YALE DIVINITY SCHOOL LIBRARY Gift of Estate of Professor George Dahl gale Bicentennial ^ublicationg BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES pale "Bicentennial publications With the approval of the President and Fellows of Yale University, a series of volumes has been prepared by a number of the Professors and In structors, to be issued in connection with the Bicentennial Anniversary, as a partial indica tion of the character of the studies in which the University teachers are engaged. This series of volumes is respectfully dedicated to Kty ) tribe, nnSTO family, 3N JV3 household (plural ni36UV3). Nowack Arch. Bd. I. p. 300 f. 4 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES number of men from each, an army for the conquest of Midian is formed (Num. 31 : 4 f.). Under such a complete united tribal organization Canaan is conquered and the tribes settling west of the Jordan receive their territory by lot (Jos. 14: 1-5), and the boundaries of each portion are given in detail (Jos. 15 : 1-12, 20-61 ; 16 : 4-9 ; 17 : 1-10 ; 18 : 1 ; 18 : 11 to 19 : 46 ; 19 : 48 to 21 : 42).1 This representation of such a perfect tribal organization of Israel is ideal, resting not upon contemporary documents, but arising when Israel's past existence was conceived under the form of a highly developed ecclesiasticism. Historically there was no such regular movement or precise constitution of the people. In general the only facts worthy of heed, given in these priestly narratives, are those respect ing the elements of each tribe and their geographical location. Tribes were made up of families, and these again of house holds, but even these terms, however, were not early used with precision.2 Sharp verbal distinctions belong to the exilic literature. The boundaries assigned to the tribes (in Jos. 14-19) may be generally accepted, although it is true that having a map of Canaan before him a late writer could easily apportion the land. Yet geographical reminiscence is natu rally enduring and there is no serious reason for questioning that here preserved. The idea, however, frequently advanced,3 that since the boundaries given in the book of Joshua can be retraced in modern surveys, therefore the record is ancient, is a non sequitur. Such a fact only proves that the writer had a correct knowledge of the geography of Palestine, and, indeed the suspicion that the boundaries did come from the priestly writer, although preserving a true tradition, seems confirmed by the fact that those located in Southern Palestine, where he probably resided, are less confused than those in other sections.4 1 These priestly sections are given according to Carpenter and Battersby, The Hexateuch, London and New York, 1900. 2 Buhl, Social Verhaltnisse in Israel, s. 37. 8 See, for example, Stewart's The Land of Palestine, 1900, p. 36. * Steuernagel, Joshua, p. 200. THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL 5 Of similarly little historical value are the notices of the tribes given in First and Second Chronicles. Here again the writer pictures the movements of the people carried forward by the distinct twelve or thirteen tribes mentioned by name. Each tribe represented by a definite number of warriors ap pears at Hebron to make David king over all Israel (1 Chr. 1 2 : 23-40), and a list is given of officers over each tribe under David (1 Chr. 27 : 16-22). Such a regularity of tribal organ ization does not appear in the earlier accounts of David's reign and is plainly an ideal sketch of the Chronicler. In any discussion, then, of the early tribal life or history of Israel the material found in the priestly writings can be almost entirely ignored. Its significance is theological rather than historical, since it furnished a vehicle for the eschatological conceptions of Judaism and early Christianity (cf. Ezek. 48; Rev. 7: 5-8). 2. In the Deuteronomic Writings ( Z>.) In the writings of the so-called Deuteronomic school, which flourished during the century following 650 B. c, the concep tion of the early organization and life of Israel is of the same general nature as that in the priestly writings, although the idea is not worked out so in detail or with such specific refer ence to the individual tribes. They appear all together men tioned by name only in connection with the blessing and curse pronounced from Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal (Dt. 27), but the solidarity of Israel moving as one man is plainly brought out in the Deuteronomic accounts of the conquest of Canaan (cf. Jos. 10 : 28-43 ; 11 : 10 to 12 : 24). 3. In the Historico-Prophetical Writings (JU.) In the prophetic narratives of the Hexateuch (known as J and E or as combined JE.) and the kindred portions of the subsequent historical books, are found the earliest accounts of the tribes of Israel. These narratives, however, were written not earlier than the middle of the ninth century and give 6 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES reminiscences of the past and theories based upon later con ditions, in genealogies and stories which in their interpreta tion open a wide field of conjecture and uncertainty. From these legendary materials must the history of Israel's tribes be constructed. Three documents also of special value have been preserved treating specifically of the tribes of Israel : (1) The song of Deborah (Judges 5). This is one of the oldest extant pieces of Hebrew literature if not quite the oldest, and is generally received as a document contemporary or nearly so with the events which it describes. (2) The Blessing of Jacob (Gen. 49). This sketch of the twelve tribes is clearly from the primacy given to Judah (vv. 8-12) not earlier than the time of David. Its date otherwise is difficult to determine, except that it antedates the special priestly office of Levi or the Deuteronomic conception of the tribe. (3) The Blessing of Moses (Dt. 33). This document is considerably later than the previous one, as the silence concerning Simeon and the change in the reference to Levi plainly show. Judah also occupies a different position. Driver places it shortly after the rupture under Jeroboam I. The majority of critics, how ever, assign it to the reign of Jeroboam II. THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL II THE GENEALOGICAL ORIGIN OF THE TRIBES 1. The Origin and Purpose of their Grenealogy The tribes appear as the descendants of the sons of the patriarch Jacob-Israel, who in turn is the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah. And Terah is not only the father of Abraham, but also of Nahor and Haran (Gen. 11 : 27) 1; and Haran is the father of Lot, the father of Moab and Ammon (Gen. 19 : 30-38) ; and Nahor is the father of a group of Aramean tribes (Gen. 22 : 20-24) . Abraham also is not only the father of Isaac, but of Ishmael, the father of a group of Arab tribes (Gen. 25 : 12 ff. P.) ; and Isaac is not only the father of Jacob, but also of Esau, who represents Edom. The origins are given in this genealogical way because primitive peoples were wont thus to explain their beginnings. The Greeks thus traced their descent from Hellen, who had three sons : Dorus and iEolus, from whom came the Dorians and ^Eolians, and Xuthus, from whose sons, Ion and Achasus, came the Ionians and Achaeans. This method prevails espe cially among Israel's kinsmen, the people of Arabia. Accord ing to their writers the inhabitants of Arabia are patriarchal tribes formed by the subdivision of the original stock on the system of kinship through male descendants. In process of time this stock broke into two or more tribes each embracing the descendants of one of the great ancestors' sons and taking its name from him. These tribes were again divided and sub divided upon the same principle. Between a nation, a tribe, 1 This verse is from P., but w. 28 f . from J. show that this source contained the same genealogical scheme. 8 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES a sept or sub-tribe, there is no difference on this theory except in size and distance from a common ancestor.1 This theory prevailed in Israel in the later genealogies. Jacob-Israel, who stood for the people as a whole, is the father of twelve sons representing the twelve tribes. Each son again is the father of another group of sons, representing the fami lies or clans of the tribe. Each of these sons in turn is the father of another group representing the households of the clan, and from these households come sons representing indi viduals. This appears in the story of Achan.2 He is the son of Carmi the son of Zabdi (household), the son of Zerah. (family or clan), the son of Judah (tribe), the son of Israel (nation). These facts seem quite sufficient to show that the patriarchs of Genesis cannot in general be regarded as real persons. Tribal names, it is true, are sometimes derived from historic heroes,3 but such a scheme of persons as appears in Israel's genealogical tree cannot be readily conceived as hav ing existed. "No nation known to us in history can be traced back to a single progenitor. The spaces of time that intervene between the progenitor or progenitors and the nation are always too vast and the complications and tribal mixtures too varied and numerous to allow of the develop ment being traced back to those ancestors. The life and thought of a later time are also woven into the story of Gene sis. The characters of Ishmael and Esau are derived from the people whom they represent. Ishmael, the wild son of the desert, is a type of the Bedouin of the desert. The rough hunter Esau, whom Jacob cozens and deprives of his birth right, is the model of the Edomites who reached an indepen dent existence before Israel, but were subdued by the latter." i This simple form of explanation that lines of descent repre sent peoples, tribes, and families does not entirely cover the 1 Cf. W. R. Smith, Kinship in Arabia, pp. 3f. 2 Cf. Joshua, 7 : 16 ff. D. 8 R. Smith, Kinship, p. 15. Sprenger, Mohammed, iii. p. cxxxvi. Jour. Bill. Lit. vol. xi. 1892, p. 120. 4 Kittel, Hist, of Israel, vol. i. p. 169. THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL 9 case when we examine the genealogy of Israel's origin. Terah cannot be recognized as a great people or race subdivided into tribes represented by his sons Abraham, Nahor, and Haran, and these in turn subdivided. Only in the latest members of this genealogical tree are historical tribes clearly recognizable. Israel and the twelve or thirteen tribes are historical, and thus also while much obscurity exists in regard to the twelve sons of Nahor (Gen. 22: 20-24), it is beyond question that the writer derived their names from tribes, peoples, or districts of his own day. Uz (to be distinguished from the one connected with Edom, Gen. 36: 28; Jer. 25: 20; Lam. 4: 21) is men tioned in Job 1:1; Buz in Jeremiah 25 : 23 ; and Maacah in Deuteronomy 3 : 14 ; Joshua 12 : 5 ; 13 : 11 ; Second Samuel 10 : 6, 8. Hazo occurs probably on an Assyrian inscription (Del. Par. 306 f.). Bethuel, house of God, perhaps equivalent to Methuel (^NlfiD), man of God (BDB Lex., Enc. Bib. 568), suggests from its meaning a mythological or religious origin ; still, names ending in el are tribal. This fact of historical tribal representation is seen also in the twelve sons of Ishmael (Gen. 25 : 12-16). They too, although all of them have not been identified, represent historical peoples. Nebaioth is mentioned in Isaiah 60 : 7, and on the Assyrian inscriptions (though probably not to be connected with the later Naba- theans) ; Kedar in Isaiah 21 : 16 f. ; 42 : 11 ; 60 : 7 ; Jeremiah 49: 28; Tema in Jeremiah 25 : 23; Job 6: 19; Jetur appears in the Itureans of the Roman period. Moab and Ammon, the children of Lot, are well known peoples. Ishmael undoubtedly as well as Israel represented a people. The name occurs as gentilic in the story of Joseph (Gen. 37 : 25, 27, 28), showing that such a tribe or people had at some time a real existence, but since they are only mentioned thus in the legends of Israel or figuratively (Ps. 83 : 6 (7)), they probably early fell into the background or disappeared. The earlier members of a line of descent may not only be tribes, but also genealogical links derived from other sources, especially from deities. These deities were the survivals of the ancient polytheism of Israel and its neighbors. The poly- 10 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES theism of Israel is abundantly witnessed by the Scriptures in the references to the gods served " beyond the River and in Egypt " (Jos. 24 : 2, 14, 23), in the teraphim stolen by Rachel (Gen. 31 : 19, 30 ff.), and the strange gods in Jacob's household (Gen. 35 : 2 ff.), to say nothing of the evidence in the stories of the constant relapses into Baal worship recorded in the book of Judges, and which continued even until the exile. Tribal gods long remembered and cherished in song and story, and from whom the people had once reckoned their descent easily, would be transmuted into ancestors and framed in genealogies. This would be especially favored from the ancient Semitic conception of a people being the son of its god. Thus Israel is called the son of YahwS (Ex. 4: 22; Hosea 11: 1). The Moabites are called the sons and daughters of Chemosh (Num. 21 : 29). Hence each tribe might have a double ancestry, that of the tribal patriarch or eponym, or that of the tribal god, whose son the former, however, would most naturally or necessarily be, or both might be represented under the same name. This last appears in the case of Gad, which is not only the name of a tribe and hence of an eponym or patriarch, but also of a deity (Isa. 65 : 11 ; cf. also the place names Baal- Gad, Jos. 11: 17; 12: 7; 13: 5, and Migdol-Gad, Jos. 15: 37). Israel's genealogy also arose as a whole to express kinship as well as to give an origin. The people of Israel recognized, through community of speech and customs, that they were closely related to the Aramean tribes north and east of Pales tine, the Arabian tribes east and south, and their near neigh bors, the Moabites and Ammonites and the Edomites. The reminiscence of an early association with these people may also have remained, and through these two influences came the genealogy. It was mainly an explanation of facts of the period of its composition, somewhere probably between 900 and 700 b.o. An exact solution of all the varieties of genealogical rela tionships given is not at hand. Mothers and daughters seem to represent the same class of facts as fathers and sons, there THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL 11 being no generic difference between them. Both tribal life and probably tribal mythology appear under the form of a family experience. Elder sons may represent earlier and more powerful tribes and families ; marriages their coalitions, the weaker being perhaps the wife, and an inferior a concu bine ; untimely deaths, their disappearance ; different relation ships of the same person, different political or geographical changes. But many genealogical stories and relationships originated evidently in folk tales, and hence they present a mingling of fact and fancy, of mythology and history, and the relationships of father, mother, wife, son or daughter cannot be interpreted upon any uniform theory in respect to the pre cise meaning of each. Especially open to criticism is the notion that wives represent weaker tribes and marriages coa litions. Wives or concubines are necessary when children appear. They spring from a necessity in the genealogy or the folk -tale, and hence one must be on guard against thinking marriages necessarily arose from actual, historical unions. Wives may be wholly due to the imagination and their names derived from various sources. 2. The Separate Members of Israel's G-enealogy Terah has been identified with an ancient deity (Tarhu, Turgu) whose worship was widespread in Northern Mesopo tamia and adjoining districts1 and whose name is preserved apparently in the element rapic of many Cicilian Greek names.2 Whether Nahor was originally also the name of a deity 3 or merely that of a lost tribe resident about Haran 4 is yet uncer tain. Perhaps Nahor was both a deity and tribe. Milcah, his wife, the daughter of Haran (Gen. 11 : 29 ; 22 : 20, J), assumed by Driver to have been a tribe, in name at least, represents Milkatu, the Istar or Venus of Haran. That Haran 1 Jensen, ZA, vol. vi. p. 70, Hittites, p. 153. 2 See article by Sachau, ZA, vol. vi. 8 Jensen, ZA, vol. xi. p. 300. Skipwith, JQR, vol. xi. 1899, p. 254. * Driver, article " Nahor," Hastings DB. 12 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES was a deity has been inferred by the name Beth Haran (Num. 32: 36). Etymologically it suggests (pfl coming from "Ifl, mountain, BDB Lex.) a mountain people or district. More likely, however, Haran is only a deviated spelling of Haran the original home of Israel 1 according to JE. This last ex planation fits in well with Milcah, a goddess worshipped at Haran, being Haran's daughter, and that Haran died in Northern Syria. Lot (£D17)is very obscure. Among the Horites, the ancient inhabitants of Seir or Edom, Lotan (?£3/) appears as a prominent clan or tribe (Gen. 36 : 20, 29), and this clan may be the origin of Lot, the cave dweller, the father of Moab and Ammon, or Lot may be a humanized deity from whom the Moabites and Ammonites traced their descent. Cainan (Gen. 5 : 9), equivalent to Cain (Gen. 4 : 17), has been thus identi fied.2 The story of the origin of Moab and Ammon through incest has ordinarily been regarded as having arisen from an expression of the hatred and contempt of Israel for the people of Moab and Ammon, and very likely this thought explains its preservation in the Hebrew Scriptures, but originally it probably was a tale of womanly strength and thus of tribal glory and honor, since the daughters of Lot, being with their father the sole survivors of some great catastrophe, were heroic enough to become mothers in an unnatural way and thus preserve their race.3 Abraham can only be understood by first considering Jacob and Israel. Historically the twelve tribes appear as the twelve sons of Jacob, probably first at the time of David. Earlier than this we cannot find the twelve grouped together as Israel. None of our general sources are of an earlier date and the one earlier document, the song of Deborah, accords with their late grouping, since this song makes no mention of Judah, Simeon, Levi, or Asher, and suggests thus that the idea of an Israel of 1 Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the Hist, of Israel, p. 313. Budde, Urgeschichte, p. 443. 2 W. R . Smith, Religion of the Semites, p. 43. 8 G unkel, Handkomm. zum A. T., Genesis, p. 197. THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL 13 twelve tribes corresponding to the twelve sons mentioned in Gen. 49, and the stories of their birth, were not yet current. The number twelve is an artificial one, derived, according to some, from the twelve signs of the zodiac ; but more likely because twelve was a standard way of reckoning peoples, as appears in the twelve sons of Nahor (Gen. 22 : 20-24), and of Ishmael (Gen. 25: 13-15). Israel's twelve tribes always fluctuated according to the reckoning of Joseph as one or as two (Ephraim and Manas- seh), Levi being omitted. The children, or sons of Israel, is the name by which the people called themselves (/N"!^" '^). Israel, then, was their proper national name. This name, how ever, belonged par excellence to the Northern Kingdom, the kingdom represented especially by the tribe of Ephraim. Is rael accordingly is preeminently the father of Joseph. Jacob clearly is an older figure than Israel, as appears from the story of the change of his name to Israel (Gen. 32: 28; 35: 10). Who, then, was Jacob? Most naturally he represents an ancient tribe later incorporated or transmuted into Israel, or at least later known by that name. The fact of the anti quity of Jacob seems to have met with confirmation in the mention of Jacob-el in the list of places conquered in Palestine by Thotbmes III. Jacob-el is a tribal or place name formed like Israel, Ishmael, Jerahmeel, Jezreel. Meyer regards the name that of a tribe. His theory is that the old tribe dis appeared, as later Amalek and Midian did, and then Edom and Moab, and, in the middle ages, the old Arabian tribes. Thereupon elements of it entered into Israel, probably through their preservation in Judah, and thus the name was preserved.1 W. Max Miiller, on the other hand, protests against the as sumption that the name can be otherwise than that of a town or city, since the Canaanites had then long since passed in civili zation beyond the tribal stage.2 Whether Jacob-el represents a tribe or place, Jacob is in Palestine in the sixteenth century. This fact is significant. Jacob has also been regarded as 1 ZATW, 1886, 9. a Asien und Europa, s. 164. 14 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES originally a deity,1 in view of the wrestling with God (Gen. 32: 22-30) and the expression "Mighty One [of] Jacob" (3p#* *V2N Gen. 49: 24). The wives and concubines of Jacob are not easily understood. They may represent Ara- mean tribes which pressing forward into the home of Jacob or Jacob-Israel became amalgamated with that stock. Leah (HN7), meaning "wild cow," has been regarded as a tribe whose totem was that animal, and the same also as the tribe of Levi ('iV), the latter being the gentilic designation. Mythology seems to have contributed the name of Rachel (Vm ewe), since a ewe is the symbol of the goddess Ash- toreth (cf. |NX n*nrW, ewes of the flocks, Dt. 7: 13 ; 28 : 4, 18, 51). " Rachel, then, is the Ashtoreth, the divine ewe, the goddess of the flock and the moon, the type of bride and mother and patron of the female sex."2 Laban is also a mythical figure, since his name is the masculine form of the Hebrew word for moon (p7 H.JD7, moon). His city Haran was famous for its moon worship. These coincidences cannot be accidental. With the mythical origin of Laban accords also the name of his father Bethuel, mentioned above, showing likewise the influence of mythology. That which underlies the concubines Bilhah and Zilpah is not clear. They may represent Aramean tribes that coalesced with the other elements of ancient Israel, or districts where tribes dwelt (as the wives of Caleb, 1 Chr. 2 : 18, 19 ; cf . the article Grenealogy B. iv. 35 Hast. DB, vol. ii.), or some mythol ogy may be hidden in them. Bilhah may have some connection with the clan Bilhan of Benjamin (1 Chr. 7 : 10, the name also of a clan of Edom, Gen. 36 : 38). That Bilhah was the maid of Rachel, and Zilpah of Leah, would seem to imply some special connection between the tribes Dan and Naphtali and the sons of Rachel, and Asher and Gad and the sons of Leah. The stock of these four tribes is supposed to have been less pure than that of the other tribes, and hence their mothers l Lnther, ZATW, vol. xxi. s. 68 ff. 2 Skipwith, JQR, vol. xi. p. 256 ff. THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL 15 were called concubines. This fact, alone, however, would not be sufficient, since Judah was a tribe with a large admixture of non-Israelitish elements. The four tribes must have had other marks of inferiority, or else their inferior birth is due to their late origin or incorporation into Israel. Wellhausen re gards Israel before the settlement in Canaan to have consisted of only seven tribes, Benjamin, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher having been recognized either as tribes or a part of Israel later on. The close geographical union between the- sons of Rachel, points to their original homogeneity and is a sufficient reason for their common mother. The final grouping of the six sons of Leah probably took place under David, not, how ever, without an earlier connection between some of them. Isaac probably represents a tribe whose original name may have been Isaac-el (/SOU!? ?) corresponding to Ishmael, Israel, etc. This tribe seems to have dwelt in Southern Judah, since the home of the patriarch is placed there. Why the tribe should form a link in the genealogy and become prominent in the story is not clearly known. The relationship, however, between Edom and Israel clearly demanded for both a com mon father, and he might well be seen in an ancient tribe which had its home near the land of both, and which later disappeared, perhaps through an absorption into both. A deity has also been seen in Isaac J through the occurrence of the expression " Fear [of] Isaac " (Gen. 31 : 42, 53, pfiS' "iPlfi) and the meaning of the name, " God smiles," has suggested an underlying solar myth.2 In the story of Rebecca, the wife taken from Paddan-Aram (Gen. 25 : 20), is probably another reminiscence of an ancient wandering from that land, Rebekah being a tribal name. Esau has been identified with an ancient hunter god.3 He was probably then a representative deity of Edom. Abraham is more difficult of explanation or identification than the other patriarchs. Since his name, equivalent to 1 Luther, ZATW, vol. xxi. s. 73. 2 Goldziher, Mythology of the Hebrews, p. 92. 8 Cheyne, article " Esau," Encyc. Biblica. 16 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES Abiram 2 is personal rather than tribal, many have seen in him an ancient Semitic hero, the historic leader of a migration from Northern Mesopotamia which resulted in the growth of the peoples Ishmael, Moab, Ammon, Edom, and Israel. This is possible. Such an ancient migration probably took place and the memory of such a leader might have long lingered. The revealedreligion of Israel has also been thought to require a great leader antecedent to Moses. The mention of Abraham in Genesis 14 in connection with historical kings (especially Amraphel, who has been identified with Hammurabi) has sug gested that Abraham was a real hero ; but this chapter is held with probability to be a midrash, and thus one of the latest por tions of Genesis, into which was woven with historical names the legendary one of Abraham. The chapter then really proves nothing respecting the historic character of Abraham, although the inference is reasonable that, some of the names being historical, the others are also. This, however, is not a necessary conclusion. The truth is that Abraham is too early in the genealogy to have any real claim for historicity as a real person. The historical elements of genealogies, we have seen, are the latest. The kinship of Edom and Israel having been expressed through Isaac, and of Moab and Ammon through Lot, it re mained to find an expression of the kinship between these groups and other groups of kindred tribes. Thus appeared Abraham and Terah in the genealogy. The latter, we have already seen, came from an ancient deity, and it is not unlikely that Abraham arose in the same way, coming from a deity worshipped in Southern Judah, especially at Hebron, since the narratives place there principally the ancient home of Abra ham. This deity not unlikely was Ram, " lofty " (cf . 'Elyon, Most-high, the name of the god of Melchisedek, Gen. 14 : 22). A southern Judean clan bore the name of Ram (1 Chr. 2 : 25). Abiram signifies also, " Father of Ram," or " My father is Ram." Our Old Testament narratives, we have seen, are later than the time of David and represent throughout the Israel united 1 Hastings DB. vol. i. p. 17; Encyc. Biblica, vol. i. col. 23. THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL 17 through him ; and from a humanized God, possibly of Hebron, where he first reigned, could have arisen most naturally the ideal religious ancestor of the united people. Sarah (princess), the wife of Abraham, has been clearly identified as bearing the name of a goddess.1 The historical character of Abraham, however, is maintained by Ewald, History of Israel, vol. I., pp. 300 ff. ; Kittel, Gresehichte der Hebrder, vol. I. § 16 ; Cornill, History of the People of Israel, p. 34 ; Hommel, Ancient Hebrew Tradition ; McCurdy, History Prophecy and the Monuments, § 444-448 ; Ryle, article " Abraham " in Hastings DB, and others : but in spite of these authorities the basis for this belief has always seemed sentimental rather than scientific. Abraham's char acter is a creation of the prophetic period. For a clear treat ment of the subject, see the article on " Abraham " by B. W. Bacon, in the New World, December, 1899. Hagar seems to have been derived from a people who ap pear in the post-exilic literature as the Hagarites (D^JIl or DWUil, 1 Chr. 5: 10, 19; cf. 11: 38; 27: 31). Whether the term represents an actual tribe bearing such a name (such a one is mentioned in South Arabian inscriptions 2 ) or whether it was simply a designation given to nomads is uncertain. (The root "ljn seems connected with the Arabic one meaning to forsake, retire ; cf. Hegira.) Hagar's Egyptian origin most likely is due to the fact that the tribes of the Sinaitic penin sula were known to have an admixture of Egyptian blood, derived possibly in part from runaway slaves. 1 Jensen, ZA, vol. xi. s. 299. 2 Winckler, in Mitt, der Vorderas. Ges. 1898, Heft I. 51. 18 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES III THE SEPARATE TRIBES 1. The Sons of Leah : Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun Reuben, according to all tradition, was the eldest of the sons of Jacob, which seems to indicate some early tribal pre-emi nence. But this he early lost. How or when is unknown. In legend he held intercourse with Bilhah, the concubine of his father (Gen. 35 : 22), but the history lying back of this story is not clear. Such an act points to some unlawful hege mony exerted by Reuben, since to take a father's wife or concubine is equivalent to claiming the father's place (cf. 2 Sam. 16 : 21 ; 1 Kgs. 2 : 21 ff.). In some way Reuben may have endeavored to unlawfully coerce the other tribes, espe cially the sons of Bilhah; and thereby the tribe may have suffered loss. The story of the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram suggests also some ancient act of unlawful usurpa tion (Num. 16 : 1). In the song of Deborah, Reuben is rep resented as slothful and inactive (Judg. 5: 15-17). In Jacob's blessing his excellency is gone (Gen. 49 : 4), and in the blessing of Moses the tribe is approaching extinction (Dt. 33 : 6). The tribe probably disappeared early through the en croachments of the Moabites and Ammonites, although accord ing to the Chronicler (1 Chr. 5 : 1-6), families existed until the time of Tiglath-pileser (746-728). Many of the cities assigned to Reuben in Numbers 32 : 37f. and Joshua 13 : 15-23 appear in the inscription of Mesha (about 850 B.C.), in Isaiah 15, 16, and in Jeremiah 48, in the possession of Moab. From clans of the names of Hezron and Carmi ap- THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL 19 pearing both in connection with Judah and Reuben (Num. 26: 6, 21; 1 Chr. 4: 1; 5: 3), it has been conjectured that remnants of the latter tribe took refuge in the former. But Hezron is a name derived from a permanent encampment, (1VI1), and is equivalent to " villager " and thus might easily arise in connection with either tribe ; and Carmi in First Chronicles 4 : 1 is suspicious, probably a textual corruption for Caleb. Next to Reuben in age among the sons of Jacob are Simeon and Levi (Gen. 29: 31 ff.). They are associated together in Jacob's blessing, in which it is clearly implied that these tribes, through some united deeds of violence, have met with some disaster which has left them only scattered remnants in Israel (Gen. 49: 5-7). The historical occasion of this is intimated in the story of the destruction of the inhabitants of Shechem related in Genesis 34. The facts appear to have been these. Dinah (the daughter of Leah), a kindred clan or small tribe, was forcibly brought into an alliance with a Canaanite clan, Hamor, dwelling in Shechem. This act was resented by the kindred tribes Simeon and Levi, who treacherously de stroyed the Canaanite people of Shechem, and then in turn, almost annihilated by a coalition of the Canaanites, they became scattered in Israel. (The retaking of Shechem by the Canaanites is confirmed by the story of Abimelech (Judg. 9). The people of the city at that time were in a large degree evidently of Canaanitish descent.) The rem nants of Simeon obtained a home in the south of Judah. So dwindled and insignificant became the tribe that the author of Deuteronomy 33 passes it over in silence. In First Chronicles 4: 24-43, however, raids by families of Simeon, either made or recorded in the days of Hezekiah, are mentioned. The inheritance of Simeon was regarded, in part at least, within the bounds of Judah (Jos. 19: 1-9; 15 : 20-32 P). The fate of Levi was quite different from that of Simeon. The tribe regrew not as a political community but as a priestly caste. This development took place between the composition 20 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33. In the latter Levi pos sesses the Thummim and the Urim, or means of divine com munication (v. 8), and the old legend of fierceness against the Canaanites is transmuted into zeal for Yahwe. The original remnants of Levi may have found refuge along with those of Simeon in the tribe of Judah, and from their abode in sacred cities taken up the calling of priests. Possibly also some original connection of Moses with the tribe may have contributed in this direction. The whole development is obscure. In early stories Levites are associated with Bethle hem- Judah (Judg. 17 : 9 ; 19:1) and in the later genealogies Levitical families bear names connected with the Judean towns, Hebron, Libnah (Libni), and Korah (Ex. 6 : 17f., 21). The fact that these towns were probably sanctuaries is suf ficient, however, to give these names to priestly families without any real historical Levite tribal connection with them. In Genesis 38 Judah is said to have separated himself from his brethren, allied himself with a certain Adullamite named Hirah, and married a Canaanitish woman, Shua, by whom he had three sons : Er, Onan, and Shelah ; the two elder of these Yahwe slew ; and afterwards Judah, by his daughter- in-law Tamar, had two sons, Zerah and Perez. These three surviving sons, Shelah, Zerah, and Perez, represented, in later Jewish history as given in the priestly writings, three clans of Judah, that of Perez being the most important. The his tory back of this story seems to have been the settlement of Judah in the neighborhood of Adullam and its union with a Canaanitish population. Two early clans thus formed seem also to have perished. The loss of these clans has also been connected with the disaster which overtook Simeon and Levi at Shechem, in which Judah is thought to have shared. This is possible. Judah appears in early times to have had none of its later prominence. With Simeon and Levi he is not mentioned in the song of Deborah. The tribe was in a large degree at that time separated from the other tribes by a Canaanitish enclave consisting THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL 21 of the territory of the Gibeonites and of the Jebusites, who occupied Jerusalem. No exploits of the tribe are recorded in the original stories of the middle portion of the book of Judges.1 The ,Calebites and the Jerahmeelites, recorded in First Chronicles 2 as descendants of Perez, are mentioned in First Samuel 27 : 10 ; 30 : 14 as though distinct from Judah, and there is little doubt but that these two clans, not yet regarded as belonging to the children of Israel, were incorporated into Judah by David, and that it was through some such enlarge ment under the influence of the shepherd king that Judah obtained the later superiority which the priestly writers gave the tribe from the first. Caleb in the narratives of the Hexateuch and Judges is the Kenizzite or son of Kenaz (Num. 32: 12; Josh. 14: 6, 14; 15: 17; Judg. 1: 13; 3: 9, 11), who appears in Genesis 36: 40,42 among the tribes of Edom, and Caleb is represented as having joined Israel or been a member of Israel during the sojourn in the wilderness. The true union, however, clearly took place under David. The later history of the tribe of Judah is that of the southern kingdom of Israel. In the song of Deborah both Issachar and Zebulun are men tioned in terms of especial honor. The princes of Issachar were with Deborah. Out of Zebulun came rulers and Zebu lun was a people that jeoparded their lives unto death (Judg. 5 : 14, 15, 18). Clearly in that struggle with the Canaanites these two tribes took a most noteworthy part. This ancient prowess Issachar seems to have lost under the Hebrew mon archy, for in Genesis 49 the symbol of the tribe is a strong ass crouching down beneath the sheepfolds, and a servant under task-work (vv. 14f.). Zebulun in this chapter is simply described in reference to its dwelling-place on the sea-coast (v. 13). Marked is the change of tone toward these tribes in Deuteronomy 33 : 18f., where a note of prosperity is sounded, and it is said : 1 The story of the judgeship of Othniel is from the Deuteronomic editor, and of doubtful historicity. 22 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES "They shall call the peoples unto the mountain; There shall they offer sacrifices of righteousness : For they shall suck the abundance of the seas, And the hidden treasures of the sand " (v. 19). These statements indicate commercial prosperity associated with gatherings at some mountain sanctuary. Religious festi vals were probably utilized as fairs or opportunities of trade by the surrounding peoples, and thus the tribes infected with the mercantile spirit of the adjoining Phenicians became pros perous. Issachar's name is mentioned as that of one of the districts from which Solomon derived his revenue (1 Kgs. 4: 17). Baasha is said to have belonged to the house of Issachar (1 Kgs. 15 : 27). Among the minor Judges was Tola, the son of Puah, the son of Dodo, a man of Issachar (Judg. 10 : 1). In First Chronicles 7 : 1, both Tola and Puah are the names of clans. The minor judge probably was an eponymous hero. But of special interest is the fact that Dodo (ITn) is his father, since this word and the mandrakes (D'NTn) through whose gift was brought about the concep tion of Issachar (Gen. 30 : 16 f .) represent the root or word which appears in the name of a divinity, 17 TH, on the Moab- ite stone (1. 12). The worship of this deity, then, was prob ably part of the early religion of the tribe. Strangely enough, no mention is made of Zebulun in the genealogies of First Chronicles, neither is the tribe mentioned in First and Second Samuel or First and Second Kings. A minor judge is as signed to the tribe in Judges 12: 11 and the name is con joined in Isaiah 9 : 1 (8 : 23) with Naphthali. 2. The Sons of Rachel : Joseph and Benjamin According to the narratives of Genesis, Rachel bore Joseph in Paddan Aram (30: 23), and later Benjamin in Canaan (35 : 18), and Joseph had two sons born in Egypt, Manasseh and Ephraim (41 : 50 ff). The simplest explanation of these statements is that the tribe Joseph when in Egypt developed into two tribes and that the tribe Benjamin arose after the THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL 23 settlement in Canaan. This last consideration is confirmed by the name Benjamin, son of the right hand, that is, of the South. Benjamin was the most southerly of the divisions of the sons of Rachel or the house of Joseph. But the develop ment of Manasseh and Ephraim in Egypt is uncertain. The preference of the younger Ephraim over the elder Manasseh in the story of their presentation before the dying Israel (Gen. 48 : 13 ff.), reflects the prominence of Ephraim in the later history of Israel. From the time of the monarchy onward Ephraim clearly surpassed Manasseh in political importance. Jeroboam, who established the northern kingdom of Israel, was an Ephraimite and in the prophets Ephraim is repeatedly used to designate the northern kingdom. In the blessing of Moses, Ephraim has his ten thousands and Manasseh only thousands (Dt. 33: 17). In the early history it was probably the other way, since the tribe of Manasseh appears to have been very large, occupying territory on both sides of the Jordan. This importance may have given it eldership. It has also been sug gested that Manasseh's eldership may have arisen from a kingship exercised by Gideon, but this kingship is uncertain.1 A more plausible conjecture is that the name Ephraim was originally geographical : the term " hill country of Ephraim " (D^SK 717) occurs some thirty times. Hence the idea of the tribe Ephraim may have been an afterthought following the settlement of the tribe of Joseph in Canaan. In the early history of Israel the tribe of Joseph seems to have been undi vided ; 2 even Benjamin was clearly reckoned as belonging to it (2 Sam. 19 : 20). The one tribe appears in Genesis 49, where there is no reference to Ephraim and Manasseh, but only to Joseph. In the song of Deborah, however, Ephraim and Machir, representing Manasseh, are mentioned. This silence in our earliest source concerning a tribe Joseph favors a con jecture of Winckler 3 that Joseph, like Jacob, according to a 1 Moore, Comm. on Judges, p. 239. 2 Jos. 16: 1 ; 17: 14 JE (the added words "Ephraim and Manasseh/' Jos. 17: 17, are probably a gloss). 8 Geschichte Israels, Theil II. 67-77. Cf. Hogg in Enc. Bib. 2582. 24 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES view mentioned above, has a mythological significance and that he is a personification of the northern kingdom, and that Ephraim and Manasseh are the proper tribal names. The early tribe Joseph, however, the early clan Manasseh developing into a tribe, and the location Ephraim giving rise to a tribe of the same name, is the more satisfactory view. Apparent testimony to the antiquity of the tribe is also found in a Joseph-el appearing in the Egyptian lists with Jacob-el (see page 13). Part of the tribe may at that early period have been in Palestine as well as in Egypt, or this may be a memo rial of its previous existence left after the descent into Egypt.1 According to Deuteronomy 3 : 13 and Numbers 32 : 33 (P) the territory of Manasseh, on the eastern side of the Jordan, was acquired in the time of Moses before the tribe crossed the river. Many scholars, however, believe the order of posses sion to have been the reverse. The argument for this view is as follows : (1) Gilead is said to have been possessed by Machir, the son or clan of Manasseh (Num. 32 : 39 JE), but in the song of Deborah (Judg. 5 : 14) , Machir is alluded to in terms which show that he probably represents the tribe west of the Jordan, hence that location was then his home and his settlement in Gilead was subsequent. (2) Bashan is also represented as the conquest of Jair the son of Manasseh (Num. 32 : 41 JE), but since this Jair appears among the judges of Is rael (Judg. 10 : 3), his conquest also would naturally be placed later than the western settlement. (3) The house of Joseph is mentioned (Joshua 17 : 14) as having only one lot, i. e. the territory west of the Jordan. This representation is also re garded as inconsistent with the tribe of Manasseh having already a lot east of the Jordan. Putting, then, these three coincidences together, it has been held that Gilead, Bashan, and Argob were conquered from the west of the Jordan. This view has failed, however, to win acceptance from Driver and George Adam Smith.2 1 The reading Joseph-el, however, is not entirely certain. 2 See the article " Manasseh " in the Hastings DB and Hist. Geog. Holy Land, p. 577, n. 1. THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL 25 The mention of Machir in Judges 5 : 14 proves at once the antiquity of this clan, which is also confirmed by the story of Genesis 50 : 23, where the children of Machir, the son of Ma nasseh, are said to have been born on the knees of Joseph, i. e. adopted by Joseph. The clan Machir, then, at one time was reckoned a son of Joseph. Possibly from Machir (7*00, stem 732, to sell) arose the story of the sale of Joseph into Egypt. Back of the story of Joseph in Egypt probably lie two facts : (1) the tribe of Joseph sojourned in Egypt, and (2) a member of that or a kindred Semitic tribe rose to distinction at the court of a king of Egypt. Famine also was a cause of the sojourn of the tribe of Joseph in Egypt. No tribe after Joseph, Judah, and Levi, is more prominent in the Old Testament narratives than that of Benjamin. The* explanation of the name and late birth has already been given. The tribe according to Genesis was the latest of the twelve, and located on the southern slopes of the hill country of Ephraim. In the patriarchal legends the son of Jacob was not only called Benjamin by his father, but also Ben-oni, " son of my sorrow," by his mother, because she recognized at his birth her approaching death (Gen. 35 : 16-20 JE). This story is probably a folk endeavor to explain the name of a clan Ben-oni, having some connection, in all likelihood, with Beth- aven or more properly Beth-on (pK D'D), " house of wealth," a town near Ai. From a change of spelling or pronunciation the place became Beth-aven (f)K JV3) "house of vanity," a term used in the prophets, apparently in scorn, of Bethel (Hos. 4: 15; 5: 8; 10: 5). Beth-on, "house of On," has been also regarded as identical with Bethel, " house of God," the last member of the name being that of the Egyptian sun- god On.1 In this neighborhood most likely the tomb of Rachel was pointed out, and hence her death was associated with Ben- oni ; and this story of Rachel's pains may also have suggested the idea of Rachel weeping given in Jeremiah 31 : 15. The tribe of Benjamin seems to have been especially warlike, 1 Sayce, Patriarchal Palestine, p. 191, 26 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES being likened in Genesis 49 : 27 to a ravening wolf. This arose in part perhaps from the location of the tribe. Its ter ritory was " the site of more fortresses, sieges, forays, battles, and massacres than perhaps any other part of the country." 2 The ground of Benjamin was the scene of the struggle between Saul and the Philistines, and of the border wars be tween Israel and Judah. Here also resistance was felt when Israel pressed into Canaan. The battles of Ai and Aijalon were fought within its territory. The land might be attacked from the east by way of the valleys extending toward Jericho — as occurred early in the Moabite domination back of the story of the Benjaminite Ehud (Judg. 3) — and from the west by the Philistines — hence their garrisons and the counter ones of Saul within the land of Benjamin — and close at hand also were the cities of the Canaanitish Gibeonites and also Jerusalem of the Jebusites. It is possible indeed that through the warrior king Saul, Benjamin first obtained its true tribal significance, although this supposition2 is opposed by the mention of the tribe in the song of Deborah (Judg. 5: 14). At the dismemberment of the kingdom Benjamin seems to have adhered to Jeroboam, but gradually in the later history the territory passed under the control of Judah, so that the tribe was reckoned as having adhered to the house of David ; and in the post-exilic period, Jewish territory embracing that of the ancient tribe, Benjamin, after Judah and Levi, has the most prominent, place in the genealogies (cf. 1 Ch. 7 : 6-11 ; 8 ; 9 : 35-44). The story of the almost complete annihilation of the tribe recorded in Judges 20-21 belongs in its present form to the priestly writings. Some real history undoubtedly is behind it, for it is improbable that it could have originated simply from any early Judaean hatred or contempt of the tribe ; but the history itself is unknown. 1 G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog. of Holy Land, p. 289. 2 Made by Winckler, Geschichte Israels, Theil II. See " Benjamin " Encv Bib. 534. THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL 27 3. The Sons of the two Maids : Ban, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher The suggestion of the late or mixed origin of these tribes has already been mentioned in connection with their mothers. The original home of Dan on the southeast border of Eph raim and Benjamin points to an identity of stock with the house of Joseph, and the early kinship reflected in the relation of the mothers need not be doubted; and perhaps Naphtali's territory is sufficiently contiguous to that of Manasseh to point in the same direction ; or a close bond of brotherhood may have been formed between the northern colony of Dan and the adjoining people of Naphtali, and thus may the two tribes have been grouped as the sons of the maid of Rachel. The home of Dan on the frontier probably contributed to race-ad mixture. The story of Samson seeking a wife among the daughters of the Philistines may represent a not uncommon occurrence. The expansion of the tribe was not only hindered by the resistance of the Canaanites, but it seems to have been unable to hold its own against them and to have been crowded into a small district about Zorah and Eshtaol (Judg. 1 : 34 f). This led to the migration of a portion of the tribe and their forcible colonization at Laish near the headwaters of the Jor dan (Judg. 18). The remnant left behind was probably ulti mately absorbed into Judah. The possession in the north from the tribal name of their city, famed as a sanctuary, is very frequently mentioned as the extreme limit of Israel. The tribe, however, was very small. According to the tradi tion preserved in Numbers 26 : 42 f, it had only one family, and it is not mentioned by the Chronicler unless enigmatically under the name Aher "other " (1 Chron. 7: 12"). In Judges 5 : 17 Dan is represented as taking no part in the rising against Sisera and the question is asked, " Why does he sojourn in ships ? " The reference to ships is difficult of explanation. Assuming the text to be correct and the refer ence to the southern Dan, it would imply that the tribe at 28 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES some early time reached the sea-coast.1 Joppa then might be regarded as having at one time belonged to Dan. But the parallelism seems to require a reference to the northern Dan. Then the words would mean a dependency upon the sea going Phenicians 2 or service perhaps as soldiers upon their vessels.3 In Genesis 49 : 16, Dan, it is said, shall judge his people as one of the tribes of Israel. The reference is not probably to the judgeship of Samson, but to tribal activity, i. e. Dan shall have tribal right in Israel. This expres sion would imply a small people whose tribal right the author would vindicate. The tribe is also compared to an adder in the path and in Deuteronomy 33 : 22 to a lion's whelp. Like the men of Benjamin, the Danites clearly were of a fierce and warlike disposition, a fact suggested by their treatment of Micah (Judg. 18 : 14-27). The tribe of Naphtali figures but little either in the remi niscences or history of Israel. Barak, the hero of the song of Deborah, was probably of the tribe, but otherwise the tribe is not known through deeds, but was distinguished chiefly for its location. It is mentioned as a district in connection with Solomon's government (1 Kgs. 4: 14). The exact text of the figurative reference in Genesis 49: 21 is uncertain; but whether we find therein a hind or a terebinth, the reference is to the fruitf ulness of the land.4 This appears also again in Deuteronomy 33 : 23. Ancient and modern writers vie with one another in praising the soil and climate of the territory owned by Naphtali. It was abundantly irrigated and its pro ductions were rich and varied. The territory of Naphtali (Josh. 19 ; 32-39) extended from the far North close under Lebanon along the west side of the Jordan to a point a little south of the lake of Gennesareth. The full brotherhood of Gad and Asher may have arisen from some ancient actual close kinship, which their geograph- 1 George Adam Smith, Hist. Geog. Holy Land, p. 220. 2 G. F. Moore, Judges, p. 155. 8 Budde, Kurzer Hand Commentar Richter, p. 46. 4 The AV and RV of v. 21b is certainly wrong. There is no reference to eloquence. THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL 29 ical separation does not forbid, as is seen in the instance of the southern and northern Dan. More likely, however, the con nection may be drawn from their names, since both Asher and Gad are deities of good fortune and the grouping of the two tribes under the common name Zilpah may be a memo rial of a common worship of those deities.1 Gad is a tribe that emerges late rather than early, as the story of its birth might indicate. It is not mentioned in the song of Deborah, Gilead apparently taking its place (Judg. 5 : 17). In Genesis 49 it is only mentioned with a play upon its name, as a tribe engaged in border warfare (v. 19), but the Moabite stone of the middle of the ninth century speaks of the men of Gad (1. 10) and in Deuteronomy 33 : 20 a wide extent of territory is clearly indicated as belonging to the tribe. The tradition of the prowess of the men of Gad, also mentioned in Deuteronomy 33: 20, is preserved in First Chronicles 12 : 8, 14 : " Their faces were like the faces of lions and they were as swift as the roes upon the mountains." " He that was least was equal to a hundred, and he that was greatest to a thousand." According to JE (Num. 32 : 34-38) 2 Gad (vv. 32-36) possessed cities both north and south of those of Reuben, whose territory, then, was an enclave within the other tribe. According to P, Gad's possessions were entirely north of those of Reuben (Josh. 13 : 15 ff.). The name Asher or its equivalent appears in Egyptian records or inscriptions among the peoples or districts conquered in Palestine by Seti and Raamses II. about 1400 B.C. and located just where the tribe of Asher dwelt.3 This coinci dence of name and place cannot be accidental. One tribe of Israel, in name at least, was in Canaan long before Israel is sup posed generally to have crossed the Jordan. A solution of this fact has been found in the supposition that the Israelite Asher left the land of Goshen earlier than the other tribes and migrated 1 See the article " Gad," Ency. Bib. 1579-1587. 2 Num. 32 : 1-38 represents a free working over by a priestly writer of a JE narrative. 8 Miillcr, Asien und Europa, 236 ff. 30 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES directly to its site in western Galilee.1 A simpler solution is that the Asher of Israel took its name from the ancient one and perhaps was largely of the same stock as well as locality. This Canaanitish element in Asher, suggested not only by its accredited descent from a concubine, seems confirmed by its non-participation with its immediate neighbors Zebulun and Issachar in the struggle under Barak against the Canaanites. According to the song of Deborah, Asher "sat still at the haven of the sea and abode by his creeks " (Judg. 5 : 17). But this is not the only link connecting Asher with ancient Canaan. Heber and Malchiel are clans of Asher (Gen. 46 : 17 ; Num. 26: 45; 1 Chron. 7: 30, 31), and both of these names appear in the Amarna tablets of the fourteenth century B.C. The former is identical with that of the Habiri whose inva sion alarmed the Egyptian viceroys of Palestine, and the latter with Milkili, the writer of several of the letters, and who also seems to have finally allied himself with the Habiri. This coincidence may, however, be entirely accidental and there may be no connection between the Amarna people and the Hebrew tribe. In 2 Sam. 2: 9 (if nt^KH is the true text) the Asherites are mentioned among the adherents of IshbaaL In the blessings of Jacob and Moses the tribe is only cele brated for the fruitfulness of its soil and for its mineral wealth (Gen. 49 : 20 ; Dt. 33 : 24 f). Beyond being men tioned in First Kings 4 : 16 as a district, Asher does not ap pear later in the non-priestly writings of the Old Testament in connection with the history of Israel. No distinguished person is recorded as having come from the tribe. The tribes of Israel practically disappeared after their final acquisition of Canaan. They had no importance under the new order of things. The bond of union between men became the city or the factions of state created by rivalries for kingly power. The old tribes seem essentially to have vanished save in song and story until resurrected in the Jewish com munity through the zeal to prove the legitimacy of the true members of Israel. 1 Hommel, Ancient Heb. Tradition, p. 226. THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL v 31 IV THE SETTLEMENT OF THE TRIBES IN CANAAN According to the priestly and Deuteronomic narratives all of the tribes of Israel sojourned in Egypt, — their tribal growth from simple families having indeed there taken place, — left at the same time, received the law at Sinai, wandered some forty years in the desert, principally south or southeast of Judah, encompassed the land of Edom, and passing through or around the territory of Ammon and Moab, conquered the districts of Sihon, king of the Amorite, and Og, king of Bashan, where two and a half tribes settled, and then the re mainder, with also the warriors of the two and a half tribes, crossed the Jordan near Jericho, destroyed that city and Ai, and then in two vigorous campaigns defeated the allied Ca naanite kings in the South and in the North, capturing thus thirty-one kings and subduing the entire land, which, bereft of its inhabitants (except the Gibeonites with whom a treaty had been made), was apportioned by lot among the nine and a half tribes. The older documents J and E, which are pre served only in fragments, represent the conquest as being far less complete and in certain instances undertaken by tribes separately (cf. Judg. 1). But none of these accounts, as al ready mentioned, are based apparently upon contemporary records, and all are more or less ideal in character and give a memory of the past shaped in a certain degree by later history; hence the problem of determining the real course of events. The materials, however, are very scanty for reconstructing this early history of Israel, and all suggestions must be received as mere tentative endeavors to arrive more nearly at the truth. The very sojourn of the children of Israel in Egypt has been questioned, and the opinion has been advanced that the 32 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES story of this sojourn may have arisen from a confusion of names, since the region of Edom and the Sinaitic Peninsula where Israel dwelt had a name, Muzri, essentially the same as the Hebrew word for Egypt (Mizraim).1 But the story of the sojourn in Egypt seems to be too thoroughly embedded in the Old Testament literature not to have some real historical basis. It is an open question, however, whether all of the tribes under their later names dwelt there or whether the sojourn was not principally confined to the tribe of Joseph, since its patriarch is so prominent in the story of the descent into Egypt. We have already seen reason for assuming that Ben jamin and the four sons of the maids represent tribes indige nous to their so-called later homes in Canaan. The Canaanites and the children of Israel racially were of the same stock, speak ing the same language in the end, and readily amalgamating together, and Canaanitish communities becoming Israelitish through the yoke of a common government and the accep tance of the worship of Yahwe, could readily be imagined, through a patriarch eponym, as once having formed part of the early stock of Israel. That indeed which took place in the case of the Calebites, although not forming a distinct tribe, whereby Caleb becomes a hero of the sojourn in the desert, may have especially taken place in the case of the Asherites, Gadites, or Danites, and thus their eponyms or patriarchs have been given a place among Jacob's sons and a part in the de scent into Egypt. All tribes, then, need not be thought of as having sojourned in Egypt, some being of a later origin, and this later origin may be due in some instances in reality to an earlier one. This we have seen probably to have been the case in respect to Asher. Jacob and Joseph we also have found to have been very early in Canaan. This fact of Jacob, however, being thus there, accords with the Old Testament tradition ; and within recent years also Israel has been found in Canaan just when the people ought, according to the most general view, to have been in Egypt. The period of the Exodus is usually assigned to the reign of Merenphtah or shortly following, in 1 Winckler, Geschichte Israels, I. s. 50. THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL 33 the thirteenth or not later than the beginning of the twelfth century. The reasons for this assignment have been, first, the domination of Palestine by Raamses II. and his predecessors, thus giving no opportunity apparently for Israel's settlement at the same time there without some inkling of the fact in the Old Testament stories ; and secondly, the discovery of Pithom, a store city built, according to Ex. 1 : 11, by Israel, in a city built by Raamses II. Hence the period of the so journ and Exodus seemed fixed. But in 1893 was discovered an inscription of the reign of Merenphtah mentioning Israel as though at that time dwelling in the central or northern part of Palestine, and as being an agricultural people. Either, then, the customary date of the exodus is too late, or a portion of Israel went earlier from Egypt to Palestine, or a portion never went down at all. Accepting one of the two latter alterna tives as the most probable, it illustrates the simple fact that the Biblical accounts are accustomed to present as a united movement of the entire people that which represents the his tory of only a fraction. This furnishes another reason for believing that not all of the tribes of Israel sojourned in Egypt. This sojourn, then, may have been confined princi pally to the tribe of Joseph and even some elements of this, as we have found, may have been left in Palestine. Another source of confusion in regard to the sojourn in Egypt may also have arisen from the fact that Goshen is not only a district name of Egypt, but also of Southern Pales tine along the borders of Edom (Josh. 10 : 41 ; 11 : 16 ; also the name of a city of southern Judah, 15: 51). Tribes which had dwelt there might in the later tradition have been thought of as having sojourned in Egypt. Here from the possible connection between the Habiri, whose dwelling in southern Judah is supposed to be witnessed in the name Hebron, and in the clan names of the tribe of Asher (see above), has been placed the early home of the latter, whose people are thought later to have migrated to their home north of Carmel.1 i Ilommel, Ancient Heb. Tradition, pp. 225 f. 3 34 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES Likewise has the theory been advanced that the entrance into Canaan, related in the fragments of JE in the book of Joshua, represents only that of the tribal sons of Rachel, or properly the house of Joseph which, under the leadership of Joshua, conquered the southern part of Mt. Ephraim. This event, it is said, was later amplified in tradition to represent a movement of all Israel and the conquest of the entire land. The Leah tribes are held to have entered earlier and to have been among the Habiri of the Amarna tablets.1 A possible connection between the Habiri and clans of the tribe of Asher has already been mentioned. A further con nection has been claimed by identifying the Labaya, whose sons allied themselves with the Habiri, with Levi (the con sonants of the two words having a similar sound). The name Hebron as mentioned above, (having the same root as Habiri 7217), is supposed also to have originated from these invaders, and its capture by them has been pointed out by identifying a city, Rubuta, which they took, with Kiriath-arba, the ancient name of the city Hebron. Hebron, as already men tioned, is also given as a clan of the tribe of Levi. From all of these coincidences, since the words 'Ibri ('73^) "Hebrew " and Habiri (*73I7) are quite similar, some connection between the entrance of the Leah-tribes and the Habiri into Canaan seems plausible. The great objection to any identification of the Habiri with Israel has usually been that the Habiri entered Canaan from the northeast while the tribes of Israel came from the southeast. This, however, is removed when we find a double entrance of Israel ; and that of the Habiri might also be regarded as hidden in the story of the ear lier emigration of the family of Jacob from the northeast. Steuernagel, however, regards Jacob-Israel as originally the father of only the Rachel tribes. Leah and her sons, then, would primarily have come into the family of Jacob only by adoption. A reminiscence of this may be seen in the story of Jacob's love first for Rachel and his service for her, and then his later union with Leah; but since the Leah tribes 1 Steuernagel, Handkomm. zum Alt Test. Joshua, EM., s. 150. THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL 35 were historically earlier in Canaan than the Rachel-tribes, in the patriarchal story, the marriage with Leah and the births of her sons were placed first, although the love and preference for Rachel came earlier. The song of Deborah from its non- mention of the three Leah tribes, Judah, Simeon, and Levi, is thought to confirm also this theory. Under this view Moses would be regarded as originally a member of the tribe of Joseph, and whatever history is in the sojourn in Egypt, the exodus, the stay at Sinai and Kadesh- barnea, would be primarily also an experience of this tribe only. Yahwe would also have been first of all its tribal god. One would think, then, of the worship of Yahwe as having been introduced in all Israel especially through the statecraft of David, who perhaps paid marked homage to the god of Northern Israel, to weld them to his house. This may have been the course of history, and is favored by the fact that the early sanctuary of Yahwe was at Shiloh within the bounds of Ephraim, and that his worship was the bond uniting the tribes which fought under Barak and Deborah. It is doubtful, however, whether this reconstruction as a whole will gain general consent. The religious bond between the Rachel and Leah tribes seems to have been far earlier than David's time, and the identification of the Habiri so closely with Israel is still very questionable, although it is hard to believe that there is no connection between them. Whether Hebron is to be associated in any way with the Habiri or not, its capture by Caleb probably represents a movement from the south northward and not the reverse. An indication of this lies clearly in the story of Caleb's proposal at once to enter the land (Num. 13 : 30). The bringing of Caleb in by way of the crossing at Jericho seems a part of the unifying process of ancient tradition. The general Hebrew tradition, however, as a whole may be accepted, that tribes came out of Egypt, sojourned and consolidated as worship pers of Yahwe in the pasture lands south of Judah, and then gained their territory east of the Jordan. A motive for this last act has been seen in the encroachments of the Canaanitish 36 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES Amorites upon the Moabites and Ammonites driving these people southward, according to the statement : " Fire is gone out of Heshbon, A flame from the city of Sihon : It hath devoured Ar of Moab ! Woe to thee, Moab! Thou art undone, 0 people of Chemosh." (Num. 21: 28 f.) The children of Israel, then, are thought to have , come forward to assist their kinsfolk, and to have defeated Sihon, and thus to have made a home for themselves east of the Jordan, whence they crossed to western Palestine, the first attempt having been made by Judah, Simeon, and Levi.1 The last two of these tribes, if not the three, suffered a de feat at Shechem, and they turned southward and there dwelt quite by themselves. (See page 19.) The second attempt whose tradition underlies the story. of the book of Joshua, was made by the other tribes, especially Joseph, Issachar, and Zebulun, and was more successful. Mount Ephraim was gained and a good portion of northern Palestine, although the cities were left largely in the possession of the Canaanites. This view2 has strong support in Judges 1 taken with Gene sis 34 and 38. The final conquest of the cities, or rather their absorption, generally by peaceable means, probably did not take place until the time of David, when the tribal life of Israel ceased and the national began. It has also been thought that the settlement of the tribes of Israel west of the Jordan arose, not from forcible conquest, but by a peaceable immigration due to the natural increase of pop ulation in the transformation of the people east of the Jordan from nomadic herdmen into settled agriculturists. Much cer tainly can be said in favor of such a theory. The patriarchal stories, as a whole, reflect an ancient friendly intercourse be tween Israel and the Canaanites. The deed of Levi and 1 Cf., for Judah and Simeon, Judges 1:1, where "after the death of Joshua," is a late gloss. 2 Essentially that of Wellhausen, Proleg. to the Hist, of Israel, p. 431 f. THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL 37 Simeon at Shechem is given as an exceptional one of treach ery. The ancient population of the land became certainly, in a large degree, absorbed by the Israelites in a friendly way. Their sanctuaries became Israel's, and no hostile, bitter, vin dictive feeling as a whole seems to have been cherished be tween them. The later story of the forcible entrance under Joshua might have grown from the religious motive of mag nifying Yahwe's assistance of the people in the past and of sharpening the distinction between Israel and other people, which comes out so vividly in the spirit of the later Judaism. The story of the crossing at Jericho with the destruction of the city, it is argued, is also untrue because Eglon, king of Moab, is represented as subsequently living there (Judg. 3: 13). To this theory (tha.t of Stade) it has well been forcibly said in reply that all Israel's traditions are contrary to the notion that her possession of Palestine was occasioned by such an unconscious drift of the population with so little a sense of national unity and of the leadership of Yahwe.1 And in respect to the existence of Jericho during the Moab- ite rule of Eglon, it is doubtful whether that city fits into the story of Ehud, and hence may be in the text through a mis take. There does, however, remain in favor of the peaceable occupation of a part at least of the land, the fact 2 that no tradition has come of the conquest of the hill country of Ephraim, and that there is a tradition of a peaceable purchase there (Gen. 33 : 19), as well as a possession by force of arms (Gen. 48 : 22). 1 G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog., p. 559 ff. 2 Noticed by G. A. Smith, article, " Joshua," Hastings DB. THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LAW CHARLES FOSTER KENT, PH.D., Woolsey Professor of Biblical Literature, FRANK KNIGHT SANDERS, PH.D., D.D., Professor of Biblical History and Archaeology. THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LAW ISRAEL'S ORIGINAL HERITAGE OF CUSTOMS AND LAWS In considering the origin of Israel's laws, the fact is often overlooked that the Hebrews were among the youngest of the Semitic peoples to acquire and maintain a well-defined posi tion in western Asia. For at least twenty centuries before the age of Israel's great organizer, Moses, southwestern Asia, as a result of conquest and commercial intercourse, had been permeated with the customs and culture of Babylonia. For several centuries before the Hebrew tribes were united into a nation the dominating influence in Palestine and the Sina- itic peninsula was Egyptian. Whatever and wherever may have been the origin of the Hebrews, their ancestors could not have failed to be more or less influenced by these civi lizations, from which proceeded virtually all of the impulses making for culture in western Asia prior to 1000 B. c. If in the earliest stages of Hebrew history the people were but slightly affected by the higher culture of their powerful neighbor nations, their descendants were all the more sus ceptible to its influences when brought into close contact with it. That they yielded in a marked degree to these in fluences is the testimony of Hebrew history and institutions. This fact of the inheritance of important laws and customs on the part of the Hebrews is well illustrated in the domain of civil law. The law of revenge, expressed tersely as " life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" 42 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES (Exod. 21 : 24, 25), was already old when the Hebrew nation was born. Even the right of altar asylum (cf . 1 Kgs. 1:50; 2 : 28, 29), which was intended to correct certain of the abuses of the firmly established institution of blood revenge, had been long in force. Similarly much of the Hebrew legisla tion in regard to marriage and divorce, inheritance within the tribe or clan and the treatment of slaves must have been recognized as binding — if it were not in some sort of permanent form — long before the beginnings of Hebrew his tory proper. Striking analogies of undoubted antiquity may readily be cited from Babylonian or Egyptian literature. In regard to the proper treatment of a slave, for example, it is enacted in a very old Babylonian code, the origin of which is attributed to the yet more ancient Sumerian period, that " if a man hires a servant and kills, wounds, beats, or ill-uses him or makes him ill, he must with his own hand measure out for him each day half a measure of grain " 1 (cf. Exod. 21:26,27). Even a larger proportion of Israel's ceremonial legislation must be regarded as an inheritance from the centuries which antedate the organization of the nation. The prophetic nar rators of the beginnings of Hebrew history, whose contribu tions form the oldest portions of the Hexateuch, clearly state that the institution of sacrifice, for example, was rec ognized and maintained long before the inception of the national life. Cain and Abel present their offerings to Yah we; Noah, on emerging from the ark, "builded an altar unto Yahwe; and took of every clean beast and of every clean fowl and offered burnt offerings on the altar " (Gen. 8 : 20). The patriarchs built many altars and called upon the name of God. The frequently repeated law against eating the blood of slain animals (Deut. 12:16, 23-25; 15:23; Levit. 17: 10-14; 19: 26) was, according to the priestly author of Genesis 9 : 4, first revealed to Noah. The important dis tinction between clean and unclean animals is regarded by the prophetic writer of Genesis 7 : 2 as antedating the flood. 1 Quoted by Sayce, Babylonians and Assyrians: Life and Customs, p. 196. THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LAW 43 This conviction of Israel's historians that many of their reli gious rites and the laws which regulated them were not peculiar to their race but an inheritance from ages more or less remote is confirmed beyond question by contemporary and earlier Semitic literature. Old Babylonia, Egypt, and Phoenicia had highly developed rituals and hierarchies, simi lar in many respects to that in use by the Hebrews. The Babylonians and Egyptians had their sacred arks,1 in which the gods were borne in procession at the sacred festivals. The rite of circumcision, so significant to the Hebrew people, was practised by many peoples of antiquity. The consecra tion to God and prompt sacrifice of the first-born of domestic animals was a very ancient Semitic custom, regularly prac tised by the Arabs.2 The agricultural thanksgiving days and festivals which the Hebrews observed as the funda mental ritual requirement of Yahwe" — of unleavened bread, first-fruits and ingathering (Exod. 23: 14-19 ; 34:18, 22, 23) — were in all probability borrowed from the Canaanites when the Hebrews made the important transition from nomadic to agricultural life.3 It is difficult, indeed, to find an important ceremonial among Israel's religious usages which does not have a parallel, more or less close, among the recognized institutions of other Semitic peoples. A full appreciation of how great and important was Israel's legal heritage from the past is absolutely essential to an understanding of the growth of its law as a whole and of the real nature of that growth. Far from being a spontane ous and untrammeled development, and therefore straightfor ward and well defined, it was in reality the result of a process of selection, modification and elimination, affected by many and varied influences. Many statements preserved in the Old Testament clearly indicate that Israel's enlightened teachers also recognized that their law and customs were a gradual and progressive growth. The prophet Jeremiah 1 For a convenient summary of data, see Encyc. Bib., i. 306-Ti 2 W. Robertson Smith, Religion of Semites, appendix. 8 See Budde's interesting discussion in Religion of Israel to the Exile, p. 39 ff. 44 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES ironically declares in Yahwe's name : " Add your burnt offer ings unto your sacrifices and eat ye flesh. For I spake not unto your fathers and gave them no command in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices; but this thing I commanded them, saying, Hearken unto my voice " (7 : 21-23a). An earlier prophet, Amos, declares explicitly that in the old days in the wilderness, when Yahwd showed his love for Israel, no sacrifices were offered to him, or, at least, were of small moment (Amos 5 : 25). Jeremiah even recognizes that agen cies exist which are liable to alter the law to serve their own base purposes (8 : 8). Hebrew legislation was therefore a growth, and fortunately one that can be traced. By the study of analogies among other ancient Semitic peoples and by means of certain suggestions contained in the laws of the Old Testament themselves, it is possible, conjecturally at least, to determine the influences and methods whereby under divine Providence the remarkable legal system of the Hebrews came into being. In some in stances the Old Testament has preserved the complete biog raphy of a given law. In other cases the historical records of the nation present the situation or quote the precedent out of which the law grew. A comparison of kindred laws in the successive codes not infrequently suggests the genesis of the later enactments. THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LA W 45 II INFLUENCES WHICH LED TO THE REVISION AND EXPANSION OF THE LAW 1. The Settlement of the Hebrews in Canaan The first powerful influence affecting the original body of customs and laws recognized by the Hebrew tribes was the transition from a career essentially nomadic in which the clan was the social and political unit, to the settled, agricul tural, community life of Canaan. The new occupations and environment could not but give rise to a host of judicial questions not provided for by the simple but persistent cus toms of a nomadic people. The laws, for example, which relate to the possession and transfer of property in land (Deut. 19 : 14 ; Levit. 25), fixing a compensation for injury done to real property (Exod. 22 : 5, 6) and containing the in junction to let the land lie fallow during the seventh year (Exod. 23:10-12), had no relation to the needs of a no madic community and must have been developed to meet the changed needs of the Hebrews. The same transition marked a great increase in the ceremonial laws. As wan derers in the trackless desert they had a patriarchal organiz ation and a simple religious system, under which but few places ranked as sanctuaries where God had made his pres ence known. When they conquered Canaan they took posses sion of many Canaanitish holy places which became to them hallowed by Yahwe 's presence and were made the centres of their more complex religious life. About these sacred places grew up a local priesthood and a detailed ritual, and, in time, a body of customs and regulations very different 46 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES from the simple usages observed in connection with the ark which had proved adequate during the earlier wilderness life. In its way the transition was almost a revolution. 2. The Babylonian Exile The Babylonian exile and the absolutely altered conditions which grew out of it also proved active forces in leading to the further revision and expansion of the law. The destruc tion of the temple at Jerusalem broke the continuity of traditional usage; new needs suggested new regulations. Deprived of its independence and unable to participate in affairs of state, the attention and energy of the race were devoted to questions of religion and ritual. The leisure of the exile gave ample opportunity for the study and further development of the law ; while the bitter experience of the nation seemed to suggest the desirability of an emphasis upon ritual as a means of religious progress. Ezekiel with his comprehensive and somewhat revolutionary programme for the restored Jewish state (Ezek. 40 to 48) stands as a represen tative of a broad movement which was supported and fos tered by many influential minds and led to the probable formulation of an important proportion of the laws of the Pentateuch. 3. Contact with Other Peoples and Fusion with the Canaanites Of Ahaz, King of Judah, it is recorded in the sixteenth chapter of Second Kings that while in Damascus he saw an altar whose style attracted him. Securing a pattern, he caused one like it to be erected in the place of the brazen altar which hitherto had stood in front of the temple at Jerusalem. In order to conform to Assyrian fashions he also made many sweeping innovations in the order of the sacrifi cial service and in the equipment of the temple. If such revolutionizing changes as these could be made without apparent protest in a late period when usages had become THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LAW 47 firmly established, it is easy to appreciate how powerfully the Hebrews must have been influenced in their earlier form ative period by the relatively much higher civilization with which they came into intimate contact. At first the Canaan ite and then the kindred Phoenician influence was closest and most potent. From the Canaanites the Hebrews, as a nation at least, learned the art of cultivating the soil and with that art undoubtedly received many of the customs which are reflected in the laws found in the primitive codes of Exodus, whose background is clearly the life of agriculturists. Adopting as they did the sacred places and sanctuaries of the Canaanites and freely intermarrying with them, it was inevitable that they should also take from them many of their ceremonial laws and customs. At Shechem during the period of the Judges, both peoples worshipped together for a time at a common shrine which was called the temple of Baal of the covenant (Judges 9: 4). After the victory under Deborah and Barak, when the Hebrews became masters of the land, Canaanitish priests may have continued to minister at the sanctuaries which henceforth were reconsecrated to Yahwd. The record, at least, has been preserved that the Gideonites were made " hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of Yahwe" " (Josh. 9 : 23). The whole system of the Israelitish priesthood seems to have been developed almost entirely after the Hebrews entered Canaan and not improbably as the result of contact with a civilization which, though politically weak, was vastly in advance of the experi ence of the Hebrews in organization and culture. In his attack upon hypocritical formalism Amos exclaims : "Did you bring unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wil derness for forty years?" (5:25). The answer obviously implied is, "No." The oldest and most authentic Hebrew records make no reference to the existence of priests in the pre-Canaanitic period and strongly imply that there was no such caste as appears in later times and writings. Accord ing to the early passage in Exodus 33 : 7-11 Moses himself consulted Yahwe" at the tent of meeting and Joshua took 48 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES charge of it. The account of the priesthood of Aaron and his family is found in the latest stratum of priestly records and evidently represents the projection of late institutions and laws into the early period, (cf. p. 82). Later their Assyrian and Babylonian conquerors brought to the Israelites ideas and religious customs which they adapted and in time legalized. The elaborate temple and ritual of Babylonia especially impressed the minds of the Jewish exiles who framed the laws which regulated the second temple. In many of his strange visions the priest- prophet Ezekiel shows that his mind has been deeply affected by the glory and glitter of Babylon. Cast, as were the Hebrews, into the great currents of ancient life, they could not remain stationary ; and as they reacted or responded to the powerful influences which came from without, their cus toms and laws were gradually transformed and expanded. 4. Changed Political and Social Conditions If Israel's laws were moulded by forces from without, even more powerful were the transforming influences which pro ceeded from within the nation. After the settlement in Canaan, city and national organization gradually took the place of that of the clan. For some time the old habit of delegating the functions of community government to a council of elders or heads of families persisted (Judges 8 : 14 ; 11 : 5), but the superior advantages of an organization which really unified the people led in time to the kingship.1 Hence new laws, like those defining the constitutional limitations of the king (Deut. 17; 16-20) or establishing a supreme court of appeal (Ex. 22: 8; Deut. 17: 8-11; 19: 16-19; 21: 1-7) were required and provided. Growing distinctions between classes made necessary definite enactments protecting the rights of the poor and resident aliens (Exod. 22: 21-24; Deut. 24: 19- 22). After the sixth century b. c, when the kingship was 1 Not, however, to the abolition of the influence of the " elders." See 1 Kgs. 21 : 8, 11 ; Ezra 10: 8 ; Isa. 3 : 14; 9 : 15. THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LAW 49 no more and the civil and religious authority became finally centralized in the heads of the hierarchy, other new and revo lutionizing regulations had to be enacted which were adapted to the new order of things. 5. New Religious Institutions When changed religious ideas and institutions began to prevail in Israel the laws based upon the old order proved insufficient and were either set aside or further expanded. Thus the centralization of religious worship in Jerusalem consummated in the days of Josiah not only made illegal the offering of sacrifices at the altars found at the high places scattered throughout the whole land, but also made it neces sary by means of the cities of refuge to provide a substitute for the right of altar asylum which had previously served to correct certain evils incidental to the institution of blood- revenge.1 Later still, when the offering of sacrifice by the private individual was made illegal in the interests of purity and propriety, a large increase in the number of officiating priests was called for and laws in minute detail to define their qualifications and duties. 6. The Development of Higher Ethical Standards As in the case of all progressive races, the moral standards of the Hebrews were constantly being raised and, as a result, practices countenanced in one age were condemned by that which succeeded. Their literature contains many examples of the ancient custom of visiting upon the entire family or tribe punishment for the sin of a single offender. The chil dren of Benjamin (Judges 19-21) are held responsible for the outrage committed at Gibeah. The sons of Rizpah and Saul and five of his grandsons are taken by David (2 Sam. 21 : 1- 14) and given up to the Gibeonites to be executed because 1 The context in Exod. 21 : 12-14 seems to indicate that the refuge of v. 13 is the altar of v. 14. The law of Dt. and P. (Deut. 19 : 1-13 ; Num. 35 : 9-34) is a reformulation and adaptation of the time-honored (1 Kgs. 1 : 50 ; 2 : 28) custom to the needs of a more complex civilization. 4 50 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES of a wrong done by Saul to the Gibeonites long before, with which they had absolutely nothing to do. It was not injuri ous to the moral sense of primitive Israel to " devote " a whole community and its possessions (1 Sam. 15:18). But Deuteronomy 24 : 16 presents a law which distinctly enacts that none but the culprit shall be punished for his crime and that the earlier usage shall fall into abeyance. The later laws regarding slavery aim, in the main, to alleviate the hardships of their lot under the earlier regulations and are clearly the expression of a developing ethical consciousness. 7. The Teaching of the Prophets and Wise Men That which distinguished the Hebrews from other peoples of antiquity was not their political institutions nor their ritual, but the presence and work of the true prophets within their midst. To the quiet but strong influence of these real men of God can be traced most that is unique and charac teristic in Israelitish life and law. They represented the enlightened conscience of the race, enunciating higher prin ciples of action and pointing out in what respects current practices were defective. Because of their zeal for absolute righteousness they were not only champions of that which was good in the life and laws of their nation, but also un sparing critics of that which was imperfect. Unlike most of their contemporaries, they were unfettered by the bonds of tradition. Precedent had no authority over them, if it did not accord with their conceptions of right. Personal inter ests were completely forgotten in their zeal to proclaim their message. Thus they stood the embodiment and expression of higher ideals. They were the pioneers proclaiming, as Yahwe's spokesmen, new and transforming principles. The wise men, who as teachers of the individual came into closer touch with the people, applied to the everyday problems of life the same prophetic truths. The prophets and the wise men each had their torah x as 1 That is, a body of authoritative teachings. THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LAW 51 well as the priests, and claimed for it the same authority. " If you will not hearken to me and walk in my law {tor ah) which I have set before you, to hearken to the words of my servants the prophets, whom I send unto you sparing no effort . . . then will I make this city a curse to all the nations of the earth" (Jer. 26:4-6; cf. 9:13; 16:11; Isa. 1 : 10). Deuteronomy solemnly enacts, under penalty for non-fulfillment, that the people should heed the message of the true prophet (18 : 18, 19). Many a wise man exhorted his disciple: My son, forget not my torah ; But let thy heart keep my commandments. (Prov. 3:1; 4:2; 6:20). Even though the people did not at once follow the exalted torah of the prophets and wise men, their thought and action were gradually transformed thereby, until that which they at first rejected as too radical or heretical, because of the irre sistible influence of matured public opinion and deliberate usage, and because of its appeal to the enlightened con science of the nation, became embodied in the legal torah of the nation and became the definite norm to which their life was more and more conformed. 8. The Divine Influence in the Growth of the Law This general survey has shown that the influences which led to the growth of the laws of the Israelites are clearly dis cernible and in most cases analogous to those which produced the legislative system of other nations. The Hebrews, how ever, in common with most peoples of antiquity, in time at tributed the origin of their law directly and solely to their God. In like manner the Babylonians regarded Ea, the god of culture, as the author of their first law book and a deity who would enforce the keeping of his laws. The same tradition appears in the writings of the late Chaldean priest. Berosus, and is to the effect that Oannes (corresponding to Ea, the god of the deep) emerged from the waters of the Per- 52 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES sian Gulf bringing the elements of civilization and the code of laws which were in force henceforth in Babylonia. Diodorus (I. 94, 75) states that the sacred books of Egyptian law had been composed by Thoth, the god of wisdom. Among the Aryans, following the period of natural law came the Dharma period, or the period of divine law.1 All the institutions of the Hindus, Greeks, and Romans were colored by the idea that their oldest laws were given to them directly by the gods. The Hindus had their so-called code of Manu, who was de scribed as an emanation from the deity. In Plato's Laws a Kretan is made to assert that Zeus is held to be the author of their laws, and that their king Minos, as Homer says, went every ninth year to converse with his Olympian sire and made laws in accordance with his sacred words. In one in stance the Hebrews give expression to this widespread belief in the divine origin of the law by means of the tradition that their decalogue was originally written by the finger of Yahwe (Ex. 31 : 18 ; Deut. 4 : 13). Elsewhere Moses is regarded as the divine amanuensis, writing down as Yahwe" dictated. As in the case of all ancient peoples, the belief is old but can not be traced to the very earliest period. In a very true sense the Israelites were right in their underlying idea. Blind indeed is the historian who does not see the hand of God shaping their institutions and laws. It was not, however, by a finger of flesh on tables of stone, as the ancient Hebrews naively thought in an age when they conceived of the deity as a man, but by the varied and thrill ing experiences of their national life and by means of the messages of devoted, courageous prophets and wise men that Yahwe wrote upon the hearts of his people his divine laws. It is because of their remarkable history and because of the inspired teachers in their midst that, until the canon of the written law was closed, the Israelites — unlike many other peoples — experienced no prolonged period of mental and religious stagnation. The laws of a progressive people were necessarily constantly developing and expanding. Growth 1 Botsford, The Athenian Constitution, 25. THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LAW 53 was the evidence and result of life, and the complexity and frequent contradictions in the law were in turn but the evi dence and result of growth, so that the confusing codes preserved in the Pentateuch are effective witnesses to the remarkable history of the Hebrews and to the exalted divine purpose being revealed and realized through them. 54 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES III CONDITIONS BEFORE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE KINGDOM Op law in the sense of a definite body of rules and regula tions — written or unwritten — applied indifferently under like conditions to all members of the community, there is little trace in Hebrew history before the establishment of the monarchy in the days of Saul. As the editor of the Book of Judges, in speaking of the period, plainly declares : " In these days there was no king in Israel : every man did that which was right in his own eyes." The law of might — well illus trated by the story of the stealing of the priest and ephod of Micah the Ephraimite by the Danites (Judges 18), and the rape of the daughters of Shiloh by the Benjaminites at the vintage feast (Judg. 21 : 16-23) — was apparently the one oftenest observed. This of course is but evidence of the absence of well defined regulations. In certain respects it corresponded to the Rta period (or period of natural law) in primitive Aryan history. Most of i^he commands which we find in the decalogue of Exodus 20 were constantly disre garded by the representative heroes of the age. The absence of any attempt on the part of the early historians to excuse or condemn these acts is significant evidence that this deca logue, which embodies the essence of exalted prophetic teach ings, was unknown to them. Thus Ehud's treacherous murder of Eglon king of Moab is implicitly commended (Judg. 3:16-23). Gideon's slaughter of the Hebrews of Penuel is recorded without comment (Judg. 8 : 17) . Al though condemned by the later editor, his setting up a THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LAW 55 molten image at his capital Ophrah and the popular practice of worshipping at the temple of Baal-berith (Judg. 8 : 26, 27 ; 9: 6) seem to have been regarded as permissible by the con temporaries of Gideon. The popular hero Samson repeatedly transgressed the laws guarding social morality (Judg. 16), yet, according to the ancient narrative, the spirit of Yahwe, his God, continued to move him. The laws later regulating the temple and priesthood were still in the germ. Micah the Ephraimite with the eleven hundred pieces of silver, which were under a curse because he had formerly stolen them from his mother, established a private sanctuary of Jehovah with a molten image as its central object of worship. At first one of his sons was appointed its priest, but later when a wan dering Levite appeared, he was hired to care for the shrine (Judg. 17). The period, however, was not one of complete lawlessness. Certain obligations were recognized as binding upon every member of the community, as is shown by the uprising of the Hebrew tribes to punish an act of gross immorality com mitted by the Benjaminites (Judg. 19-21). A few customs — chiefly inherited from the Semitic past — like those of blood revenge (Judg. 8, 18-21) and the obligation to fulfil a vow (Judg. 11 : 29^40) were universally recognized and may be said already to be crystallizing into an unwritten law. That they had not yet attained to the authority of an un changeable custom is well illustrated by the incident recorded in First Samuel 14 : 24-45 ; where the vow laid by Saul upon his followers, and which called for the death of Jonathan, was set aside because their moral sense revolted at the thought of such manifest injustice. Each tribe probably had its pecu liar habits of doing certain things; but in general law was still only in the making. 56 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES IV ISRAELITISH LAW IN THE MAKING 1. The Decisions of Judges The derivation of the common Hebrew word for law, torah, suggests the process of its growth. It comes from a root whose original meaning is to throw or cast. In First Samuel 20 : 36 it is used of shooting arrows and in Joshua 18 : 6 of casting the lot. Its common meaning, to direct or point out, seems to have resulted from its frequent use to describe the casting of the sacred lot or arrows in determining and pointing out the will of the deity.1 Torah therefore means a pointing out, a direction, an authoritative decision, origi nally given only after consulting the deity. It closely cor responds in origin and content to the Greek word Themis which was " the divine agent, suggesting judicial awards to kings or to gods. Themistes, Themises, the plural of The mis, were the awards themselves, divinely dictated to the judge. Kings are spoken of as if they had a store of ' Themistes ' ready to hand for use ; but it must be dis tinctly understood that they were not laws but judgments " (Maine, Anc. Law, 4). The meaning of the Hebrew word torah, therefore, strongly suggests that the definite direc tions or decisions rendered by authoritative judges — elders of the tribe, leaders, priests, or kings — who either consulted the deity in each case or else were understood to represent him, mark the first stage in the development of ancient law. This conclusion is confirmed by the meaning of the other common synonym for law, mishpat, which was originally 1 Cf. Welhausen, Skizzen, ILL 143 (2d ed.) ; Benzinger, Arch., 408. THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LAW 57 simply a decision given in an individual case, then later regarded as a precedent for similar cases. Finally it was employed to designate a custom or ordinance. Exodus 18 : 13-27 contains a striking illustration of this first stage of law-making, which is all the more interesting because it belongs to one of the earliest strands of the pro phetic history (E) and because it is associated with the name of Moses. It introduces us to the great leader seated to judge the people and surrounded by them from morning until evening, eagerly presenting their various questions. In reply to his father-in-law's inquiry as to the meaning of the scene, Moses explains : It is " because the people come unto me ; and I judge between a man and his neighbor and I make them know the statutes of God and his directions (toroth)." Evidently each case was treated independently and a decision rendered by Moses which was recognized as expressing the divine wilL Naturally as the same cases repeated themselves he applied the same principles; as yet, however, the people were not so well acquainted with them but that they must refer each case to the leader. As the same decisions were repeatedly rendered under similar conditions they constituted precedents which became the basis of custom and then of law. His father-in-law, recognizing that Moses' time and energy were being exhausted by the petty judicial duties, wisely advised him to associate with himself able, impartial men, familiar with the principles of justice which he had already established by his decisions, and to allow them to judge very small matters. " Hard cases, " that is, cases presenting new problems and involving new principles, were still to be re ferred to Moses. Jethro's words to Moses in this connection vividly present both the theory and fact in regard to the origin of primitive law: "Be thou for the people to God- ward (i. e., stand as the representative of God before the people), and bring thou the causes unto God: and (thus) thou shalt teach them the statutes and the directions (toroth, usually translated laws), and shalt show them the way wherein they must walk, and the work which they must 58 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES do." Those who officiated as judges were at first the nat-' ural leaders of the people, the heads of families or those (Exod. 24:14) recognized as possessing executive powers. This is indicated by the term "judge" applied to the brave champions of Israel raised up in times of need after Joshua's death. As the priesthood grew in numbers and importance, its members frequently exercised judicial functions. The elders of each community were recognized as being re sponsible for punishing the crime of any member of it (1 Kgs. 21: 8-13; cf. 2 Kgs. 10: 1). In process of time, however, the regular needs of the larger and better organ ized communities or cities gave rise to a recognized set of officials, very similar to the judges of to-day. The Chronicler (2 Chr. 19 : 5-11) ascribes to Jehoshaphat the appointment and encouragement of such incumbents, and curiously supplements this arrangement by the simultaneous appointment in Jerusalem of a sort of court of last resort composed of Levites, priests, and elders, with two presi dents, one for religious, the other for civil cases. The latter provision seems more like the well-ordered usage of post-exilic times than the rude methods of the days of the kingdom. The priestly law does not refer specifically to the work of judges,1 and probably takes it for granted that the omnipresent priest or Levite will act in that capacity. The different steps in the growth of primitive Israelitish law are now clear. When particular cases were referred to early judges they decided them as their judgment, guided by an endeavor to ascertain, in the various ways known to them, the will of the deity, dictated. Decisions thus ren dered were regarded as having divine authority. Earlier de cisions would naturally constitute precedents which would be followed in recurring cases. A series of similar decisions would in time reveal the underlying principle and establish a custom ; later the custom would be expressed in the terms of a law. 1 Lev. 19 : 15, 35, 36 are general in character. THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LAW 59 It is interesting to note that the original term torah, direc tion or decision, was retained in later time as the compre hensive designation of the laws as a whole — written and unwritten, civil, moral and ceremonial — and was even em ployed by the prophets and wise men to designate their char acteristic teaching. Among the Greeks who were more exact and did not impose upon the same word so great a variety of meanings, the different stages in the growth of the law are more clearly distinguished. The early term ®e/j,i<; (Themis, plural The mistes, judgments) later became the designation for the god of justice. A body of judgments merging or merged into a usage or custom were designated by Sitcrj ; while vofux;, which was not known in the primitive period, was employed to de scribe the collective body of rules regulating the life of the nation and individual. 2. Moses' Relation to the Law In the light of these conclusions the nature of Moses' relation to Israelitish legislation as a whole becomes evident. In the earliest records he is represented not as a law-giver, but as a prophet, leader, and judge (Exod. 15 : 22 ; 24 : 1 ; Hosea 12:13; Exod. 18). By virtue of his unique authority and superior enlightenment he was called upon to make many important decisions, and thereby established by means of these precedents certain fundamental principles which became the basis of the complex system of legislation which was in time reared upon this substructure. The acorn contains the oak. In a broad and very real sense the entire system may be called Mosaic, although Moses himself may possibly never have written a word or formulated one of the laws which have been preserved in the Pentateuch in the phraseology familiar to us. It is probable, however, that he not only established principles but also embodied them — in so far as the scanty resources of the desert and the nomadic forms of life would permit — in simple regulations. That 60 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES he established a simple ceremonial system of Yahwe wor ship seems established by the references in the earliest sources to the sacred tent, the ark, and to common cere monial usages. 3. The Share of the Priests in Developing the Law Because of their peculiar place and function in the com munity, the Israelitish priests did a unique work in develop ing the law of their race. Their opportunity arose because to them the people resorted to learn through the oracle the will of Yahwe\ As guardians also of the sanctuaries they became an established and recognized caste. In accordance with the regulations laid down by Moses (Exod. 18) ordinary cases and questions of right were referred to the local judges, elders, and tribal chieftains and decided according to the principles already well established by earlier prece dents. Their decision tended still further to confirm existing usage and to give to it the force of a definite law. Occa sionally they may have rendered decisions which became the basis of new customs, but as a rule they probably kept within well beaten paths, since they were commanded to refer all difficult cases to a higher tribunal. One example has been preserved of a law growing out of a ruling of a military chieftain; after overtaking and con quering the Amalekites who had spoiled their city Ziklag, the rough retainers who followed David in his outlaw days refused to divide the booty with their companions who had been compelled to remain behind. David ruled that, "As his share is that goeth down to battle, so shall his share be that tarrieth by the stuff : they shall share alike " (1 Sam. 30 : 24). The author of Samuel also adds : " And it was as from that day forward that he made it a statute and an ordi nance of Israel unto this day " (1 Sam. 30 : 25).1 In the days 1 The law here ascribed to the decision of David, is referred by the priestly historian to Mosaic precedent (Num. 31:27) on the occasion of the holy war against Midian. THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LAW 61 of the monarchy the Hebrew kings, like all oriental rulers, sat in judgment, and, as the highest civil authority in the state, must have been called upon to decide many difficult cases which involved new principles and in turn established new precedents and usages. It is significant, however, that the Book of Deuteronomy which is also the first code to recognize and define the duties of the king, makes not the king but a tribunal at the central sanctuary, composed chiefly if not entirely of priests, the supreme court of final appeal. The law is addressed to local judges and enacts that when in any of their towns a case is brought before them too difficult for them to decide, they shall take it to the central sanctuary and lay it before "the priests, the Levites, and the judge, that shall be in those days" for their "sentence of judgment." Failure to act in accordance with the tenor of the decision which they shall render shall be punished with death (Deut. 17:8-13). The language seems to suggest that lay judges were associ ated with the priests in this court, although the judge re ferred to as announcing the decision may have been chosen from the ranks of the priests. The inference is that the priests were at least in the majority and therefore in civil as well as ceremonial questions cast the deciding vote. It was probably under the monarchy largely by means of this supreme tribunal that questions not provided for by existing customs and laws were settled and new precedents established as the basis for further legislation. Like the Sanhedrin of later times it virtually combined legislative and judicial and probably executive functions. It was the lineal descendant of Moses, and its authority was derived not primarily from the king or civil government but from the fact that it was composed chiefly, if not entirely, of priests who were recognized as the guardians of the oracles of Yahwe (compare, e. g., Deut. 33: 8, 10). In theory at least all diffi cult cases were laid directly before the divine judge. " If one man sin against another, God will judge him " (1 Sam. 2 : 25) was the thought of the latest times as well as the earliest. 62 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES Prophets proclaimed the divine will and in early days were eagerly consulted by the people in regard to subjects hidden from the sight of ordinary man, but it was the priests who were able at all times to render by the use of the sacred lot a definite decision (Deut. 33: 8, 10). To them, therefore, throughout all Israelitish history the people looked for the torah of Yahwe. Jeremiah speaks of them as "they that handle the torah" (Jer. 2:8); his contemporaries declared, indicating the especial field of activity of each of the three classes of enlightened teachers : " The torah shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet" (Jer. 18:18). Micah complains that the priests render their decisions for money (3 : 11). Ezekiel in defining the functions of the priests in his picture of an ideal Jewish state says : " They shall teach (by their decisions) my people the difference between the holy and common, and cause them to discern between the unclean and clean " (44:23). The prophet Haggai asks and receives a charac teristic torah or decision from the priests in regard to a cere monial question (Hag. 2 : 11-13). In Malachi 2 : 7 it is clearly stated : " The priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the torah at his mouth, for he is the messenger of Yahwe of hosts." Until the days of Nehemiah at least, the priests were regarded as the original fountain of justice ; they were expected to render decisions on all undecided questions, and the authority of the spoken was apparently regarded more highly than that of the written torah. They were therefore the class who transformed principle into practice, and as judges were also the legislators of ancient Israel. Aside from them the Hebrews had no legislative body like the thesmothetae of Greece or the decemvirs of Rome, pos sessing authority as the representatives of the people and deliberately enacting and promulgating laws which were at once accepted as binding upon the nation. Israelitish law grew rather as the early common law of England, being based originally upon cases and precedents rather than upon statutory enactments. The influence of THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LAW 63 the supreme priestly tribunal upon the growth of the law corresponded closely to that of the Court of Chancery in England. 4. The Different Stages in the Growth of the Law In the manner of its growth early Israelitish law was not the exception but the type of the corresponding development among all primitive peoples. In the list of judges who sat upon civil cases in ancient Babylonia the names of priests appear nearly as frequently as those of lay officials. Reli gious questions were decided altogether by the former. Mommsen describes the Roman leges regioz as mostly rules of the fas which were of interest not merely to the pontiffs but to the public. Pomponius's statement that they were enacted by the comitia curiata is now generally regarded as a later theory rather than an historical fact. Certainly the oldest Roman writers accord to that assembly a very small share in the work of legislation.1 As in Israel, customs rather than statutory enactments seem to have been, during the regal period also, the chief basis of jus as well as fas. Muirhead maintains that the majority of the laws of Servius Sulpicius were nothing more than the formularizations of customary law for the use of private judges in civil causes. Back of all ancient custom ary law — as the Hebrew writers plainly tell us — were the decisions of the primitive judges. As the growth of custom belongs in the Aryan as well as the Semitic world to the Dharma period or the period of divine law, it takes little imagination to recognize here also by analogy the work of the priests, the guardians of the divine oracles. In the light of this study it is now possible to distinguish the different stages in the growth of all ancient law. (1) A period of natural law or lawlessness. (2) The period of divine law, or the period in which all 1 Muirhead, Roman Law, p. 20. 64 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES questions were referred to and decided by men or classes regarded as representing the deity. (3) The period of customary law when usages sprang up in harmony with the divine decisions. It was in reality the age of unwritten law. (4) The period of codes when the more important laws were cast in written form. This was the age in which the living torah began to be crystallized. THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LAW 65 THE GROWTH OF THE WRITTEN LAW 1. Original Motives for Committing Laws to Writing It is obvious that while the people believed that they could through their priestly judges lay each case directly before Yahwe, they never felt a strong need for a written law. Until long after the exile an authoritative torah could always be secured on application to the priests. As a rule Semitic peoples even to the present day have little use for a written code, since custom and oral law suffice. Of the many docu ments and exact methods of procedure which characterize the occidental law court there are few traces. in the Orient. The result was that among the Hebrews there never appears to have been a popular demand for a written law as among the Greeks and Romans. The motives which led to the committing of certain laws to writing came rather from Israel's teachers. The first was the desire to provide memo randa primarily for the guidance of local and tribal judges in order to insure justice and uniformity in their decisions. It is illustrated by the primitive code found in Exodus 20 : 1 to 23 : 13 which is introduced by the suggestive formula : " Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them" (the people). The Hebrew term translated "judg ments " is mishpatim, which recalls the earlier judgments or decisions upon which the regulations were based. The de tailed directions are introduced by if or when, and present typical cases with the penalty to be inflicted for each indi vidual offence, as for example : " If a man steals an ox or a sheep and kills it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox and four 5 66 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES sheep for a sheep " (22 : 1). The form is precisely the same as that used in the ancient Sumerian code adopted by the Babylonians, and in force centuries before the age of Moses : " If a son denies his father, his hair shall be cut, he shall be put in chains and sold for silver. If a wife hates her hus band and denies him, they shall throw her into the river. If a husband divorces his wife, he must pay her fifty shekels of silver." So also many of the laws of the Twelve Tables: " Si in jus vocat, ito. Si calvitur pedemve struit, manum endo jacito." The same formula is frequently employed in the ancient Gortynian code recently discovered in Crete.1 As in the case of the primitive Roman and Greek codes, this early collection of Hebrew laws may have been accessible to the people, but it is evident that it was intended rather for offi cial judges than for the general public. Although representing the work of priests, its laws have been preserved in the records of the Elohistic prophetic histo rian or historians who are generally supposed to have done their work about 750 b. c. Whether these laws were then first committed to writing cannot absolutely be determined. It is. probable that they were copied from an earlier written version prepared in priestly circles. Some of them un doubtedly reflect customs and rulings which are as old or older than Moses. The absence of any reference to the in stitution of the kingship points to an early period in Hebrew history. There is also no clear evidence of the influence of the eighth century prophets which becomes very apparent in the Book of Deuteronomy and in the decalogue of Exodus 20. On the other hand, they reflect a degree of moral enlighten ment greatly in advance of that represented by the Book of Judges. The people who lived in accordance with these laws had made considerable progress in civilization. The historical background of many of them is not the primitive conditions of the desert, but the peculiar mingled pastoral and agricultural life of Canaan. The people live not in 1 Am. Jour. Arch., i. 333 ff., ii. 27 ff. See also Post's edition. THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LAW 67 tents, but houses (22 : 7). Possessions consist not merely of flocks, but also of grain fields and vineyards (22: 5, 6). The people are commanded to offer Yahwe of their first-fruits (22 : 29) and to let the land lie fallow on the seventh year, probably in recognition of the ancient communal right of ownership which otherwise had fallen into abeyance (23 : 10, 11). Evidently the Hebrews had long been residents of Canaan before these regulations were completely developed. The laws were also probably current in oral form for a con siderable period before they were committed to writing, so that the code as a whole cannot reasonably be dated before the reign of David or later than that of Jeroboam II. If it was of northern Israelitish origin, as its position in a history usually attributed to an author living in the north suggests, it may well come from the reign of Omri the builder of Samaria or from that of the Yahwistic revolutionist, Jehu. 2. The Origin and Date of the Decalogues Another primitive motive producing written laws was the desire to bring forcibly to the attention of the people im portant principles which they were in danger of ignoring. According to Deuteronomy 27 : 11-26, this motive found one expression in the order given to the Levites to proclaim pub licly with a loud voice to Israel certain commands, presented in the form of curses, as, for example, " Cursed be the man that maketh a graven image or molten image, an abomination unto Yahwe, the work of the hands of a craftsman, and setteth it up in secret ; " or " Cursed be he that removeth his neighbor's landmark." To each of these prohibitive com mands all the people were to respond "Amen." The other method of keeping important laws before the minds of the people was to express them in concise form so that they could easily be remembered. Representative of this method are the decalogues found in the Pentateuch. In their origi nal form they evidently consisted of simple, short sentences.1 1 For a view of the decalogues differing in many respects from the conclusions expressed in this article and defending in large measure the current popular in- 68 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES The longer versions consist of the original command and later explanatory or parenetic comments which have been combined by late editors. The original brevity of the com mands of the decalogues suggest that they were at first in tended to be preserved in the popular memory. For centuries this may have been considered sufficient. Certainly when our present versions of the most familiar decalogue were committed to writing two variants of the last command were in vogue and several of the " words " had been supplemented by explanatory and hortatory material which also presented important variations, as for example in the reasons given for the observation of the Sabbath (cf. Exod. 20: 10, 11, and Deut. 5 : 14, 15). Exodus 20 : 23-26 together with 23 : 14-19 also apparently represents an expanded variant version of the decalogue of Exodus 34:10-26. The question of when the different versions of the differ ent decalogues were first put into writing is obscure and comparatively unimportant. The tradition that the "ten words " found in Exodus 20 were written on tables of stone and placed in the ark cannot be traced to a very early date, and finds no support in the earliest historical sources.1 The object of such an inscription as is described would be attained not by storing it away in an ark, but by putting it up before the eyes of the people. There are certain suggestions that the custom illustrated among the Greeks by the Gortynian code and among the Romans by the Twelve Tables was also in vogue among the Hebrews, although the fact that no stone was found in Palestine suitable for public inscriptions added to the difficulties of publishing even a brief decalogue. Joshua 8 : 32 states that after building an altar of unhewn stones, Joshua " wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel." Deuteronomy 27:2-4 also provides that after terpretation, see Professor G. L. Robinson's inaugural address as incumbent of the chair of O. T. Literature and Exegesis at McCormick Theol. Sem., May, 1899, entitled "The Decalogue and Criticism." l Cf. Benzinger, Arch., 368, 369. THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LAW 69 crossing the Jordan great stones were to be set up and plas tered with plaster and then that upon these were to be writ ten all the words of the law. The tradition and the law are both comparatively late, but they may well have had a basis in practice at least during the literary period of Israel's his tory. Isaiah's writing an important message, which he wished to impress upon the minds of the people, on a great tablet (Isa. 8:1) and the divine command to Habakkuk to "write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it" (Hab. 2:2) establish at least a probability that the decalogues were in time set up at the sanctuaries where they could be seen by all the people. Of these decalogues, that preserved by the oldest prophetic historian (J) and found in Exodus 34: 10-26 appears to be the most ancient. In its original simple form it probably read: 1. Thou shalt worship no other god. 2. Thou shalt make thee no molten image. 3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. 4. Every firstling is mine. 5. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks. 6. And the feast of ingathering at the end of the year. 7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven. 8. The fat of my feast shall not be left until the morning. 9. The best of the firstfruits of thy land shalt thou bring to the house of Yahwe, thy God. 10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.1 The position of this decalogue in a document which itself dates from about 850-800 b. c. indicates its comparatively early origin. The fact that it emphasizes ceremonial rather than moral duties also points to the early stage common to all primitive cults, when religion was regarded as conforming to a ritual rather than to the laws of ethical righteousness. The references to the firstfruits of the land and to the house of Yahwe presuppose on the other hand the settled agri- 1 For a slightly different arrangement see Carpenter and Battersby's Hexa- teuch, i. 256. 70 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES cultural life of Canaan. The establishment of three great feasts, two of which corresponded to those observed by the Canaanites, suggests that the Hebrews had been subject to Canaanitish influence for a considerable period. Certain of its injunctions probably date from the beginnings of Israelit ish history — as, for example, not to seethe a kid in its mother's milk, which is probably old, because it reflects the usages of nomadic life — but as a whole this decalogue can not be earlier than 1000 or later than 800 B. c. The more familiar decalogue found in Exodus 20 (with its later variant version, Deuteronomy 5) also comes not from the nomadic but from the settled period of Hebrew history, as is indicated by the references to the neighbor's house and to the institution of the Sabbath, both representing the settled life of an agriculturist.1 Unlike the preceding deca logue it embodies not ceremonial laws but the essential ethi cal teachings of Amos and the great prophets who followed him. The first commandment, if it means to have no other gods in comparison with Yahwe, may be relatively early. The second refers to graven images, but any definite objec tion to the worship of Yahwe in the form of an ox cannot be assured before the time of Hosea, who, indeed, seems (3 : 4) to take for granted the use of the " pillar, the ephod and the teraphim " in popular worship. The third, which deals with the thoughtless vulgarizing of the Divine name, is a mark of enlightenment, scarcely characteristic of a primi tive community. The sabbath, moreover, is of virtually no significance to the nomad. He always has an abundance of leisure and the kinds of activity which he does pursue can not be remitted for even a day. It is a provision for the agriculturist and the man of commercial or social business. The decalogue, therefore, finds its most natural setting in the later period. Its position in the latest prophetic docu ment (E) and the absence of any reference to it in the memoranda for the guidance of judges (Exod. 20 : 1 to 23 : 13) tend to confirm the conclusion that in its complete written 1 Addis, The Documents of the Hexateuch, i. 139 f. THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LAW 71 form it was first promulgated in the eighth century B. c, although the majority of its commands may well have been enunciated by Israel's first great prophet- judge, as the tradi tion associated with them suggests. Traces of other decalogues have been found in the Penta teuch. Concise, clear commands, prescribing single acts, binding alike upon all members of the community, and re garded as essential for the preservation of their religious and civil life, mark one of the earliest stages in the development of the written law among the Hebrews as among most ancient peoples, as for example the Egyptians and Assyrians. They represent the formulation or publication of distinct decisions or of customs already more or less firmly established. With the Hebrew decalogue it is interesting to compare, as illustrative of the peculiar genius of each race, Leist's formulation of the commandments of the ancient Aryans.1 1. Thou shalt honor the gods. 2. Thou shalt honor thy parents. 3. Thou shalt honor thy country. 4. Thou shalt honor the guest or the man needing protection. 5. Thou shalt keep thyself pure. 6. Thou shalt not give way to thy sensual nature. 7. Thou shalt not kill. 8. Thou shalt not steal. 9. Thou shalt not lie. The groups of commands and mishpatim including both jus and fas grouped together without any thoroughgoing attempt at systematic arrangement and now found in Exodus 13:20 to 24, and 34, may be designated as the primitive Israelit ish codes. They represent — although only partially — the growth of Israelitish law from the earliest times to about 750 b. c. 1 Altarisches Jus Gentium, 172 ff. 72 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES 3. Private Codes, embodying New Principles and Adapted to New Needs — The Deuteronomic Code Before decisions and customs were crystallized into codes, Israelitish law grew unconsciously and naturally, adapting itself to new needs, new conditions and new standards ; but when ancient regulations assumed written form they held the field with that persistency which characterizes an institution hallowed by tradition. Meantime Hebrew life and thought were undergoing rapid and sweeping transformations, espe cially during the latter part of the eighth and the earlier part of the seventh century B. c. Assyrian armies overran Judah, and all the Palestinian states were annexed to the great con quering empire. New political, social, and religious prob lems called forth the epoch-making sermons of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah. A wealth of new principles was re vealed to the consciousness of the nation. Although they did not meet with general acceptance, they were, neverthe less, cherished in the hearts of certain disciples of the great prophets. The reactionary reign of Manasseh not only silenced the true prophets and led them to seek other methods of teaching, but also rendered glaringly apparent the inadequacy of the primitive codes to meet the needs of the changed conditions and to save the Hebrew people from the new temptations which were overwhelming them. The existence of written codes, coming from a less enlight ened past and therefore partially sanctioning customs which were at length recognized as debasing, complicated the prob lem. In the rank and file of the priesthood which was under the patronage of the monarchy and naturally interested in conserving existing conditions and customs there were few to take the initiative. Yet in the face of these obstacles there was found a man, or more probably a group of men, whether priests or prophets, at least broad enough to be in sympathy with the noblest ideals of both classes of teachers, and bold enough to prepare during the period of enforced silence, when, under Manasseh THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LAW 73 and his son, Amon, Assyrian religion was all the fashion in Judah, a new code of laws calculated to remove prevalent evil practices. The result was the so-called Book of the Covenant represented by the majority of the laws found in chapters 12 to 26 and 28 of the Book of Deuteronomy.1 A study and comparison of these with those of the primi tive codes reveal the aim and method of their unknown author or authors. Every earlier law or custom that was regarded worthy of preservation was allowed to stand. A detailed comparison shows that the primitive codes of Exodus 20 : 22 to 23 : 13 are used as the foundation of the new legisla tion found in Deuteronomy 12 to 26 ; while Deuteronomy 5 to 11 is chiefly a hortatory expansion of the first command of the decalogue found in Exodus 20. With a very few exceptions (Exod. 20 : 25-27 ; 21 : 18 to 22 : 15 ; 22 : 28, 29") every law con tained in the earlier codes is represented in the later.2 The exceptions relate to the penalties to be inflicted for certain injuries and were probably omitted because they were of in terest to judges rather than to the general public for whom the new code was intended. In only one or two cases is an entire law quoted verbatim (cf. Ex. 23: 19b; 34: 26" and Deut. 14 : 21°) . Frequently portions or clauses of the older laws are quoted literally (cf. Exod. 21 : 2-7 and Deut. 15 : 12-17 ; Exod. 23:4, 5 and Deut. 22: 1-4). More often the ancient ruling is recast in the peculiar language of the Deuteronomic law giver and explanations and exhortations added (cf. Exod. 21 : 2-7 and Deut. 15:12-18). In other cases the principle underlying the older enactment is expanded and differently applied (cf. Exod. 21 : 12-14 and Deut. 19 : 1-13). Undoubtedly many ancient customs and unwritten laws also for the first time appeared in writing in the new Book of the Covenant (e. g., Deut. 21:15-17). Certain existing laws, however, were dangerous and had to be absolutely set aside. The most familiar were those which, conforming to 1 The original code was probably augmented at an early date by certain inser tions and by the addition of the laws found in chapters 5-11. 2 Cf . Driver, Deuteronomy, Introd. iv-viii. 74 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES earlier usage, sanctioned the many high places scattered throughout Judah (cf . Exod. 20 : 24-26), and presided over by local priests who conserved many of the harmful customs of less enlightened times. New laws were therefore devised absolutely abrogating the older (Deut. 12 : 1-28). Charac teristic of the new code were a large number of enactments embodying the great principles advocated by the prophets of the eighth century. In many cases it is easy to trace the new law directly back to its fountain source in the writings of Amos, Hosea or Isaiah. Hosea, for example, condemns the northern Israelites because they " sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and burn incense upon the hills, and under the oak and the poplar, and the terebinth, because the shade thereof is good " (4:13; cf . Isa. 1 : 29) ; and the Deutero nomic code enacts : " You shall surely destroy all the places, wherein the nations that you shall dispossess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree" (12:2). The emphasis which the new law placed upon the duty of love to God and man (6:5; 10 : 19 ; 25 : 1-3) is manifestly an echo of Hosea's sublime teaching regarding Yahwe, whom he represents as a God of love and as demanding that his people shall reveal the same attribute in their relations to him and to each other. The prominent humanitarian and philanthropic element, fre quently enforced by exhortations and historical illustrations, which renders unique this remarkable code, is simply an earnest attempt to realize in Israelitish life the moral and religious ideals of the prophets. The new code was pro jected for the guidance not primarily of judges but of the mass of the people. Its enactments are carefully expanded, lucidly formulated and made definite. Exhortations and reasons why a given law should be observed are frequently appended. Little is said about legal processes. The exact penalty to be inflicted for a given crime is often left to the judges. Definite conditions and needs, and the principles calculated to meet them are at all times clearly before the eyes of the law-giver. Prepared in secret, the work of a THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LAW 75 man, or at most of a small group of men, unknown and un authorized, except by God himself, and aiming to set aside some of the most firmly established laws and institutions of the race, its popular acceptance and enforcement must have seemed a very dim and distant possibility. When confronted with the necessity of modifying existing written laws, the law-givers of most ancient nations resorted to what might be called, in the broad sense defined by Maine,1 "legal fictions," for they aimed to conceal the fact that the earlier codes had been fundamentally revised or set aside. Legal fictions of this type proved valuable aids to human progress, for they enabled the ancients, who were very reverential toward the traditions inherited from their past, to break with them easily and almost unconsciously. New regulations were simply regarded as expansions of the old, which as a matter of fact they often superseded. Although the fiction was transparent, the Twelve Tables continued for centuries nominally to be the sole foundation of Roman law. The author or authors of the Deuteronomic code employed a peculiar and characteristically Hebrew form of legal fiction to reconcile the new with the old. The new laws were all put into the mouth of Moses (5 : 1), and the historical point of view of the desert was retained throughout, even though the majority of the regu lations are manifestly incongruous with the life of nomads and contemplate conditions which did not arise until centu ries after the Hebrews entered Canaan. In this way the unity of Israelitish law was maintained, even though conflict ing enactments were attributed to the same traditional father of Hebrew legislation. If legal fictions or assumptions concealing or affecting to conceal the fact that a rule of law has undergone alteration are ever justifiable — and it is now generally admitted that at certain stages in the growth of law they conserve very important ends — that devised by the authors of the Deutero nomic codes was legitimate. It incorporated a large body 1 Ancient Law, p. 25. In modern law the term "legal fiction'' is used in a much more limited sense. 76 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES of ancient laws and customs which they and their contempo raries believed to have come from Moses, so that not to have acknowledged the debt would have been in itself unjustifi able. The new elements were the necessary expansion of the old or else the application of principles enunciated by Moses' successors, the great prophets of the eighth century. The code as a whole represented in general what the great Israelitish prophet and judge would in all probability have enacted had he been confronted by the conditions prevalent in Judah during the latter half of the seventh century b. c. It was most natural that his authority should have been invoked to insure the acceptance and enforcement of what would otherwise probably have been only a "paper" code. 4. The Public Ratification of the Deuteronomic Code The manner in which the private codes now preserved in the Book of Deuteronomy became and continued for two cen turies to be the one law acknowledged by the Israelites in Palestine is recorded in Second Kings 22 and 23. Back of the record of its discovery in the temple, of its presentation to King Josiah, and its solemn acceptance by the people can plainly be seen the gradual decline of Assyrian influence in Palestine, the reaction against the heathenism of Manasseh's reign, and the quiet but earnest work of priestly and pro phetic reformers, like Zephaniah, Jeremiah, and probably Hil- kiah, who prepared the minds of king and people for the sweeping changes which resulted from its promulgation. The sermons of the prophets and the authority of Josiah did not suffice to secure its permanent enforcement, however, until the exile impressed indelibly upon the consciousness of the Jewish race the prophetic principles underlying the new code. With its public presentation in 621 b. c. the period of Israelitish written law may be said to have begun. As be fore, many unwritten laws, not committed to writing, con tinued to guide judges and people, and, as the new code THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LAW 77 distinctly decrees, cases not directly provided for were re ferred to an authoritative priestly tribunal (Deut. 17); but henceforth the great majority of the acts of the people were definitely regulated by a fixed system of laws which they could readily consult and with which they were expected to be reasonably familiar. 5. Theoretical Private Codes (Ezekiel JfO to 48) The regulations of Deuteronomy would probably long have sufficed for the needs of the Israelitish race had not the Babylonian exile put a sudden end to the monarchy and the religious customs which centered about the first temple. The catastrophe of 586 b. c. and the radically changed con ditions introduced by the exile among the leaders of Israel made necessary new laws and called forth from private sources a series of new codes. Traces of three or four dis tinct groups of laws have been discovered. The first was devised by the prophet Ezekiel, who was carried from Jeru salem at the first captivity in 597 B. c. The fact that he was a priest and probably acquainted with the ritual of the sec ond temple explains the prominence which he gives to regu lations relating to the sanctuary and its services. He also lived at the beginning of a period when, excluded from all participation in political affairs, his race devoted itself to its religious problems. The prophets had declared that the nation was being punished for its failure to serve God aright; the problem was how best to remedy the situation. In his code, found in chapters 40 to 48 of his collected writ ings, Ezekiel sets aside many of the regulations of the Deu teronomic law, as freely as the authors of that code abrogated still earlier usages. The prince, who corresponds to the king of pre-exilic times, he makes little more than the financial agent of the temple (45 : 8-17). Instead of giving, as does Deuteronomy, the priests of the destroyed high places prac tically equal rights with those who had originally ministered at the temple in Jerusalem, he designates them as Levites and 78 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES entrusts to them only the more menial duties in connection with the temple (44:4-31). In his plan for the restored community the land is to be allotted arbitrarily with the temple in the center, the property of the priests and Levites located next to its reservation, and outside of all the territory of the different tribes. The chief aim in this unique code is to correct certain evils in the pre-exilic constitution and to emphasize the authority and holiness of Yahwe by making his temple and the priests who represent him the center of the national life, and by protecting them from close contact with anything which would ceremonially defile. Ezekiel's code unlike that of Deuteronomy is not that of a man dealing with present conditions, but rather that of a theorist who planned an ideal set of adjustments for the future. Like the productions of most theorists it was never practically adopted. Possibly the fact that it was not asso ciated with the name of Moses may explain in part why it was ignored by the Jewish leaders when they undertook the actual work of reconstruction. It, however, exerted an in direct influence in various ways. Its plan for the arrange ment of the temple, the priestly customs upon which it laid stress and the longing to promote national holiness which it embodied affected strongly certain later codes, and through them was effective in moulding Jewish legislation and practice. 6. Formative Ceremonial Codes Ezekiel gave expression to the strong tendency toward ritualism which was beginning to be felt among the Jewish priests exiled in Babylonia. Others following his example devoted themselves to developing more definite and practical laws, embodying, like those of Deuteronomy, many customs observed in connection with the first temple, and at the same time enforcing objectively by precepts and ceremonials Eze kiel's dominant idea of the holiness of Yahwe and the com- plemental truth that his people must likewise be holy. At THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LAW 79 last the teaching of the earlier prophets that the woes which had overtaken their race were due to their wilful disobedience of Yahwe 's commands was popularly accepted. All the life of the nation was therefore shaped with a view to atoning for the sins of the past and guarding against anything which would pollute it in the future. Being priests, and influenced by the powerful example of their Babylonian masters, it was natural that the Jewish lawgivers should especially empha size ceremonial righteousness. The words of Yahwe ad dressed to the nation : " Sanctify yourselves and be ye holy, for I Yahwe your God am holy" (19: 2; 20: 7, 26) was the refrain and the watchword of the body of laws formed chiefly in Leviticus 17 to 26 and commonly known as the " Holiness Code." Its kinship with Ezekiel's code indicates that it came from the same general period and point of view. Like the Deuteronomic code, it undoubtedly incorporated many earlier unwritten laws. It was evidently written at an earlier date than the remaining laws found in Exodus (excepting of course 13 ; 20-24 ; 34), Leviticus, and Numbers, and known as the Priestly Code. The preservation of the portions of the Holiness Code which we possess was apparently due to the fact that it was quoted by the authors of the later Priestly Code and incorporated in their more elaborate sys tem, or else placed there by its final editors. There are no indications that the Holiness Code by itself was accepted by the Jews, but, like that of Ezekiel, it appears to have con tinued for a long time to have been only a private system in the keeping of the priestly exiles. The fact that its laws, like those of Deuteronomy, were put into the mouth of Moses undoubtedly gave to them a growing value and authority, as the prestige of the great leader grew in the esteem of succeeding generations. Also legalizing as they did, the tendency of the Palestinian Jews and those of the dispersion toward increased ceremonialism, it was most natural that the framers of the complete Priestly Code should make them the foundation of their system. To the Holiness Code they appear to have added material 80 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES drawn from certain other minor codes. These are introduced by such formula as: "This is the torah of . . ."or "This shall be the torah of . . ." (cf. Lev. 6:9, 14, 25; 7: 1, 11; 11:46; 12:7; 14:2, 32,54,57; 15:32; Num. 5:29; 6:13, 21; 19: 14). These smaller collections evidently embody the toroth or teachings of the priests regarding such subjects as sacrifice, leprosy, personal impurity and the Nazirite vow. That they are frequently based on the earlier usage of the pre-exilic temple is suggested by their character and by the recurring phrase "according to the ordinance." Differences in language, points of view, and teachings indicate that they are not all from one hand but from a kindred group of writers. Similarly, minor variations distinguish them in turn from the Holiness Code. They have been appropriately designated collectively as the "Priestly Teaching" (P*). They are found chiefly in Leviticus 1 to 3, 5 to 7, 11 to 15, and Numbers 5, 6, 15, and 19 : 14-22. They have been freely re-edited and often expanded by the later priestly compilers; but in their original written form they probably came, like Ezekiel 40 to 48 and the Holiness Code, from the priestly exiles in Babylon who wrote not long after Nebuchadrezzar transported them from Judah. No exact date can be fixed, for these codes were naturally not all developed at once. They antedate, however, the work of the author or authors of the ceremonial laws and customs, which constitute the main body of the Priestly Code, for the latter presents a still fur ther expansion of the ritual. The evidence indicates that the completion of the main body of the Priestly Code and its fusion with the earlier Holiness Code and Priestly Teaching took place not long before the reformation instituted in Judah by the combined efforts of Nehemiah and Ezra. In setting aside usages which were sanctioned by the Primitive and Deuteronomic Codes — which continued until Nehemiah's appearance to be the only ones recognized in Judah — the reformer never appealed to the new Priestly Code, but repeat edly showed by his acts that he was familiar with the princi ples to which it gave definite expression. Thus in selling THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LAW 81 their children into slavery the Jews were justified by the laws of Exodus 21:2-6 and Deuteronomy 15:12-18. In con demning their action (Neh. 5), Nehemiah interpreted the re gulation of Leviticus 25 : 39-41 which enacts that no Hebrew shall be made a "bondservant."1 In some instances Nehemiah's reform measures reveal his ignorance of certain of the priestly laws. While he reversed the ruling of Deuteronomy (14: 22-29; 26: 12-15) and pro vided that all the tithes should be given to the Levites (Neh. 13 :11-13), there is no indication that he was acquainted with the law of Numbers 18 : 24-28 which provided that a tithe of the tithes should be handed over to the priests. 7. The Public Ratification of the Priestly Code The evidence is conclusive that until after the preliminary reformatory measures of Nehemiah, the Priestly Code was unrecognized and probably unknown to the Jews of Pales tine.2 Like the Deuteronomic Code before 621 b. c, it was originally only a private code, except in so far as it embodied earlier usages. The manner in which the two codes gained popular acceptance is strikingly similar in each case. Before they were publicly presented, the people were prepared for them by the preaching of earnest prophets and reformers. The Book of Malachi and the closing chapters of the Book of Isaiah contain stirring reform sermons coming from the age of Nehemiah. The vigorous rebuilder of Jerusalem himself did as much in rebuilding its morals and religion as its wall of stone. On his own authority and initiative, he instituted reforms and established precedents which must have influenced the makers of the completed Priestly Code. At least he prepared the Jews of Palestine for its more radi cal enactments, so that when, about 400 b. c.,3 Ezra appeared 1 For other examples see Kent, History of the Jewish People, 184-199. 2 Note the admirable summary of Carpenter in Carpenter and Battersby, Hexateuch, i, 135 ff. * For the evidence that the work of Nehemiah preceded that of Ezra, see Kent, History of the Jewish People, 195-198. 6 82 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES with the new law book in his hands, they were ready to receive it. Since in the post-exilic period the priest had absorbed the power of the king, it was natural that it should be a priestly scribe who publicly presented the new law to the people. Nehemiah 10 records its solemn acceptance by the commun ity. As in the case of the Deuteronomic Code, its authority was derived nominally from Moses, to whom each of all of its enactments were attributed, but in reality from its adap tation to existing conditions and its public adoption by the people. Henceforth the life of the Jewish community was conformed to it and thereby transformed. The oath taken by the people and recorded in Nehemiah 10 : 30-39 emphasized the most important elements in the new law. It is significant that five out of the eight regu lations therein recounted appear for the first time in the Priestly Code. The law book of Moses brought by Ezra from the land of the exile was therefore none other than the Priestly Code in its original form. Its growth, however, does not appear to have immediately ceased when it was accepted by the Jewish community. The Pentateuch con tains regulations unknown in the days of Ezra. The poll tax, for example, for the support of the temple was later increased from one-third to one-half of a temple shekel (Exod. 30 : 11-16 ; 38 : 26) . Later still it was commanded to bring to the temple a tithe of the herd and flock (Lev. 27 : 30-33) as well as of the field. The elaborate law in regard to the day of atonement (Lev. 16) seems to have been added later still. It was natural that the process of revision and expansion which had already gone on for at least four centuries should not cease at once. New needs still arose and new tendencies which in a legalistic age required and produced new enact ments. In succeeding generations the tradition of the Mosaic authorship of all Israelitish legislation became more and more firmly established. No law associated with any other name was regarded as possessing authority. Individual regula tions, whose origin was forgotten by later generations were THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LAW 83 soon classified by tradition as Mosaic and added to the older code. Later law-makers desiring to promulgate a new law could hope to attain their end only by introducing it into the larger Mosaic code. How long the expansion of the Priestly Code continued cannot be definitely determined. Not until the different codes were combined, as they now appear in the Pentateuch, and the canon and text of the law began to be carefully guarded, did it cease. The Greek period is the earliest date that can be assigned with assurance. At least by 250 b. c. when the Septuagint translation was made, after five centu ries of development, the Israelitish written law was complete. 84 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES VI THE GROWTH OF THE ORAL LAW With the unchallenged dominion of the completed priestly law there arose a peculiar social condition among the Jews who dwelt at or near the sacred city. They may be said to have developed a sort of abnormal passion for the legalistic formulation of all activity. A sense of dependence upon exactly phrased laws for the proper regulation of community and personal life grew upon them. This habit of mind at once created a difficulty more embarrassing still. The writ ten law, by its very ascription to the great founder of Israel's organized life, tended rapidly to become fixed in form and substance. On the other hand the habit of legalism fostered a dependence upon law which called for new formulas to meet the freshly realized needs of the community. It is often supposed that from the days of Nehemiah and Ezra to the time of our Lord the Jewish nation was in a state closely resembling coma. Nothing could be further from the truth. For half a century or so the little "province," as it is called, enjoyed a relatively uneventful, peaceful, and happy existence, but it was rudely awakened first by the later Per sian kings, then by Alexander, later by those who were in terested in forcing Hellenic customs, culture, and cultus upon it. The four centuries that intervened were excep tionally active and thoughtful periods, introducing the Jewish people to novel and fascinating impulses and ideals, not merely through their enemies who would force these upon their acceptance but through their own kinsmen, some of whom by long residence in the great commercial centres of the world had become imbued with a deep respect for Hel- THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LAW 85 lenism and the progress which it embodied, while others, native to Palestine, had been taken captive by its sensuous and intellectual attractions. The changes thus brought about within Judaism, had the effect, on the whole, of intensifying the allegiance of the Jewish people to what they regarded as the unaltered stand ards of the past. But this loyalty could be maintained only by the maintenance of another legal fiction. According to their constant declaration, the Mosaic law could not change, and must cover every possible case of religious or social need. As a matter of fact it did change and failed to offer a regu lation for many problems which the altering conditions raised. Such a situation could not fail to give rise to some expe dient which would meet the need yet respect the sentiment. The people were unwilling to trust to the passing decision of a judge or priest ; they turned to the scribes whose duty it had become to copy, study, and teach the law. They be came its interpreters, recognized as qualified to determine in what way the provisions of the law, universally accepted as binding upon loyal Jews, could be extended to cover a situation not directly contemplated by the older regulations. This duty they accepted with hesitancy; their authority they used with moderation. The greatest and wisest among them were, according to Rabbinic tradition, the only ones permitted to promulgate decisions. They sought at first to merely extend to new cases old and well established principles. This process gave in course of time, an exaggerated, almost fantastic importance to the written law. Obedience to it came to mean a closely literal compliance with its exact commands. The theory gained ground that complete obedi ence even for a day might serve to bring about the long expected messianic age. Little by little, therefore, the scribes developed a scheme by which each definite precept of the law was made certain of observance by being included within a series of practical regulations which were more ex acting than the original. This was termed by them " raising 86 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES a hedge about the law." Excellent as was the motive which inspired such attempts, it led to deplorable results in the lapse of time. In the first place, it made religion, in any adequate sense, a profession. The ordinary man who earned his living hon estly by hard work, could hardly hope for recognition as one who met the complete requirements of the law, so minute and technical, so varied and innumerable did these become. Again, and for the same general reason, religion became a burden, to be borne with resolution or resignation, as the type of personality was buoyant or sad. Widely it differed from the happy, festive religious experience of earlier days. Finally the oral law came so to overlay the written law on which it was based as to overshadow it in importance in the estimation, not merely of the scribes themselves but of the people, their dupes. It is this diseased condition of mind to which our Lord addresses himself in his public declarations regarding the law. With the spirit and often the letter of the genuine law he was in real harmony; with its perversion through the ingenuity of the rabbis he had little patience. THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LAW 87 VII CONCLUSIONS Modebn investigation has clearly demonstrated that the laws found in the Old Testament came not from one author but from a myriad; not from one generation but from not less than eight centuries of generations. Israelitish law grew gradually and progressively. " First the blade, then the ear, and then the full corn in the ear." It grew as new needs and new conditions arose, and as new political, ethical, or religious principles were apprehended by the nation or by its leaders. In proclaiming ever-broadening conceptions of God and duty, ever higher and nobler standards of life, the prophets were the precursors and inspirers of the law-makers. Without their constant and powerful influence Israelitish law would probably never have risen far above its common Semitic source. The priests as guardians of the sanctuary, teachers of the people, judges of important causes, and the mouthpieces of Yahwd's will were the real law-makers of Israel, transform ing principles into definite regulations. By authoritative decisions they established binding precedents which gradually moulded custom, and this in time crystallized into clear, concise, readily remembered decalogues or else into simple laws for the guidance of local judges. New laws were con stantly taking form as new cases were referred to the priestly tribunal connected with the temple, and new decisions, estab lishing new precedents, were rendered. Beginning at an early date all primitive laws were attrib uted to Moses precisely as proverbs were attributed to Solo mon and psalms to David. This tendency, resting as it did 88 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES upon a large basis of fact and upon the vitally close connec tion of the later and earlier legislation, promoted the harmless and helpful legal fiction whereby later law-givers associated the whole body of reformulated and enlarged legislation with the name of Israel's first great organizer and judge, and were thus able to secure their ready popular acceptance and authoritative application. It recognized the preservation of Mosaic ideals and precedents in the new legislation and gave to the legal system of Israel a nominal unity much desired by ancient peoples tenacious of early traditions, while enabling them to modify or set aside regulations which time and change had made inoperative or unwise. Later codes like the Deuteronomic, the Holiness legisla tion and the Priestly Code were prepared privately and ex isted for some time before they were submitted to the nation. In each case their adaptation to the new needs of the race and their supposed Mosaic authorship facilitated their public adoption. In many instances they simply formulated prin ciples and customs established by recent precedents. Before the new codes were adopted their champions prepared the minds of the people for them by means of public and private instruction and exhortation. Their final ratification was by a representative national assembly. While the Israelites retained ancient laws on the statute books, they usually enforced those of the latest code, when ever this (as in the case of the law regarding sacrifice) invali dated ancient customs and regulations. Our Lord in openly rejecting early laws, such as those relating to divorce or retaliation, was acting in perfect accord with the spirit and methods long followed, not in theory but in practice, by Israel's law-givers. He was no more of a destroyer of the law than they were, for it was the sifting of the best from the comparatively imperfect, and the substitution, in place of the latter of new laws embodying higher ideals which con stituted their real contributions to Israel's law and which in time imparted to it its value and uniqueness. The teaching of Jesus, therefore, in the truest sense represented not the THE GROWTH OF ISRAELITISH LAW 89 destruction but the fulfilment, the bringing to completion, the final goal of the growth of Israel's legislation. The student of the history of Israelitish law must recog nize its deep indebtedness to the historic past. As a Semitic people, closely akin to the Assyro-Babylonians, the Phoeni cians, the Arabs and the Canaanites, the Israelites began with a body of inherited tendencies, traditions, and usages which the study of the social and religious life of these nations, as revealed to us by archaeological research, is mak ing more and more definite and important. . The original ele ment in Israel's legislation is not to be found in particular provisions so much as in its spirit, and in the standards which it upheld. The progress of Israelitish legislation was, moreover, greatly affected by the historic environment of the nation. The Hebrews were a people which did not hesitate to utilize the resources and opportunities presented to them from any outside source. In all but their religious development they did not materially differ from the nations about them. The Canaanites, the Phoenicians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians and the Greeks in turn exercised upon them a perceptible influence. Even in religious matters, particu larly as regards the forms of religious life, this influence can be traced. The Hebrews were not at all a hermit nation in pre-exilic days ; although the Judaism of the fourth century b. o. and later was reserved, suspicious, and sufficient to it self. In the earlier times the nation was singularly open to impressions and hospitable to progress, a disposition which enables the student to understand the rapid changes in social, political, and religious life, which are mirrored in Israel's legislation. The growth, so characteristic of Hebrew legislation during the centuries from the establishment of the nation in the land of Canaan until the development of Judaism, which we have already noted as continuing in some measure to the begin nings of the Christian era, did not even then come to an absolute conclusion. Christendom while virtually adopting 90 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES from the Jews their view of the importance and eternal validity of the written law, followed as well the example of Jesus in seeking to obey it in the spirit rather than in the letter. His teachings were at the same time regarded as of equal validity and of more direct application to the needs of every-day life. Hebrew law thus interpreted from a Chris tian standpoint had no little influence upon the legal think ing of subsequent centuries. An historical study of Israelitish legislation only serves, after all that can be said in regard to influences which led to modifications and reformulations, to bring out in boldest relief the divine share in these changes. That God was a factor in this growth is a profound and significant fact, not because it affords an easy and mechanical explanation of the actual origin of important changes in Israel's legal his tory, but because it adequately expresses the truth, which every student of Israel's remarkable history must admit, that the consciousness of the immediate presence and power of God, the righteous, holy, and only ruler of the universe, which gradually became the sure possession of the leading minds among the Hebrew race, was the working factor which can never be ignored in the consideration of Israel's prog ress, and was the determining element in that broader out look and deeper insight which forced the nation to ever readjust and reformulate its political, social, and religious constitution. THE YECER HARA A STUDY IN THE JEWISH DOCTRINE OF SIN FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER, PH.D., D.D., Winkley Professor of Biblical Theology in Yale University. THE YEQEE KARA A STUDY IN THE JEWISH DOCTRINE OF SIN I INTRODUCTORY In the study of the Jewish background and environment of New Testament theology no problem is more important and difficult than that presented by the interaction between Hebraic and Greek modes of thought which had gone on, within Judaism, during the last three centuries before Christ. The influence of Greek ideas upon the Jews was most diverse both in degree and in kind, and is, not only because of this variety and complexity, but also because of the nature of our sources, very difficult to retrace. Yet the failure to recog nize it where it is present, on the one side, and the unreflect ing assumption of its presence where it does not exist, on the other, lead to serious faults of interpretation, and prevent a true understanding of the history of religious thought in New Testament times. Among the contrasts between Hebrew and Greek thought, one, which has far-reaching consequences, relates to the nature of man. Man was to the Hebrew a unity. Body and soul were but the outer and inner sides of one being. Man's body was of the dust, while the breath of God was the principle of life within him ; but man himself was the single product of these two factors. On the other hand, Greek thinkers, influ enced especially by Plato, had developed a strongly dualistic conception of man. Body and soul were regarded as two essentially contrasted and really unrelated things. The soul is the man. It existed before its entrance into the body, and 94 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES will continue to exist after its departure from the body at death. The body is foreign to the soul's nature and even hostile to the soul's purity and higher life. The resulting eschatology, the conception of the immortality of the soul, and the resulting ethics, the idea that virtue is to be at tained by the conquest and subjugation of the body, in which evil has its seat and its power, were each radically opposed to Hebrew thought, yet each had a strong influence on cer tain late Jewish and on Christian conceptions. The effort to trace the interaction of Hebrew and Greek conceptions in the region of eschatology sets one upon the right path through the mazes of that fascinating and significant subject, and only on this path can the history of late Jewish and early Chris tian thought regarding future things be intelligently traced. Less perhaps has been done to make clear the relations of Hebrew and Greek thought in the region of ethics, and it is to a corner of this field that the following study is given. The interest of the problem has centered, so far as the New Testament is concerned, in Paul's contrast of spirit and flesh. Is this a Hebrew contrast, and therefore essentially moral and religious in contents, or is it Greek, and so psychological or metaphysical in nature? Is Paul's contrast of spirit and flesh essentially the contrast between God and man, the holi ness of God and the sinfulness of man; or is it essentially the contrast between soul and body, the holiness of the soul, and the sinfulness of the body; or is it some sort of union of the Hebrew and the Greek dualisms ? It is not the purpose of this essay to discuss these questions, but only to examine a Jewish conception in which some have found a parallel to Paul's doctrine, and a clue to its meaning. The conception has, indeed, an interest of its own apart from its bearing upon the interpretation of Paul. Pfleiderer, revising his treatment of Pauline theology in the light of Weber's well known book on the Doctrines of the Talmud,1 based his interpretation of Paul's conception of 1 A posthumous work by Dr. Ferdinand Weber, published first by Delitzsch and Schnedermann with the title, System der Altsynagogalen Paldstinischen Thee- THE YECER HARA 95 spirit and flesh upon the rabbinical doctrine of the good and evil impulses.1 In a summary of Jewish Palestinian Theol ogy, based on Weber, he says : " The natural ground of sin lies in the fact that the soul, in itself pure by creation, is in each man defiled by the impure body. The body, however, is impure, not merely because it consists of perishable earthly material, but especially because it is the seat and source of the evil impulse. For from the beginning of the creation God endowed man with a double impulse, the impulse to good in the soul and the impulse to evil ( Yeger Hard), which adheres to the body and expresses itself first in the form of the impulse to sense enjoyment which man has in common with all animals." This impulse, "because it belongs to the nature of the body," was present in man from the first but gained predominant power through the fall. " But man pos sesses also the good impulse innate in his soul, and therewith the possibility of withstanding the evil impulses of the body " (Urchristenthum, pp. 166 f).2 Again, Jewish theology "as cribed to human nature, corresponding to its two sides, body and soul, a twofold impulse : the evil impulse, which has its seat in the body, springing from impure earthly matter, and the good impulse, which dwells in the rational soul, springing from God " (p. 181). With this doctrine Pfleiderer finds Paul, in Romans 7: 7-24, wholly in accord. The good impulse dwells in the inner man (i>ou?) ; the evil impulse has its seat in the body which consists of impure flesh-material. The conflict is between "the sinful impulse in the flesh" and "the good impulse of the reason " (p. 182 ff.). "The flesh is the seat of a positive power antagonistic to spirit, the evil impulse, or sin as a potency." "This v6fio<; t?j? a^apTta? 6 cop iv rot? fieXeatv jjlov (Rom. 7 : 23) is precisely the same as that which Jewish theology calls ' the evil impulse which dwells logic (1880), then with the title Die Lehren des Talmud (1886), and finally in a 2d edition by Schnedermann, with corrections, under the title, Jiidische Theologie auf Grund des Talmud und verwandter Schriften (1897). 1 Das Urchristenthum (1887), Der Paulinismus, 2d ed. (1890). 2 So in Paulinismus,2 pp. 20-21, 57, 65, with reference to Weber §§ 40, 46, 48-50. 96 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES in the body, ' and the voftos voos pov is the same as ' the good impulse which dwells in the soul.' "2 Later writers on Pauline theology have in part adopted Pfleiderer's view. Those who have questioned or rejected it have done so, as far as I have observed, on the ground that the sources of Weber's book are post-Christian, and that the doctrine of the good and evil impulses belongs only to post-Christian Judaism, and is itself due to Greek influence. So Gunkel 2 simply refuses to use Weber's material for the pre-Pauline period. Holtzmann 3 regards the analogy offered by the rabbinical yeger hara as " only very general and weak, also questionable in respect to contemporaneity, and perhaps already testifying to Greek influences." Schmiedel4 agrees that Paul thinks of sin as a power bound by nature with the material of the body, but says that at this point Paul stands on the ground of Greek philosophy, with its metaphysical dualism between the spirit springing from God and matter evil in itself. Against Pfleiderer's appeal to the Jewish doc trine of the evil impulse stands the "pressing suspicion" that this also is derived from Greek philosophy. "If this doc trine, provable only from post-Pauline sources, is pre-Paul ine, then the indirect way through this for the explanation of the Greek element in Paul's conception of the aap% would certainly be preferable, since the direct points of contact with Philo are not significant." But is it true that the Jewish doctrine of the two impulses has this dualistic character, which, in its contrast to the Old Testament view, we must regard as of Greek origin ? Does the good impulse inhere in the soul, the evil impulse in the body ? It appears to me clear that Pfleiderer is responsible for a certain misrepresentation of Weber at this point, and also that Weber himself has fallen into a serious misuse of his sources, giving a Greek coloring to a conception which 1 Paulinismus 2, pp. 66-67. 2 Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes, p. 107 (2 ed., p. 98). 8 Neutestamentliche Theologie, ii. p. 39 n. 1. * Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament2, II. i. p. 255. THE YECER HARA 97 was and remained genuinely Hebraic in character. The im portance of Weber's treatise and the fact that his fault in this matter is not without parallel at other points in his book may justify a somewhat detailed criticism before we turn to a more positive treatment of the rabbinical doctrine of the yeger, and finally raise the question whether it is, as Holtz- mann and Schmiedel affirm, attested only by post-Christian sources. 98 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES II CRITICISM OF WEBER'S TREATMENT OF THE YEQER Against Pfleiderer's summary of Weber it is to be noticed that Weber nowhere says that the good impulse has its seat in the soul. On the contrary he says, " God created also in the human body a good impulse (yeger tob), " and " the body is called the seat of a yeger ra and a yeger tob " (p. 204 [2211]). The accuracy of this expression will be questioned hereafter, but in any case Pfleiderer should not have put the expression "the good impulse which dwells in the soul "in quotation marks, for it is his own invention. It is essential to his parallelism (Rom. 7 : 23 ) but it is not in his only author ity. The impression which Weber's discussion makes at this point (§§ 46, 47) is that the soul, the free moral agent, comes into a body endowed by nature with good and evil tenden cies, and has the task of suppressing the evil and making the good prevail. It must, however, be acknowledged that Weber has made such an interpretation as Pfleiderer's possible by the emphasis with which, especially in §§ 48, 49, he connects the evil im pulse with the body. When he argues that while the soul is pure by nature the body is impure, " not only because it is perishable, but because it is the seat of the evil impulse " (220 f. [2228f.]), the inference is natural, though it is not expressed, that the good impulse has its seat in the soul. Weber in one passage seems inclined to identify the soul with the good impulse. He says that it is the soul which keeps the Law, and holds communion with God, while "it is the yeger hara of the body which desires and effects sin." THE YECER HARA 99 " Yet, " he continues, "there exists a close relation between body and soul. The soul is called, with the powers of wis dom that dwell in it, to be yeger tob against the yeger ra, to further goodness, and thereby to weaken the yeger ra " (p. 222). An effort is made to clarify this awkward sentence in the 2d ed. (p. 230), but the meaning remains the same. The language is Weber's own and is supported by no reference. But though he wavers in regard to the seat of the good impulse, there is no obscurity in regard to the evil. It is defined as " the impulse inherent in the body to fulfil bodily functions which are directed to maintenance and propaga tion" (p. 204 p211]). Let us, then, examine the references which Weber cites to justify the view that the body, in dis tinction from the soul, is the seat of the evil impulse.1 We read : — "That the yeger Kara dwells in the body according to its nature by creation is shown by Genesis rabba, ch. 34.2 Here the question whether this impulse arises in man before or after birth is decided in the former sense ; but of the soul it is said that it unites itself with the body only after birth" (p. 204 [2211]). This would seem indeed to be conclusive proof that the evil impulse belongs to the body and not to the soul,3 but unfortu- 1 The haggadic parts of the rabbinical literature, which here concern us, have been made in considerable measure accessible to those who are not rabbinical scholars, by translations. See especially Wiinsche's Der jerusalemische Talmud in seinen haggadischen Bestandtheilen, 1880 ; Der babylonische Talmud in seinen hagga- dischen Bestandtheilen 1886-89; Bibhotheca Rabbinica, 1880-1885; and Gold- schmidt's Der babylonische Talmud (text and translation) 1897 + [not yet com plete]. The chronological and critical study of the teachings of the rabbis has been greatly advanced by W. Bacher's Die Agada der babylonischen Amoraer, 1878; Die Agada der Tannaiten [from Hillel to the conclusion of the Mishna, 30 B. c. -220 a. d.], 1884-90; and Die Agada der paldstinensischen Amoraer [from the close of the Mishna to the beginning of the fifth century], 1892-99. Many of the citations made in this article are from Wiinsche or Bacher ; some are from other translations, though the intention has been to consult the original at all points of doubt or of critical importance. 2 See Wiinsche, p. 152. * It is cited, from Weber, in that sense by Clemen, Die christliche Lehre von der Siinde, 1897, p. 185 f. 100 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES nately Weber has reversed the sense of the passage he cites.1 It is one of the reported conversations between Rabbi Juda I. and (the emperor?) Antoninus, found also in the Talmud.2 Antoninus asked when the evil impulse begins to rule in men, at conception or at birth. Rabbi answered, at concep tion. Antoninus replied, In that case the child would vio lently come forth out of the womb ; I say therefore rather, at birth. Rabbi acknowledged that Antoninus was right, and found proof of this view in Gen. 4: 6, "Sin lurks at the door," i. e., of the womb. Antoninus then argued against Rabbi that the soul is joined to the body not at birth but at concep tion, since, as flesh cannot be preserved three days without salt, so the body could not endure even before birth without the soul. Rabbi yielded again, and found proof of this view — to him new — in Job 10 : 12. It is interesting to notice that these two questions are asked and answered independ ently of each other, as if the coming in of the evil yeger had nothing to do with the relation of body and soul; and also that such questions are asked by a heathen, that the Jew has no fixed view in regard to them but is ready to change his first impression and to look for the necessary scriptural proof of the position maintained on the grounds of common sense by the heathen. The question when the soul enters the body is discussed elsewhere and differently answered, but is brought into no connection with the question of the yeger. Weber proceeds : — " God has, however, created in the human body, on the other hand, a good impulse also. This is inferred, in Berachoth 60b, from the two yods in ~\W> 1 (Gen. 2: 7). Man has two reins; the one counsels to the good, the other to the evil (Ps. 16:7) Berach. 61a, 61b. Nedarim 32b therefore calls the body the seat of an evil yeger and a good yeger. ," Let us examine these references. In Berach. 60b [61a] we find three answers to the question why there are two yods in 1 He cites it more correctly on p. 221 \} 229], but there also with unjustified inferences. 2 Sank. 91b, cf. Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten, II. 457-459. THE YECER HARA 101 "Wl (Gen. 2: 7). R. Nachman b. R. Chisda said: Because God created (K"D) two impulses (DH¥*)> the good and the evil. R. Nachman b. Isaac answered: In that case ani mals would not possess the (evil) impulse, since only one yod is used in their case (Gen. 2 : 19) ; but in fact they have it, since they bite and kick. So the explanation of R. Simon b. Pazzi is preferred: Woe to me before my creator, and woe to me before my yeger (»")5J*0 '7 ?1X1 HSVfl * 7 'IK)-1 Or also that of Jeremiah b. Eleasar : Two faces God created in Adam, as is written: Thou hast formed me (tjfnjf) behind and before (Ps. 139 : 5). It is evident that the first of these interpretations of Gen. 2 : 7, even if it had not been set aside for others, would not justify the inference which Weber seems to draw that because *llf**l refers to the body before the breath of life had entered it, therefore the two impulses were supposed to have their seat in the body in distinction from the soul. The inference might indeed have been made, but it was not. Still less does the passage justify the statement which Hamburger strangely bases upon it, that the two impulses were identified with the two parts of man's nature, the evil with the dust of which he was formed, and the good with the breath of life by which he became a living soul. In fact the passage has nothing to do with the question whether the impulses inhere in soul or body. I have not noticed any other rabbinical sayings which bring Gen. 2 : 7 into connection with the problem of the yeger, and of these two the one which has a dualistic appear ance is less acceptable than the other. This fact is in itself significant, suggesting that the problem was one of ethics, not of psychology ; for scarcely any other passage in the Old Testament was so well adapted to form the foundation of a theory that connects sin with the physical and good with the psychical side of man's nature ; and the use of the root *1X*, and also the suggestion of Ps. 103:14, might have made such a use of the passage the more natural. 1 Found also in Erubin, 18°. See Bacher, Amor., II. 441 f. 2 Real-Encyclopadie fur Bibel und Talmud, II. 1231. 102 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES The next citation (Berach. 61**) reads : The rabbis taught, Two reins are in man, the one counsels him to good and the other to evil, and it is probable that the good is on his right and the evil on his left, for it is written, "A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart is at his left" (Eccles. 10:2). Here we have, of course, not a literal identification of the impulses with the two kidneys. The word reins (fiV7D) is used in the Old Testament prevailingly, as the word heart is used almost exclusively, not of the physical organ, but of the inner man, the inmost self. In the saying before us the two kidneys in the physical man suggest the two impulses in man as a moral being. The word yeger is not used in this sentence, but it is discussed in the context. The same inter pretation of Ecclesiastes 10 : 2, with the use of the word yeger, is found, in connection with several other interpreta tions of the verse, in Num. tab. 22 (Wiinsche, p. 527). That the two impulses reside in the body in distinction from the soul the passage does not prove. But what of Nedarim 32b, which "calls the body the seat of an evil impulse and a good impulse ? " The passage is R. Ammi b. Abba's interpretation of Ecclesiastes 9 : 14, 15, and is found also, anonymously, after many other interpreta tions, in Kohel. rab. 9 : 14, 15. The little city, he said, is the body, the few men in it, the members ; the great king who comes against it, the evil yeger ; the bulwarks, sins ; the poor wise man in it, the good yeger ; his wisdom which delivered the city, penitence and good works. The passage contains no justification for Weber's statement. If the figure were to be pressed so as to yield any result as to the seat of the im pulses it would be that the good impulse resides in the body while the evil impulse comes against it from without. But any such use of the passage is a misuse. That the city is called the body rather than the soul or heart is perhaps to provide for an easier explanation of the citizens. At all events the passage does not " call the body the seat of an evil impulse and a good impulse." THE YECER HARA 103 i The next passage in Weber to be examined is as follows : — " This sin [Adam's] in its final ground has God for its cause. For he created the corporeity with the yeger hara, without which sin would not have been possible ( Gen. rab. 27 Jalkut Shim. Gen. &4, 47). In the latter passage we read: Repentance came upon me that I had created man of earthly substance (nCOD/D); f°r if I had created him of heavenly substance he would not have become a rebel against me. And further : Repentance arose in my heart, said God, that I created in him the yeger hara; for if I had not done this he would not have become a rebel against me (p. 214[2221f.])." I have not verified the reference in the later source, Jalkut (thirteenth century), but the earlier form of the sayings re veals the serious misuse of them of which Weber is guilty. The passage (Gen. rab., 27; Wiinsche, pp. 122, 565; Bacher, Tan., II. 245) gives various interpretations of Genesis 6 : 6a (and it repented [DIU'l] Yahwe" that he had made man on the earth [V*1ND]). R- Juda b. Ilai interpreted thus: I repent that I created man below (f£0O7Q, i- e., on the earth), for if I had created him above ("/J^D/D, i.e., in heaven) he would not have fallen away from me. R. Nehemiah an swered: I console myself (?JX DPUHD) that I created him below (nt3!37)3)' ^or i^ ^ ^ad created him above he would have seduced those above (Q»JV /PH' *'• e—> tne angels) to fall away from me, as he has seduced those below. According to R. Ibo the meaning was : I repent that I created in him the yeger hara, for if I had not created it in him he would not have risen up against me (Bacher, Amor. III. 68). Weber's rendering of fltDO/Q, "von irdischer Substanz," and of H/VD/ID' "von himmlischer Substanz," is wholly un justifiable ; and so also is his blending of two distinct inter pretations of Genesis 6 : 6, and his connection of the evil impulse in one with the supposed earthly substance in the other, and of the good impulse with the heavenly substance. Of " corporeity " and any connection of the evil impulse with the body the passage says absolutely nothing. 104 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES Again Weber says : — " That the body is impure, not merely as perishable, but be cause it is the seat of the evil impulse, we see from what is said in Num. rab. 13 (Wunsche, p. 312) : God knew before he created man that the desire of his heart would be evil from his youth (Gen. 8: 21). ' Woe to the dough of which the baker himself must testify that it is bad.' This Jewish proverb can be applied to the Jewish doctrine of man. Then the dough is the body, which God (the baker) worked and shaped, and the impurity of the body is grounded in the fact that it is the seat of the yeger hara, which is in the body that which leaven is in the dough (HD^iB' "llKt^ cf- 4 Cor. 5 : 7f.), a fermenting, im pelling power (Berach. 17")" (p. 221 [2229]). Here the identification of the dough with the body, in distinction from the soul, is mistaken. The dualistic psy chology is supplied by Weber, not suggested by the source. God's judgment upon man in Gen. 8 : 21 is likened to a baker's condemnation of his own dough. The proverb is found also in Gen. rab. 34 (Wunsche, p. 152) as a saying of R. Chija the Great (Bacher, Tan. , II. p. 530). The compari son of the evil impulse with leaven is an entirely distinct saying which should not be connected with the other. But in this case also the dough is man, human nature, not the body. It is in the prayer of R. Alexander (Berach. 17a): "It is revealed and known before thee that our will is to do thy will. And what hinders ? The leaven that is in the dough and servitude to the kingdoms. May it be thy will to deliver us from their hand."1 There are only two sentences, so far as I have discovered, in which Weber's connection of the yeger with the body is confirmed by the text which he cites. In these cases, how ever, the word til J is not used of the body in contrast to the soul, and Weber's view remains without proof. 1 Taylor's translation, in Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, 2d ed. p. 128. See also Bacher, Amor., I. p. 196; cf. Tan., I. p. 112. THE YECER HARA 105 1 The passage 'begins: "From the entrance of bodily maturity the yeger hara de serves the name of a strange god (if 7$^) in the body of man. Sabbath 105 b." The passage gives no ground for the words "from the entrance of bodily maturity." It is a saying of R. Abin's: " What means Ps. 81 : 10, Let there be in thee no strange god ? What is the strange God which is in the body of man (OIX vJJ' 131,33 C'E')? I* 1S none other than the yeger hara.'1'' The passage will meet us again in its connection. Anger and idolatry, not bodily sins, are the effects of the evil yeger which are discussed in the context. The expres sion 1^1 33 is nothing but a paraphrase of the "in thee " (13) of Ps. 81 : 10.1 So Taylor (p. 130) translates "in a man's body (or self), " and Levy ( Worterbuch) " in dem innern des Menschen." Nothing suggests that the body is specified in distinction from the soul. The word here as in other in stances is equivalent to " person " or " self" (See Levy and Jastrow's Dictionary). The same remark applies to the next citation. Weber proceeds : — " It occasions sins in the body, as Exod. rab. 15 says : Sins spring from the evil impulse which is in their body (fl13)." The passage (Wunsche, p. 107) sets forth various points of likeness between angels and Israel. Among them is this: "The angels renew themselves daily and return, after they have praised God, to the stream of fire out of which they came (Dan. 7 : 10), and God renews them and makes them as before (Lam. 3 : 23 [cf. Lam. rab. 3 : 23]); so Israel smitten with sins from the evil yeger which is in their body,2 if they turn in repentance God every year forgives their sins 1 The same interpretation of Ps. 81 : 10 is ascribed to R. Jannai in Jer. Neda- rim 41b (IX. 1), where the expression " within thee" ("plpj) takes the place of 1SU3, with which it is wholly synonymous. 2 }3ua ura jnn iro nuijn \yrxMim. 106 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES and renews their heart to fear him, as it is written in Ezek. 36 : 26. " The Old Testament citation strikingly illustrates the remoteness from Hebrew thought of the idea that sin belongs to the flesh in contrast to the soul. The passage be fore us does not prove that rabbinical Judaism had at this point departed from its traditional mode of thought. Even if the word f]13 were used in its literal sense, these rare and late occurrences would not justify Weber's repeated use of the phrase "the evil impulse of the body," and the dualistic in ferences which he draws from them. But it is altogether probable that even in these instances the translation " body " is misleading.1 Weber continues : — "The angels are free from it [the yeger hara] because they do not carry the earthly corporeity; their holiness is therefore only single, that of man double, because gained in conflict with evil lusts (Lev. rab. 24)." Here again the words regarding earthly corporeity are Weber's own. The passage says only that the evil impulse is not found in the angels (D^V/J^il, "those on high "), but it rules in men (D'Jlfinfin, "those below "). Of the bear ing of this passage upon the doctrine more will be said below. Weber is inclined throughout his discussion of the two impulses to interpret them in terms of a dualistic psychology, but the passages which he cites do not take us out of the ethical region. They do not justify his definition of the evil impulse as " the impulse inherent in the body to fulfil bodily functions which are directed to maintenance and propaga tion " (p. 204 [2211]), but rather support the simple defini tion of Taylor (p. 37) : " The yeger ra is the evil nature or disposition in or of a man ; the yeger tob his good nature or disposition." It is difficult to excuse Weber's use of some of the passages cited, and the suggestion of caution in the use of his book is one that should be enforced before we 1 Cf. Aboth, 4:10: Whosoever honors the law is himself (1SU) held in honor. THE YECER HARA 107 leave him. The vitally important question of the nature, the stages, and the degree of Greek influence upon the con ceptions of the Jewish rabbis is one that cannot be answered by the help of one who is so inclined to put Hebraic ideas into Greek and modern forms of expression. Nor is this the only point at which this book, so often used as if it were equivalent to the sources of rabbinical theology, needs to be controlled by reference to the sources themselves. It is unfortunate that Weber wrote with an apologetic aim, and wished to set Jewish views over against Christian in an unfavorable, though unexpressed, contrast. This may explain his tendency to put the teaching of passages in lan guage which the passage itself does not suggest. It is furthermore a serious fault of method that he does not cite the authors of the sayings by name, and so fails to give us light on the relative age of different opinions, and that he seldom informs us whether the opinion cited was contro verted by others, and what opinion, if any, prevailed. With all its undoubted learning and great value the book must be said to be deficient in accuracy, and its method not well adjusted to the nature of its sources. 108 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES III THE RABBINICAL CONCEPTION In order to understand the Jewish doctrine of the yeger we must remember that it is not at all a speculative but wholly an exegetical product. It rests for its origin upon Genesis 6:5; 8 : 21 (J.). " Yahve saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth and that every yeger of the thoughts of his heart was only evil every day" (13/ rOEJTlD "1V,-I731 DVn"/3 J/"l p~l); "the yeger of the heart of man is evil from his youth." The first of these verses gives the ground of God's resolve to destroy man; the second, the ground of his decision, after the flood, not to curse the ground and smite the living again. So that we meet already the suggestion that the "evil yeger (of the thoughts) of the heart of man" is in part, or in one aspect, his fault and in part his misfor tune ; that the evil yeger lies on the borderland between the choice and the nature of man. This prepares us to recog nize the fact that in later discussions of the yeger the ques tion at issue is not the speculative question of the relation of body and soul to the fact of sin, but the religious question of the relation of God and man to sin, and the practical question of the way of escape and victory. It is never doubted that God made the evil yeger, yet man is responsible for controlling and subduing it. The word itself suggested these two apparently contrary conceptions. The verb *tV* means to form, or fashion, and also, to form inwardly, to plan. It was used as the technical word for the potter's work. It was frequeutly used of God's forming of nature and of man, and also of his planning or purposing. The *1V* of man could therefore suggest either his form, as THE YECER HARA 109 God made him, his nature (so Ps. 103 : 14), or his own formation of thought and purpose, "imagination " as the word is rendered in several Old Testament passages (Gen. 6:5; 8 : 21; Deut. 31 : 21; Isa. 26 : 3; 1 Chr. 28 : 9; 29 : 18). In Deuteronomy 31 : 21, and probably Isaiah 26 : 3, the word is used without the further definition, "of the thoughts, " "of the heart," which First Chronicles retains. The word had gained therefore, already in the Old Testament, a certain in dependence as meaning the nature or disposition of man, and this could be regarded as something which God made (Ps. 103 : 14), or as something which man works (Deut. 31 : 21). It is evident that the word was fitted by Old Testament use for further development in discussions of the origin of sin, and the responsibility of man. This development by the rabbis was carried forward by exegetical processes, through which many texts besides those in which the word occurs were brought to bear upon the doctrine. In some cases the explanation of a difficult text was found in some characteristic of the yeger, and in other cases difficult facts of experience with reference to the evil power of the yeger in man were explained by appealing to some enlightening text. The fundamental passages pronounce the yeger of man's heart evil, and it is with the evil impulse that the rabbis chiefly deal. The good impulse is rarely spoken of, and probably cannot be traced so far back, and yeger frequently stands unmodified and always in the evil sense. This in itself suggests the error of connecting the evil yeger with the body, the good with the soul, making them expressions of the character of two equally essential parts of man. Rather it is the nature of man as a whole that is in mind, and in it the evil tendency, or disposition, dominates. Without attempting completeness, I wish to state the teach ings of the rabbis about the yeger somewhat fully in their own words.1 It should be remembered that we have to do 1 Some of the passages in which a number of sayings regarding the yeger are collected are Berach. 60-61, Succa 51b-52a, Kiddushin 30b, 81, Baba Bathra 16", Yoma 69b-70b, Sanhed. 20", Gen. rab. 22, 34. Taylor cites many passages, and makes interesting suggestions as to New 110 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES with a variety of individual opinions, and with the views of rabbis of earlier and later times during a period of several centuries;1 and also with a great mass of anonymous and pseudonymous sayings; so that an elaborate rabbinical doc trine is not to be looked for, but rather a rabbinical way of thinking on this subject. 1. The Seat of the Good and Evil Impulses The seat of the good and evil impulses alike is neither body nor soul in distinction from each other, but rather, as Genesis 6 : 5 ; 8 : 21 suggest, the heart, — not, of course, the physical organ, but the thinking and willing subject, the moral person, the inner self. The close association of the yeger with the heart is as abundantly attested as its connection with the body is meagerly. Heart is even used in the sense of yeger, as in Gen. rab. 67 (Wunsche, p. 324), where Genesis 27 : 41 "Esau spoke in his heart" is inter preted thus: The wicked are in the power of their heart, as in Psalm 14 : 1, "The fool speaks in his heart," and here " Esau spoke in his heart " ; also Jeroboam (1 Kings 12 : 26) and Haman (Esther 7:6). But the righteous have their heart in their power, as Hannah (1 Sam. 1 : 13), David (27 : 1) and Daniel (Dan. 1 : 8).2 Often the word heart in an Old Testament verse is interpreted of the yeger, and since the word heart occurs in the two forms 37 and ^^7, the rabbis were not slow to see in the double beth a hint of the two impulses, and in the single beth of the one. Here belongs the ancient interpretation of the phrase "with all thy heart" ('"1337733) in Deuteronomy 6 : 5. The two Testament parallels. See his Sayings, 2d ed., pp. 37, 63 f., 70, 77, 82, 98, 140, 147-152, and cf. 128-130, 186-192. 1 On the rabbinical method of interpretation see, e. g., Mielziner, Introduction to the Talmud, Cincinnati, 1894; for the names and dates of famous scribes, also Schurer, History of the Jewish People, § 25 I V. ; Strack, Einleitung in den Thalmud, 2d ed., 1894, ch. VI. ; and Bacher, cited above. 2 That is, the wicked speaks in his heart (uSa)) the righteous speaks unto or against his heart ^Jt Sj?i or bit)- THE YECER HARA 111 > beths indicate the two impulses, and the meaning is that we are to love God with our two yegarim, with the yeger tob and with the yeger ra (Sifrt and Mishna Berach. IX. 5). Psalm 109 : 22 "my heart (07) 1S wounded within me " is interpreted to mean that his evil yeger has been wounded, or slain ; hence David is to be reckoned with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob over whom the evil yeger had no power (Baba bathra, 16 a). The same interpretation of this verse is found in a saying of Jose the Galilean (Bacher, Tan., I. p. 368). Deuteronomy 6 : 6 is interpreted in Sifrt : Let these words be against thy heart (*]337"7#), that is against thy yeger. Psalm 86 : 11 "unite my heart (^27) to fear thy name" means unite the evil to the good impulse that it may be con trolled (R. Isaac, Bacher, Amor., II. 289). "The northern," or "the hidden" in Joel 2 : 20 is the yeger hara which is hidden (J13V) and stands in the heart of man (1373 1D1}^ D"1N 7^) (Succa 52a). Rab said: The evil yeger is like a fly and sits between the two openings of the heart, as it says in Ecclesiastes 10 : 1 (Berach., 61a). "These my words shall ye take to your heart" (Deut. 11 : 18), i. e., the law is balm for the wound of the evil yeger (Kiddushin, 30b). 2. The Nature of the Evil Impulse The question next arises, what sins are ascribed to the yeger? If it is the yeger of the heart we should expect all sins of the heart, i. e., all sins, to be attributed to it. No doubt sensual sins are with special emphasis ascribed to the yeger, but this appears to be not because these are sins of the body, but because they are conspicuous among the sins that come upon man and overmaster him as if by an outside force. Passion is often an accurate translation for yeger in this connection. As such a power from without, in the form of lust, the evil yeger can momentarily master even the best of men. R. Akiba mocked at those who could not withstand the yeger, but he was saved from falling before the tempter in the form of a woman only by heavenly intercession. Of 112 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES R. Meir a similar story is told (Kiddushin, 81a). "The ten- ^ dency of these legends is to show that the greatest moral strength without divine protection is not enough to keep one from the assaults of passion " (Bacher, Tan., I. p. 284). A long collection of sayings about the yeger (Sueca, 51b- 52b) is occasioned by the Mishnic rule that at the celebration of the festival the women should sit in the gallery, the men below. Rab justifies the rule by appealing to Zechariah 12 : 12. If even in mourning, when the evil yeger has no power, it says, "the men apart and the women apart," how much more in festal times, when the evil yeger has power. In the saying of R. Jehoshua ( Aboth, 2 : 15, Taylor's Say ings), "An evil eye, and the evil yeger, and hatred of the creatures put a man out of the world," the yeger as passion seems to be coordinated with greed and hatred of men.1 It is not necessary, however, even here, to limit it to sensual passion. See further the interpretation of Isaiah 3 : 16 in Sabbath 62b (Bacher, Amor. III. 720). Lust is certainly by no means the only manifestation of the evil yeger in men. R. Josia interprets Deuteronomy 6 : 6 thus: Let these words be for an oath against thy heart, i. e., thy yeger. Man is to expel his yeger by an oath,2 (adjure it, or bind himself to war against it), as did Abraham (Gen. 14 : 22 f.), Boaz (Ruth 3 : 13), David (1 Sam. 26 : 10) and Elisha (2 Kings, 5 : 16); while the wicked by an oath strengthen their evil yeger, as did Gehazi (2 Kings 5 : 20). 3 In these examples revenge and avarice appear by the side of lust as deeds of the yeger. Jose b. Chalaftha said: Three men fortified themselves by an oath against the yeger : Joseph (Gen. 39 : 9), David (1 Sam. 26 : 10) and Boaz (Ruth 3 : 13) to whom Proverbs 24 : 5 applies.4 1 Compare the similar saying in 4 : 30 : jealousy and lust (niKfln) and ambition put a man out of the world. And see First John, 2:16. 2 nr m yiwrh 8 Sifre, Deut. 6 : 6, Bacher, Tan., II. 360. 1 Lev. rab., 23 ; Wunsche, p. 158 ; Ruth rab., 3:13. A similar view as to David is ascribed to R. Jochanan ; as to Boaz to R. Judan and R. Chanina. See Bacher, Amor. III. 237, 249, 705. THE YECER HARA 113 » Anger is especially ascribed to the yeger in an interesting saying in Sabbath 105". It is part of a discussion of the Mishnic rule regarding the rending of one's clothes (when this is commanded or allowed). The question has come up whether this is sometimes justifiable in order to calm "the spirit of one's yeger." 1 It is reported that Jochanan b. Nuri said: Let one who in anger tears his garments, breaks vessels, casts away money, be in thine eyes as one who prac tises idolatry. For this is the craft of the yeger hara; to-day v it says to him do this, to-morrow do that, till it says to him, Go practise idolatry; and he goes and does it. R. Abin said, What says Psalm 81 : 10 (i. e., How does this passage prove this?), There shall be in thee no strange God, etc? What is the strange god which is within [1&1J3] man? It is the evil yeger. It (tearing one's clothes) is allowed, how ever, when it is meant to compel the respect of one's servants. So R. Juda pulled the threads of his garment, R. Acha b. Jacob shattered broken vessels, etc. In Aboth di R. Nathan 26, Jochanan's saying is ascribed to R. Akiba (Bacher, Tan., I. 284); and in Jer. Nedarim, 41 b, R. Jannai is quoted as saying : One who obeys his yeger practises as it were idolatry. "Let there be no strange God within thee," Psalm 81 : 10, i. e., make not the stranger within thee ("I3"lp3^ If) to be ruler over thee (Bacher, Amor., I. 38). From a rabbi of the same period, b. Zoma, comes the say ing in Aboth, 4:2: Who is mighty? He that subdues his yeger (11 V DN £7313(1, Taylor, nature); for it is said, He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty ; and he that ruleth his spirit (imi^ 7£2>1Q) than he that taketh a city (Prov. 16 : 32). The saying was probably applied not to anger alone, but to the inner power of sin in general. In the sense of anger it was even possible to speak of God's yeger, and say: This is his strength, that he suppresses his yeger, and grants forbearance.2 i nrS nn nru nnypn 2 Yoma, 69b, reading IX' in the place of DJO. See Rabbinovicz Variae Lee- tiones, IV. 202. 8 114 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES It is not only bodily appetites and the more violent pas sions that are ascribed to the yeger, but all- other sins as well. When the evil yeger sees a conceited man it says, He is mine; as Proverbs 26 : 12 says, The fool (evil yeger) has hope of him.1 It is the evil yeger that makes Jews object, as heathen do, to the irrational precepts of the law, such as the prohibition of swine's flesh, of wearing goods of linen and wool mixed, the scape goat, the red cow.2 The yeger may cause disbelief in the judgment after death: Let not thy yeger assure thee that Sheol is a house of refuge ; for perforce wast thou framed and born, perforce dost thou live and die, and perforce thou art to give account and reckoning (Aboth, 4 : 32). Idolatry would have been the chief work of the yeger if it had been a current sin. It was sometimes said that God created two yegarim in his world, the yeger of idolatry and the yeger of unchastity,3 but the former had long ago been rooted out of Israel. But is it only sin of which the evil yeger is a cause ? Is it altogether evil ? In explanation of the words, And behold it was very good (Gen. 1 : 31), R. Samuel b. Nachman refers "behold " to the good yeger, "and behold " to the evil. Is the evil yeger then very good ? Certainly, for without it man would not build a house, nor marry nor beget children nor engage in trade, as it says (Eccles. 4 : 4), Then I saw all labor and every skilful work, that it is the zeal (rivalry) of one against another.4 This passage does not justify the definition which Weber bases in part upon it, that the evil yeger is "the impulse innate in the body to the accom plishment of bodily functions, directed to maintenance and propagation " (p. 204 p 211]), for the scripture appealed to, 1 R. Ammi, in Gen. rab., 22, Bacher, Amor., II. 156. 2 Tannaitic tradition, Sifre 86" ; Yoma, 67b ; Bacher, Tan., I. 42 ; cf . Amor., II. 317. 8 m? mi3j? IX' ana fiUT "JX'- Cant. rab. 7 : 8. See Bacher, Tan., II. 541 ; Amor., III. 212, 694; also Yoma, 69b, cited below. 4 Gen. rab., 9 ; Eccles. rab., 3:11; Bacher, Amor., I. 487 f. THE YECER HARA 115 perhaps the source as well as the proof of the saying, does not refer to bodily functions. The thought seems rather to be that a certain self-seeking, the impulse not only to sensual pleasure, but also to gain and power, evil though it may easily become, is essential to the continuance of the world as it is. This is an attempt to justify God (see further below), with which not all would agree. The usual view was that the yeger was good only to be subdued, and that the best men were without it, or free from its rule. There is indeed a sense in which it is essential to the present world order, but this rests not upon the material nature of the present world, but upon the place of the passions in human life. The evil yeger belongs to men and not to angels, to this world and not to the world to come. We read of "the higher beings in whom the evil yeger does not rule." 1 Why does death come upon the righteous? Because as long as they live they have to fight with the evil yeger, but when they have died they have rest, Job 3 : 17 (Gen. rab. 9). Abraham said to the angels (Gen. 18 : 5), Comfort ye your heart (0337 not D33^7)> hence, said R. Acha, it is known that in angels the evil yeger does not rule. R. Chija adds, Psalm 48 : 14, Set your heart [D337] to her bulwarks; from which we see that in the world to come the evil yeger will not rule (Gen. rab., 48). But this is not because that world is incorporeal. It is true that the command, Be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1 : 28) is for this world only, and that angels do not marry (cf . Enoch 15 : 3-7 ; Mark 12 : 25, etc.) ; but it is not exclusively bodily functions that mark the differ ence. " It was a commonplace in the mouth of Rab. that in the world to come there is neither eating, nor drinking, nor procreation, nor barter, nor envy, nor hatred, nor strife " (Berach., 17a; Taylor, p. 60). Moses argues that the law is needed on earth, not in heaven, for this among other reasons : The law says, thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal; is there then envy among 1 Lev. rab., 26 ; Bacher, Amor., II. 419. 116 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES you, is there an evil yeger among you? (Sabbath 89s).1 Nowhere do the rabbis say what Philo says so emphatically that it is the absence of the bodily nature that makes the difference between the angelic and the human realms. The rabbinical discussions in regard to the presence of the evil yeger in children and animals prove still further that the yeger belongs to the moral, not to the physical nature. The Jews did not see in children types of virtue. The yeger was evil from man's youth (Gen. 8 : 21). We have already reported the discussion as to whether the yeger entered man before or at birth.2 Reuben b. Aristobulus says: The evil yeger in man arises at the moment of conception and lurks continually at the door of the heart (Gen. 4:7). When a child in the cradle puts his hand on a serpent and is bitten, or on coals and is burned, it is the evil yeger already ruling in the child which prevents caution before what is harmful; and when a lamb or kid at sight of a pit avoids it, that is due to the fact that in animals there rules no evil impulse.3 Eccles. rab. 4 : 13 ; 9 : 15 holds that the good yeger does not arise in man until the thirteenth year, and is therefore thir teen years younger than the evil yeger. It is therefore exceptional when in Tanch., Gen. 3 : 22, it is said that a child knows nothing of sin until it is nine years old; and then the evil impulse awakens (Hamburger). If bodily functions are the sphere of the activity of the yeger, it must be present in animals, constituting though not man's brute inheritance yet the brute side of his nature. Yet, as we have just seen, one rabbi denies that the yeger rules in animals. Another, cited above p. (101), decides that the yeger is in animals, not, however, because of their cor- porealness, but because they kick and bite, giving evidence of a bad disposition (Berach., 60b). 1 R. Levi said (Lev. rab., 26 ; Bacher, Amor., II. 419) : The upper beings, in whom the evil yeger does not rule, need only a single command (1DXD> Dan. 4 : 14 [17]) ; the lower beings have never enough even of repeated commands ("rawi, Lev. 21 : 1). 2 Gen. rab., 34 ; Sanh., 91". 8 Aboth di R. Nathan, 16 ; Bacher, Tan., II. 384. See also Amor., II. 141, n. L THE YECER HARA 117 3. The Origin of the Evil Yeger God is always regarded as the creator of the evil yeger. This appears to be the most radical departure from the basal texts, Genesis 6:5; 8 : 21, in which the yeger seems to be a man's own shaping of his thoughts or character. Yet the second of these texts suggests a certain innateness of the yeger, and the belief that God made it agrees with the Old Testament and Jewish view, which was opposed to a radical dualism. We have already met (p. 101) Nachman b. Chisda's interpretation of the two yods in ")V'*1 (Gen. 2 : 7), "God created man with two yegarim, the good and the evil" (Berach., 61a). Also that of Simeon b. Pazzi which follows, and seems to be preferred: "Woe is me for my creator. Woe is me for my yeger." x According to this the two yods mean two woes (?!), one for the yoger, one for the yeger. The God who made and will judge man and the evil impulse that leads him to sin are his two fears. Only in Nachman's inter pretation therefore is Genesis 2 : 7 cited to prove that God created the evil yeger. It is, however, elsewhere stated, and not, so far as I know, disputed. See the comment on Genesis 1 : 31, cited above (p. 114), and that on Genesis 6 : 6 (p. 103). The rabbis did not grapple in a fundamental, philosophical way with the difficulty involved in the goodness of God and the evil disposition of man as God made him. God pro nounced all good (Gen. 1 : 31), yet called the yeger of man's heart evil (6:5; 8 : 21), and repented that he had made man, or that he had so made him. Starts toward various theoretical solutions of the problem are made by different rabbis, without agreement or consistency. We cannot indeed blame them for not solving a problem which no one has solved, but their discussions of it often seem more like play than like serious and worthy labor. The simplest way of escape from the difficulty lay in the conception of the good yeger. This is opposed to the suggestion of Genesis 6:5; 8 : 21, and indeed 1 Found also in Erubin, 18*, in the reverse order. 118 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES most of the discussions of the yeger take no account of it. The doctrine that God made man with both good and evil instincts and dispositions, and that it is man, not God, who made the evil prevail is sometimes expressed, though it cannot be the original form of the doctrine, and never appears to be accepted as a sufficient account of man's moral condition. The interpretation which found the two impulses in the two yods in ")V'*1, Genesis 2 : 7, gave way to one in which the yeger, simply as evil, was contrasted with God. The idea that man is to bless God with the evil yeger as well as with the good (Berach., IX. 5) indicates that the problem of the evil yeger was not solved by the supposition of the good. The evil yeger must itself be explained and justified. The Jews never regarded the idea that the yeger became evil solely through man's sin as adequate. It does not appear that its rise was traced to Adam's sin. It must rather have explained his sin. Hamburger cites, indeed, from a late source (Tanch., Gen. 3 : 22) this answer to the question: God calls the yeger evil (Gen. 8 : 21), who can make it good? God did not make the yeger evil but only man, and since man made it evil it is in his power to make it good. But it was not the origin but the undue power and persistence of the evil yeger that was generally ascribed to the fault of men. Thus its continuance in Israel even after the giving of the Law is due to Israel's want of religious courage or faith. According to R. Juda, when the Israelites heard the first word of the Decalogue, I am Yahwd, thy God, they received an inner knowledge of the law, but lost it when they asked Moses to mediate between them and God. It cannot be re stored now but will be hereafter (Jer. 31 : 32). R. Nehemiah added, When the Israelites heard the second word, Thou shalt have no other gods beside me, the evil yeger was rooted out of their heart ; but when they begged Moses to be a mediator, the evil yeger returned to its place, not to be removed now but only hereafter (Ezek. 36 : 26). x R. Meir interpreted Canticles 2 : 4 ( Cant, rab.) thus : Israel said, By wine the evil 1 Canticles rab., 1:2; Bacher, Tan., IL 273. THE YECER HARA 119 t yeger overmastered me ; then I called the calf my god (Ex. 32 : 4). Man is, however, not only responsible for making the yeger more evil by submission to its power; he is also capable of putting it to good uses. Here we meet another theory of the origin of the yeger which has been already hinted at in the saying that men are to bless God with their evil yeger as well as with the good. The evil yeger is in some sense good, or necessary to the existence of this world. God pro nounced it very good, for without it men would not build, or marry, or trade (see above, p. 114). " The yeger, the child, and the woman, the left hand shall reject while the right hand draws them near," said Simon b. Eleazar.1 Other say ings in which the possibility of turning the yeger to good account is recognized are cited below (p. 125). It is perhaps worth while to give with fulness the legend which explains the continuance of the yeger under the second temple as due no longer to Israel's fault, but to the neces sities of this world. It is found in Yoma 69b and in part in Sanh. 64a. In Nehemiah 9 : 4 it says, And they cried with a loud voice to the Lord their God. What did they say? Rab [Sanh. R. Juda], or as others say R. Jonathan said: They cried, Woe, woe (NM3 N**3), it is he that destroyed the sanctuary, burned the temple, killed the righteous, drove the Israelites out of their land, and still dances among us. Why hast thou given him to us? Only that we may receive reward (i. e., for conquering him). We wish him not and we wish not the reward. Then there fell a leaf on which stood — Truth (i"!QK). From this, according to R. Chanina, it is proved that the seal of the Holy One is Truth.2 They fasted three days and three nights; then he was delivered up to them. He came forth like a fiery lion out of the holy of holies. Then spake the prophet to the Israelites: This is the yeger of idolatry, for it is written, Zech. 5 : 8, And he i Sota, 47'; Sank, 107"; Bacher, Tan., II. 427. 2 On this saying see Bacher, Amor., I. 8 n. 3. 120 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES said, This is Wickedness (nytJHPF). When they seized him a hair went out of him and he lifted up his voice and it went 400 parasangs. Then they said, What shall we do that there may be no more pity for him in heaven? The prophet said: Shut him up in a leaden vessel and stop its mouth with lead, for lead does not let the sound through, as it is written, This is Wickedness, and he cast her into the Epha, and cast the weight of lead upon the mouth thereof. Then they said, Since this is a favorable time we will pray also against the yeger of sin.1 They prayed and it was de livered up to them. Then said he (the prophet), Take heed, for if you slay this one the world will cease. They bound him three days, and when they searched for a fresh egg in all the land of Israel they found none. Then they said, What shall we do? If we kill him the world will cease. If we pray that only a half be left us, halves are not kept in heaven. Then they covered his eyes with eye-paint [or put his eyes out], and let him go ; and that was at least of this much good to them, that he did not inflame men against their blood relations. The meaning of this legend appears to be that the Israelites from the time of the second temple were free from the temp tation to idolatry, and from the grosser forms of unchastity, though the yeger of sexual passion cannot be altogether destroyed lest the world come to an end. Over against this theory, if it can be called such, that the yeger is good, or at least indispensable to the existence of the world, as God made it, and becomes evil by man's fault, we meet a different view, according to which God regrets having made it. R. Ibo's interpretation of Gen. 6 : 6 has already been cited (p. 103). Our rabbis taught, It stands ill with the evil yeger, since even its creator calls it evil (Gen. 6:5; Kiddush., 30b). Woe to the dough of which the baker himself testifies that it is bad (Gen. 8 : 21). Wretched is the leaven which its maker calls bad (Ps. 103 : 14). Wretched the plant which the planter himself calls bad THE YECER HARA 121 (Jer. 11 : 17). 1 According to Pinchas b. Jair, there are three things which God repented having made: the Chaldeans (Isa. 23 : 13), the Arabians (Job 12 : 6), and the evil yeger (Mic. 4 : 6, "and what I have done ill " Win).2 He also interpreted Isa. 46 : 4, "I have created, I will take away" of the evil yeger.3 Abahu found the interpretation of Gen. 6 : 6 in the words, "was grieved at his heart," i. e., at man's heart, the evil yeger. God lamented as one who had made something that was not good : I am he that put the leaven into the dough, for the yeger of man's heart is evil from his youth.4 It is not so easy to determine whether the connection of the yeger with Satan is more than an isolated and perhaps figurative expression. The yeger is often spoken of as if it were an outside power. Although it is in man it is in some sense foreign to him, "a strange god within him," so that yielding to it is a sort of idolatry (p. 113). "God made man upright" (Eccles. 7 : 29), then rose up the evil yeger and polluted him.5 The names applied to it in Succa 52a by Joshua b. Levi 6 suggest an outside force. The evil yeger has seven names: God called it evil (Gen. 8 : 21); Moses called it uncircumcised (Deut. 10 : 16); David, unclean (Ps. 51 : 12); Solomon, enemy (Prov. 25 : 31); Isaiah, stumbling-block (Isa. 57 : 14) ; Ezekiel, stone (Ezek. 36 : 26) ; Joel, hidden (Joel 2 : 20). In a number of passages in Psalms and Proverbs " the wicked " or " the enemy " has this inter pretation. Thus Ps. 13 : 5 in the Targum (Taylor, p. 130); Ps. 37 : 32 by R. Simon b. Lakish (Succa 52b, Kiddushin 30") ; Ps. 91 : 10 by R. Chisda (Sanh. 103a): The evil yeger will not rule over thee. And finally we have the same 1 Num. rab., 13 ; Gen. rab., 34. 2 So J., Taanith, 66 *. In Succa, 52b, the saying is assigned to the school of Rab. and the Exile (Isa. 52 : 5) is added. s Bacher, Tan., II. 498 f. * Tanch., Gen. 6:6; Bacher, Amor., II. 140. Bacher thinks Abahu may have been influenced by Christian thought in his emphasis on man's depravity. 6 Tanch., Gen. 7 ; Weber, p. 206 (2 213). 6 Bacher, Amor., I. 132. 122 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES rabbi's saying: "Satan, evil yeger and the angel of death are one." This is proved from Job 2 : 6 where Satan has power to take Job's soul, like the angel of death, and from the word p"1, used in Job 1 : 12 of Satan, and in Gen. 6 : 5 of the yeger.1 In Sifrd 86s it is the yeger that objects to cer tain prescriptions of the law (p. 114), but in the Baraitha 2 and in Joma 67b, it is Satan. Jalkut unites the two. The yeger seems to have taken to itself the chief function of Satan, that of temptation. It is against its assaults that the righteous man's efforts are directed. To be delivered from it he prays. Taylor, after gathering rabbinical material illustrative of the prayer, Deliver us from the evil, hesitates whether to interpret it of the evil one, or of the evil yeger, but thinks the latter should at least be included.3 Evil (ty~\) is its original designation, the name given it by God. Some of the prayers against it will be cited below. From R. Jonathan a striking saying is reported in which- fully Satanic deeds are ascribed to the yeger : It misleads men in this world and testifies against them in the world to come (based on Prov. 29 : 21). 4 If the yeger in a measure displaces Satan in the rabbinical account of sin it must be regarded as a movement in the direction of a more ethical and rational conception. For ^^the yeger, however vividly it is personified, always remains the tendency and disposition of a man's own heart. Satan cannot be appealed to for the purpose of explaining the origin of the yeger. As to God's responsibility for the evil yeger, then, opin ions waver between various explanations. God made the good yeger also, and man is responsible for the evil, or at least for its persistence in Israel and for its power over the good ; or the evil yeger itself is good, or at least inevitable in 1 Baba bathra, 16"; Bacher, Amor., I. 324. 2 Bacher, Tan., I. 42, n. 3. 8 Sayings, pp. 128-130, 186-192. 4 Succa, 52 b. See Bacher, Amor., I. 61, and note by Goldschmidt explaining the exegesis according to which ]UD is made equivalent to milD. THE YECER HARA 123 this world, and men are to turn it to good uses; or it is essentially evil, a mistake or miscarriage in creation, which God regrets and will hereafter remedy. It is noteworthy that among the various efforts to explain God's responsibility for the evil yeger it is never said that it inheres in an eternal matter by whose properties God was limited when he made the world, that is, the Hebrew never gives place to the Greek explanation which Philo adopts. The important ques tion to a Jew was not how it came to be, but how men are to master it, and how God is at the end to destroy it. It is as true of rabbinical as of Old Testament theology that it is weak in theories of the origin of sin, but strong both in effort and in hope for its conquest. 4. The Conquest of the Yeger by Man The conquest of the evil yeger is a hard task because of its power, but is possible because of man's moral freedom and especially because of Israel's possession of the Law and the help of God given in answer to prayer. a. The power of the yeger is often set forth. Though it is in man from his youth, it increases in strength as man grows to maturity, and it persists in its hold even to old age. The power of the evil yeger is set forth by various sayings in Succa, 52ab. Of the "hidden one," Joel 2 : 20, it is said, "because he hath done great things," Abaji said, Most of all to the scribes. Then as he grieved because the evil yeger in the form of lust had greater power over him than over some common man, an old man came and taught him, One who is greater than his neighbor, his yeger is also greater (cf. Kiddushin, 36").1 In its connection this cannot refer merely to native energy, but must be understood of sensuous pas sions. The greater the man the harder his moral struggles. 1 The saying reminds one of Sir, 28 : 1 0 : According to the fuel of the fire, so will it burn ; . . . according to the might of the man will be his wrath (& 9vu6s) ; which, however, may mean that men measure their anger by their capacity to give it effect. 124 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES R. Isaac said: A man's yeger overmasters [or, renews it self in] him every day (Gen. 6:5). R. Simon b. Lakish, Man's yeger overmasters him daily and strives to kill him (Ps. 37 : 32); and if the Holy One did not help him he could do nothing against it (Ps. 37 : 33). 1 R. Huna said, At first the evil yeger befools men (Hos. 4 : 12), then it dwells in them (5 : 4). Raba said, At first it is called traveller, then guest, then man [i. e., the man of the house] (2 Sam. 12 : 4). The same thing is said, in Gen. rab. 22, of sin by R. Isaac. There we find also Akiba's interpreta tion of Isa. 5 : 18 as applied to sin, which in Succa 52a is ascribed to R. Asi and applied to the yeger : At the begin ning it is like a thread of the spinning web, but at the end it is like a cart rope. Gen. rab., 22, gives us also this inference from the fact that the word "sin " in Genesis 4 : 7 is mascu line, elsewhere feminine : In the beginning sin is weak as a woman, but afterward it becomes strong as a man.2 According to Gen. rab., 54, R. Josua b. Levi based on Proverbs 16 : 7 the saying : If one lives with his neighbor two or three years they become friends ; but the evil yeger lives with man from his earliest youth and will destroy him even in his seventieth or eightieth year if it finds opportunity.3 Ecclesiastes 4 : 13 is interpreted of the two impulses. The poor, wise youth is the good yeger ; a youth, because it does not stir in man until he is thirteen years old ; poor, because not all obey him; wise, because he teaches ma a the right way. The old, foolish king is the evil yeger ; king, because all obey him ; old, because he has to do with man from youth to age; foolish, because he teaches men the bad way and will not be warned of the suffering that is coming upon him (Eccles. rab. 4 : 13, cf. 9 : 14-15). But though in one sense the yeger belongs to the nature of 1 The two last sayings are found also in Kiddushin, 30 b. 2 Cf. R. Abin's interpretation of '^n in Deut. 7:15: It is the evil yecer which is sweet in the beginning and bitter at the end (J. Sabb. 14°, Lev. rab. 16, Bacher, Amor. III. 408.) 8 Bacher, Amor., I. 132 n. 5. THE YECER HARA 125 man, and though its evil power is great, yet it is not such as to dominate over man against his will, and there are those in whom it has no ruling power. All men, says Jose the Galilean, are divided into three classes, the righteous, who are under the rule of the good impulse (proved from Ps. 109 : 22, My heart is wounded in me, i. e., my evil yeger is slain); the wicked who are ruled only by the evil yeger (Ps. 36 : 2, Sin speaks to the wicked, etc.); and a middle class, ruled now by one, now by the other (Ps. 109 : 31, " Those who judge his soul" are the two yegers').1 Or, according to Eccles. rab. 4 : 15, 16, there are two classes ; those who walk with the good yeger are the righteous, and those who submit to the evil yeger are the wicked. — Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were free from the evil yeger, and in David also it was slain (above, p. 111). This mastery of the righteous over their yeger is described in two ways, according to the varying conception of the yeger itself. Regarded as in some sense a good and indis pensable part of creation, it is to be turned to good uses; regarded as the impulse to sin, it is to be suppressed. The latter is the prevailing point of view. The former is ex pressed in the saying already quoted: Yeger, child and woman, the left hand shall reject while the right hand draws them near. The same rabbi, Simon b. Eleazar, says: The evil yeger is like iron. From iron one may make all sorts of vessels if only he cast it into the fire. So one can make the evil yeger useful by the words of the Law. This is proved by Proverbs 25 : 21 f . : If thou soothe thine enemy (the yeger) with bread and water (the Law), God will make it thy friend (Bacher, Tan., II. 436 ).2 R. Isaac said: A man had two cows, one meant for ploughing, the other not. If he wants the latter to plough he puts the yoke on both. Should you not also join the evil impulse to the good, and so be able to turn it whither you will? So David prays (Ps. 86 : 11), Unite the double yeger of my heart 03^ 7) 1 Ab. di R. Nathan, 32, and in variant form, Berach., 61 b, Bacher, Tan., I. 368. 2 The same saying is ascribed to R. Berachiah, Bacher, Amor., III. 381 f. 126 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES to fear thy name (Bacher, Amor., II. 289 f.). We are to praise God with the evil yeger as well as with the good. But the evil yeger, regarded simply as sin, it is man's moral task to subdue. " Thou hast given it to us that we may by it (by conquering it) receive reward " (Yoma, 69 : 6). The passage most quoted in proof of man's power to master his yeger is Gen. 4:7. It lurks at the door of thy heart, a con stant menace, and toward thee is its desire, but thou shalt rule over it (e. g., Kiddushin 30b). "Who is mighty? He that subdues his yeger " (Prov. 16: 32; Aboth, 4 : 2, Taylor). It is only one who delicately brings up his evil yeger in his youth who will have to lament it in his age (R. Abin on Prov. 29 : 21, Gen. rab. 22 ; Bacher, Amor., III. 407). One of several interpretations of Psalm 41 : 2, Blessed is he that considereth the poor, is that of R. Meir: The poor is the good yeger in man, which is poor and weak over against the evil yeger. Blessed is he who makes the good yeger rule over the evil (Lev. rab. 34).1 R. Josua b. Levi interpreted Ps. 50 : 23 thus, He who sacrifices his yeger and makes confession (min) over it, Scripture reckons it to him as if he had showed God double honor, in this world, and in the world to come (Sanh. 43b). And on Psalm 112 : 1, he says, Blessed is he who as a man overcomes his yeger (Aboda Zara 19a).2 Gen. rab. 22 reports a saying of Abba b. Kahana's (?) how the evil yeger had brought to destruction many generations, that of Enoch, of the dispersion of nations, of the flood, but Abraham saw that this great robber had no real power so he struck him down (Ps. 89 : 24 [23]). A similar saying of Chama b. Chanina's is reported, interpreting Job 24 : 22: The evil yeger "draws away the mighty," i. e., the race of Enoch and of the flood and of the confusion of languages and of the Sodomites; therefore "riseth up" the pious and God "believes him not so long as he lives" (cf. also Job 15:15).3 l Wiinsche, p. 234 ; Bacher, Tan., II. 64; Amor., III. 523. 2 Bacher, Amor., I. 132. See further sayings in Amor., III. 152, 315. 8 Bacher, Amor., I. 465. THE YECER HARA 127 It must be added that the idea of the evil yeger as belong ing to man by nature, and having not only great power over him but also a sort of right in this world, led sometimes to the use of it as an excuse for sin. On Isaiah 22 : 26 Rabba bar bar Chana said : The prophet said to Israel, Return in peni tence ! They said, We cannot for the evil yeger rules over us. He said to them, chasten your yegarim;1 they answered, His God teaches us (that this cannot be).2 In Tanch. on Gen. 4 : 9, Cain charges God with being guilty of his crime because God created in him the evil yeger (Taylor, p. 37). On the Mishna, He who does not spare the honor of his creator, it were better for him if he had not come into the world, R. Joseph said, This refers to one who commits a sin in secret, according to the teaching of R. Isaac, who said that when one committed a sin in secret he stamps upon the feet of the Shekina, for it is written, Heaven is my throne and earth is my footstool (Isa. 66 : 1). R. Ilai the elder, however, said, When a man sees that his yeger has the mastery over him,3 he goes to a place where he is not known, clothes himself black, veils himself black and does what his heart desires, and does not profane the name of heaven openly. — That is no objection (to Isaac's saying), it is answered, for one is valid for him who can bend his yeger, the other for one who cannot (Chagiga, 16"). 4 b. The Law is the great cure for this malady in human nature. Raba says, If God created in man the evil yeger, he created also a remedy for it, the Law (Baba Bathra, 16"). This is the answer of Eliphaz (Job 15 : 4) to Job's com plaint (10 : 7). So in Kiddushin, 30b, the words, Ye shall take these my words to your heart (Deut. 11 : 18) are inter preted as meaning that the Law is a remedy 6 for the yeger. It is like a father who smote his son and then put a plaster on the wound and said to him, My son, as long as the plaster 1 D3HX' 11D1 2 Sanh. 105 ", Wunsche, p. 244. 8 vhy "Djnn nx'ty * nnx,l7 ^"3 'xd vh~\ «n mx'S rr1? t]"3 'xm sn 6 DfiDWl Ye shall take = on DD» a perfect remedy. 128 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES is on your wound you may eat and drink what you please ; you may wash in warm water or in cold, and need have no fear. But if you take it away an evil ulcer will come forth. So God said to the Israelites, My sons, I created the evil yeger, I created for it the Law as a remedy (?^73fi, literally, spice or seasoning). If you are occupied with the Law you will not be delivered into its hand l (Gen. 4 : 7a) ; but if you neglect the Law you will fall into its power (v. 7b); yet if you will you can rule over it (v. 7°). From the school of Ishmael the saying is reported: If this hateful thing (the yeger) meets you, draw it into the school (beth ha-Midrash) ; if it is stone, the Law, which is like water (Isa. 55 : 1) will wear it away (Job 14 : 19) ; if it is iron it will break it in pieces (Jer. 23 : 29). 2 God has made statutes not only for heaven and earth, sun, moon, etc., but also for the evil yeger (or graven statutes upon it)3 prescribing its bounds (Bacher, Amor., I. 451). Upon this saying of Chama b. Chanina, R. Levi remarks, It is like a desert place occu pied by troops; the king sets desert troops (beduins) to watch it. So God says, The Law is called a stone (Ex. 24 : 12), and the evil yeger is called a stone (Ezek. 36 : 26). One stone shall guard the other stone (Lev. rab. 35; Cant. rab. 6 : 11). With this may be compared the interpretation of Isaiah 26 : 3, ascribed to R. Simon and R. Chanina b. Papa (Gen. rab. 22): 4 If the evil yeger comes and will make you frivolous, watch it (or, repel it) 5 with the words of the Law. If you do so I (God) reckon it to you as if you had created peace in this world, peace in the coming world.6 But say not the yeger is not in your power, for I have already written in the Law, Toward thee is its desire, but thou shalt rule over it (Gen. 4 : 7). R. Chama b. Chanina, in one of six i Perhaps based on Sir. 21 : 11. See below p. 140 f. 2 Succa, 52"; Kidduschin, 30 b; Bacher, Tan., II. 337. s jnn ix1 by D'pipn dt\w D'pn 4 Bacher, Amor., II. 443. 6 Taking 11Xn (Isa. 26 : 3) from "IXJ, watch, or from "I1X, press upon. 6 Taking "llXn in this case from IX1, fashion, and applying the repeated Shalom to the two worlds. THE YECER HARA 129 interpretations of Gen. 29 : 2, likens the stone to the evil yeger. As the stone is rolled away from the well's mouth (v. 3) so the evil yeger departs when men go into the syna gogue to drink of the Law, but when they go out the evil yeger returns to its place (Gen. rab. 70, Wunsche, p. 341). That the Law did not take the place of moral and religious struggle in the conquest of the yeger is suggested by the directions for its overcoming which Simon b. Lakish found in Psalm 4:5* Let a man always bring the good yeger in wrath against the evil yeger ("be angry and sin not " [i. e., that ye may not sin]). If he conquers it, well; if not, let him occupy himself with the Law ("speak in your heart"). If he conquers it, well ; if not, let him read the Shema (" upon your bed "). If he conquers it, well ; if not, let him remind it of death ("and be still, Selah "). c. Most frequently, however, Prayer and divine help are recognized as necessary to man's victory over the yeger. " The evil yecer seeks constantly to get the upper hand over man and to kill him ; and if God did not help him he could not resist it, Ps. 37 : 32-33 (Succa 52b, Simon b. Lakish.) Of the nature of prayer are the oaths by which in the pas sages already cited (p. 112) various men of the Bible over powered or exorcised their evil yecer. The prayer to be said in connection with the Shema upon retiring at night contains the petition, " Bring me not into the power of sin, or temptation, or shame; and let not the evil yeger rule in me ; 2 and guard me from evil lot, and from evil sicknesses. Let not dreams and evil thoughts (DHirnn) disturb me," etc. (Berach., 60"). The morning- prayer contains a similar clause : Bring me not into the power of sin, temptation, or shame : and bend my yeger to submit itself to thee ; 3 and keep me far from evil man and evil asso ciate; and let me hold fast to the good yeger,* and to the 1 Berach., 5" ; Bacher, Amor., I. 354. 2 y\n ix' '3 mbvr bw 8 -\b nymph nx' nut *pi « 310 IX'3 \]D3T 1 9 130 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES good associate (Berach., 60b). These petitions are found in the Jewish Prayer Book. Among the private prayers which various rabbis added to those prescribed, some include similar petitions. Thus Rabbi used to pray that God would keep him from evil man (evil event, evil yeger), evil associate, (evil neighbor, and the destroying Satan).1 R. Eleazar (according to Bacher, Amor., I. 244, R. Jochanan) prayed that he might be furnished with good associate and good yeger (3113 1V*1 31C3 "13113) (Berach., 16a). R. Alexander's prayer was as follows: Lord of the worlds, it is open and known to thee that it is our will to do thy will. And what hinders ? The leaven in the dough (i. e., the yeger in man), and servitude under the (world) kingdoms. May it be thy will to humble these before us and behind us (and that thou remove the evil yeger from us and humble it out of our heart) that we may fulfil thy will again with a perfect heart.2 Mar b. Rabina prayed, Keep me from evil event, from evil yeger, from evil wife, and from all evils (Berach., 17a). R. Jochanan, Grant us a good associate and a good yeger. 3 R. Isaac inter preted " the Lord bless thee and keep thee " to mean, from the evil yeger. 4 Rabbi understood the phrase "that it be not to my sorrow " in the prayer of Jabez (1 Chr. 4 : 10), that the evil yeger hinder me not in study.5 R. Chija b. Ashi used to pray, Save me from the evil yeger; yet the prayer did not save him from falling before temptation (Kiddushin, 81b). 5. The Removal of the Yeger by God The evil yeger is to be at last removed and destroyed by God. The passage upon which this hope chiefly rested was 1 Berach., 16b. But Bacher, Tan., II., 463 f., omits the bracketed phrases on manuscript evidence (see Rabbinovicz, Variae lectiones, etc.). 2 Berach., 17 * ; and Bacher, Amor., I. 196, who defends the fuller text. 8 Berach., 7 ; Bacher, Amor., I. 245. * Sifre, Nu. 6 : 24 ; cf. Prov. 3 : 26 ; Bacher, Tan., II. 399. 6 Mechilta, 18 : 27 ; Temura, 16 * ; Bacher, Tan., II. 483. THE YECER HARA 131 Ezekiel 36 : 26 (cf. 11 : 19). This verse is in itself a strik ing proof that " no idea of corrupt inclination attaches to the term, flesh " in Old Testament usage ; J and its frequent use with reference to the final removal of the evil yeger from men still further confirms the view that this is not inherent in matter as such. The mourning in Zech. 12 : 12 was said by some to be for Messiah b. Joseph, who was slain, by others for the evil yeger, that was slain. Why should there be mourning and not rather joy when the yeger is slain? R. Juda b. Ilai said: Hereafter the Holy One will bring the evil yeger and slay it before the face of the righteous and the wicked. It will seem to the righteous like a high mountain, to the wicked like a hair. Both will weep. The righteous will weep, saying, How were we able to conquer this high mountain?2 The wicked will weep, saying, How were we not able to conquer this hair. And the Holy One also will be astonished with them, according to Zech. 8 : 6, "also in my eyes will it seem wonderful." 3 God said to Moses: Be cause in this world the evil yeger is in them they fall away to idolatry, but hereafter I will root out of you the evil yeger and give you a heart of flesh (Ezek. 36 : 26). i To Israel he said, In this world you will be torn from the commandments by the evil yeger, but hereafter I will tear it out of you (Ezek. 36 : 26). 5 There is indeed a sense in which the evil impulse is already slain in the righteous (proved by Ps. 109 : 22, above, p. 125). In another sense only death delivers the righteous from it, and is therefore included in the things that are very good ; 6 while the end of its power can come only with the end of the world (based on Ezek. 36 : 26, above, p. 118). God created the evil yeger, but will here after take it away (Isa. 46 : 4, above, p. 121). Rabbi said, The evil yeger in man is like a robber who anticipates punish- 1 A. B. Davidson on Ezek. 36 : 26. 2 Cf . 4 Ezra 7 : 92. 8 Succa, 52 »; Bacher, Tan., II. 223. * Exod. rab., 41, end. 6 Num. rab., 17, end. 6 Gen. rab., 9, on Job 3:17. 132 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES ment, and since he cannot escape it accuses his companions of being accomplices. So the yeger thinks, since I am des tined to destruction in the world to come, I will bring men to destruction with me.1 R. Simai on Hos. 12 : 2 offers this parable : A great rock stood on a forked road and hindered commerce. The king commanded that it be gradually crum bled up. He would, when the time was come, wholly remove it. So the yeger to sin forms the great rock over which Israel stumbled. It is gradually crumbled, but will be finally removed by God, according to Ezek. 36 : 26. 2 In Gen. rab. 89 (beginning) we have this exposition of Job 28 : 3: As long as the evil yeger is in the world darkness and the shadow of death are in the world. But if it is rooted out these will be no more.3 6. Summary The result of our review is that in rabbinical usage the yeger is hardly other than a name for man's evil tendencies or inclinations, the evil disposition which as a matter of experi ence exists in man, and which it is his moral task to subdue or control. It does not contain a metaphysical explanation of the fact, a theory as to its source or nature. The proof of the various things that are said of the yeger is always found, in the fashion of the rabbis, in Old Testament pas sages more naturally or more artfully applied. In some cases the passage, rather than experience and reflection, is itself the source of the saying. These evil inclinations go all the way up from sensual passions through anger and revenge to various forms of selfishness such as greed, deceit, and pride, and on the other hand to religious unbelief and idolatry. These propensities are deeply implanted in man's nature and are not due to his will, though the will can rule over them. i Ab. di R. Nathan 16; Bacher, Tan., II. 461. 2 Bacher, Tan., II. 546. 8 The application of the " stone of darkness " in this verse to the yeger is as cribed to Simon h. Lakish in Tanchuma (Bacher, Amor., I. 354). THE YECER HARA 133 » They must therefore, in a monotheistic view of the world, be ascribed to God's creation. Moreover at almost every stage it can be seen that these inclinations are not wholly evil, but are in some sense necessary to human life and progress. Not only the impulse that aims at the continuance of the race, but also a measure of self-assertion, and even of anger and other passionate impulses, though they easily overmaster men and lead them to sin, are yet necessary to the life and progress of humanity in this world. But though a theodicy can rest on such considerations, the moral task of man is to control these impulses of his nature. For this end man has full freedom and is wholly responsible. Moreover, God has implanted good impulses and inclinations in men, to which they can, if they will, give the upper hand. God, however, has provided a definite remedy in the Law. Against one who studies and observes its precepts the evil impulse has little power. Further, in answer to prayer, the help of God may be gained in this struggle, which always remains a severe and uncertain one. Men are sustained in this warfare by the belief that there is another world in which the evil impulse does not exist, that the righteous enter this world after death, and that hereafter, in the Messianic age, the powers and qualities of heaven will have exclusive dominance. All this, it is evident, has nothing to do with a dualistic contrast of body and soul. Hamburger's remark must rather be accepted as in the main just: "In contrast to the dualism of Plato, Philo, and the Gnostics, Judaism in these phrases [the evil and the good yeger\ stated and developed the Bib lical doctrine of evil and good." A quotation may also well be made from Lazarus 's Die Ethik des Judenthums (1898), p. 268: "The Jewish view of the world in general, and Jew ish ethics in particular, is everywhere grounded upon the actuality of existence and upon the actualization of the idea ; in both, however, we meet always with soul and body in connection and in common activity. So in the Biblical writings we see the contrast of good and evil unceas- 134 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES ingly discussed and emphasized; but almost never does the contrast of soul and sense there come before us. The same manner of thought meets us in the rabbinical literature. The " Sayings of the Fathers, " for example, has not unjustly been called a sort of compendium of ethics; but in all the five (or six) sections of which it is composed hardly a single time is the contrast of spirit and body suggested " (p. 266). He cites Aboth, 4 : 1 (Taylor, 4 : 2), as proving that the yeger is not sensuousness, since the " patient one " is its con queror, and the parallel speaks expressly of control and inner freedom in the spirit itself. " Eben so wenig wie 31E3 "IV das Rein-Geistige bedeutet, ist yiil "IV* die Sinnlichkeit. " Lazarus is right too in saying (p. 264) that the important thing in the rabbinical view of man is not that his natural impulse is twofold, that originally, by the side of the evil impulse, stands the good. More important is the thought: God has created the evil impulse, he has also created the Thora as a remedy against it. The main thing is not the natural disposition of man — even to good — but the Law that redeems from the impulse of nature. Only we must doubt whether he is historically just in taking this Law to be primarily or solely the moral law, the creation of the ethi cal, which surpasses all nature. It must, moreover, be evident, apart from any positive explanation of Paul's doctrine, that the parallelism between his contrast of spirit and flesh and the rabbinical contrast of the good and evil impulses is remote and insignificant. Of course Paul in Rom. 7 is describing the same experience of struggle between two opposing forces in man upon which the Jewish doctrine rests, but his way of expressing the struggle as a war between the law (of sin) in his members, and the law of his mind (vov. If thou trust in him, thou shalt even live. 16. Fire and water are poured out before thee : Upon whichsoever thou choosest stretch forth thy hands. 17. Death and life are before a man : That which he shall choose shall be given him" (15 : 11-17). various meanings of the Hebrew yeger could be rendered. In its literal meaning the verb was commonly rendered in the LXX by irXdaro-a, and the noun by Tr\do-/ia in Isa. 29 : 16, Hab. 2 : 18, Ps. 103 : 14. Aquilla and Sym. use it also in Dt. 31 : 21, Isa. 26 : 3. But this word could not bear the figurative meaning of the Hebrew. In Gen. 8 : 21 yeger of the heart " is rendered r\ Sidvoia ; so in 1 Chr. 29 : 18 " in the yeger of the thoughts of the heart " = iv Siavotrjicev avrbv iv %etpl SiafiovXtov avrov, and Syriac, T3 pill^.1 If the second and third lines of the verse in Hebrew are doublets (Schechter), the Greek decides in favor of the third as the more original. Since the second line is want ing in the Greek, we should not, perhaps, put weight upon the personification of the yecer which it implies. It is quite possible, however, that the line was omitted by the trans lator, or by later Christian scribes, as suggesting too much intention on the part of God that man should fall into sin. It is not easy to make out the exact views of Edersheim and Ryssel as to the relation of the word in this passage to its earlier and later uses.2 Edersheim says that it is used here " not in the later application of it to either the good or the evil impulse in man, but in the earlier meaning of disposi tion, mind, counsel (Sinn, Gesinnung)." This earlier use must be the Old Testament use. Yet on 17 : 6, where the Greek translator, mistaking, as the Syriac indicates, the verb for the noun, renders "llf again by 8ia/3ov\iov,3 Edersheim translates it as before, "disposition, mind = -)^)." Then, after reviewing its use in LXX in the plural, in the sense of "counsels," "purposes," and "thoughts" (Ps. 5 : 11; 9 : 23 [10 : 2]; Hos. 11 : 6; cf. 4 : 9; 5 : 4; 7 : 2), he adds: "We infer that the use of Siafiovkiop and of "1 V in that sense [i. e., counsel, purpose, etc. ?] was post-biblical, and, as regards the Greek term, we would suggest, Alexandrian." Does this mean that St,a/3ov\tov became identified with ")¥' in its Old Testament meaning (disposition), and then was carried over with it to the later meaning (counsel, etc.)? and what had Alexandrian influence to do with the transition? In fact, there is no evidence of a fixed habit of rendering yeger by this word. 1 Edersheim, and Taylor, Sayings,2 p. 151 f. 2 It should be noted that Ryssel as well as Edersheim wrote before the He brew of this part of the hook had come to light, but both recognized the IX' of the original. 8 Hence read " He created also," for R. V. " counsel and." THE YECER HARA 139 Ryssel seems to rest in part on Edersheim, but makes assertions quite contrary to his. In 15 : 14 he translates the word, " self-determination " (Selbstentscheidung), and remarks : " = Siafiovktov, which word renders not the orig inal significance of "1}f ?, which is certainly intended also by the author, i. e., disposition (Gesinnung, so Syriac), but the later, new-Hebrew significance of this word : ' the impulse to good or to evil.' " And on 17 : 6 he says that 8t,a/3ov\iov "cannot, however, here, as in 15 : 14, designate freedom of choice, but perhaps reflection (Ueberlegung. Luther, Ver- nunft)." But surely freedom of will is not a translation of ")V in its rabbinical sense. And if the Hebrew author meant to use the word in the older sense of disposition, why does not Ryssel so translate it? The Greek translation, by the writer's grandson, was probably made in 132 b. c. (Schurer). Does Ryssel mean that the Old Testament mean ing of yeger prevailed until after 190 B. c. and the late rabbinical meaning from some time before 132 b. c. onward ? Neither Edersheim nor Ryssel makes clear his views at these points, nor the grounds of them. What does the sentence itself in its connection mean? The writer, like James 1 : 13 ff., after him, is arguing against those who would ascribe their sin to God (i. e., to their nature as God made them, or to circumstances which God ordained?). God would not make what he hates (so also Wisd. 11 : 24). Yet sin is a fact in God's creation. How is it to be accounted for without making God morally re sponsible for it? The answer is: God created man and gave him into the hand of his spoiler, i. e., his yeger, an evil disposition or inclination which has power over him. But if men choose they may keep the commandment, obey God's will, not their own yeger. Two things are put before them, the yeger and the Law. These are the fire and water, the death and life between which men must choose. The *!¥' is not the free will, but man is free to choose between this evil nature or disposition in him and the Law. This is the rab binical meaning of the word yeger, which stands over against 140 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES the law as a power of sin, strong but never overpowering man's will. Only in this sense is the word properly parallel to the "spoiler " of the preceding line. But does not this make God responsible for sin? In a sense it does, and so did both the Old Testament and the author of our book. See 11 : 14-16, 1 "Good things and evil, lif e and death, poverty and riches are of the Lord. . . . Sin and upright ways are from the Lord ; " but (here is his theodicy) "folly and darkness are created for the wicked, etc." See further 39 : 13-35. Now what of the Greek translator? His hiaBovXtov does not render the original meaning of yeger, but means, prac tically, freedom of will (deliberation or determination) as Ryssel renders it. Taking the word in this sense and so interpreting the meaning of the verse, he cannot do anything but omit the second line, which is now restored to us. So in 11 : 15 he changed "sin " to "love," while some found it easier to omit vv. 15-16 altogether (so R. V. with the best MSS.). In 17 : 6 the translator could well have given the same meaning to ")lf, read as a noun, and put deliberation or purpose among the powers with which God endowed man. If our understanding of yeger in 15 : 14 is right, the word ' was already used, in the evil sense, to explain man's ten dency to sin in a way consistent with monotheism, since God put men in its power, and yet consistent with legalism, since man is able to choose God's will. God created him, and put him in the hand of an evil disposition, but " did not command a man to sin " (v. 20). Nor is it only by sheer choice of the law that men are saved ; for the writer can also say: "If thou trust in him thou shalt even live. "2 Next in importance is a sentence, 21 : 11a, not yet recov ered in Hebrew, but already rightly amended on the basis of the Syriac by Edersheim. The Greek is, 6 (pvKdcro-cov vo/iov KaraiepaTel rod evvorniaTO'i avrov (R. V., He that keepeth the law becometh master of the intent thereof). The Syriac gives 1 Hebrew in Jewish Quar. Rev., xii. 466 ff. 2 Only in Hebr. Cf. Isa. 26 : 3. THE YECER HARA 141 as the undoubted original, He that keeps the law gets the mas tery over his yeger. Fritzsche already rendered the Greek, be- machtigt sich seiner Gedanken, or beherrscht seine Gedanken. The Greek translator's choice of evvonpa renders it doubtful whether he meant, "becomes wise," or "masters the thought or inner meaning of the Law." But there can be no doubt about the meaning of the author. In this passage Edersheim translates the word by "inclination," and speaks of it as used "in the peculiar sense of "W," i. e., in the rabbinical sense; and Ryssel follows with "Trieb," so that what seemed to be implied by their comments on 15 : 14 could not have been meant to apply to the history of the development of the rabbinical sense of the word, but only to the interpretation of that verse. In fact, it is unmistakably the so-called rab binical sense of the term that meets us here. Indeed one of the most important rabbinical sayings about the yeger can be regarded either as a parallel to this or as a free citation of it : "I created the evil yeger; I created for it the Law as a remedy. If ye are occupied with the law ye shall not be delivered into its hand."1 The expression "masters his yeger " occurs, e. g., in Aboth, 4 : 2 (£J>33), in Berach., 60b (B7B0- The next passage is one in which the word was not sus-. pected: Hebr. 6 : 22<1><2) = Gr. 27 : 5-6. Taylor translates: "A potter's (*llfV) vessel is for the furnace to bake (?); And like unto it, a man is according to his thought (71^ W>a 1213EJTI). Upon the bough ( ?) of a tree will be its fruit; So the thought of a man is according to his mind (?) (/)? 713&JTT TIIN ")¥*)." Thls follows Schechter's text, but both the Hebrew and the Versions read m3y, labor, tillage, or hus bandry, not m3^5 Aram, bough, as Schechter emends. There seems no good reason for the emendation. Greek and Syriac read D*1K for ItlH. We may therefore read: Ac cording to the husbandry of the tree will be its fruit; So the thought is according to the yeger of man. With doubts regarding the text go difficulties in the interpretation. The 1 Kiddushin 30b. See above p. 127, and Cowley-Neubauer, p. xxiii. 142 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES Greek translator seems to have got the meaning of the first verse, but missed that of the second. A potter's vessel is both tested and made by the fire, so a man is tested by his inner thought, it is this that both tries and makes him (cf. Prov. 23 : 7). If now the second verse follows in this direc tion we might understand the thought to be : The husbandry of a tree, i. e., the digging and pruning,' both tests the life of the tree and is the condition of its fruitfulness. So the thought-life of man is tested and developed by the yeger, which like the fire of the potter's furnace and like the labor of the husbandman is severe and may prove destructive, but is essential to the making of a vessel and the growing of fruit. A man is tested and made not by appearances or deeds but by his thought or reasoning, and his thought is tested and made to be of worth by the evil inclinations within him, i. e., by moral struggle.1 If this is the thought of the passage, the word yeger means here what it means in 15 : 14 and 21 : 11. If, on the other hand, the meaning is that behind the man is his thought, and behind or beneath his thought (sustaining it as the bough sustains the fruit?) is his yeger, then yeger must mean nature, the fundamental character or tendency of each man, whether good or bad. The former sense, however, answers better to the comparison of the potter's vessel, to the actually attested reading in v. 6, and to the other uses of the word. The yeger is the labor which gives man his moral discipline and cultivation; not man's own labor, but, ultimately, God's. The Greek renders yeger here, as in 1 Chronicles 28 : 9, by ivdvfivfia, or evdv^nixa, icapSias. The next passage, 17 : 31, is one in which the use of the word yeger is made probable by the Syriac, but the Hebrew text is not yet recovered. The Greek reads, "What is brighter than the sun? yet this faileth; And an evil man will think on flesh and blood " (teal irovripb Woe to the wicked (who) says. Levi pre fers the Greek, and supposes the Hebrew to have run thus : ")¥? JTl 'lil- "O wickedness of the yeger, why wast thou created?" (mitt3 with a play on the word "IV*). He sug gests that the original Tlf' became "1J3N* in our copy, and was read as *1!tt by the Syriac translator. If, on the other hand, our Hebrew texts represent the original at this point, the Greek translator must have read "IV for "lQXtJ', or *"|QK', perhaps by conjecture, and it is only to him and not to the Hebrew author that we can ascribe this anticipation of the question so deeply felt by the author of Fourth Ezra as to the origin of the evil power in man's nature. Perhaps, after 15 : 14 we should not expect our author to ask the question. He did not feel the difficulty of ascribing the yeger directly to God, and seeing its good end, evil though it was in itself. So the figure of the potter, just discussed (27 : 5 = Hebr. 6 : 22(1>), is developed further of God's relation to man in 33 : 13, in a passage that emphasizes God's authorship of evil as well as good, all his works being two and two, one against another (v. 15). It is possible that the recovery of the Hebrew would reveal the word in other passages (e. g., 23 : 2 Siavovpajov would restore to the text such verses as 17 : 16, 21 ("Knowing their TrXda-fia " = Ps. 103 : 14). On the other hand, the Hebrew in 5 : 4 is like the Greek, and the rabbinical saying THE YECER HARA 145 cited by Cowley-Neubauer (p. xix.), "If the evil yeger say to thee, Sin, for the Holy One excuseth, do not believe," is independent of Sirach at least in form (Bacher, Amor., III. 578). Allowing for all remaining uncertainties we have definite proof of the use of the word yeger, almost two centuries before Christ, in the rabbinical sense. For the later doctrine is essentially a fuller and varied expression of the thought of Sir. 15 : 14 as to the source of sin in man, and God's relation to it, and of Sir. 21 : 11 as to the means by which it is to be overcome. The current view, that the doctrine was shaped or modified under Greek influence, and that it is post-Christian in its development proves to be at both points erroneous. The limits of this essay exclude the effort to trace in detail the development of the conception of the yeger between Sirach and the rabbinical literature. Since the word had no Greek equivalent and no uniform Greek rendering, and since the Hebrew and Aramaic writings of the period are known to us for the most part only in Greek, or in oriental or Latin versions of the Greek, the use of the word is naturally obscure. It seems certain that the Greek idea of the material body as the seat and source of sin gained difficult and limited access to the Jewish mind. Even among Greek-speaking Jews this conception, so contradictory to Old Testament religion, and so dangerous to monotheism, could have gained few thoroughly consistent adherents. Even Philo may be defended, as he is by Drummond,1 from a consistently anti- Jewish development of his Greek belief in the eternity of matter, and its evil power. The Wisdom of Solomon accepts creation out of formless matter (11 : 17), and the idea that the corruptible body weighs down the soul, and the earthly frame lies heavy on the mind, making a knowledge even of earthly things difficult and of heavenly things impossible, 1 Philo Judaeus, I. 297-313, H. 296-306. 10 146 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES without divine help (9 : 13-18). The author believes in the immortality of the soul, and in this shows the large influence of Greek modes of thought upon him. Yet on the other hand he can speak of wisdom as entering into the soul, and dwelling in the body, in parallel clauses (1 : 4), and the pas sage often cited to prove his acceptance of the idea of the pre-existence of the soul (8 : 19-20) can hardly bear such a weight. The birth of the wise king is described first as if he were the goodly body that received by lot a good soul, and then by a better afterthought, as if he were the good soul that came into a pure body. This involves a dualistic psy chology, but the pre-existence of the soul is hardly implied except in the sense in which the body also pre-existed before birth. Sin and virtue are everywhere properties and func tions of the soul. 2. The Apocalypse of Ezra The most serious and even impassioned struggle with the problem of sin and evil from a Jew of this period is re corded in the Apocalypse of Ezra, 2 Esdras, chs. 3-14, in our Apocrypha.1 The conception of the "wicked heart " in this book is obviously allied to that of the yeger. Various and striking points of contact are also evident between the mind and experience of the writer and that of Paul. So that this book deserves especially close study, for an explanation of the Jewish element in Paul's thought. The problems pre sented by the book are, however, far too difficult and involved to permit of an attempt here to discuss them in detail. 1 Commonly cited as 4 Ezra. Texts : The Latin in the Bensly-James edition, 1895; other versions and an attempted reconstruction of the Greek from which they were made, by Hilgenfeld, Messias Judaeorum, 1869 ; commentaries by Lupton (Wace's Apocrypha, 1888), and Gunkel (Kautzsch's Pseudepigraphen, 1901). Introductory discussions by Schiirer (History) and Kabisch (IV. Ezra, Gottingen, 1889). I assume the substantial unity of the book (Gunkel, against Kabisch and Charles); the probability of a Hebrew original (Wellhausen, Charles, Gunkel) ; the improbability of positive Christian influence upon the doctrine of the book (Schiirer, Gunkel, against Edersheim, Charles). THE YECER HARA 147 According to this writer Adam transgressed and was over come because he had a wicked heart (cor malignum),1 and so all who were born of him (3 : 21). " A grain of evil seed " (granum seminis mali) was sown in the heart of Adam from the beginning, and how much (fruit of) 2 wickedness has it brought forth until now, and will bring forth until the threshing come (4 : 30, cf . 31). It is hardly correct to say that, through Adam's sin, " a hereditary tendency to sin was created, and the cor malignum developed " (Charles, Apoca lypse of Baruch, p. Ixx.). The evil heart explains Adam's sin, but is not explained by it. Men continued to do even as Adam did because they also had the wicked heart (3 : 26). Adam's sin had indeed fateful consequences. The decree of death, and the sorrowful and toilsome nature of the present world (saeculum = almv) are attributed to it (3 : 7; 7 : 11, 12). " O thou, what hast thou done, Adam ? for when thou didst sin there came to pass not thy fall only but also ours who came from thee " (7 : 118). Evil is traced to Adam's sin, but his sin is itself traced to an evil seed sown in his heart from the beginning, which has indeed grown and is called a root (radix = pl£a, 8 : 53; cf. 3 : 22). Whence then came the wicked heart? The prophet's angel guide promises an answer to the question (4 : 4), but the answer is not easy to find. Kabisch argues that the evil heart is seated in the body, on several unconvincing grounds. It cannot be, he says, in the spirit of life from God, and hence must be in the dust of which the body is formed (3 : 4-5). But it may be in man, who is not a juxtaposition of these two, but a new creation out of them. The evil heart is inherited, Kabisch says, and must therefore belong to the body, for souls pre-exist, and come in ever anew out of the upper world (p. 23). But 4 : 36, to which he refers, has nothing to do with pre- existence ; nor does 4 : 12 prove it, on which Gunkel remarks cautiously, " The expression (to come into the world) 3 pre- 1 irornph xapSia. 2 Syr. See Gunkel. 8 See also 7 : 132. 148 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES supposes, originally, the belief in the pre-existence of the human soul." The evil heart, Kabisch argues, belongs to this material world and passes away with it (4 : 26-32). But the rabbis also taught that the evil yeger belongs to this world and not to the world to come, and for the strain in which Kabisch develops his thought our book furnishes no warrant. Souls, he says, cannot do good so long as they carry the material body; for all matter is infected with evil, and in the world, which consists of matter, there can be no goodness nor happiness nor virtue (p. 32-33). Now as a matter of fact the evil heart is never once expressly connected with matter, or the body; nor in the many contrasts of this world (saeculum) with the next do the ideas of materiality and immateriality appear. The nearest approach to them is in the frequent references to corruption and incorruption as characterizing the two worlds. It is true that the book is strongly dualistic in its contrast of the two worlds (7 : 50), and also that it contains a somewhat marked dualistic anthropology. In 7 : 88 the death of the righteous is described as separation from the corruptible vessel, and the un-Hebraic conception of death in 7 : 75-101 is significant. But in spite of this the solution of the problem of the book, the origin of sin and evil, is not found in matter and its inherent properties. The great debate, which makes up the book, between the author's Jewish faith, on the one side, voiced by the angel, and his doubts on the other, between his mind and his feelings, his convictions and his sympathies and fears, turns on the ques tion whether God or man is responsible for the sorrow and sin of this world, and the torments of the next. No third agent is summoned in, not Satan or any spirit-power, not an eternal matter which conditions God in creation. Indeed our writer seems expressly to exclude any such outside agency. His monotheism is emphatic. God's entire re sponsibility for man's creation is set forth at the beginning (3 : 4-5), and often urged, and that in terms which expressly include the body (8 : 7-14, 24). If it is said that the earth (terra) or dust brought man THE YECER HARA 149 > forth, yet it is at God's command (3:4; 5 : 48, 50-55; 6 : 53; 7 : 63, 116; 10 : 9-14), and the earth, the mother of man, is itself made by God (11 : 46), and has its own sorrow (10 : 9 ff.) and hope (11 : 46). Chaos itself (Gen. 1 : 1) was created by God (6 : 38b, Gunkel). God and he alone planned and made and will consummate all (5 : 56 — 6:6). Nor can evil be ascribed to malignity in the all-ruling God. His love to Israel and to man far exceeds that of the prophet who protests against his ways (5 : 33, 40; 8 : 47). Is it then God who sowed the grain of evil seed in Adam's heart from the beginning ? Who else could it be ? Yet this is not expressly said. The prophet does indeed ask why God did not restrain men from wilfulness and sin (3 : 8); why he did not take away the wicked heart from Israel when he gave him the law (3 : 20) ; why earth produced Adam at all if it were not to restrain him from sinning (7 : 116). Yet the tendency of the angel's replies is always to put the responsibility for sin upon man. The solution which the book offers, so far as one is reached, is Jewish, and not Greek or Indian. In this solution three points are clear. a. God implanted in the heart of Israel his law. " I sow my law in you, and it shall bring forth fruit in you " (9 : 31). The writer feels the problem of the condition of the rest of mankind, but assents to the proposition that the world is made for Israel (6 : 55; 9 : 13). But for Israel also the law has not proved able to produce its fruit. " Yet tookest thou not away from them the wicked heart that thy law might bring forth fruit in them . . . and the law was in the heart of the people along with the wickedness of the root ; so the good departed away and that which was wicked abode still " (3 : 20, 22). "There has grown up in us an evil heart (cor malum), which has alienated us from these (statutes) and brought us into corruption and into the wajrs of death, showed us the paths of perdition, and made us far from life ; and this not a few but almost all that have been created " (7 :48; cf. 9:31-37). b. To this difficulty faith answers with a second vindica- 150 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES tion of God. Man is free and can escape the power of the evil heart. It is true that the writer feels difficulty in assenting to this essential dogma of a legal religion, but Mr. Charles is surely wrong in ascribing to him even a practical denial of human freedom (p. lxx.). He assumes that some obey the law. His lament is that they are so few (7 : 48-61 ; 8 : 1, 3; 9 : 14-16, etc.). In one mood he does indeed de clare all men sinners (7 : 46, 68; 8 : 35), but he does not mean this literally.1 He is assured against his fears that he is himself righteous and will attain salvation.2 He insists upon man's freedom and responsibility,3 and if it is hard to keep the divine law, yet the reward is all the greater (7 : 127-131). The first of seven reasons for the joy of righteous souls after death is " because with much labor they have striven to conquer the evil thought formed with them, that it should not seduce them from life unto death " (7 : 92). In this expression cum eis plasmatum cogitamentum malum we may with great probability recognize the word yeger itself (Gun kel). The effort to conquer the evil heart may be made effectual through prayer (8:6). c. Yet the writer is perplexed and distressed at the diffi culty of keeping the law, and must resort to a third vindica tion of God, — the promise that in the coming age the evil heart will be taken away. " The Most High has not created one world but two " (7 : 49), is the answer to the lament over the evil heart (v. 48). The evil that is sown must be reaped, and the place where it is sown pass away, before the field can come where the good is sown (4 : 29). Before the end, Elijah, and others like him, will change the heart of men to a different nature (6 : 26); and the "root" will be sealed up for those for whom the time to come is prepared (8 : 53). That the new age is near at hand is sometimes l See e. g., 3 : 11, 36, 7 : 18, 21-24, 45, 46 ; 8 : 26-30, 33. 2 See 7:76-77, 8:48 ff.; 10:57; 13: 54-56, and compare 7 :48, 64, 118, 126 ; 8:17,31. 8 See 7 : 20-24, 72 f. ; 8 : 56-62 ; 9 : 7-13 ; 14 : 22, 34 f. THE YECER HARA 151 the fear, but in general the consolation of the writer and the practical solution of his problem. Now these three lines of escape from the problem of the evil heart are precisely like the rabbinical treatment of the evil yeger. This is offset by the law which God gave Israel ; men are free to obey the law in spite of the acknowledged power of the evil propensity; and God will hereafter remove it, change men's hearts (Ezek. 36 : 26), and bring in an age to which the evil does not belong. Yet the origin of the evil heart is not explained by these considerations of the ways of escape. We have seen that the rabbis sometimes resorted to the extreme expedient of say ing that God repented having made it, and there is even some suggestion that its rise or at least its dominance was a sur prise to him. There is a hint of this sort in 4 Ezra. God's fashioning of sinners and of the righteous, says the angel, is like the husbandman's sowing much seed and plant ing many trees. Not all that is sown is saved, and not all that is planted takes root. So they that are sown in the world shall not all be saved (8 : 38-41). But the prophet finds fault with the parable. The husbandman's work fails because God sends too little or too much rain. Furthermore, men, in God's image, are not to be compared with the hus bandman's seed (8 : 42-45). Yet again the figure is used. God speaks of the time of creation when none spoke against him, and adds, " But now they that are created in this world that is prepared . . . are corrupted in their manners. I considered my world, and behold it was ruined, and my earth, and behold it was in peril on account of the devices (cogitationes) (of those) 1 that had come into it. And I saw . . . and saved me a grape out of a cluster, and a plant out of a great forest. Let the multitude therefore perish which is born for naught, and let my grape be saved and my plant, because with great labor I have perfected them" (9 : 17-25). It is as if evil had come in from without, and spoiled the plan, so that the salvation » So Gunkel. 152 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES of a few (Israel, or the righteous in Israel) was all that God could do. Yet it is man and not matter or evil spirit to whom the disturbance is traced. So also in 8 : 59-60. In Fourth Ezra, then, we have a certain dualistic element, Greek, or perhaps rather Oriental in origin, but in spite of what must have seemed to the writer the great temptation to find escape from his unsolved problems in the acceptance of an evil principle inherent in the corruptible substance of this world, his view of evil remains substantially Jewish, i. e., monotheistic, and ethical in the legalistic sense of that word. The question whether the word yeger occurred elsewhere in the book upon the assumption of a Hebrew original (e. g., in 14 : 34, sensus) can hardly be answered. Nor does any very simple reason suggest itself why the word " heart " was preferred by this writer, unless it is because, like Jeremiah, feeling the sinfulness of man to be deep-seated, he preferred to ascribe it directly to the inner self, the rational and moral na ture itself, and not to one of the propensities of that nature. 3. The Apocalypse of Baruch In the Apocalypse of Baruch,1 which stands in some as yet undetermined literary relation to Fourth Ezra, the effects of Adam's sin are often spoken of,2 but the "evil heart" is noticeably absent. Mr. Charles affirms that this book teaches the thoroughly Jewish doctrine of free will and individual re sponsibility in spite of Adam's sin ; while Fourth Ezra contains a partly Christianized doctrine of man's "practical incapacity for righteousness in consequence of his original defects or Adam's sin " (p. 92-93). It is doubtful, however, whether Baruch ascribes less serious results to Adam's sin than does Fourth Ezra (48: 42; 54: 14-15, 19; 56: 6); and on the other hand Fourth Ezra does not deny man's freedom and responsi bility, even though it does not explicitly affirm that " each one 1 Charles, Apocalypse of Baruch, 1896. Ryssel in Kautzsch's Pseudepi- graphen, 1900. 2 4: 3; 17 : 2-3 ; 18: 2 ; 19 : 8; 23 : 4; 48 : 42, 43, 46; 54: 15, 19; 56: 5, 6, 10. THE YECER HARA 153 of us has been the Adam of his own soul " (Ap. Bar. 54: 19). The principal difference between the two writers at this point is that while Ezra, with a deep sense of sin, feels impelled to go back of the sinful deed to the grain of evil seed planted in Adam from the beginning, which explains though it does not really excuse sin, Baruch is satisfied to deal with sin as a fact and with its consequences in a more purely legal spirit. Since men possess the Law, they sin knowingly, and are there fore justly punished (15 : 5-6; 19 : 1-4; 55 : 2). As in Fourth Ezra, the ruling dualism of the book is the contrast between the present and the future world-age. The contrast centers in the thought that death, sorrow, and cor ruption mark this world, and in increasing measure as it grows old (83 : 9-23; 85 : 10; cf. 4 Ezra 5 : 50-56; 14 : 10), while the coming world is undying and incorruptible. In it the present bodily life will be not simply restored (ch. 50), but transformed into an angelic nature (ch. 51). Yet it does not appear that the writer ascribed sin to the body, to which corruption and death belong. Even in 49 : 3 it is evil, not sin, that pertains to the " members of bonds " with which men are now clothed.1 The body must, indeed, be trans formed, in order to have part in the coming incorruptible world. But it would be an entirely different thing to say that the soul must be delivered from the bondage of the body in order to escape sin ; and this our writer, with his strict legal ism, could never say. Nor even in his definition of the two worlds does he carry his dualism to a point that seems to him inconsistent with the creation of all things by God. The soul does not pre-exist, but souls are predetermined as to number and place ; and no chaotic matter precedes and limits creation (23: 4, 5; 48: 6; 21: 4; 48: 2-8). The most surprising thing about these two related books is not that Jewish conceptions are displaced in them by foreign, but that the foreign elements are so largely adjusted or subordinated to the old Jewish view of the world ; that men could be so influenced by dualistic conceptions and yet escape 1 The word is KW3. and the meaning is clear from 51:16; cf. 15 : 8. 154 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES a real dualism. The two worlds appear to be distinguished from each other by physical properties, one being corruptible, the other incorruptible, one human and the other angelic and unearthly; yet it is never said that one is physical, material, and the other spiritual, immaterial. Indeed Baruch's doc trine of resurrection, like Paul's, denies pure immateriality (ch. 50-51). The contrast of the worlds remains at the end essentially the Jewish contrast of ages, the present and the coming, interpreted by the contrast between the earthly and the heavenly realms. In a dualism like this it is not possible to connect sin essentially with the material body and holiness with the soul. The author of Fourth Ezra would ha ve had more reason for tracing sin to the body as its seat and source, be cause the legalistic doctrine of freedom troubled him more, and sin seemed to him more inevitable. The writer of Baruch, on the other hand, more often contrasts the two worlds in physical terms, and more definitely connects the evils of this present age with the corruptible body. But neither writer adopts this solution of the problem, although it has been too readily attributed to them. The two books are therefore especially instructive illustrations of the deep-seated aversion of the Hebrew mind to any theory of sin which ascribes it to the physical organism, an aversion due partly, perhaps, to a non-speculative cast of mind, but probably more to the power of the Old Testament over their religious thinking, and the virtual denial of Old Testament monotheism and ethics involved in such a theory. 4. The Secrets of Enoch According to its editor, Mr. Charles, the Slavonic " Secrets of Enoch " l contains a Platonic rather than a Jewish account of sin ; but this will, I think, prove to be another illustration of a too ready ascription of Greek conceptions to Jewish 1 Translation by Morfill and notes by Charles, 1896; also Das slavische He- nochbuch, by Bonwetsch, 1896. THE YECER HARA 155 writers. Here we read of Adam : " I [God] knew his nature. He did not know his nature. Therefore his ignorance is a woe to him that he should sin, and I appointed death on account of his sin " (30 : 16). Mr. Charles understands this to mean man's ignorance of his nature with its good and evil impulses; and these he defines in a dualistic sense, after Plato and Philo, as follows: (1) The soul was created orig inally good. (2) It was not predetermined either to good or ill by God, but left to mould its own destiny (see 30 : 15). (3) Its incorporation in a body, however, with its necessary limitations, served to bias its preferences in the direction of evil.1 (4) Faithful souls will hereafter live as blessed, in corporeal spirits, or, at all events, clothed only in God's glory (22 : 7); for there is no resurrection of the body (p. 43). According to Charles, further, the writer, like Philo gener ally, teaches not an absolute creation of the world by God, but its formation out of pre-existing elements.2 But it is difficult to justify this Hellenizing version of the teachings of the book. The original goodness of the soul, in distinction from the body, is nowhere taught, but only the original authority and prerogatives of Adam (ch. 30-31). The pre- existence of the soul is affirmed in Morfill's rendering of 23 : 5, " Every soul was created eternally before the founda tion of the world." But Bonwetsch renders "prepared " (alle Seelen sind bereitet vor der Welt).3 In other places the author says only that the number and final places of souls are predetermined.4 The idea of a pre-existent material out of which God formed the world is not a necessary inference from chs. 25, 26; and on the other hand creation is everywhere affirmed to be absolute; the monotheism of the book is emphatic.6 God, belonging to the invisible realm (24 : 4; 1 See also Charles's Apoc. of Baruch, p. 92. 2 See notes on 24 : 2 ; 25 : 1-2 ; 26 : 1 ; 48 : 5 ; 65 : 1. 8 See Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, p. 104 ff., 245 ff., on the relation of the word " prepared " to the idea of pre-existence. * 49:2; 53:2 (?); 58: 5; 61: 2; just as in Ap. Bar. 23 : 4, 5 ; 48:6; 4 Ezra 4 : 36, 37. 6 2:2; 32: 1"; 33:3-4,7-8; 34: 1; 36: 1; 47: 3ff.; 58: 1; 66:4-5; 65. 156 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES 48 : 5), created the visible out of the invisible (24 : 2; 25; 26 ; 48 : 5) ; but both visible and invisible were made by him (47 : 4; 64 : 5; 65 : 1, 6; 51 : 5). "I have blessed all my creation, visible and invisible" (32 : 1, cf. 52 : 4-5). The peculiarity of man's nature is that it consists of both visible and invisible (30 : 10, 16); hence his place in the visible creation is supreme (65 : 2, 3; 30-31; 44 : 1). His moral duty is to choose the light, and because he chooses darkness he must die (30 : 15-16). This sin is traced to his free choice, but never to his dual nature. Neither is the body the cause of Adam's sin, nor is Adam's sin the cause of the sinful nature of men. The ignorance which causes man to sin may be ignorance of himself, but Bonwetsch conjectures that it was ignorance of God. "I saw his nature, but he did not see my nature" (30 : 16). The only theory of sin that is clearly taught is that man alone is responsible for it. It does not belong to either part of his nature as God made him, the visible or the invisible, but to the vain thoughts of his heart (ch. 53). All the works of God are good, but the works of man are some good, but others evil (42 : 14). This understanding of the writer's view of sin according to which it is far more Jewish than Greek, is confirmed by a study of his ethical teachings. The ideal is not the subjection of the bodily passions to the rule of reason, as thoroughgoing Hellenists teach (Philo, 4 Maccabees). Asceticism does not appear. Virtue consists in justice and a charity that is disinterested and prompted by love; in patient forbearance and endurance ; and in sincerity before God, who knows the heart.1 1 Ch. 9 ; 42 : 6-13 ; 44 : 4 ; 50-52 ; 60 ; 63. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TRANSFIGUEATION WARREN JOSEPH MOULTON, B.D., PH.D. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TRANSFIGURATION1 NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES REFERRING TO THE TRANSFIGURATION The account of the transfiguration is given in all the Syn- optists and in substantially the same chronological setting. Within the narratives themselves, however, there are differ ences of detail so marked as to demand a preliminary consid eration, even if it be but the brief recapitulation of familiar observations. In each instance we meet words and phrases characteristic of the writer's diction, and there are, further more, differences of conception so marked as to influence our whole understanding of the event, according as we regard one or the other gospel as being on the whole the best guide for our interpretation. 1. The Account in Mark The second evangelist records (9 : 2-13) that after six days (i. e., on the sixth day [cf. 8 : 31] after the incident of Peter's confession) Jesus takes Peter and the brothers (a single toj/), James and John, and conducts them (and them only, /jlovovs) up (ava? %^v, cf. Dan. 7:9; Matt. 28 : 3; Rev. 1 : 14) that the work of no fuller on earth can be compared with them. To describe this change Mark employs the un usual verb fieTafiopcpovv. Thus far we know of its use by 1 Cat. XII. 16. 2 Cf. Lightfoot, Hot. Heb. et Tai, ad loc. " For who ever doubted of this thing." 8 Joann., torn. II. 6, cf. Eesch, Agrapha, S. 383 ; and Ropes, Die Spriiche Jesu, u. s. w., S. 99. * Zahn, Gesch. d. N. T. Kan., II. 690 ff . : Ropes, he. cit. e Josephus, B. J., IV. 1, 8. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TRANSFIGURATION 161 the Old Testament translators only once.1 In the New Tes tament, outside of the parallel in Matthew, it occurs only in Second Corinthians 3 : 18 and Romans 12 : 2, where it has a moral or ethical significance. As in all these instances, so in the infrequent usage of Greek writers, mostly late, it is found in the passive. It seems to be a near synonym with p.£TaoBoi), although the words seem to be expressive of excessive joy. (c) The answer to this proposal was precluded by the sudden appearance of a cloud which overshadowed Jesus and his associates (avTois), and from out the cloud came forth (iyivero) a voice (om. \eyov Xoyov i/cpdrno-av to state that the disciples were obedient to Jesus' command (cf. Luke 9 : 36). But it better suits the usual meaning of the verb to translate, " And they laid fast hold of the saying, among themselves (irpcx; eavrovi), questioning what the rising from the dead is," i. e., of course, in this context, the rising from the dead just referred to. In any case, the verse represents a comment of the writer who again emphasizes the lack of comprehension on the part of the disciples. It interrupts the course of the narrative. This goes on in the next verse to tell not of discussions among themselves, but how they continued questioning (eTrvpcoTeov) Jesus as to the lessons of the recent experience. Something in it seemed to contradict the current rabbinical teaching as to Elijah, and so they remind him that (oti) the scribes (om. ol <&apicraioi icai) say Elijah must first come (cf. Mai. 3 : 23 [4 : 4]). How this topic is connected with the preceding narrative, and just what the difficulty in question was, we shall have occasion to consider at length later on. Whatever it was, Jesus did not share it, but said (6 Se k'bv avrov), as elsewhere in Matthew and usually in Mark (note p,6vov<; is not used). v. 2. Beside the fieTefiopdv appearing in Mark, we have 1 Eor this phrase as descriptive of deeds of violence, cf. Dan. 8:4; 11 : 16, 36 ; 2 Mac. 7 : 16. 2 Dalman objects to such an assumption. He points to the use of the phrase "and he shall do according to his will," Dan . 11 : 1 6 and 36 (Mark 9 : 1 3, «al eirol-qaav airif '6o-a ijBeKoy), and thinks it probable Jesus includes Elijah among those alluded to in Dan. 11 : 33. Der leidende u. der sterbende Messias, S. 29 f. 8 Attention has been recently called anew to a Jewish writing of unknown authorship, which belongs possibly to the first century A. D. It was wrongly as cribed to Philo. It gives a peculiar version of biblical history from Adam to the death of Saul. In speakiDg of Phineas, the son of Eleazar, it says that when he passed 120 years of age he was commanded by God to withdraw into a certain place where he should be fed by an eagle. Later he was to come down among men and then be taken up to be with those like him. At the end he was to come to earth again and then should taste death. Tradition identified Phineas with Elijah and so we have here really a description of the lot of Elijah. Accordingly we see this writer knows of the death of Elijah at the time of his final mission, v. Inde pendent, 1898, p. 1218 : Jewish Q. Review, vol. x., 1898, p. 277 ff. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TRANSFIGURATION 165 the added description ical e\afiy]rev to irpoacoirov avrov a>? d »puoc (cf. Matt. 13 : 43; Rev. 10 : 1; Enoch 14 : 20). The change in Jesus' raiment is described more simply, as becoming Xevica a>? to $v) and the command given in the direct form. (Note evereikaro [Mark, Biea-relXaro]; eiTrvre [Mark, Sirjytfo-covrai]). Especially noteworthy is the to opafia (Mark, a elSov), a word used to describe the visions of the prophets in the Old Testament and in the New Testament used otherwise only of the visions in the book of Acts (but cf. Acts 7 : 31). (Note ea>? o5 [Mark, el firj orav]; iyepBfi [Mark, dvacrrff]). v. 10. Here we have the Aor. eirnptorwo-av (Mark, Imp.) and the expressed subject ol fiaOnrai, although only the Three can be intended. The question takes the direct form (tL oiv). v. 11. The same is true of Jesus' rejoinder (airoicpidek). (Note elirev again [Mark, e(prj]). In his answer Jesus says that Elijah comes (epxerat, [Mark, e\8eov]), and will restore (drroKaTacs-rrja-et, [Mark, drroicariardveiY) all things. This was interpreted by many of the Church Fathers and later writers to teach the real coming of Elijah before the second advent.1 v. 12. Over against (he) this affirmation is put the state ment, Elijah has come already (77897 rjkOev [Mark, eKri\v8ev\), and Matthew adds, they did not recognize him (ical ovk ervkyvcuaav avrov). (Note the ev avrS, "O [Mark om. ev\ and Aor. rjOekncrav [Mark, fi6e\ov\). Matthew further adds to Jesus' answer, "And thus the Son of Man is about to suffer at their hands " (inr' avrwv). v. 13. The incident ends with the comment, found only in Matthew, that then the disciples (again ol nadrjral) under stood that he spoke to them of John the Baptist. 3. The Account in Luke Turning now to the third gospel (9 : 28-36), we find varia tions in detail which are even more significant than those just considered. 1 Cf. Chrys., ad loc. ; Aug., Tract, in Jno., 4 : 5 and 6 ; Justin M., Dial. w. Trypho,i9; Olshausen, Com., ad loc. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TRANSFIGURATION 167 v. 28. The account is here prefaced by the introductory formula eyevero Be fierd rbv<; XoyovoBrj9no-av; so Matt. v. 6; Mark eictfroBot, yap eyevovro.) Its motive, apparently the same as in Matthew, is explained by the added phrase iv ra> elo-eXdelv avrov*; eU rr)v vefyeXnv. The preceding avrom is ambiguous, as in the parallels, but probably here and in the following instance designates Jesus and his companions in distinction from the disciples. v. 35. The description of the voice and its message is THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TRANSFIGURATION 169 given exactly as in Mark, except that tpcov^ here precedes the predicate, Xeyovcra is used, avrov precedes dtcovere, and iicXeXeyfiivo'; (cf. 23 : 35 e/f\e«To?) stands where Mark and Matthew have dyairnro';. v. 36. In place of the more descriptive passages with which the experience closes in Mark and Matthew, Luke merely says, " And after the voice had come (yeveadai, cf . 2 : 27 ; 3 : 21, etc.) Jesus was found alone " (evpeOrj [cf . Acts 8 : 40] Ir)crov<} /aovos [Mark, Matthew, ovBeva elBov el p,rj rbv 'Iwcrovv ftovov]). He makes no mention of the descent of the mountain, nor does he record any subsequent conversation or prohibition, but says that they were silent of their own accord and did not tell (dirrfyyeiXav, cf. 8 : 20, 34, 36, 47, etc.) any one in those days (cf. 2:1; 4:2; 5 : 35, etc.) anything of what they had seen. 4. Mark's Account the most Primitive Such a review of our narratives makes it evident that no two of the writers entertained exactly the same conception as to the order and significance of the events occurring dur ing this retirement of Jesus with the three disciples. No one of them is without able defenders who are prepared to champion his relative originality. In many instances the choice of the writer to be thus defended is determined by the theory held regarding the origin and interdependence of the gospels. Otherwise it may depend on the line of inter pretation which is adopted. If we look first at the experi ence on the mount which all three relate, it is certainly true that the narrative in the second gospel is the briefest. It evidently has the least amount of what may be termed edi torial comment and amplification, and in so far is the most original. Whether it has taken up and preserved most faithfully the content of some hypothetical, primitive source, is an entirely different question and one that cannot be satis factorily settled until we are in possession of such a source. In each instance it is probable, and to such a degree probable 170 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES as to amount almost to a certainty, that later experiences and developments in the Christian community have in some measure influenced the choice of expressions and the form of the narrative. It is not, primarily, as biographers seek ing to impart information that the evangelists write, but as those who are striving to influence the conceptions of their readers. This holds true of Mark, as well as of the others, but in the case of the narrative of the transfiguration the balance of evidence from a comparative study supports those who claim that the influence of such a purpose is least dis cernible in the second gospel. Without entering upon a detailed discussion at the expense of great repetition we may assume that it has been adequately shown that its brevity and obscurity are not of a character to make necessary the supposition of dependence on a fuller account, such as may be thought to be implied in either of the other gospels. That such an account ever existed has yet to be shown. Mark's conciseness does indicate that he is not now for the first time telling of something before entirely unknown, but rather of something which he had often heard recounted. The obscurity grows out of this familiarity. In the case of Matthew the added details and clearness are not to be attributed so much to more accurate information as to the introduction of conceptions germane to his theme which ap pear elsewhere in his own writing, or in writings current in his time. This cannot be asserted in exactly the same way in the case of the third gospel, but it is true of some of its most characteristic variations. In others the tendency which is discernible in the author to literalize and interpret and translate into the terms of his vocabulary is a more plausible explanation than the claim of relative originality. The prominence of John (v. 28) and of Peter (v. 32 ff.), the statement that Jesus withdraws for prayer (v. 28), the giving of the theme of conversation as his exodus (v. 31), the put ting of the scene in the night and the allusion to the sleep of the disciples, the assertion that Moses and Elijah also appeared in glory (v. 31), the prosaic close of the account THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TRANSFIGURATION 171 with the statement that the disciples kept silent of their own accord, do not commend themselves as original features. As for the conversation which took place as they came down from the mountain, which is recorded only in Mark and Matthew,1 the text of Mark is generally conceded to be more original than that of Matthew or any other text which an eclectic process has thus far constructed from the material present in both. The difficulties and obscurities of Mark (9 : 9, 11, 12) are absent in Matthew, and we find again natural comment and explanation added (Matt. 17 : 12, 13) for the improvement of the narrative. 5. The Account in the Fourth Gospel The fourth gospel has no record of this northern sojourn and withdrawal to the Mount of Transfiguration, but the section 12 : 20-36 bears in several particulars 2 such striking resemblance to the synoptic narratives which we have been considering that it is by some regarded as a parallel. It is possible, indeed, that this experience constitutes a much closer parallel than is generally supposed, and that investigation may show it does not necessarily include beside all the com monly assumed reminiscences of the night in Gethsemane. But such a study may more properly follow our present undertaking than be included in it, and we will accordingly not venture here upon any further discussion of the witness of the fourth gospel. 6. The Account in Second Peter There remains one other New Testament passage which must be considered together with the preceding sources, namely, Second Peter 1 : 12 ff. Apart from all questions of authorship, its early date gives it great importance. The writer is setting forth the assured certainty of the parousia i Cf. Luke 7 : 18 ff. especially v. 27 ; 1 : 17. 2 Cf. especially John 12 : 25, 26 with Mark 8 : 35 ff. and parallels ; also John 12 : 28 with Mark 9 : 7 and parallels, not only in form, but also in content. 172 BIBLICAL AND SEMITIC STUDIES and says (v. 16 ff.), " For not in pursuance of cunningly devised fables did we make known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but as eye-witnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father as a voice like the following came to him from the Excellent Glory, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased ; and this voice we heard come out of heaven, being with him in the holy mount." The traditional interpretation finds here a reference to the transfiguration, v. Hofmann1 disputed this, maintaining that XaBoov yap irapd ffeov irarpbt np,rjv ical Boljav must be understood rather of the glorification of Jesus through the resurrection and ascension. The whole context, however, opposes this explanation, and it is not strange that it has met with slight favor. It is also opposed by the fact that we have no record of a glorification of Jesus after the resur rection, but are told that he was seen in a body like in appear ance to his earthly form. The objections of v. Hofmann to the current exegesis are of greater importance than his constructive contribution, and are sanctioned, among others, by Spitta.2 The real center of difficulty is the unfinished sentence in v. 17b- The generally accepted rendering makes the time expressed by the Gen. absolute cpcovrj? eVe^0eio-?7? synchronous with that of XaBa>v k.t.X., and affirms that, in part at least, the honor and glory mentioned are to be found in this declaration of the heavenly voice (Bath-Qol). Against such a view it is urged that, were it true, we should have rather a Part, with imperfect signification ($>epop,evw