 
 arrest Jeremiah and his scribe (v. 26). The date of the 
 occurrence is the fifth year of Jehoiakim, an important year 
 as we shall see later. The occasion is the recitation of the 
 contents of a roll of prophecies. A temple-fast is about to 
 be proclaimed for the citizens of Jerusalem and for any of 
 the country-folk who may come in. Jeremiah seizes the 
 opportunity for making public the summary of his dis- 
 courses which his scribe has lately written. He cannot 
 indeed do this himself; for some reason he considers 
 himself forbidden to enter the temple. But Baruch is ready 
 to be his deputy. A room is offered to him within the 
 sacred precincts that he may read the prophecies in public. 
 Afterwards the princes in their council -chamber send for 
 Baruch. They too desire to hear the roll, but when they 
 have heard it they seem to regret their temerity, for, we are 
 told, they turn tremblingly one to another, and say to 
 Baruch, ' We will surely report all these words to the king.' 
 
 ' We all know the sequel. Jehoiakim sends for the 
 scroll. It is December ; Jehoiakim is sitting in the " winter 
 house," and there is a fire burning in the fire-pan or brasier. 
 
 1 The male deity Asshur might have been less glaringly repulsive. 
 Once indeed (Jer. xvii. 2) Jeremiah speaks against asherlm ( = asshiirim, 
 symbols of Asshur), but in the genuine prophecies of Isaiah they are 
 not once mentioned. See below, on Dt. xii. 2 ; Cheyne, Introd, to Bk. 
 of Isaiah, p. 93 ; T. and B. pp. 24/.
 
 48 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 A group of courtiers stands in the background. Jehudi 
 comes forward and reads first one column, then another, and 
 then another. But the proud king can bear it no longer ; 
 he rises, he steps forward three high officers in vain attempt 
 to check him he snatches the scroll from the reader's hands, 
 he cuts it, with a cruel kind of pleasure, into piece after 
 piece, and throws it into the fire. Then, as he watches the 
 curling fragments, he dispatches three other high officers to 
 arrest the prophet and the scribe on a charge of high 
 treason.' 1 
 
 The details of chap, xxxvi. have been much questioned. 
 The second narrative which I have to mention is a simpler 
 one, and is equally instructive as an illustration of 
 Jehoiakim's attitude towards the prophet. It is to be found 
 in Jer. xxvi., and the address which Jeremiah, according to 
 this narrative, delivered in the temple, appears to form some 
 part of Jer. vii. 3-viii. 3. 2 The date of the episode is placed 
 (see Jer. xxvi. i) 'in the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim'; 
 any specially important words in this address may therefore 
 very possibly have been repeated on that other critical 
 occasion described in chap, xxxvi. 
 
 ' It appears that some great festival, or possibly fast, 
 had brought together a large number of people from all 
 quarters to the temple, and that Jeremiah was directed to 
 stand between the inner and outer court and address them. 
 . . . When they heard these echoing words of relentless 
 doom, " This temple shall become like Shiloh," 3 they seized 
 him. But in the nick of time a fresh power appeared on the 
 scene the " princes," or high officers of the state, who came 
 up from their place of deliberation in the " king's house " 
 (v. i o ; cp. xxxvi. 1 2} and apparently the " elders," some of 
 whom had doubtless taken part in Josiah's reformation. 
 Jeremiah in dignified terms defended his own right to 
 prophesy, and warned the people of the consequences of 
 their act. 4 How the ' princes ' interfered, denying the 
 
 1 Cheyne, Jeremiah, his Life and Times, p. 144. 
 
 2 Duhm, however, thinks that Jer. vii. 3-15 gives the most correct 
 idea of Jeremiah's address. 
 
 3 See T. and B. pp. 5027. 
 
 4 Cheyne, Jeremiah, etc., pp. 115, 120.
 
 JEHOAHAZJEHOIAKIM IN HISTORY & PROPHECY 49 
 
 existence of a crime, and how certain elders appealed, in 
 Jeremiah's interest, to the precedent of Micaiah or Micah 
 (cp. Mic. iii. 1 2) need not be related anew. It is noteworthy 
 that Jehoiakim is not here said to have interposed ; presum- 
 ably he endorsed the decision. Here we may pause, trusting 
 that, even though not from Jeremiah's hand, a true tradition 
 lies at the heart of it. 
 
 But without the shadow of a doubt we may refer to a 
 cycle of beautiful poems (xxii. 10-19, 24, 28, 30 [part]) as 
 historical authorities and as faithful representations of 
 Jeremiah's attitude towards the kings. For they are 
 admittedly Jeremiah's work. They contain portraits of the 
 kings Jehoahaz (here called Shallum), Jehoiakim, and 
 Jehoiachin (here called Coniahu). There is also an incidental 
 eulogy of Josiah, in whose death the poet sees no call for 
 beating of the breast in lamentation. 1 I shall here consider 
 only the portraits of the first two of these kings, reserving 
 that of Jehoiachin for a later page. 
 
 I need hardly remind the student that the central poem 
 (that on Jehoiakim) is so extremely difficult in our text that 
 almost all commentators allow themselves the liberty of 
 emendation. It is all the more pleasant to admit that in 
 the short elegy on Shallum (vv. 10-12) the meaning is 
 transparently clear. This, however, is partly due to an 
 interpolated gloss, which spoils the metre, while it gratifies 
 the expositor. It is on the name Shallum, and informs us 
 that it was this king who ' reigned instead of his father 
 Josiah,' and who ' went forth from this place, 1 so that 
 Shallum must be the birth-name, and the (to us) more 
 familiar Jehoahaz the royal or accession-name of Josiah's 
 successor. Of the young prince's character the poet says 
 nothing ; what were three months either for forming or for 
 showing a character ? But what he does say is at any rate 
 sympathetic, i.e. it reveals a sense of the pathos of Shallum's 
 fate. And in some degree this may be affirmed of Ezekiel 
 (xix. 1-4). Surely such glimpses of contemporary feeling 
 infuse new life into the dry statements of chronicles and 
 epitomes. 
 
 Of the successor of Jehoahaz Jeremiah gives us a more 
 
 1 Contrast 2 Chr. xxxv. 25, ' and Jeremiah lamented for Josiah.' 
 
 4
 
 50 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 definite appreciation, though the details cause much trouble 
 to the commentators. The usual view is thus summarised 
 by Prof. H. P. Smith. 1 ' At a time when his kingdom was 
 impoverished by the exactions of Egypt, he was possessed 
 by the royal mania for building. He was more concerned 
 to vie with Ahab [see Note] in the beauty of his palace, 
 " panelled with cedar and painted with vermilion," than he 
 was to follow his father's example in administering justice.' 
 I confess that I cannot find this view satisfactory. Certainly, 
 to build elegant palaces in the newest style at such a time 
 when all that part of the East was in a ferment would 
 have been as blameworthy as Nero's fiddling when Rome 
 was burning. But is it likely that Jehoiakim's offence was 
 mere frivolity or blindness to the signs of the times ? The 
 commentators, it is true, admit that the received text is 
 rather uncertain. It is far more than this, it is so improbable 
 that it demands a thorough re-examination. To refer here 
 only to a single detail. Why should Jehoiakim be censured 
 for vying with Ahab or Ahaz, when either Solomon or some 
 foreign king (say Nebuchadrezzar) was so very much more 
 clearly marked out as the lover of cedar-wood ? 
 
 I venture to hope that at least some of my new 
 suggestions may approximate to the truth. I hold that the 
 original text of the passage contained references to certain 
 fortified places captured by Jehoiakim. These references 
 became indistinct (though Ferdinand Hitzig, many centuries 
 after, to some extent divined them) owing to corruption of 
 the text ; indeed, the whole context offers problems which 
 urgently need a new and more methodical treatment. 
 Evidently the passage was already corrupt when it reached 
 the final editor of Jeremiah, who, to produce an apparent 
 sense, skilfully manipulated or revised the material, without, 
 however, removing all traces of the original text. What 
 that text contained, I have endeavoured to show. It was 
 not palaces but fortresses to which Jehoiakim directed his 
 attention. Josiah, as we have seen, had occupied the portions 
 of the N. Arabian border-land which had formerly belonged 
 at intervals to the kingdom of Israel. This territory had to 
 be protected against N. Arabian raids, and Jehoiakim was 
 1 Old Testament History, p. 282.
 
 JEHOAHAZJEHOIAKIM IN HISTORY & PROPHECY 51 
 
 enough of a king to recognise the duty of fortifying it. In 
 this he did but follow the example of an earlier king of 
 Judah (Jotham), who is reported to have built ' castles and 
 forts ' in his own portion of the region vaguely called Ashhur. 1 
 It was all the more necessary to do this because of his 
 obligation to pay an annual tribute to his Misrite suzerain. 
 
 The fortifications were not perhaps on a large scale, but 
 even so they could not have been erected without that forced 
 labour so characteristic of the East. 2 One of the fortresses 
 was probably at the place called Beth-Melek, a corrupt form 
 which has come, through Beth-Rakmal ( = Beth-Karmel), 
 from Beth-Yerahme'el ; 3 the place seems to have been 
 equally coveted by Israelites and N. Arabians, and therefore 
 to have been the scene of many a conflict. In Jer. 
 xxii. 6 it is called Beth-Melek-Yehudah, doubtless an 
 impossible name, which cannot be correctly written. 4 The 
 probability is that both here and in 2. K. xxiii. 8 (see p. 28), 
 '~nrr has been miswritten for YrT, i.e. f?NDm\ The 
 explanation is all the more plausible, because now and only 
 now do we understand the phrase in Jer. xxii. 6b y ' I will 
 make thee . . . cities not inhabited ? The meaning of this 
 phrase, so baffling to most commentators, is, that Beth-Melek 
 and its dependent towns will soon have to share the same 
 terrible fate. 5 
 
 Let us now return to the fortifications and the forced 
 labour. The corvee may be an institution of venerable 
 antiquity, but the prophet likes it none the better ; evidently 
 he is of the same school as the describer of the ' manner of 
 
 1 2 Chr. xxvii. 4. For ''tmmi read 
 
 2 On Hammurabi's corvee, see Johns, Bab. and Ass. Laws, etc., 318. 
 
 3 That 1^0 and Sma both sometimes come from Sxonr, has been 
 indicated already. ' Beth-Yerahme'el ' was also called ' Beth-Hakkerem' 
 (Jer. vi. i, Neh. iii. 14), and perhaps ' Beth-Arbel' (Hos. x. 14). The 
 last-cited passage may serve as a commentary on Jer. xxii. 6 f. 
 
 4 Duhm renders, ' For thus saith Yahweh on the house of the king 
 of Judah ' ; Cornill, ' ... on the royal palace of Judah.' The former 
 criticizes the heading as plainly incorrect ; a royal house cannot become 
 ' uninhabited cities.' The latter expatiates further on the impossibility. 
 Oh, these poor supplementers and redactors ! How absurd they often 
 are ! But may not the fault sometimes lie in ourselves ? 
 
 5 To avoid misunderstanding it may be remarked that Jer. xxii. 1-5 
 and w. 6, 7 have no real connexion.
 
 52 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 the king' in I S. viii. 11-18. Verses 14 and i$a are not 
 out of harmony with v. 1 3, but the difficulties are such as to 
 force us to suppose that they have been recast. Our only 
 hope of approximately restoring the original lies in turning 
 to account familiarity with the habits of the scribes. In the 
 following translation of a text of vv. 13-16 corrected partly 
 by this means and partly by consideration of the metre, 
 some omissions will be noticed. These, however, are only 
 glosses, and will be referred to and justified in the ' Note on 
 Jer. xxii. 13-19, 24-30.' 
 
 He that buildeth castles with unrighteousness, | and fortresses 
 
 with injustice ; 
 That maketh his neighbour work for nought, | and giveth 
 
 him not his wage ; 
 
 That saith, I will build me castles and forts in Yarham ; 
 And he captured for himself Yahlon (?) in Saphon, | and 
 
 Ramshah in Asshur. 
 Shalt thou go on reigning, because thou | goest to war with 
 
 Ezrah ? 
 
 Did not thy father perform | judgment and justice ? 
 He redressed the wrongs of the poor and needy ; | then he 
 
 fared well ; 
 Was not this to know me ? | (This is) Yahweh's oracle. 
 
 It will be noticed that Josiah is praised, not for his 
 patriotism, nor yet because he conducted his people to a new 
 religious stage, but because, as supreme judge, he did justice 
 to the oppressed poor. On the other hand, Jehoiakim is 
 blamed, not for any want of patriotism, nor yet for religious 
 backsliding, but because his building operations were carried 
 on by forced labour. Verse 1 7 is a dull, prosaic sequel. It 
 contains a number of vague charges, and, as Cornill points 
 out, is probably a redactional insertion, designed to link 
 together vv. 13-16 and 18-19. 
 
 The latter passage is probably of later origin than 
 w. 13-16, with which it is imperfectly connected by the 
 particle rD, ' for.' The honour of a public mourning is 
 refused to the unjust king. 1 How he was to die we are not 
 
 1 The case of Jehoram would be a parallel. ' His people made no 
 burning for him' (2 Chr. xxi. 19).
 
 JEHOAHAZJEHOIAKIM IN HISTORY fr PROPHECY 53 
 
 told, but from v. 19 Jeremiah would seem to have anticipated 
 some great slaughter or massacre in which Jehoiakim 
 perished (cp. Jer. xv. 3). The prophecy is genuine for it 
 was not fulfilled (see 2 K. xxiv. 6), and no ' supplementer ' 
 would have ventured to produce an unfulfilled prophecy 
 (Duhm). The closing words, ' beyond the gates of Jerusalem,' 
 are, however, apparently due to such a person ; we can 
 hardly suppose Jeremiah to have meant what they say. 
 And what is the most interesting point in the whole passage ? 
 As it seems to me neither of the two points which have been 
 mentioned, but the very strange formulae mentioned here as 
 usual in the litany of lamentation. As the Hebrew text 
 stands there are two double formulae, (a) hoi dht and hoi 
 dhoth, and (b} hoi ddon, and hoi hodoh. 0, it is true, gives only 
 "fi dSe\<f>e and O'lfioi icvpie, but is not to be followed ; the 
 translator omits two members because of their difficulty. 
 How is this to be explained ? Shall we suppose with 
 Movers that the funeral procession consisted of two parts, 
 each condoling with the other ? Or that there is some 
 hitherto lost meaning which it is for us, with the help of 
 textual criticism, to recover? Surely the latter course is 
 preferable, for experience shows that in the hardest cases the 
 boldest course has the best chance of success. Let us, then, 
 begin with that hard phrase, ' Alas ! his glory.' Is it enough 
 to explain with Hitzig, ' because with the death of the king 
 his glory is put out ' ? Surely not ; the formulae have to be 
 parallel, and the parallel word is ninN, a feminine form, 
 which ought either to be a title or to cover over a proper 
 name. From this we infer that underneath rnrr there lies 
 some other word in the feminine gender analogous in mean- 
 ing to mrm The word has actually been found by 
 Bernhard Duhm, but not been rightly interpreted, for surely 
 to render nTVT ' aunt,' * produces a most unsatisfactory sense. 
 Those who are at home in Semitic mythology will at 
 once divine the true interpretation. That Dodah is a divine 
 name we may assume from the existence of a divine name 
 Dod, 2 and we find it plainly enough in the inscription of 
 
 1 So Duhm, remarking that among almost all nations the uncle and 
 the aunt enjoy only less respect than the father and the mother. 
 
 2 See T. and B. pp. 46-49, 379.
 
 54 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 Mesha (1. 22), where Ar'al-Dodah is the name of a compound 
 deity worshipped by the Gadites, and also very probably by 
 the Israelites at large. For we can hardly doubt but that 
 Dodah (' beloved ') is another name for the great Canaanitish 
 and N. Arabian goddess Ashtart The Canaanitish myth 
 of Dodah or Ashtart has not reached us, but we know 
 something about the Babylonian goddess Ishtar. The so- 
 called ' Descent of Ishtar ' may indeed present a highly 
 developed form of the myth, but here as in the case of 
 textual developments experience may qualify us to discern 
 something older that lies underneath. That ' something ' 
 may perhaps be that Ishtar, the goddess of fertility, passes, 
 stript of her glory, into the nether world, and while she is 
 there the fertility and productivity of earth and its living 
 beings are suspended. In Canaan, too, such a myth may 
 have existed, and in connexion with it a ceremony of 
 mourning for the vanished goddess. A similar story must 
 have been told of the god of vegetation, known as Tamuz, 
 and probably also as Adon and Dod. 1 Can we doubt any 
 longer as to the meaning of Adon and Dodah in the old 
 Hebrew litany ? They are the original male and female 
 deities of Canaan and N. Arabia. 
 
 Next, as to Afri and Ahoth. Certainly no ordinary 
 brother or sister, whether in the family or in the clan, can 
 be meant. We shall not, however, understand the names 
 till we recognise that riN and TIN are popular abbreviations 
 of Tim, i.e. YintDN, 2 and that nnN and (Gen. xxx. 8) Trim 3 
 may, consistently with recognised phenomena, have come 
 from rnhtHN, 4 a feminine form of YintDN. Both Ashhur 
 (Ashhor) and Ashhoreth are divine names, equivalent to 
 Adon and Dodah. 
 
 But here I must guard the reader from drawing a false 
 inference. It is true the formulae in the primitive ritual 
 lamentations for the dead god and goddess contained 
 the four divine names Ashhur (Ashhor) and Ashhoreth, 
 
 1 See Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, pp. S73/- 
 
 2 T. andB. pp. 51, 308. 
 
 3 Giesebrecht's reading wrm ' my brotherhood ' will hardly find 
 friends. 
 
 4 T. and B. p. 377.
 
 JEHOAHAZJEHOIAKIM IN HISTORY 6- PROPHECY 55 
 
 Adon and Dodah. Three of these, however, had most 
 probably, before Jeremiah's time, become corrupted into Ahi, 
 Ahoth, Hodoh, and Adon might be applied to any human 
 king. Thus to the prophet and his contemporaries the 
 formulae had no definite meaning, i.e. the collocations of 
 words of which the formulae consisted had become symbolic, 
 and only suggested the vague idea of an extremely bitter 
 lamentation. As a rule they were probably only used in 
 public mournings, especially on the occasion of a king's 
 death 1 (cp. Jer. xxxiv. 5), which makes it all the more 
 interesting that in I K. xiii. 30 the lamentation formula for 
 the ' man of God ' who cried against the altar at Bethel is 
 TTN ''in. It is possible that an eminent personage might 
 be honoured at his death with a royal mourning. But 
 the authority for this is late and we cannot press it. 
 
 Said I not right that the cycle of beautiful poems is of 
 first-rate historical value? Even the formulae of mourning 
 are valuable for the history of religion. 
 
 1 Frazer (Adonis, Attis, Osiris, pp. 1 1 ff.) thinks that at Byblus and 
 elsewhere the king was required to personate the god of fertility (Baal 
 or Adon) and marry the goddess (Baalath or Ashtart). Was it so in 
 Canaan ?
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 JEHOIAKIM (continued} THE INVASION (OR INVASIONS) 
 
 THE TWO BABELS JEHOIACHIN JEREMIAH'S AND 
 
 EZEKIEL'S UTTERANCES JEHOIACHIN'S CAPTIVITY 
 TURN IN HIS FORTUNES 
 
 THE beginning of Jehoiakim's reign was probably not 
 altogether unhappy. The king was on good terms with 
 his suzerain, 1 and paid his tribute punctually. He not only 
 strengthened the fortresses which he already had in the 
 Negeb, but captured two fortified places in the territory of 
 Asshur. The gracious goddess Ashtart seemed to have 
 befriended her worshippers, so that when strict Yahwists 
 spoke up for a sterner morality such as the Yahwistic law- 
 books notably Deuteronomy required, their advice was 
 received coldly. ' I spoke to thee in thy careless ease,' 
 says Yahweh by the mouth of Jeremiah, ' but thou saidst, 
 I will not hear.' But the time was close at hand when 
 that pleasant insouciance would have to be exchanged for 
 the dread of coming evil. This is what the composite 
 narrative in 2 K. xxiv. tells us. ' In his days Nebuchad- 
 nezzar king of Babel came up, and Jehoiakim became his 
 vassal three years ; then he turned and rebelled against 
 him.' Who, we ask, is this potentate, able to compel a 
 rival king to relax his grasp on cities and lands ? What 
 do his name and title signify ? Let us seek to be cautious, 
 critical, and thorough. The question is not so easy to 
 answer as it seems. 
 
 1 One convenience of this was that Jehoiakim was able, upon 
 occasion, to fetch troublesome prophets out of Misrim and put them to 
 death (Jer. xxvi. 20-23). Extradition of offenders. 
 
 56
 
 JEHOIAK1M INVASION JEHOIACHIWS CAPTIVITY 57 
 
 1. As to the personal name, we find it (sometimes as 
 Nebuchadrezzar, sometimes, less correctly, as Nebuchadnezzar) 
 in 2 K. and the parallel passages of 2 Chr., also in part or 
 parts of Jer., Ezek., i Chr., Ezra, Neh., Esth., and Daniel. 
 Now it is undeniable that (as ( also shows) the redactors 
 understood the Babylonian king Nabu-kudur-usur to be 
 referred to, and this view may be supported by the occur- 
 rence of other names such as Nebuzaradan, Nebushazban, 
 Nergalsarezer (Jer. xxxix. 13), which, as they stand, are 
 Babylonian. On the other hand, there are some of the 
 foreign personal names in the story of the captivity which one 
 might expect to be, but certainly are not, Babylonian, 1 while 
 Nebuzaradan himself (2 K. xxv. 8, Jer. xxxix. 9, etc.) holds a 
 distinctively N. Arabian office. 2 And it must be remembered 
 (i) that the text in both its forms shows traces of much 
 manipulation, and (2) that the redactors would have been 
 perfectly able to insert a few Babylonian names, including 
 Nebuchadrezzar, 3 if their theory required it. 
 
 2. As to the geographical name Babel, it is not denied 
 that it must sometimes (e.g. in Ezra) mean the world-famous 
 Babylon. On the other hand, it must often, like Kush and 
 Misrim, have a second meaning, i.e. be the designation of 
 one of the two chief cities of a kingdom called Asshur 
 or Ashhur, which claimed suzerainty over the smaller 
 N. Arabian kingdoms. A conspectus of the textual evidence 
 has been given elsewhere. 4 Suffice it here to point out that 
 there are a number of passages, chiefly in the prophets, 
 where a methodical criticism hardly leaves much room for 
 doubting the above statement. Thus, in Zech. ii. IO f. 
 ' Babel ' (omit bath as a dittograph) and ' the land of 
 Saphon ' (i.e. Sibe'on = Ishmael), in Jer. 1. (i) 8 'Babel' 
 
 1 One of these is Ashpenaz (Dan. i. 3), which, according to analogy, 
 must come from Asshur-Sibe'on, a compound N. Arabian name. Other 
 foreign non- Babylonian names are Sarsekim, Rab-saris, Rab-mag 
 (Jer. xxxix. 3), of which the first is probably from D'DD-ir (cp. D"DD, 
 2 Chr. xii. 3), where D'3D has the same origin as rroo (T. and B. p. 406); 
 the second comes from nic-H-a-iy (cp. JTIO'D), and the third from loraiy. 
 
 2 See T. and B. pp. 443 f. 
 
 3 ' Nebuchadrezzar' has been interpolated once or twice in Jeremiah 
 (xxv. 9, and probably xxix. 2 1 ). 
 
 4 T. and B. p. 187.
 
 58 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 and 'the land of Hashram' (see p. 63), and in li. 41 
 ' Ashhur ' (underlying *ftDt&) and ' Babel ' are parallel, while 
 in li. i ' Babel of Yarham ' (MT, -"Qp nSa) is a gloss on 
 'Babel.' The parallelisms in Isa. xlvii. I ('Babel 1 and 
 'Hashram'), Ps. cxxxvii. 7 / (' Edom,' or rather 'Aram,' 1 
 and ' Babel '), also deserve examination. Nor ought we 
 to pass over 2 Chr. xxxiii. 11, where Asshurite captains 
 take Manasseh and carry him to Babel, 2 which is evidently 
 in the kingdom of Asshur, and 2 K. xvii. 30, where the 
 worshippers of Sukkoth-Benoth are most probably not 
 Babylonians. 
 
 A side-question here arises. We sometimes meet with 
 kings of Babel who seem to be distinguished from kings of 
 Asshur ; so e.g. in 2 K. xxiv., Jer. 1. 17 f., 2 K. xx. 1 2 
 (Isa. xxxix. i). Must Babel there mean Babylon? Yes, 
 most probably, in 2 K. xx. I2. 3 But usually the change of 
 title may, on the N. Arabian theory, be adequately accounted 
 for by a change of dynasty, accompanied by a change of 
 capital. 
 
 The facts which have been mentioned suggest two at 
 first sight mutually exclusive theories. According to one, 
 it was Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon who invaded Judah, 
 and besieged and took Jerusalem. According to the 
 other, it was some N. Arabian king, whose name, unless 
 indeed it underlies ' Nebuchadrezzar, 1 has not been pre- 
 served. There is evidence for both theories. It would be 
 hyper-criticism to deny that the great king who is known 
 by this name (604-562 B.C.) interfered in the affairs of 
 Judah ; certainly, like every one else, I admit that he did. 
 Still, it must also be universally admitted that the external 
 evidence for this, though sufficient, is comparatively small. 
 It may be that this is the result of mere accident accident 
 which may some day be remedied. But at any rate, as 
 things are, Nebuchadrezzar's piety is much better recorded 
 than the success of his campaigns. He is never tired, in 
 the inscriptions, of dilating on his restorations of temples, 
 and forgets to mention the cities and lands which he 
 
 1 So Paul Haupt, JBL xxvi. 2, thinking of a northern Aram. 
 
 2 We have no right to alter 'Babel' into 'Nineveh' (so M'Curdy). 
 
 3 Cp., however, Crit. Bib. p. 388.
 
 JEHOIAK1M INVASION JEHOIACHIWS CAPTIVITY 59 
 
 conquered. To the historian it is piteous to be only able 
 to refer to a fragment of an inscription relating to the 
 things which interest him. This relic (dated by the experts 
 602 B.C.) refers to a campaign of Nebuchadrezzar against 
 Hatti-land (i.e. the region to the west of the Euphrates). 
 It needs, however, to be supplemented, and for this purpose 
 we have to rely on Josephus's report l of the late but 
 conscientious Berossus, which speaks of the rebellion of the 
 satrap appointed by Nabopolasar in Egypt and the region 
 of Ccele-Syria and Phoenicia, of his defeat by Nabuchodo- 
 nosor, and of the captives of the Jews, Phoenicians, Syrians, 
 etc., made by that prince after his accession to the throne. 2 
 The report, however, is tantalisingly meagre. One would 
 like, for instance, to have been told something about these 
 Jewish captives. The sepulchral remains on the ancient 
 site of Nippur have led Hilprecht 3 to the conclusion that 
 a large number of Jewish exiles were settled in that 
 neighbourhood. Did Nebuchadrezzar bring them thither? 
 Or was it only after the Captivity that they settled there ? 
 
 On the other hand, the O.T. witnesses to a N. Arabian 
 invasion and captivity. Some of the passages quoted above 
 respecting Babel may be referred to again here. For 
 instance, in Zech. ii. 10 f. we read, 'Ho, ho! flee ye from 
 the land of Saphon, saith Yahweh. . . . Make thy escape 
 to Zion, thou company that dwellest in Babel.' So in Jer. 
 i. 14, vi. i, 22, x. 22, xxv. 9, it is Saphon (i.e. Ishmael 
 in a wide sense) from which the invader comes (see p. 42), 
 and according to Jer. iii. 18, xvi. 15, it is Saphon where 
 the companies of captives will be placed. In this con- 
 nexion, too, I may certainly mention Ezek. xxxviii.-xxxix., 
 which are full of reminiscences of Jer. iv.-vi., 4 and, not less 
 plainly than Jer. iv.-vi., refer to a N. Arabian invasion, 
 though not to the same one as Jeremiah, the context being 
 
 1 Against Apion, i. 19. 
 
 2 Cp. Winckler, Keilinschr. Textbucf^\ p. 58, n. 3. 
 
 3 Palestine Fund Statement, 1898, p. 55. 
 
 4 Cornill, Jeremia, p. 85, thinks that Ezek. regards Jer. iv.-vi. as an 
 unfulfilled prophecy. But Ezek. xxxviii. 17, xxxix. 8 do not prove this. 
 Ezekiel probably believed that great prophecies had more than one 
 fulfilment. Certainly he held that the king of Babel of his own time 
 was a Sephonite (Ezek. xxvi. 7).
 
 60 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 evidently eschatological. And it may fitly be added that 
 in Jer. xxxix. 3 the princes, or high officers of the king of 
 Babel, do the very thing at Jerusalem which the prophet 
 has foretold (Jer. i. 15) will be done there by 'the families 
 of the kingdoms of Saphon.' We cannot, therefore, be sure 
 that ' king of Babel 'in 2 K. xxiv. I means ' king of 
 Babylon,' or that ' the king of Babel brought them captive to 
 Babel ' (2 K. xxiv. 16) makes the prevalent theory secure. As 
 we have seen, there was a southern as well as a northern Babel. 
 
 I must not try the reader's patience too far, but there is 
 still some supplementary evidence to be mentioned. Professor 
 Bernhard Duhm ridicules the idea that a king of Babylon 
 should trouble himself about a Hebrew prophet. Now I do 
 not assert that the anecdote told in Jer. xxxix. 1 1 f. is 
 historical, but it should be clear that the narrator is no 
 scribbler of absurdities. Suppose that it is the king of the 
 N. Arabian Babel who is referred to ; he, at any rate, would 
 be likely to trouble himself about a Hebrew prophet. 1 
 Another much misunderstood story may also be mentioned. 
 As the text of Jer. xxix. 22 f. stands, the king of Babel 
 ' roasted in the fire ' two Hebrew prophets, because they 
 had committed adultery and spoken false prophecies. It 
 would be easier to believe that he killed them (cp. v. 2 1 ) 
 because they had expressed patriotic anticipations. In fact, 
 a keen textual criticism bids us correct tBNl D7p into chigp 
 n^N3, 'whom he killed in Asshur' 2 (cp. 2 Chr. xxxiii. u). 
 These two captives, among others, were certainly settled in 
 the N. Arabian Asshur, and ' Nebuchadrezzar ' in v. 21 is 
 an interpolation. 
 
 I reserve the most important passage for the end. In 
 a singularly striking passage (Ezek. xxi. 24 ff.} Ezekiel 
 describes how the king of Babel set forth on his expedition. 
 He had to choose one of two roads, both of which, we are 
 
 1 This remark illustrates a saying of Rab-shakeh (2 K. xviii. 25), 
 the Neko-narrative in 2 Chr. xxxv. 21, and the story of Jonah. When 
 that prophet entered the city of Yewanah (corrupted into Nineveh, 
 see p. 41), the king of Yewanah arose from his throne and put on 
 sackcloth (Jon. iii. 6). 
 
 2 irK was probably written short as v*. In compound proper 
 names the popular speech constantly made this shortening, e.g. 
 
 733SfK, 1VWK.
 
 JEHOIAKIM INVASION JEHOIACHIWS CAPTIVITY 61 
 told, came Trw pND. What does this mean ? The render- 
 
 ing ' from one land ' is impossible, but the obvious rendering, 
 'from the land of one,' is absurd. How shall we escape 
 from the dilemma ? There is no possible escape (see the 
 commentaries). It has been shown, 1 however, that irw and 
 inn are repeatedly miswritten for, or corrupted in popular 
 speech from, intDN, somewhat as "itoN (Ezra ii. 16, 42) 
 from "int&N, and mitts (Josh. xvi. 2, etc.) from rmntDN. 
 Clearly the right reading is ' from the land of Ashhur.' 
 Not only is it in itself natural, but it is also consistent with 
 many other equally necessary corrections of passages which 
 have baffled earlier critics. Thus, the prophetic writer 
 assures us that the king of Babel who destroyed Jerusalem 
 started from the land of Ashhur. 
 
 Are we, then, driven to make our choice between two 
 mutually exclusive theories ? No. There is, happily, a 
 third choice open to us, viz., so to reconcile the theories as 
 to do justice to the facts which underlie both views. If 
 there was a confusion between the Egyptian king Niku 
 who marched victoriously to Phoenicia and a king of the 
 N. Arabian Musri who defeated Josiah in the far south, why 
 should there not have been a similar confusion between 
 Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon and a king of the Babel 
 in N. Arabia? In the former case we have been able to 
 determine the facts belonging to each king. In the latter 
 we are less fortunate, for it is impossible to distribute the 
 traditional facts of the conquest of Jerusalem between the 
 two potentates, greater and smaller, both of whom intervened 
 in the affairs of Judah. I hardly like even to make the con- 
 jecture that there was an understanding between the kings, so 
 that what Nebuchadrezzar began the N. Arabian king finished. 
 Nor is it safe to decide whether the name ' Nebuchadrezzar ' 
 has, or has not, grown out of some N. Arabian royal name 2 
 (see p. 58). There are some problems which are incapable 
 of solution. All that I need add is that in a Special Note 
 the reference made above to the confusion of the kings of 
 the northern and the southern Babel is supplemented by 
 parallels elsewhere in the historical narratives. 
 
 1 T. and B. pp. 329, 505 ; and cp. on Dt. vi. 4. 
 2 Cp. Crit. Bib. p. 395.
 
 62 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 Let us return to the narrative in 2 K. The passage already 
 quoted (2 K. xxiv. i) comes most probably from the royal 
 annals. Its brevity and baldness are unfortunate. Nebuchad- 
 rezzar, we are told, ' came up,' i.e. made a sort of demonstra- 
 tion in force, upon which Jehoiakim ' became his servant,' i.e. 
 took the oath of fealty. We naturally ask for the date of 
 this important event, but no answer is forthcoming. It is 
 added, however, that three years after Jehoiakim rebelled. 
 What can have emboldened the king to do this ? Did he 
 rely on his fortresses (see p. 50), especially on Jerusalem ? 
 Did he confide in the promises of his former suzerain, the 
 king of Misrim? From another source (v. 2) we learn 
 that bands of Kasdim (?), Aram, 1 Moab, and bene Ammon 
 made incursions into Judah to 'destroy' it. If (in spite of 
 Jer. xxvii. 3) this is correct, the neighbouring peoples were 
 more malignant than the king of Babel himself, who only 
 required Jehoiakim to be loyal. But may we not suppose 
 that the commission of these ' bands ' has been misappre- 
 hended, and that it was really a licence to plunder what 
 they could, and especially the temple of Jerusalem, for the 
 benefit of Babel, and then to seize and carry off Jehoiakim 
 as a captive to Babel ? That most of this was somehow 
 achieved, is expressly stated in 2 Chr. xxxvi. 6 and Dan. 
 i. 2, though the conqueror mentioned there is Nebuchad- 
 rezzar king of Babel, and in the latter passage (the source 
 of which is unknown) the royal temple is said to have been 
 in the land of Shinar, 2 i.e. Ishmael-Arabia. True, it is only 
 the Chronicler who states this, but may he not have had 
 some ground for this ? 3 Whether the mention of the king 
 of Babel as present with the army is correct, may be left 
 open. We may, of course, assume that, after some punish- 
 ment, Jehoiakim (unlike his son and successor) was restored 
 to his country. 
 
 But we must not linger on such conjectures. There are 
 great textual difficulties which have to be considered. First 
 of all, we must seek for a meaning for D^ltDD which will 
 accord better with the Hebrew narratives and prophecies 
 than the familiar one ' the Chaldaeans,' i.e. the people 
 
 1 Gratz and Benz. would read ' Edom.' 
 2 T. and B. pp. 1857. 3 So Benzinger.
 
 JEHOIAKIM INVASION JEHOIACHIN'S CAPTIVITY 63 
 
 called Kaldu, whose seats were to the south-east of Baby- 
 lonia. Hugo Winckler l hazards the theory that the Kasdim 
 of 2 K. xxiv. 2 are different from those of 2 K. xxv., and 
 are really the Bedouins in the far south of Judah. But we 
 must surely take a much broader view of our problem, and 
 seek the aid of a keener textual criticism. Such a criticism, 
 based on experience of the habits of the scribes and of 
 recurrent types of corruption, seems to show that the word 
 D'HtW is miswritten, that the original error was repeated 
 again and again through the levelling process of redaction, 
 and that the true reading is Dl r tD3 z (a regional name), or, 
 where the name of a people is required, 'DTBE) ( = D^DltDD). 
 A more correct form would doubtless be Dlt&n, since the 
 name consists of abbreviated forms of "intDN and DIM. In 
 Dan. ii. 2 we find a list of terms for the wise men of Babel, 
 beginning with D^DBin and ending with D^TtDD, and it is 
 suggested elsewhere 3 that the former word may have come 
 from D-'D-itnn, the plural of DltDH, which I have just now 
 proposed as the most probable origin of D^TBJD, so that 
 hashramim, in Dan. ii. 2, will be an explanatory gloss on 
 kasdim. The people of Ashhur ( = Ezrah) and Aram were, 
 in fact, proverbial, not only for their courage, but for their 
 wisdom. 4 
 
 It was, however, the courage, the fierceness, the elemental 
 force of this people which just now impressed the inhabitants 
 of Judah. The prophets of the time must have had frequent 
 occasion to refer to them. One of these was Habakkuk, 
 who, undismayed, reports this as a divine revelation 5 (Hab. 
 ii. 4) 
 
 Lo ! he is swallowed up and cannot save his soul ; 
 But the righteous liveth on by his faithfulness. 
 
 The enemy, then, according to this oracle, will be suddenly 
 
 1 AOF xii. 250^ So, too, Gunkel, on Gen. xxii. 22. 
 ' 2 T. and B. pp. 214, 332. 
 
 3 Ibid. pp. 460 f. 
 
 4 Cp. i K. v. 10 f. [iv. 3o/], where note that ' Ezrahite ' is = 
 ' Ashhurite,' and see T. and B. 40. 
 
 5 Cheyne on the criticism of Habakkuk, Jewish Quart. Review, 
 Oct. 1907, where Duhm, Marti, and Budde are considered, and an 
 attempt is made to go forward.
 
 64 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 overthrown. It is the enemy whose name is Hashram. So, 
 at least, Habakkuk interprets the supernormal experience 
 which he has had. Was the vision entered in the Book of 
 Destiny, or, as later writers would have said, in the heavenly 
 tablets ? No ; the seer spoke an unfulfilled prophecy. Yet 
 he was a true ' man of God,' though, conscientiously, a 
 speaker of smooth words for Israel. Little that is certainly 
 his may have come down to us, but that little is full of faith 
 and moral earnestness. It is to be found in i. 5-10, 14-17, 
 ii. 1-4, and almost at the beginning we are confronted with 
 the Hashramim (Kasdim), i.e. the men of Ashhur-Aram. 
 Now it cannot be doubted that the prophet's idea of this 
 people is definite enough (see v. 6), and yet we cannot fail 
 to notice that v. 5 is rhetorically expressed. In fact, the 
 warriors of Ashhur or Asshur had been seen in Palestine 
 often enough for a conventional form of description of them 
 to have sprung up. Still more essential is it to recognise 
 that the people which Yahweh is about to ' stir up ' (v. 6) is 
 a N. Arabian people, not one of the nearer populations, but 
 a comparatively distant one (Isa. v. 26, Jer. vi. 22), and a 
 people whose language is, even if our scholars would call it 
 akin to Hebrew, yet for practical purposes so unlike it as to 
 be unintelligible to the Judaites (Jer. v. 15, Isa. xxxiii. 19) 
 an additional cause of terror. See Note on the Kasdim of 
 Habakkuk. 
 
 No wonder, then, that the country-folk were seized with 
 terror, and fled to the nearest fortified towns. It may help 
 us in realising this to refer to a little poem, referring surely 
 to an earlier N. Arabian invasion (Isa. x. 27 end-32), which 
 tells how the people of the small towns fled before the 
 foe. Jeremiah, too, in prophetic imagination, summons 
 the Judaite inhabitants of the south border- land to take 
 refuge in the fortified cities, especially in Zion or Jerusalem 1 
 (Jer. iv. 5 /., vi. i). This race for safety may be illustrated 
 by the story of the Rekabites (Jer. xxxv.). We need not, 
 
 1 On Jer. iv. 5/, vi. i, see Crit. Bib. pp. 53-55. As Duhm points 
 out, it would be absurd to call on Jerusalemites to flee to Zion. It is 
 also extremely strange to summon only Benjamites to flee before the 
 foe, and to summon them to flee, not to, but from Jerusalem. And if 
 people are to flee from Jerusalem, what is the good of blowing the 
 trumpet in Tekoa ? The remedy is to read 'nv for mi.v, po' 'ja for
 
 JEHOIAKIM INVASION JEHOIACHIWS CAPTIVITY 65 
 
 of course, accept all the details. It is incredible that 
 Jeremiah should have tempted these simple folk to break 
 their law by drinking wine. But there seems to be a 
 foundation of fact. The statement that the Rekabites 
 adhered to the rules of their reputed ancestor is in itself 
 probable. 1 Jeremiah, too, may have made an instructive 
 comparison between this tribe or clan and the people of 
 Judah. 2 That the Rekabites fled from the invaders is also 
 probable enough, for I Chr. ii. 55, 3 rightly (as I hope) 
 explained, shows that they dwelt in the south border-land. 
 Tradition further states (Judg. i. 16) that the Kenites, to 
 whom the Rekabites belonged, dwelt in the most southern 
 part of Judah. We can therefore well understand how the 
 members of the clan should have fled with the Judaites of 
 the border to Jerusalem ' because of the army of Hashram 
 and because of the army of Aram ' 4 (y. 1 1 ). 
 
 It is not certain to which invasion of Judah this story 
 of the Rekabites refers. Probably, however, it was the 
 second (2 K. xxiv. 2 ; see p. 62). The first invasion 
 that mentioned in 2 K. xxiv. I was hardly terrifying 
 enough, if, as I have suggested, it was really a ' demonstra- 
 tion,' a sort of object-lesson to Jehoiakim. But the second 
 invasion (if invasion it was) does appear to supply an 
 adequate cause for the flight of the Rekabites. 
 
 ( :a, and ^wcw for oWiv (see p. 24). The ' sons of Yamin 
 ( = Yaman) } are the Israelite or Judaite inhabitants of part of the 
 N. Arabian border-land so often called ' Yerahme'el ' and 'Ishmael,' 
 among whom, as we have seen, was probably Huldah the prophetess. 
 Tekoa and Beth-Hakkerem are both places in that district. See 
 Introduction on Beth-Hakkerem, and E. Bib., ' Tekoa. 1 
 
 1 See E. Bib., ' Rechabites. 1 
 
 2 The Rekabites had a pure form of Yahweh-worship (cp. 2 K. x.) 
 See E. Bib., ' Rechabites.' 
 
 3 py (A. V., Jabez) is corrupt ; it may have come from jiynx ( = 
 Ishmael). nnn is probably an abbreviation of nam (cp. Drn = Drrv, v. 44). 
 onso means, not ' scribes,' but ' men of IBD (or, moo) ' ; ' Sophereth ' is 
 the name of a place in Ishmaelite Arabia (Neh. vii. 57 ; see E. Bib., 
 ' Solomon's Servants '). Meyer's theory (Entst. des Judenthums, p. 318), 
 that Neh. ii. 55 indicates that the Calibbites of Jabez were specially 
 zealous proselytes, is wide of the mark. 
 
 4 Note that @ gives, not 'Aram,' but 'the Assyrians,' i.e. (in the 
 original Hebrew) the Asshurites of N. Arabia. This, too, would 
 probably be an archaism. 
 
 5
 
 66 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 Jehoiakim looks on while the people is being loosed 
 from its moorings. Jeremiah warns him that ruin is im- 
 pending (Jer. xiii. 18-21), but in vain. No help from 
 Misrim appears ; the king ' came no more out of his land ' 
 (2 K. xxiv. 7). 1 Soon the tramp of the invaders is heard, 
 but just then the energetic but unwise king passed away. 
 The Chronicler (2 Chr. xxxvi. 8) has preserved the tradi- 
 tion that he was buried, like Manasseh and Amon (2 K. 
 xxi. 1 8, 26), not in the city of David, but in the garden 
 of Uzza. 2 He was succeeded by his son Jehoiachin. It 
 was hard for the young prince, who was only eighteen. 
 Did he trust in Ashtart, or had king and people given up 
 hoping in her when the foreign warriors set foot on the soil 
 of Judah ? The author of the ' epitome ' is as much pre- 
 judiced against Jehoiachin as Berossus is against Evil- 
 Merodach, who reigned (as he asserts) 'lawlessly and 
 impiously.' Jeremiah, however, finds no more fault with 
 Jehoiachin than with Jehoahaz. His fate, indeed, is irre- 
 versible, but it is implied that neither Hezekiah nor Josiah 
 would have fared better. 
 
 As I live, saith Yahweh, | though Coniah 8 were (in very 
 
 deed) 
 The signet on my right hand, | I would pluck him 
 
 thence. 4 
 
 In another little poem, written just after Jehoiachin's enforced 
 departure, Jeremiah utters the passionate cry 
 
 Is Coniah a despised work ? | is he a vessel of no value ? 
 Why is he tossed and thrown to the land of Asshur ? 5 
 
 He feels the hardness of the destiny. The heir of David 
 is tossed away like the meanest potter's vessel, and the spot 
 on which he lights is the land of Asshur. 
 
 1 V. 7 would stand more naturally after v. i. 
 
 2 @ B has ev yavofar) ; Luc. tv yav 0a. The tradition was probably 
 omitted from 2 Kings because of Jeremiah's prediction (Jer. xxii. i8f.). 
 
 3 More strictly Konyahu (Jer. xxxvii. i). Elsewhere in Jer., 
 Yekonyahu. 
 
 4 Jer. xxii. 24. Vv. 25-27 belong to the supplemented Read 
 1 him ' for thee.' 
 
 5 The text has been much worked over. @ helps us somewhat ; 
 also experience gained elsewhere.
 
 JEHOIAKIM INVASION JEHOIACHIWS CAPTIVITY 67 
 
 The note of passion is wanting in Ezekiel, which is 
 strange, since he shared Jehoiachin's captivity. A great 
 eagle is said to have come to Lebanon (Ezek. xvii. 3 f.\ to 
 have cropped off the topmost of the sprouts of the cedar, 
 and brought it to the land of Canaan, z>., as the parallel 
 clause explains, ' set it in Arabia of Yerahme'el ' (see 
 special note, p. 94). The eagle is the king of Babel ; 
 Lebanon, the Davidic family. ' Canaan ' is obviously not 
 Palestine, but may, or rather must, be some N. Arabian 
 region ; l in Ezek. xvi. 29 it is identified with DntW, under 
 which name lies, in a shortened form, ' Ashhur-Aram ' (see 
 p. 63). Ezekiel, then, like Jeremiah, implies, both here and 
 elsewhere, that Jehoiachin was taken captive by the chief 
 potentate of N. Arabia, who, in the prophet's brief explana- 
 tion of the parable (v. 1 2), is called ' the king of Babel.' 
 That this royal warrior started on his campaigns from Ashhur 
 or Asshur, we have learned already (p. 61) from Ezek. xxi. 24. 
 Apparently, therefore, he was not Nebuchadrezzar. 
 
 Three months (the Chronicler adds ten days) was all 
 the time that the young king had to reign. In this he 
 resembled Jehoahaz, but, unlike that king, he did not wait 
 to be deposed. Before the siege was far advanced, he went 
 out with the queen-mother and his wives (children are not 
 mentioned), attended by the princes and courtiers, and 
 surrendered. Seven thousand men of the propertied class, 
 as well as one thousand craftsmen and smiths, 2 went with 
 the king. Some of the prophets may also have been taken, 
 though many remained, for Ezekiel can hardly have been 
 alone. The treasuries of the temple and of the palace 
 were also rifled (see 2 K. xxiv. 10-16, Jer. xxvii. 19-22, 
 xxviii. 3, 6). 
 
 From his captor's point of view, it was in favour of 
 Jehoiachin that he had not, like his father, broken an oath 
 of fealty. Hence, perhaps, the favour into which he was 
 taken by the great king thirty-seven years after (2 K. 
 xxiv. 27, Jer. Hi. 24-34). He was released from prison, 
 
 1 T. and B. pp. 85, 175, 475. 
 
 2 See Jer. xxiv. i, xxix. 2. A thoroughly Eastern measure. Cp. 
 i S. xiii. i9/, where read, 'and they brought down all the artisans of 
 Israel to the land of the Philistines.'
 
 68 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 pensioned, and admitted among the king's table -guests. 
 No king among those who entered the presence had so 
 high a seat as he who once ruled for three months in 
 Jerusalem. Is this historical ? we ask. The evidence is 
 scanty, but we cannot hastily reject it. Only we have to 
 make sure that we understand it. For the words of the 
 statement mean more than appears on the surface. They 
 imply the recognition of the Jews as a people, with its own 
 cultus and with internal independence, under the headship 
 of Jehoiachin. 1 Further, the royal rights of Jehoiachin 
 would be transmitted to his son. In I Chr. iii. 17 / no 
 less than seven sons are named ; one of these, clearly, 
 would inherit a claim to the throne. 
 
 The story is important on two grounds. I. It shows 
 how thoroughly developed was the belief in the Babylonian 
 captivity as the only one in the time of the redactor of 
 Kings. For the name of the king of Babel who befriended 
 Jehoiachin is given as Evil-Merodach. Evidently this is a 
 modification of Amil-Marduk, the name of the son and 
 successor of Nebuchadrezzar (562-560 B.C.). With much 
 ingenuity Winckler 2 seeks to show that Amil-Marduk 
 favoured a different party from his father the so-called 
 hierarchic party, which was everywhere disposed to sanc- 
 tion the repair of temples. More than this the story cannot 
 show, for if ' Nebuchadrezzar ' is an interpolation, so also, of 
 course, is ' Evil-Merodach.' 
 
 2. It has also been thought, somewhat too optimistically, 
 to contribute to the solution of historical problems. As we 
 have seen, the Chronicler gives a list (i Chr. iii. i//) of 
 the sons of Jeconiah or Jehoiachin, any one of whom would 
 be capable of inheriting the crown. In fact, one of the 
 seven, Shenassar, has been identified with Sheshbassar (a 
 governor of Judah under the Persian king), while a grandson 
 of Jeconiah in v. 19 bears the name Zerubbabel (a still 
 better known governor of Judah). It is true, all these 
 names, Shenassar, Sheshbassar, Zerubbabel, are supposed 
 
 1 Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judenthums, pp. 78/5 Winckler, 
 AOFxl 204 ; KAT ( *\ p. 284. 
 
 2 AOF xi. 198; cp. KAT (3 \ pp. no, 284. Berossus may have 
 used an old source, influenced by the anti-hierarchic party.
 
 JEHOIAKIM INVASION- JEHOIACHIWS CAPTIVITY 69 
 
 to be of Babylonian origin. The view is plausible, but 
 the proof of it is not as complete as we require. Indeed, 
 it is quite possible that any Babylonian appearance that 
 these names may present may be due to redactors. Nor 
 can one think it likely that a Babylonian name should occur 
 in the middle of a list of seven names * which, apart from 
 this one disputed name, are distinctly S. Canaanitish or 
 N. Arabian. May not nsMtD really represent nswotn, since 
 3B> (as in HMW) comes from ]DBr = f?NSDttT, and "ISN is an 
 Edomite name, attested in Gen. xxxvi. 2 1 ? 2 I fear, 
 therefore, that the expectation referred to has not yet been 
 realised. 
 
 1 As the text stands, there are eight names, but the first, IDK, is 
 probably the first part of the compound name rightly read as Asshur- 
 Eshtaol (T. and B. p. 540 ; cp. p. 70, n. 3). 
 
 2 T. and B. p. 426.
 
 j 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 ZEDEKIAH MORALITY AND RELIGION EZEK. VIII. 
 
 THOUGH much was lost, there were still a fatherland and a 
 temple. Israel, it might be hoped, had learned its lesson. 
 Its new king (provided by the conqueror) was unambitious, 
 and may have seemed a safe ruler. He was a still-surviving 
 son of Josiah, 1 called Mattaniah, a name which, on his 
 elevation to the throne, the suzerain changed to Zedekiah 2 
 (properly Sidkiyyahu). The story of his reign is drawn 
 largely from the Book of Jeremiah, supplemented by that of 
 Ezekiel. Let us first borrow something from the latter 
 (Ezek. xvii. 5-21). The allegorist represents the new king 
 as a humble vine-plant, trailing on the ground. It was 
 planted by the great eagle known to us already (p. 67), who 
 imposed upon it one obligation that its branches should 
 turn to him, and its roots be subject to him. Then, we are 
 told, came another great eagle, and behold the vine bent its 
 roots and stretched its branches no longer to the first, but to 
 the second eagle. The consequences of this could be 
 foreseen : by the most trifling effort it could be uprooted 
 (v. 9). The historical explanation follows (vv. 12-21). 
 The king of Babel came to Jerusalem, and removed its king, 
 in whose place he set up a royal prince as king, entering 
 into a covenant with him. It was but a modest realm, but 
 if the king had kept his covenant he might have continued. 
 But quite otherwise did he act. ' He rebelled against him, 
 in sending his envoys to Misrim, that it might give him 
 
 1 His mother's name was Hamutal (see 45). 
 2 Sidkia was the name of a king of Ashkelon in Hezekiah's time. 
 
 70
 
 ZEDEKIAH MORALITY AND RELIGION EZEK. VIII 71 
 
 horses l and a large force ' (z>. 1 5 ; see on Dt. xvii. 1 6). Here 
 the retrospect ceases, and the prospect of calamity begins. 2 
 Yahweh is the God of covenants in general ; he notes the 
 broken covenant between the foreign king and Zedekiah (cp. 
 2 Chr. xxxvi. 130), and will provide for just retribution. 
 The agent may seem to be the king of Babel, but is really 
 Yahweh (vv. 19 fy. 
 
 There is also another allegory in which Zedekiah is 
 referred to (Ezek. xix. 5-9). This time the description is 
 idealistic. One might imagine that Jehoiakim (the true 
 Jehoiakim) was intended, for the language points to a lover 
 of war and even to a conqueror. Nothing could here be 
 said of Zedekiah's faithlessness, and the description of his 
 final misfortunes passes over the climax of them all the 
 blinding. For a mention of this we must go to Ezek. 
 xii. 13;' yet shall he not see it,' says the prophet, ' though 
 he shall die there.' Certainly Ezekiel judges the hapless 
 Zedekiah by a singularly strict moral standard. 
 
 The historian, however, must not follow Ezekiel in his 
 severity, for Zedekiah could hardly call his soul his own ; 
 the real power belonged to the upstart princes. Not that 
 the princes were alone responsible for the moral downfall of 
 the state. ' Every head is sick, and every heart faint.' 
 Ezekiel (chap, xv.) compares Jerusalem to the worthless 
 wood of the wild vine. Of a piece of such wood the fire 
 has consumed both ends, and it has now attacked the 
 middle. The ' two ends ' are the two kingdoms ; the 
 ' middle ' is Jerusalem. Ezekiel admits, however (xiv. 22 /.), 
 that the exiled portion of the community is not so deeply 
 corrupt as the actual Jerusalem ; Jeremiah, too, draws the 
 same distinction. Who does not remember the vision (Jer. 
 xxiv.) of the two baskets of figs, one containing very good 
 figs, like those that are first ripe, the other very bad figs 
 which could not be eaten (cp. Jer. xxix. 1 7) ? The former 
 denote Jehoiachin and his fellow-exiles, whom Yahweh will 
 bring back to their land ; the latter are those left under 
 Zedekiah, or those who have fled to the land of Misrim, for 
 both of whom a dreadful fate is reserved. 
 
 1 On horses in N. Arabia see T. and B. p. 462. 
 2 On V. 17 see Kraetzschmar. njna is an incorrect gloss.
 
 72 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 It may be that both prophets somewhat failed to com- 
 prehend the situation. With their own feet planted upon a 
 rock they could not realise the state of those who were storm- 
 tossed and without a compass. The gulf between these 
 prophets and the average citizens was immense. Jeremiah 
 and Ezekiel might have been the compass of the storm-tossed, 
 but there was one precious gift which had been denied them 
 that of persuasiveness. Still there must have been some 
 who listened more attentively than others to the great 
 prophets, and these would naturally be found in the more 
 cultured class. We can well understand that the removal of 
 this class to Babel would produce injurious effects on the 
 residuum. How could parvenus lordlings, who had made 
 their fortunes by driving hard bargains with the emigrating 
 exiles, help being puffed up with vanity ? l And how could 
 wise counsel proceed from their collective statesmanship ? 
 
 As for religion, it could hardly have fallen very much 
 lower, considering the depth which it had reached under 
 Jehoiakim. Nor would it perceptibly have affected the 
 religious standard if the lower cults had received a mere 
 formal discouragement. Was such a discouragement actually 
 given ? In favour of this view it might be urged that 
 prophets of Yahweh were consulted both in Jerusalem and 
 in the land of exile. Zedekiah himself laid great store by 
 Jeremiah (Jer. xxxvii. 3, 17, xxxviii. 14^). It might also 
 be held that at the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem king 
 and people gave a singular proof of regard for Yahwistic 
 moral principles (Jer. xxxiv.). It is well known that both in 
 the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xxi. 2) and in Deuteronomy 
 (xv. 12) there is a law that a Hebrew slave should be set 
 free after six years of service. This law had been neglected ; 
 now, however, it was carried out with a peculiarly solemn 
 covenant (v. 19). Moreover, we learn from Jer. xliv. 17 f. 
 that the cult of the Queen of Heaven 2 had lately been 
 abandoned. Such appears to be all the evidence that exists 
 for a revival of Yahwism. It is not much in quantity, and 
 the supposed recognition of Yahwistic morality will not bear 
 
 1 Ezekiel's description of the princes (xxii. 27) corresponds to the 
 prevalent tendency of the ruling class at all times (cp. Isa. i. 23). 
 
 2 Or ' of Ishmael ' ; see T. and B, p. 1 8. Ashtart is intended.
 
 ZEDEKIAH MORALITY AND RELIGION EZEK. VIII 73 
 
 examination. 1 Still it is probable that as the political 
 prospect became darker a tendency arose towards a greater 
 regard for the cult of Yahweh. 
 
 The tendency cannot, however, have been a strong one. 
 There is abundant evidence for the continuance of the cults 
 in vogue before Zedekiah, and the writer of 2 K. xxiv. 19 
 asserts that from a Yahwistic point of view that king was 
 no better than Jehoiakim. Ezekiel (xiv. 5) distinctly says 
 that the house of Israel ' have estranged themselves from 
 Yahweh with all their idols.' We know, too, from Ezek. 
 viii. 12 that (about 592 B.C.) the cult of Yahweh was 
 rejected by elders of the people, on the ground that Yahweh 
 did not see them and had forsaken the land. The chapter 
 to which this passage belongs is full to overflowing of 
 evidence for Jerusalem's heathenism. The lower cults there 
 described are those which competed successfully with the 
 strict worship of Yahweh. The description, however, is not 
 easy to interpret. 
 
 It will not be a superfluous digression if we confront the 
 difficulties. Unless we do so, we shall be unable to estimate 
 aright the religious and political currents of the time. And 
 the question which we have to keep before us, and which 
 our study of Ezek. viii. will enable us to answer, is this 
 Were the popular cults in Zedekiah's time of Babylonian, or 
 of Canaanite and N. Arabian origin ? 2 
 
 Certainly, it would be agreeable to suppose that some of 
 those cults were of direct Babylonian origin. The supposi- 
 tion would be in harmony with the view here adopted that 
 Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon played a great rdle in the 
 later affairs of Judah, though not so as to exclude a N. 
 Arabian invasion about the same time. If there was just 
 now a double danger to the state, one would expect to find 
 that some of the popular cults of the day came from N. 
 Arabia and some from Babylon. But which of them can 
 we, with a safe historical conscience, trace to Babylon ? 
 Let us turn to Ezek. viii. and examine the details as briefly 
 
 1 We are told (y. 1 1 ) that ' afterwards,' i.e. after the siege had been 
 raised (xxxvii. 5), 'all the princes and all the people ' (surely an exaggera- 
 tion) cancelled their engagements. 
 
 2 See ' Ezekiel's Visions of Jerusalem,' Expositor, May 1908.
 
 74 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 but as penetratingly as limits of space permit. In v. 3 we 
 read that a spirit, or divine energy, lifted Ezekiel up, and 
 brought him ' in visions of God ' to Jerusalem, to the door 
 of the north gateway of the inner court of the temple, 
 ' where was the place of the image of Kin'ah [hamjmakneh.' 
 Ezekiel means that he was brought to the very same place 
 where formerly (under Manasseh) the image referred to had 
 stood. In a subsequent passage (v. 5) he says in effect that 
 when his attention was free, he observed that the same 
 image (removed by Josiah, and not yet set up again when 
 the prophet left Jerusalem as an exile) had been erected 
 once more, though in a different place. 1 Now, we have no 
 right to ask, ' What's in a name/ and leave the image 
 without any but the impossible name 'Jealousy,' supple- 
 mented by ' that awakens jealousy ' (against which philology 
 has much to urge). Nor may we, with Gunkel, emend ' the 
 image of Jealousy ' into ' the image of the reeds/ and interpret 
 this of the dragon Tiamat (Ps. Ixviii. 31,' the beast of the 
 reeds ' ?). 2 Undoubtedly the goddess referred to is Asherah. 
 Several scholars of note have already seen this. What they 
 have not seen is the right form, and therefore meaning, of 
 the name. The right form throws fresh light on the N. 
 Arabian affinities of the late Judaite religion. 3 
 
 It is equally hard to trace the superstitions referred to 
 in v. i o. Here we read, ' And I entered, and looked ; and, 
 behold, ever)' form of reptiles and (other) beasts, and all the 
 idols of the house of Israel, graven upon the wall round 
 about.' The explanations of W. R. Smith, Toy, and Gunkel 
 are hardly satisfactory. Neither clan-totems nor Babylonian 
 dragons 4 ('helpers of Rahab/ Job ix. 13) can justifiably be 
 found here, especially as neither theory is consistent with 
 the words, ' and all the idols of the house of Israel/ which 
 intervene between ' abomination ' and ' graven.' It is only an 
 
 1 The prophet's words are, ' and I lifted up mine eyes northward, 
 and, behold, north of the gate of the altar (?) was that image of Kin'ah 
 at the entrance (?).' On vv. 3, 5, see Kraetzschmar. 
 
 2 Schbpfung und Chaos (1895), p. 141. 
 
 8 nKJp probably comes from rrp JK > and p:, like p:y and px, may come 
 from some shortened form of SNORT (the final h often becomes 3). n:po 
 may come from mopn ; cp. Dpi = arn'. See T, and B. pp. i8/, 121. 
 
 4 So Gunkel.
 
 ZEDEKIAH MORALITY AND RELIGION EZEK. VIII 75 
 
 enlarged experience of similarly corrupt passages elsewhere, 
 and of the habits of the scribes, which can help us much 
 here. For my own part, I have since 1903 been satisfied 
 with this suggestion, that here and in Ezek. xviii. 6 (as 
 well as in some other O.T. passages) ^NltD" 1 has been mis- 
 written for f?N$DBr. As for norm IBD"), that I take to be a 
 gloss consisting of two regional names, and defining, for 
 ancient readers, the geographical meaning of ^NitotZT in this 
 passage. 1 As the most probable original form of the text 
 of v, 10 one may propose, 'every form of abominations 
 ( = images), namely, all the idols of the house of Ishmael, 
 graven in the wall round about.' N. Arabian again. 
 
 A Babylonian origin is more plausibly supposed for the 
 strange scene described in v. 14, ' and he brought me to 
 the door of the north gateway, and behold, there were the 
 women, weeping for the Tammuz.' One thinks involuntarily 
 of the ritual mourning of the Babylonians for the disappear- 
 ance of the god of vernal vegetation, one form of whose 
 name was Tamuz. 2 Still I doubt very much whether the 
 ritual mourning for the dead god first arose in Canaan so 
 late, 3 and if (as I suppose) it was of much earlier date, the 
 name of the god would hardly have been Tamuz. 4 For 
 light on the passage we must have recourse to Jer. vii. 1 8, 
 xliv. 17 ff.\ it is surely at the sacred meal that the women 
 are sitting, and they are engaged in ritual benedictions (read 
 mD-Qo) of Ashtart, one of whose many titles was a name 
 which may at last have become corrupted into rr^TD 5 or 
 rrTD (nnn, Tamuz). The true name is rP^NWDBP. 
 
 I have not yet done with the prophet Ezekiel, nor 
 sufficiently answered the question, Did Babylon, in this 
 troublous time, exercise a religious influence on Jerusalem ? 
 In the very next chapter (ix.) we find a terrible imaginative 
 account of the massacre of the wicked inhabitants of 
 
 1 TOT probably comes from nero-i, and nona from ncrra-ij?. In explana- 
 tion, see T. and B. pp. 249, 571. 
 
 2 See E. Bib., ' Tammuz.' 
 5 T. and B. pp. 56, 326 / 
 
 4 Isa. xvii. 10 suggests the name ' Na'aman,' on the origin of which 
 see T. and B. p. 56, n. 2. Hadad and Rimmon (Ra'aman) would 
 also be possible. See T. and B. pp. 36, 326, 438 f. 
 
 5 T. and Bib. p. 19, notes 3 and 4.
 
 76 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 Jerusalem by seven heavenly beings in human form. One 
 of the seven (not directly engaged in the massacre) is 
 clothed in linen, 1 and has a writer's inkhorn at his 
 side (v. 2). According to Gunkel and Zimmern, 2 this is a 
 Hebraised form of Nabu, the Babylonian writer -god, by 
 whom the destinies of men were written down on the 
 heavenly tablets, and who was also one of the seven 
 planetary deities. Certainly the parallelism is too obvious 
 to be disregarded. But we must not forget two other 
 important parallelisms with Ex. xii. 23 and Dan. x. 5 
 respectively. In the former passage (cp. 2 S. xxiv. 16) 
 1 the destroyer ' is clearly the warlike Mal'ak or Mal'ak 
 Yahweh (i.e. Yerahme'el) ; 3 in the latter (as a Talmudic 
 interpretation also represents) the man clothed in linen is 
 Gabriel, who is but a pale copy of Mika'el 4 (i.e. Yerahme'el). 
 The affinity of many points in the Babylonian and other 
 W. Asiatic religions is beyond doubt, and fresh importations 
 from Babylon may have been made quite late. But why 
 should we suppose that Yahweh's great Helper, the second 
 member of the divine company (i.e. Yerahme'el), was provided 
 with fresh Babylonian characteristics, belonging properly to 
 Nabu, in the age of Ezekiel? On the whole, then, there 
 seems to be nothing in chaps, viii. and ix. of Ezekiel which 
 clearly betokens recent direct influence of Babylon on the 
 religion of Judah. The cults or religious forms which are 
 there described are those which in earlier or later times 
 appear to have come from N. Arabia. 
 
 At any rate, trouble impended from N. Arabia, which 
 religious fanatics sought to avert in one way, and politicians 
 in another. Nor can the counsellors of Zedekiah be 
 supposed to have been alone in their plottings. From one 
 petty realm to another the message flew, ' Confederate your- 
 selves against Babel.' From Edom, from Moab, from the 
 bene Ammon, from Sor, from Sidon, envoys are said to have 
 visited Jerusalem with this object in view (Jer. xxvii. 3). It 
 is highly probable that all the kingdoms represented were 
 near the S. Palestinian border, and were within the range of 
 
 1 The linen represents the luminous appearance of the divine body, 
 
 2 KAT ( *\ p. 404. 8 T. and B. pp. 277-280, 291-294. 
 
 * Ibid. pp. 102 (n. 3), 293.
 
 ZEDEKIAH MORALITY AND RELIGION EZEK. VIII 77 
 
 a N. Arabian invasion ; for both here and in chap. xxv. 
 we are compelled to admit the existence of a southern Sor 
 and a southern Sidon. 1 What the result of the negotiations 
 was we are not told, but we know that Jeremiah (statesman 
 as well as prophet) did his best to prevent them from 
 succeeding, and in the style of Isaiah (Isa. xx. 2) performed 
 a symbolic act to convey to all beholders his stern message. 
 ' Thus hath Yahweh said, Make thee a yoke, and put it 
 upon thy neck ' (Jer. xxvii. 2) ; it was a symbol of the 
 inevitable doom of Judah ; the date is the fourth year of 
 Zedekiah (596-595 B.C.). Even the prophets of Yahweh, 
 however, disagreed with Jeremiah. One of them, ' Hananiah 
 the prophet ' 2 (as he is emphatically called), announced in 
 public, in the temple, that the sacred vessels which had been 
 carried away to Babel should be restored, and Jeconiah and 
 his fellow-exiles brought home (Jer. xxviii. 1-4). Jeremiah 
 could not pass over this direct contradiction, and administered 
 a serious warning to his opponent, whom, however, it could 
 not possibly have convinced. In fact Hananiah's next step 
 was to treat Jeremiah as a false prophet. Was Jeremiah a 
 symboliser ? So, too, would Hananiah be, only for a different 
 end. He took the yoke from Jeremiah's neck and broke it, 
 exclaiming, ' Thus hath Yahweh said, So will I break the 
 yoke of the king of Babel from the neck of all the nations ' 3 
 (Jer. xxviii. 1 1). Upon this, strangely enough, Jeremiah 
 ' went his way.' Whether afterwards he actually said to 
 Hananiah, 'This year shalt thou die' (y. 17) is a matter of 
 doubt not because there are no parallels outside the Bible 
 for the fulfilment of such a special prediction, but (i) because 
 such predictions are not in the style of the great prophets 
 as these are portrayed in their most authentic and most 
 characteristic sayings, (2) because the narratives in Jeremiah 
 have evidently been retouched, and (3) because such an 
 utterance would surely have provoked Hananiah to fierce 
 anger. 
 
 It is from such an authentic and characteristic discourse 
 of Ezekiel (chap, xiii.) that we derive the information that 
 
 1 T. and B. pp. 72 (n. 4), 314. 
 
 2 Cp. E. Bib., ' Prophecy,' 240. 
 
 3 Following the simpler text of (.
 
 78 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 the prophets and prophetesses of Yahweh who went into 
 exile with Jehoiachin were no wiser than those of Jerusalem. 
 Ezekiel flatly denies that they have the spirit of Yahweh ; 
 their pleasant visions are no better than a plastered wall. 
 He does not, indeed, dispute their belief in themselves, but 
 asserts that they seduce the people by their ' vanities ' and 
 their ' lies,' and proclaims that they shall not return to the 
 land of Israel. We, more dispassionate, can perhaps 
 mitigate the censure of Ezekiel. It was possible to be a 
 genuine prophet and yet to misinterpret the will of God. 
 One such misinterpreting and yet true prophet was 
 Habakkuk, who, a few years earlier, took a not less super- 
 ficial view of things (p. 63^), and if we compare Hananiah's 
 expressions in Jer. xxviii. with those in Isa. x. 25, xxix. I5, 1 
 we cannot say that they are altogether dissimilar. 
 
 The question of questions of course is, Did these prophets 
 raise, or lower, the moral standard ? In Jer. vi. 1 5 the 
 priests and prophets are said to have ' committed abomina- 
 tions ' ; the passage, however, is admittedly not Jeremiah's, 2 
 and the two preceding verses only speak of covetousness and 
 moral superficiality. More important is Jer. xxiii. 1 4, where 
 adultery is specified as a common sin of the prophets. 
 Taking this in connexion with v. 1 1, where prophet and 
 priest are called ' profane ' or ' heathenish,' and their wicked- 
 ness is said to have been ' found ' in Yahweh's house, we 
 may plausibly suppose that the ' adultery ' is connected with 
 some heathenish cult in Yahweh's temple (cp. Ezek. viii.). 
 This gives a fresh point to the statement in v. 14 that the 
 prophets of Jerusalem ' strengthen the hands of evil-doers.' 3 
 In Jer. xxix. 23 we again find adultery and lying oracles 
 coupled as sins of a prophet, but this passage has not 
 escaped corruption and interpolation. 4 On the whole, we 
 must take an unfavourable view of the average moral 
 position of the prophets, but admit the probability that there 
 
 1 It is true, these passages are probably post-exilic, and written for 
 those who were in a different stage of spiritual development. 
 
 2 See Duhm and Cornill. 
 
 3 It is true, the same phrase is used by Ezekiel (xiii. 22) of the 
 ' lying ' prophetesses among the exiles without reference to heathenish 
 customs. 
 
 * See.E. Bib., ' Ahab,' 2.
 
 ZEDEKIAH MORALITY AND RELIGION EZEK. VIII 79 
 
 were some who were better, though tradition has passed over 
 all but one of them Habakkuk. 
 
 It is very possible that the king of Babel took notice of 
 the ferment among the politicians and the prophets. If 
 Jer. xxix. in the shorter form recognised by Duhm is at all 
 historical, Jeremiah knew of two leading prophets among 
 the exiles l whom he accuses of gross immorality and of 
 prophesying falsely, and who, he says, will be publicly slain 
 by the king of Babel (see p. 60). Moreover, Jer. xxix. 3 
 speaks of Elasah and Gemariah, and li. 59 of Seraiah, as 
 Zedekiah's special ambassadors to Babel. 2 These statements 
 may well be trustworthy ; they should probably be taken in 
 combination. The king of Babel may have been irritated 
 by the fanatical preaching of the prophets and have made 
 an example of two specially troublesome ones close at hand, 
 and Seraiah (not to mention the others), besides conveying 
 the annual tribute, 3 may have been charged to minimise 
 the political importance of the preaching of the prophets. 
 That Zedekiah also went is possible, but not probable. 
 For there is no evidence that the suzerain had convoked 
 a durbar. Had he done so, Zedekiah (like Ahaz and 
 Manasseh on similar occasions) 4 would have been careful 
 to attend. 
 
 According to Winckler, 5 the ambassadors of Zedekiah 
 (he refers to Jer. xxix. 3) had another object, viz., to bring 
 about the restoration of the Yahweh-cult in the temple, 
 which, he thinks, was in abeyance throughout Zedekiah's 
 reign, owing to the removal, not the destruction, of the sacred 
 vessels. ' The temple, however, was still standing, and with- 
 out a cult neither city nor king was possible.' Winckler 
 supposes, therefore, that it was only the ' orthodox mono- 
 
 1 See E. Bib., Ahab,' 2. 
 
 2 Reading, in Jer. li. 59, np instead of 'nx. 
 
 3 <, Jer. li. 59, describes Seraiah as apx^v Swpwv (nn:o nt?) ; 
 similarly Targ.; and, among moderns, Gratz, Cheyne, Pulpit Commentary 
 on Jeremiah, ii. (1885), S. A. Cook, E. Bib., 'Seraiah,' who sees that 
 tribute is referred to. 
 
 4 See 2 K. xvi. 10 (for Ahaz), and the lists of kings' names in 
 Schrader, KA T (<i \ pp. 35 ^ff. (for Manasseh). The kings were tributaries 
 of Esar-haddon and Ashurbanipa 
 
 5 KAT*\ pp. 278-280.
 
 8o DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 theistic Yahweh-cultus ' which was abolished ; the ' ordinary 
 Canaanite forms of cult ' (' no doubt partly identical with 
 those of Zedekiah ') were either allowed to remain or set up 
 again. And when Jeremiah (xxvii. 17) adjures the people 
 to submit to the king of Babel that they may live, he means, 
 ' give up the hope of the restoration of the temple-cult in the 
 sense of Josiah and of orthodoxy, and be content with what 
 is left.' ' This,' Winckler continues, ' is the precise opposite 
 of the demands of the Yahweh-party, to which Jeremiah as 
 a pro-Babylonian, is absolutely opposed.' 
 
 But, we must ask, why should Zedekiah have petitioned 
 for the restoration of the Yahweh-cult when one of the chief 
 objects of the party which favoured this petition was the 
 restoration of Jeconiah or Jehoiachin (Jer. xxviii. 1-4)? 
 ' And is there any trace in Jeremiah or in Ezekiel of the 
 supposed fact that the Yahweh-cult in the temple had been 
 violently closed, or in the records of the life of Jeremiah that 
 this enthusiast for Yahweh was " content with what was left " 
 after this catastrophe had occurred ? ' l 
 
 The year came, however, when no tribute-bearing 
 caravan took the road for Babel. The influence of 
 Jeremiah and the more sober-minded citizens had sunk to 
 zero. The war-party, who still trusted in a foreign king, 
 had howled down remonstrance, and Zedekiah rebelled. 
 Our information is painfully meagre ; who was this foreign 
 king ? In Jer. xliv. 30 (MT.) we meet with the statement 
 that the king of Misraim (Egypt) would equally with 
 Zedekiah be given into the hand of his enemies. It is 
 natural to combine this with Jer. xxxvii. 5 (MT.), which 
 relates how, on the approach of Pharaoh's army, the Kasdim 
 raised the siege of Jerusalem, and then to infer that the king 
 referred to is the Egyptian king Uah-ab-ra, the Apries of 
 Herodotus (588-569 B.C.). In fact, according to that 
 historian (ii. 1 6 1 ), Apries ' fought by sea with the Tyrians,' 
 which, it has been suggested, ' only means that he sent 
 assistance to the Tyrians in their long resistance to 
 Nebuchadrezzar,' while the statement in the same passage, 
 ' he led an army against Sidon,' may ' refer to the expedition 
 planned with a view to succour Jerusalem.' 2 This view 
 1 E. Bib., 'Zedekiah,' 4. 2 E. Bib., 'Hophra' (W. M. Muller).
 
 ZEDEKIAH MORALITY AND RELIGION EZEK. VIII 81 
 
 appears rather precarious, though certainly, if Ne-ka-u II. 
 had already revived the claims of Egypt to Syria and 
 Palestine, one might plausibly suppose that Uah-ab-ra would 
 follow his example. The first point, therefore, to be decided 
 is, whether Ne-ka-u intervened or not in the affairs of 
 Palestine. This has been shown (pp. 35 ff.} to be doubt- 
 ful. The next is, whether ' Hophra ' in the MT. of Jer. 
 xliv. 30 is correct. If it is true that Ne-ka-u occurs again 
 and again in the O.T. in a slightly Hebraised form, why is 
 Uah-ab-ra, in its supposed Hebrew form, only found once ? 
 Surely there is an error in the case. The supposed name 
 man has arisen out of a dittographed mnD * and nmD is the 
 redactor's substitute for INID (see p. 37), so that the original 
 text ran, ' Behold, I will give Pir'u king of Misrim into the 
 hand of his enemies.' 
 
 So, then, the foreign king on whom the war-party relied, 
 and to whom Zedekiah, like Hoshea in similar circumstances, 2 
 sent an embassy (Ezek. xvii. i 5 ; see pp. 7of~\ was the king 
 of the N. Arabian Misrim. The use of this name, as we 
 have seen (p. 38), is archaistic, but such archaisms occur 
 even in late books. The Misrites, however, did not hurry, 
 and the king of Babel pressed on unopposed. Strangely 
 enough, he had been uncertain whether to march to Jerusalem 
 or to Rabbath-Ammon. A graphic description is given by 
 Ezekiel (xxi. 2 1[26]/). One of two ways had to be chosen ; 
 both started from the land of Ashhur or Asshur (see p. 6 1 ). 
 So the pious king first shuffled the arrows before the 
 teraphim, and then inspected the liver of a sacrificed animal. 3 
 The result of the divination was that the way to Jerusalem 
 was chosen. The incidents of the march are not told us, 
 but in Jer. xxxiv. 7 we read of the siege of Lachish and 
 Azekah ; perhaps the same course was taken as in the 
 Asshurite invasion in Hezekiah's time (see 2 K. xviii. 17).* 
 It is hardly likely that the invader paused at Tekoa and 
 Beth-kerem, places mentioned by Jeremiah in an imaginative 
 picture of such an invasion (Jer. vi. I ; see p. 64 n. I ). At 
 
 1 Cp. Crit. Bib. p. 76. 2 See 2 K. xvii. 4 ; Crit. Bib. p. 376. 
 
 8 See E. Bib. col. 5398. 
 
 4 Probably w. 1 3 - 1 6 refer to the invasion of Sennacherib, and the 
 rest of the composite narrative to an Asshurite invasion. Cp. p. 89. 
 
 6
 
 82 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 any rate the Asshurites had not long encamped before the 
 capital when the siege had to be raised (Jer. xxxvii. 5). 
 The Misrites of N. Arabia were on the march. Something, 
 then, the ' cracked reed ' really did for the too confiding king 
 of Judah. According to Josephus, the king of Egypt was 
 defeated, and retired to his own land ; Jeremiah (xxxvii. 7) 
 at any rate prophesies that the Misrite army will retire. 
 
 It was at this period (p. 72) that the freed Hebrew 
 slaves were reduced to servitude again a proof of the 
 hypocritical character of the new Yahwistic movement. 
 These short-sighted people, like their ancestors under 
 Hezekiah, 1 persuaded themselves that the Asshurite be- 
 siegers had disappeared for good, in which case there was 
 no special need for them to pretend to be strict Yahwists. 2 
 It is true the persuasion cannot have been quite general. 
 There must have been not a few who feared the Asshurites, 
 and regretted Zedekiah's rebellion. In Jer. xxxviii. 19, 
 Hi. 15, we read of a class of persons called 'those who have 
 fallen away to the Kasdim.' But there would be others 
 who quite agreed with the ' fallers away,' though circum- 
 stances prevented them from leaving the city. These must 
 have lived in fear and trembling, and it was not unnatural 
 that Jeremiah should incur the suspicion expressed thus by a 
 warder, 'Thou fallest away to the Kasdim ' (Jer. xxxvii. 13). 
 The ' princes ' before whom Jeremiah was brought were 
 thoroughly hostile to him ; both now and on a later occa- 
 sion their condemnation of the prophet was a foregone 
 conclusion. Doubtless he might have defended himself, but 
 under the circumstances (cp. Jer. xxxviii. 4) could a political 
 tribunal affect impartiality? At any rate, when the 
 Asshurites returned, there may well have seemed to be 
 no room in the beleaguered city for Jeremiah. The princes 
 did not, however, venture to kill the great prophet as 
 Jehoiakim killed Uriah (Jer. xxvi. 23); they would rather 
 that famine should do the work of the executioner. So 
 Jeremiah was cast into the cistern in the court of the prison, 
 and ' sank in the mire ' (Jer. xxxviii. 6). 
 
 1 Isa. xxii. 1-14 ; see my Introd. to the Book of Isaiah, p. 135. 
 
 2 There may also have been a plan to utilise the freedmen as 
 additional defenders of the walls.
 
 ZEDEKIAH MORALITY AND RELIGION EZEK. VIII 83 
 
 For the second time Zedekiah interposed for the prophet, 
 though most of the credit is due to a Kushite or N. Arabian l 
 eunuch attached to the palace. Nor was Jeremiah backward 
 to act for the good of Zedekiah, who seemed paralysed by 
 his troubles. He recognised the poor king's anxiety for 
 himself, and urged him to take the only course which 
 would at once preserve the city from destruction and save 
 his own life. That Jeremiah himself was free from all 
 self-regarding thoughts, is clear. One of the most striking 
 episodes in his career is his purchase of a small family 
 estate at Anathoth, in deference to a moral claim upon him 
 (Jer. xxxii. 6-15); it was at the beginning of the period 
 of his imprisonment, and while the siege was still raised. 
 Unconsciously, Hanameel, Jeremiah's uncle's son, was a 
 messenger of Yahweh. The prophet now became clear 
 that it was the divine purpose that the land should not 
 be utterly desolate, but that ' houses and fields and vineyards 
 should continue to be acquired therein.' So he wrote and 
 sealed the purchase-deed, took witnesses, paid the covenanted 
 price, and gave the deed to Baruch to preserve. 
 
 Certainly the contrast between Jeremiah and Zedekiah 
 is as striking as it could well be. The man in the prison 
 was far more kingly than the man on the throne. It would 
 seem that Zedekiah distrusted the prophet's assurance (Jer. 
 xxxiv. 4 f.} that his life would be spared ; and so on the 
 ninth day of the fourth month of Zedekiah's eleventh year, 
 this poor king's reign came to an end. A breach had been 
 made in the wall, and there was no more bread. A hurried 
 flight by the ravine of the Kidron, and then all is over. 
 Basely abandoned by his men-at-arms, the king is taken, 
 and conducted to the headquarters of the foe at Riblah, 
 where, as the retribution of his disloyalty, his eyes are put 
 out, his sons and ' all the nobles 2 of Judah ' having been 
 previously slain (Jer. xxxix. 6 f., 2 K. xxv. 6 f. 
 
 At Jerusalem the direction of affairs was assumed by 
 
 1 The sense here given to ' Kushite ' is justified elsewhere (see 
 T. and B. pp. 170 /., 181). Note also the name KushI in 2 S. 
 xviii. 2 1 ff. David himself probably came from the southern border- 
 land, though not from Kush. 
 
 2 On the horlm, see Ed. Meyer, Entstehung, pp. I32/.
 
 84 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 ' the captains of the king of Babel,' seated, like judges, in 
 one of the spacious gateways (Jer. xxxix. 3). But the 
 chief work was left to another high officer, who, after 
 plundering whatever was of value, 1 gave temple and palace, 
 and indeed all the city, to the flames, and broke down the 
 city wall. I wish that there were no importunate problems 
 to distract us. Is it possible, for instance, that Babylon and 
 the N. Arabian Babel may have been partners in the work 
 of destruction ? The names of the ' captains ' referred to 
 are partly of Babylonian, partly of N. Arabian origin 
 (p. 57); Nebuzaradan, too, like Nebuchadrezzar, is Baby- 
 lonian. At any rate, we cannot reject the evidence for 
 two invaders of Judah, or deny that captives were carried 
 away both to Babylon and to N. Arabia. 2 It is by a most 
 unkind fate that the written documents of the exilic and 
 post-exilic age which have been lost have been precisely 
 those which must have referred unmistakably to the Baby- 
 lonian captivity. 
 
 And what was the result of this event for N. Arabia 
 for Babylon for Israel ? The first part of this question we 
 cannot answer. The history of N. Arabia is to a great 
 extent a sealed book to us. On the other hand, if (as we 
 must believe) the Babylonians were, somehow or other, the 
 destroyers of Jerusalem, we can quite well state the result. 
 It was important to conquer Jerusalem as a step to the 
 reduction of the entire West. The next cities to be 
 mastered were Tyre and Sidon, and the ultimate object, of 
 course, was the possession of Egypt. How far Nebuchad- 
 rezzar realised his aspirations, I leave it to special historians 
 to consider. 
 
 Nor could I, without a renewed, serious, penetrating 
 criticism of the later portions of the Old Testament, venture 
 to answer the final question, What was the result of the 
 great catastrophe for Israel ? The question has, indeed, 
 been answered again and again, but a still more com- 
 plete and satisfactory answer needs, as it seems to me, 
 
 1 The temple utensils which still remained formed part of the spoil 
 (2 K. xxv. 13-17 ; Jer. lii. 17-23). 
 
 2 See my sketch of the History of Israel in The Historians' History 
 of the World (1908), ii. 24.
 
 ZEDEKIAH MORALITY AND RELIGION EZEK. VIII 85 
 
 to be given. Sooner or later we may trust that it will 
 be given. 
 
 SPECIAL NOTES 
 
 i. ON THE SACRED SERPENT (NEHUSHTAN) IN 
 2 K. XVIIL 4 b (p. 4) 
 
 There are two possible views of this serpent. It might 
 represent the primeval serpent of chaos and darkness, and 
 (by an allegorising which may have begun pretty early) of 
 evil. In that case it has the nature of an amulet. Or it 
 might be a symbol of the N. Arabian healing god, who went 
 with migrating N. Arabians to Phoenicia, and was there 
 called Eshmun ( = Ishmael ?) This view is favoured by 
 Num. xxi. 9. The tradition was that the serpent worshipped 
 by the people was that which Moses had made. Probably 
 it was ' a magic symbol which brought the divine Healer 
 near his people' (7! and B. p. 42). The divine Healer was 
 not originally Yahweh, but Yerahme'el ( = Ishmael) ; indeed, 
 2 K. xviii. 4 b (as originally read) gives, in a gloss, as two 
 current designations of the serpent, Yerahme'el (or some 
 form of that name) and Hashtan ( = Ashhur-Ethan). These 
 names underlie the very improbable words *b hDp" 1 and 
 jntBTO, to account for which corruptions see my explana- 
 tions of Judg. xv. 19 (En-hakkore\ Gen. iv. 22, Zech. vi. I 
 (Crit. Bib. pp. 183, 484; T. and B. p. 109). The name 
 Hashtan or Ashhur-Ethan suggests that some at any rate 
 explained the serpent as representing the power which was 
 always dangerous to Israel, whether it happened to be 
 Misrim or the more distant Ashhur. Ezekiel in fact repre- 
 sents Misrim as an evil serpent (Ezek. xxix. 3), and two 
 glosses found with great probability in the work of a name- 
 less prophet in 'Isaiah' (Isa. xxvii. i) explain the leviathan 
 in the eschatological picture as ' the serpent Ashkal-Ethan,' 
 and ' Asshur in Yaman.' That the symbol of cruel hatred 
 should be worshipped will not surprise any one ; it was in 
 order to avert evil. On Mr. Macalister's illustration of
 
 86 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 ' Nehushtan ' by a serpent of bronze found at the great 
 bdmah at Gezer, see Pere Vincent, Canaan, pp. 174-176. 
 
 H. PARALLELS FOR A CONFUSION OF KINGS IN 
 HEBREW NARRATIVES (pp. 29, 61) 
 
 i. i K. xiv. 25 f\ 2 Chr. xii. 2-12. A king of Misraim 
 (Egypt) called Shishak is said in the pointed text to have 
 assaulted and taken Jerusalem, and plundered the treasuries 
 of the temple and the palace. He is usually identified with 
 Shoshenk I. of Egypt (22nd dynasty), who made a suc- 
 cessful expedition into Palestine, recorded in the sculp- 
 tures on the south wall of the great temple at Karnak; 
 the date, however, is unknown. Recently the suggestion 
 has been made that there is probably a confusion between 
 two kings of Misraim and Misrim respectively. It was, of 
 course, no part of this theory to ' repudiate ' the expedition 
 into Palestine recorded by the very king who made it. 
 That is a careless misrepresentation of Prof. Flinders Petrie 
 (Researches in Sinai, 1906, p. 195) ; the theory was pro- 
 duced by the play of mind upon an Egyptian monument, 
 Assyrian inscriptions, and passages of the O.T., and is not 
 therefore a ' fantasy ' of ' unchecked literary criticism.' 
 
 The collection of cartouches, or ovals with names, was 
 published incompletely by Rosellini and Champollion, but 
 the closing part was first uncovered by M. Legrain in 1901. 
 W. Max Miiller, in 1905 (?), found a new line (Egyptological 
 Researches, vol. i., plate 85), and by a subsequent collation 
 in the summer of 1906 discovered that a much more 
 important line of the text had been overlooked, viz. the 
 closing line, which had been covered over with bushes and 
 rubbish. This will appear in vol. ii. of E.R. The names 
 Raphia and Ekron show that Philistia was not (as had been 
 supposed) omitted in the list (OLZ, Apr. 1908, 186-188). 
 
 There are three difficulties in the way of the ordinary 
 
 identification. (a) The list includes N. Israelitish ones. 
 
 The Hebrew text, however, only mentions Jerusalem. It is, 
 
 of course, open to us to conjecture with W. M. M. formerly 1 
 
 1 So too G. A. Smith, Expositor, March 1905.
 
 ZEDEKIAH MORALITY AND RELIGION EZEK. VIII 87 
 
 (E. Bib. col. 4486) that the Egyptian king only conquered 
 Judah, and was content with tribute from ' his old prottgt, 
 Jeroboam. Now, however, W. M. M. is less disposed to 
 question Musri, and thinks that Shishak's object was, ' not to 
 help Jeroboam, but to gain tribute and spoils from both 
 halves of Palestine.' ' Numerous cities, in fact the first and 
 greater part of the list, belong to Israel, the northern 
 kingdom, and thus give evidence of a conquest of Israel, 
 which our Biblical writers, from their exclusively Judaean 
 standpoint, did not deem worthy of mention.' l The Judaean 
 standpoint, however, does not always prevent the mention 
 of events affecting the northern kingdom. Why should it 
 here ? 
 
 (b) Presumably Shoshenk reasserted the dormant 
 claims of Egypt to the suzerainty of Palestine. Shishak, 
 however, is not related to have done so. True, ' Zerah the 
 Kushite' is also not said to have done so. But then, there 
 is very great doubt whether this invader with a Semitic 
 name 2 was a king of Egypt. 
 
 (c} The authority used by the Chronicler (2 Chr. xii. 3) 
 speaks of the Lubim, the Sukkiim, and the Kushites in 
 Shishak's army. ' Hitherto they have not been identified ' 
 (Petrie). Lubim, however, is most easily explained as = 
 Kelubim, i.e. Calebites, and Sukkiim is also probably a 
 N. Arabian name. 3 The Kushim and Lubim are also 
 mentioned as forming Zerah's army. 
 
 (d} If ' Shishak king of Q-nsD ' means ' Shoshenk king of 
 Egypt ' here, it ought to do so in I K. xi. 40. Winckler, 4 
 however, and the present writer, 5 have shown the improba- 
 bility of this. But to go further (as they did) and excise 
 ' Shishak ' in xi. 40 was an error. To understand proper 
 names, it is absolutely necessary that like should be grouped 
 with like, and that the common element should be accounted 
 for on fixed principles. partD should therefore be grouped 
 with ija?DJ (Jer. xxv. 26, li. 41) and pB?t (i Chr. viii. 14), 
 which are S. Palestinian or N. Arabian names ; indeed, ~\V} 
 or ptD is a short form of IDEM or intDN, a regional N. Arabian 
 
 1 Egyptol. Researches, i. 51. 2 See E. Bib., ' Zerah.' 
 
 3 Cp. T. and B. p. 397. 4 For references see E. Bib., ' Shishak. 
 
 5 Jewish Quart. Rev., July 1899, pp. 558-560.
 
 88 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 name. We can now see that Shishak is a development of 
 a shortened form of Ashhur, and in I K. xi. 40, xiv. 25, is 
 the designation of a N. Arabian king, who in the large sense 
 of the word was an Ashhurite. See T. and B. pp. 47, 
 187, 363- 
 
 It is possible, however, that the redactor confounded 
 Shishak with Shoshenk, which might easily pass into 
 Shoshak, the Hebrew text-reading. Cp. E. Bib., ' Shishak ' 
 (W. Max Miiller). 
 
 2. Isa. xx. As most suppose, we have here a prophecy 
 of the deportation of the Egyptians and the Ethiopians into 
 Assyria. But there was no probability of a conquest of 
 Egypt and Ethiopia by Assyria in Isaiah's time. The 
 prophet was too well informed not to know this. D^SD and 
 QTO must therefore mean, not Egypt and Ethiopia, but 
 Misrim and Kush in N. Arabia. The fatal blow here 
 announced might be expected to come from a greater N. 
 Arabian power with which we are becoming acquainted as 
 Asshur or Ashhur. The prophet is well assured that the 
 inhabitants of the south of Palestine would take notice of 
 the event, and fear for themselves. At the time when the 
 oracle was given, they were in alliance with Misrim. It is 
 inevitable, therefore, to assume a confusion in the redactor's 
 mind between one capture of Ashdod by a N. Arabian 
 Asshurite king, and another by the Assyrian king Sargon. 
 On the criticism of the chapter see Cheyne, Introd. to Bk. 
 of Isaiah, pp. 119-121, and Isaiah in SBOT (Hebrew 
 edition). 
 
 3. 2 K. xvii. 6 a. It is critically probable that not 
 only from Assyria but from the N. Arabian Asshur in- 
 vasions might be expected by the peoples of Palestine. 
 In the eighth century Isaiah gave a gloomy view of the 
 future, and, for him, the invader came from the south. 
 Isa. xxviii. 1-4, when scrutinised, 1 proves to contain a 
 prophecy of the conquest of the southern Shomer5n (or 
 Shimron) by the Asshurites. It may be this event which 
 is referred to in 2 K. xvii. 6 a, which tells how the king of 
 
 1 See Crit. Bib. p. 33, where, however, corrections are required. 
 D'jor most probably comes from D'JDB" ( = Ishmaelites), 'Di^n from 
 and |" from jv (cp. Introduction on this passage).
 
 ZEDEKIAH MORALITY AND RELIGION EZEK. VIII 89 
 
 Asshur took Shomeron, and carried Israel away to Asshur. 
 It will be found that the place-names and divine names in 
 2 K. xvii. "2^ff. are partly, at any rate, non- Assyrian. 
 There is probably a confusion in the redactor's mind 
 between the capture of Shomeron or Samaria and a 
 Shdmeron or Shimron in the south (see chap. iii.). 
 
 4. 2 K. xviii. 13-xix. It has been supposed and 
 very naturally that the discovery by Scheil of a fragment 
 of an official statement of Sennacherib respecting a second 
 expedition to the west provides an easy solution for the 
 literary and historical problems of the composite narrative 
 in 2 Kings. 1 I do not myself think that this is so. To me 
 it appears that the only part of the narrative which refers 
 to Sennacherib is the short extract from the Annals of 
 Judah in 2 K. xviii. 13^-16. The rest of the narrative 
 refers to a N. Arabian Asshurite invasion, and the redactor 
 has made a confusion between the two Asshurs. The 
 names which occur in the narrative are no hindrance ; 
 underneath them most probably lie distinctive N. Arabian 
 names. It is now possible to understand the saying of 
 Rab-shakeh in 2 K. xviii. 25 better (cp. pp. 36, 38, on 
 the Chronicler's version of the Neko -narrative). It is not 
 ' haughtiness,' but faith, which inspires it Rab-shakeh has 
 heard of Yah weh- prophecies, and gives them credit. 
 ' Yahweh said to me, Go up against this land, and destroy 
 it.' At this point it deserves to be mentioned that Sir H. 
 Rawlinson long ago 2 divined that there was a confusion 
 between two invasions; according to him vv. 13-16 refer 
 to one, and the rest of the narrative to another, which is 
 not described in the Annals that which ended in the 
 ' miraculous destruction ' of Sennacherib's army. Dr. Hincks, 3 
 the Irish Assyriologist, on the other hand, supposed a 
 confusion between an invasion by Sargon and one by 
 Sennacherib. Prasek 4 agrees with Rawlinson ; Scheil's dis- 
 covery had not yet been made. Hincks, at any rate, saw 
 that two kings were referred to. Rab-shakeh ( = Arab- 
 
 1 Cp. O. Weber, Sanherib : eine Skizze (1905), pp. 21-24. 
 
 2 G. Rawlinson, Herodotus (ed. i), i. 479. 
 
 3 Journal of Sacred Lit., Oct. 1858, p. 136. 
 
 4 Sanheribs Feldziige gegen Juda, i. (1903-4).
 
 90 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 Asshur) is a N. Arabian officer, and the king is the king of 
 Ashhur. In v. 24 the strange phrase ~rnN nnD should be 
 intDN nhs. ' Ashhurite governors ' is a gloss on ' servants 
 of my lord.' The names in v. 34 cannot here be discussed. 
 
 iii. ON JER. xxn. 13-19, 24-30 (p. 52) 
 
 I will now endeavour to set forth the grounds of my 
 restoration, starting from the very doubtful word "it&tD in 
 v. 1 4. After a full discussion Kamphausen l arrives at the 
 conclusion that ' a perfectly certain explanation can hardly 
 be obtained.' The context being equally doubtful, one may 
 assume corruption. It should be noticed that a number of 
 words beginning with (<, -jt&tt, ;m&>, pBHD ; cp. p. 87) 
 have turned out to be N. Arabian Asshurite names. One 
 can hardly doubt that the same origin should be assigned 
 to -itn&x 
 
 From the same point of view it is possible to restore the 
 true opening words of v. 1 3. It was not a house (rpl) 
 and upper chambers (Tffhs) that Jehoiakim thought of 
 building in the southern Asshur, but, as my reference to 
 2 Chr. xxvii. 4 may already have suggested, and as the 
 reference to Asshur in v. 14 further indicates, 'castles' 
 (nvavi = TO) and ' forts ' (mfmo). rrp^s occurs again in 
 v. 14, and should again be corrected (see below). Now, too, 
 we can see that m~TD TO (v. 1 4) is not an expansion of the 
 TO in v. 1 3, as if Jehoiakim specially coveted a ' spacious 
 house' ; surely Josiah, who had an ' Ishmael-chariot ' (p. 39) 
 could have managed to procure a sufficiently roomy palace. 
 The truth is that a fate attaches to JTTD and ni*7D. In the 
 phrases mo BTN (i Chr. xi. 23) and mo 'maw (Isa. xlv. 14) 
 certainly, 2 and in rvno "WaN (Num. xiii. 32) probably, JTTD 
 or rrno represents a N. Arabian regional name, such as nDT 
 or moT (where DT represents DIN). Here, too, rvno is more 
 than probably corrupt ; the best restoration is m^Tin, which 
 is naturally combined with JYTDTl, and is a correction of the 
 following rvpSs. The next words in v. 14 DTTnp rrrWi 
 
 1 Riehm, HWB des Bibl. Altertums ( -\ ' Mennig.' 
 
 2 In i Chr. xi. 23 mo r'N is a gloss on "IXD ; in Isa. xlv. 14 'o 'B-JK on 
 the preceding regional or ethnic names.
 
 ZEDEKIAH MORALITY AND RELIGION EZEK. VIII 91 
 
 are commonly rendered 'and airy upper chambers.' But 
 how can the feminine noun be combined with a masculine 
 participle ? Cornill proposes to point D"TTnD, a word which 
 can hardly be said to exist, and which, if it did exist, would 
 produce an unsuitable sense. Surely the approximately 
 right correction lies close at hand DHT1 mfrrlD. 
 
 That the next clause is specially difficult, Cornill is well 
 aware. Here I can only call attention to what is most 
 important. "itttzn has been explained already, but why is it 
 linked to rfltnen ? And what is to be done with TiNl pi Dpi ? 
 Surely the stress laid on cedar- wood (cp. v. 1 5 #) is un- 
 reasonable. From our point of view the questions can 
 be satisfactorily answered, "itB8?:i and TIN! are parallel. 
 TIN, like mi 1 and miN, represents "inftN. There is no 
 violence in this, nor is there any difficulty in penetrating the 
 mystery of poo, which is certainly miswritten for pas, here 
 (as in Josh. xiii. 27) a place-name. 2 mtDQ remains ; it must 
 be a corruption of a place-name, probably of ntDCTi 3 (some- 
 times less correctly written ptmn). The crown will be put 
 on our restoration if we succeed in accounting for "h inpT 
 "'S'pn. It is not enough to put on 1 to \nSn ; the ordinary 
 rendering of the clause is not natural. Nor can we venture 
 to connect the m^n of MT. with the architectural term in 
 Assyrian, bit hilani, ' fortified portico.' 4 Clearly since forti- 
 fied towns are spoken of, mp*i is best corrected into i?p:ri 
 (see 2 Chr. xxi. 17, Isa. vii. 6 [Hiphil], and pDDl 'Sl^n into 
 pasi pSrr. The place-name is not attested elsewhere, but 
 we do find pSn (Josh. xv. 51) and ]^TI (i Chr. vi. 43). 
 rrrrNl is a duplicate reading ; pD21 suffices. At the opening 
 of the Jehoiakim-section we should simply read rninrr, as 
 Cornill, following (J|. It is a description. 
 
 Verse 1 5 looks simpler, but has its own difficulties. 
 How can ^onrr possibly mean ' callest thou that being a 
 king ' (Cornill) ? Duhm would read l^onnn, ' showest thou 
 thyself a king ? ' Both interpretations imply that the next 
 words refer to Jehoiakim's preference for cedar-wood in his 
 buildings. But, as we have seen, 71N may, when circum- 
 stances favour this, be an offshoot of -int&N, and we shall 
 
 1 Cp. 'Zerah the Kushite.' 2 On JIBS see p. 42. 
 
 3 See T. and B. p. 261 (n. 2). 4 See Muss-Arnolt, s.v. xilani.
 
 92 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 now be prepared to admit that inn, which (H B presupposes 
 instead of riN, may represent mTN, i.e. "int&N. These 
 things, in fact, are only strange when we have no reservoir 
 of experience to fall back upon. It is from this reservoir 
 that we have to draw the analogies which make another 
 suggestion as natural as it is indispensable. This suggestion 
 is that INJIN, presupposed by A instead of TIN (miN)> is 
 really an equivalent of the word underlying TIN, being a sort 
 of popular symbol for yrs "int&N, ' Arabian Ashhur.' x The 
 sense therefore remains the same, whichever of these three 
 readings we find reason to prefer. And what as to mnno ? 
 Cornill's note only shows how difficult, nay how impossible, 
 the received text is. But now that we have restored the 
 ' castles ' and ' forts ' to their proper place, it should not be 
 difficult to restore the right word here. Must we not read 
 ITQnD (Dt ii. 5, 19)? And having proceeded thus far in 
 connecting our passage with the history of the times (cp. 
 pp. 50 fy, must we not give "pQnrr the meaning (which 
 obviously it can thoroughly bear), ' Shalt thou continue to 
 reign ? ' The idea is that neither courage nor some few 
 warlike successes will be a sure foundation for a throne, and 
 take the place of judicial accuracy and attention to the rights 
 of the poor. Josiah, as we shall hear presently, possessed 
 these royal virtues, and was rewarded by prosperity ; by 
 the same divine principle of retributive justice Jehoiakim 
 must fall. 
 
 And now as to the prophet's eulogy of Josiah (vv. i 5 - 
 16). The passage continues in MT., 'Did not thy father 
 eat and drink, and execute right and justice, then it was 
 well with him ? ' ' Eat and drink ' is surely unsatisfactory, 
 and ([, which renders nearly the same text, gives no real 
 help. We turn, then, to the moderns. According to 
 Duhm, the first characteristic of Josiah mentioned by 
 Jeremiah is his plain, bourgeois manner of life. Cornill, 
 however, thinks that it is not the simplicity of his life, but 
 his frank enjoyment of royal luxuries, for which, together 
 with his devotion to judicial duties, Josiah is praised. But 
 how strange that the same phrase should equally well mean 
 
 1 Similar corruptions occur in Hos. iii. I, iv. 18, viii. 13, ix. 10, 
 xi. 4, xii. 8, Mic. vi. 16 ; cp. T. and B. pp. 63 (n. 4), 286 (n. 3), 308.
 
 ZEDEKIAH MORALITY AND RELIGION EZEK. VIII 93 
 
 either bourgeois simplicity or royal luxury ! That some- 
 thing is wrong with the text, which here becomes unmetrical, 
 is plain. Order will be restored if we cancel if? TIJD 7N in 
 v. i 5 (at the same time restoring *p in the phrase in v. 16), 
 and above all omit nntZJ^] f^DN, 1 underneath which lie ^DEN 
 and rrntD, i.e. inN. ' Ashkal ' and ' Ashtar ' are suitable 
 glosses on the nTN underlying TIN. It is almost needless 
 to repeat that ^Dt&N (Gen. xiv. 13, etc.) is not to be read 
 'Eshkel' (as it = ' cluster '), but ' Ashkal' = Asshur-Yerah- 
 me'el. 2 Our prophet-poet has said that going to war with 
 Ezrah will not avert the dangers by which Jehoiakim is 
 threatened ; the gloss reminds us that other, perhaps more 
 familiar, names for the N. Arabian border-land are Ashkal 
 and Ashtar. At a later age these archaic words had them- 
 selves become corrupted, and increased the misunderstanding 
 of the passage. 
 
 On vv. 24-30. I must notice (after others) that in 
 v. 24 'son of Jehoiakim king of Judah ' is of course an 
 interpolation, and that the suffix for ' thee ' should presum- 
 ably be the suffix for 'him.' Vv. 25-27 are poor and in 
 good part prosaic. They seem intended to link ^.24 with 
 v. 28. In v. 28 'this man,' 'broken' (pDD), and 'he and 
 his seed ' are plainly scribal superfluities. As to pNH h$ 
 *urr ^nh ntD it has already been doubted by Duhm ; his 
 remedy, to read pNH "6s, ' upon the earth,' seems, however, 
 rather weak. The truth seems to be that itzJM, as often, 3 
 should probably be "ICJN ; liTT N^, in this case, is a scribe's 
 endeavour to make sense of a misread TEN ; the article in 
 pNTT is also scribal. The troublesome v. 29 (observe 
 Cornill's perplexity) is also the scribe's attempt to make 
 sense of material before him. pN (thrice in M.T., twice in 
 
 should only occur once ; ISDJD has come from a corrupt 
 'car pN is probably a gloss on IC^N pN. For the 
 overworking visible in v. 30 it is sufficient to refer to the 
 commentaries of Duhm and Cornill. 
 
 1 It is a common thing for one or two of the letters of a regional or 
 place-name to be lost. Thus inx often represents in^n. See also 
 T. and B. p. 109. 
 
 2 T. and B. p. 247 ; cp. pp. 18, 23. 
 
 3 Ibid, p. 328.
 
 94 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 iv. THE KASDIM OF HABAKKUK (p. 64) 
 
 It would make these pages too dry, and would be too 
 much of a digression, to mention all the evidence which 
 exists for the N. Arabian reference of the composite Book 
 of Habakkuk, and especially of that portion which may 
 fairly be assigned to the prophet Habakkuk. For that I 
 must refer once more to the appeal for a more thorough 
 criticism of the book in the Jewish Quarterly Review, 
 October 1907. But I may remark that in Hab. i. 16 the 
 Hashramim (Kasdim) are most probably spoken of as 
 offering sacrifices of thanksgiving, not to ' their net ' and 
 ' their drag,' but to ' Yarham ' and to ' Rakmith ' (i.e. to the 
 supreme god of N. Arabia and his consort). That scribes 
 and editors of Habakkuk should have inserted glosses to 
 explain D^mt&n (DHIW) is not surprising. Two such 
 glosses may be mentioned, both of which, at different places, 
 made their way into the text, and became corrupt, viz., 
 YiniDM N*irr, ' that is, Ashtor,' and DpT "01 DH, ' they are the 
 bene Yarkam (Yarham).' Of course the use of the name 
 Hashramim (or Hashrim ?) is archaistic. 
 
 v. NOTE ON EZEK. xvii. 3, 4 (p. 67) 
 
 Not to repeat from my predecessors, let me turn at 
 once to the difficult pair of phrases, ]iOD pN and D^DI TS. 
 The former is most naturally rendered ' the land of Canaan,' 
 the latter ' the city of merchants.' Clearly, however, these 
 renderings cannot represent the prophet's meaning. Feeling 
 this, translators have abandoned the natural meaning of p:o, 
 and substituted ' traffickers ' (A.V. ' traffic '), because the 
 Phoenicians were in their time the leading commercial 
 people. There is, however, no other passage in which pDD 
 will bear this rendering. The other passages quoted are 
 Zeph. i. 11, Ezek. xvi. 29. But, as to the first, though 
 ' the people of Canaan ' might conceivably mean ' the 
 Phoenician merchants,' yet ' the land of Canaan ' (Ezek. 
 xvii. 4) could not possibly be explained ' the land of 
 merchants,' with a depreciating reference to Babylonia.
 
 ZEDEKIAH MORALITY AND RELIGION EZEK. VIII 95 
 
 And the same criticism must unavoidably be passed on the 
 customary rendering of ncfHtW p33 pN-^N (xvi. 29), 'to 
 the land of merchants, to Chaldaea.' Clearly, then, ]W3 
 must in xvii. 4, as elsewhere, be a regional name, and 
 some regional or at least ethnic name must underlie D^"i. 
 The solution of the problem is pointed to in the article 
 ' Merchant ' in the Encyclopedia Biblica. In Neh. iii. 31,32 
 J, or less incorrectly D^DSl, has come from the ethnic 
 in Cant. iii. 6 SDVI has for its original ^NionT. 
 To complete the solution let it be pointed out that TS has 
 not unfrequently come from f is, i.e. ITS (see e.g. Gen. x. 1 1 , 
 Judg. i. 1 6, i S. xv. 5); also that there was a southern 
 ' Canaan ' in N. Arabia the name was in remote times 
 carried northward in the Arabian migration. Thus we get 
 as the rendering of Ezek. xvii. 4, 
 
 ' He cropped off the topmost growth thereof, and brought 
 it to the land of Canaan ; in Arabia of Yerahme'el he 
 set it.' 
 
 On the southern Canaan see further T. and B. pp. 85, 
 J 75> 475) 55- ^ is interesting that Ezekiel (xvi. 3) 
 traces the origin of Jerusalem to ' the land of the Canaanite,' 
 and presently uses ' Amorite ' and ' Hittite ' as equivalent to 
 ' Canaanite.' Now, we are nowhere told that Hittites dwelt 
 in Jerusalem ; in fact, ' wherever Hittites are mentioned the 
 surrounding contexts favour the view that a N. Arabian 
 people is intended' (7". and B. p. 194).
 
 PART II 
 THE LAW-BOOKS (EXCEPTING THE PRIESTLY CODE)
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 THE TWO DECALOGUES THE BOOK OF COVENANT 
 
 As far as we know, the young Israelite people had no royal 
 codifier of its laws no Hammurabi. It is true that Josiah 
 (as we have seen) was deeply interested in a certain law- 
 book, but no one can claim that he originated either this or 
 any other book of torah. Nor does such a distinction 
 belong even to that darling of Hebrew legend, Solomon, 
 though this king is expressly said in tradition to have been 
 a model of judicial correctness (i K. iii. 28). Indeed, we 
 may safely hold that if there were a civil and religious law 
 in written form among the early Israelites, it must have 
 been derived either from the Canaanites or from the 
 N. Arabians, 1 or from both. For the existence of legal 
 codes is a sign of no slight social progress, and the Israel- 
 itish communities, being younger than either of those 
 peoples, and in general the debtors of both, must surely 
 have been in this as well as in other respects their pupils. 
 Constantly it would happen that Israelitish families fell into, 
 or even deliberately adopted, Canaanitish or N. Arabian 
 practices, and for them a law-book was obviously desirable, 
 and if none such existed, the priests of Canaan or N. Arabia 
 would not fail to prepare it. The extent to which, in 
 these circumstances, the transformation of Israel proceeded 
 can be easily imagined. It may be a late prophet who 
 says (Mic. vi. 16), that 'the statutes of the Arammites are 
 
 1 It is interesting that Solomon's two scribes were ' bene Shisha ' 
 (i K. iv. 3), i.e. 'bene Ishmael' or N. Arabians, and that David's 
 scribe, according to i Chr. xviii. 16, was Shawsha, i.e. Ishmael. See 
 T. and B. p. 288. 
 
 99
 
 loo DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 observed, and all the practices of the house of Ah'ab,' l but 
 the same words might have been written much earlier ; and 
 for the due observance of statutes of non-Israelite origin, 
 even though Judah may have swarmed with N. Arabian 
 priests, 2 a law-book was indispensable. The Canaanites 
 and N. Arabians, in virtue of their precedence, must have 
 suggested the idea, but we can well believe that the idea 
 was quickly assimilated, and that highly rudimentary Israel- 
 itish law-books were forthcoming under the pressure of 
 circumstances, as, for instance, when Canaanites wished to 
 enter an Israelitish community that remained true to its 
 religion. At any rate, both in Canaanitish or N. Arabian 
 and in Israelitish sanctuaries such books, based on the 
 records of priestly decisions, would beyond question be 
 produced at the fitting time. 
 
 Nor can we doubt that even those early law-books were 
 quickly invested with the halo of sanctity, and were said to 
 have been received from the supreme God by some ancient 
 priest, or prophet, or king. More particularly would this be 
 the case when a law-book of greater length and complexity 
 proceeded from some specially venerated sanctuary. Such 
 a work would throw inferior law-books into the shade, and 
 either temporarily or permanently be called the law-book 
 par excellence of that ancient hero. It would be absurd to 
 carp at the morality of this procedure. Was it not reason- 
 able to hold that the civil and religious laws systematised in 
 such a collection were such as the reputed initiator of the 
 legislation, returning to earth, would have sanctioned, i.e. 
 that they were virtually Mosaic (cp. Mt. xi. 14)? And if 
 this explanation be thought too subtle for many of those 
 priests who called such a law-book Mosaic, and taught the 
 people accordingly, may we carp at these less clever but not 
 less devout men for their greater naivete"? In fact there 
 were some who even presumed to assert that the two tables 
 of stone were ' written with the finger of Elohim ' 3 a 
 
 1 T. and B. p. 63 (n. 4). 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 62, with n. i. Cp. Lev. xviii. 3 (prohibition of Misrite and 
 Canaanite practices). 
 
 3 Ex. xxxi. 1 8, cp. xxxii. 1 6. Note that in xxxiv. i nana might be read 
 either as 'R or as n . Apart from this, the whole of z/. i b, mricna in
 
 THE TWO DECALOGUES THE BOOK OF CO VENANT 101 
 
 childlike way of expressing the idea of revelation, 1 which 
 may be compared with the mythic story of the heavenly 
 tablets in the Books of Enoch and Jubilees sometimes 
 identified with the Pentateuch. 2 
 
 It has been stated already that the chief pre-exilic law- 
 book in its original form was possibly or probably intended 
 for the use of the Israelites in N. Arabia. Later on we 
 shall have to collect the evidence for this view. Nor can 
 we regard it as a priori improbable that some elements, at 
 least, of other law-books may have had a similar origin. The 
 case will present itself in the course of our study of the so- 
 called ' Book of Covenant,' which being, like the Code of 
 Hammurabi 3 and that of Deuteronomy, composite, offers a 
 fair field to the searcher after surprises. 
 
 It is a misfortune that we cannot determine the age of 
 the Book of Covenant as a whole, and of its several parts, 
 or that of the two decalogues of which I shall next speak. 
 The consequence is that these works give very little help 
 for exact historical research, though for the vaguer subject 
 of the development of religious and social ideas they supply 
 valuable material. We can, however, venture to say that 
 the collection of laws in Ex. xxxiv. 17-26 (preserved by J, 
 i.e. the Yahwist) is the oldest extant Hebrew work of the 
 kind. It stands in connexion with a narrative which tells 
 us, very simply and without any admixture of mythology, 
 how Moses ' hewed out two (fresh) tables of stone ' (v. 4), 
 and 'wrote upon the tables the ten words' (v. 28). From 
 this statement we see that what J furnishes is really a rival 
 narrative to that of E (the Elohist) ; it is now placed in 
 the background, because it could not be combined with E's 
 account of the giving of the Decalogue in Ex. xx. 4 It is 
 true that, as the text of J now stands, the words are not ten, 
 
 v. i a, as well as all v. 4, seem to belong to the redactor, who thus 
 made a bridge between chaps, xxxii.-xxxiii. and chap, xxxiv. (Well- 
 hausen, CH^ } p. 330.) See also Carpenter-Battersby, Hex. ii. 134. 
 
 1 T. and B. p. 568. 
 
 2 See references in Zimmern, KAT^ Z \ pp. 54o/. The Babylonian 
 origin is obvious. 
 
 3 See D. G. Lyon, 'The Structure of the Hammurabi Code,' 
 Journal of the American Oriental Society, xxv. [1904], pp. 258-278. 
 
 4 Wellhausen.
 
 102 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 but eleven. If, however, we omit the command that all the 
 men of Israel shall appear before their God thrice in the 
 year, as unnecessary in the context, we obtain a Decalogue. 
 And if we omit explanations where they occur, so as to 
 restore the ' terse and simple form ' of primitive laws, and 
 further transpose the laws in v. 18 and v. 19, and accept 
 certain important textual corrections, so as to get nearer 
 to the underlying original text, we shall arrive at the follow- 
 ing form of decalogue : 
 
 1. Thou shalt worship no other divinity (el). 
 
 2. Thou shalt make for thyself no molten gods 
 
 (eloh massekati). 
 
 3. Every first-born is mine. 
 
 4. Six days thou shalt work, and on the seventh 
 
 day rest. 
 
 5. Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread at 
 
 the time of the month Arab. 1 
 
 6. Thou shalt keep the feast of weeks, and the feast 
 
 of ingathering at the turn of the year. 
 
 7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice 
 
 with leaven. 
 
 8. The fat of my festal sacrifice shall not remain 
 
 unto the morning. 
 
 9. The best of the first-fruits of thy land thou shalt 
 
 bring to the house of Yahweh thy God. 
 IO. Thou shalt not put on the garment of a Yerah- 
 me'elite woman. 2 
 
 Neither this decalogue nor (much less) that in Ex. xx. 
 can be called primitive. A legislation which forbids the 
 use of graven or molten images implies that art has already 
 been pressed into the service of religion, and though we 
 may admit that moral duties must have been recognised by 
 the authors of the decalogue in Ex. xxxiv., yet the fact that 
 this decalogue is, and the other is not, purely religious (in 
 the narrower sense), requires a considerable interval between 
 the two. That the former decalogue (Ex. xxxiv.) is, even 
 if not primitive, relatively early, cannot, of course, be denied. 
 
 1 See on Dt. xvi. i. 2 See T. and B. pp. 5647.
 
 THE TWO DECALOGUES THE BOOK OF CO YEN ANT 103 
 
 The first two commands, it is true, are almost identical with 
 the corresponding ones in the greater decalogue, but Ex. 
 xx. 3 f. belongs to an element in that decalogue which is 
 at once early and late. At the time when that passage was 
 produced, it was still needful to protest against Yerahme'el's 
 being placed ' in front ' of Yahvveh, and against either 
 Yerahme'el's or Yahweh's being worshipped under the form 
 of a graven or molten steer. 1 The tenth command in the 
 earlier decalogue is one among other monuments of the 
 opposition of the Yahwists to a dangerous N. Arabian cult, 
 and will be referred to again in connexion with Dt. xiv. 2 1 , 
 xxii. 5. It will be noticed that I do not, like Wellhausen, 
 omit the Sabbath-law. The form in which this command 
 appears in Ex. xxxiv. 2 1 a is so different from what we 
 might expect, and from what we find in Ex. xx. 9, I o a, 
 that it is safer to retain it, only in a different place. 2 
 
 And now for the translation of the greater decalogue. I 
 omit as late insertions the supplementary passages in the two 
 forms of the Sabbath-law (in Ex. xx. and Dt. v.) ; also the 
 preamble, ' I am Yahweh thy God, 3 who brought thee out of the 
 land of Misrim, out of the territory of Arabia,' 4 though it is 
 quite in the spirit of the commands (cp. Ex. xxxii. 4 b, I K. 
 xii. 2 8 ). I may add that the supplement of the second 
 command contains an intrusive gloss stating that the makers 
 of graven images, who ' hate ' Yahweh, are Arabians or 
 Ishmaelites. 5 The images are images of Yerahme'el ( = 
 Baal); cp. Hos. ii. 10 (8). 
 
 1. Thou shalt not have other gods in front of me. 
 
 2. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven image. 
 
 3. Thou shalt not pronounce the name of Yahweh 
 
 thy God for vanity. 
 
 4. Remember (Dt., observe) the Sabbath day to 
 
 hallow it. 
 
 1 See Ex. xxxii. 4, I K. xii. 28 ; and cp. Crit. Bib. on I K., and 
 T. and B. pp. 35, 509. 
 
 2 So B. Baentsch and K. Budde. 
 
 3 Perhaps, however, here, and in the third command, we should 
 read ' Yahweh- Yerahme'el,' which was the fuller name of Israel's God 
 (7: andB. pp. 1 6, 28 /, 33, 35, S&3)> 
 
 4 T. and B. p. 549. 
 
 5 On the textual corruption see T. and B. p. 564.
 
 104 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 5. Honour thy father and thy mother. 
 
 6. Thou shalt not murder. 
 
 7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 
 
 8. Thou shalt not steal. 
 
 9. Thou shalt not bear false (Dt, vain = false) witness 
 
 against thy neighbour. 
 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house. 1 
 
 The date of this decalogue has been much discussed 
 without any decisive result There is, at any rate, the 
 possibility that it may be post-exilic. The use of shabbath 
 in the fourth command for the weekly rest-day has suggested 
 to Meinhold a date not earlier than Ezekiel, who not only 
 refers to the sabbath, but lays the greatest stress on its 
 exact observance (' my sabbaths '). For my own part, I 
 have a doubt whether mon DV has not been altered from 
 ''S'aiDn DT, ' the seventh day ' (see, in the first decalogue, 
 Ex. xxxiv. 2 1 ). At any rate, the absence of any very 
 definite hostile reference 2 to the cultus of N. Arabia, such 
 as we find at the close of the first decalogue, makes the 
 second less important for historical purposes, unless, indeed, 
 we point to the depreciation of forms of cultus implied in 
 the fourth, and to the heart-searching character of the tenth 3 
 of the commandments in Ex. xx. We are undoubtedly 
 fortunate in possessing law-books like the first Decalogue 
 and the Book of Covenant, belonging, as appears most 
 probable, to the early regal period. 
 
 It is the Book of Covenant (Ex. xx. 22-xxiii. 33) to 
 which we have now to direct our attention. This little 
 document, the origin of which, unlike that of Deuteronomy, 
 is unrecorded, has of late received much special study. It 
 is superfluous for me to summarise the work of others, 4 but 
 as regards the relations of this law-book to the Code of 
 Hammurabi I may record the opinion that influence of 
 the latter upon the former is far from probable ; to prove 
 
 1 Dt. transfers 'house' to the supplement, and substitutes 'wife,' 
 which Ex. rightly places in its supplement. 
 
 2 Unless one be implied in the first command. 
 
 3 But why should not ' coveting ' have been accounted a sin com- 
 paratively early ? 
 
 4 Cp. E. Bib.) ' Law and Justice,' 4 ; ' Law Literature,' 6-9.
 
 THE TWO DECALOGUES THE BOOK OF CO VENANT 105 
 
 such a thesis a much larger amount of plausible evidence 
 would have to be found. That both the Book of Covenant 
 and Deuteronomy may contain elements of non-Israelitish 
 origin can be admitted, but not that any of these came, 
 except indirectly, from Babylon. From Canaan and from 
 N. Arabia direct loans may, or rather must, have been 
 effected, but not from Babylon. Of course the comparative 
 study of the Code of Hammurabi and other legal collections 
 is both ethically and juristically important, but with that we 
 are not here concerned. 
 
 On the composition of the Book of Covenant there is 
 general agreement. It is made up partly of a series of 
 Divine Words containing directions as to religion and 
 worship, partly of a collection of Judgments, or judicial 
 decisions (of the king or the priest), adapted, like those 
 in Hammurabi's Code, to particular cases. The opening 
 direction (Ex. xx. 24, see p. 114) is very interesting. The 
 legislator endorses the objection to the use of iron in the 
 shaping of altar-stones, and opposes the tendencies which 
 may early have arisen, assigning a special sanctity to some 
 leading sanctuary, and have led in some degree to the 
 centralisation of justice. 1 He says that wherever, according 
 to the sacred story, Yahweh has met his worshippers, an 
 altar either of earth or of unhewn stones may be raised to 
 the Deity. Considering that, in the earlier form of that 
 story, the scene of the theophanies was in some part of the 
 N. Arabian border-land, 2 it is possible that this passage may 
 have come from some law-book intended for Israelites 
 residing in N. Arabia. The difficulty of deciding on the 
 original context of this antique prescription may perhaps be 
 relieved by this theory. It is possible that some of the 
 laws in Ex. xxii. 17-xxiii. 19 (see e.g. xxii. 19, xxiii. 19^, 
 besides Dt. xvi. 2 1 f.} may also have belonged to such a 
 document. Let us turn first to xxii. 19 (20). It has been 
 shown elsewhere 8 why the MT. cannot be right, and that the 
 
 1 Cp. Cook, The Laws of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi, 
 pp. 44 / 
 
 2 See Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel ( \ 907). 
 
 3 See T. and B. pp. 28 /. The closing words, 'except Yahweh 
 alone,' are defended as they stand by Eerdmans (Theol. Tijdschr., 1894,
 
 106 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 original text must have run, ' Thou shalt sacrifice to Yahweh- 
 Yerahme'el alone." This was no doubt suitable enough in 
 Canaan, but had a special fitness in the S. border-land, 
 where the worship of Baal or Yerahme'el as the supreme 
 member of the Divine Company was inveterate. Next, 
 with regard to xxiii. 19 b. Evidently some more important 
 matter than ' seething a kid ' was referred to in the original 
 text, as indeed appears from the recurrence of the command 
 elsewhere (see xxxiv. 26, Dt. xiv. 21, and what is said on 
 these passages in the present work). The N. Arabian 
 cultus is, in fact, touched here at a vital point. 
 
 The Book of Covenant is, in fact, another monument, 
 however small, of the old Israelitish religion, which even in 
 its purer form had a strong polytheistic element. One may 
 refer in this connexion to the much-disputed passage, Ex. 
 xxi. 6, where hd-elohlm means neither the judges nor any 
 sanctuary of Yahweh, but the company of the great gods, 
 whose director was sometimes said to be Yerahme'el, 
 sometimes Yahweh, and images or symbols of whom stood 
 probably in every house 1 ' behind the door and the post ' 
 (Isa. Ivii. 8 ; cp. Ex. xxi. 6). It was in the sacred presence 
 of these deities that the time-honoured custom described in 
 the law was carried out. It was they, too, who decided even 
 on small trespasses, such as occurred continually in daily 
 life (Ex. xxii. 8, note the plural verb). 
 
 Immediately after the law about seething kids (?) begins 
 the closing section of the book (xxiii. 20-33). It appears 
 to be an amplified version of a hortatory discourse, which 
 may or may not 2 be in its original place, but, so far as its 
 kernel is concerned, is certainly the work of the Elohistic 
 school (E). It commands the sole worship of Yahweh, who 
 promises to send a great Being called Mal'ak to conduct 
 Israel to the place prepared for it. Mal'ak will brook no 
 disobedience, for 'my name is in him.' In v. 23 (and 
 xxxii. 34) he is called Mal'aki, a form which <f$ and Sam. 
 
 p. 285), on the ground that Yahweh, though alone worthy of sacrifice, is 
 one of the Elohim (i.e. the supernatural beings). That is true, but 
 does not make the text-reading natural. 
 
 1 According to Eerdmans household gods are referred to. 
 
 2 Plainly vv. 20-22 do not cohere with what precedes.
 
 THE TWO DECALOGUES THE BOOK OF CO VENANT 107 
 
 also support in v. 2O, 1 and which, like Mal'ak, has been 
 shown with high probability to have been produced (in a 
 theological interest) out of a corrupt form of ' Yerahme'el,' 
 the name of the supreme N. Arabian God, who, to the early 
 Israelites, was still divine, but inferior to the great divine 
 director Yahweh. 2 It is true, the name Mal'ak suggests 
 the meaning ' messenger,' but the inadequacy of this 
 meaning is obvious. How, indeed, can ' face ' (pdmm} and 
 ' messenger ' be equally original and appropriate names of 
 one who was really the second member of the divine duad 
 or triad ? For ( face,' too, is a name of this great and good, 
 though sometimes stern, deity ; ' my face shall go,' says 
 Yahweh elsewhere (Ex. xxxiii. 14), 'and I (through Him) 
 will give thee rest.' 3 
 
 To bring Israel to ' rest ' was, of course, Yahweh-Mal'ak's 
 first object, but this by itself would not have sufficed. A 
 powerful enemy had to be conquered ; the present in- 
 habitants of the promised land had to be thrust out 
 (Ex. xxiii. 28). It was therefore added that a divinely 
 wrought terror (a panic) should come upon them, and that 
 if any of the foes should find a momentary refuge in some 
 inaccessible nooks, the swarms of hornets (cp. Isa. vii. 18), 
 well known, perhaps, from some ancient poem, should find 
 them out. Then (v. 29 f. being obviously a redactional 
 insertion) the same writer specifies the boundaries of the 
 original promised land (v. 31). It is not the only passage 
 which gives this information ; e.g. there is Dt. xi. 24, on 
 which I shall have to dwell later. The boundaries are 
 ' from the Yam-Suph as far as to the Yam-Pelishtim, and 
 from the desert to the stream.' What does this mean ? 
 I. As to Yam-Suph. Elsewhere 4 this difficult phrase has 
 been traced with some probability to an earlier form 
 Yaman-Sophereth (or Sarephath). 2. As to Yam-Pelishtim. 
 
 1 See, further, T. and B. p. 279. 
 
 2 There were, of course, opposing currents, and at times Baal 
 supplanted Yahweh. 
 
 8 In Ex. xxiii. 15 we again meet with 'my face.' Yerahme'el could 
 be spoken of as the divine representative in the cultus as well as in the 
 journeyings. See, further, T. and B. pp. 40, 58-60, 101, 277-280, 
 291-294, 318, etc. 
 
 * See on Suph, Dt. i. I, and cp. T. and B. p. 551.
 
 io8 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 That Pelishtim and Pelethim are really identical, and that 
 Pelethim (original vowels partly uncertain) comes from 
 D^bsn = D^IHN, has also been shown already. 1 Yam- 
 Pelishtim, therefore, probably represents Yaman Ethba'alim. 
 Thus in one direction the promised land extended from 
 Yaman of Sophereth to Yaman of the Ishmaelites (or of 
 some particular tribe of Ishmael). In Zech. ix. 10, Ps. 
 Ixxii. 8 the statement is more meagre, D^~"TS DT>. 3. Next, 
 as to the wilderness (so, too, Dt. xi. 24). We cannot 
 venture on identifications, but may suspect that the wilder- 
 ness meant is that of Shur, i.e. the southern Asshur or 
 Ashhur, 2 which, from Gen. xxv. 18, I S. xv. 7 (cp. <J| B ), 
 appears to have adjoined the land of Misrim. 4. As to the 
 stream ("ins). Both here and in Dt. xi. 24 (see note) the 
 stream referred to is apparently that of Ephrath ; Ephrath 
 (also Ephraim ?) was the name of a district in N. Arabia. 3 
 Hence it would seem that the land extended in another 
 direction from the wilderness of Asshur to the stream of 
 Ephrath. How far these boundaries are correctly given, it 
 is impossible to say. 
 
 The parallelism between Ex. xxiii. 28, 31 and Dt. 
 xi. 23 f. is obvious. The ideas must have been the 
 commonplaces of the writers of religious history from the 
 time of the Elohist onwards. Not that the Elohist (E) is 
 the sole producer of the close of the book before us ; the 
 original close has been amplified by a redactor of the 
 Deuteronomic school. Respecting this redactor there is 
 one point specially deserving of notice, viz., that he under- 
 stood the original significance of the name Mal'ak or Mal'aki, 
 for he makes Yahweh say, ' Mal'aki shall go before thee . . . 
 and I will cut them off' (v. 13). 
 
 1 T. and B. pp. 161, 312 ; also Introduction. 
 2 See E. Bib., 'Shur' ; T. and B. pp. 269, 559. 
 8 T. and B. pp. 262, 419.
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 DEUTERONOMY INTRODUCTORY 
 
 WE now pass on to a book which in its present form some- 
 what resembles the Book of Covenant Deuteronomy. In 
 an earlier form it was ' found ' by Hilkiah in the temple. As 
 we have seen, the priest so named is not to be carped at 
 for his statement on grounds derived from modern Western 
 morality. It was probably in accordance with ancient 
 priestly usage that he said to Shaphan, or to those whom 
 ' Shaphan ' represents, that he had found the great ' book of 
 direction. 1 As so often happens in the East, more was 
 meant than met the ear ; ' subterfuge,' as we use the word, 
 does not account for it. 1 Certainly, the cause of morality 
 gained from the publication of Deuteronomy. Why was it 
 that N. Arabian religion was required by that book to be 
 extirpated ? Because, on the whole, it was adverse to a 
 progressive morality. On the other hand, the fine spirit 
 of humanity which animates the Deuteronomic legislation 
 proves that the morality of its compilers was truly pro- 
 gressive. The considerate treatment of the stranger (ger) 
 deserves the highest admiration. On this and other topics, 
 see E. Bib., ' Deuteronomy,' ' Law and Justice/ ' Law 
 Literature.' The kindness to animals required in xxii. 6 /, 
 xxv. 4, also deserves notice ; xiv. 21 b, xxii. I o, however, 
 cannot be mentioned here. 2 
 
 Some able critics have called Hilkiah's law-book the 
 program of the strict Yahwistic party. Here again 
 
 1 Cp. H. P. Smith, Old Testament History (1903), p. 261. 
 
 2 See notes below. Sternberg, Die Ethik des Deuteronomiums 
 (1908), pp. 98 /., bases his view on the MT. 
 
 109
 
 I io DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 modernism (if the word may be so applied) has led to a 
 misunderstanding. The conception of a party program is 
 taken from our own political system, which may perchance 
 be the best for ourselves, but certainly receives no support 
 from ancient Oriental history. In the present case it has 
 apparently been overlooked by program-hunters, that the 
 Deuteronomic legislation contains much that is not distinc- 
 tively applicable to the age of Josiah. We can therefore 
 only venture to say that the religious details of the book 
 are in full accordance with what Hilkiah desired the king to 
 restore as the basis of the national life. 
 
 As to the extent of our document, it most probably 
 included a considerable part of Dt. xii.-xxvi., redacted, 
 adapted for a new sphere of influence, and furnished with 
 a preamble and a conclusion. Our object here is to search 
 the original record and its various accretions for any fresh 
 facts bearing on the religious history of Israel, and especially 
 for any textual phenomena which point to an underlying 
 text referring to N. Arabia. I say, N. Arabia, not Egypt. 
 It is a matter of no slight importance ( I ) that there is only 
 one passage in the whole of Deuteronomy in which an 
 Egyptian custom really does appear to be mentioned, and 
 (2) that that passage is outside the earliest part of the book. 
 I refer to the description of Egyptian irrigation in Dt. 
 xi. io, which, however, is not as clear as could be wished. 
 The supposed reference in xvii. 16 to the royal monopoly 
 of the horse-trade with Egypt disappears on a close 
 examination. 
 
 A general survey of the Deuteronomic legislation will, 
 of course, not be expected. Something may, however, 
 appropriately be said about the law of the one sanctuary 
 (Dt. xii. 5, etc.). The legislator cannot possibly have 
 intended it to apply to every region or district in which 
 Israelites were settled. That he designed it for the N. 
 Arabian district (see pp. I9/), where he himself dwelt, is 
 certain ; he did not design it for Israelitish Canaan, nor 
 would he have imposed it on the pre- exilic Israelitish 
 settlements which may have existed in his time in Egypt 
 and Mesopotamia. 1 He did, however, doubtless approve of 
 
 1 See the publications of Sayce and Cowley, Sachau, Schiffer.
 
 DE UTERONOM YINTROD UCTOR Y 1 1 1 
 
 its subsequent adaptation so easily carried out to the 
 use of Israel in Canaan. As to the fortunes of the N. 
 Arabian sanctuary, I would, of course, not speak dogmatic- 
 ally. There is no extant literary trace of the existence of 
 such a temple in Josiah's time, but we do hear (2 K. 
 xxiii. 8 ) of the destruction of certain bdmdth at a place 
 which bears the same name as that of the supposed seat of 
 the one sanctuary (see on Dt. xii. 5) of the N. Arabian 
 Israelites. That sanctuary was perhaps not much, if at all, 
 injured in the final invasion. We hear of eighty pilgrims 
 bringing offerings to this house of Yahweh (it can hardly be 
 another) after the fall of Jerusalem and the burning of its 
 temple (see p. 28). The story may, of course, be fictitious, 
 and yet there may have been at the period referred to a 
 temple in N. Arabia to which Israelite pilgrims could bring 
 offerings. If so, the idea is not an absurd one that psalms 
 may have been composed there by temple-ministers, and 
 that some of them may, like the famous law-book, have 
 been brought from this sanctuary to the restored temple of 
 Jerusalem, there to be altered and even transformed (though 
 not quite beyond recognition) for the use of later generations. 
 As I have ventured to say elsewhere, Ps. cxxii. is one of 
 those in the Psalter which can with most plausibility be 
 traced to the sanctuary in the border-land, and ' next to 
 it stand Pss. cxxv., and cxxxiii., cxxxiv. in their earlier 
 forms.' 1 
 
 Another point may be mentioned in this connexion, viz. 
 that there is one passage in the central part of Deut. 
 which actually presupposes the existence of a number of 
 sanctuaries. The passage is xvi. 2 1 , where it is forbidden 
 to raise Asherahs, or rather Ashhur-trees (see p. 113), beside 
 altars dedicated to Yahweh. The passage has evidently 
 been removed from its original context, perhaps indeed 
 from a different book one of N. Arabian origin. A 
 similar suggestion has been made already with regard to 
 Ex. xx. 24-26, xxii. 19 (20), xxiii. 19^; one's impression 
 is that Dt. xvi. 2 1 might perhaps have stood after the first 
 of these passages. We now proceed to a special study of 
 the great law-book. 
 
 1 The Book of Psalms (1904), ii. 184.
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 THE LEGISLATIVE KERNEL (CHAPS. XII.-XXVI.) 
 
 THE opening of our ' document ' may be fitly illustrated 
 from the Book of Covenant. This record, in its present 
 form, opens (Ex. xx. 23-25) with a prohibition of gold and 
 silver gods (cp. Hos. ii. 10), also with directions respecting 
 the right construction of altars, and a definition of the right 
 sanctuaries. Similarly the greater law-book begins (Dt. 
 xii. 2-7) with directions to destroy the wrong sanctuaries 
 and objects of worship (cp. vii. 5), and to recognise but one 
 sanctuary of Yahweh, the name of which, in the final form 
 of the law-book, is wrapped in mystery. To emphasise the 
 number (cp. Jer. xi. 13) of these mtkomoth, or holy places, 
 they are described as being ' upon the high mountains, and 
 upon the hills, and under every raanan tree.' What can 
 raanan mean ? It is something more than philological 
 curiosity which prompts the question. The solution of 
 verbal problems sometimes produces fresh evidence for 
 disputed facts. 
 
 The moderns waver between ' sappy-green ' and 
 ' luxuriant,' ' spreading.' Indeed the meaning had already 
 become uncertain when the Egyptian-Greek version was 
 made. Evidently it is not a mere rhetorical epithet ; it 
 distinguishes the trees which are suitable for holy places 
 from those which are not. It will be best to group it with 
 other tree-names, and seek for some explanation which will, 
 mutatis mutandis, be applicable to all. Such an one can, in 
 fact, be supplied on the assumption that the Israelites had a 
 close connexion with N. Arabia, which has left its marks 
 here and there in their phraseology.
 
 THE LEGISLATIVE KERNEL (CHAPS, xn.-xxvi.) 113 
 
 The parallel tree-names are (a) pt& p$ and (b} \sw rrt ; 
 these may safely be explained ' tree of Ishman,' ' olive-tree 
 of Ishman' ( = Ishmael). (c] hwn (Gen. xxi. 23), '(tree of) 
 Ishmael.' (cT) mis ?2 (Neh. viii. 15), 'tree of Ethbaal' 
 ( = Ishmael). (e) D"ao t ?N, ' Yerahme'el-trees.' (/) YiENn, 
 'tree of Asshur.' (g) Din ( = Din = int&N), '(tree of) 
 Ashhur.' (//) inr 1 rrt (2 K. xviii. 32) ' olive-tree of Ashhur.' 
 Accepting these very natural explanations, can we help 
 tracing pin to ^NDHT through the linking form pin ? To 
 justify this, one may refer to 1:3$ (Gen. xiv. 13) and p^lN 
 (Num. xxi. 13), both of which also come from modifications 
 of 9NDnT. If rz'mmon, like ra'anan, comes from raaman or 
 yerahme'el, we may conjecture that the Ra'aman-tree, or one 
 of the Ra'aman-trees, was a pomegranate, a tree which, in 
 Phoenician Cyprus, was sacred to Adonis. Other raaman- 
 trees may have been those mentioned in Hos. iv. I3. 1 
 
 It will now be clear that instead of ' every Ra'anan (or 
 Ra'aman) tree ' the legislator might just as well have said 
 ' every Ashhur-tree,' for ' Ashhur ' and ' Yerahme'el,' as 
 regional names, are nearly equivalent. 2 The trees referred 
 to were perhaps trees of the hills ; certainly they were trees 
 which struck the Israelites in N. Arabia as characteristic of 
 the land. Fitly, then, are ' raanan-trees ' mentioned in 
 xii. 2, etc., beside the mountains and the hills, and fitly may 
 we restore in xvi. 21, for p hi mQJN, 3 "intpN F$~^!> 'Thou 
 shalt not plant for thyself any kind of Ashhur-tree near the 
 altar of Yahweh thy God which thou makest unto thyself.' 
 There were, of course, different varieties of trees bearing this 
 name; one of them was called teasshur (Isa. xli. 19, Ix. 13). 
 Specially abundant were they in the N. Arabian territory 
 called Ephrath or Ephraim, if we are right in restoring, in 
 Hos. xiii. 15, for the unintelligible DTFN pn ('among 
 brethren '), D^inmN pi. I do not, at any rate, know any 
 equally good correction. The sense, ' Though he (the 
 southern Ephraim) be fruitful among Ashhur-trees,' is 
 satisfactory, especially when we consider that in chap. 
 
 1 T. and B. pp. 33, 457. 
 
 2 Ibid. pp. 23 / 
 
 3 Prof. G. F. Moore renders the MT. 'an Asherah any kind of 
 tree,' or 'an Asherah any wooden object' (E. Bib. col. 331). 
 
 8
 
 H 4 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 xiv. the imagery is clearly taken from the (southern) 
 Lebanon. 1 
 
 Here, however, it is the Ra'anan-trees which are spoken 
 of. The name is a fresh indication of the N. Arabian origin 
 of the popular Israelitish cult, and when in the later period 
 there had been a fresh infusion of Arabian elements into the 
 ' people of the land/ it is mentioned as a characteristic 
 offence that these people carry on a sensuous cult ' under 
 every Ra'anan-tree ' (Isa. Ivii. 5). 
 
 Among other directions to the faithful this may now be 
 noticed 'ye shall destroy the names of them out of that 
 place' (xii. 3$; cp. Ex. xxiii. 13, Hos. ii. 19, Zech. xiii. 2). 
 How well this enables us to understand the efforts of ancient 
 redactors to conceal the titles of the great N. Arabian 
 goddess, 2 and such transformations as D^TSto, ' goats,' 
 'satyrs' (Lev. xvii. 7, 2 Chr. xi. 15, and [see p. 26] 
 2 K. xxiii. 8) from D'nit&N, ' images of Asshur ' ! The com- 
 mand itself can be easily explained. Altars, images, and 
 names were thought to have magic power ; hence the need 
 for their annihilation by the enemies of the cult (cp. vii. 25, 
 ' lest thou be ensnared thereby '). The safest course with 
 images was to pulverise them ; see the story of Moses (Ex. 
 xxxii. 20) and of Josiah (2 K. xxiii. 4, 15, p. 22) ; cp. also 
 Isa. xxx. 22, 'thou shalt scatter them.' 3 
 
 The sanctuaries of ' the nations,' then, were to be 
 destroyed. But where was the pious Israelite to meet his 
 God? One answer is given in Ex. xx. 24 (see p. 105), 
 where a wide freedom is granted. In Deuteronomy, how- 
 ever (xii. 5-7, n, 13 f. t etc.), this earlier permission is 
 virtually abrogated. There is only one place at which both 
 sacrifices and dues can lawfully be offered. The name of 
 the place is not yet to be made known, but in due time the 
 place will be chosen, in order to become the depository of 
 the divine ' name.' For only when this depositing of the 
 name had taken place could there be a real cultus, by 
 which the supernatural powers wielded by Israel's God 
 might be attracted to earth for Israel's benefit. 
 
 1 See T. and B. t pp. 456-458, where vw is also taken to be a 
 corruption of iinr*. 
 
 2 See T. and B. pp. 18-22. 3 See Duhm, Jesaid, p. 193.
 
 THE LEGISLATIVE KERNEL (CHAPS, xn.-xxvi.) 115 
 
 The place would have to be chosen ' out of all your 
 tribes' 1 (i.e. tribal territories), and also (see v. 5) on the 
 other side of Jordan, p-p, however, is again and again a 
 scribal error for pnT. In proof of this note inT pT in 
 Num. xxii. I and elsewhere, which, regarded as a Hebrew 
 phrase, is hardly defensible. As is not unfrequently the case, 
 the error and the correction stand side by side. Probably, 
 then, beyond this stream (the Yarhon, or Yerahme'el stream) 2 
 lay the region in which Israelitish tribes or clans had their 
 first settlements, the region for which the Israelites and the 
 southern Arammites were continually striving. The place, 
 therefore, was not Jerusalem nor yet (as A. Duff thinks) 3 the 
 northern Shechem. True, it is just conceivable that the 
 expression ' the place which Yahweh your God shall choose ' 
 may have been made designedly vague to permit the 
 explanation of it as referring to Jerusalem. This, however, 
 is not a very natural view, and will hardly satisfy a keen 
 critic. 
 
 No other theory being forthcoming, we are compelled to 
 be somewhat sceptical as to the correctness of the phrase. 
 The analogy of similarly indefinite phrases in the MT. of 
 Gen. xii. I, xxii. 2, which cover over place-names, 4 suggests 
 that underneath inT "i0N there may lie concealed the name 
 of a region or city. If we admit this suggestion, we can 
 hardly doubt that the underlying name is Dm* 1 ItDN, ' Asshur- 
 Yarham (or Yerahme'el).' For the prefixed DIpD we may 
 compare DDE 'o in Gen. xii. 6. 5 The view is not really 
 difficult. Here, as so often, the text has been manipulated 
 by a redactor. As soon as ' Asshur- Yerahme'el ' was altered, 
 words had to be inserted to clear up the meaning of ' which 
 shall choose ' ; other alterations or insertions would also have 
 to be made on rhetorical grounds. 6 
 
 1 Cp. I K. viii. 1 6, xi. 32, xiv. 21, 2 K. xxi. 7. 
 
 2 See especially T. and B. pp. 228, 262, 456. 
 
 3 Theology and Ethics of the Hebrews (1902), pp. 139^ 
 
 4 Gen. xii. i originally ran, ' Take thy way from thy land and from 
 thy kindred to the land of Asshur-'Arab ' ; xxii. 2, ' Offer him there for 
 a burnt offering on Asshur- (or Ashhur-) Yerahme'el.' See T. and B. 
 pp. 219 (and note), 328. 5 See ibid. p. 220. 
 
 6 Obviously Dt. xii. 1 1 a is such an addition. Indeed the whole 
 of xii. 8-12 might well be spared.
 
 Ii6 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 So, then, in the original writing, not ' the place which 
 Yahweh your God shall choose,' but ' the place (or, sanctuary) 
 of Asshur- Yerahme'el ' was probably the designation of the 
 spot at which alone sacrifices and dues (Dt. xii. 6) might 
 legally be offered. It was also the name both of a mountain, 
 and of a city upon the mountain (see on Dt. iii. 17). 
 Another name for the sacred city may have been Beth- 
 Yerahme'el. 1 We have seen (p. 27) that it is prominently 
 mentioned in the account of Josiah's reformation. To 
 this subject we shall have to return later with reference 
 to the first of the ' concluding sections ' (chap, xxvii.) of 
 Deuteronomy. 
 
 We pass on to xiii. 6 ; the transition is an easy one. It 
 has been shown already that the reformation of Josiah was 
 specially an attack upon the cultus of Baal or Yerahme'el. 
 The God of Israel (Yahweh) may have been, in a certain 
 sense, a development of that deity, but in course of time he 
 had risen so far above Yerahme'el that Israelites of the 
 stricter school might be said to have forgotten the older 
 God. This act of forgetting, the writers of Deuteronomy 
 attribute also to the Israelites at large. They therefore 
 solemnly warn their people not to fall from their high estate 
 by going and serving other gods ' whom thou hast not known, 
 thou nor thy fathers, gods such as those of the surrounding 
 peoples, near or far, from one end of the land to the other.' 
 The near deities are Baal or Yerahme'el (regarded as a deity 
 separate from Yahweh), Asherah, and Ashtart ; the far-off 
 ones, those of the land of Asshur in the larger sense. To 
 these deities Israel owed no debt of gratitude. It was not 
 any one of them who had brought the people out of the land 
 of Misrim, and redeemed them from the ' territory of Arabia ' 
 (xiii. 5 ; see below). 
 
 And now comes an important result. The wise legislator, 
 who cannot help sanctioning the chief popular festivals in 
 spite of their heathen origin, and has, as far as possible, to 
 disguise this origin, seeks the means of doing so in the tradi- 
 tional history of his people (xvi. 1-15). It is not here denied 
 that the Yerahme'elites, from whom presumably the festivals 
 
 1 See Judg. ix. 6, 20, where KI^D is probably a corruption of some 
 form of
 
 THE LEGISLATIVE KERNEL (CHAPS, xn.-xxvi.) 117 
 
 were derived, and who were a cultured people, may have 
 regarded these institutions as commemorative. 1 But the 
 special turn given to the historical, or supposed historical, 
 basis of the feasts by the Israelite legislator was Israelitish. 
 To the spring festival called pesah (which was kept by night) 
 and the seven following days, in which only massoth (un- 
 leavened cakes) were eaten, he gave this explanation that 
 ' [out of Arabian Ashhur] Yahweh brought thee out of 
 Misrim, by night ' (xvi. i). 2 Here, ' out of Arabian Ashhur ' 
 seems to be a perfectly correct gloss on ' out of Misrim ' ; it is 
 equivalent to ' from the territory of Arabia ' in Ex. xiii. 3, in 
 a similar context. Philologically, of course, the name pesah 
 has a meaning unconnected with history ; it seems to denote 
 a peculiar limping or leaping dance, 3 specially characteristic 
 of the sanctuary at Penuel. 4 Penuel itself may have been in 
 a N. Arabian district, but the dance was taken up by the 
 prophets of Baal in general (i K. xviii. 26). The sacri- 
 fice of a lamb, however, in the feast of pesak, suggests the 
 cultus of Ashtart. 5 
 
 In a similar way he explains or justifies the so-called 
 'feast of Shabu'oth ' (xvi. 9-12) as a commemoration of the 
 time when Israel was a slave in Misrim. This is, of course, 
 merely a conventional edifying suggestion (cp. v. 15, xv. 15); 
 Shabu'oth, like the other feasts, is pre-Israelitish. How the 
 name Shabu'oth arose is an interesting question. The seven 
 weeks spoken of in v. 9 are an artificial addition, as we see 
 from the fact that the feast which is the counterpart of 
 Shabu'oth has no such strange prefix to the celebration. 
 Besides, the usual plural of sltabua, ' week,' is shabuim. 
 Grimme G connects Shabu'oth with shab'at, ' seven,' referring to 
 the Seven-divinity, i.e. the Pleiades (Ass. sibe, sibittt). He 
 is at any rate on the right track in supposing the current 
 Hebrew name to be an alteration of some heathen name (cp. 
 
 1 Cp. Winckler, Religionsgeschichtler und geschichtlicher Orient 
 (1906), p. 53. 
 
 2 T. and B. p. 549 (on Ex. xiii. 3-10). 
 
 3 Cp. E. Bib. col. 999 (with references). Ex. xii. 13, however, 
 alludes to the other root-meaning, viz., ' to pass over.' 
 
 4 T. and B. pp. 3g8/ 
 
 5 Barton, Semitic Origins, pp. 109/1 
 
 6 Das israelitische Pfingstfest, etc. (1907).
 
 Ii8 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 below, on Sukkoth). But is it certain that the Seven-god is 
 the Pleiades? Winckler identifies it with Nergal. 1 And 
 even if Beersheba may mean ' the well of the Seven-god ' 
 (Winckler, Grimme), can Yehosheba mean ' Yahweh is the 
 Seven-god ' (Grimme) ? That the myth of the Pleiades has 
 had an influence on Biblical phraseology, and even narratives, 
 may be partly granted to Winckler and Zimmern, 2 but 
 Grimme's fresh evidence for the Pleiades in the O.T. is 
 unconvincing. His references to the Harranian Moon- 
 Pleiades festival are more striking, though the results which 
 he deduces from them are unsatisfactory. For my own 
 part (in harmony with the best view of Sukkoth), I take 
 Shabu'oth to be a deliberately altered form of Shab'ith, 
 which appears to have been one of the titles of the goddess 
 Ashtart. 8 I venture to think that the feast of Shabu'oth 
 may have been of later origin than that of Sukkoth, and 
 have been differentiated from it. We must remember that 
 Ashtart was probably to the early Israelites, as well as to 
 the Yerahme'elites at large, the most popular member of the 
 divine duad or triad, 4 and that she was symbolised in the 
 zodiac as an ear of corn 5 = Aram. NnSntD (cp. our Spica). 
 
 The observance of the feast of Sukkoth also has a 
 historical basis, which he refers to the divine command, 'ye 
 shall dwell in booths seven days . . . that your generations 
 may know that I made the bene Israel to dwell in booths, 
 when I brought them out of the land of Misrim ' (Lev. 
 xxiii. 42 f. ; cp. Neh. viii. 14-17). This account, though 
 not given in Deuteronomy (see vv. 13-15), seems the natural 
 complement of what Deuteronomy says of the passover. In 
 reality, however, the feast called Sukkoth cannot have taken 
 its name from such an accidental circumstance as that given 
 by P. If those who in early times kept the feast did 
 temporarily dwell in booths (in spite of Neh. viii. 17), this 
 must have been from motives of pure convenience. It is 
 obvious that the agricultural Yerahme'elites must have had 
 
 1 Nergal as Saturn = the sun (AOF, iii. 266 (n. 7) ; cp. Gesch. Isr. 
 ii. 45). 
 
 2 Winckler, Gesch. Isr. ii. 83; Zimmern, KAT ( *\ p. 389. Cp. 
 Cheyne, Bible Problems, pp. 1 1 4 f. 
 
 3 T. and. B. p. 18 (n. 2). 
 
 4 Ibid. pp. i6/ 6 KAT & \ p. 428 ; cp. T. and B. p. 69.
 
 THE LEGISLATIVE KERNEL (CHAPS. XIL-XXVI.) 119 
 
 a festival of the ingathering which was characterised as 
 usual by orgiastic rejoicings ; the deity honoured on this 
 occasion would be Ashtart, the patroness of fruit - bearing 
 trees. The Israelites, who were one of the less-developed 
 branches of the Yerahme'elites, would naturally adopt this 
 festival in honour of the same gracious goddess. 
 
 Thus the original Israelite feast of Sukkoth was another 
 of those ' statutes of (the southern) Aram ' l which the 
 Yahwistic legislators attempted to render unobjectionable. 
 They attempted no doubt, but with what indifferent success 
 the indignant harangues of the prophets enable us to realise. 
 Two experiments were tried. One was that attested by the 
 original Deuteronomy : it was to confine, if possible, the 
 celebration of the autumn festival to the one sanctioned 
 temple. Another brought to light by textual criticism 
 was to modify the too suggestive popular name of the 
 festival, which seems originally to have been ' the feast of 
 Ashkalath ' (the fern, of Ashkal 2 ). By Ashkalath was meant 
 the goddess Ashtart, who had several titles, of which 
 Ashkalath was one, and perhaps ' queen of Ishmael ' : 
 another. Ashkalath was probably shortened into Ashkath 
 or Shakkath, and this, under manipulation, became first 
 Sukkath and then Sukkoth 4 (' booths '). The place-names 
 Salekah 5 (Salekath) and Sukkoth have in fact probably the 
 same origin. Sukkoth-benoth, the name of a chief deity of 
 Babel (2 K. xvii. 30) can now perhaps be more plausibly 
 explained. 6 
 
 It was natural (cp. I K. xiv. 23 f.~) that the legislator 
 who demanded the destruction of the bdmoth should also 
 denounce the practices specially connected with the worship 
 of Ashtart, such as the simulation of the female sex (xxii. 5 ; 
 
 1 Mic. vi. 16 (revised text) ; see T. and B. p. 63 (n. 4). 
 
 2 T. and B. pp. 18, 247, 315, 406. 
 
 3 Jer. vii. 18 (revised text) ; see p. 72, and T, and B. p. 18. 
 
 4 HommeFs idea (Grtmdriss, p. 90) that the feast-name Sukkoth is 
 = Sakkut, a secondary name of Ninib, so that the feast of Sukkoth was 
 originally a festival of Sakkut, is highly questionable. Sakkut is not 
 likely to have been known in Palestine, and the presuppositions of 
 Hommel's theory need testing. 
 
 5 T. and B. p. 397. 
 
 6 The original form would be something like Shakkath-Tebanith 
 ( = Ashkalath-Yithmanith). It is the N. Arabian Babel which is meant.
 
 120 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 see below) and the shocking usage referred to in Am. ii. 7 b. 
 Similarly in xxiii. 1 8 f. ( 1 7 f.) Israelites of both sexes * 
 are forbidden to become temple - prostitutes (kedeshlm^ 
 kedeshoth\ and (as seems to have been the custom) to bring 
 the proceeds of their occupation in payment of a vow to the 
 treasury of the temple. One remembers that one of Josiah's 
 violent reforming acts was to break down the houses of the 
 kedeshlm that were by the house of Yahweh (see p. 23). 
 But there is a phrase in our passage (xxiii. i8/l) which has 
 not, I think, yet been fully accounted for. What can 
 possibly be the meaning of the phrase ' the price (or, fee) of 
 a dog,' which is parallel to ' the hire (or, recompense) of a 
 zdnah ' ? Some have supposed that ' dog ' means ' servant,' 2 
 with the implication of fidelity, like kalbu in the Amarna 
 Tablets (75. 36, etc.) in the phrase kalbu sarrL It is 
 preferable, however, to take a hint from Hommel, 3 who 
 explains kalab from kalabu (kalibu} as a West-Semitic loan- 
 word in Babylonian meaning ' priest.' This is supported by 
 a Phcen. inscription from Kition (Cooke, Inscr. pp. 67 f.}. 
 We have still, however, to account for Dl^D. Granted that 
 male prostitutes may have ranked as priests, how came Dlf?D 
 to mean ' priests of a certain peculiar class ' ? And the 
 answer is D^jlfpD is a parallel formation to D"ne, which, as we 
 have seen (p. 23, n. 4), is probably = D^Dm, ' Rakmanites,' i.e. 
 ' Yerahme'elites.' Not only skilled priests came from the 
 land of Yerahme'el, but the male prostitutes referred to in 
 the passage before us. Apparently there was no feminine 
 form corresponding to 1^3. In xxiii. 19 the parallel to 
 :r?D is n317, which may perhaps be used contemptuously, for 
 it is not a technical term. It may be remarked that D"|}, 
 another technical term in the same Phcen. inscription, may 
 possibly have come from D'nirr. By a curious coincidence 
 Ephrem the Syrian writes thus, ' It is the star-goddess who 
 led astray her own worshippers the Ishmaelites, and into 
 our lands is she come, whom the sons of Hagar (Arabia) 
 
 1 Cp. Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion To-day, p. 1 49 (n. 3). 
 
 2 W. R. Smith approaches this view, Rel. Sem. m , p. 292 (n. 2). 
 See also Barton, Sent. Origins^ p. 251 (n. 2), who even compares 
 Num. xxxii. 12. 
 
 8 AHT t p. 115 ; Grundriss, p. 91 (n. 2).
 
 THE LEGISLATIVE KERNEL (CHAPS, xn.-xxvi.) 121 
 
 adore' (ii. 457). 1 Thus we see again the wide influence of 
 the old N. Arabian religion. 
 
 In this connexion one may best refer to the somewhat 
 obscure passage, xxii. 5. According to Driver the prohibition 
 which it contains is peculiar to Deut. ; whether that is really 
 the case, remains to be seen. It is, at any rate, as the 
 commentators remark, directed against simulated changes of 
 sex, connected with the cult of Ashtart. 2 The obscurity of 
 the Hebrew lies in a single word "^o, which cannot without 
 arbitrariness be said to mean ' garment,' and still less a 
 combination of objects such as dress, weapons, staff, etc. 3 
 With experience of new methods Dillmann would certainly 
 have seen that ^D, nearly as D^N^D in v. 9, comes from some 
 form of ^NonT, nil from TO, and r6o&? from rv^NSDBT. 
 There have also been two transpositions, and OUT 1 has 
 come from mi^ri. Thus we get ^NDnT Til ITiT nh 
 rrWoBT HtZJN Til miSn N*n nwn-hs, 'The garment of 
 a Yerahme'elite shall not be upon a woman, neither 
 shalt thou put on the garment of a woman that is an 
 Ishmaelite.' 
 
 To confirm this result let us direct our attention to 
 xiv. 21 and xxii. 9-11. Both passages have already been 
 explained elsewhere. 4 The former has most probably come 
 from ir^Ncrrr *m tm^n xh, ' Thou shalt not put on the 
 garment of a Yerahme'elite woman.' The latter a three- 
 fold enactment will, in this context, reward a fuller 
 treatment. Sorely has it perplexed interpreters. ' Why,' 
 they ask, ' should a vineyard not be " sown with divers 
 seed " ? And why refer, in prohibitory terms, to the singular 
 case of ploughing with an ox and an ass together? Why, 
 too, should there be a prohibition of garments composed of 
 linen and wool together ? ' A writer in the Encyclopedia 
 Biblica (" Dress," 7) suggests that the object of the law 
 may have been to mark the distinction between the priest 
 
 1 Quoted by Barton, JBL x. 81. 
 
 2 For historical instances see Driver, Deut. p. 250. Reclining on 
 Yerahme'elite garments is an abuse denounced from a religious motive 
 in Am. ii. 8 (T. and B. p. 360, reading D <( ?cn). 
 
 3 See BDB, s.v. '*>. 
 
 4 T. and B. pp. 565 f., where Ex. xxiii. 19 and Lev. xix. 19 are 
 also considered.
 
 122 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 and the layman. But did the priests wear garments of the 
 mixed material ? This may be supported by Josephus 
 (Ant. iv. 8, 11), but is opposed to Ezek. xlvii. 17, where it 
 is said that " no wool shall come upon them." And can 
 tDZasitf really have been taken to mean " linen and wool " ? 
 The writer of Deut. xxii. 1 1 may seem indeed to have given 
 the word this meaning, but the Sept., with its KiftSr)\ov, 
 shows that some early students thought differently. Surely 
 73&&ID cannot be the right reading. Nothing is gained by 
 conjecturing that the term, and indeed the law itself, may be 
 of foreign origin, unless some other reason than our con- 
 venience can be offered for the conjecture.' l 
 
 It is to the credit of two recent critics that they have 
 made fresh attempts to account for the strange enactments 
 in this paragraph. Comparing Isa. xvii. 10 Bertholet offers 
 the conjecture that the legislator may here express the 
 primitive conception that different objects belong to different 
 religious circles, and consequently ought not to be mixed. 
 Steuernagel, on the other hand, discovers a reference to the 
 cultus of the powers of nature, and even perhaps to the 
 fusion (here condemned) of two deities. Neither critic 
 apparently has suspected the traditional text, and yet, 
 whenever these seemingly insoluble problems of exegesis 
 arise, it is the duty of a textual critic to search for traces of 
 an underlying text, which a redactor received in an already 
 corrupt form, and emended to the best of his own uncritical 
 judgment. Now in -vv. 9-11 there are a number of words 
 which, at a first glance, an experienced critic would suspect 
 to be, in their combination, corrupt, and which he would be 
 able with some confidence to correct. Until any one 
 proposes something better (wholly different it will hardly be), 
 I venture to restore the text thus, SNDTTP [rrtDN] briND vh 
 nan [iJnn-N 1 ? : inNiim min TEN -pit ^NDm^] cnpn-jn 
 : DTU&SD "ikp[i] rpiwm [-m] cn^n nh : ^Normm ; that is, 
 ' Thou shalt not espouse a Yerahme'elite woman, lest thou 
 consecrate to Yerahme'el thy seed which thou sowest and 
 the produce thereof. Thou shalt not keep feasts in Shur 
 ( = Asshur) and in Yerahme'el. Thou shalt not clothe thee 
 
 1 ' Some Testing Biblical Passages,' Amer. J. of Theology, April 
 l 9Si P- 33- v ~ [ i rnnn (xxii. 10) is a dittograph.
 
 THE LEGISLATIVE KERNEL (CHAPS, xn.-xxvi.) 123 
 
 with the garment of a Shinarite woman in Missor of 
 Pelishtim (Pelethim).' l 
 
 The easiest words to correct in the MT. are "IDID, 2 D^N^S, 3 
 rr^DH, 4 DISH, 5 TIE, 6 "inn, 7 Virr, 8 IDS, 9 because experience 
 shows that names of peoples or regions may be expected to 
 underlie them. That fpNOirv in various forms is repeated, 
 is a not uncommon fact ; in the above restoration repetitions 
 are neglected. That nm has dropped out after ennri is 
 also not surprising ; the eye would easily overlook the 
 second occurrence of EN. 
 
 We can now see more clearly how repugnant the un- 
 reformed Yerahme'elite cultus had become to the adherents 
 of a more progressive religion. The legislator not only 
 forbids the evil usages in force at Yerahme'elite festivals, 
 but also (cp. vii. 3 ; Josh, xxiii. 1 2) prohibits mixed 
 marriages, as tending to a fusion of religious practices. 10 
 Now too, perhaps, we can understand better a difficult 
 passage in Zephaniah (i. 8 f.}. Those who are ' clothed 
 with foreign clothing ' are those who, in order to take part 
 in N. Arabian festivals, put on special N. Arabian garments. 
 Those who leap over the threshold are those who take part 
 in some N. Arabian sacred dance, 11 and the house which 
 they fill with the produce of ' violence and deceit ' is some 
 temple of Armon, i.e. Yerahme'el. 12 
 
 In xviii. lof. other special 'abominations' are forbidden. 
 One is child-sacrifice, a terrible rite, known in Canaan, but 
 not apparently in Babylonia, and probably borrowed from 
 
 1 Or Pelishtim or Pelethim = Ethbaalim ; see Introd., p. xxi. ; 
 T. and B. pp. 192, 312. 
 
 2 Probably from jDna = j03\ Cp. \apfMav, {, Ezek. xxvii. 23, = MT. 
 iD"?3, i.e. VKDHT, also 1103, Gen. x. 8, Mic. v. 5, probably from pai 
 
 3 Another corruption of VKDHT, like SKD-D and IK^D (in '' ixVa) ; also 
 , I S. xv. 4, from VxvDn' ('OB"). 
 
 4 Also from Wonr ; cp. T. and B. on N^D, Gen. xxiii. 9. 
 
 5 See Introd., and cp. Crit. Bib. on D-o.vrra, Jer. vi. I. 
 
 6 Shortened from -KITH (see Gen. xxv. 12, and cp. T. and B. 269). 
 
 7 A modification of cnv (see T. and B. p. 32 n. 2). 
 
 8 See Isa. xxxi. 3, explained in Introd. 
 
 9 See Crit. Bib. on 2 K. iii. 4, Ezek. xxvii. 18. 
 
 10 T. and B. p. 566. 
 
 11 Ibid. pp. 398 / 
 
 12 o.vriN is probably a corruption of poix ; cp. T. and B. pp. 55, 569.
 
 124 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 N. Arabia. 1 The others are various kinds of magic and 
 divination. That the Arabian neighbours of Israel were 
 devoted to soothsaying is undeniable. The Ekron where 
 Baal-zebub (Baal of Ishmael) gave oracles to his wor- 
 shippers (2 K. i. 2) was probably in N. Arabia. 2 Isa. ii. 6 
 has already been referred to. Lastly, in the original form 
 of the story of Bil c am it is plain that he was regarded as a 
 N. Arabian soothsayer, skilled beyond others in the use of 
 spells. 8 
 
 One of the technical terms for magicians and sorcerers 
 in xviii. 1 1 is "^ST 1 11N ^N&. Here again it is difficult to 
 be satisfied with the general attitude of scholars. Does 
 TIN really mean ' a bottle,' or ' a hollow cavern,' or a revenant ? 
 Or is it, as Schwally thinks, connected with IN, ' father,' the 
 plural being lYON ? And does "'Uirr really signify ' a very 
 knowing one ' ? The sense indeed is plausible, but how, if 
 we adopt it, are the two technical terms for superhuman, 
 oracle-giving spirits to be distinguished ? ' It is hard,' 
 remarks a writer in the Encyclopedia Biblica (col. 1121), 
 ' to establish the distinctions offered by Robertson Smith 
 and Driver, the data for forming a judgment being so 
 slight.' Let us see if the problem admits of a clearer 
 solution than has yet been proposed. 
 
 The facts are well set forth by Driver ; 4 it is needless to 
 repeat them at length. Some modifications, however, seem 
 required in deference to textual criticism. I begin by 
 remarking that we must not infer, either from the list of 
 terms in xviii. 1 1 (where ' one that consults the dead ' 
 follows ' one that asks an ob or a yiddeont), or from Isa. 
 viii. 1 9 (' that chirp and that mutter ') and xxix. 4 (' thou 
 shalt speak out of the earth,' etc.), that ob and yiddeoni 
 mean spirits of the dead. It should be noticed that in 
 Isa. xix. 3 the list of the givers of oracles opens with D*W>N 
 and closes with D^ST, and that in the same passage, and 
 there only, we find mention of the so-called D^BN. Now 
 Isa. xix., as can be shown, in the original underlying text, 
 
 1 T. and B. p. 52 ; KAT*\ p. 599; Vincent, Canaan, pp. i88/, 
 cp. 194. 2 T. and B. p. 109 ; Crit. Bib. p. 353. 
 
 3 T. and B. pp. 40 (n. 3), 41, 190. 
 
 4 Deuteronomy ', pp. 225^
 
 THE LEGISLATIVE KERNEL (CHAPS, xn.-xxvi.) 125 
 
 relates, not to Misraim (Egypt), but to Misrim (the N. 
 Arabian Musri), and the land of Misrim was regarded as a 
 Yerahme'elite region. 1 We ought not, then, to be surprised 
 if the givers of oracles in this land bear Yerahme'elite 
 names. For instance, it is probable that crteN comes from 
 D^IHN (Ethbaalites = Ishmaelites), especially as &N in 
 I K. xxi. 27 and Hos. xi. 4 has been shown 2 to come 
 most probably from SsiriN. Next, as to D"W>N. It is 
 hardly less probable (as has also been shown) that this 
 word (certainly neither from ^N, nor = Ass. aldlu, ' weak ') 
 is a shortened form for D^NDm\ in the sense of ' images of 
 Yerahme'el.' And is it not equally reasonable to look for 
 a N. Arabian origin for miN and trsjrp? (a) For the 
 former we may take a hint from the IN and ^IN in proper 
 names, which, as has been shown, most probably come from 
 11N = -Q$ = Tm 3 In short, mnN means, probably, neither 
 ' ventriloquists,' nor ' revenantsj nor ' fathers,' but ' images of 
 Ashtart ' ; rVTm or rather JTiris is probably the original 
 form both of UN (properly 'IN) and of miN ; rP2ns is a 
 title of the great N. Arabian goddess. 4 (U] For the latter 
 we may most reasonably assume an original form D^NT 
 (cp. pN and -IDS, which have the same origin) = D^Ncnv, in 
 the sense of ' images of Yerahme'el ' (like D^^N). These 
 two terms, then, refer to the god Yerahme'el and his consort, 
 who were regarded (as Isa. viii. 19, xxix. 4 show) as oracle- 
 giving deities of the under-world. It was by means of images 5 
 (probably rude enough) of these deities that necromancers 
 undertook to consult the spirits of deceased persons. It 
 should be noticed in this connexion that in 2 K. xxiii. 24 
 rvQN and D'OJTP are combined with D^Dnn ; now teraphim^ 
 as i Sam. xix. 1 3 shows, were images, and, as we learn 
 from Ezek. xxi. 6 and Zech. x. 2, were reputed to give 
 oracles to those who consulted them. Also that in i Sam. 
 xxviii. 7 the phrase TIN nSia ntDN most probably means, 
 not ' a woman who (through a spell) can command a 
 
 1 T. and B. p. 32 (n. 2). 2 Ibid. p. 406. 
 
 3 Ibid. p. 286. 4 Ibid. p. 19 (n. 6). 
 
 5 Staerk (Das Deuteronomiam, 1894, p. 96, n. i) has already 
 suggested that 'oboth and yidde l onim may represent images used in the 
 cultus.
 
 126 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 familiar spirit,' but ' a woman of ( = devoted to) the 
 Baalah of Arabia' (llN or IN representing 11?). In such 
 a passage, however, as Isa. xxix. 4 TIN represents not 
 yrs, but JT3*is, ' the Arabian goddess ' or ' an image of the 
 goddess.' 
 
 The repugnance to Yerahme'elite religion which had 
 sprung up among Yahweh-worshippers appears, if I am not 
 mistaken, in the underlying text of xxiii. 2 (i). I do not 
 agree with the commentators that the reference of the 
 legislator is to two surgical operations producing the 
 condition of a eunuch. The context makes it much more 
 probable that some ethnic or ethnics originally stood in the 
 text. Considering a number of textual parallels elsewhere, 
 and also the writer's preoccupation with N. Arabian divina- 
 tion, it can hardly be difficult to approximate to the original 
 text. It is probably best to read the opening words thus 
 'Q1 miD f)GfoD1 DpT riDS, i.e. ' A seer of Rekem and a 
 sorcerer of Koreth (shall not enter into Yahweh's com- 
 munity).' Rekem is a frequent corruption of Yarham, 1 and 
 Koreth (like Kerith, I K. xvii. 3) comes from the regional 
 name Ashhoreth. 2 
 
 This result may inspire us with the hope of recovering 
 the true text of v. 3 (2). 'A bastard shall not enter' is 
 surely incorrect ; TIDD, so long a subject of controversy, 3 
 ought to be a corruption of some well-known ethnic. The 
 nearest as regards the component letters is "not, which 
 occurs in Jer. xxv. 25, and (from its position in the list) 4 is 
 evidently an Arabian ethnic ; it is also the name of an 
 usurper of the throne of Israel (i K. xvi. 9), probably of 
 N. Arabian origin. A collateral form pDT occurs in Gen. 
 xxv. 2. I have elsewhere 5 expressed the opinion that the 
 
 1 T. and B. pp. 51, 286, 308, 370. 
 
 2 Ibid. pp. 23, 46, 213. 
 
 3 See E. Bib., 'Mamzer' (col. 2916). 
 
 4 It occurs between 'Arab (so read twice in v. 24) and 'Elam 
 a shortened form of Ishmael or Yerahme'el (see Ezra ii. 7, 31 = Neh. 
 vii. 12, 34). See Crit. Bib. ad loc. 
 
 6 E. Bib. col. 2916; cp. Geiger, Urschrift, pp. 90 /; Bertholet, 
 Stellung, pp. 142^, and Deut. p. 71. Kennett, however (Journ. of 
 Theol. Studies, July 1906, p. 487), rashly infers from vv. 4 ff. that 
 Deut. was probably composed later than the destruction of Jerusalem.
 
 THE LEGISLATIVE KERNEL (CHAPS, xn.-xxvi.) 127 
 
 whole passage xxiii. 2 ff. must be post-exilio. I would now 
 add that while Neh. xiii. 1-3 distinctly connects Dt. 
 xxiii. 4-6 with the age of Nehemiah, it is quite possible 
 that the passage may have been worked over or expanded. 
 But however this may be, it seems clear that a connexion is 
 presupposed between Israel and the N. Arabians, 'Pethor' 
 being a distortion of ' Pathros l (the traditional reading of 
 the word), i.e. probably Sarephath. 
 
 We have seen already that the Deuteronomist takes an 
 interest in traditional history. Thus, in xxv. 17-19 he refers 
 to the feud between Israel and Amalek. The Amalekites 
 (a backward branch of the great Yerahme'elite race) 2 are 
 accused here, not of worshipping God in improper ways, 
 but of altogether rejecting the true ' fear of God ' by attack- 
 ing the feeble Israelites who were in the rear of the post 
 (cp. Ex. xvii. 8). The passage begins with the emphatic 
 admonition, ' Remember what Amalek did to thee by the 
 way, when ye had come forth out of Misrim.' It is very 
 singular that in xxiv. 9 the same form of phrase occurs, 
 though with some difference in the historical reference. 
 The traditional text reads thus, ' Remember what Yahweh 
 thy God did to Miriam by the way, after that ye had come 
 forth out of Misrim.' The allusion seemingly is to Num. 
 xii., where Miriam is struck with leprosy for seven days, as 
 a punishment for the lead she had taken in mutinous 
 speeches against Moses. But has the original text come 
 down to us unaltered ? A prefixed passage (y. 8) contains 
 a warning to Israel to attend carefully to the authorised 
 exponents of the law in the difficulties arising out of a case 
 of leprosy. How is this warning made more effectual by a 
 reference to the exclusion of Miriam from the camp for 
 seven days ? The answer is that the admonition gains 
 nothing in force by such a reference, and we are further 
 driven to the assumption that either v. 8 or v. 9 is a later 
 insertion, the remedy suggested by Steuernagel 3 being both 
 
 1 T. and B. pp. 40 (n. 3), 
 
 2 Ibid. pp. xiii, 562. 
 
 3 This scholar reduces the exhortation to the words, ' Take heed in 
 the plague of leprosy. Remember what Yahweh thy God did to 
 Miriam.'
 
 128 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 insufficient and too arbitrary. We can hardly doubt that 
 the later addition is v. 8. If such an important subject as 
 the ' plague of leprosy ' were referred to at all, it would not 
 be in such brief and uninstructive expressions as we find 
 in v. 8. 
 
 But why, then, was the addition made ? We shall 
 only be able to answer when we have examined the text 
 of v. 9. An isolated and obscure reference to Miriam is 
 most improbable. The obscurity of it must soon have been 
 felt, and this accounts for the prefixing of v. 8, which 
 represents an early but a vain attempt to throw light on 
 the passage. Taking this improbability, together with the 
 parallelism in form between xxiv. 9 and xxv. 17, we cannot 
 but conclude that ' Miriam ' is wrong, and, if so, that 
 ' Yahweh thy God ' is also wrong. D"HD, like N"IOD l (Gen. 
 xiii. I 8), probably comes from JDhTi ( = f?NOnT), a gloss on 
 the phtw underlying TH^N, while mrr is a redactional 
 insertion, and h (in D"nof?) comes from "p. Thus we get 
 an exact parallel to xxv. 17, which one cannot help think- 
 ing must have been misplaced ' Remember what Amalek 
 (gloss, ' Ra'aman) did unto thee in the way, when ye had 
 come forth out of Misrim.' 
 
 It may be helpful to add in passing that the improbable 
 words in Mic. vi. 4 b, ' and I sent (nStDNl) before thee 
 Moses, Aaron, and Miriam,' should probably be, 'and I 
 overcame (tt&ON^) before thee Ishmael, Ashhur, and Aram ' ; 2 
 also that in Num. xx. 10, 'Hear now, ye rebels 
 should probably be, ' Hear now, ye Aramaeans ( 
 Until some better corrections of the texts can be offered, I 
 venture to adhere to these not unreasonable suggestions. 
 Those who defend the originality of the text of Dt. xxiv. 9 
 have to explain why the severe punishment of the sister of 
 Aaron should be referred to as a reason for obeying the 
 injunctions of the priests concerning leprosy. 
 
 Whether the admonition respecting Amalek formed 
 part of the original book seems to me very doubtful. It 
 may perhaps more naturally be regarded as an early 
 appendix. Another appendix we may reasonably find in 
 chap. xxvi. In vv. 1-15 we have an account of two 
 
 1 T. and B. p. 229. 2 Cp. E. Bib. col. 3073 (n. 2).
 
 THE LEGISLATIVE KERNEL (CHAPS. XIL-XXVI.) 129 
 
 liturgical ceremonies to be performed by the Israelite in 
 Canaan, and of the forms of prayer and profession. In 
 one of these forms (v. 5) occurs the remarkable statement 
 that the father of the people was ' a wandering Aramaean ' 
 ("TIN ''DIN). The phrase represents the earliest tradition, 
 according to which Jacob was an Aramsean or Yerahme'elite 
 of N. Arabia. The pointed text adds that he ' went down 
 into Misraim and sojourned there (consisting?) in a few 
 men, and became a nation, great, mighty, and populous.' 
 But ZDSD TID3, ' in a few men,' is most improbable. The 
 idiom is not free from harshness, and if it means that the 
 descendants of Jacob who went down into Egypt (?) were 
 but few in number, it adds nothing to the force of the 
 statement. Indeed, if we omit it, the effect of the passage 
 is heightened. But now call in the aid of textual criticism 
 as applied elsewhere, and the troublesome words can at 
 once be accounted for. The dropping of a letter of a word 
 is common ; assume, therefore, that TID comes from Sion 
 (> and 1 confounded), which, like fnnriN, repeatedly (e.g. 
 Isa. xxx. 33) stands for ^NSDUr. Assume, too, that BSD 
 comes from nDSQ (see my note on za$DD, Ps. cv. 12, in 
 Psalms, 2nd ed.). We then get ' in Ishmael-Maakath,' 
 which is a suitable geographical gloss on 'in Misrim.' In 
 fact, it was in the N. Arabian land of Misrim that the 
 Israelites (or their ancestors) sojourned (see T. and B. 
 pp. xviii-xix, 545-547, etc.). 
 
 One more possible reference to Misrim still deserves 
 our attention. It is contained in the law of the king in 
 xvii. 14-20. Probably the whole passage is a later in- 
 sertion; 1 vv. 18-20, at any rate, plainly belong to the 
 post-exilic period. But, whenever it was written, it was 
 still remembered (see v. 15) that foreign soldiers of fortune 2 
 had forced their way to the throne of Israel. V. 16 has 
 evidently received interpolations. 3 In its original form it 
 ran, ' But he shall not get for himself many horses (or, 
 
 1 On the date cp. Bertholet, Deut. p. 55 ; Cornill, Introd. p. 55. 
 
 2 E.g. Zimri, Tibni, Omri. Cp. E. Bib., ' Tibni.' 
 
 3 Erbt (Die Hebraer, p. 1 69, n. I ) takes ' in order to multiply 
 horses ' to be interpolated; Steuernagel would omit v. 16 b. Both 
 scholars seem to be right. 
 
 9
 
 130 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 Ishmaelites ?), and so cause the people to return to Misrim.' 
 The latter words are to be illustrated by Hos. xi. 5, where 
 we should read, ' He shall return to the land of Misrim/ 
 i.e. he shall be brought thither as a captive ; both in 
 Deuteronomy and in Hosea it is the punishment of Israel 
 that is referred to. With regard to the 'getting many 
 horses' it is certainly not impossible that horses may have 
 been procured from Misrim in N. Arabia, 1 and it is certain 
 that trust in horses, or fear of horses, in warfare is con- 
 demned in several O.T. passages (e.g. Dt. xx. I). It is 
 also possible, however, that the reference to horses is due 
 to a misunderstanding. Again and again (e.g. Isa. Ixvi. 20) 
 D^DID appears to be a popular corruption of D^NSDB?* 1 z 
 (through D^DDD). This may perhaps be the case here. If 
 the underlying text of I K. v. 6, x. 26, has been correctly 
 determined, 3 Solomon had a small standing army of N. 
 Arabians. There may be a reference to this, supposing 
 that the writer had before him a correct text of Kings ; 
 there is certainly a reference to Solomon's polygamy in 
 v. 17. If so, the legislator may mean that any king of 
 Israel who collects such an army does it at his own peril. 
 His punishment will be a second captivity and oppression 
 of his people in the land of Misrim. 
 
 Some further notice, however, is due to the expressions 
 used in v. 16 b. The interpolator (as one must think) refers 
 to a ' word ' of Yahweh to the effect that Israel shall not 
 have to return that way (i.e. to Misrim). Such a word or 
 promise it would be difficult to find. Are we to suppose 
 that it once existed in some generally known record ? Or 
 does the interpolation refer to the already corrupted text of 
 Hos. xi. 5 (see above), ' he shall not return to the land of 
 Misrim ' ? The latter seems the more natural view. The 
 interpolator looked at these words by themselves, and re- 
 garded them as a divine word of promise. 
 
 1 See T. and B. pp. 462-464. 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 488 (n. 2) ; note remark on 'ODD, i Chr. ii. 40. 
 
 8 See Crit. Bib. pp. 320 (top), 333, but note that on p. 320 D'DID 
 should have been traced to D'DDO. David, indeed, had also a similar 
 standing army or guard the so-called Kerethites (Ashhartites) and 
 Pelethites (Ethbaalites).
 
 THE LEGISLATIVE KERNEL (CHAPS, xn.-xxvi.) 131 
 
 We have now completed the most important part of our 
 search, and found abundant evidence of the N. Arabian 
 atmosphere of the original Deuteronomy. The legislation 
 in chaps, xii.-xxvi. is largely directed against Yerahme'elite 
 or N. Arabian practices dangerous to adherents of the pure 
 religion of Yahweh, and the law of the One Sanctuary is 
 framed in the interest of a temple which, while religiously 
 separate from the impurities of N. Arabian worship, is 
 nevertheless, geographically speaking, Yerahme'elite. The 
 persons, too, who are addressed are commanded to keep aloof 
 from the ' statutes of the Aramaean ' (as a prophetic writer 
 calls the N. Arabian usages), 1 and yet they had to declare 
 most solemnly (xxvi. 5) that their great ancestor Jacob 
 had been ' a wandering Aramaean,' i.e. a Yerahme'elite. 
 
 It must now be clear to demonstration that such a law- 
 book as chaps, xii.-xxvi. (putting aside the question as to 
 interpolations or later additions) was in urgent need of 
 adaptation before it could be deposited and subsequently 
 ' found ' in the royal temple of Jerusalem. With great re- 
 dactional skill the references to N. Arabia have been, for 
 the most part, emended out of existence. That lexico- 
 graphical and exegetical difficulties have been created 
 thereby cannot, however, be denied, and it is the study of 
 these problems in the light of a theory that has helped us 
 in our need elsewhere which has enabled us to solve them 
 more adequately than has yet perhaps been possible. 
 
 Besides these verbal and phraseological alterations, the 
 law-book referred to needed an introduction and a con- 
 clusion. The terror excited in Josiah (as the well-known 
 narrative states) by the reading of ' this book ' (2 K. 
 xxiii. 1 1-13) or, at any rate, in other persons, when they 
 read it for the first time, and the references (vv. 16, 19) to 
 the grievous fate announced in the book for Jerusalem and 
 its inhabitants, suggest that it contained, not only laws, but 
 extremely solemn curses on the people in the event of their 
 disobedience. Such curses would naturally form part of the 
 conclusion, though it is impossible to point them out in the 
 present Deuteronomy. The introduction would as naturally 
 
 1 Mic. vi. 16; see T. and B. p. 63 (n. 4).
 
 132 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 give a statement of the situation of the Israelites immedi- 
 ately before the crossing of the border-stream ; the speaker 
 would, of course, be Moses. We cannot, however, attempt 
 to recover this preamble either from chaps, i.-iv. 43, or 
 from the second portion of the existing introduction of 
 Deuteronomy, chaps, iv. 44-xi.
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE FIRST PREAMBLE (l. I -IV. 43) 
 
 IN spite of what has just now been said, we are compelled 
 to scrutinise closely the existing introduction and conclusion 
 (in their different parts). Our object is, not to detect the 
 original preamble, but to find any possible or probable 
 references to N. Arabia. Here, too, it is not impossible 
 that references may occur to an early tradition of the N. 
 Arabian residence of the Israelitish clans. Such references 
 are not unlikely to occur in passages which contain some 
 strange verbal or phraseological difficulties. And behold, 
 such difficulties actually meet us in the very first verses of 
 the first chapter. ' Terribly corrupt,' is Cornill's verdict on 
 i. i, 2. But ought we to sit down, cowed by such a 
 remark ? I think not. ]TTTT 112H ceases to puzzle us l 
 when we see that pv in the early traditions is repeatedly 
 miswritten for ]rrr, 2 a border-stream (as exegesis leads us to 
 assume) in N. Arabia. It now at once becomes probable 
 that the ins of the text (like the -as of Gen. x. 21, 24 /) 
 has arisen out of TTSJ, ' Arabia.' 3 
 
 Let us now proceed hopefully to the hard problems 
 which follow. And first we notice (still in v. i) the words 
 ^1D rmtfl 11~TD1. Why should not rms be miswritten 
 for Tis (as in xi. 30, Josh. xii. 3 ?), and SlD be a shortened 
 form of ^NSOBT or SNEJTP (as in iii. 29, iv. 46, xxxiv. 6 ?) ? 
 For the latter, cp. ^"IDMN from ^snriN (cp. on TID, xxvi. 5). 
 If so, we shall get the phrase 'cnT H"]^3> ' in Yerahme'elite 
 
 1 Sometimes this phrase is supposed to refer to the east, sometimes 
 to the west, of the river Jordan. 
 
 2 See T. and B. p. 229. 3 So presumably often elsewhere. 
 
 133
 
 134 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 Arabia.' ITTD may perhaps be misplaced, and stand pro- 
 perly before fpo, a word which, like the feminine form HDTD 
 (Num. xxi. 14), probably comes from IDD (in nDD mp), the 
 ^eminine form of which (mco) occurs in Ezra ii. 5 5 ( = Neh. 
 vii. 57), and may be identical with nois. 1 Then follows a 
 group of names, mostly difficult. The origin of pND is 
 treated elsewhere. 2 Note here that in xxxiii. 2, ' the 
 mountain-country of Paran ' and ' Meribah in Kadesh ' are 
 parallel. Paran, therefore, was at any rate in the Yerah- 
 me'elite region. f?DH is not = et-Tafile in N. Edom, but 
 identical with nf?D = f?in = WiriN. 3 pf? (which has nothing 
 to do with moon-worship) is, both as a tribal and as a place 
 name, of S. Aramaean origin. 4 msn has sprung from 
 rnhQJN, a feminine form of the regional name nni&N. 5 ITTT 'H 
 ((J|, Kara-xpixrea) is, of course, parallel to the strange- 
 looking name im ''D 6 (as if ' waters of gold ' in Gen. 
 xxxvi. 39), and also to mrm 7 (Gen. xxxvi. 32). im seems 
 ultimately to come from ^NSDHF ; 8 "Hr or p and i> should 
 be corrupt fragments of some ethnic or regional name such 
 as pM or Dm 
 
 V. 2 in the traditional text runs thus, ' There are eleven 
 days' (journey) from Horeb by the road to mount Seir to 
 Kadesh-barnea.' But is it in the least probable that the 
 preamble of our Deuteronomy should contain a statement 
 of the distance from Horeb to the so-called Kadesh-barnea ? ' 
 Considering how often numerals cover over ethnic or regional 
 names, and how often D[l]^ stands for ]&, which again and 
 again (through JQJT or foor) represents either f?Norrp or its 
 equivalent ^NSDOr, 9 should we not for n*p IMS TnN restore 
 ]D? [IB&N] inmN ? 10 One may venture to add the conjecture 
 that Mil in r n Bnp (Kadesh-barnea) comes from ]in (cp. 
 
 1 T. and B. p. 551. 2 Ibid. p. 242. 
 
 5 Ibid. pp. 1 6 1, 312 (n. 2). Cp. pax = pin* (ibid. p. 50, n. 3^ 
 
 4 Ibid. pp. 123, 345. 5 Ibid. pp. 23, 319. 
 
 6 Sayce, letter in Academy, October 22, 1892 ; Marquart, Funda- 
 mente, p. 10. 
 
 7 71 and B. p. 430. 8 Ibid. p. 433. 
 
 9 Ibid. pp. 6 (n. 3), 161. 
 
 10 Note that inx and try are here taken as representatives of int?K and 
 nr'K respectively. Ashhur and Asshur, of course, are alternative forms, 
 but Ashhur is to be preferred.
 
 THE FIRST PREAMBLE (I. i-iv. 43) 135 
 
 ), a corruption of Jon, i.e. f?NDm\ Such corruptions 
 abound ; the true meaning of the names was, of course, 
 forgotten. 
 
 What, then, is the origin of vv. I and 2 ? How has the 
 present text grown up, assuming the textual corrections 
 suggested above ? ' These are the words which Moses 
 spoke to all Israel ' that this is the true beginning of the 
 little superscription cannot be questioned. But where did 
 he speak them ? This had to be stated, but it is difficult to 
 make out exactly what the redactor said. Probably it was 
 frr-prr niO, ' in Arabia of the Yarhon,' and as a gloss upon 
 this a scribe added ^NonT ^"1^5, ' in Arabia of Yerahme'el/ 
 and again mDiD -QTnil, ' in the wilderness of Sophereth 1 
 ( = Sarephath).' Some other late scribe, who had access 
 to lists of names, inserted ' between Paran, and Tophel 
 ( = Ethbaal), and Laban, and Haseroth ( = Ashhoreth), and 
 Aram-Ishmael.' For these names it would have been much 
 simpler to give the well-known compound name, Asshur- 
 or Ashhur- Yerahme'el. So thought the ancient scholar who 
 inserted the name which, in a highly corrupt form, has 
 become ' eleven days.' This final misreading was perhaps 
 facilitated by an accident. A few words, which may have 
 been meant as a gloss on ' Turn you and take your journey ' 
 in v. 7, found their way (as is often the case) into the text 
 in a most inappropriate place. The words are ' from Horeb 
 towards mount Seir as far as Kadesh-barnea (Ra'aman).' 
 
 Verse 5 is at first sight a second version of v. I a. The 
 truth is, however, that the compound verbal phrase INI S^irr 
 is corrupt, so that v. 5 is no sentence at all. Natural the 
 phrase rendered ' undertook to explain ' certainly is not, and 
 the existence of a word 1N3, ' to explain,' is extremely 
 doubtful. 2 With so many analogous cases before us we 
 can hardly help restoring yrg ^NnnT, 3 on which INID ptO. 
 may be a (possibly incorrect) gloss. The words rrt&o 
 
 1 Neh. vii. 57 ; cp. T. and B. p. 382. 
 
 2 In xxvii. 8, Hab. ii. 2 (the only other passages where "ma occurs), 
 ma can be shown to be corrupt, and in Hab. I.e. to have most probably 
 originated in any. (Cp. also la-i, xxxiii. 25 b, from a?Jf3.) 
 
 3 S'jnn probably from VKDnr, sometimes with vh prefixed (redaction 
 ally ?) as in Jer. ii. 1 1.
 
 136 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 rmnrrnw may be due to a redactor who had 
 before him ill-written words (which really constitute glosses), 
 of which he could make nothing without conjecture. 'nnT 
 y& is itself, presumably, a gloss, which may very possibly 
 be intended to state that the kingdoms of Sihon and Og 
 were in ' Arabian Yerahme'el.' 
 
 The speech of Moses is retrospective. It begins with a 
 version of a divine command to the Israelites to journey on 
 from Horeb to the promised land (i. 6-8). This region is 
 represented as in Arabia. Using results arrived at elsewhere 
 (see references below), we find it described as embracing the 
 land of the Canaanite, and (the southern) Lebanon, while the 
 farthest limit ("is) of the region was, not ' the great river the 
 river Euphrates,' but ' the river of Gilead, the river of Perath 
 (i.e. Ephrath).' Between 'the hill -country of the Amorite ' 
 and ' the land of the Canaanite ' comes a list of districts 
 which adjoin the ' Amorites,' and are ' in Arabia (read 
 intf-i), in the mountains, in the Shephelah [in the Negeb], 
 and in Rehob-Yaman.' In the parallel passage, Josh. ix. I, 
 the Negeb is not mentioned ; perhaps it is here only by 
 accident. How far the geographical names in this and 
 similar lists represent separate regions, we cannot say. 
 One or two remarks may be added. That ' Amorites ' 
 means properly ' highlanders ' and ' Canaanites ' means 
 * lowlanders ' is a pure imagination. The two designations 
 may quite well be synonymous (see on ix. I f.}. See, 
 further, T. and B. pp. 195, 174 /. ; on the southern 
 Lebanon, ibid. p. 457 ; on the southern streams, ibid. 
 pp. 262 f. (cp. 91); and on Rehob-Yaman, ibid. pp. 
 498, 504. 
 
 Passing over matters more fitly treated elsewhere, I 
 stop next at ii. 10-12, which is rightly regarded by Steuer- 
 nagel as a later insertion. Such antiquarian notices are 
 absurdly unsuitable in the mouth of the divine Speaker. 
 Nor is the annotator's accuracy by any means beyond 
 reproach. The Emim (T. and B., p. 241) and the Anakim 
 (ibid. p. 121) are both Yerahme'elite peoples, and therefore 
 akin to the Israelites ; and the Horites are not cave-dwellers, 
 but simply a branch of the Asshurites (ibid. pp. 241, 424). 
 That the Horites were destroyed by the bene Esau may be
 
 THE FIRST PREAMBLE (I. i-iv. 43) 137 
 
 a purely gratuitous statement, based, perhaps, on the corrupt 
 reading p-wrr "atD* 1 in Gen. xxxvi. 20 (T. and B. p. 425^!). 
 That they dwelt in Seir is probably correct, and from Gen. 
 xx vi. 34, if rightly read (in T. and B. p. 364), it appears that 
 Esau's first wife was a Horite. For the Rephaim see on iii. 1 1. 
 That ' Rephaim ' means ' giants ' is of course wrong, though 
 the tall stature of the earlier masters of Canaan certainly 
 formed part of Israelitish folklore (Num. xiii. 33, Am. ii. 9). 
 
 Another late antiquarian notice has to be considered. 
 But first let us seek to illuminate a somewhat obscure 
 passage which precedes it. In ii. 1 8 we read, ' Thou art 
 now about to pass through the region of Moab, Ar.' To 
 suppose that there was a district dominated by the city 
 of Ar, would be hazardous. It will be observed that in 
 vv. 9, 1 8, and 29 (B, however, in 9, 18, gives 4766/7), (> has 
 A.porjp (but A in 29, Apo^X). Now ISYIS (Aporjp) is most 
 probably a compound name, iis, like im (see T. and B. 
 p. 210), may represent ^NDTTP, and "is come from 3*15. In 
 Isa. xvii. 2 "isiis actually appears as the name of a district. 
 Here, too, it is best to take it so, and also in vv. 9, 29, i.e. 
 as a symbol for Yerahme'el-Arab. 
 
 The antiquarian notice is in ii. 20-23. It relates to the 
 former inhabitants of the land of the bene Ammon. This 
 land, too (cp. v. 1 1 ), was formerly inhabited by Rephaim, a 
 people whom the Ammonites called ' Zamzummim.' This 
 strange-looking word has provoked much learned specula- 
 tion. Robertson Smith, following Schwally, explains it 
 from the Arabic as meaning ' whisperers, murmurers.' l 
 This, however, is almost on a par with the explanation of 
 Emim (v. 10, Gen. xiv. 5) as 'terrible ones,' which is 
 plainly not the original meaning of an ethnic name. D7 is 
 possibly, like DID and }W, a corrupt fragment of JQBT = 
 ^HSOBr. For the reduplication cp. H2D3D, Josh. xv. 31. 
 1 for m, as in 'rot and TOT from bMSDW. In short, the 
 Zamzummim, like the Zuzim, 2 are a branch of the Ishmael- 
 ites, and why should we suppose that the Arammites who 
 overcame them were a younger race ? As for the D^s 
 (Avvites), for whom | substitutes the Hivvites, and the 
 
 1 MS. note quoted by Driver, Deut. p. 40. 
 2 Gen. xiv. 5. See T. and B. p. 241.
 
 138 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 Kaphtorim, we cannot speak quite so confidently. The 
 former may be a tribe of Arabians (D^ns). They are 
 generally supposed to have dwelt, according to the Hebrew 
 text, in villages, but surely the parallelism of vv. 10, 12, 
 20, 22, favours the view that D'HSH represents a proper 
 name, isn is the name required ; it was wrongly supposed 
 to be the short for D^nsn. "isn, like mt, is most probably 
 a distortion of int&N. It is noteworthy that B has 
 i.e. rmtDN, which (see on iii. 17) certainly comes from 
 
 As for the latter, it should, I think, be clear that ' the 
 Kaphtorim who came out from Kaphtor ' is very improbable. 
 Kaphtorim would indeed be a most misleading name for 
 emigrants from Kaphtor. The name we should expect is 
 DTif?D (often confounded with DTIB&D). According to the 
 (probably) best reading in Gen. x. 14, the Pelethites came 
 forth from Kaphtor, or perhaps rather (see T. and B. p. 192) 
 Rehoboth. Pelethim and Kaphtorim, it is true, are far 
 apart, but D^nD3 was probably corrupted from D^Dinc * (M.T., 
 Pathrusim, Gen. x. 14), or, strictly, D^nms. That fps 
 ( = ppo or nDo) is a clan-name is indisputable. 
 
 The account of the destruction of the peoples of Sihon 
 and Og needs critical comment. The geography of the 
 original traditions worked up in ii. 24-iii. 1 1 may have been 
 different from that of the final redactor. Certainly this is 
 suggested by the names. ' Amorites ' is scarcely different 
 from ' Arammites,' and it must be admitted that there was a 
 southern Aram. ' Heshbon ' is a name which may have 
 attached itself to different localities, for imn and Dt&n are 
 virtually identical, and the origin given elsewhere 2 to D^t&on 
 in Ex. xiii. 1 8 and other passages may be given with almost 
 equal justice to pltDn. ' Bashan ' (as numerous analogies 
 suggest) comes from ' Abshan,' i.e, Arab-Ishmael. ' Ash- 
 taroth," or better ' Ashtereth ' (i.e. Ashtart), is at least very 
 suggestive of N. Arabia (see T. and B. pp. 240^). Here, 
 indeed, the residence of Og is further defined as being ' in 
 Edrei ' ; the view that ' and ' should be prefixed, so that Og 
 
 1 a and D confounded, as in I K. vii. 40 (cp. v. 43) rim stands 
 for mm. 
 
 2 T. and B. pp. 489, 552.
 
 THE FIRST PREAMBLE (I. i-iv. 43) 139 
 
 will have had two royal cities, though quite defensible (see 
 0, Vg., and cp. Driver), is at any rate improbable. The 
 truth may be that "'S'nN is miswritten for some form like 
 isms, which, as we have seen, may represent TIS ^scnT. 1 
 The name p?TD in its present form is inexplicable ; pmo 
 would give a clear meaning, for Din is a corruption of intZ?N. 
 ns, too, as it stands, is obscure ; but it is not impossible 
 that, like ru and rttD, it may ultimately come from some 
 form of ^NDrrr. 2 
 
 Some names still remain. )*mN (ii. 36) represents JDNT ; 
 cp. pjn (see above, on xii. 2}. On the problem of the 
 name ' Gilead ' see T. and B., p. 389, in connection with 
 the great legendary compact between Jacob and Laban. 
 'Salecah' (rr^So) iii. 10, Josh. xii. 5, xiii. 11, is a very old 
 commercial centre, mentioned also in Genesis as N. Arabian. 3 
 The money standard established by its merchants was 
 probably accepted both in the N. Arabian border-land and 
 in the land of Judah, for we find the phrase ' the shekel of 
 Salekath ' in the earlier text which underlies the MT. of 
 Gen. xx. 16. roSo may come from SotDN, and thereby be 
 distinguished as an Ashkalite settlement (T. and B. p. 315). 
 
 In the MT. of iii. 4 If the extent of Og's kingdom 'in 
 Bashan ' is described as ' sixty cities, all the region (?) of 
 Argob.' Here, however, there are several problems. First, 
 as to the ' sixty cities.' This, of course, is to be taken with 
 Judg. x. 4, where Yair the Gileadite is said to have had thirty 
 sons who rode on thirty ass-colts and had thirty cities. It 
 is hard to read this without suspicion of error, and having 
 found that ethnics are very prone to be transformed into 
 numerals, and that TS has often possibly come from ins, we 
 shall do best to correct TS D^tp into yrs> jDHr ( = Ishmael of 
 Arabia). 4 Next, as to m~iN Sin hi. I have already 
 attached a query to ' region,' which the lexicons with one 
 accord give as the meaning of Sin. Unfortunately the 
 passages containing Sin are not free from suspicion, and 
 
 1 Cp. T. and B. p. 421, where it would be simpler to say that TIJ; 
 comes from nyny. 
 
 2 T. and B. pp. 158 / 
 
 3 See T. and B. pp. 315-317, 406 /., 409. 
 
 4 See Crit. Bib. on Josh. xiii. 30.
 
 140 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 here at any rate (comparing D^in D^-Dl l in Am. ii. 8) we 
 should read fpnn, a shortened form of f?NDm\ That inN 
 means ' stony/ and that such a name points to the Leja, is 
 with much learning denied by Driver (p. 49). It is, 
 however, a regional name, and should be grouped with 
 ]nrm, 2 Dn in -|So Din, and D^n, all of which point to 
 7onT. It is probable that f?in (^on) is a term of wider 
 reference than HIN (Dm). The origin of both names was 
 no doubt early forgotten. 
 
 It is an important geographical note that we find in 
 iii. 9. (i) As to TUto. That Saniru was the name of a 
 mountain at the entrance of (the northern) Lebanon, we 
 know from Shalmaneser (Del, Paradies, p. 104). All the 
 other O.T. passages, however, in which T3ft occurs point 
 rather to N. Arabia (see I Chr. v. 23, Ezek. xxvii. 5, Cant. 
 iv. 8). It is the first of these passages which throws most 
 light on YOtD, and confirms the view suggested by the 
 general scenery of Deut. rightly understood, viz., that the 
 mountain or mountain-range referred to in iii. 8 is in the 
 N. Arabian border-land. In its original form it may have 
 run thus ' The men of the half-tribe of Manasseh dwelt in 
 the land from Bashan (Abshan) to Baal-Hermon [Senir and 
 the Hermon range signify Yerahme'el].' In this rendering 
 of the revised text I have provisionally left ' Senir.' Most 
 probably, however, T3to is miswritten for "n?3lD, i,e. Tcs ^Ni>DtD\ 
 ' Shinar ' and ' mount Hermon ' are therefore naturally put 
 together (as in Cant. iv. 8), for ' Ishmael ' and ' Yerahme'el ' 
 (here represented by ' Hermon ') are synonymous. (2) With 
 regard to po*iJi. The name thus read may no doubt have 
 suggested the idea of sacredness, just as Montserrat, properly 
 ' mons serratus,' suggested to Catalans the interpretation 
 ' mons sacratus.' But originally Hermon was formed from 
 Dm = DTTT ( ^Nonrr) ; originally, too, it designated a 
 mountain-range in the Yerahme'elite country. This throws 
 light on Enoch vi. 6, where the fallen angels, who bear 
 
 1 Interpret thus, ' that recline on Yerahme'elite garments by every 
 altar. 1 Cp. T. and B. p. 360. 
 
 2 Purple was the dress of Midianite chiefs (Judg. viii. 26), and blue- 
 purple and red-purple came from Ishmaelite Arabia (Ezek. xxvii. 7 ; 
 see T. and B. pp. 165, 360).
 
 THE FIRST PREAMBLE (i. i-iv. 43) 141 
 
 Yerahme'elite names, are made to descend on Mt. Hermon. 
 Cp. also the appayeSav of Rev. xvi. 6 ; ap^,. = p-QD "in = "in 
 'm\ (3) As to ) s ito (]Vlto). The name does not occur in 
 Ass. inscriptions. Probably, like T3t&, it has grown out of 
 litttn, and has the same meaning. If so, v. 9 merely tells us 
 that the 'Misrites' (read D'nsp) and the 'Arammites' (read 
 'CTiNn) used different forms of the same name. The alter- 
 native is to take at any rate ;vntD as = pinr = plBN or )-JE?N. 
 renders )Ynt& in Ps. xxix. 6 by o riya7rr)/j,6vos = j*nBP (see 
 on xxxii. 15). (4) In iv. 48 pm is corrupted into ]>&. 
 
 We now return to royal Og. A strange note about him 
 is inserted (v. 11). (i) Can we accept its contents? Were 
 the Rephaim really of an older race which became extinct 
 at the Israelitish conquest? Was the name originally an 
 ethnic ? Various theories have been broached (see E. Bib., 
 f Rephaim '), but the view which seems to me to accord best 
 with textual phenomena is that D^NDI and D*HDN both have 
 the same origin, viz. either Dms or (better) \rp m_$, ' Yaman- 
 ite Arabia.' * (2) May we regard the story of Og's 
 enormous bedstead of iron or sarcophagus of basalt (?) as 
 a part of Israelitish folklore? Or rather, is not the text 
 corrupt ? It appears that 7TQ sometimes represents 
 ^NSDttT ini?. For a very clear instance of this see iv. 20 
 (furnace of iron ?) ; but a study of xxxiii. 25 and Gen. iv. 22 
 will lead to the same result. 2 As to vis, it may easily have 
 come from piN. When the corruptions tms and ^ni had 
 come into existence, it was easy for the annotator to make 
 up a story about the ' bedstead ' (?) being shown at Rabbath- 
 Ammon. The story about the size of the relic was a mere 
 decoration, and QTN no, 'the cubit of a man,' which reads 
 so oddly, has come from SNSDBT now, ' the cubit of Ishmael,' 
 just as BTPN Birrl, ' with a man's pen,' should be par znm, 
 ' with a pen of Ishmael.' 3 The cubit of the Ishmaelite 
 merchants was no doubt a standard (see above, on Salekah). 
 All that the original text had was, ' Surely his land is the 
 land of Ishmaelite Arabia.' 
 
 May we altogether trust the account which is here given 
 of the extreme cruelty of the conquerors of Sihon and Og 
 
 1 T. and B. pp. 240, 472 f. ' 2 Ibid. p. 109, with n. 2. 
 
 3 Ibid. p. 368 (n. 2).
 
 142 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 (ii. 34, iii. 6) ? Surely this ostentatious reference to the 
 destruction of ' women and little ones ' is improbable. The 
 passage should be taken together with Judg. xx. 48, where 
 the destruction of the cattle and afterwards of ' all that was 
 found,' and yet again the burning of ' all the cities that 
 were found,' startles every reader. First, as to the highly 
 suspicious words rrDm and N2D3. The former is probably 
 a corruption of nnmi?, 1 where the southern Hamath is 
 intended (see Isa. xi. 1 1, where ' Hamath ' follows ' Shinar,' a 
 N. Arabian regional name). 2 The latter, like pND2 in Isa. 
 xxxv. 7, should be read pNpX, i.e. pSDBJ ( = SNSDBT 1 ), also the 
 name of a N. Arabian district. That "PS may represent 
 IIS has been pointed out already, while the impossible ono, 
 linked as it is to TS, i.e. ns, hardly admits of being ex- 
 plained otherwise than as a short and corrupt form of D"6c>n, 
 from 'non or fnonw, one of the current corruptions of 
 ^NSOtZT. 8 We can now restore Judg. xx. 48 approximately 
 to its original form, pNDsrr^ is [norms] D^on I-ISD 
 WNl in*?E nTONDsn D'nsrr^D ni. In the passage before us 
 (ii. 34) we have the same enigmatical phrase nnn T (which 
 baffles interpreters), D^mn ( = pBP), which corresponds to N2D3 
 ( = psotD), and *|n, which seems to represent niD3 ( = mnD3). 
 We may therefore restore thus, pan D^nn iT^O-riN Dimi 
 mom. The last two words, neither of them being preceded 
 by FIN, may be a later insertion. 
 
 We have not yet quite done with geography. The 
 ' tent villages of Yair,' and what is said in different places 
 about them, are certainly puzzling. Looking at the text of 
 iii. 1 4 , it seems most probable that iDt&'^i? DHN (' them by 
 his name ') has arisen out of two corrupt forms of 
 SsonN is exactly parallel to SlonN (see on ii. 34), while 
 reminds us of Dt&, which has been shown to be a corrupt 
 fragment of SNSDBT. 4 ' Ishmael ' would be a very suitable 
 gloss on ' Argob ' (see above). Thus we get, ' and called 
 Bashan Havvoth-Yair to this day.' That ' Havvoth ' is correct, 
 however, seems to me very doubtful. But what is the right 
 reading? We might suggest msno (this would suit Num. 
 
 1 So in Isa. xxx. 6 (3 niona), Jon. iv. 1 1, Ps. xxxvi. 7. 
 
 2 T. and B. p. 185. 3 Cp. on ' Methushael,' 71 and B. p. 107. 
 
 4 Ibid. p. 117.
 
 THE FIRST PREAMBLE (i. i-iv. 43) 143 
 
 xxxii. 41), of which non might possibly be a corruption. 
 Whether the region referred to was or was not in Bashan 
 (Abshan = Arabia of Ishmael), is hardly a fruitful question. 
 
 Nor is it feasible to determine precisely most of the 
 places mentioned in iii. 16, 17. If we accept the N. 
 Arabian theory (and to some extent we cannot surely help 
 doing so), the ' sea ' or ' lake ' intended will be the Dead Sea. 
 But where shall we put the Yabbok ? Its name, it is true, 
 we can explain, 1 but this is all. Where, too, can we fix 
 Gebal ? The reading (^la) indeed is secure (see below), and 
 the name (' mountain-land ') is clear ; cp. on Ps. Ixxxiii. 7. 
 It reminds us of another and more famous Gebal (Byblus in 
 Phoenicia). But the most remarkable name is moDH rrrtHN, 
 rendered by most ' the slopes of Pisgah,' but, I fear, by a 
 complete misapprehension. First, as to the rendering ' the 
 slopes (of).' To justify this either by the Aramaic "Ttps, 'fudit' 
 (Gesenius), or by the Assyrian isdu, ' base ' (Delitzsch, Prol. 
 p. 46), is a mere caprice. The secret of the word ought not 
 to have been missed so long. Transposition of letters 
 accounts for the strange name. mtDN is simply miswritten 
 for -int&N. The names Ashtar and Ashhur are equivalent. 2 
 The former is the name of the mountain or mountain-range 
 on which the ark was said to have rested, though the 1 
 traditional text gives us the corrupt Ararat ; 3 with a prefixed 
 Yaman it is the designation of the mountain from which 
 Yahweh came to Israel. 4 The latter, with the addition of 
 Yerahme'el, is the name of the mountain on which legend 
 originally placed the attempted sacrifice of Isaac. 5 It is 
 probable that near Mt. Ashtar or Mt. Ashhur there was a 
 city of the same name, partaking of the sacredness of the 
 mountain. Was it Og's royal city Ashtereth (see above, 
 P- 138)? 
 
 Next, as to rttDDn, ' the Pisgah.' This is an imaginary, 
 non-existent name derived from Num. xxi. 20, where it is 
 probably a corruption of rmpttttrr, which was afterwards 
 corrected into HDprnin (*]pm:irT would have been better), 
 without the deletion of moon. In the process of change 
 
 1 T. and B. pp. 396 / 2 Ibid. p. 70. 
 
 3 See on xxxiii. 2. 4 T. and B. p. 146. 
 
 5 Ibid. p. 328.
 
 144 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 the true name may have dropped out Certainly both in 
 iii. 27 and in Num. xxi. 20 Yissn "i^N, and in our present 
 passage (iii. 17) 'orr inN (Ashtar-Peor), would be a 
 plausible name. 
 
 The text of iii. 17 in which our criticism issues, when 
 translated, runs thus : ' And Arabia of the Yarhon, and 
 Gebal, to the sea of Kinnereth, [Arabia of the Yerahme'elite 
 Sea,] below Ashtar of Pe'or, eastward.' Here we read ^^ 
 for *xrtt (yv. 1 6, 17 ; so Num. xxxiv. 6, Josh. xiii. 23, 27, 
 xv. 12, 47), n^o comes from fjNerrr j 1 'salt sea' is surely 
 absurd. It will be noticed that Josh. xii. 3 is in some points 
 more correct than the traditional text of iii. 1 7. 
 
 I will conclude this chapter with a reference to the 
 strange phrase in iv. 20, ^narr TOO, ' from the iron furnace,' 
 usually paraphrased ' from the furnace which is as hot as one 
 for smelting iron.' This, however, is not at all obvious, and 
 Prof. Kennett * allows it to be probable that ' the origin of 
 the phrase is unknown to us.' It is indeed only a fuller 
 experience of the habits of the scribes that will help us. 
 The mystery lies in ^>m[rr], which is not exactly a corruption, 
 but (see on iii. 1 1) a current symbol for ^NSCC?" ns (' Arabia 
 of Ishmael '). It is therefore parallel to D"iSD, which is, of 
 course, to be pronounced Misrim, the name of a N. Arabian 
 land and people. Thus we get the very natural statement, 
 ' Yahweh hath taken you and brought you from the 
 furnace of Arab-Ishmael, from Misrim.' The same striking 
 parallelism occurs in i K. viii. 51, Jer. xi. 4, and we are 
 agreeably surprised to find an equally exact parallel in 
 Isa. xlviii. 10, ' Behold, I have refined thee in the crucible of 
 Kasdim (Hashram), I have tested thee in the furnace of 
 Yerahme'ei." 
 
 1 71 and />. p. 239. 
 
 3 'The Date of Deuteronomy,' J>?untalof Tkfot. Studies, July 1906, 
 p. 484- 
 
 8 Read in Isa. xlviii. 10 < c-re: ->y2, and in t> SOTV -rca. The MT. 
 in ti has found no satisfactory explanation, and in t> is hardly less 
 enigmatical. SOTV in the correction is represented both by *JP and by 
 the nrst 'yreV in MT. of t\ 1 1 a (n fell out, and i became J). The 
 second Jro'? has grown out of = jyoS (Duhm, Cheyne, Marti). 
 ' Kasdim' (or rather Hashram ; see p. 63) occurs again in r.
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 THE SECOND PREAMBLE (IV. 44-XI.) 
 
 THIS preamble is to some extent virtually a development of 
 the first portion of the Decalogue. Several points in v. 6-10 
 (Ex. xx. 2-6) have been treated of already (p. 103). Here 
 it is only necessary to consider the form of a passage 
 scarcely less important than the Decalogue the passage 
 known to Jewish believers as the Shema' (vi. 4-5). In its 
 present form, doubtless, it is a bulwark of strict monotheism, 
 but has it come down to us as it was first written ? The 
 emphasis on the unity or uniqueness of Yahweh does not fit 
 in very well with the context ; moreover, the first part of it 
 (v. 4) is extremely difficult of interpretation. Three ex- 
 planations are current : ( I ) ' Yahweh is our God, Yahweh 
 as the only one' (Steuernagel after Ibn Ezra) ; (2) 'Yahweh 
 our God, Yahweh is one' (Ewald, Oehler) ; (3) 'Yahweh 
 our God is one Yahweh ' (Dillmann, Driver, Stade). 1 None 
 of these theories, however, is satisfactory, and to improve 
 upon them one must first discover how the exegetical diffi- 
 culty arose. The cause surely is corruption of the text, and 
 this corruption was largely due to a redactor's manipulation 
 of the text in the interest of a strict monotheism. From a 
 comprehensive criticism of a large group of passages we 
 appear to learn that one fuller name of the God of Israel 
 was Yahweh- Yerahme'el, and that a virtual synonym for 
 Yerahme'el was Ashhur, 2 so that ' Yahweh-Ashhur ' was a 
 possible name for the conjoined members of the divine duad. 
 The original reading, therefore, of Dt. vi. 4 was, ' Hear, O 
 
 1 Stade, Bib 1. Theol. des A.T. i. 84. But the phrase 'one 
 Yahweh ' (much older than Deut., according to Stade) is highly 
 improbable. 2 See T. and B. pp. 24, 284. 
 
 145 10
 
 146 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 Israel ; Yahweh is our God [Yahweh-Ashhur] ' ; in this I 
 assume what seems to me to have been proved that 
 ~rrm and in** often in the traditional text take the place 
 of intDN, so that Trw mm (in our passage, but not in Zech. 
 xiv. 9) may very well represent ini&N mm. Certainly the 
 text, as it stands, is incapable of a satisfactory explanation. 
 If we adopt this view, it will be best to suppose further that 
 in the text underlying the present redacted text ' Yahweh- 
 Ashhur' stood in the margin as a variant (an older one) to 
 * Yahweh.' This theory is, of course, quite consistent with 
 the admission that the present form of the text is the only 
 one which, at any rate since the fall of the state, the pro- 
 gressive form of Yahwism could tolerate. 
 
 These, then, were the names of the God who brought his 
 people out of ' the furnace of Arab-Ishmael, out of Misrim ' 
 (iv. 20, see above). But whither did the divine guide lead 
 them ? As we have seen (on i. 10-12), it was to the land of 
 Canaan, which appears to have been originally represented 
 as in N. Arabia. The second preamble gives us fresh 
 information as to its natural gifts. This is contained in vii. 
 12-15, vn i- 7"9> an d xi. 10-12. The two latter passages are 
 the most important. In viii. 7 the promised land is spoken 
 of as, first of all, ' a land of torrent-streams (D^D ^m). of 
 springs and (subterranean) deeps, springing forth in valleys 
 and mountains.' Torrent-streams in N. Arabia are of course 
 quite natural. But what of ' springs and tehomoth ' ? In the 
 Negeb at any rate the only considerable springs are in a few 
 of the larger wadys (torrent-valleys). One is therefore 
 tempted to think that, just as the story of Joseph in Genesis, 
 which originally referred to the N. Arabian Misrim, has 
 been manipulated (with imperfect success) l so as to fit the 
 theory that the events took place in Misraim (Egypt), so the 
 original text of viii. 7 b has been recast so as to justify the 
 view that the land of promise was in Palestine. 
 
 A similar hypothesis seems necessary to account for 
 xi. 10, where the promised land, with its mountains and 
 valleys and fertilising rains, is contrasted with ' the land 
 . . . whence ye came out, where thou sowedst thy seed, and 
 wateredst it with thy foot, as a garden of herbs.' Here it 
 1 T. and B. pp. 454^
 
 THE SECOND PREAMBLE (IV. 44-xi.) 147 
 
 seems to be stated that the land of n^2D was fertilised by 
 irrigation, though the phrase ' wateredst it with thy foot ' 
 still remains obscure. 1 It certainly appears as if D'HSD here 
 ought to mean Misraim, i.e. Egypt, and that the land which is 
 contrasted with it is Western Palestine. If so, the whole 
 passage, xi. 10-12, which could well be spared from the 
 context, is to be viewed as a later insertion. 
 
 Turning now to viii. 8, 9, there is no valid objection to 
 holding that these verses (unlike v. 7 b} are original, and 
 refer to N. Arabia. It is true that in Num. xx. 5 the 
 wilderness of Kadesh is described as being ' no place of seed, 
 or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates.' This, however, 
 is quite consistent with the existence of these plants in early 
 times in the cultivated and fruitful parts of N. Arabia. 
 That such fruits as figs, grapes, and pomegranates did exist 
 in the Ishmaelite or N. Arabian region called Ashkal 2 (MT., 
 Eshkol), we learn from Num. xiii. 23, where, be it noticed in 
 passing, the untranslatable D^tZD has arisen out of pap}, 3 
 ' in Ishman (Ishmael) ' ; this is properly a gloss on ' Ashkal,' 
 which has intruded, as glosses so often do, into the text. 
 From this place or district it was that the ' spies ' brought 
 back ' a cluster of the grapes of Ashhur ' ; 4 nor is this, as I 
 have shown elsewhere, the only passage in which the culture 
 of the vine is spoken of with reference to N. Arabia. 5 
 
 The land of promise is also described (v. 8) as a corn 
 country. Now it has been already stated that some of the 
 passages referring most probably to N. Arabia have been 
 manipulated by a redactor who did not accept, or perhaps 
 know, the tradition of Israel's residence in N. Arabia. It is 
 quite possible that Gen. xii. 10 and also portions of the 
 Joseph-story (which speak of Hebrews going down into 
 in time of famine) refer to Misraim, i.e. Egypt. There 
 
 1 W. Max Miiller remarks (E. Bib. col. 1226, n. i) that water- 
 wheels ' cannot be proved to have been known ' in Egypt. ' The ex- 
 planation of Deut. xi. 10 as referring to such wheels turned with the 
 foot is questionable ; most probably " watering with the foot " means 
 carrying water.' There would seem, therefore, to be room for some 
 new explanation. 2 T. and B. p. 247. 
 
 3 The same correction of own is required in I Chr. xi. 21, and of 
 c^v in Ezra viii. 27. 
 
 4 Read nns-K' '3Jj> SIDB-N. 5 T. and B. pp. 45 3 f.
 
 148 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 appears, however, to be evidence enough elsewhere, that 
 there were parts of the N. Arabian border-land where, by 
 the help no doubt of irrigation, the soil was capable of 
 producing grain. Elsewhere l I have referred to Num. xi. 5 
 (revised text), 2 K. xviii. 32, and Ps. civ. 15 (revised text). 
 Even if the second of these passages should be due to a 
 redactor who knows only of a king of Assyria, yet the 
 others remain. 2 
 
 ' A land of oil-olive-trees and honey.' A fresh feature of 
 the description. But the expression JQ$ rp} is strange, and 
 parallels such as pin j>s (which see on xii. 2 is most 
 probably to be explained as ' tree of Ra'aman ') suggest that 
 JDtD (as in Isa. x. 27) comes from JDBT, i.e. ^NSDttT. The 
 phrase indicates, therefore, that olive-trees flourished in N. 
 Arabia. A similar phrase is nrrS" 1 rrt (2 K. xviii. 32), which 
 must surely come from intDN IT}. 3 Apparently the Israelites 
 on their first arrival in the highly cultivated regions of the 
 border-land admired the olive-trees, and called the best trees 
 of this species olive-trees of Ishmael, or of Ashhur. As to 
 the honey, what is meant is probably grape-honey (the 
 modern dibs]. That this was produced in N. Arabia appears, 
 I think, from Gen. xliii. 11, where the present sent by 
 Jacob to Joseph from (the southern) Canaan includes honey. 
 The same delicacy is referred to in vi. 3, where (cp. Ex. iii. 8, 
 Num. xiii. 27, etc.) the promised land is said to be 'flowing 
 with milk and honey.' This phrase, however, is plainly of 
 mythological origin. 4 
 
 ' A land whose stones are iron, and out of whose 
 mountains thou mayest dig copper.' This is the close of 
 the description. Iron and copper do not appear to have 
 been found in Palestine, though the well-known Lebanon 
 was certainly explored for copper by the ancients. 5 What 
 
 1 T. and B. pp. 224, 453 / 
 
 2 I cannot discover that the most recent commentators on Numbers 
 and on the Psalter have produced satisfactory explanations of Num. 
 xi. 5, Ps. civ. 15. 
 
 3 Note the Levite name ins*, Ex. vi. 18, which has the same 
 origin. The Levite names are as a rule of N. Arabian affinities. 
 
 4 See T. and B. pp. 84, 529 / 
 
 5 See Assyrian passages in E. Bib. col. 893 (n. 5) ; Del., Paradies, 
 P- 353-
 
 THE SECOND PREAMBLE (iv. 44-xi.) 149 
 
 was the case in the southern Lebanon ? l If mountains of 
 copper' in Zech. vi. I were correct, it might be taken to 
 prove that copper was found there, for the scene of the vision 
 in Zech. vi. 1-8 appears to be laid in the southern border- 
 land. I think, however, that nmm in the MT. is sometimes 
 a corruption, 2 and that it is so here. But it is very possible 3 
 that the place where Hiram cast the bronze was in N. Arabia 
 (i K. vii. 46), and almost certain that in Jer. xv. 12 
 ' northern iron ' should be ' iron of Sibe'on (Ishmael).' That 
 the Ethbaalites (miscalled Philistines) were skilled in 
 metallurgy, appears from i S. xiii. 19-21. A passage in 
 the letter of Aristeas ( 119) may also, in spite of its lateness, 
 be quoted here: eXeyero Se xal etc TWV irapaKeijjLevwv opecov rr)? 
 'Apa/3ta9 jj,ra\\a %a\,tcov KOI a-iBrfpov frvvicrTaaOai Trporepov. 
 K\\ei7TTCu Be ravra, icaO' ov eTrefcpdrrjcrav Hep<rcu %p6vov' 4 
 
 In vii. 12-15 Yahweh's faithfulness, it is said, will be 
 shown in four ways : ( i ) in the multiplication of his people, 
 (2) in the abundant harvests, (3) in the increase of their cattle, 
 and (4) in their exemption from pestilences. First, as to the 
 pestilences. That pestilences of the Egyptian type 5 were 
 known in Palestine appears from Am. iv. 10, where the 
 Dl*i?p of the pointed text must surely give the true text. 
 From this obvious reference to Egypt, however, we are not 
 entitled to infer that the N. Arabian theory is put out of 
 court. Close by, z>. in v. 13, there appears to be a pro- 
 minent reference to N. Arabia. It will, therefore, probably 
 be best to suppose that v. i 5 is a redactional insertion. 
 
 Next, as to the N. Arabian reference in v. i 3. It occurs 
 in the clause on the increase of the cattle. Those two 
 strange phrases "pD^H lilD and "pNS nYintDS have been much 
 misunderstood. Haupt, for instance, thinks that 11W means 
 ' dam,' ' female parent,' 6 and Barton says of the latter that it 
 is derived from primitive times ' when the connexion of the 
 offering with a deity bearing this name [Ashtaroth] had been 
 
 1 Del. Paradies, pp. 123, 457. 
 
 2 See on xxxiii. 2 5, and 71 and B. p. 1 09. 
 8 See Crit. Bib. on both passages. 
 
 4 Cp. Winckler, Kritische Schriften, i. I24/. Are the copper 
 mines at Punon in Edom referred to ? 
 
 5 G. A. Smith, Hist. Geogr. p. 157. 
 
 6 JBL xxvi. 45/.
 
 i$o DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 observed by the introduction of no other epithet' * Both 
 phrases, however, need to be more critically examined. 
 Experience of textual phenomena elsewhere shows that '2 'tDN 
 has come from p$12 intDN, ' Ashtar of Sibe'on ( = Ishmael),' 
 a regional name. As for "pB^N lift, it is hardly too bold to 
 group -QtD with the highly improbable cm in xxxiii. 14 
 (considered later), and regard it as a corrupt form of a 
 regional name, in fact of the name lip}, or more correctly int&N. 
 Similarly TB^N represents ^Ml[n]T, i.e. ^Nom* 1 . Geshur- 
 or Ashhur-Yerahme'el will be a gloss on inDTN (parallel to 
 ntH^n, xxviii. 4). On Ex. xiii. 12 it has already been 
 remarked that lift, or info, is probably a gloss on "OSDrj pN, 
 the original ' Canaan,' as we have seen, being probably in 
 the southern border-land. 2 
 
 In ix. i, 2, a statement of some importance is made. 
 Elsewhere (e.g. in vii. I, Ex. iii. 8, etc.) a number of different 
 peoples are mentioned as inhabiting the land of Canaan. 
 Here, however, only one people is referred to by name, 
 though in the opening words the plural ' nations ' occurs. 
 Similarly in Am. ii. 10 the prophet says that the Israelites 
 were brought up ' to occupy the land of the Amorites,' with 
 which passages like Gen. xlviii. 22 may be compared. It 
 would seem therefore, that ' Anakite ' and ' Amorite ' are, 
 equivalent, and in fact pas, like p^os, is probably a corrup- 
 tion of ^NDrm, 3 while nDN, not less probably, comes from 
 D"iS(, a popular derivative of ^NDJIT. 
 
 And what are the traditional limits of the land of 
 promise? An account is given in Gen. xv. 18, Ex. xxiii. 3 I, 
 Dt i. 7, xi. 24, Josh. i. 4. The first three passages have 
 been treated already ; we now come to xi. 24. In one 
 direction, it appears, the land extended ' from the wilderness 
 (see on Ex. xxiii. 31) unto Lebanon,' 4 i.e. the southern 
 Lebanon (see on i. 7) ; in another, ' from the stream, the 
 the stream Perath (Ephrath) as far as Yaman-Ashhuran.' 
 That Yaman was often written Yam, has been shown 
 elsewhere ; 5 pirrN may come from prrQJN, like ~in from 
 
 1 Semitic Origins, p. 282 ; cp. p. 105. 
 
 2 T. and B. p. 550. 3 Ibid. pp. 121, 247. 
 
 4 Reading "?n iyi (Gratz, Steuernagel). 
 
 6 T. and B. p. 6 (n. 3).
 
 THE SECOND PREAMBLE (IV. 44-xi.) 151 
 
 The traditional text gives ' the western sea, 1 a phrase 
 possible enough in itself (see Joel ii. 20, Zech. xiv. 8), but 
 less probable than a definitely N. Arabian place-name. In 
 Zech. ix. i o and Ps. Ixxii. 8 the corresponding expression is 
 ' to the ends of the land.' This, however, seems to be a 
 substitute for some more definite phrase. 
 
 A more important because more distinct geographical 
 statement is given in xi. 30. It will be noticed that the 
 preceding verse contains a command that at a future time 
 ' the blessing ' shall be set on the former of the two 
 mountains (no doubt anciently sacred) Gerizzim and Ebal, 
 and 'the curse' on the latter. A similar and comple- 
 mentary injunction is given in xxvii. 11-13, the fulfilment 
 of which is narrated in Josh. viii. 33. Evidently Dt. 
 xi. 30 should state exactly where these two mountains are 
 situated. The description, however, presents some special 
 difficulties : (i) the words momrr N11D TTT "Hrm, generally 
 rendered 'behind the road of sunset'; 1 (2) the reference 
 to the so-called 'Arabah, which, if the Jordan -valley be 
 meant, is remote from the mountains Gerizzim and Ebal, 
 as well as from the ' sacred tree of Moreh ' of the established 
 tradition ; (3) the reference, seemingly so clear, but really 
 so obscure, to ' the Gilgal ' (' over against the Gilgal '). 
 Prof. Ed. Meyer thinks that the text has been adulterated 
 in the interest of a tradition which placed Gerizzim and 
 Ebal in the Jordan-valley near Jericho, a tradition which he 
 also finds in xxvii. 11-13, Josh. viii. 30^!, and which owes its 
 origin to the exigences of the Jewish controversy with the 
 Samaritans. Such a tradition, however, is a mere imagina- 
 tion, and a keener textual criticism reveals a better way of 
 dealing with the difficulties. 
 
 It is obvious that ' behind the road of sunset ' is by no 
 means suitable as a geographical definition, and that 'nnN 
 and BJDB>n must be incorrect. For the former Steuernagel 
 suggests TnriN, ' behind it,' i.e. ' westward of the Jordan.' 
 But why should this be followed by ' towards sunset ' ? Can 
 no better explanation be found ? As for tDDt&n, we know 
 that ' shemesh ' is sometimes not the ordinary word for ' the 
 
 1 Ed. Meyer boldly asserts that, though the words 'ui TTI are corrupt, 
 the meaning must be 'on the road to the west' (Die Israeliten, p. 544).
 
 152 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 sun,' but a popular corruption of ' Shema ' = ' Ishmael,' l and 
 that redactional insertions of the article are frequent. And 
 as for "nnN, we may recall the fact that, like inN and ~rrTN, 
 it repeatedly represents the regional name YintDN ; 2 ' Ashhur ' 
 would be a perfectly natural geographical gloss on ' Ishmael.' 
 Thus we are enabled to give the words referred to the only 
 natural interpretation, viz. ' towards the entrance of Shemesh ' 
 (i.e. of ' Ishmael '), comparing the familiar phrase nan N11Q 
 (Num. xxxiv. 8, Josh. xiii. 5),' the entrance (or neighbourhood) 
 of Hamath.' 
 
 We may then (see on i. i) safely venture to restore 
 ]rn?n m.tfa for MT.'s prn lim ; misi, too, may be 
 corrected into TiiEl. Further, W?}n may easily have come 
 from ishxn ; the two names ' Gilgal ' and ' Gilead ' are 
 occasionally confounded both in the traditional Hebrew text 
 and in that which underlies 0. And in this connexion it 
 may be well to point out that the mountains referred to must 
 have been close to Shechem (Shakram), because of the 
 mention of ' Moreh ' 3 (Gen. xii. 6), and also (if I am right) 
 of ' Gilead ' (cp. Num. xxvi. 31, where ' Shechem ' is reckoned 
 among the sons of Gilead). That the name Shechem is not 
 expressly mentioned, is no doubt at first sight surprising. 4 
 The reason most probably is that Shechem (Shakram) was 
 first the chief and then (in the original Deuteronomy) the 
 one sacred place of the N. Arabian Israelites. At a later 
 time, however, the original Deuteronomy was adapted to the 
 use of the Israelites of Palestine, and Shechem was sup- 
 planted by Jerusalem. Consequently, both in xi. 30 and in 
 xii. 5 (see above) the name Shechem or its equivalent is 
 intentionally passed over. It only remains to add that, at 
 the end of v. 30, ^lS>N should, of course, be pf?N (see Sam. 
 and 0). One sacred tree is meant 
 
 The whole passage, in its (probably) most original form, 
 will read thus : ' Surely they (i.e. Gerizzim and Ebal) are in 
 Arabia of the Yarhon, towards the entrance of Ishmael 
 {gloss, Ashhur], in the land of the Canaanites who dwell 
 [in Arabia] over against Gilead beside the sacred tree of 
 Moreh.' 
 
 1 T. and B. p. 273. 2 Ibid. p. 276. 
 
 3 Ibid. p. 221. 4 Dillmann has already noticed this.
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 CONCLUDING SECTIONS (XXVII.-XXXIV.) 
 
 IN chap, xxvii. the discourse of the great legislator is 
 interrupted. It is probable, indeed, that vv. 1-4 and 
 vv. 7 &-& belong to a Deuteronomistic writer, and that 
 vv. 5-7 a belong to an older source (JE). Still one can 
 see that the Deuteronomist has no objection to the state- 
 ment that an altar was erected, and that sacrifices were 
 offered, on Mt. Ebal. 1 What, then, becomes of the inference 
 generally drawn from Dt. xii. 5, that Deuteronomy forbids 
 more than the one sanctuary at Jerusalem ? In reply most 
 are satisfied with remarking that the occupation of Canaan 
 was still future ; an altar elsewhere than at Jerusalem was 
 therefore not yet illegitimate. But is this at all satisfactory ? 
 Must there not be some other explanation which will 
 harmonise xxvii. 4 with xii. 5 ? If it has been rightly held 
 that the original sanctuary of the early Israelites was at or 
 near the southern Shechem, or more accurately at or near 
 Asshur-Yarham (see on xii. 5), and if Ebal (^Ts) is a 
 corruption of SsiriN = SN2EBT, 2 it is plausible to connect 
 the sanctuary with Mt. Ebal, and to suppose that the 
 sacrifice on that mountain was an anticipation of the 
 time when, in the Holy Land of the southern border, 
 sacrifices would be offered at Asshur-Yarham ( = Beth- 
 Yerahme'el). A parallel anticipation is to be found in 
 Gen. xxii., where the interrupted sacrifice of Isaac is an 
 
 1 For ' Ebal ' in xxvii. 4 Sam. reads ' Gerizzim,' which Kennicott 
 and Ed. Meyer adopt. The chief argument is that in vv. 12 f. Ebal is 
 the mountain of cursing, and Gerizzim of blessing (Die Israelit. p. 546). 
 
 2 Ishmael and Yerahme'el are equivalent (T. and B. p. 272). 
 
 153
 
 154 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 anticipation of the sacrifices one day to be offered on 
 Asshur-Yerahme'el. 1 
 
 As to the text. That h^s (v. 4) is a much-worn form 
 of biarv ( = ^NSttr) is plain. In Gen. xxxvi. 23 this name 
 is borne by a son of Shobal ( = Ishmael). It is needless to 
 alter it In v. 2 why, we may ask, are the great stones to 
 be plastered ? Driver replies 2 that ' in Egypt it was the 
 custom to put a layer of stucco, or paint, over the stone 
 used in architecture, of whatever quality, even granite.' 
 But, as Kennett remarks, ' the instructions about the 
 plastering, if genuine, should immediately precede v. 8," 3 
 to which we may add that in no similar context is a coating 
 of paint or gypsum spoken of. Textual criticism must 
 therefore be applied. In xi. 30 (see p. 152) the mountains 
 Gerizzim and Ebal are said to be 'in the entrance of 
 Ishmael,' and to ' Ishmael ' there is a gloss ' Asshur.' Now 
 if TtD is corrupt, the easiest correction is plainly TitD = 
 (as in Gen. xvi. 7). miDI as plainly comes from 
 (see on rntm*, Hi. 17), and DDK from ^DHN = 
 Thus the land which the Israelites are to enter, and where 
 Mt. Ebal is (uv. 2, 4), is stated in the gloss to be in Asshur- 
 Ishmael. 
 
 Another improvement can be made in v. 8 b. It is 
 usually supposed that v. 8 differs from the opening of v. 3 
 in that it commands very distinct writing. There is certainly 
 no objection to the double infinitive l&vr "IN;-!. But there is 
 great doubt about the verb "IN! (see on i. 5), and the 
 rendering ' very plainly ' can hardly be sustained. But 
 why should there not be another geographical gloss ? 
 3BTn>Q, comes easily and naturally from ^sirp 4 "int&Nl, 
 i.e. ( in Ashhur-Ishmael.' 
 
 We now pass on to chap, xxviii. Without entering 
 deeply into analytic criticism, one may regard it as certain 
 that from v. 20 onwards many larger or smaller insertions 
 have been made. One of these is v. 68. It is usually 
 supposed to declare that the Israelites shall once more be 
 
 1 T. and B. p. 328. 2 Deuteronomy, p. 296. 
 
 3 Journal of Theol. Studies, July 1906, p. 495. 
 
 4 Cp. aaa in 2 K. xxi. 19, and SHSO'TO, Gen. xxxvi. 39 (T. and B. 
 P- 432).
 
 CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvn.-xxxiv.) 155 
 
 brought into Egypt, and this time in ships, and shall there 
 be sold into slavery. The ships (Driver, slave-galleys) are 
 taken to be those of the Phoenicians (cp. Am. i. 9 ; Ezek. 
 xxvii. 13 ; Joel iv. 6). It is not certain, however, that the 
 three prophetic passages referred to really speak of the 
 Phoenicians ; more probably they speak of N. Arabian 
 peoples (Missor, Yaman, Tubal, Meshek). 1 Moreover, the 
 parallelism of phrase between v. 68 ('on the road whereof,' 
 etc.) and xvii. 16 ('return no more on that road'; Misrim 
 is spoken of) makes it improbable that a sea-voyage is 
 spoken of. Now it so happens that rVPDN in MT. is some- 
 times a corruption ; can it be a rash conjecture that it may 
 be so here ? Let us refer to previous experience. In Gen. 
 xlix. 13 nV3N, and in Gen. xii. 16, xlix. 11, Judg. v. 10 
 mriN and ISDN, represent either [D^DITN or [D^DnnN, both 
 of which ultimately stand for ' Ishmaelites.' 2 Here, how- 
 ever, it seems best to read jrPNl or pnNl, 3 where 1 may 
 either be the preposition 3 or a fragment of is = Tis 
 (T. and B. p. 571). 
 
 The result, however surprising, seems plain. ' Arab- 
 Ethan ' or ' Arab-Ethman ' is a gloss upon ' Misrim,' which 
 was, in fact, considered a Yerahme'elite country. 4 The 
 scribe wished to put the reader on his guard against sup- 
 posing Misraim, i.e. Egypt, to be referred to the very 
 mistake which the received text has made. 
 
 Chap, xxxii. contains difficult passages which call for 
 a searching re-examination. It presents us with a song 
 which, according to xxxi. 16-22, xxxii. 44, was written by 
 Moses to warn the later Israelites that their apostasy and 
 its bitter consequences had been foreseen. It is really, 
 however, a work of the period preceding the great exile. 
 The ' not-people ' in v. 21 (see below) is a N. Arabian 
 people ; in v. 42 b its name is revealed as ' Ishmael,' and 
 in a gloss as ' Asshur,' or ' Ephrath of Arabia.' Cp. 2 K. 
 xxiv. 2, where om&D has come from DntW, i.e. Ashhur- 
 Yerahme'el. 5 It closes with a promise of mercy and 
 deliverance. 
 
 1 See T. and B. pp. 172 (Missor), 160-162 (Yaman, Tubal, Meshek). 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 225. 3 /^v/ t p- 504 ( n- r ). 
 4 See T. and B. pp. 32 (n. 2), 441. 5 See above, p. 63.
 
 156 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 In v. 5, which presents the infidelity of Israel as a 
 contrast to the fidelity of Yahweh, there is much to invite 
 textual criticism. We have a right to presume that some 
 definite violation of religious duty is referred to, but in the 
 form which most critics give to the verse no such reference 
 is made. That v. 5 a is highly corrupt, is obvious. ' Cor- 
 ruptly has dealt towards him not his sons are their 
 blemish,' though given by Driver, is not really accepted 
 by him. But whether ' a twisted and crooked generation ' 
 is definite enough, may be doubted. It may be granted 
 that the address to Israel in v. 6 is perfectly natural. It is, 
 in fact, the folly of this people's conduct which has first of 
 all, from an antique point of view, to be exhibited. But it 
 is not natural that in the prelude to this address Israel should 
 be described rhetorically as ' a twisted and crooked genera- 
 tion'; we require something much more definite. In these 
 circumstances, much weight seems to attach to the fact that 
 hrhr is a a-Traf \ey6jjievov. Both this word and the pre- 
 ceding one should be names of deities. If so, SnD (omit 
 the dittographed ^n), should, like f?DH in i. I, represent 
 *?2!inN, i.e. ^NSDtD* 1 , one of the names of the god of the 
 Yerahme'elites. 1 ops should also be a god's name ; like 
 BT3N (i. S. xxvii. 5), pD (Gen. xxvi. 20), and pans (Ps. 
 Ixxii. 4), it is a corrupt form of "intDN, another god of the 
 same people. 2 Tn probably comes from ^iDTn ; /% T is 
 frequently used in connexion with the cultus. Returning 
 now to v. 5 a, we apply for help first to (f. This version 
 presupposes n^o "01 ib *>h inntt? (so too Sam.). 3 Here qa 
 for V33 is a step in the right direction, if? nh, however, is 
 no improvement. N*?, as often elsewhere, comes from 
 and f?N with D*IO (from HDID) 4 prefixed is probably 
 Thus we get 
 
 The sons of Yerahme'el have acted corruptly towards him, 
 Those who seek Ashhur and Ethbaal. 
 
 1 T. and B. pp. 29/. 2 Ibid. pp. 23, 530. 
 
 3 So too Steuernagel (but omitting itS as miswritten for ~h}. But 
 DID ', ' die Schandlichen,' is impossible. 
 
 * TO-ID, apparently ' deceit,' in Ps. xvii. I, xliii. I, cix. 2, really comes 
 from !?KDrrr. So none ( I Chr. viii. I o), the name of a ' son ' of Sha- 
 haraim (Shahar = Ashhur) ; and mono, a personal name (Ezra x. 36, etc.).
 
 CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvu.-xxxiv.) 157 
 
 The idea in a is that the Israelites are now no better than 
 1 sons of Yerahme'el.' And yet Israel's father and fashioner 
 is not Yerahme'el (y. 6). In b one is reminded of Isa. ii. 6, 
 which should most probably run thus l 
 
 n*Q IDS BH33 "0 For he has forsaken his people, the 
 
 house of Jacob, 
 
 ^D "0 Because they are full of [Arabian] priests, 
 1DW1 And give oracles like the Ethbalites, 
 JDDT "^TiTTI And practise sorcery in the temples of 
 Rakman. 
 
 ' Rakman ' is a corrupt, popular form of Yerahme'el ; and 
 ' Ethbal ' (like Ethba'al), of Ishmael. Both names may be 
 applied alike to the people and to its god. 
 
 How foolish was Israel, the poet implies. For Yerah- 
 me'el (regarded as distinct from Yahweh) was only an 
 inferior deity a ben-el, or member of the larger divine 
 company. But Yahweh himself is Israel's lord (v. 9), who 
 is supreme over all the nations and their divine guardians 2 
 (read h& ""DSl with 0; v. 8 #) ; cp. iv. 19, xxix. 25 [26], 
 True, there was a time when Israel had no divine guardian, 
 or none that recognised his obligations. Yahweh ' found ' 
 Israel languishing in the Ishmaelite desert, friendless and 
 weak. But soon he made his people ride on the heights 
 of the land, i.e. take triumphal possession of the N. Arabian 
 highland-country (vv. 10, 13). \DVT hh"* Vrni (v. 10 a) 
 has been misunderstood ; ' in the waste of the howling of 
 a desert ' (Driver) could only be defended from a supposed 
 textual necessity. Steuernagel more wisely places the dots 
 which symbolise ignorance. ]DBT, however, is plainly a form 
 of ^NSDBT, 3 and hh^, like ^N (an image of the god Yerah- 
 me'el) and f?STr (' Yerahme'el ben Ashhur,' Isa. xiv. 1 2), 
 comes from 7NDTTY 1 . Thus we get (keeping irrnn), ' and in 
 the waste of* of Ishmael ' ; for ' Yerahme'el ' (^) one may 
 fairly regard as a variant to ' Ishmael,' and therefore to be 
 omitted from the text. The lines or verses, however, are 
 
 1 Cp. T. and B. pp. 41, 62 (with n. i), 376 (n. i). 
 
 2 In Clem. Recogn. (ii. 32), however, Israel's guardian is the greatest 
 of the archangels (i.e. Michael). Lueken, Michael, pp. 101 f. 
 
 3 T. and B. p. 29.
 
 158 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 trimeters ; we must therefore suppose that the word which 
 should follow innil has fallen out. 1 
 
 After telling us of the conquest, the poet proceeds to 
 enumerate the luxuries with which Israel will be fed in the 
 fertile land. Various reasons lead us to question the text. 
 Is such a lengthy list of delicacies likely, especially in such 
 a serious context ? Surely not. Is the phraseology natural ? 
 And though there are parallel passages relating to the rich 
 products of the soil of Canaan, are we sure that this is more 
 than appearance ? These three points need careful con- 
 sideration. As to the first, it must be admitted that the 
 catalogue of luxuries of food in v. 14 reads very oddly. 
 Certainly not all of them can be described as ' fruitful 
 growths of the country ' (nTDn HID), nor is the word 
 irrpin, on which the designations of the foods are gram- 
 matically dependent, appropriate for the ' fat of lambs,' 
 etc. The material, too, is superabundant for the metre. 
 Gunkel has attempted 2 to remedy this by omitting jttn ^3 
 More plausibly, however, he might have omitted 
 D nbrrDi?, where rrttn might perhaps be viewed as 
 a corruption of a misplaced n[N]Dn, thus leaving only 
 nvbi ibrros, an improbable phrase, which might have 
 come from nym ibrrDS, ' with the milk of female camels.' 3 
 This, however, is equally insufficient for a line, and is not 
 here proposed. 
 
 I have called the phrase rvr^D l^JTDS improbable. Still 
 more so is it if we add D^ttn, in spite of the fact that l^n 
 nion occurs in Ps. Ixxxi. 17, and DWl 'n in Ps. cxlvii. 14. 
 Most, indeed, take this to be ' a poetical designation of fine 
 flour' (Kennedy, E. Bib. col. 1539), for which Gesenius 
 (T/ies., s.v. nSn) gives us a Greek and an Arabic parallel. 
 But how can we accept this view when we observe how 
 unsuitable the Hebrew phrases quoted are to their contexts ? 
 Surely they are corrupt, and therefore beyond interpretation. 
 
 To make further progress let us study our passage in 
 connexion with Gen. xlix. 1 1 /. There, too, we meet with 
 milk and wine in a context where we should not have 
 
 1 Klostermann's emendation (Der Pentateuch, p. 288) giving the 
 sense, ' und in Irrgangen (?) holte er ihn heim,' is wide of the mark. 
 
 2 Sievers, Metrische Studien, i. 578. 3 See E. Bib. col. 3088.
 
 CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvn.-xxxiv.) 159 
 
 expected them ; most probably the true text spoke of the 
 subjugation of Yerahme'el. Similarly in Ps. Ixxxi. 17 and 
 cxlvii. 14 it is deliverance from the N. Arabians that is 
 most probably referred to ; l^n has come from f?on = 
 ^Nonv, n&n from nno, and D^ttn from D^non (the southern 
 Hamath l is referred to) ; cp. HZODH, a place-name, Josh. 
 xv. 54. May it not be so here? The original lines, which 
 described the conquest of the N. Arabian border- land, 
 cannot indeed be recovered. Probably they became first 
 corrupted and then intermixed with names of districts or 
 clans which intruded into the text, so that the scribe had 
 before him a farrago of unintelligible and corrupt words, 
 and had to make the best sense that he could out of it. 
 Observe that ]NS sometimes (e.g. Ps. Ixxviii. 70) represents 
 (Sibe'on = Ishmael) ; that D'mns may come from 
 = D^ntDN, Ashhurites), nv^3 from ^DtDN, 2 nas m 
 
 from pjos Dpi, 3 nnrcn from rrniip, and non from DTTP 
 (Yarham). On the whole, there is no reason to deny the 
 genuineness of v. 13 b, but we must, I fear, admit that v. 14. 
 was inserted later. Not, however, in its present form, for 
 D^Yirun jna ^l, nun nr^D l^n, and inn have all the 
 appearance of representing, not foods, but peoples ; i.e. the 
 insertion, v. 14, originally spoke of the conquest of peoples 
 and clans. 
 
 Such being the case, Sam. and may be right in 
 prefixing to v. l 5 the words sntm ypp f?DM^. As Kloster- 
 mann remarks, this is supported by the apparent references 
 in xxxi. 20, Neh. ix. 25. The next stichus is given only 
 in a mutilated form in almost all MSS. of 0. Bickell, 
 however, refers 4 to a Syro-hexaplar MS., which gives KOL 
 e\nrdvdr) 6 ^yaTrrj^evo^; teal a7re\a,KTi<rev. This is in accord- 
 ance with the Hebrew text, which runs | zo$} v i fntzr JDBPI 
 rrtolD JTOS ronrc. Here we first note the two doubtful words 
 ttSIP and rrtoD. The latter word occurs only here ; the former 
 occurs also in i S. ii. 29, where, however, tosi is supposed to 
 
 1 See Isa. xi. 1 1 b (a list of Arabian peoples), and cp. T. and B. 
 p. 196. 
 
 2 See T. and B. p. 247. 3 Ibid. p. 503. 
 
 4 ' Krit. Bearbeitung der Proverbien,' Wiener Zt. /. die Kunde des 
 Morgenlandes, v. 100.
 
 160 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 mean ' to tread under foot,' i.e. ' despise,' a sense which does 
 not suit here. Probably both words are corrupt ; one 
 comes from Winn, the other from Qjpyi ('hardened himself), 
 (a curious word here) is also corrupt ; a dittographed 
 most probably underlies it. Thus we get only one 
 stichus, ojj^n prior; Jporn. ' Yeshurun ' is an old name for 
 'Israel' 1 (see xxxiii. 5, 26; Isa. xliv. 2). The parallel 
 stichus has dropped out, or rather been supplanted by 
 glosses. 
 
 Israel's great offence against their divine Benefactor, 
 that by which they proved incontestably that they had 
 forsaken him, was sacrificing to the 'not-gods,' who are 
 called in MT. shedim (0 Bai/j,6via). This word (y. 17) is 
 commonly connected with the Ass. Stdu, and explained 
 'demigods.' But the Ass. ltdu is out of place both here 
 and in Ps. cvi. 37 ; equally so is the sense 'demon,' 'evil 
 spirit,' attaching to the Aram. NTO>. Whether TO) occurs 
 as a divine name or title in Phoenician is highly doubtful ; 
 the proper name "TOTD. may be read "lOTft, where 10) may be 
 a shortened form of 10>N or Y)0?N, which we know well as a 
 divine name, and which may have spread northwards in the 
 Arabian migrations. Most probably D">Ttt> in both the 
 passages in which MT. gives it should rather be D'HOJ, i.e. 
 D'HIZJN, ' Asshurs,' i.e. ' Asshur-images.' Similarly D'HIltf in 
 Hos. xii. 12, and "n&> in Ps. cvi. 20 b z should be, respect- 
 ively, D">*no>N and Y)0?N. Just so D-W>N, commonly ex- 
 plained ' worthless gods,' from fr^N, ' worthlessness ' (BDB, 
 p. 47), means rather (see p. 157) 'Yerahme'el images,' and 
 D^in is a partly ironical corruption of D"6)Dn = D^MDrTT, 
 'images of Rebel or Yerahme'el.' Cp. xxxii. 21, where 
 ' their hebels ' are called ' not-gods ' (ht*-tfh) precisely as ' the 
 shedim' are called rr^N nh (v. 17); cp. N*IO> "6in, 'useless 
 hebels? in Ps. xxxi. 7. 
 
 This result appears to me of considerable importance. 
 
 1 It comes from pifK, ' one belonging to Asshur,' thus indicating 
 the origin of the Israelites (see T. and B. pp. 24, 404). Cp. wn nso = 
 nrwK 'o (Crit. Bib. p. 251). 
 
 2 The text of w. 1 9 /., translated, should run, ' They made a calf at 
 Horeb, | and worshipped a molten image, | and (so) exchanged their 
 glory | for the likeness of Asshur-Ashkal.' | ^N and afc-j; represent 
 
 and WDB" respectively. The latter is a gloss on the former.
 
 CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvn.-xxxiv.) 161 
 
 The shedlm, as we have been wont to call them, are not 
 mere demi-gods, but in the fullest sense gods. Indeed, the 
 parallelism of Ex. xxxiv. 1 5 l sufficiently shows this. To 
 say that ' the precise nature of the ideas associated with the 
 shedlm is uncertain ' (Driver), is no longer possible. The 
 idea is that of full divinity ; nothing less, indeed, will satisfy 
 the conditions of the case. They are supernatural beings 
 who pretend to be, but are not, gods. Another name for 
 the so-called shedlm in MT. is selrlm (Lev. xvii. 7, 2 2 Chr. 
 xi. 15), generally explained ' the hairy ones,' ' earth-demons ' 
 (like the Arabian jinn}? They were, however, much more 
 than this ; for they are made equivalent to the divine steer- 
 idols of Jeroboam, and have regular priesthoods attached to 
 them (2 Chr. I.e.}. To separate them from the so-called 
 shedlm is impossible ; indeed, D^TStD, like the shorlm in 
 Hosea and the shedlm in the ' Song of Moses,' comes from 
 D'H^N. 4 These ' Asshur-images ' were, of course, not mere 
 images ; they were inhabited by the god Asshur, who 
 could, in virtue of his divinity, take up his abode whereso- 
 ever he would. 
 
 In v. 21 we are told that Israel's divinely sent foes are 
 a ' not-people ' (DI? Nf?), i.e. being impious (^in), and not 
 having true insight (v. 20), they are not worthy to be called 
 a people. In v. 32 they are further compared to a vine, 
 whose stock is derived from Sodom and (consequently) its 
 ' tender grapes ' from Gomorrah. The writer hardly knew 
 that the Sodom-story originally referred to N. Arabia. 5 At 
 any rate, this probable result of criticism makes a reference 
 to Sodom highly appropriate in this context. nicntD has 
 not been adequately explained. Read mosi? D'VTEDl ; cp. 
 (f /col r/ K\ijfjiaTi<i CIVTWV e'/c Yopoppas. YTDD can be rendered 
 'tender grapes.' See E. Bib., 'Grapes,' 3, with note i, and 
 cp. Ibn Ganah, in Ges. Thes. 959 f. 
 
 1 ' (Take heed to thyself) lest thou make a compact, and they go 
 harlot-like after their gods, and sacrifice unto their gods, and one call 
 thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice.' 
 
 ' 2 ' And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto the seirim, 
 after whom they have gone harlot-like.' The parallelism with Ex. 
 xxxiv. 15 (see note i) is complete. 
 
 3 W. R. Smith, The Religion of the Semites, ed. 2, pp. 120, 441. 
 
 4 See above, p. 27. 5 Ibid. p. 298. 
 
 ii
 
 1 62 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 A few gleanings remain. In v. 42 the last two stichi 
 cannot be right ' With the blood of the slain and of the 
 captives, with the head of * of the enemy. || ' The three 
 improbable words are rrittn, l&NID, and niJTiD. It is possible 
 indeed that the poet archaises, and that he means to say 
 that the captive foemen shall be devoted by destruction to 
 Yahweh. This, however, is not very probable. It was 
 usual to carry away the captives (cp. xxviii. 49, Isa. xx. 4, 
 Hab. i. 9), and if the poet had meant a savage archaism, he 
 would have expressed himself more clearly. Even in Ps. 
 Ixviii., which is surely on the whole cruel enough, no mention 
 is made of the slaughter of captives. On the other hand, 
 we know that t&T is a common corruption of SNSDBT, and 
 that the foe spoken of is N. Arabian. Probably, therefore, 
 we should read 'oBT "hhn D"TD, ' with the blood of the slain 
 of Ishmael.' As to ENID, we know that UJNT is one of the 
 distortions of IEJN (see e.g. Ezek. xxxviii. 2), and as to 
 msriD, on which so much useless ingenuity has been spent, 
 it is simply miswritten for mDN, or (less probably) nsiS, 
 both of which we know to be the names of districts in 
 N. Arabia. 1 That TIN may be miswritten for rns?, has been 
 pointed out on Ps. iii. 8, vii. 6, etc. Thus we get, ' With 
 the blood of the slain of Ishmael, | [with Asshur, Ephrath 
 of Arabia]. || ' The second stichus I take to be a gloss on 
 ' Ishmael.' Indeed, the next verse (v. 43) also is perhaps 
 not free from glosses. lU-Qin is surely wrong. Like pcnn 
 in Am. iv. 3 (MT. rmtnrm), and somewhat as pmw and 
 pin, it may be a scribal or popular corruption of ^Non*P, 
 another scribal gloss on ' Ishmael.' IDS D^ll might perhaps 
 come from DIN "^J, ' nations of Aram.' At any rate, let the 
 problem be here stated. The original stichus seems to have 
 disappeared. 
 
 Here the Priestly Writer intervenes (vv. 48-52). He 
 tells how Moses was commanded to ascend a high mountain 
 
 1 See T. and B. pp. 262, 419 ; 62, 312. In Am. iii. 12 b (original 
 text) we find ' Ephrath of Hamath ' coupled with ' Ramshak (if that is 
 the right form) of Asshur.' Both these compound names are glosses 
 on ' Shimron.' There may, however, have been more than one 
 Ephrath, or, better, Ephrath may have had (like Asshur or Ashhur) a 
 larger and a narrower reference. In Num. xxiv. 17 (original text) we 
 meet with ' Ephrath-Moab,' parallel to the sons of Ashlar.'
 
 CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvu.-xxxiv.) 163 
 
 and enjoy the sight of the Promised Land before he died. 
 What is the mountain's name ? We read in MT., 
 I13"in mrr D-nisn -irr^N rfe, precisely as in Num. xxvii. 1 2, 
 except that there 113 in is not given. D^-il^rr "^ is the 
 name of a station of the Israelites in Num. xxi. 1 1, xxxiii. 44. 
 We know, however, that 112 is often an early corruption of 
 TW (Arabia); see T. and B. p. 197 (on Gen. x. 21) and 
 p. 245 (on Gen. xiv. 13). Read D'Q'isrr "in, 'the mountain 
 of the Arabians.' 113 in is more difficult. Winckler 1 long 
 ago warned against identifying 113 too confidently with the 
 Babylonian god's name Nabu. In Isa. xlvi. I the original 
 text probably had 113D npbl ITO, where 113 D is = Sanibu, 
 the name of an Ammonite king, and is compounded of 
 p = ftD = per and 11 = UN = [IJTIS. 2 Ishmael-Arab may 
 have been the original meaning of the name underlying 
 Nebo. This gives a suitable alternative to Asshur-Yerah- 
 me'el (see on iii. 27) ; it also accords excellently with the 
 place-name ' Nebo of Ashhur ' (MT. inn 113 needs cor- 
 rection) in Neh. vii. 33. I think that the opinion that 
 ' Mount Nebo ' indicates the wide spread of the cultus of 
 Nabu is as doubtful as the similar opinion about ' Mount 
 Sinai.' 3 
 
 In xxxiii. 6-25 we have a second series of poetic 
 descriptions of the characteristics and fortunes of the tribes 
 of Israel, parallel to that in Gen. xlix. Simeon is excepted, 
 but (otherwise than in Gen. xlix.) Joseph is regarded as a 
 double tribe, and Zebulun and Issachar are combined in one 
 saying. Levi and Joseph are treated with more fulness 
 than the other tribes. The order of the tribes deviates from 
 that in Gen. xlix., which is also the ordinary one. The 
 composition is usually referred to the time of either Jero- 
 boam I. (Dillm., Driver) or Jeroboam II. (Kuenen, Reuss, 
 Stade, G. F. Moore). According to G. A. Smith, 'the 
 northern origin of the poem is universally admitted, and 
 indeed is very obvious ' (Expositor, March 1905, p. 236, n. 2). 
 
 Verses 2-5 and 26-29 form a satisfactory whole in 
 themselves ; we may call it a psalm. The subject is the 
 deliverance of the people, which is described as due to a 
 
 1 Gesch. Isr. i. (1896), p. 120 (n. 2). 2 Cp. T. and B. p. 51. 
 
 3 71 and B. p. 527.
 
 164 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 theophany. Henceforth Israel will dwell securely in the 
 enjoyment of the divine favour. 
 
 The combination of the psalm and the garland of 
 ' blessings ' may have been one of the latest acts of a re- 
 dactor of Deuteronomy. The text is in much need of 
 criticism. Pioneer work has been done by C. J. Ball, Proc. 
 of Soc. of Bibl. Arch., 1896, pp. 118-137. First, as to vv. 
 2-5, 26-29. The description of the theophany is historically 
 important, for it shows that at the late period to which 
 this poem or psalm apparently belongs there was still a 
 recollection of the N. Arabian origin of the worship of 
 Yahweh. It is true, we can gather this with abundant 
 certainty even from the present form of the Book of Exodus. 
 It was at Sinai or Horeb that the fundamental laws of 
 Israel are said to have been given ; at Horeb, too, 
 specially called 'the mountain of the Godhead' (i K. 
 xix. 8 ; cp. Ex. iii. i), that the prophet Elijah sought his 
 God ; and it was at any rate in N. Arabian sanctuaries (see 
 p. 157) that common Israelites, contrary to the teaching of 
 the prophets, sought priestly oracles. And now from Deut. 
 xxxiii. 2, as well as from Hab. iii. 3, Ps. Ixviii. 8, cp. Ezek. 
 i. 4 (theophany ' from Saphon ' = Sibe'on), we learn that poets 
 and prophets, writing for the community at large, expressed 
 or implied the very same view (viz. that in N. Arabia was 
 the Holy Land, and that Sinai was the great divine 
 sanctuary), even in the post-exilic period. ' Yahweh came 
 from Sinai,' says our psalmist, ' and beamed forth to his 
 people * from Se'ir ; he shone forth from Mount Paran, he 
 came from . . . Kadesh.' Here Sinai, Se'ir, Paran, and 
 Kadesh are combined as in Habakkuk, Teman and Mount 
 Paran ; while in the much older song of Deborah (Judg. 
 v. 4) the place whence Yahweh proceeds to help his people 
 is called ' the highland of Edom ' (DTTN mtDD). The 
 phrase used by another poet in Ps. Ixviii. 8 is uncertain. 
 pt^ttPl TTS21 is insufficient to form a trimeter, and the 
 preposition 3. unexpectedly takes the place of -p. pt^BF, as 
 
 1 to 1 ? is not adequately defended by the on 1 ? of Isa. xiii. 2 (Dillm., 
 Driver), where the writer's object is to awaken a sense of mystery. 
 in 1 ? should be isyS (cp. on Ps. xxviii. 8) ; so von Gall. S> (Haupt and 
 Ball, after @, Onk., Pesh., Vg.) is an arbitrary alteration.
 
 CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvn.-xxxiv.) 165 
 
 we have seen, is a corruption of four = NSQBT 1 . Probably 
 we should read jnttT iTT&p, ' from the highland of Ishmael,' 
 corresponding to the D1~W rn&D of Judg. v. 4. May we 
 infer from these passages (Ps. Ixviii. 8 perhaps excepted) 
 that Mount Sinai was situated in the Edomite country? 
 Or shall we slightly modify this view and suppose that 
 Sinai (Horeb) was in the land of which Yithro was the 
 ' priest,' i.e. in Midian, 1 or (as Smend suggests 2 ) not far from 
 Midian, to the west (Ex. iii. I, "irw)? 
 
 I think myself that the answer must be, No. Either 
 there were two mountains called Se'ir, and two districts 
 called Kadesh and Teman respectively, or else we must 
 read ' Asshur ' for ' Se'ir ' and ' Ethman ' ( = Ishmael) for 
 ' Teman,' while retaining ' Kadesh.' The latter course is 
 preferable. That Kadesh was in very early times the centre 
 of the Israelite people, appears certain. Kadesh (as the 
 name see below may perhaps indicate) was an Asshurite 
 place. As for Smend's inference from IHN in Ex. iii. I, it 
 is surely incorrect. ' Behind the wilderness,' as a topo- 
 graphical note, is hardly tolerable. As so often, in** in 
 Ex. iv. i comes from intDN. As pointed out elsewhere, we 
 should read "inttfN 11~TD ' to the wilderness of Ashhur.' 3 It 
 was to this district that Moses led his flock, and there that 
 the ' mountain of the Godhead ' rose. And this is no 
 isolated notice. From I K. xix. 3 f. t after the text has been 
 criticised, we learn 4 that in order to get to Horeb Elijah 
 had to go to Ishmael (MT. itDD^'^N), or, in other words, 
 towards Yaman (MT. DV Tn)- The presumption is that 
 Horeb was in the Yerahme'elite country. As for ' Edom ' 
 in the poetical passages referred to, it is extremely probable 
 that we should, as in many other cases, rather read ' Aram,' 
 and as for Teman, it is a popular corruption of SNSDBT, the 
 connecting link being jonN or Son** (cp. DDN, Ex. xiii. 20, 
 Num. xxxiii. 6-8, and ^IDriN (i S. x. I r, xiv. 21). In 
 Am. i. 12 Teman is clearly = Aram (so read in vv. 6, 9, 1 1, 
 ii. i). It was therefore from Aram and from Asshur that 
 
 1 Wellhausen, Stade, Meyer, G. F. Moore. 
 
 - Religionsgeschichte (1899), p. 35 (n. 2). 
 
 3 See T. and B. p. 527. 
 
 4 Ibid. p. 429.
 
 166 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 the author of the psalm we are considering brought Yahweh, 
 Israel's God. 
 
 It will be noticed that ' Sinai ' and ' Se'ir ' (i.e. ' Asshur '), 
 ' Paran ' and ' Kadesh ' (the prefix we will consider presently), 
 are parallel. It is probable that the name ' Asshur ' (or 
 Ashhur, or Ashtar) attached itself to the range of mountains 
 which included Sinai or Horeb (see on iii. 17) ; indeed, as we 
 shall see presently, Sinai itself sometimes bore a name one 
 component element of which was Asshur. As to Paran and 
 Kadesh, we find it expressly stated in Num. xiii. 26 that the 
 ' spies ' came to Moses ' to the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh.' 
 Elsewhere (Num. xx. i,xxxiii. 36) Kadesh is placed in the 
 wilderness of Sin, which may be supposed to have formed 
 part of the wilderness of Paran. Elsewhere l I have, I think, 
 made it probable that the name Kadesh represents Ashhur- 
 aram. The received text makes line 4 of the poem run, ' and 
 came out of holy myriads ' (tZTJp niTlp). Putting aside less 
 suitable corrections, we may read with confidence tzrrf? riTlEp 
 (Ewald, Dillm., Steuernagel) ; | at any rate recognises 
 ' Kadesh.' nno or n:nn probably comes from 
 (l Chr. ix. 40) = ^E3"D"1H, where hsi represents either 
 or ^NDHT. Kadesh was, in fact, in the land of Asshur- 
 Yerahme'el. 
 
 A great problem still awaits consideration. Line 5 runs 
 hnS rrr Q?N i^CPp, which is usually rendered, ' At (or, from) 
 his right hand was the fire of the law for them.' n~r, ' law,' 
 however, only occurs in late Hebrew and in the Aramaic 
 parts of the O.T., and represents the Persian d&ta, '(royal) law.' 
 That the text is corrupt has been seen by recent critics, but 
 they have thus far offered no satisfactory explanation. How, 
 indeed, could it be otherwise when the origin of the erroneous 
 reading nvrtDN or mrt!?N (iii. 17, iv. 49, Josh. x. 40, etc.) has 
 been entirely missed. It is, beyond doubt, TintEN or intDN. 
 "UrcfD and 1D7 are also corrupt. The former comes from 
 po^D 2 = (Dp ; the latter (like ch*\s in Gen. xxi. 3 3) 3 represents 
 the fuller form f?NonT apparently a gloss on JQ\ Thus we 
 
 1 See T. and B. pp. 242, 561. 
 
 2 Renan, pp;o, du cote' du sud' (Hist. \. 194). But pn- sometimes 
 represents JD;, a regional name = Yerahme'el. 
 
 3 See T. and I?, pp. 32 if.
 
 CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvn.-xxxiv.) 167 
 
 get [NDHT] -intDN je^p, ' from Yaman-Ashtar,' or, adopting 
 the gloss, ' from Yerahme'el-Ashtar. 1 This is probably a 
 gloss on &np miDD, ' from Meribath-Kadesh.' Here, as 
 elsewhere, the greatest pains were taken to emphasise and 
 render intelligible the close N. Arabian connexion of the 
 people of Israel. 
 
 In the concluding part of the psalm (as I venture to 
 call the poetical setting of the tribal benedictions) there is 
 not much which calls for notice here. In v . 26, however, a 
 happy idea of Hommel calls for mention. "lOJifi prefixed to 
 inn (as if ' and who is the sword,' etc.) is certainly un- 
 necessary, and according to Graf, Dillm., Steuernagel, and 
 Bertholet, a prosaic gloss. But such an absolutely superfluous 
 gloss is not at all probable. Hommel therefore proposes to 
 point IBJN ; ' Asher,' originally the god of the tribe named 
 after him, became identified with the great God Yahweh. 
 I would rather hold myself that Asher, with a plural 
 ' Asherim,' is a collateral form of Asshur. 1 But why should 
 we not point ~I$N here ? ' Asshur 'or 'El Asshur ' was 
 probably the name of the god of some at least of the tribes 
 which afterwards became united under the name ' Israel.' 
 It is in itself plausible, and also favoured by metre, to read 
 ' [Yahweh] is the shield which is thy help, and Asshur the 
 sword which is thy pride.' 2 This implies a divine duad 3 
 Yahweh and Asshur, equivalent to Yahweh -Yerahme'el. 
 Such a thing is not impossible. Some late writers would have 
 shrunk from it as an infringement of monotheism. There were, 
 however, different schools even in the monotheistic period, 
 and archaisms like this were not impossible to all. If this 
 view should seem hazardous to any one, an alternative is 
 open. We may read "ich* Nirr, ' that is, Asshur,' a gloss on 
 T^NJ ' thy enemies,' in the next line. In chap, xxxii. 
 ' Asshur ' occurs in a gloss (v. 42, end) as the name of Israel's 
 enemies. This indeed will be another archaism, but the 
 parallels for such an archaism are more abundant than for 
 the other. 
 
 We now pass on to the blessings of the tribes. And first 
 to Reuben's (v. 6). But is the saying really a benediction ? 
 Hardly, if Driver translates correctly 
 
 1 See T. and B. p. 24. 2 Ibid. p. 24. 3 Ibid. p. 16.
 
 168 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 Let Reuben live, and not die ; 
 But let his men be few. 
 
 Driver's opinion is that nty^NI was added to emphasise NT. 
 It was not enough to say ' let him live ' ; the same positive 
 declaration is repeated in another form. But if the poet is 
 so determined that people shall believe in the contiuued 
 vitality of this tribe, the next line ought certainly to be in 
 the same tone, and emphasise his energy or security. For 
 a parallel, cp. Ps. cxviii. 17 
 
 I shall not die, but live, 
 
 And tell out the works of Yahweh. 
 
 At the same time, we have no right to render with Q, ' and 
 let him (AL, Simson) be large in numbers ' (on which see 
 Hogg, E. Bib., ' Simeon/ 3), though Bertholet shows a 
 slight inclination to return to it, 'assuming the text to be 
 correct.' But surely the text cannot be correct ; no plausible 
 rendering of it has yet been given. 1 ncp-^Nl equally calls 
 for correction ; if the old solutions fail us, new ones must be 
 tried, and the experience gained in similar circumstances 
 utilised. The original word which has become ncf^Nl 
 should be one which gives the saying on Reuben a historical 
 and geographical setting. The case is parallel to the sayings 
 in Gen. xlix., of which only those on Dan, Gad, and Ben- 
 jamin are without a definite historical reference. It is 
 therefore more likely than not that any particular saying in 
 Deut. xxxiii. should possess one, and in the case of Reuben 
 the only way to make sense is to look for any traces of a 
 historical reference which may still underlie the traditional 
 text. 
 
 Can we doubt what the word underlying the impossible 
 nD^N is ? Surely not ; it is 7NSDBF. The two closing 
 letters (f?) are often separated in MT., in cases where the 
 main part of the word is corrupted ; sometimes they appear 
 as f?N, sometimes as vb or *b. The form from which no^N 
 immediately comes is either SNDJT or 'noriN (see above, p. 165). 
 
 1 See Driver's discussion, Deut. p. 395 ; but is his own explanation 
 more plausible ?
 
 CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvn.-xxxiv.) 169 
 
 The prefixed l may come from i. TP, however, is not a 
 probable word. That a tribal saying should begin ' Let him 
 live,' is contrary to all parallels. Some more definite word 
 is wanted ; it should be a word out of which TP may easily 
 have arisen such a word as 7JT = tnN" 1 . Thus we get, ' Let 
 Reuben lay hold of Yerahme'el.' Such a saying corresponds 
 excellently with the (most probably) true saying on Reuben 
 in Gen. xlix. 3 f. It may also be supported by the corrected 
 text of Gen. xxxv. 22, 1 for the received text of that passage 
 is as violently improbable as that of Gen. xlix. 3 f. For 
 some of the exploits of Reuben see I Chr. v. 9 f., where mo 
 (Perath) means mDN (Ephrath), and Gilead is the southern 
 Gilead (as ii. 36). 
 
 Now as to v. 6 b. We have seen that this cannot be 
 right. The easiest word to correct methodically is Yno, 2 
 which, almost as plainly as no" 1 ^N, must come from one of 
 several similar corruptions of SHSDOT, such as jnrp or 
 It is almost as clear that "nDDD comes from D"|DD. That 
 is a clan-name, we know ; it is proved by IDD n*np (Josh, 
 xv. 15) and mDD. The mDD "'Dl are expressly reckoned 
 among the ^NSDttT-rns ^l ('sons of Arab-Ishmael' 3 ), if we 
 accept an unavoidable correction of the improbable "ais "on 
 nth, Neh. vii. 57. A word still remains, TT1. As in v. 5 and 
 in Gen. xxxviii. 1 4, it most probably comes from Nin or N*im, 
 ' that is ' (win often introduces a gloss). The result is that 
 line 2 of the saying on Reuben consists of a gloss, ' that is, 
 Ishmael of the Sapherites.' It is probable that the Sapherites 
 (if this conjectural pronunciation is correct) were the same 
 as the Sarephites 4 or Sarephathites. It was at Sarephath, 
 probably the centre of this clan (which belonged to the 
 southern Sidon 5 ), that Elijah, according to the legend, ' found 
 religious kinsmen who revered his own God Yahweh.' 6 But 
 there was surely a time when neither among themselves nor 
 
 1 T. and B. p. 421. 
 
 2 vup would be grammatically more plausible; cp. iv. 27, Gen. 
 xxxiv. 30. 
 
 3 See E. Bib., ' Solomon's Servants.' 
 
 4 Neh. iii. 31 f., where 'goldsmith,' 'goldsmiths,' should be 
 ' Sarephite,' ' Sarephites.' 
 
 5 T.andB. pp. 17, 314, 504. 
 
 6 T. and B. p. 62 (n. 2). ' Yahweh ' = ' Yahweh-Yerahme'el.'
 
 i;o DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 with the more civilised N. Arabians were the tribes which 
 afterwards became known as Israelites conscious of close 
 religious kinship. 
 
 What, then, does the Reuben-saying tell us ? It tells us 
 that Reuben was destined to take a firm hold on the part of 
 Yerahme'el occupied by the Sapherite clan. The second 
 line of the saying has dropped out ; its place is taken by 
 words produced artificially by a scribe out of the misread 
 glosses. 
 
 The blessing of Judah (v. 7), according to the analogy of 
 Gen. xlix. 8 /., should be of a martial character. The 
 blessing which we have now to deal with, however, is in a 
 strangely subdued tone. As the text stands, Judah appears 
 to be fighting outside his own territory. If so, it must be 
 with the object either of extending his own land, or of 
 supporting some of his allies. But where in the narrative 
 books can we find evidence of such wars of Judah as might 
 here be referred to ? For he is contending against dangerous 
 odds, and is in urgent need of supernatural help against his 
 enemies. It is a less natural theory, though very commonly 
 adopted, that the passage expresses the longing of a N. 
 Israelite that Judah might be reunited to the kingdom of 
 Israel (so e.g. Stade, Gesch. i. 1 60 ; Wellh., Dillm., Driver, 
 Steuernagel, Bertholet). But is such a longing probable, 
 and would it have been thus briefly expressed ? Kennett l 
 proposes therefore to point SQW, and to read IHN 1 !"!, ' will He 
 bring him in.' He thinks the phrase ' his own people ' 
 should mean ' the people of Judah ' (in Judaea), and ' the 
 voice of Judah ' ' the prayer of the Jewish exiles in Babylon 
 to be restored to their kindred in the Holy Land.' The 
 consequence is that we get a ' double conception of Judah 
 as being both in Babylon and in Judaea at the same 
 time.' This can hardly be admitted. Kennett does not see 
 (though he must be on the point of seeing) that the present 
 unsatisfactory text covers over something different and yet 
 not altogether irrecoverable. It is in the apparently most 
 hopeless part of the saying that the key to the situation 
 exists, though one may frankly admit that but for experience 
 
 1 See art. in/, of Theol. Sfud., already referred to (p. 9, n. 5), July 
 1906.
 
 CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvn.-xxxiv.) 171 
 
 elsewhere one would be as much baffled as Stade and others 
 have been. The word ' baffled ' may seem inconsistent with 
 the fact that Stade has offered a correction of the violently 
 improbable words '*h in v*r, viz. h'? T*i "Tp-r, ' (with) thy hands 
 strive for him.' True, Stade does propose this correction, 
 but the harshness of *pT is intolerable, and experience shows 
 that in such a case as that before us no superficial correction 
 is of use. We must therefore try to look beneath the 
 surface, and so doing one is struck by the analogy of *h TH 
 (so Sam. reads) to other groups of words containing tth or "p, 
 in which this i*h or if? represents the final h& in ^NDHT, 
 while the preceding part of that word exists in a separate 
 and equally corrupted form. Most probably that is exactly 
 the case here. *\h n or *> m comes from *?NTn or rather 
 9N1V (f?Sl-p), while VT probably comes from ""(TV and this 
 from N"im, which so often introduces a gloss (see on Yri, 
 v. 6 b). Thus we get the gloss, ' that is, Yerahme'el.' But 
 to what word does this gloss relate ? To clear the way, let 
 us look backward. Can the second line in the blessing be 
 quite right ? It runs, ' and to his people mayest thou bring 
 him in.' But what is Judah's people ? Is it not Judah ? 
 Must not IDS be miswritten ? If so, does not the gloss point 
 the way to a probable correction of IDS ? The ethnic of 
 which Yerahme'el is the equivalent is surely Aram. Aram, 
 too, is the region which the other blessing of Judah represents 
 as the prize of Judah's valour 2 (Gen. xlix. 10). A parallel 
 for the corrupt IDS may be found in Num. xxii. 5, where 
 IDS "On is admittedly most improbable, but where the reading 
 pDS (accepted by Dillm.) is only less unlikely. 3 In both cases 
 we should most probably read DN "03, i.e. nnN " 1 33. The gloss, 
 ' that is, Yerahme'el,' was to prevent the early reader from 
 supposing the northern Aram to be referred to. The sense 
 therefore is 
 
 1 Transposition plays a great role in corruption. Here 'm became 
 V.T, whence vv. 
 
 2 See T. and B. p. 503. 
 
 3 A Hebrew writer would not have brought a Yahweh-worshipper 
 from the land of the ben Ammon, and even a redactor would not 
 have put two plainly inconsistent accounts of the origin of Balaam side 
 by side.
 
 172 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 Hear, O Yahweh, the voice of Judah, 
 And bring him in (triumphantly) to Aram [that is, 
 Yerahme'el], 
 
 And be a helper against his adversaries. 
 
 It will be noticed that the intrusive gloss-matter has sup- 
 planted the original third line. 
 
 There is also much difficulty in the blessing of Levi 
 (vv. 8-n). Meyer remarks, 'The saying gives us a distinct 
 picture of the position of the priestly class in the older regal 
 period, about 850 B.C. It is a single, compact work.' The 
 phrase 'those that hate him' (v. 11), according to Meyer, 
 means ' people who do not think much of the priests and 
 their oracles, offer sacrifice unwillingly, and would rather 
 act according to their own judgment than consult Yahweh.' 
 By the phrase TPDH QTN is meant ' the descendants of 
 Yahweh's faithful one,' i.e. of Moses. That Moses is repre- 
 sented in the legend as the ' son,' i.e. descendant, of Levi, does 
 not matter ; it was through Moses that ' Levi ' received his 
 spiritual significance. Meyer also draws the conclusion that 
 the prize which Moses hoped to gain, and actually did gain, 
 in the contest with Yahweh, here,and here only, spoken of, 
 was the Thummim and the Urim. 1 
 
 I am afraid that Meyer relies here on a too conservative 
 criticism. There are textual problems which he does not 
 seem to have recognised. I do not observe that he questions 
 either (a) T"fiNl Ton, or (b} Tron Wvb, or (c} paip^-jo. 
 Before we proceed, let us consider each of these difficulties. 
 
 (a) Against this reading is the unusual order of the 
 words (see Ex. xxviii. 30, Lev. viii. 8, Ezra ii. 63 = Neh. 
 vii. 65), and the obscurity caused by the absence of a verb. 
 The latter objection may be removed by prefixing ^h 1 ? \n (so 
 Ball, Bertholet). The former by emending ^pon into ?[npi*, 
 and T"i1N into TIN. HDN, with reference to judicial utter- 
 ances (Zech. vii. 9) ; *vm, with regard to expositions of the 
 law (cp. Ps. xix. 9, cxix. 30). 
 
 (b) TPon QTN^. The variations of the commentators 
 justify the suspicion that all is not right here. ' To the 
 
 1 Ed. Meyer, Die Israeliten, pp. 51-54.
 
 CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvn.-xxxiv.) 173 
 
 man of thy pious one ' ! Who is the ' pious one ' ? Moses, 
 Aaron, the tribe of Levi, or (so Stade, very strangely) 
 Yahweh? Ball (PSBA, 1896, p. 123) proposes *p7prr &* 
 But ' the man who has received thy kindnesses ' is not the 
 sense required by the context. The only remedy I can see 
 is to point Wvb, which is in apposition to Tron. Driver, at 
 any rate, renders as if he pointed thus. The pious one will, 
 of course, be the tribe of Levi personified. A tradition is 
 implied that Yahweh ' tested ' Levi at Massah, and ' strove ' 
 with him at the waters of Meribah. 
 
 (c] pmp^-jD is supposed to mean ' that they rise not." 
 I cannot, however, find any parallel for it quoted by the 
 grammarians, and r p*> is not probable after VDp. How shall 
 we correct the words ? Ball proposes -JD. Too superficial ! 
 Why should such a common word here, and here only, have 
 become corrupted ? ]D (as in JDTFN) is probably the latter 
 part of ^NDITP or ^NSDBT, and poip'' (like DSDjy, I K. iv. I 2, 
 and Dip' 1 , xi. 6, Gen. vii. 4, 2 3) is one of the many derivatives 
 of ^NDTTT. Either ' Yerahme'el ' dittographed, or ' Ishmael, 
 Yerahme'el ' (alternatives), may be regarded as a gloss, or 
 glosses, on VMtDD. The verb which originally stood in b 
 has fallen out. 
 
 The blessing of Benjamin seems to have been much 
 redacted. The original saying must have represented 
 Benjamin as a warlike tribe, fighting bravely against his 
 hostile neighbours. It may perhaps have said that his 
 territory was D'nnDD pi, ' amidst the Kaphtorim ' (see 
 T. and B. pp. 191 /). VDrO pi is not natural (see Dillm.). 
 
 The blessing of Joseph (i.e. Ephraim and Menasseh 
 combined, ^. 17 b} in vv. 13-17 is concerned first with the 
 fertility of his land and then with his irresistible strength. 
 First, Joseph's land is ' blessed of Yahweh with the most 
 precious things of heaven above (hsft, Dillm.), and with 
 (those of) the ocean which coucheth beneath.' Then if we 
 follow the lexicons, the poet continues thus 
 
 And with the precious things of the produce of the sun, 
 And with the precious things of the thrusting forth of the 
 months. 
 
 Driver finds here an allusion to ' the various crops of fruits,
 
 174 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 vegetables, grain, etc., which ripen at different seasons of the 
 year.' But how oddly expressed an ' allusion ' ! ' Produce 
 (products) of the sun ' ! As if the sun were a land. 
 c Thrusting forth of the months ' ! A purely imaginary 
 rendering, for ona occurs nowhere else, and the root-meaning 
 ' to thrust forth ' is wildly absurd here. And how can 
 ' months ' be parallel to ' sun ' ? Clearly the text has 
 suffered, and the physician must apply remedies. tDDCD 
 again and again elsewhere stands for f?Nl?DttP (see e.g. 
 xi. 3O), 1 and so surely it is here. Observe that in Gen. 
 xlix. 25 we meet with the phrase cm Itm, where Dm is 
 not ' womb ' but a shortened form of DITT. As for cm, we 
 may correct it as we have already corrected "QtB in vii. I 3 ; 
 the original is intm* (cp. lima). Lastly, DTIT is, of course, 
 Dm* 1 , the well-known shorter form of ^HDTTP. See again 
 on Gen. xlix. 25 (T. and B. p. 511). 
 
 The poet continues, as most agree to render 
 
 And from the top of the ancient mountains, 
 
 And with the precious things of the everlasting hills. 
 
 A few, however, explain BNT as ' best products ' (instead of 
 ' top '), and Bertholet would even emend into rvfi>N"iD. This 
 excellent scholar, at any rate, shows good judgment in 
 questioning tDNI, which, though it may mean ' best,' cannot 
 mean ' best products.' But why should rPtDfrTi have been 
 used instead of ~rio ? Hence it is, no doubt, that Driver 
 adheres to Bttri, and renders ' top.' But if the poet is under 
 the influence of Gen. xlix. 26 (which Driver would be the 
 last to deny), how comes he to put in a reference to the 
 tops of the mountains ? What sense is there in the in- 
 sertion ? Surely the blessing reads better without it. To 
 this Driver may mean to reply by his brief reference to 
 Ps. Ixxii. 1 6, which suggests to him the explanation, 'May 
 the mountain-sides to their very tops be fertile ! ' But it 
 hardly needs a very keen sight to discover that Ps. 
 Ixxii. 1 6 a is deeply corrupt. The truth seems to be that, 
 as so often, a gloss has intruded into the original text, and 
 expelled a part of it. The gloss is not indeed EN"), but a 
 
 1 For other instances see T. and B. p. 273.
 
 CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvu.-xxxiv.) 175 
 
 word underlying tDNi. What that word is, we shall see 
 presently. The word which it expelled can only be restored 
 by conjecture. But can we doubt what that word is? 
 Parallelism imperatively demands TID. 
 
 Our next step must be to criticise the phrases DTp^Tin 
 and oVis msii. In Gen. xlix. 26 we find the same phrases, 
 except that DTp'Tirr becomes (according to most critics, 
 following 0) is ^"in. But how comes is, 'eternity,' to 
 have been altered into tnp, ' antiquity ? ' The two words 
 are not parallel. The explanation is that here, as often 
 (e.g. Gen. xxv. 6, xxix. I ), mp has come from Dpi = DJTP 
 (Yarham), 1 and ch^s from f?NDriT (Gen. xxi. 33, etc.). As 
 has been pointed out elsewhere, 2 the original text probably 
 had 'is 'Tin = ms Vr, ' mountains of Arabia,' and in the 
 parallel line ^NDrrP rvum. That yrs and Dpi (onr) are 
 synonyms, need not here be shown. IEJN, miswritten as ONI, 
 is probably a gloss on these two words (see above). 
 
 V. 1 6 a is troublesome. There is nothing corresponding 
 to it in Gen. xlix. 26. It will be observed that the distich 
 is devoid of parallelism. The first line gives a general 
 reference to ' Nature at large ' (Driver, who, however, regards 
 this as a climax) ; the second, a loosely connected mention 
 of the favour of the covenant-God who revealed Himself to 
 Moses (so at least Dillmann and Driver). Let us take the 
 first line. The vagueness is intolerable. But why must 
 PN mean ' earth ' ? And why accept ilN^DI, which comes 
 in so awkwardly? Surely it is a corruption of ^NDJTP. 
 ' With the precious things of the land of Yerahme'el ' is 
 probably a gloss on vv. 14, 15. Line 2 runs, in MT., 
 TOD 'DpBJ pr-p. That Yahweh really had such a title as 
 ' dweller in the thorn-bush (?),' is extremely doubtful. The 
 title would, of course, be suggested by Ex. iii. 2, where 
 Yahweh is, according to most, represented as the numen of 
 a thorn-bush. It has, however, as I hope, been shown else- 
 where 3 that both in Exodus and in the ' Blessing of Moses ' 
 HDD should be ^p. With this change in the text, line 2 
 
 1 Cp. T. and B. p. 200. 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 512. So, too, in Hab. iii. 6 (MT. iy mn), and probably 
 in Isa. xlvii. 7 (MT. ty maa), Ivii. I 5 (iy ptr). 
 
 3 T. and B. p. 526.
 
 1 76 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 of v. 1 6 may stand. Line I has evidently fallen out, or 
 been supplanted by the gloss pointed out just now. Line 3 
 also needs correction ; the impossible form nntrnn has 
 probably come, not from nshin (Konig, Ges.-Kautzsch), but 
 from riN^Qn, which must, it would seem, have made its way 
 into the text from the margin. The true reading was 
 probably pnn (Gen. xlix. 26). 
 
 Thus we shall get inserting a possible but purely 
 conjectural first line 
 
 [Let the blessings of the God of Asshur,] 
 And the favour of the dweller in Sinai, 
 Be upon the head of Joseph, 
 
 On the crown of the head of the prince among his 
 brethren. 
 
 We now come to the eulogy of Joseph's might. The 
 text-reading of v. 17, 11. i and 2, gives 
 
 His firstborn steer hath majesty, 
 Its horns are horns of a wild ox. 
 
 So, at least, most critics render vnt& 1*01, though Ed. Meyer 1 
 ingeniously conjectures that YV)t& is 'Joseph's steer-god, who 
 begot Joseph as his firstborn, whence Joseph himself has 
 the strength and the horns of a wild ox.' Certainly ' his 
 firstborn steer' is a very odd expression for Jeroboam II. 2 
 (so Graf and Reuss), and what right have we to take YitD as 
 a collective ? But is it not equally unnatural to take YltD 
 for the steer-god ? 3 It is true, however, that the subject of 
 lines I and 2 in v. 17 must be Joseph. But to this it must 
 be added that the text of line I is thoroughly wrong, or, 
 more precisely, the original first line of v. 17 has been 
 supplanted by a gloss. This interpolation is probably niDIl 
 fpNorrn Tt$N, which corresponds exactly to the gloss in 
 Gen. xlix. 25 4 (MT. Dim DTB rvo-Q). 
 
 Zebulun and Issachar (Iskar) are coupled together 
 (vv. i8_/T) as in Gen. xlix. 13-15, but the descriptions of 
 
 1 Die Israeli ten, p. 284. 
 
 2 Ephraim is excluded by the last distich of the verse. 
 
 3 Hos. xii. 12 and Ps. cvi. 20 would not justify this. 
 
 4 See T. and B. p. 511.
 
 CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvn.-xxxiv.) 177 
 
 the tribes in the two collections of sayings are different. 
 The text is not free from uncertainty. c Rejoice, Zebulun, 
 in thy going out/ is strange ; we surely require either a 
 synonym for, or a word antithetic to, the ' tents ' of Issachar, 
 assuming, that is, that ' tents ' is correct. Ball therefore 
 proposes, for TjnNSia, Tpnte} (an assumed alternative to 
 T^3 ' in thy ships '). But is Y^N correct ? It has been 
 pointed out elsewhere that ^HN and SDYT are liable to be 
 confounded. 1 I propose, therefore, to read here "p^rrr, ' thy 
 palaces.' The ' palaces ' are those which, rightly or wrongly, 
 an ancient Hebrew poet supposed Issachar to have con- 
 quered in N. Arabia. The parallel to "J^XTTI in line i is, 
 probably, "p^NlS, ' thy troops.' The warlike character of 
 Zebulun appears from Judg. v. 18 (cp. Gen. xlix. 13, as 
 restored in T. and B.}. 
 
 From the present text it would seem that these two 
 tribes sacrificed in common at some mountain sanctuary, 
 and hospitably invited neighbouring peoples to take part 
 in the accompanying feasts. Such occasions might naturally 
 be used for purposes of trade. It is strange, however, that 
 the invitation of the ' peoples ' should be put first ; strange, 
 too, that the sanctuary should be so vaguely referred to as a 
 mountain. There is surely some textual corruption. The 
 going of the allied tribes to the sanctuary ought, of course, 
 to be mentioned first of all. In short, we shall do well to 
 restore ffth^, which probably fell out owing to the preceding 
 letters T?. It must now be added that forms of tr\p not 
 seldom (e.g. 2 K. xviii. 4 b} take the place of ^worrr, and 
 probably enough this is the case here. 2 D^DS is altogether 
 out of place ; probably it is a variant to DTP in the next 
 line but one, which crept in from the margin. Thus we get 
 as lines I and 2 
 
 They go to Mount Yerahme'el, 
 There they offer right sacrifices. 
 
 By Mount Yerahme'el may be meant one of the most 
 
 1 Cheyne, Psalms (1904), i. 49, where, in the note on Ps. xv. i, 
 Ps. xix. 5, xxvii. 5/!, Ixi. 5, Ixix. 26, Ixxviii. 60, Ixxxiv. 7 are referred to 
 as instances. Hab. iii. 7 might probably be added. 
 
 2 Note that @'s toAo6fy>eixroixrii> presupposes ic-irv, which, like itnp', 
 may come from "?Kbrn\ The common text of @ is in some disorder. 
 
 12
 
 178 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 sacred of N. Arabian mountains, that on which Abraham 
 would have offered up Isaac, and where too, perhaps, was the 
 central sanctuary spoken of in the original Deuteronomic 
 legislation (see on Dt. xii. 5). The 'right sacrifices' are 
 those approved in Deuteronomy. Hogg's suggestion (E. 
 Bib., ' Zebulun,' 6) that the sacred mountain must have 
 been not far from Esdraelon, and may have been called 
 Baal-zebul (see 2 K. i. 2, 9) is at least a subtle attempt 
 to supply the deficiencies of MT. 
 
 Lines 3 and 4 of v. 19 (as usually read), according to 
 Driver, give ' the reason why the two tribes invite foreign 
 nations to such feasts : the wealth derived by them from the 
 sea enables them to do so.' In line 4, in particular, he sees 
 (with most scholars) an allusion to the manufacture of glass 
 from the sand about 'Akko. 1 The allusion, however, is not 
 obvious, and the text of line 4 (even more clearly than that 
 of line 3) is highly questionable. To admit the two con- 
 struct participles ('OlDtt "ODtD) side by side, cannot be right, 
 especially as a verb is wanting. 2 f?in, too, is often corrupt 
 elsewhere, and is probably so here. 3 The problem is a hard 
 one, but I for my part incline to think that line 4 is a collection 
 of glosses, viz. -OBOn = ^N^D^ NVT, TIDZ3 = TlDrP = ^NSD&T 
 (again ),fnn = Sm = ^NDrrP, 4 and that line 3 should run,sptt> ^ 
 13)7' D'StP, ' for Shema of the Yamanites they acquire.' This 
 may perhaps give the reason why Zebulun and Issachar 
 go together to the sacred mountain. The sacrifices are 
 sacrifices of thanksgiving. If so, the parallel line has fallen 
 out, or been supplanted by the glosses already referred to. 
 
 Verses 20 and 2 1 contain the blessing of Gad. His 
 lion-like courage (cp. i Chr. xii. 8) and the choiceness of 
 his allotment are dwelt upon. The three stichi in v. 20 are 
 of unequal length. It would seem that some pious scribe 
 prefixed ITnDn "HEN. pip is also questionable. ' He layeth 
 himself to rest like a lion, and teareth the arm, yea, the 
 crown of the head,' is, at any rate, not quite natural. Or 
 
 1 Cp. Hogg, E. Bib., 'Zebulun,' 5. 
 
 2 For attempts at emendation see Hogg, E. Bib., I.e. 
 
 3 @ gives e/A7rd/Ha, i.e. rta-i. 
 
 4 See T. and B. p. 373, and note that o'^n in Neh. iii. 31 comes 
 from D'^KDnv (E. Bib., ' Merchant ').
 
 CONCLUDING SECTIONS (XXVIL-XXXIV.) 179 
 
 shall we render (cp. 0), ' he layeth himself to rest, having 
 torn,' etc. ? Later in the passage, however, we find the 
 troublesome words Dttf "0. May not this be a corruption of 
 Dtth3, which originally stood in the margin as a correction 
 of ptD ? ' Gad is like a lion of Kusham (Kushan).' We 
 might then continue, ' He teareth the arm,' etc. 
 
 We now pass on to v. 21. It is usually supposed 
 that this passage alludes to the narrative in Num. xxxii., 
 according to which Gad was conditionally favoured with an 
 allotment in the rich pasture-land east of the Jordan (so the 
 received text). The first two lines are thus rendered by 
 Driver 
 
 And he looked out a first part for himself, 
 For there a commander's portion was reserved. 
 
 But can rvtDNT stand by itself? A 'first part' of what? 
 Bickell inserts piN, but this is arbitrary. And how can 
 PDD ppno np^n pass for good Hebrew ? pap, ' reserved,' 
 is specially difficult. Indeed, any participle after ppno is 
 improbable. The next line has been rendered, ' And he 
 came to the heads of the people.' But how can nnN, 'to 
 come,' be construed with an accusative of the person ? It 
 has therefore been suggested l to read (for Nrri pao) 
 pQDNm (cp. v. 5). 2 Certainly an inversion of the two 
 parts of a word (when corrupted) is probable enough. But 
 a 'paragogic Nun' only occurs once (v. 1 1) in the MT. of 
 these blessings, and then at the end of a clause (the usual 
 position). The value of the parallel is still further reduced 
 by the strong probability that the word poip" 1 is corrupt. 
 Besides this, who can assert that ' and the heads of the 
 people were gathered together' fits into the context? If 
 these are the right words, they must have come in from the 
 margin. But they are, as I think, not the right words. It 
 has not been observed that pso may be a corruption of pas, 3 
 which, as I have shown, often represents psis ( = p?DtD = 
 ^NSDHT), and, if so, is a gloss ; also that Nm, if corrupt, may 
 
 1 Hayman, Cambridge University Reporter, May 21, 1895 ; Giese- 
 brecht, ZATW, 1887, p. 292. 
 
 2 Cp. (, arvvrjy fJLV(av a.fj.a ap^Tjyots Aaaiv. 
 
 3 Some MSS. read pss. 
 
 12 a
 
 i8o DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 most easily be corrected into 1NJT1 ; further, that 'IDNT in 
 line 3 may very well be the short for rPBhn ('"'On), and that 
 DS, like IDS in v. 7, may represent D"m, while ^h in line I 
 may come from f?N, a fragment of ^NDriT. If we further 
 suppose that there has been some slight transposition of 
 words owing to the misunderstanding of the scribe, we 
 arrive at this result l 
 
 NT1 He saw the choicest part of Aram, 
 ppnD Dp 1 ??! "l^m And coveted a leader's portion. 
 
 The concluding distich appears to mean that Gad's conduct 
 in the matter of his allotment (Num. xxxii.) was just and 
 right, both towards Yahweh and towards Israel. 
 
 Dan's blessing (v. 22) is a short one. Yet, from the 
 prevalent point of view, it presents one difficulty. ' Dan is a 
 lion's whelp | That leapeth forth from Bashan ' ; but if the 
 northern Dan is referred to, how can he be likened to a 
 lion of Bashan ? As Ed. Meyer 2 remarks, the name 
 ' Bashan ' here receives a surprisingly wide reference. That 
 lions of Bashan are not elsewhere referred to is of less 
 importance. What, then, shall we say to the former 
 difficulty ? The answer is that though Dan did not live 
 in the best known land of Bashan, he did dwell for a time 
 in the original Bashan, i.e. Abshan or f Arab-Ishmael. 3 
 
 In the blessing of Naphtali (v. 23) there is, first of all, 
 the question whether Naphtali is addressed, and directed 
 to occupy his territory, or whether the poet declares that 
 this favoured tribe actually possesses the land assigned to 
 it. The MT. gives ntjrr, which is explained as a strengthened 
 imperative Kal in pause. Sam., however, gives tDT* 1 , and 
 0, Onk., Pesh., Vg. all presuppose the 3rd person. A 
 recent critic 4 leaves line 2 of the blessing untranslated, 
 declaring that n&TP DITTl D" 1 is entirely obscure. Dillmann, 
 it is true, does not think so. ' Naphtali's land,' he says, 
 ' though chiefly a highland region in the north, is neverthe- 
 
 1 DB> '3 has been already accounted for as a marginal correction. 
 
 2 Die Israeliten, p. 526 (n. i). 
 
 3 See on iii. I (Og, king of Bashan), and cp. Crit. Bib. on Josh. 
 xix. 40^, and T. and B. p. 571. 
 
 * Ed. Meyer, Die Israeliten, p. 541.
 
 CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvn.-xxxiv.) 181 
 
 less to be extended southward by the Lake of Huleh and 
 the Jordan to the Lake of Gennesaret.' This does not 
 seem at all obvious. Dim D" 1 most naturally means 
 not ' sea and south-land ' (Dillm.), ' the lake and the south ' 
 (Driver), but ' west and south.' In this perplexity, let us 
 assume the text to be corrupt, and apply ordinary methods 
 of correction. We know that D* 1 often stands for \cr, and 
 that letters are often inserted, omitted, or transposed, so 
 that DWT may easily have come from THQ3 or TIDD. In 
 Mic. v. 5 the MT. gives Tnoa pN as a parallel to TIB?N pN, 
 and it can be shown that the Asshur who is referred to in 
 this passage is not Assyria, but the N. Arabian Asshur. 1 
 TDQ3, therefore, being parallel to "il&N, must be also a 
 N. Arabian regional name, and so, presumably, is the THD3 
 which underlies the DVn in the blessing of Naphtali. "moD 
 may, or may not, have stood in the original text of the 
 blessing. In case it did not stand there, it is well to 
 mention that TIES in Gen. x. 8 has probably come from 
 TID3 (]om), and that the statement ' Kush begot Rahman ' 
 appears to be followed by the gloss, ' That is, Yerahme'el.' 3 
 So, then, ' sea and south ' should be ' Yaman and Rahman.' 
 Perhaps the poet does but seek to show his learning. Or 
 perhaps there really were two separate districts known by 
 equivalent names. At any rate the local reference of 
 Naphtali's blessing, like that in Gen. xlix. 21 (revised text), 
 is N. Arabian. 
 
 The blessing of Asher (yv. 2^f.} is perhaps not quite as 
 questionable as that in Gen. xlix. 20, not at least till we 
 come to the last line. The hyperbole in v. 24 (end) may 
 be paralleled by Job xxix. 6, and the bolts of iron and 
 bronze remind us of the bronze bars of city-gates in I K. 
 iv. 13. At the same time the hyperbole referred to would 
 be quite isolated both in this special blessing and in the 
 whole collection of sayings, and the parallel passage in 
 Gen. xlix. 11 (see T. and B. pp. 5O5/) is corrupt. One 
 may also doubt whether the blessing of Asher in the 
 traditional text of both the collections is quite grand enough, 
 
 1 See T. and B. p. 182. In v. 4 note the gloss mSr m, i.e. m 
 VxyDtr, 'this is (means) Ishmael,' referring to the word -IIP* which 
 follows. 2 Ibid. p. 183.
 
 182 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 especially for the closing blessing, as here. The first two 
 lines indeed may pass, but "fon ptZQ f?lJoi should probably 
 be i^m para hy\r\, and INTT nornm *?m should be ^om 
 l"r$5 inBNTi. To explain this I may refer to T. and B. 
 p. 109, where it is pointed out that in Gen. iv. 22 \r\vtn 
 Sfi?HYi, underlying f?mi ni&TO, is a pair of glosses on Tubal- 
 kain, and that \non stands for Ashhur-Ethan, and Sn?n for 
 'Arab-Ishmael. Thus we get the distich 
 
 Tubal in Ishmael is his district, 
 Rabshal and Hashtan in Arabia. 
 
 3TSH, ' in Arabia,' doubtless needs explaining. This, how- 
 ever, is not at all difficult l^wn and TQ^I * n MT. also 
 have to be accounted for. Let us take T?JED first This is 
 usually explained 'thy bolts.' But should we not rather 
 expect ' thy bars ' ? And what authority have we for ' thy 
 bolts ' ? The versions do not favour this ; 0, Pesh., Vg. 
 give ' thy shoes, 1 and such is very possibly the interpretation 
 implied by the points. What, then, is the underlying word ? 
 To answer this, let us take *rf?S2D together with "po^- 
 That the latter word is corrupt, need not be argued at 
 length, and we may (judging from our experience) natu- 
 rally suppose that the name of a place or region underlies it 
 It is probable that T*?S3D and fTTD have the same original, 
 and that that original is D53pr. This is one of the numerous 
 derivatives, or popular corruptions, of ^Norrp ; it may be 
 grouped with DSCjT 1 , pS, pl5, fpy. 1 That there was a 
 northern Yokneam does not militate against the prior 
 existence of a Yokneam in the N. Arabian border-land. 
 And now as to the msn underlying INTT. That something 
 must be done with TNIT is plain ; simply to remark with 
 Ed. Meyer, 2 that the stichus containing the word is 
 'altogether obscure,' is to confess that the old critical 
 methods are here powerless. It is also, apparently, to 
 assume that the rest of the blessing is free from questionable 
 matter. Surely it is no unreasonable conjecture that NIT, 
 like s:n in Num. xxxi. 8, Josh. xiii. 2 1 , and nm in i. 5 (see 
 above), has come from 115, or more precisely that 
 represents msn, the final T (3) having come from 3. 
 
 1 Cp. Crit. Bib. pp. 406, 427 / 2 Ibid. pp. 54 if.
 
 CONCLUDING SECTIONS (xxvn.-xxxiv.) 183 
 
 We are now face to face with the close of the whole 
 book, and of the great hero's life. We are told how Moses 
 went up the appointed mountain, and surveyed the land 
 which had been already promised to the patriarchs, and 
 which he would himself so gladly have trodden. Then, in 
 that same country, he died, and in the valley over against 
 Beth-peor (cp. Hi. 29) he was buried, but tradition did not 
 point out the sepulchre. May we not, then, suppose that, 
 according to an earlier legend, he escaped death, and was 
 at once taken up, like the parallel hero Elijah, into heaven ? 
 This would at any rate be a fitting close to the career of 
 the great ' man of God,' and is ' at least analogous to the 
 early Christian belief in a spiritual assumption.' l From 
 this point of view the site of the mountain becomes less 
 important. We may place it in the land of Moab (xxxiv. 5)1 
 or, if we will, in the neighbourhood of Kadesh, 2 which seems 
 once to have been regarded as the centre of the primitive 
 Israelites. The mountain was called Nebo, alluding, as 
 Jastrow 3 thinks, to the fact that Moses was a ndbt ; perhaps, 
 however, "DS is a broken form of *QDD, as to which see on 
 xxxii. 48-52. Whether the name Neba, which is attached 
 to the top of a headland five miles S.W. of Heshbon, has 
 anything to do with Mount Nebo, is doubtful, and the same 
 may be very positively said of a proposed identification 
 with the neighbouring headland Ras Siaghah, the slopes of 
 which fall steeply on all sides to the Jordan Valley and the 
 Dead Sea. 4 In fact, the limited view from the top of this 
 mountain seems to recent scholars to put the identification 
 out of the question. 5 
 
 It appears, however, to have been made probable that 
 the original Land of Promise was in the N. Arabian border- 
 land (see on xi. 24, Ex. xxiii. 31). The names of districts 
 and boundaries in vv. 2 and 3 were originally applied to 
 parts of that region, and some of them at least were after- 
 
 1 E, Bib., 'Moses,' 19 ; cp. Clem. Alex, Strom, vi. 15, quoted by 
 Charles, Assumption of Moses, p. 107. 
 
 2 E. Bib., 'Moses,' 16. 
 
 3 Religion of Bab. and Ass. p. 130 (n. i). 
 
 4 Conder, Heth and Moab, pp. 132 f. 
 
 5 See especially G. B. Gray, ' Mount Nebo,' Expositor, November 
 1904, and cp. E. Bib., ' Nebo,' ii.
 
 i84 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 wards carried northward. In v. 2 p-inNM DTT may have 
 come from pntDN p" 1 , i.e. Ashhurite Yaman (see on xi. 24). 
 -]33 may be a corruption of "OWN (see T. and B. p. 380). 
 irrp may, here and elsewhere, represent pnT, the name 
 of a border -stream or wady (see T. and B. p. 228). 
 For D-non TS we should perhaps read DVim rns (ibid. 
 p. 448). On Soar see T. and B. p. 303. How far these 
 writers really knew the geography of the border-land, I 
 would not determine. But here, at any rate, was their true 
 Holy Land, the region as near Paradise (with its four 
 streams) as imagination could suggest the land of their 
 patriarchs, of their prophet-legislator, and of their favourite 
 king, idealised by the mysterious power of a popular legend, 
 David.
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 Abram and Abraham, explained, xxxv 
 Achish, was he a Philistine? xxi, xlii 
 Adonis. See Phoenicia 
 Ahab, false prophet, 79 
 
 name explained, 72 
 Ahaz, king of Judah, 79 
 Altars, archaic, 105 
 Amalekites, xxx, xlv 
 Amarna tablets, xxix, 120 
 Amon, king of Judah, 6 
 Apries, king of Egypt, 80 
 Arabia, Minaean inscriptions, xi (n. 2 ), 
 
 xiii (n. 1 ), xv (n. B ) 
 Arabia, N. , Israelites in, 19 
 
 Israelitish sanctuary in, 27, in 
 
 cult of Melek in, 24 
 
 popular cults derived from, 73 
 Arabian, N., theory, ix, x, xx, xlviii 
 Aram, southern, xxxiv/. , 162, 165, 171 
 Aramaic inscription (Pognon), xxxiii 
 (.*) 
 
 papyri, 23 (n. 4 ), 24 (n. 1 ) 
 ' Aristeas ' quoted, 149 
 Arnon, origin of name, 113, 139 
 Arpad, 40 (with n. 1 ) 
 Arphaxad (Arpakshad), problem of, xliv 
 Arvad, in Phoenicia, xxxvi 
 Asa's reformation, 8 
 Asher, divine name, 167 
 Asherah, divine name, 22 
 Ashkal, 24, 93 
 Ashkalath, divine name, 119 
 Ashpenaz, name explained, 57 
 Ashlar, 93 
 
 Ashtart, divine name, 22, 33, 46 (moon- 
 goddess?), 56 
 
 titles of, 33, 53/., 72, 114, n8/. 
 
 opposition to cult of, in Deut. , 119- 
 
 123 
 
 Ashtereth, Og's city, 138 
 Ashtor, Mount, 143 
 Ashurbanipal, Assyrian king, 7, 12, 34 
 Asshur, name of two different countries, 
 
 xiii, 37, 89, 181 
 
 Asshur, or Ashhur, in Arabia, xi f. , 
 xxix, 40, 57, 85, 108, 166 
 
 Asshur, tree of, 113 
 Asshur- Yarham, 27, US/. 
 Asshurim, in Genesis, xi 
 
 symbols of god Asshur, 27, 114, 161 
 Assur, in Palestine, xiii (n. l ) 
 Astley, H. J. D., xv 
 
 Baal, 22, 46 
 
 Babel, the Arabian, xiii, S7/, 119 (n. 6 ) 
 
 Ezekiel on king of, 8 1 
 Babylon, first dynasty of, xxviii 
 
 cult of Marduk, 4 
 
 cult of Nabu, 4 ; cp. 76 
 
 cult of Nergal, 118 (n. l ) 
 
 cult of Ninib(in Palestine), xl (with n. 1 ) 
 
 cult of Sakkut, 119 
 
 myth of heavenly tablets, 101 (with n. 2 ) 
 
 myth of Tamuz, 54, 75 
 
 popular cults perhaps derived from, 
 
 73 ff- 
 
 Balaam (Bil'am), xxxiv, 124, 171 
 Ball, C. J., 164, 173, 177 
 Barton, G. A., 117 (n. 2 ), I2O/, 149 
 Bashan, name explained, 138, 143, 180 
 Beer-lahai-roi, xii 
 Beer-sheba, 28 (n. l ) 
 Benjamin, original seat of, 173 
 Berossus, historian, 59, 68 (. 2 ) 
 Bertholet, A., i67/. , 170, 172, 174 
 Beth-hakkerem, xxxiv 
 Beth-melek, corrupt place-name, 51 
 Beth-Yerahme'el, probable place-name, 
 
 51, 81 ; cp. xxiii 
 
 Bethel, origin of name, 26, 28 (n. l ) 
 Bickell, G. , 159, 179 
 Book of torah, iof. 
 
 Canaan, southern, 67, 95, 146, 148, 
 
 150, 183 
 
 its natural gifts, 146-149 
 Caphtor. See Kaphtor 
 Captivities, 59, 67, 84, 89 
 Captivity, results of ' Babylonian,' 84 
 Carchemish. See Karkemish 
 Cherethites ( Kerethites ). See David 
 Clem. Recogn., cited, 157 (n. 2 ) 
 
 I8 S
 
 1 86 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 Conder, Col., 31, 183 (. 4 ) 
 
 Coniah, 49, 66 
 
 Cook, Stanley A., xxii (n. 2 ), xxiv, xxx 
 
 Cooke, G. A. (Inscriptions), xlii (n. 1 ), 
 
 and elsewhere 
 Cornill, C. H., 32, 51 (. 4 ), 52, 59 
 
 (*.), 9 */ 
 
 Covenant, Book of, 72, 101, 104-108 
 Curtiss, S. I., 120 (. J ) 
 
 Dahler on Jer. xi, 32 (n. 2 ) 
 Dance, religious, 117, 123 
 David, his origin, xxiii 
 
 his hold on the Negeb, xxiii 
 
 his Kerethites and Pelethites, xx-xxiii, 
 130 (. 3 ) 
 
 his Arabian scribe, 99 (n. a ) 
 Davies, Witton, x, xi, xiii (n. 2 ), xviii/. , 
 
 xxxvi (. 4 ), xxxviii 
 Decalogues, the, 102-104 
 Delitzsch, Friedr. , 143 
 Deuteronomy, negative theories of, 9/1 
 
 based on N. Arabian Israelite law- 
 book, 20 
 
 no mere party program, 109 /I 
 
 N. Arabian atmosphere of, 131 
 
 fine morality of, 109 
 
 its law of the one sanctuary, no 
 
 characteristic trees of, 112 ff. 
 Dillmann, Aug., xxxii, 121, 145, 152 
 
 (. 4 ), 173, 175, i8o/. 
 Dod, divine name, 53 
 Dodah, title of Ashtart, 46, 53/1 
 Dog (?), technical meaning of, 120 
 Driver, S. R., 33 (. 2 ), 121 (with . 2 ), 
 140, 145, 154, I56/., i67/, I73/, 
 
 175. 178/ 
 Duff, Arch., 115 
 Duhm, B., 32, 39 (. 2 ), 48 (. 2 ), 51 
 
 (. 4 ), 53, 60, 79, 92/1 
 
 East, sons of, the term corrected, xxxiv 
 
 Ebal, sacrifice on Mt. , 153 
 
 Eerdmans, B. D. , xvii, 105 (n. 3 ), 106 
 
 (*') 
 
 Egypt, history of, xxi, 35, 86 
 
 Egyptian religion, 3, 31 
 
 Eli, priestly descendants of, 24 
 
 Elijah, 164/1, 169, 183 
 
 1 Elohim, written with finger of,' roo/1 
 
 Ephrath, in N. Arabia, xxiv, 37, 108, 
 
 155, 162 
 
 Ephrem the Syrian, 120 
 Erbt, W., xv, 7, 8 (n. 1 ), 9 (. 3 ), 12 
 
 (.), I2 9 (.) 
 
 Esar-haddon, inscriptions of, xxi (. 1 ), 
 
 xlii 
 
 Euphrates, river. See Perath, Ephrath 
 Evil-Merodach, 68 
 Ewald, H., 145 
 Exodus, original story of the, xli 
 
 Ezekiel, historical use of, 70 f. 
 his stress on Sabbath observance, 104. 
 See also Jeremiah 
 
 Feasts, Israelite, of Yerahme'elite origin, 
 ii6/. 
 
 Pesah (Passover), 117 
 
 Shabu'oth (Weeks), 117 f. 
 
 Sukkoth (Booths), n8/ 
 
 of Issachar and Zebulun, 177 
 Finding of ' the book,' 8 ff., 109 
 Foundation-stone, produced by priests, 
 
 12 
 Frazer, J. G. , 55 (n. J ) 
 
 Gebal, northern and southern, 143 
 
 Gedaliah, governor, 28 
 
 Gerizzim and Ebal, 151 
 
 Gezer, Cretan influences on, xxiii 
 
 Giesebrecht, Friedr., 54 (n. 3 ), 179 (n. J ) 
 
 Glaser, Ed. , x (n. 1 ) 
 
 Goat-deities? 114 
 
 God, Divine Company, 22, 106, 167 
 
 Gordon, A. R. , xxvii, xxxii, xxxviii, 
 
 xliii 
 
 Gray, G. B., 183 (. 8 ) 
 Griffith, F. LI., 35 (. 4 ) 
 Grimme, H. , ii7/. 
 Gunkel, H., 63 (a. 1 ), 74, 76, 158 
 
 Habakkuk, 63/1, 78 
 Ham, origin of, xviii, xxvii 
 Hamaths, probably two, 44 
 Hammurabi, king of Babylon, xxix, 4, 
 
 51 (n. 2 ), 99, 101 
 Hamutal, queen-mother, 45 
 Hananiah, prophet, 77 
 Hashram, name underlying Kasdim 
 
 (which see), 58, 63, 94 
 Haupt, Paul, 58 (n. 1 ), 149 
 Hayman, Dr., 179 (n. 1 ) 
 Hebrew tribes, earliest history of, xxv 
 Hermon, Mt., 140/1 
 Herodotus, 35, 36 (n. l ), 80 
 Hezekiah, 3, 5, 8 
 Hilprecht, 59 
 
 Hincks, E. , Assyriologist, 89 
 Hittites, 95 
 Hitzig, Ferd. , 50, 53 
 Hogg, H. W., xlvi (.!). 168, 178 
 Hommel (Fritz), xi (n. 2 ), xiii (n. 1 ), 
 xxi, xxviii, xxxiv, xliv, 119 (n. 4 ), 
 1 20, 167 
 Horeb, Mt., 164 
 Horites, 136/1 
 Horses from Egypt or Misrim, 70/1, 
 
 no, 130 
 Huldah, prophetess, 17 ff. 
 
 origin of name, 17 
 
 her residence, 19 
 
 her oracle, 20
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 187 
 
 Ibn Ezra, on Dt. vi. 4, 145 
 Ishmael, changes of name, xxxvi/i 
 
 chariots of, 39 
 
 cubit of, 141 
 
 olive-trees of, 148 
 Israel, N. , scantiness of records of, 
 
 Jabbok. See Yabbok 
 
 Jamani, at Ashdod, xvi, xxxv 
 
 James, William, xlviii 
 
 Jastrow, Morris, 183 
 
 Javan. See Yaman 
 
 Jealousy, image of, 74 
 
 Jebusites, 25 
 
 Jeconiah. See Coniah, Jehoiachin 
 
 Jehoahaz, 44/1, 49 
 
 Jehoash, 8, 21 f. 
 
 Jehoiachin, three months' reign, 67 
 
 elegy on, 66 
 
 captivity of, 66 f. 
 
 release, 67-69 
 
 his sons, 68_/ r . 
 
 Jehoiakim, his earlier name, 45 (with 
 .) 
 
 how long did he reign ? 45 (with n. 4 ) 
 
 his early years, 56 
 
 builds fortifications, 51/1, 90 
 
 his contest with Jeremiah, 47/1 
 
 condemned by Jeremiah, 52 
 
 his last scenes, according to Jeremiah, 
 
 S2/. 
 
 Jeremiah, historical value of his book, 
 
 32. 45 
 
 his scribe Baruch, 47 
 his abhorrence of Baal-religion, 33 
 his address in the temple, 48 /. 
 his portraits of kings of Judah, 49^ 
 his imprisonment, 82 
 his purchase of a family estate, 83 
 and Ezekiel, their deficiency, 72 ; cp. 
 
 3i 
 
 Jeroboam I., 161, 163 
 Jeroboam II. , 176 
 
 Jerusalem, siege of, release of Hebrew 
 slaves, 73/., 82 
 
 the city taken, 83/. 
 
 captains of king of Babel, 57, 84 
 Jeshurun. See Yeshurun 
 Jethro. See Yithro 
 Joktheel, origin of name, xxxiii 
 Jordan, miswritten, 115, 133, 152, 184 
 Joseph, original scene of story, xli 
 Judah, history of, its uncertainties, 3 
 
 Kadesh, i6s/., 183 
 
 Kadytis, city, 35 
 
 Kamphausen, A., 90 
 
 Kaphtor, Kaphtorim, xxiii, 138 
 
 Karkemish, miswritten, 37, 40 (n. 1 ) 
 
 Kasdim, 62-64, 94 
 
 Kemarim, explained, 23 (n. 4 ), 120 
 
 Kennedy, A. R. S., 158 
 
 Kennett, R. H., 9, n, 126 (n. 6 ), 144, 
 
 154. 170 
 
 Kennicott, B. , 153 (n. 1 ) 
 Kiriath-arba, xii 
 Kittel, R. , 9, 45 (n. 4 ) 
 Klostermann, Aug., 6 (n. 4 ), 158 (. *), 
 
 IS9 
 
 Konig, Ed., 176 
 Kraetzschmar, R. , 45 (n. 1 ) 
 Kiichler, Friedr. , xvii 
 Kuenen, A., 163 
 Kush, N. Arabian, xlii/. , 42, 83, 88 
 
 Law-books, production of early, 99 /. 
 
 'Mosaic,' 100 
 
 Lebanon, southern (?), 136, 150 
 Linen, symbolism of, 76 (n. 1 ) 
 Lyon, D. G. , 101 (n. 3 ) 
 
 Macalister, R. A. S., 85 
 Magan (in Arabia or in Nubia?), xix 
 Magic and sorcery, 124 ff. 
 Mal'ak, divine name, 106 ff. 
 Manasseh, 5, 22, 79 (with n. 4 ) 
 Marti, K., 13 (n. 1 ) 
 Maspero, G. , 13 
 Meinhold, Jul. , 104 
 Melek. See Arabia, N. 
 Meluha (W. Arabia or Ethiopia?), xiii, 
 xv, xvii, xix, xxviii (origin of name), 
 xlii 
 
 Meribah, origin of, 166 
 Mesha, inscription of, 54 
 Meyer, Ed., xi (. 3 ), xiv, xliv, 65 (. 3 ), 
 
 68 (n. 1 ), 83 
 
 Michael, archangel, 157 (. 2 ) 
 Minaean. See Arabia 
 Misrim, xii, xiii^, xxx, xli/i, 36, 88, 
 129, 155 
 
 extradition of offenders, 56 
 
 and Misraim confounded, 37, 86, 155 
 Misrite religion, incorrect representation 
 
 ' of, 38 
 
 Mohammed, 30 f. 
 Montserrat, explained, 140 
 Moon-god in Hebrew names, xxxiii (. J ) 
 Moore, G. F., 113 (. :! ), 24 (n. 2 ), 163 
 Moses, his origin, xxiv 
 
 his contest with Yahweh, 172 
 
 writes the ' ten words,' 101 
 
 parallel to Elijah, 183 
 
 death of, 183. See Law-books 
 Mourning, formulae of public, 53-55 
 Miiller, W. Max, 34 (n.*), 40, 86-88, 
 
 147 (.') 
 Musri, N. Arabian. See Misrim 
 
 N. Syrian, xiv, xvi 
 
 Nabu-na'id, king of Babylon, 12 
 Nahum, Book of, 39-41 
 
 origin of prophet, 41 (n. 2 ) 
 
 No-Amon, 39 f.
 
 i88 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 Name, his, a periphrasis for God ? xxviii 
 Names, regional, doublings of, xiv 
 
 archaistic use of regional, xliii 
 
 naive ancient use of regional, xix 
 
 Phoenician royal, xxix 
 
 Babylonian royal, xxviii 
 
 transformation of Hebrew, xxxii 
 Naville, Ed., 13 (n. 1 ) 
 Nebo, Mt. , 183 
 Nebuchadrezzar, name, 57 
 
 traditions of, 58/1 
 
 historical inscriptions of, 59 
 
 supposed confusion of two different 
 
 kings, 6 1 
 
 Nebuzaradan, 57, 84 
 Negeb, Schmidt's expeditions into the, 
 xx, xxvi 
 
 the original Holy Land, 184 
 Nehushtan. See Serpent, sacred 
 Nineveh, in Book of Nahum, questioned, 
 
 40 /. 
 No-Amon. See Nahum 
 
 Og, king of Bashan, I38/, 141 
 Olmstead, A. T., xiv, xvii, xx, xxvi(w. 2 ), 
 xxxviii 
 
 Paran, 166 
 Passover. See Feasts 
 Paton, L. B. , xiv 
 Pelethites, xxi^, 19 (n. 2 ), 138 
 Perath, N. Arabian name, 37 
 Persism in Deut. , asserted, 166 
 Petrie, Flinders, xv, xvi, 86 f. 
 Pharaoh-Hophra, 36, 8o/. 
 
 Neko, 3$ff., 61 
 
 Neko, the Nek&s of Herodotus (?), 35 
 
 Neko, is he mentioned on slab found 
 at Sidon ? 35 
 
 Neko, was he Josiah's opponent, or is 
 
 there a confusion? 35/1, 61 
 Philistines, name discussed, xxi/. , 19 
 Phoenicia, contemporary history of, 80, 
 84 
 
 religion of, 85 (Eshmun), 113 (Adonis) 
 Phoenician inscriptions, 120 
 
 ships? 155 
 
 Pillars (Yakin and Bo'az), 21 
 Pisgah, slopes of the, 143^. 
 Pleiades, myth of the, 117 f. 
 Priests, the two chief, 22 
 
 of N. Arabian affinities, 23 
 Prophets, inferior class of, 78 
 Prostitutes, sacred, 23, 120 
 
 J?a'anan-tree, meaning of, ii2/. 
 Rab-mag, Rab-saris, non - Babylonian 
 
 names, 57 (n. l ) 
 
 Rab-shakeh, name explained, 89 f. 
 his knowledge of Yahweh-prophecies, 
 89 
 
 Ramshah, or Ramshak, 40, 91, 162 
 
 (.!') 
 
 Rawlinson, Sir H. , 89 
 
 Rekabites, 6$/. 
 
 Rekem, xxxiii, 37, 126. See Yarham 
 
 Religion, heathen type of, whence came 
 
 it? 22 
 
 Renan, Ernest, 166 (n. 2 ) 
 Rephaim, 137, 141 (cp. xxviii, 'Rapha') 
 Robertson, E. , xxxvi 
 
 Sabbath. See Ezekiel 
 Sacrifices of children, 24 f. , 123 
 Salekah, place-name, 119, 139 
 Sanctuary, the one, 114^, 152 f. 
 Saphon, in N. Arabia, 20, 42, 57, 59, 
 
 9i 
 
 Sarephath, 169 
 
 Sargon, inscriptions of, xvi, xxxv 
 Schmidt, N., xi, xiii (n. 1 ), xviii^ 
 Schwally, Friedr. , 124 
 Sennacherib, 4, 89 
 Seraiah, ambassador to Babel, 79 (with 
 
 .) 
 Serpent, sacred, 4, 85 /. 
 
 of bronze, found at Gezer, 86 
 Shallum, royal name, 49 
 Shechem (Shakram ?), i52_/! 
 Shedfm, discussed, i6o/. 
 Shem, origin of, xxviii 
 Shimron, place-name, 18, 40 
 
 and Shomeron (Samaria) confounded, 
 
 89 
 
 Shinar, explained, 62 
 Shishak, king of Egypt (?), 86 
 
 true origin of name, 87 f. 
 Shoshenk, king of Egypt, 86 
 Sidon, southern, 169 
 Sihon, name explained, 139 
 Sinai, Mt. , 163-165, 175 
 Sirion, explained, 141 
 Smend, R. , 165 
 Smith, G. A., 163 
 
 H. P., xxxi/., xxxviii, 45, 50, 109 
 
 (.!) 
 
 W. R., 4 (n. 1 ), 74, 120 (n. 2 ), 137, 
 
 161 (w. 3 ) 
 
 Sodom, vine of, 161 
 Solomon, his Arabian scribes, 99 (n. l ) 
 his bodyguard, 130 
 his high places destroyed, 25 
 Stade, B., 4 (n. 1 }, 6 (n.*), 9 (. 2), 25, 
 
 145, 163, 1707. 
 Steuernagel, C. , 122, 127, 129 (n. 3 ), 145, 
 
 151, 156 (n. 3 ), 157 
 Sukkoth-benoth, explained, 119 
 Sun-worship in Judah, 25, 46 
 
 Tamuz, god of vegetation, 54, 75 
 
 Teko'a, southern, 17 
 
 Teraphim, 125 
 
 Tiglath-Pileser III., inscription of, xvi
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND NAMES 
 
 189 
 
 Totemism, xxxvi (with . 4 ), 74 
 Toy, C. H., 74 
 Tyre (or Missor?), 17 
 
 Ur-kasdim, problem of, xliv 
 Urim and Thummim, 172 
 
 Vincent, Pere, 25 (n. 1 ), 31 (n. 1 ), 86 
 
 Wady el-Artsh, xiii (n. 1 ), xx 
 Wellhausen, Jul. , xlv, 101 (n. 4 ), 103 
 Winckler, H. , xiv, xv, xvi, xix/". , xxviii, 
 xxxix/:, 17 (n. 1 ), 35, 37 (. 6 ). 45, 
 49, 68, 79, 87, 117 (n. 1 ), 118, 
 163 
 
 Yabbok, the, 143 
 Yahweh, divine name, 103 
 
 Face of, title of Yerahme'el, 107 
 the numen of the thorn-bush (?), 175 
 Yahweh-Ashhur, rare divine name, 145 ; 
 
 cp. 167 
 
 Yahweh - Yerahme'el, fuller name of 
 Israel's God, 103 (n. 3 ), 106, 145, 
 167 
 
 Yam-Pelishtim(?), 107 /. 
 Yam-Suph (?), 107 ; cp. 134 
 
 Yaman or Yawan, meaning and origin 
 
 of, 41, 150; cp. xvi, xxxv /., 167, 
 
 184 
 Yarham or Yerahme'el, divine name, 46, 
 
 85, 94, 103 
 ethnic name, its wide reference, 
 
 xxviii ^ 
 
 Yawan. See Yaman 
 Yerahme'el, Mount, 177 
 Yerahme'el-images, 157, 160 
 Yerahme'elite influence on Judah, xxv 
 
 migration, ix, xxxi 
 Yeshurun, 160 
 Yithro, priest of Midian, xxiv, 165 
 
 Zarephath. See Sarephath 
 Zebudah, queen-mother, 45 (with n. 2 ) 
 Zedekiah, vassal of king of Babel, 70 
 
 his weak character, 71 
 
 his combination against king of Babel, 
 76 
 
 his rebellion, 80 
 
 his embassy to king of Misrim, 81 
 
 his regard for Jeremiah, 72 
 
 his fate, 83 
 
 Zerah the Kushite, 87, 91 (n. 1 ) 
 Zerubbabel, 68 
 Zimmern, H., xxxvii (n. l ), 76, 118
 
 INDEX OF BIBLICAL AND COGNATE 
 LITERARY PASSAGES 
 
 GENESIS 
 
 XX., pp. IO2/. 
 
 
 xx. 22-xxiii. 33, p. 104 
 
 iv. 22, pp. 85, 182 
 
 xx. 23-25, p. 112 
 
 ix. 25-27, p. xliii 
 
 xx. 24, pp. 105, 114 
 
 ix. 27-30, p. xxvii 
 
 xxi. 2, p. 72 
 
 x. 2, pp. xxiii, 17 
 
 xxii. 8, p. 1 06 
 
 x. 6, p. xxx 
 
 xxii. 19, p. 105 
 
 x. 8, p. 181 
 
 xxiii. 15, p. 107 (n. 3 ) 
 
 x. lo/l , p. 42 
 
 xxiii. 19 b, p. 105 
 
 x. ii, p. 95 
 
 xxiii. 20-33, p. 106 
 
 x. 14, p. xxiii 
 
 xxiii. 28, p. 107 
 
 xii. i, p. 115 (with n. 4 ) 
 
 xxviii. 19, p. xxix 
 
 xii. 10, p. 147 
 
 xxxii. 20, p. 114 
 
 xii. 16, p. 155 
 
 xxxiii. 14, p. 107 
 
 xvi. 7, p. 154 
 
 xxxiv. 4, 28, p. 101 
 
 xxi. 33, p. 175 
 
 xxxiv. 15, p. 181 
 
 xxii., p. 153 
 
 xxxiv. 17-26, p. 101 
 
 xxiv. 62, p. xii 
 
 
 xxv. 3, 18, pp. xi, xxx 
 
 LEVITICUS 
 
 xxv. 6, xxix. i, p. 175 
 
 xvii. 7, p. 161 
 
 xxvi. i, p. xxx 
 xxxv. 22, p. 169 
 
 xxiii. 42/1, p. 118 
 
 xxxvi. 23, p. 154 
 xliii. 11, p. 148 
 
 NUMBERS 
 
 xlviii. 22, p. 150 
 
 xi. 5, p. 148 
 
 xlix. , p. 163 
 
 xii., p. 127 
 
 xlix. 3/, p. 169 
 
 xiii. 23, p. 147 
 
 xlix. 8/. , p. 170 
 
 xiii. 27, p. 148 
 
 xlix. 10, p. 171 
 
 xx. i, p. 116 
 
 xlix. ii, 13, pp. 155, 158 
 
 xx. 5, p. 147 
 
 xlix. ii, p. 181 
 
 XX. 10, p. 128 
 
 xlix. 13, p. 177 
 
 xxi. 9, p. 85 
 
 xlix. 13-15, p. 176 
 
 xxi. n, p. 163 
 
 xlix. so/., p. 181 
 
 xxi. 20, p. 143 
 
 
 xxii. i, p. 115 
 
 EXODUS 
 
 xxii. 5, p. 171 
 
 
 xxiii. 7, p. xxxiv 
 
 iii. i, pp. 164/1 
 
 xxiv. 17, pp. xxvii, 162 
 
 iii. 2, p. 175 
 
 (.') 
 
 iii. 8, p. 148 
 
 xxiv. 20, p. xxx 
 
 iv. i, p. 165 
 
 xxvi. 38, p. xxix 
 
 xii. 23, p. 76 
 
 xxvii. 12, p. 163 
 
 xiii. 3^, p. 117 
 
 xxxi. 8, p. 182 
 
 xiii. 12, p. 150 
 
 xxxii., pp. 179/1 
 
 xiii. 20, p. 165 
 
 xxxiii. 36, p. 166 
 
 xvi. 21, p. in 
 
 xxxiii. 44, p. 163 
 
 DEUTERONOMY 
 
 i. i-iv. 43, pp. i 33 /: 
 i. i/, pp. 133/1 
 
 ' 5. PP- 135. 182 
 
 i. 6-8, p. 136 
 
 ii. 10-12, pp. 136/1 
 
 ii. 18, p. 137 
 
 ii. 20-23, PP- *37/ 
 
 ii. 24-iii. n, p. 138 
 
 ii. 34, iii. 6, p. 140 
 
 iii. 46, pp. 1397. 
 
 iii. 9, p. 140 
 
 iii. 14*, p. 142 
 
 iii. i6/., pp. i 43 /. 
 
 iii. 17, p. 166 
 
 iv. 20, pp. xviii, 141, 144, 
 
 146 
 
 iv. 44-xi., pp. 145/1 
 iv. 49, p. 1 66 
 v., p. 103 
 v. 6-10, p. 145 
 vi. 4 /., pp. i 4S / 
 vii. 12-15, PP- 146, 149 
 viii. 7-9, pp. 146/1 
 ix. i/, p. 150 
 xi. 6, p. 173 
 xi. 10-12, pp. 146/1 
 xi. 10, p. no 
 xi. 24, pp. 108, 150 
 xi. 30, pp. 151/1, 174 
 xii.-xxvi., pp. no, \\zff., 
 
 131 
 
 xii. 5, etc., pp. no, 114 
 xii. n a, p. 115 (n. 6 ) 
 xiii. 6, p. 116 
 
 Xiv. 21, pp. 120/1 
 
 xv. 12, p. 72 
 
 xvi. 1-15, pp. 117/1 
 
 xvi. 21, pp. in, 113 
 
 xvii. 14-20, p. 129 
 
 xvii. 16, p. no 
 
 xviii. lo/l, pp. 123/1 
 
 xx. i, p. 130 
 
 xxii. 5, pp. 119-121 
 
 xxii. 6/1 , p. 109 
 
 191
 
 192 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 xxii. 9-11, pp. i2O/i 
 xxiii. 2 (i), pp. 126 f. 
 xxiii. 3 (2), p. 126 
 xxiii. 4-6, p. 15 
 xxiv. 9, pp. 127 f. 
 xxv. 4, p. 109 
 xxv. 17-19, pp. I27/. 
 xxv. 17, p. 127 
 xxvi. 1-15, pp. i28/. 
 xxvi. 5, pp. 129, 131 
 xxvii. -xxxiv. , pp. 
 xxvii. 2, 4, 8, pp. 
 xxvii. 11-13, p. 151 
 xxviii. , pp. i$4/. 
 xxxi. 20, p. 159 
 xxxi. 26, p. 15 
 xxxii., pp. 155^ 
 xxxii. 5-10, pp. iss/. 
 xxxii. 10, 13, p. 157 
 xxxii. 14 f., pp. 158-160 
 xxxii. 17, pp. i6o/. 
 xxxii. 2O/1, 32, p. 161 
 xxxii. 42 b, p. 155 
 xxxii. 42/1, pp. 162, 167 
 xxxii. 48-52, pp. 162 f. 
 xxxiii. 2-5, 26-29, PP- 
 
 xxxiii. 
 xxxiii. 
 xxxiii. 
 xxxiii. 
 xxxiii. 
 xxxiii. 
 xxxiii. 
 xxxiii. 
 xxxiii. 
 xxxiii. 
 xxxiii. 
 xxxiii. 
 xxxiv. 
 xxxiv. 
 xxxiv. 
 
 2, pp. 134, 164-167 
 26, p. 167 
 
 6, pp. 167-170 
 
 7, pp. 170-172 
 8-1 1, pp. 172 f. 
 12, p. 173 
 13-17, pp. 173-176 
 i8/l, pp. 176-178 
 20 /. , pp. 178-180 
 
 22, p. 180 
 
 23, pp. i8o/ 
 24 /. , pp. i8i/. 
 
 , p. 183 
 2, p. 184 
 5/i, p. 183 
 
 JOSHUA 
 
 viii. 33, p. 151 
 xi. 22, p. xxii 
 xiii. 21, p. 182 
 xv. 54, p. 159 
 
 JUDGES 
 
 i. 16, p. 65 
 v. 4, pp. i6 4 /. 
 v. 10, p. 155 
 v. 18, p. 177 
 
 x- 4. P- 139 
 
 xiv. 3, xv. 18, p. xxii 
 
 xv. 19, p. 85 
 
 xx. 48, p. 142 
 
 i SAMUEL 
 
 i.-iv. , p. 24 
 i. i, p. xxiv 
 
 11. 29, p. 159 
 
 ii. 36, pp. xlivf. , 24 (with 
 
 S.1) 
 
 vii. 14, p. xxii 
 
 x. 27, p. xlv 
 
 xiii. 19 /. , p. 67 (n. 2 ), 149 
 
 xv. 9, p. xlv 
 
 xvii. 12, p. xxiii 
 
 xxiv. 14, xxvi. 20, p. xii 
 
 xxv. 43, p. xxiii 
 
 xxvii. 10, xxx. 14, p. xxvii 
 
 xxviii. 7, p. 125 
 
 xxx. 1 6, p. xxi 
 
 xxx. 26, 29, p. 28 (n. 2 ) 
 
 2 SAMUEL 
 
 v. 25, p. xxiii 
 xvii. 25, p. xxiii 
 
 1 KINGS 
 
 iii. 28, p. 99 
 
 iv. 3, p. 99 (n. l ) 
 
 iv. 13, p, 181 
 
 v. 6, x. 26, p. 130 
 
 v. io/i, p. 63 (n. *) 
 
 vii. 21, p. 21 
 
 vii. 46, p. 149 
 
 x. 18, p. xiv 
 
 xi. 40, p. 87 
 
 xiii. 2, p. 29 
 
 xiii. 30, p. 55 
 
 xiv. 23/, p. 119 
 
 xiv. 25 /. , p. 86 
 
 xvii. z\ff., p. 29 (n. 6 ) 
 
 xviii. 26, p. 117 
 
 xix. 3 /., p. 165 
 
 xix. 8, p. 164 
 
 xix. 15, p. 38 
 
 xxi. 27, p. 125 
 
 2 KINGS 
 
 vii. 6, p. xiv 
 
 xi. 14, p. 21 
 
 xii. 14-16, p. 8 
 
 xiii. 18, p. 45 
 
 xiv. 7, p. xxxiii 
 
 xvii. 6, pp. 29, 88 /. 
 
 xvii. 30, pp. 58, 119 
 
 xviii. 46, pp. 85, 177 
 
 xviii. 13^-16, p. 89 
 
 xviii. i3-xix. , p. 89 
 
 xviii. 24, p. 90 
 
 xviii. 25, p. 60 (. 1 ), 89 
 
 xviii. 32, pp. 113, 148 
 
 xix. 2, p. 16 
 
 xix. 35, pp. 5 (w. 1 ), 17 
 
 XX. 12, p. 58 
 
 xxi. 3-5, p. 25 
 xxii. 14, p. 1 8 
 xxii. 15-20, p. 20 
 xxiii. 1-3, p. 21 
 xxiii. 8, pp. 26, 114 
 
 xxni. 10, p. 24 
 
 xxiii. 11-13, P- I 3 I 
 
 xxiii. 21-23, P- 3 
 
 xxiii. 24, p. 125 
 
 xxiii. 25, p. 8 
 
 xxiii. 29, pp. 34, 37 
 
 xxiii. 30, p. 44 
 
 xxiv. i, pp. 56, 62 
 
 xxiv. 2, pp. 62/, 155 
 
 xxiv. 7, p. 66 
 
 xxiv. 1 6, p. 60 
 
 i CHRONICLES 
 
 ii. 25-33, P- xxii 
 
 iii. I7/, p. 68 
 
 iv. 8, p. 17 (. 3 ) 
 
 iv. 40, p. xxx 
 
 v. 9 /., p. 169 
 
 v. 23, p. 140 
 
 viii. ii, p. xxix 
 
 ix. 40, p. 166 
 
 xi. 21, p. 147 (n. 3 ) 
 
 xii. 8, p. 178 
 
 xviii. 16, p. 99 (n. l ) 
 
 xi. 15 
 xii. 3, 
 xxviii. 
 xxxiii. 
 xxxiv. 
 xxxv. 
 xxxv. 
 xxxv. 
 xxxvi. 
 xxxvi. 
 xxxvi. 
 
 2 CHRONICLES 
 
 , p. 161 
 
 p. 87 
 
 12, p. 17 
 
 ii, pp. 56, 58 
 
 6f. , 33, p. 26 (n. 
 21, p. 60 (n. l ) 
 
 24, p. 39 
 
 25, p. 41 (n. l ) 
 6, p. 62 
 
 8, p. 66 
 23, p. 38 
 
 EZRA 
 
 ii. , p. xxv. 
 
 viii. 27, p. 147 (n. 3 ) 
 
 NEHEMIAH 
 
 55- P- 6 5 (- 3 ) 
 
 iii., p. xxvi. 
 
 iii. 3 i/., pp. 95, 169 (.<) 
 
 vii., p. xxv 
 
 vii. 33, p. 163 
 
 vii. 57, p. 65 (. 3 ) 
 
 viii. 14-17, p. 118 
 
 viii. 15, p. 113 
 
 ix. 25, p. 159 
 
 xiii. 1-3, pp. 15, 127 
 
 xiii. 23/1, p. xxvi. 
 
 JOB 
 
 iii. 5, p. 23 (. 4 ) 
 
 13. P- 75 
 xxix. 6, p. 181 
 xxxix. 5-8, p. xii
 
 BIBLICAL AND COGNATE LITERARY PASSAGES 193 
 
 PSALMS 
 
 iv. 5/. , vi. i, p. 64 
 
 xlvi. 16, p. 43 (n. J ) 
 
 iii. 8, vii. 6, p. 162 
 
 iv. 13, p. 41 
 
 (i) 8, p. 57 
 
 xv. i, xix. 5, p. 177 (. : ) 
 
 v- 7. P- 33 
 
 . 16, p. 43 (n. J ) 
 
 xxviii. 8, p. 164 (n. J ) 
 
 Vi. 1-22, p. 42 
 
 i. 41, p. 58 
 
 xxxi. 7, p. 160 
 
 vi. i, p. 59 
 
 i- 59. P- 79 
 
 Ixviii., p. 162 
 
 vi. 15, p. 78 
 
 ii. 15, p. 82 
 
 Ixviii. 8, p. 164 
 Ixviii. 31, p. 74 
 Ixxii. 8, pp. 108, 151 
 Ixxii. 16, p. 174 
 Ixxviii. 51, p. xviii 
 Ixxviii. 70, p. 159 
 Ixxxi. 17, p. 159 
 civ. 15, p. 148 
 
 Vi. 22, p, 64 
 
 vi. 23-26(2, pp. 41 f. 
 vii. 3-15, p. 48 (n. 2 ) 
 vii. 3-viii. 3, p. 48 
 vii. 9, 18, p. 46 
 vii. i 7 /., pp. 34, 75, 119 
 viii. 8, p. 33 
 x. 22, p. 59 
 
 EZEKIEL 
 
 . 4, p. 164 
 viii., ix., pp. 73 /: 
 viii. 16, p. 25 
 x. 2, p. 76 
 xii. 13, p. 71 
 xiii., p. 77 
 
 cvi. ig/. , 37, p. 160 
 cxviii. 17, p. 168 
 cxxii. , cxxv. , cxxxiii. , 
 
 xi. 1-8, p. 32 
 
 xi- 15- P- 33 
 xiii. 1 8-2 1, p. 66 
 
 xiv. 5, p. 73 
 xiv. 22/. , p. 71 
 xv., p. 71 
 
 cxxxiv. , p. in 
 cxlvii. 14, p. 159 
 
 xv. 12, p. 149 
 xvi. 15- P- 59 
 xvii. 2, p. 47 (n. l ) 
 
 xvi. 3, 29, p. 95 
 xvii. 3/., pp. 67, 94 
 xvii. 5-21, p. 70 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 
 
 xix. 4/., p. 25 
 
 xviii. 6, p. 75 
 
 
 xxii. 1-5, 6/, p. 51 (n. 5 ) 
 
 xix. 1-4, p. 49 
 
 vii. 28, p. xi 
 
 xxii. 10-19, xxiv, xxviii, 
 
 xix. 5-9, p. 71 
 
 CANTICLES 
 
 xxx, pp. 49 /. 
 xxii. 13-19, 24-30, pp. 90^ 
 
 xx. 26, p. 25 
 xxi. 24 ff., pp. 6o/. , 67 
 
 iii. 6, p. 95 
 
 xxii. i8/., p. 66 (w. 2 ) 
 
 xxii. 27, p. 72 (n. 1 ) 
 
 iv. 8, p. 140 
 
 xxii. 24, 25-27, p. 66 (n. *) 
 
 xxvi. 7, p. 59 (.<) 
 
 ISAIAH 
 
 xxiii. 14, p. 78 
 xxiv., p. 71 
 
 xxvii. ii, p. 17 
 xxvii. 13, p. 155 
 
 ii. 6, pp. 23, 157 
 
 xxiv. i, xxix. 2, p. 67 
 
 xxvii. 23, p. xi 
 
 viii. 19, pp. i24/. 
 
 (n. 2 ) 
 
 xxix. 3, p. 85 
 
 x. 5, p. xxix 
 
 xxiv. I7/, pp. 72, 75 
 
 xxxviii. 2, p. 162 
 
 x. 9-11, p. 40 
 
 xxv. 25, p. 126 (with n. 4 ) 
 
 xxxviii. -xxxix. , p. 59 
 
 x. 27-32, p. 64 
 
 xxv. 38, p. 43 (n. !) 
 
 xxxviii. 6, p. 17 
 
 x. 27, p. 148 
 
 xxvi. , p. 48 
 
 DANIEL 
 
 xi. ii, pp. 142, 159 (n. 1 ) 
 
 xxvi. 20-23, P- S^ ( n - 1 ) 
 
 . 
 
 xiv. 12, p. 157 
 
 xxvi. 23, p. 82 
 
 1. 2, p. O2 
 
 xiv. 13, 31, p. 42 
 
 xxvii. 2, p. 77 
 
 x. 5, p. 76 
 
 xvii. 2, p. 137 
 
 xxvii. 3, p. 76 
 
 HOSEA 
 
 xvii. 10, p. 75 (n.*) 
 xix., pp. i24/. 
 
 xxvii. 17, p. 80 
 xxviii. 1-4, pp. 77, 80 
 
 ii. 10 (8), p. 103 
 iv. ii, p. xlvii 
 
 xx., p. 88 
 
 xxix., p. 79 
 
 
 xxvii. i, p. 85 
 xxviii. 1-4, p. 88 
 xxviii. i, p. xlvii 
 
 xxix. 22 f., p. 60 
 xxxii. 6-15, p. 83 
 xxxii. 35, p. 25 
 
 iv. 13, p. 113 
 x. 5, p. 23 (.>) 
 x. 14, p. 51 (n. 3 ) 
 xi. 4, p. 125 
 
 xxix. 4, pp. 124-126 
 xxx. 6, p. 142 (n. l ) 
 
 xxxiv., p. 72 
 xxxiv. 4/i, p. 63 
 
 xi. 5, p. 130 
 xii. 12, p. 160 
 
 xxxv. 7, p. 142 
 xlvi. i, p. 163 
 
 xxxv. , p. 64 
 xxxvi., pp. 47 /. 
 
 xiii. 15, p. 113 
 
 xlvii. i, p. 58 
 
 xxxvii. 3, 17, xxxviii. 14, p. 
 
 JOEL 
 
 xlvii. 7, p. 175 (. 2 ) 
 Ivii. 5, p. 114 
 Ivii. 8, p. 106 
 
 72 
 xxxvii. 5, pp. 73 (. *), 80 
 xxxvii. 13, xxxviii. 6, 19, 
 
 ii. 20, p. 151 
 iv. 6, p. 155 
 
 Ivii. 15, p. 175 (. 2 ) 
 
 p. 82 
 
 AMOS 
 
 Ixvi. 20, p. 30 
 
 xxxix. 3, p. 84 
 
 i- 9. P- 155 
 
 JEREMIAH 
 
 xxxix. 6f. , p. 83 
 xxxix. ii f., p. 60 
 
 i. 12, p. 165 
 ii. 6, p. xlvi 
 
 i. 13-15, p. 42 
 
 xxxix. 13, p. 57 
 
 ii. 8, pp. 121 (n. 2 ), 140 
 
 i. 15, p. 60 
 
 xii. 5, pp. 28, in 
 
 ii. 10, p. 150 
 
 ii. ii, p. 135 (w. 2 ) 
 
 xliv. 17 ff., pp. 72, 75 
 
 iii. 12 b, p. 162 (w. 1 ) 
 
 ii. 28 b, p. 33 
 
 xliv. 30, p. 80 
 
 iv. 3, p. 162 
 
 iii. 18, p. 59 
 
 xlvi. 6, p. 42 
 
 v. 26, p. 40
 
 194 DECLINE AND FALL OF KINGDOM OF JUDAH 
 
 vi. i, p. 29 
 
 vi. 2, p. 40 
 
 ix. 7, pp. xxiii, xxxv 
 
 ix. ii, pp. xlvi/. 
 
 JONAH 
 
 iii. 6, p. 60 (n. l ) 
 MICAH 
 iii. 12, p. 49 
 v. 5, p. 181 
 vi. 4^, p. 128 
 vi. 16, pp. 99, 119, 131 
 (*.') 
 
 NAHUM 
 
 iii. 8-n, p. 39 
 iii. 8, 17, p. 40 
 iii. 19, p. 39 
 
 HABAKKUK 
 
 ii. 5, p. 19 
 
 i. 5-10, 14-17, ii. 1-4, p. 
 64 
 
 ii. iif., 12-15, P- 4 2 
 ii. 15, iii. i, pp. 42 /. 
 
 i. 12, p. xlvii 
 
 ZECHARIAH 
 
 i. 16, p. 94 
 
 
 ii. 2, pp. xlvii, 135 (n. 2 ) 
 
 ii. 10, pp. 57, 59 
 
 ii. 4, p. 63 
 
 vi. i, p. 149 
 
 ii. s/., pp. xlvii, 64 
 
 vii. 2, p. 1 8 
 
 iii. 3, p. 164 
 iii. 6, p. 175 (n. 2 ) 
 
 vii. 9, p. 172 
 ix. 10, pp. 108, 151 
 
 iii. 7, p. 177 (n. 1 ) 
 
 xiv. 8, p. 151 
 xiv. 9, p. 146 
 
 ZEPHANIAH 
 
 I ESDRAS 
 
 i. 4, p. 23 (n.*) 
 
 i. 28, p. 38 (. 2 ) 
 
 i. 8, p. 123 
 i. 10, p. 18 
 
 ENOCH 
 
 i. ii, pp. 25, 94 
 
 vi. 6," p. 140 
 
 THE END 
 
 Printed by R. & R. CI.ARK, LIMITED, Edinburgh.
 
 OTHER WORKS BY PROFESSOR CHEYNE 
 
 THE 
 
 TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS 
 
 OF 
 
 ANCIENT ISRAEL 
 
 A NEW STUDY OF GENESIS AND EXODUS 
 Demy 8vo. Cloth. Price 15/- net. Post Free, Price \^s. ^d. 
 
 SOME PRESS OPINIONS. 
 
 1 ' It should commend itself to all who have the interests of learning at heart. It is a 
 monument of patient painstaking and comprehensive workmanship." The Nation. 
 
 ' ' The reader of the book must be amazed at its truly encyclopaedic stores of facts. . . . 
 The erudition expended in the investigation and the comparison of myths is prodigious, and 
 the volume is, in this respect, a splendid feast to the reader. ... A masterpiece of 
 learning." Homiletic Review. 
 
 ' ' All scholars ought to acknowledge the erudition, candour, and boldness which 
 characterise every part of the work." The Athenaum. 
 
 ' ' This volume is a masterpiece of careful and scholarly exegesis.- It will be attacked. 
 It will rouse furious hatred. But in a generation's time it will be the standard text-book on 
 Genesis and Exodus." Liverpool Daily Post. 
 
 
 
 CRITICA BIBLICA 
 
 Demy Zvo. Cloth. Price 15/. net. Post Free, Price 15*. $d. 
 
 MAY BE HAD IN FIVE PARTS 
 
 PART I. ISAIAH AND JEREMIAH, price is. 6d. net. 
 PART II. EZEKIEL AND MINOR PROPHETS, price 3*. net. 
 PART III. THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL, price 3* net. 
 PART IV. THE BOOKS OF KINGS, price 3s. net. 
 PART V. JOSHUA AND JUDGES, price 3-r. net. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK, SOHO SQUARE, LONDON, W.
 
 A Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by the Rev. T. K. Cheyne, D. Litt., D.D., 
 and J. Sutherland Black, M.A., LL.D., assisted by many contributors in 
 Great Britain, Europe, and America. Complete in four vols. Super royal 
 8vo. (n by 7f inches). Vol. I., A to D ; Vol. II., E to K ; Vol. III., L to 
 P ; Vol. IV., Q to Z. 
 
 Bound in cloth, Half leather, Full library leather, 
 
 price 20s. net per vol. price 25s. net per vol. price 30s. net per vol. 
 
 NOTE 
 
 It has been reckoned that the " Encyclopaedia Biblica " contains about five millions 
 of words, or as much as twelve volumes of the "Dictionary of National Biography." 
 Ninety-six specialists have been engaged upon it, and the work is international and 
 unsectarian. Roughly, it may be said that over a third of the writers belong to England, 
 nearly a third to Scotland, Ireland, or America, and exactly a third to Germany, Holland, 
 or France. 
 
 Some of the more important features of the work are : (i) The elaborate system of 
 cross-references, which enables one to extract from an article more than its name seems to 
 promise. (2) The maps, which have all been specially engraved for the book, and form 
 a collection unequalled at the present time. The different kinds of names Ancient, 
 Modern, Biblical, Classical are differentiated typographically, and each map bears its 
 index on its back. (3) The illustrations, which have been chosen with great care to 
 supplement the accounts given on such subjects as agriculture, architecture, coinage, 
 music, pottery, war, weaving. 
 
 The work is a singularly weighty contribution to the Biblical science of the time, and 
 it will be impossible to understand the movement of thought on Biblical subjects during 
 the next quarter of a century without taking account of the " Encyclopaedia Biblica." 
 
 SOME OPINIONS OF THE WORK. 
 
 Professor Peake, in Hibbert Journal. "The 'Encyclopaedia Biblica' has been recognised by those 
 most competent to pronounce an opinion as one of the most valuable and stimulating works on the Bible 
 ever published. Brilliantly edited, pressing into its service many of the ablest Biblical scholars of our 
 time, packed with information, much of it nowhere so readily accessible, precise and finished in scholar- 
 ship, beautifully produced, it has proved itself a treasured companion to the worker who keeps it in 
 constant use." 
 
 Eev. Principal A. M. Fairbalrn, D.D., in the Speaker. " To say the ' Encyclopaedia Biblica 1 is a 
 model of laborious and careful editing, a credit alike to printers and publishers, and to all concerned in its 
 production, is but to verify a truism. There is not anywhere in it a careless article, hardly even a careless 
 line. The editors do Inot seem to have allowed themselves the privilege of Homer and occasionally 
 nodded. Their love of accuracy may be described as almost a passion, and is sure to make this Encyclo- 
 paedia pre-eminently the scholar's work of reference." 
 
 Dr. Sanday, referring to various articles in "Encyclopaedia Biblica," said: "All these articles are 
 significant ; they are significant in the history of German as well as of English theology, for I do not think 
 that the views expressed had ever been stated in quite so trenchant a manner." 
 
 Guardian. " It is a mine of curious and out-of-the-way information, and the articles are never 
 common-place. " 
 
 Christian World. "Whatever, however, may be the verdict of the future, there is no question that 
 for the English Biblical student of to-day this work is one of unique value. It will be well for him, in the 
 interests of a full conspectus of points of view, to have others on his shelves, but he cannot afford to be 
 without this.," 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK, SOHO SQUARE, LONDON, W.
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 A T ?/~r -T 
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 305 De Neve Drive - Parking Lot 17 Box 951388 
 
 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1388 
 
 Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed. 
 
 1 6 2007
 
 OS 117. C429D 
 
 I 
 
 I- 
 
 PLEAfiE DO NOT REMOVE 
 
 mn 
 THIS BOOK 
 
 University Research Library 
 
 'ILITY 
 
 -"Ul 
 
 j 
 
 '\ 
 
 i H 
 I 
 
 m 
 
 o 
 
 m 
 n 
 
 r