' .'.." . JOSEPH JACOBS Studies in Biblical Archaeology D.NUTT •YAIUE-WSIIVIERMTY- DIVINITY SCHOOL TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY STUDIES IN BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY. STUDIES IN BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY BY JOSEPH JACOBS Corresponding Member of the Royal Academy of History, Madrid. Total 79 (4«) TOTEM-CLANS IN THE BIBLE? 71 the descendants of Seir (the he-goat), bear animal names ; and we also find that those clans of the Edomites who were connected with the Horites had also animal names, as a glance at the genealogies on the next page will show. Nay more, wherever we trace a connection with these Horites and Edomites we may expect with confidence to find animal or plant names. It is a disputed question what was the real name of Moses's father-in-law, whether Jethro, Reuel (Raguel), or Hobab, but from Judges iv. 11, we conclude that he had some connection with the Kenites, and the name of his daughter Zipporah (Little Bird), occurs in our list.1 So, too, when the tribe of Judah received the powerful accession of the Dog tribe (Calebites),2 in its career of conquest, it is from the country of Kenaz (the Hunter), the son of Edom, that Caleb comes.3 The importance of the Calebites in the making of Palestine is shown by the great attention paid to their genealogy by the chronicler, who gives no less than five different accounts of the tribal and local relations of the Dog tribe (1 Chron. ii. 18-20, 42-49, 50-55; iv. 1 Cf. on the relations of the Midianites, Moabites, and Edomites, Baker- Greene, The Hebrew Migration from Egypt, p. 162. Job was a son of Uz, one of the Horite tribes, and his daughter Kezia bears the name of the cassia tree. 2 The following is a rough classification of the distribution of the personal names in our list : — Horites, etc. ... 11 Israelite clans ... 16 Early miscell. ... 6 Kenites... ... 11 Hittite and Hivite 2 Late ... ... 9 Midian, and Moab 6 Women... ... 7 Sporadic ... ... 10 3 Cf. Mr. Fenton's reconciliation of the accounts in Josh. i. and ix., in his excellent Early Hebrew Life ; also Wellhausen, De Familiis Judaicis, 1870. I.- GENEALOGY OF THE HORITES. Seir (He-Goat). Eliphaz=Timna. Lotan. v. infra. i Shobal. Zibeon. Anah. Dishon. {Young Lion.) (Hytena.) ( Wild Ass.) (Gazelle.) Ezer. Amalek. Ho Homam. Aiah. Anah. (Kite.) (Wild Ass.) Alvan. Manahath. Ebal. Shepho. Onam, Dishan. (Gazelle.) 1 I I Bilhan. Zaavan. Akan. (Roe.) Uz. Aran. (As,.) Homdan. I Eshban. Ithran, Cheran. (Lamb.) =(\) Adah. Timna=Eliphaz. I '- Amalek.v, su/ra. DishQIl. Aholibama. (Gazelle.) = Esau. v. infra. II.— GENEALOGY OF THE EDOMITES. Esau (Edom). =?=(2) Bashemath. bath Elon (Oak). Reuel =(3) Aholibamah. I I I I I Teman. Omar. Zepho. Gatam. Kenaz. (Hunter. ) Jeush. (Lion.) Jaalam. (Goat.) Korah. Nahath. Zerah. Shammah. Mizzah. Jael=Heber. Othniel. Caleb. (Chamois.) (Lion God.) (Dog.) fcd >— 1 to 1—1 O> > o X o tr"O O TOTEM-CLANS IN THE BIBLE? 73 11-12, 15). Though occurring in so late a book as Chronicles, these genealogies are clearly old, as the writer goes out of his way to say " these are ancient things'' (iv. 22). Now, in these various accounts of the Calebites, many names occur from our list, viz. : Ardon (great ass), Elah (oak), Shobal (lion), Shuma- thites (garlic), Zorites (hornet), Tappuah (citron). And, in fact, when we review the names and persons given in our list, it will be found that over a third of all the names belong to the tribes which wandered about the Land of Seir, from the Arnon to the eastern head of the Red Sea. Here, then, if anywhere, we may expect to find our totem-clans in the Old Testament, and it is hence that Prof. Smith has drawn his chief examples. Undoubtedly the aggregation of such a number of animal names cannot be accidental. Prof. Dillmann, a very great authority, but one rather biased against the school of Wellhausen, remarks that it is only natural that nomad tribes should elect names from the objects with which they are most immediately concerned. To the nomad, animals are friends, foes, servants, and pets to a greater degree than with other men. It might therefore be a natural result of this familiarity, that one-third of the Horite clans should have animal names. And, indeed, if Prof. Smith trusted entirely to the evidence of names, we might point out to him that it is the main boast of the anthropological school of prehistoric inquirers, that they have opposed the unfounded conclusions based by philologists on the mere etymologies of names. Un fortunately, the Bible gives scarcely any information 74 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. about the habits of these tribes which would enable us to ascertain whether the Horites presented the other properties of totem-clans — exogamy, female descent, the totem worshipped as ancestor, and regarded as tabu, etc. The learned professor has, however, ingeniously extracted some evidence on the first point merely from the arrange ment of the clan-names in Gen. xxxvi. Before we turn to examine this, there is a remark worth making which bears on the whole method of his examination. Suppos ing him to have succeeded in proving the existence of totem-clans among the Horites, his success would carry with it certain conclusions which bear with negative force against their existence among the Israelites, in whom he and we are more deeply interested. The Horites were nomads, and totemism in its full force has only been found among tribes of hunters. With agricultural nations, the importance of wild beasts largely disappears, and the very fact that the Professor seems to have shown the existence of full totemism among the nomad Horites, tells strongly against its being found as anything more than a survival among the agricultural Hebrews. With this remark we turn to his and our evidence for the existence in the Old Testament of the remarkable social arrangements known as II. — Exogamy and Descent through Females. The term " exogamy " was given by the late Mr. J. F. McLennan to the curious but widely spread custom by which men were prevented by a law of quasi- TOTEM-CLANS IN THE BIBLE? 75 incest from marrying within their own clan, i.e., to women of the same surname as themselves. The custom is still extant in China and India, and forms a characteristic part of the customs of the North American Indians and Australians.1 It is mostly found combined with the equally curious custom of tracing descent only through females. This latter practice is traced by anthropologists to a state of society where what is euphemistically called " promiscuity," or " communal marriage," is prevalent, and where the cynical epigram, " Maternity is a matter of fact, paternity a matter of opinion," exactly represents the state of kinship. Prof. R. Smith attempts to find these customs indicated by the names of the Horite tribes. Anah (wild ass) is said to be (1) "the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite" (Gen. xxxvi. 2), (2) a child (son) of Zibeon (ibid., 24), (3) a son of Seir (ibid.). In the first passage he emends with all scholars "Hivite" into " Horite," but does not take into account that most authorities read with Samuel LXX. and Peshito, "son" for " daughter." From the latter word he deduces kinship through females among the Horites on extremely slender grounds. And from the existence of a sub-clan, Anah, among the Zibeonites as well as among the Seirites, he concludes that there was exogamy, so that no members of the Anah clan could intermarry. This seems at first sight a somewhat wild conclusion from very slight data, but it is really a fair working hypothesis to account for sub-clans of the same name among different Horite 1 J. F. McLennan, Studies in Ancient Society, pp. 74-82 ; Sir J. Lub bock, Origin of Civilisation, p. 122. 76 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. tribes, of which we find another instance in the Dishon sub-clan. If kinship were traced through the father, all members of a clan would have the same clan-name. But if kinship were traced through mothers only, and exogamy prevailed, the same clan-name could easily be spread through the tribe. There still remain two difficulties : ( I ) some members of the Anah clan would also be members of the Dishon sub-clan, and it is difficult to see how they could have two clan-names ; (2) the system of sub-division and of animal nomen clature is not systematically carried through all the tribes. These difficulties are not perhaps insurmount able, as only implying the decadence of the totem system in Edom ; and we may allow that Prof. Smith has shown the existence of animal names among the Horite tribes, has rendered it probable that exogamy and descent through females existed among them, and has thereby raised a presumption that, if we had further evidence, we should find the other marks of totem-clans among the Edomites. Can he prove the same for Israel ? It cannot be said that the arguments he himself gives are very conclusive. He explains the remarkable disappearance of the tribe of Simeon from history as being due to its keeping up the system of exogamy, while the other tribes settled down into a local habitation and a name. He bases this, in the first place, on Hitzig's rather forced connection of the name Simeon with the Arabic Simc, a cross between a hyaena and a wolf. He then contends that Shimei and Simeon are identical, and points out that there were Shimeis among the Levites (Ex. vi. 17), the Reubenites TOTEM-CLANS IN THE BIBLE? 77 (1 Chr. v. 4), and Benjamites (the well-known curser of David). Besides the uncertainty of the various identifi cations, we shall see that other tribes had clans of the same name among them without disappearing, and he overlooks the continued existence of the tribe of Simeon to the time of Hezekiah ( 1 Chr. iv. 41 ). Their nomad habits, and liability to attack from other nomads, are a sufficient explanation of their disappearance, without any resort to far-fetched etymologies and hypotheses. And, indeed, he could have found other evidence of exogamy among the Israelites without resorting to the tribe of Simeon. The remarkable twenty-sixth chapter of Numbers1 does for the Israelites what Genesis xxxvi. does for the Horites and Edomites, gives the clans of the Tribes. Of this there can be no doubt, as the names of the clans are in almost every case adjoined to their epony mous ancestor. It is formed on the plan laid down in the opening words : " The children of Reuben, Hanoch, of whom came the family of the Hanochites, of Pallu, the family of the Palluites," and so on (Num. xxvi. 5). Altogether seventy-two clans are mentioned, and of these at least ten occur in two tribes — the Nemuelites, a sub- clan of the Palluites, in Reuben and in Simeon ; the Zarhites, in Simeon and in Judah ; the Hezronites, among whom the Calebites were adopted, in Reuben and in Judah ; and, most striking of all, the Arodites, or wild-ass clan, both in Gad and in Benjamin, where they 1 It may be observed that the early date of this chapter would not be necessarily established by the marks of ancient organisation, which I at tempt to show in it. Such lists are frequently handed down from time immemorial. 78 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. appear under the dialectic form of Ardites. It is also possible that the Jeezerites of Gilead, of Manasseh, were connected with the Jeezerites of Naphtali. And besides this, other clans have animal names, as the Shallimites, or Fox clan, of Naphtali ; the Shaphamites, or Serpent clan, of Benjamin ; the Bochrites, or Camel clan, of Ephraim (and, according to I Chron., also of Benjamin); the Elonites, or Oak clan, of Zebulon ; the Tolahites, or Worm clan, of Issachar ; and the Arelites, or Lion clan, of Gad. Nor is this all. In the enumeration of the Spies (Numb, xiii.) the names of their fathers are clearly patronymics of clans or families (e.g., Shaphat b. Hori, Nahbi b. Vophsi, Geuel b. Machi, Gabriel b. Sodi), and among them are the families of the Gemal- lites, or Camel clan, of Dan, and the Susites, or Horse clan, of Manasseh. So, too, in the two lists of the princes of Israel (Numb. i. and xxxiv.), there are mem bers of the clan Ammihud in Simeon, Ephraim, and Naphtali. And, if we might assume that the Israelites called the towns they founded after their own names, we might observe that there were Ajalons, Stag towns, in Dan, Ephraim, Zebulon, and Benjamin. Of direct evidence of the existence of exogamy I can only adduce one striking passage, the tradition about Ibzan the judge, of whom the only thing recorded is that he " had thirty sons and thirty daughters, whom he sent abroad, and took in thirty daughters from abroad for his sons " (Ju. xii. 9).1 A better description of exogamy could 1 It is, perhaps, worth while remarking that of the twelve judges (Sham gar being a doublet of Samson), Tola, Deborah, Elon, and Samson have totemistical names, and the former is clearly identified with the eponym of TOTEM-CLANS IN THE BIBLE? 79 not well be given. But, as it is impossible to consider this practice as being introduced so late, this tradition possibly records the popular memory of the last clan that kept up the practice. Exogamy is regarded by McLennan as a further stage from totemism, though co-existing with it, and we may therefore conclude that totemism, as a bond of connection of the Israelites, had lost its vitality, and we should only expect to find " survivals " of it in the later history.1 Exogamy and totemism are mostly found connected with the custom of tracing descent through females, to which we now turn. This, as we have said before, is a relic of the time when marriage of the modern type hardly existed, and the research of paternity was forbidden or impossible. Prof. Smith, and before him Mr. Fenton (Early Hebrew Life, 1881), notices several survivals of this stage of society. When descent is only reckoned through the mother, half-brothers and sisters may be regarded as having no relationship to one another, and may marry, as we know they did in the case of Abraham and Sarah, and could have done in the case of Tamar and Amnon (2 Sam. xiii.). Presents were given to Rebecca's mother and brother (Gen. xxiv. 53). Abimelech appeals to his mother's kin as being of his flesh (Ju. viii. 19). Mr. Fenton even explains the relations of Lot and his daughters as innocent, since on the earlier system of the Tolaites. Notice, too, the " nunation " of the names Gideon, Elon Ibzan, and Samson. 1 Marriage by capture is legislated for Deut. xxi. 10, seq., and a celebrated case of the whole tribe of Benjamin gaining their brides in this way occurs, Ju. xxi. 80 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. kinship fathers were no relations to their daughters. It might be added that Naomi tells Ruth to return to her "mother's house " (Ruth i. 8), and the Shunamite speaks of her mother's children (Cant. i. 6). David's three heroes are called after their mother Zerujah (2 Sam. xvii. 25 ; 1 Chron. ii. 16).1 Much of this seems to me the natural result of polygamous conditions, and scarcely to prove a state of kinship only reckoned through females, though it certainly bears with great force against Sir H. S. Maine's patriarchal theory, according to which the wife is practically non-existent in reckoning kinship (agna tion). McLennan, however, gives strong reasons for believing the Levirate to be a survival of what he terms Tibetan polyandry (Patr. Theory, pp. 157-9). ^ne standing term for clan, " father's house," is against the assumption that kinship through females existed among the Israelites in historic times. To sum up this branch of our inquiry, we have found traces of exogamy dying out in Israel at the time of Judges, and also evidence that when they settled in Canaan, the Israelite tribes had something answering to the totem arrangement among their clans. But it is highly improbable that this arrangement could be kept up when the Israelites became mainly an agricultural people, and we can only expect to find " survivals " of it in the times of the Kings. 1 The case of the Nethinim and Solomon's servants (Ez. ii. 43-60 ; cf. Neh. vii.) is somewhat different. No less than three-quarters of the names of parents seem to be those of women, but this is probably because they were the children of the Kedishoth, or hiero-dulce, who were only removed in Josiah's time. (See Babyl. and Orient. Record, Feb.-March, 1888.) TOTEM-CLANS IN THE BIBLE? 81 III. — Ancestor Worship and Animal Worship.1 There can be little doubt that the Teraphim were of the nature of ancestral gods ; they were clearly gods of the household, as distinguished from the deities of public worship, and we find in Rome and Greece the cult of the Lares and Penates having a distinctively ancestral cast. Distinct reference to worship of the dead is made in Isaiah viii. 19 : " Are not the people wont to speak unto their gods (Elohim), unto the dead instead of to the living?" (Cheyne); in Psalms evi. 28: "They joined themselves unto Baal Peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead " ; and the practice is referred to even at so late a date as in the Mishna, in a saying attributed to R. Simon b. Jochai (Pirq. Aboth, edit. Taylor, III., 15). When Jonathan seeks to explain David's absence to his father, his words seem to bear a reference to some kind of sacrifice to family gods. David is made to say, " Let me go, I pray thee. Our family hath a sacrifice in the city (Bethlehem), and my brother he hath commanded me to be there" (1 Sam. xx. 29). Prof. R. Smith has proposed an ingenious explanation ofthe family worship of David, though, strangely enough, he does not bring it in connection with the passage I have just quoted. Among the ancestors of David is Nahshon, or the Great Serpent. Abigail, his sister, is said to be the daughter of Nahash, the Serpent, which must therefore, according to the Professor, be a name of 1 On ancestor worship among the Arabs, cf. Goldziher, La Culte des Ancttres chez les Arabes, Paris; 1885, from the Revue de VHistoiredes Religions. G 32 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. Jesse or of the family.1 In the royal courtyard after wards stood the great Brazen Serpent, which received divine honours, and Adonijah was crowned at the Serpent stone. Putting all these facts together, Prof. Smith suggests that David was a member of a Serpent totem- clan. He connects with this the fact that the shepherd- king was on good terms with Nahash, king of the Ammonites, although the Israelites in general were at war with him, the tie of clanship overruling national antipathies. All this seems to me far-fetched, and based in large measure on incomplete grasp of the totem arrangement. For, first, the names Nahshon and Nahash are personal, not clan-names. Then there is no sign that the Brazen Serpent was intimately connected with the Davidic dynasty : tradition terms it the " serpent of Moses." Again, there is no trace in the genealogy of David's descent being traced through females, as would be required if it was desired to connect him with the Ammonites — though, on the other hand, Ruth was a Moabitess. And, finally, David's friendship with Nahash can be easily explained by the fact that they were common enemies of Saul, and is paralleled by David's connection with Achish. As soon as David becomes King of Israel, the Ammonites cease to be friendly towards him. We must therefore, I think, reject the instance of David which Prof. Smith regards as a proof of the existence of totem-clans among the Israelites in historic times, even though we may recognise traces of ancestor-worship in David's family. 1 Von Baudissin suggests that it might be the name of her mother. (Stud. z. Semit. Religionsgeschichte). TOTEM-CLANS IN THE BIBLE? 83 Animal Worship. — And similarly with regard to animal worship among the Hebrews. There can be no doubt that it existed. The legend of the Golden Calf and of the Brazen Serpent are among the most prominent of Biblical stories. Prof. Smith brings in the second com mandment as showing that animal worship was the great rival of the worship of the true God — " Thou shalt not make unto thyself any likeness of anything that is in the heavens above (birds), or that is in the earth beneath (animals), or that is in the waters under the earth (fishes)." This has been in a measure always recognised. But it has never been suggested before Prof. Smith that this worship was connected in any way with the tribal arrangements of the Canaanites or the Hebrews. What proof has he of the connection between this worship and the family organisation of the Hebrews ? He makes for this purpose an ingenious use of a passage of Ezekiel, which is indeed a most striking one, and has been, so far as I can observe, the cause of Prof. Smith's views being so widely accepted. It therefore deserves our closest attention. It runs as follows (Ez. viii. 7-11) : An angel carries Ezekiel from his place of exile to Jerusalem, and shows him the image of jealousy being worshipped in the north court of the Temple, and then promises to show him even greater abominations. " And he brought me to the door of the court, and when I looked, behold a hole in the wall. Then said he unto me, Son of Man, dig now in the wall : and when I had digged into the wall, behold a door. And he said unto me, Go in and behold the wicked abominations that they do here. So I went in and saw : and behold every form of creeping things, g 2 84 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. and abominable beasts, and all the idols of the house of Israel, portrayed upon the wall round about. And there stood before them seventy men of the ancients of the house of Israel, and in the midst of them stood Jaazaniah ben Shaphan (the Coney), with every man his censer in his hand, and a thick cloud of incense went up." Here we have clearly animal worship. But how can we conclude that these animals were regarded as ancestors or totems ? Prof. Smith points to the name of the officiating priest in these idolatrous rites, Jaazaniah ben Shaphan, "son of the Coney." Now, the Coney, or rather Rock badger, was an abominable beast of the Hebrews, one regarded with religious horror by true Israelites (Lev. xi.), and therefore might have been regarded by religious veneration by idolatrous Jews, and it seems to be implied in this passage of Ezekiel that all the elders of Israel, i.e., the chiefs of the clans, had similar totems. It seems possible to suppose that the troubles which had befallen the Israelites had sent them back to the superstitions of old, and caused a reversion to totem- worship. All turns upon the name " ben Shaphan." If this is a family name, we have here a connection, the one hitherto wanting, between animal worship and family organisation. We have worship of animals and families with animal names combined together. We must, how ever, remember that in the first place it is a vision. Then, as regards the name " ben Shaphan," it is either real or fictitious. If real, we can explain it with tolerable ease in accordance with the ordinary Hebrew usage, as referring to the name of Jaazaniah's father, and not his family. We know of at least one Shaphan of the pre- TOTEM-CLANS IN THE BIBLE? 85 ceding generation, the well-known scribe of Josiah (2 Kings xxii.), who was certainly no totem-worshipper, and who might naturally name his son Jaazaniah " (Jah will hear me). If the person mentioned by Ezekiel was a real person and a son of this Shaphan, we can easily understand why the prophet selected him as a typical figure. Here was the son of one of the principal figures in the Jahvistic reformation of Josiah's reign turning to idolatrous practices. If, again, the name was invented by the prophet — as is more likely, since real names of persons occur most rarely in the book — I think we can explain it better as a piece of irony than as a reference to any family connection with this worship of animals. The prophet calls the officiating figure Jaazaniah (Jah hears) ben Shaphat (son of the Coney), to emphasize the contrast between the true and the false worship. He is called "Jaazaniah," "God hears me," and yet he is a son ofthe Coney," or worships the Coney, for ben is used in a very wide sense in Hebrew for a member of a guild or a worshipper of a god, as the well-known " sons of Belial." It is something like an author of a political satire nowadays calling a Tory who had turned Radical "William Ewart Disraeli," or a writer inveighing against fox-hunting parsons naming a typical figure " Rev. Theophilus Reynard." And, again, as regards the source of the animal worship mentioned by Ezekiel, the other kinds of idolatry mentioned in the eighth chapter are in each case extraneous, the image of jealousy' 1 Dr. Neubauer has suggested that the 7DD mentioned here is a proper name, the prototype of the Greek Semele (Athen., Sept. 19th, 1885). He was anticipated by St. Jerome (Onom. Sacr., ed. Lagarde, p. 58) in taking the word as a proper name. 86 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. being probably Canaanitish, the worship of Tammuz certainly Phoenician, and that of the sun being possibly a Persian importation. It seems natural therefore to assume a foreign source for the remaining idolatry, animal worship. Now we know the wide extent of this kind of idolatry in Egypt, and exegetists have hitherto taken our passage to refer to this especially, as it is particularly mentioned in ch. xxiii. that Judah had gone back to the idolatry of her youth, " wherein she played the harlot in the land of Egypt " (Ez. xxiii. 19). I do not see sufficient reason, therefore, in the mere presence of the name ben Shaphan for departing from this usual and natural interpretation. It seems to me most unlikely that we should find the prophet referring to totem- worship in its strict sense unless we found other signs of the totem-organisation widely spread among the Israelites of Ezekiel's time. IV. — Forbidden Food. But Prof. Smith has not exhausted all his resources in laying such stress, and, as I think, unwarranted stress, on the name of the imaginary officiating priests at Ezekiel's imagined temple-rites. One of the charac teristics of the totem-organisation is the fact that the totem-animal is regarded as tabu ; it must not be eaten except in some instances eucharistically as a religious rite. Now we find distinct reference to the eucharistic use of what the Israelites call " unclean animals " even as late as the second Isaiah, 100 years later than Ezekiel. This prophet speaks of men " which remain among the graves TOTEM-CLANS IN THE BIBLE? 87 and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh and broth of abominable things in their vessels " (Is. lxv. 4) ; and again, " they that sanctify themselves .... eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse" (ib., lxvi. 17). Prof. Smith points out that both swine and mouse occur as proper names. But the former, Hezir, is used only of a priest, and of a covenanter of Ezra's time, who cannot be connected with totem- worship, and Achbor, or mouse (cf. the Roman family of Mus), is used of a king of Edom of early date, where we have seen totemism to be most probable, and in Israel only of one of Josiah's friends, who was certainly unconnected with totem-worship. It cannot, therefore, be regarded as proven that the sacrificial use of swine's flesh was con sciously connected with any tribal arrangement at the time of the second Isaiah, though it is possible that it was in some way a " survival " of an earlier organisation of the kind. Prof. Smith sees a whole series of such survivals in the well-known lists of forbidden food in Lev. xi. and Deut. xiv. Let us see what this assumption involves. It implies that at an early period, say before the Exodus, the Israelites were organised on the basis of families or clans tracing through the mothers, and called after her Hezir (swine), Achbor (mouse), Aiah (kite), Arod (wild ass), Shaphan (coney), and so on, each of the clans re fraining from eating the totem-animal. Thus in a polygamous family it might happen that there were members of all these clans in one family which would therefore abstain from eating all the animals mentioned. As the totem-organisation declined, the origin of this 88 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. abstinence would be lost ; but the custom of abstinence by the natural inertia of customary procedure might last on, and a natural horror be developed against eating these particular animals. When the legislation was codified these customs might well be incorporated in the code, and raised, as it were, to a higher power by being con nected with a purer worship. The Jewish theory of sacrifice, as interpreted by Maimonides, recognised that something of the same kind was done in the case of sacrifice as a kind of concession to human weakness. It is, therefore, impossible to deny that the tabued food of the Israelites may show survivals of totem-organisation. The hypothesis would certainly explain certain anomalies in the list, notably the presence in it of the Coney (or rock badger), for which no plausible explanation has hitherto been given. The division into clean and un clean by the two tests of cloven-foot and rumination would then be a later induction from the animals re garded as tabu : this is, to some extent, confirmed by the want of any such systematisation in the list of birds given Lev. xi. 13-19. All this is extremely ingenious, and is by far the most plausible explanation given of the seem ingly arbitrary solution of forbidden food, and at the same time of the religious horror with which the " abominations " were regarded. But, here again I fail to find evidence of the actual existence in historic times of the connection of tabu and totem required by Prof. Smith's hypothesis. The evidence from names is rather against than for the hypothesis, the whole category of plant-names, so frequent as totems, is absent from the Levitical list. Indeed, taking the eighty-five separate TOTEM-CLANS IN THE BIBLE? 89 names contained in our list, I find forty-three of these " clean " as against forty-two " unclean," J showing at least that the connection, if it ever existed, had been for gotten in historic times : — Zimri, the Chamois ; Jonah, the Dove ; Epher, the Hart, Ezra's son, could have no connection with totem, since neither Chamois, Dove, nor Hart are taboo'd. Nor would it be impossible to explain the whole list as being rather the rough induction of folk-medicine collected by the priest, who combined in ancient times all the learned professions, including medi cine. This latter explanation would, however, not account for some of the anomalies of the list, especially that of the coney, and would also fail to account for the religious aversion which must have existed prior to the compilation of the list. I think it, therefore, not un likely that the list of forbidden food contains in it some survivals of the old totem-worship and totem-clan organi sation, though I am unable to agree that they are in historic times anything more than survivals, resembling the case of the horse in England, which anthropologists say we do not eat because it was once sacred to Odin, and thus tabu'd. 1 The following table gives the distribution of the personal and town names, according as they are " clean " or " unclean." Only those town-names are reckoned which do not occur among persons — Animals Plants In all, 43 clean against 42 unclean, of which there are 37 of former and 39 of latter applied to persons. f Persons \ Towns Clean. ... 14 ... 3 Unclean. ... 3° 1 Clean.Unclean. _. , I Persons ... 5 ... 2 { Towns ... — ... — ( Persons \ Towns ... 15 ... 2 „ ... ("Persons ... 3 ... 7 Reptiles |TowQ3 [ 2 90 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. V. — Tattooing and Clan Crests. Another mark of the totem-clan is, that the members of the clan bear the totem tattooed on their skin. Can we trace signs of this in the Old Testament ? We have here the negative evidence that it was forbidden in the Levitical legislation (Lev. xix. 28), "Ye shall not make any cuttings on your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you." Most of the parallel passages ( Deut. xiv. I ; Jer. xvi. 6; xii. 5 ; xlvii. 5 ; xlviii. 27) seem to show that this cutting was chiefly done as a sign of mourning ; but the " printing of marks " seems to have been different, and to be more of the character of tattooing, the Hp'Hp being probably a caustic. There seems to be some refer ence to this in Isaiah xliv. 5 — " Another shall inscribe himself by his hand unto the Lord," and perhaps in the- " mark " that was to be set upon true Israelites in Ezekiel ix. 4 (cf. Gen. iv. 15, "mark of Cain"). It has even been suggested that the " mark on the hand " and the sign "between your eyes " (Exod. xiii. 9) were either originally tattoo-marks, or that the phylacteries were adopted to win the Jews away from this practice. Mr. Herbert Spencer (Prim. Sociology, p. 364) has sug gested an explanation of the difficult passage, Deut.. xxxii. 5 — " They have corrupted themselves ; their spot is not the spot of his children" (A. V.), which would bring it in connection with our subject. He suggests that the poet's complaint was that they had tattooed themselves with a mark of another god. He seems to trust here too much to the Authorised Version, which makes more sense out of the passage than really can be TOTEM-CLANS IN THE BIBLE? 91 found in it. Litenlly, the words run, " Corrupted unto him, not his sons their spots " — whatever that may mean.1 That the practice of tattooing was carried on among Semites seems to be shown by the fact that it still exists among the Cabiles (L. Geiger, /. c, p. 177), and that at the time of Ptolemy Philometor apostate Jews were ordered to be branded with an ivy-leaf in honour of Bacchus (3 Mace. ii. 29). And everyone will remember the mark of the beast in Revelations, where it is clearly used in a religious or idolatrous sense. But there are no indications of a direct relation between tattooing and totems, and here again we find at best only "survivals." Clan Crests. — The totem serves as a rallying sign for the gens, hence it is only natural that it should be used as a crest or standard in war time. The Israelites, we know, had standards (Num. i. 52 ; ii. 2 seq.; x. 14 seq.), and the Rabbis have given detailed accounts of the crests of the tribes2 (cf. Winer Realworterbuch, s. v. Fahne). These were in all probability derived from the animal metaphors contained in the blessings of Jacob (Gen. xlix.) and of Moses (Deut. xxxiii.). In the former, Judah is compared to a lion, Issachar to an ass, Dan to a serpent, Naphtali to a hind, Benjamin to a wolf, Joseph 1 On the whole subject cf. L. Geiger, Z. d. M. G., 1869, 166 seq. Kalisch Lev. ii., 429-30. The Arabs still have sacred marks on their faces. The late " Mahdi " had them ; cf. J. Darmesteter, The Mahdi, p. 11 1. 2 Mediaeval heraldry made out elaborate coats of arms for the various tribes, and they are figured down the dexter side of the title-page of the Editio Princeps of the Authorised Bible, 161 1. As specimens, I may quote Fuller's quaint descriptions (Pisgah Sight) : Zebulon, " a ship argent, with mast and tackling sable "; Simeon, " gules, a sword in pale with the point thereof ended argent"; Issachar, "an ass couchant argent, in a field vert." Cf. Fort. Rev., 1. c. 92 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. to a bough. In Moses' blessing only four of these com parisons occur — Ephraim to a bullock, Manasseh to a bison, Gad to a lion, and Dan to a lion's whelp. The temptation is strong to take these for the leading totems in each tribe ; and this suggestion is particularly interest ing, because it was on this that McLennan argued for totemism among the Israelites, ten years before Prof. W. R. Smith (Fort. Rev., 1870, I. p. 207). Unfortu nately the lists disagree, Dan being a serpent in Jacob's blessing, a lion's whelp in Moses'. It is possible that the head clan in Dan had changed from one with a serpent to another with a lion's cub in the interval. But the natural imagery of poetry will explain all the circum stances of the case without any resort to the totem hypothesis. VI. — Blood Feud. To conclude our investigation, we must consider the practical side of the totem-clan organisation. The utility of this arrangement in ancient times was, that a man would find, almost everywhere he went, kinsfolk who would take his part in any quarrel, avenge his death, and support his children if he were killed. A tribe composed of families made of totem-clans could not be dissolved, since in each family there would be members of the different clans, and all that tended to keep family life together would aid the consolidation of the tribe. The blood-feud, or vendetta, is represented in the Pentateuch by the "avenger of blood," whose functions are only referred to as well known in ordinary cases, the law TOTEM-CLANS IN THE BIBLE? 93 treating of the exceptional circumstance of an accidental homicide (Deut. xix., xxi. ; Num. xxxv.). But we know from the charming idyll of Ruth of another function of the Gael, or "near kinsman," to marry the childless widow of his kinsman, as Boaz, the kinsman of Elime- lech, did for Ruth, the widow of Mahlon, Elimelech's son. Here we have a tie of kindred, but it is reckoned through the male line, and there are no signs of a connec tion with totemism. Thus, throughout our inquiries we have found pheno mena in the Biblical records which may be regarded as " survivals " of totemism, but not of the actual existence of the totem-clan itself. Prof. Smith's specific instances of David as a member of a Serpent clan, and Jaazaniah ben Shaphan surrounded by creeping beasts and abomina tions, and all the " totems " of the house of Israel, we have had to reject as based on insufficient evidence, and having no weight against the great a priori improbabili ties of totemism in its full force existing among a people in the main agricultural. On the other hand, we have seen indications like the arrangement of the Israelite clans (Num. xxvi.), the forbidden food of the Hebrews (Lev. xi.), tattooing (Lev. xix. 28), and the existence of animal names among them, which may be regarded as " survivals " of a previous totemistic organisation among the Israelites before their entry into Canaan. We have also seen a great probability of totemism, where we should be more prepared to find it, in the nomad tribes of Edomites and Horites. Thus this, like many other lines of contemporary investigation, points to an early identity or connection of the Israelites and the nomad tribes of 94 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. Edom, such, indeed, as is expressed in the Biblical records, which make them all B'ne Abraham, or in the triumphal opening of Deborah's song — "Lord, [when] thou wentest forth from Seir, Thou marchedst out of the field of Edom.'' We may then give a definite answer to the question we have set ourselves, Are there Totem-Clans in the Old Testament ? by saying — (i.) If anthropology teaches that the totem arrange ment is a necessary stage of national development, there are sufficient indications of such arrangement in the names of the Edomite clans (Gen. xxxvi.). (2.) There are sufficient "survivals" of totemism in the names of the Israelite clans, their forbidden food, per sonal names, tattooing, family feasts, and blood avengers, to render it likely that they once had a totem-organisation like the other B'ne Abraham. (3.) But there are not any signs of the actual existence of totemism in historic times among the Hebrews, such as Prof. Smith contends for in the cases of David and the crucial passage, Ez. viii. 11. I.— LIST OF ANIMAL AND PLANT NAMES BORNE BY PERSONS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. [VN, Aiah, Kite (cf. Lev. xi. 14 ; Deut. xiv. 13). Son of Zibeon, Gen. xxxvi. 24 ; cf. 1 Chr. i. 40 (name of Horite clan). Rizpah bath A., Saul's concubine, 2 Sam. iii. 7; xxi. H7K, Ela, Terebinth, Oak (cf. Nokes, Eng. surname). Duke of Edom, Gen. xxxvi. 41. E. b. Caleb, 1 Chr. iv. 15 (prob. clan name). TOTEM-CLANS IN THE BIBLE? 95 Shimei b. E. [K^K], i K. iv. 18. E. b. Baasha, King of Israel slain by Zimri, I K. xvi. Hosea b. E., King of Israel who slew Pekah, 2 K. xv. 30; xvi. 1 j xviii. E. b. Uzzi b. Michri, 1 Chr. ix. 8. One of the returned exiles. JT?'X, Elon, Great Oak. Hittite father of Bashemath, Esau's wife, Gen. xxvi. 34 ; xxxvi. 2. E. b. Zebulon, Gen. xlvi. 14 ; also patronymic clan O'JiP'K, Nu. xxvi. Judge of Israel, tribe Zebulon, Ju. xii. 11, 12. H3N, Anah, Wild Ass. A. bath Zibeon, Gen. xxxvi. z (prob. false reading for |2, as Sam. in LXX.). A. b. Seir, Gen. xxxvi. (prob. clan name). A. b. Zibeon, ibid. (prob. clan name). H3DX, Asena, Bramble. Bene Asena, returned with Zerubbabel, Ezr. ii. 50 (family of Nethinim). vfcOK, Areli, Lion my God. A. b. Gad, Gen. xlvi. 16 ; Nu. xxvi. 17. Patron, a tribe name, Nu. xxvi. 17. TIN, Ard, Wild Ass. Son of Benjamin, Gen. xlvi. A. b. Bela b. Benjamin, Nu. xxvi. Patron, ibid, (a clan name). |ITW, Ardon, Great Ass (J. J.). A. b. Caleb, 1 Chr. ii. 19 (prob. clan name). IIIX, Arod, Wild Ass; cf. Ard and Ardon. Son of Gad, Gen. xlvi. 17; Nu. xxvi. 17. Patron, ibid, (clan name). fUnS, Arunah, Ash. A Jebusite, 2 Sam. xxiv. 16, 18. ri'lX, Ariah, Lion. Conspirator against Pekahiah, 2 Kings xv. 25. "p'HN, Arioch, Mighty Lion. King of Ellasar, Gen. xiv. i, 9. pK, Aran, Wild Goat. A. b. Dishon, Edomite, Gen. xxxvi. 28; 1 Chr. i. 42 (clan name). pk Oren, Pine. O. b. Jerahmeel, 1 Chr. ii. 25 (prob. clan name). p"IX, Oman, Mighty Pine. A Jebusite, 1 Chr. xxi., xxii. ; 2 Chr. iii. 1. 96 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. 132, Becher, Young He-Camel. B. b. Bmjamin, Gen. xlvi. 21 (prob. clan name). B. b. Ephraim, Nu. xxvi. 35. Patron, ibid, (clan name). '1D3, Bochri, Camel-son. B. b. Sheba, a Benjamite, 2 Sam. xx. vDJ, Gemalli, Camel-son. Ammiel b. G., Danite spy, Nu. xiii. 12. mm, Debora, Bee. Rebecca's nurse, Gen. xxxv. 8. The Prophetess, wife of Lapidoth, Ju. iv., v. \W~I, Dishon, Gazelle. D. b. Se'ir, Duke of Horites, Gen. xxxvi. 21, 26, 30. D. b. Anah b. Seir, Gen. xxxvi. 25 (prob. clan name). JB>H, Dishan, Gazelle. Duke of Se'ir, Horite, Gen. xxxvi 21, 28, 30. ; cf. 1 Chr. i. 41. nhpl, Deklah, Palm. Son of Joktan, Gen. x. 27. nD"in, Hadassah, Myrtle. Esther's Jewish name, Esth. ii. 7. 3.KT, Zeeb, Wolf. Sheikh ofthe Midianites, Ju. vii. ; viii. 3 ; Ir. Ixxxiii. n. JTVT, Zethan. Z. b. Bilhan of Benjamin, 1 Chr. vii. 10 (prob. clan). HDT, Zimri, Chamois. Z. b. Zerah b. Judah, 1 Chr. ii. 6 (prob. clan). Z. b. Salu, Simeonite, Nu. xxv. 14. Descendant of Benjamin, 1 Chr. viii., ix. Kings of Israel, 1 Kings xvi. ; 2 K. ix. 31. pDT, Zimran, Chamois. Son of Abraham by Keturah, Gen. xxv. 2 ; 1 Chr. i. 32 (prob. clan). DJ1T, Zetham, Olive ; cf. Zethan. Z. b. Laadan, 1 Chr. xxiii. 8. Z. b. Jehiel, Levite, 1 Chr. xxvi. 22. TOTEM-CLANS IN THE BIBLE? 97 3211, Hagab, Grasshopper. Bene H. Nethinim returned with Zerubbabel, Ezr. ii. 46. ¦13,311, Hagaba, Grasshopper. Bene H. Nethinim returned with Zerubbabel, Ezr. ii. 45 ; Neh. vii. 48 (sonri). n?2n, Hoglah, Partridge. Daughter of Zelophehad of Manasseh, Nu. xxvii. 1 (clan name ?). "VTfl, Hezir, Sow, Lev. xi. 7; Deut. xiv. 8. Priest of 17th lot, 1 Chr. xxiv. 15. One of covenanters, Neh. *. 20. Trhr\, Huldah, Weasel. The Prophetess, wife of Shallum, 2 K. xxii. 14 ; 2 Chr. xxxiv. 22 11011, Hamor, He-Ass. Hivite, "father" of Shechem, Gen. xxxiii. 19 ; xxxiv. ; Jos. xxiv. 32 ; Ju. ix. 28. M3V, Jonah, Dove. J. b. Amittai, Prophet, 2 K. xiv. 25. Prophet, hero of Book of Jonah, pass, (same as preceding). B>15>\ Jeush, Lion (? W.R.S.). Son of Esau by Aholibamah, Gen. xxxvi. 5 (clan name). Son of Bilhan of Benjamin, 1 Chr. vii. 10 (clan name). Descendant of Jonathan (1 Chr. viii. 39). Son of Shimei, Gersonite, Levite, 1 Chr. xxiii. 10, Son of Rehoboam, 2 Chr. xi. 19. by, Jael, Ibex. Wife of Heber the Kenite, Ju. iv., v. t&JJ\ Jaale, Ibex (J.J.). Bene J. returned with Zerubbabel (Solomon's servants), Ezra. ii. 56, xhy, Jaalam, Ibex (].].). Son of Esau by Aholibamah, Gen. xxxvi. 5 (clan name). 3^3, Caleb, Dog. C. b. Hezron, 1 Chr. ii. (clan). C. b. Jephunneh, Nu. xiii. Patron. 1 Sam. xxv. 3. C. b. Hur, 1 Chr. ii. 50 (clan). ]*13, Cheran, Lamb. Ch. b. Dishon, Gen. xxxvi. 26 (Edomite clan). H 98 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY, M37, Libanah, Poplar, Bene L. returned with Zerubbabel, Nethinim, Ezr. ii. 45. B"?, Laish, Lion. Phalti b, L., 1 Sam. xxv. 44 ; 2 Sam. iii. '5- )!3, Nun, Fish. Joshua b, N., Moses' successor, pass. BTO, Nahash, Serpent. King of Ammonites, David's friend, 1 Sam. xi. ; xii. 12 ; 2 Sam. *. 2 5 1 Chr. xix. 1, 2. Abigail bath N., David's sister (N. = Jesse?), 2 Sam. xvii. 25. Shobi b. N., son of King of Ammonites, 2 Sam. xvii. 27. PEVU, Nahshon, Serpent. N. b. Amminadab, head of tribe Judah, Ex. vi. 23 ; Nu. i. 7 5 ii. 3 ; vii. 12, 17 ; x. 14. ''DID, Susi, Horsey. S. b. Gaddi, a Manassite spy, Nu. xiii, 11. thiV, Eglah, Heifer. Wife of David, 2 Sam. iii. 5 ; 1 Chr. iii. 3. Jl^JJ?, Eglon, Ox. King of Moab, Ju. iii. TVJ>,Irad, Wild Ass. I. b. Enoch, a Cainite, Gen. iv. 18. "11331?, Achbor, Mouse. Baal-hanan b. Achbor, King of Edom, Gen. xxxvi. 38, 39; 1 Chr. i. 49, A. b. Micaiah, 2 Kings xxii. 12, 14 (with Shaphan and Huldah). Elnathan b. A., Jer. xxvi. 22 ; xxxvi. 12. py, Achan, Serpent (? Simonis). A. b. Carmi, the thief at Jericho, Jos. vii. ; xxii. 20. mjj, Anah, Wild Ass. A. b. Se'ir, Edomite, Gen. xxxvi. 20 ; 1 Chr. i. 38 (clan). A. b. Zibeon, Edomite, Gen. xxxvi. 2, 14, 18 (clan). "IDS', Epher, Young Hart. E. b. Midian, Gen. xxv. 4 (clan). Son of Ezra, 1 Chr. iv. 17. Manassite prince, 1 Chr. >. 24. TOTEM-CLANS IN THE BIBLE? 99 msy, Ophrah, Gazelle. O. b. Meonothai, I Chr. iv. 14. }11By, Ephron, Fawn. E. b. Zohar, Hittite, Gen. xxiii. 3iy, Oreb, Raven. Sheikh of Midian, Ju. vii.; viii. 3; "$r. Ixxxiii. 11 ; Is. x. 26. Iiy, Arad, Wild Ass ; cf. Irad. A. b. Beriah, Benjamite, 1 Chr. viii. 15 (prob. clan). 'JJiy, Othni, Lioness. O. b. Shemaiah b. Obed-Edom, 1 Chr. xxvi. 7. PN'jny, Othniel, Lion of God. O. b. Kinaz, Caleb's brother, Jo. xv. 17; Ju. i. 135 iii. 9, n. iT3¥, Zibiah, Gazelle. Mother of Joash, 2 K. xii. 1; 2 Chr. xxiv. ». Z. b. Hodesh, 1 Chr. viii. 9. )iy3V, Zibeon, Gazelle. Sheikh of Horites, Gen. xxxvi. ; 1 Chr. i. 38 (clan). TISS, Zippor, Little Bird. Balak b. Z., King of Moab, Nu. xxii. ; xxiii. 18 ; Jos. xxiv. 9 ; Ju. xi. 25. m3¥, Zipporah, Little Bird. Wife of Moses, Ex. ii. 21. \\~TVi, Zorah, Hornet. Patron., 1 Chr. ii. 53 (clan). DK1S, Piram, Wild Ass. Canaanite King, slain by Joshua, Jos. x. 3, WIS, Parosh, Flea. Beni P. returned from Babylon, Ezr. ii. 3 ; viii. 3 ; x. 25 ; Neh. vii. 8 PP, Koz, Thorn. Anub. b. K., 1 Chr. iv. 8 (prob. clan). Priestly family, Ezr. ii. 61 ; Neh. iii. ; vii. 63. •VXp, Kezia, Cassia. Second daughter of Job, Job xiii. 14. flip, Kore, Partridge. Meshilimiah b. K., 1 Chr. xxvi. 1. Shallum b. K. b. Eliasaph, 1 Chr. ix. 19. K. b. Juma the Levite, 2 Chr. xxxi. 14. H 2 100 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. 7m, Rachel, Ewe. Wife of Jacob, Gen., pass. ; Ru. iv. ii ; i Sam. a. 2, )!D"1, Rimmon, Pomegranate. Beni R. kill Ishbosheth, 2 Sam. iv. 73K', Shobal, Krc<«g Lion (Dillmann). S. b. Se'ir, Gen. xxxvi. (clan). S. b. Caleb, i Chr. ii. (clan). 7SW, Shual, Fox. S. b. Zophah, i Chr. vii. 36 (clan of Asher). D'Sltf, Shuppim, Serpents. S. b. Ir b. Benjamin, 1 Chr. vii. 12, 15 (clan). Levite in West of Temple, 1 Chr. xxvi. 16. 'DOt?, Shumathite, Garlic. Descendants of Caleb b. Hur, 1 Chr. ii. 53 (clan). TJH5>, Seir, He- Goat. The Horite, Gen. xxxvi. ; 1 Chr. i. 38. JSlSt?, Shephuphan, Serpent. S. b. Bela b. Benjamin, 1 Chr. viii. 5 (clan). |St5>, Shephan, Rock-Badger. Josiah's scribe, 2 K. xxii. ; 2 Chr. xxxiv. ; Jer. xxxvi. 10-12. Ahikam b. S., 2 K. xxii. 12, 14 ; ; Chr. xxxiv. 20 ; Jer. xxvi. 24 ; xxxix. 14 ; xl., etc. Elasah b. S., Jer. xxix. 3. Jaazaniah b. S., Ezek. viii. 11. SpE*, Saraph, Serpent. Descendant of Judah in Moab, 1 Chr. iv. 22 (clan). ypin, Tola, Worm. T. b. Issachar, Gen. xlvi. 13. Patron., Nu. xxvi. 23. T. b. Puah, the Judge, Ju. x. 1. BTIH, Thahash, Badger, Nu. iv. 6. T. b. Nahor, Gen. xxii. 24. 10n, Tamar, Palm. Judah's daughter-in-law, Gen. xxxviii. ; Ru. iv. 12 j 1 Chr. ii. 4. Daughter of David, 2 Sam. xiii. Daughter of Absalom, 2 Sam. xiv. 27. niSn, Taphuah, Citron (A. V., apple). T. b. Hebron, 1 Chr. ii. 43 (clan). TOTEM-CLANS IN THE BIBLE? ioi II.— PLACE NAMES DERIVED FROM ANIMALS AND PLANTS. ni31K, Oboth, Serpents (?). Station in the Wilderness, Nu. xxi. 10. |17»N, Elon, Fine Oak. Town in Dan, Jos. xix. 43. il?N, Elah, Oak. Valley where David slew Goliath, 1 Sam. xvii. 2. 117'K, Ajalon, Great Stag. Valley in Dan, Jo. x. 12. Levitical city in Ephraim, 1 Chr. vi. 69. City in Zebulon, Ju. xii. 12. City in Benjamin, 1 Chr. viii. 13. DP'K, Elim, Oak Grove. Station in Wilderness, Ex. xv. 27. nVX, Elath, Terebinths. City of Edom, Deut. ii. 8, etc. ni33 \)b$, Allon Bachuth, Oak of Weeping. Burial place in Bethel, Gen. xxxv. 8. ?13G5>K, Eshcol, Grape Cluster. Valley in South Palestine, Nu. xiii, 23. nbin n»3, Bethhoglah, City of the Partridge. City in Benjamin, Jos. xv. 6. DI3BM n'3, Beth Shittah, House of Acacia. Town on Jordan, Ju. vii. 22. niSO? n'3, Bethlebaoth, Home of Lionesses. City in Simeon, Jos. xix. 6. fllDJ H'3, Beth Nimrah, House of Leopard. Town in Gad, Nu. xxxii. 36. Cf. Nu. xxxii. 3, and Is, xv, 6, man n'3, Beth Tappuah, House of Citrons (Apples). City in Judah, Jos. xv. 53. fyVl, Dilean, Cucumber. Town in Judah, Jos. xv. 38. ]1D1 lin, Hadad Rimmon, Pomegranate. City of the Plain, Zee. xii. 11. TiHC 1Xn, Hazur Shual, Village ofthe Fox. Town in Simeon, Jos. xix. 3. 102 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. nDOn, Himtah, Lizard. City in Judah, Jos. xv. 54. DWD, Telaim, Lambs. Place in Judah, 1 Sam. xv. 4. 3?3, Caleb, Dog. Region in Judah, 1 Sam. xxx. 14. Cf. I Chr. ii. 24. E"7, Laish, Lion. City in Dan, Ju. xviii. 7. }l?jy, Eglon, Bull Calf. City in Judah, Jos. x. 3. '13 J'y, Engedi, Fountain ofthe Kid. Town in Judah, Jos. xv. 62. Dvjy 1'y, En Eglaim, Fountain ofthe Two Stags. Town of Moab, Ez. xlvii. 10. J101 J'y, En Rimmon, Fountain ofthe Pomegranate. Town in Simeon, Neh. xi. 29. Cf. Jos. xix. 7. 33y, Anab, Grape Cluster. City in Judah, Jos. xi. 21. SllSy, Ophrah, Fawn. Town in Benjamin, Jos. xviii. 23. Town in Manasseh, Ju. vi. 11. ]11By, Ephron, Fawn. Town in Judah, Jos. xv. 9. D*31py, Akrabbim, Scorpions. Mountains South of Dead Sea, Nu. xxxiv. 4 ; Ju. i. 36. Iiy, Arad, Wild Ass. City in South Canaan, Nu. xxi. 1. D*y3X, Zeboim, Hyenas. Town and Valley in Benjamin, 1 Sam. xiii. 18. nyi V, Zorah, Nest of Hornets. Jos. xv. 33. Cf. 1 Chr. ii. 54. )1D1, Rimmon, Pomegranate. City in Judah, Jos. xv. 32. City in Zebulon, Jos. xix. 13. Cf. 1 Chr. vi. 77. TOTEM-CLANS IN THE BIBLE? 103 yiS |101, Rimmon-Parez, Pomegranate-Breach. Station in the Wilderness, Nu. xxxiii. 19. ilOm, Kithmah, Juniper. Station in the Wilderness, Nu. xxxiii. 18. ^yiP, Shual, Fox. District in Benjamin, 1 Sam. xiii. 17. ,3?yt5>, Shaalabbin, Place of Foxes. City in Dan, Jos. xix. 42. Cf. Ju. i. 35 ; 2 Sam. xxiii. 32. [The above lists have been derived from the usual Onomastica, which are by no means up to date in their philology. Dr. Neubauer has kindly pointed out to me a few cases in which the etymology given by my sources is doubtful, but on reflection I have left them in, as the statistical data would have been falsified if I had removed them. In a few cases I have made a suggestion as to the etymology myself, appending my initials. Those due to Robertson Smith have W. R. S. attached to them. To the local list I might have added some names con nected with objects like the sun (Beth Shemesh) which occur elsewhere as totems. But if the case is not proven by the animal and plant names, these additional totems would not help.] io4 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. THE NETHINIM.1 Who were the Nethinim whose names are given in detail in Ezra ii. and Neh. vii. ? This is a problem which cannot be said to have been satisfactorily solved. The usual answer is that they were war-captives dedicated to the service of the temple, whence their name BWia (Dati sc. Deo vel Templo) : it is also generally added on Rabbinic authority that the main body was formed of descendants of the Gibeonites (Jos. ix.). This answer is so far right that it recognises that the Nethinim were attached to the Temple and were descendants of captives taken in war. But it leaves out of account and fails to explain the abnormally degraded position of these Nethinim. Other captives were ultimately amalgamated with the Jews, who were allowed to take a female captive to wife (Deut. xxi. 10-13) : these Nethinim and their descendants, male and female, were interdicted from marriage with the Israelites for all time (Mish. Jeb. viii. 3). They were thus a class of pariahs and yet were attached to the Temple, which would, one should have thought, cast some shadow of its sanctity over all persons connected with it. This union of sacred service and 1 The original form is probably the passive participle given in the Khetib of Ezr. viii. 17, D'jmj, a word which is likewise applied to the Levites, Num. viii. 19. The singular {'nJ does not occur in the Bible, but is not infrequent in the Mishna, THE NETHINIM. 105 social degradation is the puzzle connected with the Nethinim : the following remarks are intended as a solution. We may first put in some evidence as to their degraded condition. The fact that they are enumerated separately in the list of the returned exiles is sufficient to show that they were a class set apart. And if the same care was taken with their genealogy as with that of the Priests and Levites, this can only have been in order that marriages with them might be avoided. Herzfeld (Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, II. ii. 243-4) urges from the silence of Ezr. ix. 1, Neh. xiii. 23, that the prohibition against marriage with Nethinim is of later date, though the Talmud states it was established by David (Jeb. 78 b), and the Midrash (Bam. R. viii.) by Ezra. He gives, however, no account of its later origin, and the argumen- tum e silentio may be turned the other way, if we can show that the Nethinim were so despised that no legisla tion would seem necessary to preserve the Jews from the pollution of such marriages, no more than if they had been idiots or lepers. This was certainly the case in the time of the Mishna. In Jeb. ii. 4 we read : mD^S •nasi prob xytnw roi bsi^b navui nnaa " A female bastard and a female Nathin are prohibited (to marry) an Israelite, and a daughter of Israel to a Nathin or a bastard^ Further in Jeb. viii. 3, it is said that the prohibition against Moabites and Ammonites, Egyptians and Edomites, though mentioned in the Bible, only applies for a certain number of generations, and does not apply at all to their daughters, but it is added : fnraB napi insi qv-ot ins dV>» tid^m ^tch yovTai 106 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. "¦Bastards and Nethinim are prohibited (to marry Israelites) and this prohibition is perpetual, and applies both to males and females."1 A table of precedence in Jen Horaioth iii. 5, 48s classifies the people in fifteen classes, of which the first three are, ( 1 ) the sage, (2) the King, (3) the high-priest, and the last four (12) a bastard, (13) a Nathin, (14) a proselyte, (15) a freedman.2 All this, and the evidence might be considerably amplified,3 will be sufficient to show the degraded position of these un fortunate beings, who were put on the same level as bastards,4 and regarded as moral lepers. No explanation of this degradation is given in the Talmud. For the explanation given (Jeb. 79 a ; Bam. rabba, § viii.) that the Gibeonites were for ever separated from Israelites, because they did not possess the three distinctive qualities of a Jew — hospitality, modesty, and mercy — cannot be said to bear the stamp of authentic history. And the Rabbinic identification of Gibeonites and Nethinim is only founded on one of those combina tions of which the Rabbis were as lavish as an extra ordinary professor at a German University. In Jos. ix. 1 In Kidd. viii. 3, it was explained whom the Nethinim might marry, : nt3 nt K31? pnin cbn »bidki 'pine wrm nroo nnm nj "Proselytes and freedmen, bastards and Nethinim, those whose father was unknown, and foundlings, can intermarry." This would account for the disappearance of the Nethinim as a class as soon as their services were no longer required after the destruction of the Temple. s Similarly in Jer. Jeb. vii. 5, the Nathin comes eighth out of the classes inclusion in which renders a woman unable to marry a priest. 3 Cf. Sota iv. 1 ; Mace. iii. 1 ; Hor. iii. 8. 4 In Tos. Kidd. v. 1 (ed. Zuckermandel, p. 341), an abstract term niJ'nj is given, indicating the status of a Nathin and corresponding to nnrDD, "bastardy." THE NETHINIM. 107 27, the Gibeonites are said to have been made by Joshua " hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congrega tion and for the altar of the Lord unto this day in the place where he should choose." This description answered well enough to the position of the Nethinim for the identification to be made by the Rabbis, and it would doubtless be associated by the paronomasia involved in the use of the word MfTO in the passage of Joshua. There is no confirmation elsewhere in the Bible. In 2 Sam. xxii. 19, David permits the Gibeonites to revenge themselves on Saul's children for injuries done to them by Saul, and this implies that they held no such degraded position as that of Nethinim. And in Ezra's time we have distinct evidence1 that the Gibeonites were separate from the Nethinim. For " the men of Gibeon " with " Melatiah the. Gibeonite " at their head, repaired a piece of the wall of Jerusalem near the Old Gate on the west side of the city (Jer. iii. 7), while the Nethinim dwelt at Ophel on the east side (ibid. 26). Altogether, the Talmudic identification of Gibeonites and Nethinim utterly breaks down on close examination, and, even if better established, fails to account for their degradation lower than any of the other Canaanites. Nor does the Bible account of them help us out of the difficulty. All we learn from this source is that the Nethinim returned to Palestine from Babylon in two batches, the first numbering 392 souls (Ezr. ii. 58), the 1 On the other hand, these Gibeonites might be Israelites of Gibeon, having no connection with the old Gibeonites of Canaan. But even so, the Chronicler, if acquainted with the identification of Gibeonites and Nethinim, would have used some qualifying word to distinguish the old from the new Gibeonites. 108 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. second, 220 (Ezr. viii. 20). The names of the former are given in duplicate (Ezr. ii., and Neh. vii.), but not those of the latter, though it is mentioned that " all of them were expressed by name" (Ezr. viii. 20) : this second batch came from a place (in Persia) called Casiphia, now unknown (ibid. 5, 16), and were persuaded to come by " their brother" Iddo. They were located "at Ophel over against the water-gate toward the east and the tower that lieth out" (Neh. iii. 26 ),1 though, curiously enough, no part of the wall is said to have been actually built by them, unless " the house of the Nethinim," mentioned in verse 31, was so called from being built by them, which is very improbable. The Nethinim were doubtless placed there to be near the Temple, where they served under the Levites (Ezr. vii. 20), and like all those attached to the Sanctuary they were freed from all tolls (ibid. vii. 24) from which indeed they must have been supported, as Herzfeld elaborately argues (/. c. II. i. 140). Inci dentally Ezra mentions (vii. 20) that they had been " appointed by David and the princes to serve the Levites f but who they were, why they were appointed, what were their functions, and, above all, why they were so de graded, is still left unexplained. Thus neither Bible nor Talmud give us an explicit answer to the puzzling question : Who were the Nethinim ? No one seems to have thought of solving these diffi culties by subjecting to a critical analysis the names ol the Nethinite families given in Ezr. ii. 43-58, Neh. vi. 1 Remnants of the " tower which lieth out " near which they dwelt, hava been recently discovered by Sir Chas. Warren. Palestine Exploration Fund—ferusalem, p. 229. THE NETHINIM. 109 46-60. The latter list, in my opinion, best preserves the original orthography, and may be here given as the list of I. The First Batch of Nethinim,1 (1) Hrrevia, (2) Nawn 'a, (3) nwata '2, (4) dtp 'a, (5) wa 'a, (6) 711s 'a, (7) naab 'a [Ba.er, vulgo va±>], (8) S32H '3, (9) ">abt» '3, (10) ]3n '3, (11) bl3 '3, (12) nra '2, (13) rrvn 'a, (14) T^"1 'a, (15) htijm 'a, (16) OW '3, (17) NTS '3, (18) HDD '3, (19) >D3 '3, (20) n^awa '3, (21) avwisa '3 [np 'n^sa], (22) '3 pispa, (23) sQipn '3, (24) -nmn 'a, (25) n-bss '3, (26) MTna '3, (27) Mann 'a, (28) mp-ia'3, (29) 'a mho^d, (30) nan 'a, (31) n^a 'a, (32) Ha^an 'a. and to these we may add, as they are counted with them, The Sons of Solomon's Servants. (33) vav 'a, (34) m» % (35) wma 'a, (36) sb»> 'a, (37) 7i|m '3, (38) Via 'a, (39) moss* 'a, (40) Van '3, (41) mas 'a, (42) aiiasn 'a, (43) yi»N 'a. In Neh. xi. 21 it is mentioned that Ziha and Gispa were over the Nethinim (HIT'S, NSttfcl). Bertheau, in commenting on the list in Ezr. ii. assumes that this Ziha was the same as No. 1, and that therefore all the names contained in the list are those of men living at the 1 Varim Lectiones in Ezra ii.— (i) Nn»X, (4) Dip, (5) NilKID, (8) nam, (9) bm [np 'o"?tJ>], (21) did'bj pip d'D'sj], (25) n^sa (33) 'DD, (34) niBDn, (35) nilTB, (36) r\7S\ (37) omitted, (43) 'ON. Between (8) and (9) 31py '3 and 3Jn '3 are inserted, and between (19) and (20) njDN '3. no BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. time. If this were so, I may say at once that much of my argument falls to the ground. But several reasons render this improbable. There are only forty-two families to the 392 souls ; this gives nine per family, much too high an average for a father and his children. Then some of the names do not appear to be those of persons at all. The Bene Tabdoth (No. 3) had probably. charge of the rings (nisan) connected with the Temple (cf. Ex. xxv. 12, xxvi. 24, xxviii. 28), and the next name Bene Keros suggests that the persons indicated by it took care of the hooks (D"ip) also used in it (cf. Ex. xxvi. 6, xxxv. n). The Bene Gazzam (No. 16) possibly sheared the sheep offered for use in the Temple. The Sophereth (Nos. 34) might have been connected with the writing of the sacred rolls ; the article attached to the name in the parallel passage in Ezra would indicate that it was an official name, not a personal one. And other names though not of office, are yet clearly not personal. The Me'unim (No. 20) were an Arab tribe with whom the Jews had fought (2 Chr. xxvi. 7) ; and we may conclude that the Bene M. were captives made during the campaign ; a similar conclusion holds good of the next item, Bene Nephisim (No. 21), though no tribe of that name is elsewhere mentioned. Again, Rezin was the name of a well-known king of Syria (2 Kings xv. 37), and the Bene Rezin (No. 14) were probably descendants of prisoners captured in the Jewish war against this King (ibid. xvi. 5). The same might apply to the Bene Sisera (No. 29) if this did not indicate too distant a date (Jud. iv.). But the most remarkable thing about the list is the large number of THE NETHINIM. in names ending in Mr (Nos. i, 2, 5, 8, 15, 17, 23, 26, 27, 29, 32, 35, 36). Now Mt is the usual Aramaic ending for feminines (cf. Kautzsch, Gramm. d. bibl. Aramaischen, § 50, Anm. 3, p. 84), and it would be highly improbable that so large a number of men's names should have this feminine ending.1 And with this clue to guide us, we observe other names equally feminine in form, naab (No. 7), nVS3 (No. 25), and mSD (No. 34). Remembering, too, that Sara was Sarai when in Aramaea, we may include ">abttJ (No. 9), toa (No. 19), and ''aiD (No. 33), among our feminine forms, while the instance of Athaliah shows us that forms like H'Ml (No. 13), and H^astP (No. 39), might be as much feminine as masculine. Nor need we depend solely upon mere forms in drawing the conclusion that the names of those from whom the Nethinim traced their descent were women. We know the fondness of the Hebrews for giving " biological " names to their women, e.g., Rachel (ewe), Debora (bee), Jael (chamois), Huldah (weasel), Kezia (cassia), Hadassa (myrtle). In our list we find no less than four names of this kind ; Libanah (No. 7, poplar 2), Hagaba (No. 8, grasshopper), Bakbuk (No. 22, gourd), and Ia'ala (No. 36, chamois). Again, Harsha (No, 27, witch), and Hatipha (No, 32, female captive), are scarcely names to be applied to men, and many of the remaining 1 Among the in Jews whose names were mentioned as having put away their strange wives (Ezr. *. 18-43), on'y tw0 eni^ >n "t! "T'tN (v. 27) and NJiy (v. 30). 3 Or moon, equally suitable for a woman in Semitic. The exceptional use of the Hebraic ending HT instead of XT, well established by MSS. and early editions, may be due to the fact that the original was an Israelite or perhaps Phcenician woman ; cf. Schroder, Phb'niz. Sprache, p. 172, u. ii2 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. ones are more appropriate for women, e.g., Padon (6, redemption), Hanan (10, grace), Thanah (joy), Neziah (victory), and altogether there are only six of the personal names (Nos. n, 12, 24, 28, 37, 38) which are not feminine either in form or in meaning, and none of these is necessarily a man's name. Nor is this all. I fancy I can restore the name-list of the second batch of Nethinim, and this, we shall see, presents the same characteristics. It is distinctly men tioned of these (Ezr. viii. 20), "all of them were ex pressed by namef yet we have no further mention of them in the Bible. It is probable, however, that their genealogy was preserved, and it may be conjectured that the three additional names of the first list con tained in the parallel passage of Ezra, 31p£, 3an, and naDN, came from this source. This conjecture is con firmed by the fact that the Greek apocryphal book of Esdras (v. 29-34, ed. Fritzsche) contains these, as- well as six additional names, KaOovd, Oiird, KrjTdfi, !A, are not clearly those of women. Our previous suspicion is raised to positive conviction by this remarkable confirmation 1 114 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. from an unlooked-for quarter, and we state with a con siderable degree of confidence that the Nethinim could only trace their ancestry up to women} Having reached the result that the Nethinim could only trace their genealogy to women, the most probable con clusion as to their origin almost presents itself spontane ously. Men who could not trace their paternity, attached to the Temple and yet degraded to the level of bastards — who could the Nethinim have been but the children of the Kedishoth or sacred prostitutes attached to the Temple before the exile ? These were attached to the worship of Astarte and of Ashera, if these two are not identical (Baudissin, sub voce, in Herzog-Plitt). Now we know that the worship of Ashtoreth was introduced by Solo mon (i Kings xi. 5), and as the Temple was simply the Chapel Royal while the kingdom lasted, the rites of Ashtoreth were doubtless performed in the Sanctuary. These rites may possibly explain the large number of his harem, and we can only account for the title Mas? "03 nabt£7 given to some of the Nethinim by connecting it with this worship. Manasseh introduced an Ashera into the Temple (2 Kings xxi. 7), which was removed by Josiah (ibid, xxiii. 4-6). Even if we did not have this evidence of these lascivious rites in connection with the Temple, we could assume them from the existence of still worse abominations in the D">Enp, or cincedi sacri. These are first mentioned in the reign of Rehoboam 1 The list of the first batch is immediately followed by those who could not trace their father's house, three clans of 642 souls bearing the names Beni DeJaiah, Tobiah, Nikoda, also seemingly names of women (Ezr. ii. 60 ; Neh. vii. 62). THE NETHINIM. 115 (1 Kings xiv. 24) ; they were removed by Asa (ibid. xv. 12), but not so completely that they had not to be removed by Jehoshaphat (ibid. xxii. 47). And, notwith standing these abolitions, we read that Josiah " broke down the houses of the CKHp, which were by the house of the Lord where the women wove hangings for the Ashera" (2 Kings xxiii. 7). This is clear evidence of the existence of these rites in direct connection with the Temple. And where the a^KJIp were, there can be no doubt that the lesser vice also prevailed. In the Deutero- nomic legislation, which all critics recognise as the out come of the Jahvistic reaction in Josiah's reign, the two classes of unfortunates are coupled together in the pre cept : " There shall be no HffiHp of the daughters of Israel, nor a Wlp of the sons of Israel" (Deut. xxiii. 17) ; and, as if to mark the ecclesiastical character of these terms, the next verse refers to the same classes among the common people (ibid. 18).1 We have no explicit reference to these rites later than Josiah, but they are in all probability referred to when it is said that Jehoiakim (2 Kings xxiii. 37), Jehoiachim (ibid. xxiv. 9), and Zedekiah (ibid. 19) "did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that their fathers had done." And even as late as Ezekiel we have a vivid and detailed account of the rites connected with the niE71p 1 " Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the wages of a dog into house of the Lord thy God." The meaning of 3?3 here is settled by the use of the same term D'373 in the Phoenician inscriptions Corp. Ins. Sem. I., No. 86. But as i"I31T is a secular Ht^lp, so 373 was probably BHp apart from the Temple. It was possible that the ordinance of Deut. xxii. 5 was directed against these practices. I 2 n6 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. within the Temple, which can only have been described from events that had happened within the prophet's life time (Ez. xxiii. 36-48). With this evidence before us, we can scarcely deny the existence of sacred prostitutes in connection with the Temple of Jerusalem throughout the separate kingdom of Judah and up to the Exile. Now, though such women are mostly infertile, the children which these had would doubtless be brought up to the same vile life as themselves before the Exile (the sons as a-KHp, the daughters as nittnp), and after the Exile became the Nethinim, whose origin we are here investigating. This account of it explains their con nection with the Temple, their degraded position, and the fact that they could only trace their ancestry up to women. It may be fairly asked why the Nethinim should consent to return to occupy such a degraded position, and Herzfeld (/. c, II. ii. 140) urges this point in arguing that the prohibition against intermarriage with them did not exist in Ezra's time. He had not the present suggestion before him, or his objection would indicate complete misconception of the psychology of pariahs. No one who has read M. Michel's painful but fascinating book, Les races maudites, can have failed to notice the sullen patience with which the outcasts of humanity submit to their lot : they do not appear to have sufficient imagination to sever themselves entirely from their persecutors. In the case of the Nethinim we have an additional and more prosaic reason for their return to Palestine ; they had hereditary right to part of the dues paid to the Temple (Ezr. vii. 24). Again ; THE NETHINIM. 117 to modern notions it seems difficult to understand why the Jews, when once freed for ever from the vices of which the Nethinim were a living embodiment should have permitted them to return to take up their old quarters near the Temple. But it was the most natural thing in an ancient and an Oriental State that the status quo ante should be restored : what would need explanation would be any departure from it. The Jews returned with touching fidelity to the villages they had occupied before the Exile ; the Nethinim had been attached to the Temple before, they were attached to it as a matter of course after ; they were degraded before, they were even more degraded amid the New Israel. It is right that this investigation should conclude with the chief objections which may be urged against . the identification here proposed, I believe for the first time.1 In the first place we have assumed that the names of the ancestors of the Nethinim which end in Mt are those of women. Yet the only names of individual Nethinim (except the Iddo of Ezr. viii. 16) are those of the two leaders MHS and MStM, the former the leader of the Beni Ziha at the head of the first batch, the latter, I have suggested, the chief of the Bern Gispa at the head of the second. As regards the argument that there was an Aramaic tendency after the exile for the names of men to end in Mt, this has been deduced from the very list of names we are considering, and would thus be a circular argu- 1 The latest and, I think I may add, the most absurd suggestion about the Nethinim was by Rosenzweig, in his fahrhundert nach dem Exil, 1885, who sees in them the forerunners of the Essenes ! n8 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. ment. At any rate the tendency is not shown among the long list of names of Jews who put away their strange wives (Ezr. x. 18-43). This objection, at any rate, cannot apply to the names ending in n*1 (Nos. 25, xvii.) and n~ (34, 41). These are the names usually relied on to explain the term Koheleth: if the present view is correct, this must be abandoned ; and we have not only depended on the forms of the words in con cluding that these were women : their " biological " character was, among others, an independent proof of their meaning. Another difficulty is suggested by the difficult word B^MaiD the Khethib of Ezek. xxiii. 42, which exegetes nowadays take to mean " drunkards from the wilderness " (cf. Deut. xxi. 20) though this scarcely gives a good sense. Now it is, to say the least, a remarkable coincidence that this word, occurring in the midst of a description of the rites connected with the Kedishoth, should resemble so closely the M31D "03 which we have ventured to restore to the second batch of Nethinim (No. xv.) from the viol Sovfid of the Apo cryphal Ezra. While this identification confirms in a most unexpected manner our general hypothesis, it causes some difficulty as to the origin and meaning of the words ending in St. For here we have a word of this kind referring not to a woman, but to a place or tribe. It is, however, extremely improbable that the remaining seventeen words ending in Nt (excluding Nos. 1 and i.) should refer to places or tribes without our being able to identify them. Altogether I am inclined to think the evidence in favour of the majority of the names in the list of Nethinim being those of women is overwhelming. THE NETHINIM. 119 I would, however, remark that, even if this were not so, the hypothesis I have put forward as to the nature of the Nethinim would not suffer : as an explanation of their degradation it would be satisfactory even if the names of the Nethinim at the time of the Return did not bear traces of the status of their ancestors. Another more formidable objection still remains to be overcome. If the origin of the Nethinim were as we have suggested, why does no hint of it occur in Bible or Talmud ? To this it may be replied that no hint was required if the name Nethinim carried its own story with it, and implied the same to men speaking Hebrew as lepoBovXoi implied to men speaking Greek. For this we have direct evidence. In the two cardinal passages, Ezr. ;'i. and Neh. vii., the name is transliterated NaBivaioi, in the LXX., but elsewhere the word is translated lepoSovXoi, (Ezr. ii. 58, iiv. 24, viii. 20; 3 Esdr. v. 53-58, viii. 22-51), and the same word is used by Josephus (Ant. XI. v. 1) in the only passage where he refers to them. Now there is no ambiguity in the meaning of lepoBovXoi (v. Smith, Diet. Class. Ant., s. v. Hieroduli, Herrmann ; Gottesdienst. Alt-ert. d. Hellenen, § 27, n. 13-16) : it almost invariably means the ministers of lascivious rites in connection with the temples of Aphrodite (really Astarte in Greece as in Judaea). The LXX. and Josephus would not have used a term of so insulting a meaning if they had no tradition of the origin of the Nethinim to depend upon. As regards the use of the name Nethinim as corresponding to hieroduli, we have an exact analogue in the corresponding class in Indian life, the Bayaderes, who are technically called Deva-dasi 120 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. (deodata). There are also special reasons why the doctors of the Mishna would be chary of entering into details about this somewhat unsavoury subject. As the Temple increased in sanctity, it was decidedly impolitic to remind the people that the holiest spot on earth had been tainted by the most unholy of rites. The Sophej-im developed a special sense of delicacy about these and kindred subjects, as we know from the Biblical passages which " were not to be read " in the synagogues. Tht Chronicler, whom Zunz has shown to be identical wita the writer of Ezra, completely avoids all mention of thfc Kedishim or Kedishoth. Though he is careful to poin the moral of his tale by referring the downfall of Judah; to the abominations committed by the kings, he is reticent about details, and passages like i Kings xiv. 24 ; 2 K xv. 12, xxii. 47, xxiv. 7, find no parallel in Chronicles. Neither in Mishna nor Gemara, so far as I am aware, do we find in any mention by name of any individual Nathin, and' it is probable that they disappeared as a class after the destruction of the Temple. The memory of their origin then seems to have died away, and the Rabbis of the Talmud found and exercised an oppor tunity for displaying their ingenuity in combination which has obscured the origin of the Nethinim ever since. We moderns might well imitate this delicacy and reticence but for one consideration. We can best know the religion of Israel by contrasting it with with the cults opposed to it : all those who are nowadays investi gating the religions of Syria recognise this truth. Yet here we have, in the existence of these Nethinim, evidence THE NETHINIM. 121 of rites as repulsive as any found elsewhere, existing in the Temple right up to the Exile. Scholars had of course known of this previously (though not later than Josiah), but the discovery that the Nethinim were the ministers of those rites gives a vividness and concreteness to our ideas on the subject which cannot fail to light up many points on the religious development of Israel. When we read the description of the peasants in La Bruyere we understand the French Revolution ; when we think of the Nethinim and all that they imply we understand the Jahvistic reaction under Josiah. Imagine a Nathin slinking by Isaiah in the courts of the Temple, and we have a vivid picture of the lowest and the highest form of worship which arose in Syria and spread thence throughout the ancient world, the one disintegrating society, the other destined to bring the germs of salvation. Nor are the two forms so disconnected as might appear : healthy human nature has in itself a safeguard against such extremes of viciousness as are implied in the Nethinim. The mere force of moral repulsion will explain much of the seeva indignatio with which Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel inveigh against practices which strike not alone at all spiritual religion but at the very roots of social and family life. And certainly our investigation, if substantiated, enables us to appreciate the force of the terms " whoredom " and " abomination " applied by these prophets to the idolatrous practices of their time. They seem mere pieces of bad taste if we take them metaphori cally, as modern exegesis too complacently assumes (e.g., Gesenius, Thes.,s. v. H3T, p. 422). Our knowledge ofthe continued existence of these Nethinim shows these 122 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. expressions to be the natural utterances of earnest and yight-thinking men. It is on account of the lurid but instructive light which is thus thrown upon the religious development of Israel that I have thought it desirable to raise for a moment the veil which for nearly two thousand years has rested on the origin of the Nethinim. PROVERBS XXX., INDIAN ORIGIN. 123 INDIAN ORIGIN OF PROVERBS XXX. Much recent research renders it probable that India was by no means so isolated from the outer world in early days as has been assumed. As the result of a somewhat elaborate investigation of the fables by Esop I have come to the conclusion that a certain number of Indian fables had percolated to Greece, even before Alexander's Anabasis to India.1 This result renders it desirable to consider the possi bility whether Indian thought or literature had any influence on Biblical literature. Hitherto, the only trace of this influence has been with reference to Solo mon's judgment. There is a curious piece of evidence which seems to show that the Jataka stories were connected with the western world. Among the Buddhist Birth-Tales is one (translated by Rhys - Davids, pp. xiv. — xvi.) in which a Takshini, or female demon, seizes a child left by its mother for a moment, and claims it as her own. The two claimants are brought before the future Buddha, who draws a line on the ground, orders the women to stand on each side of it and hold the child between them, one by the legs the other by the arms. Whichever of the two, he decides, shall drag the 1 See my History of ALsofis Fables, vol. i. of my edition of Caxton's Msop. 124 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. child over the line shall possess it. They begin hauling, but the infant cries, and the mother lets her child go rather than hurt it. Then the future Buddha knows who is the true mother, gives her the child, and makes the Takshini confess her true nature, and that she had wanted the child to eat it up. In short, we have the Judgment of Solomon attributed to Buddha. It is not impossible that the two may be connected. If the incident really occurred in Israel, as is possible, for it bears the stamp of Oriental1 justice, it would be just the kind of story to be carried out to Ophir, which we now know to be Abhira at the mouth of the Indus, whence came the peacocks, monkeys, and almug trees — all with Indian names — to bedeck the court of Solomon. M. Gaidoz, however, in an interesting set of papers on the variants of Solomon's Judgment (Melusine, 1889), traces the Hebraic from the Indian form, basing his con clusion on the late date at which the Book of Kings was redacted, and I am inclined to agree with him, for the additional reason that I think it highly probable that another section of the Bible connected with Solomon's name is derived from an Indian source. The following parallels will at least serve to render this probable : — 1 A recent instance occurred in Persia during the absence of the Shah. A farmer complained that a soldier had eaten his melons without payment. " Which soldier ? " asked the Shah's son, who was dispensing justice. The man was pointed out and denied it. " Rip him up," said the Persian prince, "and if it is found that he has been eating melons, you shall be paid, if not, woe betide you." Sure enough the soldier had been eating melons. PROVERBS XXX., INDIAN ORIGIN. 125 Proverbs XXX. Who has gone up to heaven and come down ? Who has gathered the wind in his fists ? Who has bound up the waters in a garment ? Who has established all the ends of the earth ? What is his name, and what his son's, if thou knowest ? three alway, 15. The horseleech has daughters,2 they say " Give, give." There are three things never sated, Yea, four that never say "Enough": Sheol is never sated with dead. Nor the womb's gate with men, Earth never sated with water, And fire says never "Enough.'' 18. There be three things too won derful for me, Yea, four which I know not : 19. The way of an eagle in the air. . . The way of a ship through the sea. Rig Veda and Bidpai. Who knows or who here can declare Whence has sprung — whence this creation — From what this creation arose, Whether any made it or not ? He who in the highest heaven is it» ruler, He verily knows, or even he knows not. Rig Veda, x. 129 (Muir, Sansk. Texts, v. 356).1 Fire is never sated with fuel, Nor Ocean with the streams, Nor the god of death with all crea tures. Nor the bright-eyed one with men. Pants., I. str. 153 j also Ma- habh. iv. zzzy.3 The path of ships across the sea, The soaring eagle's flight Varuna knows. Rig Veda (cf. Muir's Metr* Trans. 160).4 * I owe the reference to Prof. Cheyne, Job, 152. 2 From Bickell's reconstruction of the text. * Prof. Graetz [Gesch. i. 348) notices the closeness of the parallel which, he agrees, argues borrowing from one side or the other. He decides for Jewish priority owing to the late date of the Hitopadesa, being unaware of the other parallels, and that it occurs in the Bidpai and the Ma'habharata. * Quoted as a coincidence by Prof. Cheyne, I.e. 126 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. Proverbs XXX. Rig Veda and Bidpai. 21. Under three things earth trembles. A bad woman wedded, And four it cannot bear : A friend that's false, 22. Under a servant when master, A servant become pert, And a fool filled with meat, A house full of serpents, 23. Under an odious woman wedded, Make life unsupportable. And a handmaid heir to her Hitopadesa, ii. 7 (cf. Pants., I. str. mistress. 47^). It is, to say the least, remarkable that all the Indian parallels that have been found to the Old Testament, so far as I am aware, should occur in this one chapter. The second parallel again is so close that, as Prof. Graetz admits, there must have been borrowing on one side or the other. The arrangement in fours, which is distinc tive of this chapter, is, I may add, a common Indian literary artifice ; I have counted no less than thirty instances among the strophes of the First Book of the Pantschatantra.1 Considering that the chapter is, according to all critics, of very late origin, and the text itself attributes a foreign origin to it,2 and that there is plenty of other evidence for foreign elements in the Old Testament,3 it becomes 1 Str. 3, 46, 72, 114, 115, 140, 141, 144, 153, 171, 172, 180, 188, 192, ^53, z°9> 301, 310, 312, 322, 335, 337, 385, 386; 42c?, 425,442,467. Besides there are many triads (str. 51, 84, 113, 174, 234, 257, 263, 280, 292, 364, 449), in some cases beginning like " There are three that win earth's golden crown: the hero, the sage, and the courtierl" (str. 51); " There are three things for which men wage war : land, friends, gold " (str. 257). 2 "The words of Agur, the son of Jakeh of Massa," i.e., an Arabian. 3 There are Sanskrit words in Kings, Greek words in Daniel, Arabisms in Job, the scapegoat (Azazel) is a Persian importation, and Mr. Tyler has PROVERBS XXX., INDIAN ORIGIN. 127 highly probable that the proverbs of Agur were derived from India via Arabia, and that we must allow for an earlier x as well as later " Libyan " influence on Hebrews, as we have seen reason to allow it for Greeks. And all this confirms the possibility that Solomon's Judgment is an adaptation of an Indian folk-tale to the Jewish monarch. But be all this as it may, we have iconographic evi dence of an interesting kind, that the Judgment became known to the Greeks and Romans. By an interesting coincidence, two ancient representations of the Judgment were found within two years. One brought to light by M. Longperier in 1880 was engraved on an agate that could be traced back to Bagdad via Bucharest ; its age cannot, however, be decided with any great accuracy. But the other was found at Pompeii, and cannot, there fore, be later than 79 a.d. M. H. Gaidoz, who has figured the two in Melusine for 1889, comes to the con clusion that the Roman version is not derived from a Jewish or Christian source.3 If so it must have come from the Jatakas, and as we know that other Jatakas came to the Hellenic world, this too may have been among them. I have found a slight piece of evidence from Rabbinic sources, which confirms this conclusion. The sought to prove with some plausibility traces of Epicureanism and Stoicism in Ecclesiastes. 1 The Two Pots occur in Ecclus. xiii. 2. * He leaves out of account, however, the fact that both representations have the bisection test as in the Jewish and not the hauling, as in the Indian form. It is possible, however, that the latter is a tender Buddhistic softening of the original Indian folk-tale preserved in the Jewish legend. 128 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. great difference between the Jewish and the Indian form of the story is that in the latter the non-mother is a Rakshasha or demon. In commenting on the story, Rab, a teacher of the second century, declares that the mother's opponent was a demon (cf. Jellinek, Beth Hame- drash, vi., p. 31). After all, it should not surprise us to find evidence of Buddhistic influence percolating into the Greco-Roman world. A movement which disturbs to its depths a whole ocean of human feeling will naturally radiate its influence, if only in ripples, to all parts in continuity with it. REVISED OLD TESTAMENT. 129 THE REVISED OLD TESTAMENT.1 The revision of the Old Testament is a literary success, but it has no pretensions to scholarly completeness. That is the general impression which the new version makes. There have been practically no alterations in the text, the variants of the Septuagint, even when undoubtedly superior, being relegated to the margin. The literary merits of the Authorised Version have been retained and on the whole enhanced, and its majestic rhythm has not been disturbed, and has even been allowed fuller play by the arrangement of the prose books in paragraphs, and of the poetical books in separate lines. The revisers are to be congratulated on the satisfactory result of their fifteen years' labour. There can be little doubt as to the wisdom of their decision in declining to make a new text of the Old Testament as the other company did with the New. The textual criticism of the Old Testament stands nowadays where that of the New did before the days of Griesbach. Even the Massorah is not settled ; the Septuagint does not exist in a critical edition ; its Hebrew original has only been sporadically restored, as in Proverbs by Lagarde, and in Samuel by Wellhausen after Theriius. 1 The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments. Translated out of the Original Tongues, being the Version of 1611 Revised. (Cam bridge, University Press.) K 130 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. Still less progress has been made in working back from the Targum and Peshitto to the text which stood before the Chaldaic and Syriac translators. Under these circum stances it would have been little less than madness to have attempted the huge task of settling the earliest accessible text of the Old Testament. The revisers have produced what was really wanted — an amended version of the Bible as it has affected the religious and literary life of England for the past three hundred years. This is as it should be. The Old Testament is in itself a nation's literature, and depends for its effect far more on literary form than the narratives of the Gospels or the impassioned meta physics of St. Paul. And it is just this literary form that the English version has caught better than any other translation in existence. It would have been a literary sin of the highest order if the revisers had destroyed this effect in any pedantic straining after an original text, consistency of rendering, or any other of the Dryasdust's excuses. The revisers have rather erred on the right side in their timidity in alteration, and even Mr. Matthew Arnold, we should fancy, would be satisfied with their work. But our readers will be impatient for details. From the soberly written and business-like preface, dated July, 1884, may be selected a few general principles of render ing. " The Lord," in small capitals, has been retained for the Tetragrammaton, while the nondescript " Jeho vah " appears in the margin. Of technical terms from the Hebrew, only three seem to have been generally introduced. The meaningless " groves " has been re placed by "Ashera" (e.g., Judges vi. 28), with its plurals REVISED OLD TESTAMENT. 131 " Asherim " (Ex. xxxiv. 13) and "Asheroth" (Judges iii. 7). In the poetical books " Sheol " has taken the place of " hell " (e.g., Ps. ix. 1 7), which has been turned in prose passages by " the grave " and " the pit," with " Sheol " in the margin. " Abaddon " has been introduced in three passages : once in Job and twice in the Book of Proverbs. " Tent of meeting " has re placed the misleading " Tabernacle of the Congregation " as a rendering of 1W2 bills in the Pentateuch, and " meal offering " is an ingenious variant for " meat offer ing " (riTOD), " meat " having ceased to be a generic name for all food. " Ear " in the sense of " to plough " (e.g., Deut. xxi. 4) has been dropped as not understood even by persons of intelligence, while " boiled " (Ex. ix. 31) has been retained as still in provincial use and without any literary equivalent. A new plural, " peoples," has been introduced to render CIS, though at times this be comes " Gentiles" (e.g. Mai. i. 11), when the contrast to the chosen people is marked. A landmark in the history of the language has been removed by a general change of " his " into " its " when applied to neuter nouns. All headings of chapters have been dropped, as in the Revised New Testament, and the text is divided into paragraphs corresponding to the Massoretic signs Q and D, though there appear to be certain deviations from these. The several days of creation are made to stand out more dis tinctly, paragraphs ending with verses 6, 9, 14 and 24. The same expedient has enabled the revisers to suggest the dialogue form and dramatic character of the Song of Songs, the first chapter, for example, having breaks at verses 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, and 16, thus splitting it up into K 2 132 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. seven speeches. The Psalms are now definitely divided into five " Books," the last four beginning at Pss. xiii., lxxiii., xc, and cvii. But the greatest improvement of a general nature is the printing of poetical passages in poetical form. Not only has this been done in the so-called Poetical Books, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, and Canticles, but wherever poeti cal passages occur, though the prophets have been left as prose, however passionate and sustained their oratory. Thus the songs of Lamech, Jacob, Miriam, Moses, Deborah, and Hannah, the psalms of Jonah and Habak- kuk, and David's lament (2 Sam. i.) appear as verse. And even slight snatches of song like Saul hath slain his thousands And David his tens of thousands are given apart from the context, with much heightening of their effect. There would probably have been much less discussion about Joshua's miracle if it had always appeared as it appears in the Revised Version : — - And he said in the sight of Israel : Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon, And thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still' and the moon stayed Until the people had avenged themselves on their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jasher ? So, too, the ballad origin of the famous jawbone wielded by Samson comes out clearly when his triumphal cry is printed (Judges xv. 16) : — With the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps, With the jawbone of an ass have I smitten a thousand men. Further, the quotation from " the book of the Wars of the Lord" (Num. xxi. 14) is printed poetice. The REVISED OLD TESTAMENT. 133 title of the book is very doubtful ; the Septuagint takes " the war of the Lord " as part of the quotation. These' instances will illustrate the exegetic value of this seem ingly mechanical improvement. This will probably prove the most popular change in the revision. The revisers, however, deserve, and will receive, most praise for the evident care they have taken in preserving intact the many household words of the Old Testament. We have examined over a hundred of the most familiar phrases and passages, and in the large majority of cases have found them unchanged amid their new surround ings. We may still talk of "a land flowing with milk and honey," " a still small voice," " a tale that is told," " balm in Gilead," " house appointed for all living," " darkness which may be felt," " pen of a ready writer," " vanity of vanities," " law of the Medes and Persians," " man of unclean lips," " precept upon precept," " a lamp unto my feet," " wife of thy bosom," " apple of his eye." Our " lines " may still continue to be " fallen in pleasant places " ; we may " eat, drink, and be merry," " take sweet counsel together," " grind the faces of the poor," " cause the widow's heart to sing for joy," " make a covenant with death," " heap coals of fire," and be " weighed in the balances and found wanting." " Cast thy bread upon the waters " and " escaped with the skin of my teeth" are also retained. The old saws have not been modernised. " Put not thy trust in princes," " Go to the ant, thou sluggard," " Answer a fool according to his folly," " A wise son maketh a glad father," " Be not righteous over much," " A soft answer turneth away wrath," " The race is not to the swift," " Love is strong 134 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. as death," " In the multitude of counsellors there is safety," " Righteousness exalteth a nation " — all these, and more also, retain, we are glad to observe, their old familiar faces. Longer passages are seldom retained so accurately in memory that slight changes would be no ticed ; but in the best known of these much remains absolutely unaltered. "Naked came I," etc. (Job i. 2i), " Man that is born of a woman " (ibid. xiv. i), " The heavens declare " (Ps. xix.), " The days of our years are threescore and ten " (ibid. xc. 10, though here the revi sion reads pride for "strength "), " They that go down to the sea in ships," "We hanged our harps," and other passages of like familiarity have lost none of this at the hands of the rightly reverent revisers. Few, probably, would recognise the touches that have altered the well- known passage : — But I know that my Redeemer liveth And that he shall stand up at the last upon the earth, And after my skin hath been thus destroyed Yet from my flesh shall I see God, Whom I shall see for myself And mine eyes shall behold and not another. We have omitted the marginal notes, but may remark that it is to. be regretted that the technical term " Goel," introduced into the margin here, has not been inserted elsewhere, as it refers to such a characteristic trait in Hebraic culture. So far so good. No one can say to the revisers, " Ye have robbed us of our Bible." But not all the familiar features of Scripture have escaped unscathed. The high priest no longer casts lots "for the scapegoat," he REVISED OLD TESTAMENT. 135 does so " for Azazel." " Selah " is no longer joined to the text, but is placed apart in square brackets — as a musical direction, we presume. The summary of each day's work at the creation now runs according to the formula : " And there was evening and there was morn ing, one day," " a second day," " a third day," and so on, giving a suggestion of successive stages with long inter vals. " The sweet influences of the Pleiades " only appears in the margin ; the text has simply, " Canst thou bind the cluster of the Pleiades ? " (Job xxxviii. 31.) The " apples of gold " of Prov. xxv. 1 1 are now encased " in baskets of silver," not in " pictures." " Vanity and vexation of spirit" (Eccl. ii. 17) has, — horribile dictu ! — become " Vanity and a striving after wind." Reuben's curse (Gen. xlix. 4), " Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel," now reads, " Unstable as water, thou shalt not have the excellency," with little change of meaning and much increase of harshness. On the other hand, a fine archaism in Eccl. xii. 1 shows the revisers more Eliza bethan than the Authorised Version : " Remember also thy Creator in the days of thy youth, or ever the evil days come or the years draw nigh when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them." The disturbance of rhythm involved in the change, " Remember also," for " Remem ber now," may be excused on the ground that it connects the thought better with xi. 9, and, at any rate, the variant, " or ever the evil days come," for " while the evil days come not," suggested probably by the same idiom in xii. 6, has an extremely happy effect. The following changes have perhaps been necessary, but grate sadly against literary associations : — 136 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. Authorized. Gen. vi. 4. There were giants in the earth in those days. Job xxxi. 35. Oh that mine adversary had written a book. Ps. viii. 5. For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels. Ps. cxvi. 11. I said in my haste, All men are liars. Eccl. xii. 13. Let us hear the con clusion of the whole matter ; Fear God, &c. Prov. xiv. 9. Fools make a mock at sin : but among the righteous there is favour. Revised. The Nephelim were in the earth in those days. O that I had the indictment which my adversary had written. For thou hast made him but little lower than God. I said in my haste, All men are a lie. This is the end of the matter : all hath been heard. Fear God, Sec. The foolish make a mock at guilt ; But among the upright there is good will. The above, however, are nearly all the passages in which a shock is given to old associations, and the vast majo rity of familiar quotations remain unchanged — to the great advantage of the version so far as its chances of popularity go. As a specimen of longer passages we may take the most striking passage in prophetic literature, Is. Hi. 13- liii. 12, where almost every word offers temptations to rash alteration. Yet the following will be found to include most of, if not all, the variants of the two Authorized. Iii. 13. deal prudently extolled and be very high. 14. As thee; his visage men. 15. The kings. liii. 1. is the arm. Revised. deal wisely lifted up and shall be very high. Like as thee (his visage..,.. men). kings. hath the arm. REVISED OLD Authorized. a. we shall see. 3. is despised and we hid as it were our faces from him ; he was despised. 7. he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth : he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter so he openeth. 8. He was taken from prison and from judgment : and who shall de clare his generation ? 9. he made because he had done. 11. for he shall bear. 12. and he bare. TESTAMENT. 137 Revised. we see. was despised and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised. yet he humbled himself and opened not his mouth, as a lamb that is led to the slaughter yea, he opened. By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and as for his generation, who among them con sidered that they made although he had done. and he shall bear. yet he bare. Except in verses 3, 7, and 8, the changes are very slight from a literary point of view, but the theological import ance of the change of tense in the first three verses may be observed, though this is minimised by the future in verse 11. Indeed, the Christology ofthe Old Testament is almost entirely unaffected by the revision. The crucial passage, Is. vii. 14, " Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son," remains unchanged, except that the margin suggests " the virgin is with child and beareth." So, too, in Ps. ii. 12, "Kiss the Son" remains, but without the capital, and references to the entirely different versions of the translations are given in the margin. Similarly, in Gen. xlix. 10, " Until Shiloh come" is kept, but " Till he come to Shiloh" is noted as an alternative in the margin. In all these cases, as in many others, there seems to have been a strong minority which held out for the 138 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. correct reading, and succeeded at least in putting it into the margin, which, we may say at once, contains most of the scholarship of the revision. So far we have commented rather upon what the revisers have not done than upon the manner in which they have performed the actual task of revision, to which we now turn. We have only observed one case where anything has actually been added to the text without warrant from the original Hebrew. In i Sam. xiii. I, which now reads " Saul reigned one year," the revisers have boldly conjectured " Saul was [thirty] years old." The Hebrew certainly cannot bear the former meaning, but why did the revisers insert " thirty " ? The late S. Sharpe, and others before him, suggested that Saul's age was originally expressed by a letter-numeral, thus, '3 ]3 blNE? rntP, and that the first nun dropped out ; if so, the age would be fifty. The LXX. omits the verse and gives no help. Another case where the Massoretic text has been departed from, though only as regards the vowels, is in Joshua iv. 24, where the obvious correction " that they might fear " instead of " ye " has been made. But we must not linger to discuss details. Let us offer a number of examples where the Bible has been really re vised where it was needed : — Authorized. Revised. Gen. xxii. 14. In the mount of In Lord it shall be provided. the Lord it shall be seen. xxxi. 53. By the fear of his father By the Fear of his father Isaac. Isaac. Ex. xiv. 20. And it was a cloud And there was the cloud and the and darkness to them, but it gave darkness, yet gave it light by night. light by night to these. REVISED OLD TESTAMENT. 139 Authorized. Job xxviii. 4. The flood breaketh out from the inhabitant ; even the waters forgotten of the foot : they are dried up, they are gone away from men. xxxi. 35. Behold my desire is, that the Almighty would answer me. xxxvi. 18. Beware lest he take thee away with his stroke. Ps. xii. 5. I will set him in safety front him that puffeth at him. lxviii. 4. Extol him that rideth upon the heavens. 19. Blessed be the Lord, who daily loadeth us with benefits. 30. Rebuke the company of spear men. lxxxvii. 7. As well the singers as the players on instruments shall be there : all my springs are in thee. cxli. 5. Let him reprove me j it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head. Is. xl. 3. The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord. Amos v. 26. But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch. Revised. He breaketh open a shaft away from where men sojourn ; They are forgotten of the foot that passetk by, They hang afar from men, they swing to and fro. (Lo, here is my signature, let the Almighty answer me.) Beware lest thou be led away by thy sufficiency. I will set him in safety at whom they puff. Cast up a high way for him that rideth through the deserts. Blessed who daily beareth our burden. Rebuke the wild beast of the reeds.As well the singers as they that dance say : All my fountains are in thee. And let him reprove me ; it shall be oil upon the head. Let not my head refuse it. The voice of one that crieth, Pre pare ye in the wilderness the way of the Lord. Yea, ye have borne Succith your king. The passages, too, describing the building of the Tabernacle, or, as we must now say, " Tent of Meet ing," as well as those dealing with Solomon's temple, are much more clearly rendered, but must be read in their entirety. Some of the renderings are ingenious, but invalid. The difficult passage Deut. xxxii. 5 affords an example. " They are not his children, it is their 140 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. blemish," is better than " Their spot is not the spot of his children " (A.V.), which Mr. Herbert Spencer quotes as a reference to tattooing. But one cannot make a whole sentence out of the single word DQ1D, which had better be taken adverbially, as Dr. Friedlander takes it in his scholarly and moderate revision, which deserves to be better known. In Moses's blessing, the revisers went to the original text about Reuben, which sounds more like a curse : " Yet let his men be few " (Deut. xxxiii. 6). The witch of Endor now sees only " a god," not " gods," ascending (i Sam. xxviii. 13); but the accom panying participle is in the plural. As a general rule, however, the revisers have evaded such difficulties by leaving them severely alone. We have tested the revision in some hundred passages which are really difficult, and have only found any attempt at solution in about a quarter of them, and then mostly in the margin. And of passages where the versions, especially the Septuagint, easily help us out of insoluble difficulties in the Hebrew text, only a few have been considered, even in the margin. The whole future of the new. version turns on the question whether it is really an adequate revision of the Authorized Version or not. The reason why a revision was deemed necessary was because it was recognised that many errors existed in the old version, and that it should be amended so that the translation should answer the needs of modern scholarship. The chief condition of REVISED OLD TESTAMENT. 141 the work was that while necessary revisions should be made, the language of the old version should be as far as possible retained. Herein consisted the Scylla and Charybdis of the revisers' voyage of investigation : adequate revision on the one hand, reverence for the style on the other. From the chorus of congratulation from the daily press — very fair judges on such a matter — it is clear that the revisers have not materially injured the rhythm or style of the earlier version. But the suspicion remains that in their efforts to conserve the style, they have managed to preserve many of the errors, and have preferred putting their emendations in the margin, where for all practical purposes they are non-existent, as is certainly the case with the marginal references of the Authorized Version. It might be unfair to describe the new Bible, so far as the Old Testament is concerned, as a paragraph Bible with revised margins, but that is certainly the impression that it leaves, though only continual use will determine how far the text has been sufficiently revised. A letter from the secretary to the Company of Revisers throws light on the history of the version, and helps to explain the very large number of marginal references which is one of the most characteristic traits of the new version. Mr. W. A. Wright complains of some errors of citation1 which occurred in the attempt to lay before the reader at the earliest possible date, a description of the Revised Version. But incidentally he lets out that the revisers reverted in the third reading to 1 These have been removed from the present reprint of the former part of the article. 142 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. many a rendering of the Authorized, which they had discarded in their second. It is not difficult to read between the lines and discern the motive of this recanta tion. Between the second and third readings appeared the Revised New Testament, which was universally blamed for wanton departure from the Authorized Version. It seems that the other company, with this example before their eyes, hastened to repair the ravages they had made, and restored the old readings in many passages, placing their previous alterations in the margin. Like Brummel's valet, they may point to them, and say, " These are our failures." The revisers have thereby averted from themselves the fate that has befallen their fellow revisers ; but it remains to be seen whether in so doing they have failed to fulfil their appointed task. It is not for a moment to be denied that much has been done in the way of revision of the more obvious blunders of the old version. Many of these have been noted by the newspapers in the reviews of the translation of the literature of ancient Israel, which they managed to produce between midnight Friday, and the dawn of Saturday.1 A few additional examples may be added to those already given : — Authorized. Revised. I Kings i. 28. And Solomon And the horses which Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and had were brought out of Egypt ; and linen yarn : the king's merchants the king's merchants received them received the linen yarn at a price. in droves, each drove at a price. 1 The Revised Version was to have been issued to the critics on mid night, Friday, May 15th, 1885. Owing to the appearance of the earlier part of this review in the Athznceum at midday on Friday, the issue of review copies was, I believe, expedited. REVISED OLD TESTAMENT. 143 Authorized. Revised. Ps. xxxvi. 2. For he flattereth For he flattereth himself in his himself in his own eyes, until his own eyes that his iniquity shall not iniquity be found to be hateful. be found out and be hated. Cant. vii. 8, 9. The smell of thy And the smell of thy breath like nose like apples ; and the roof of thy apples, mouth like the best wine for my And thy mouth like the best wine beloved, that goeth down sweetly. That goeth down smoothly for my beloved. Dan. xi. 39. Thus shall he do in And he shall deal with the strongest the most strong holds with a strange fortresses by the help of a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and god ; whosoever acknowledgeth him increase with glory. he will increase with glory. The improvement in these passages is obvious, and similar examples might be multiplied to almost any extent. It would be, indeed, strange if fourteen years' work, with the aid of nineteenth century scholarship, had not been able to effect many changes. But what was wanted was that the ordinary reader should be able to feel confidence in the revision as representing throughout the best results of modern scholarship. Otherwise what advantage has the Revised over the Authorised Version ? Now, if a large number of the unintelligible passages of the older version remain as incomprehensible as before, the reader's confidence in the revision as a whole is shaken, and its purpose is frustrated. It will be a matter for experience to decide whether the number of passages not amended are sufficient to produce this result, but the excessive number of marginal alternatives cannot fail to arouse a feeling of uncertainty about the whole revision in the ordinary reader. It would have been far better to have referred this uncertainty to its true cause, the obscurity 144 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. of the text, than to leave the impression that the un certainty was in the minds of the revisers. The revisers might have adopted as a regular formula in such cases the marginal " Text obscure," which they give now and then, but far too rarely to leave the proper impression on the reader's mind. It would perhaps have been worth trial to leave a few passages blank, with the remark that they gave no sense, rather than leave them untouched, full of resonant rhythm, but signifying nothing. The confusion of pronouns, " thy," " your," " their," " him," " himself," in 2 Sam. vii. 23, may serve as an illustration, or Judges v. 22 : — Then did the horsehoofs stamp By reason of the prancings, the prancings of their strong ones. In both these cases we believe a satisfactory meaning could have been arrived at : in the former by the omission, with the LXX., of " for you" ; in the latter by translat ing the second line " In the charges, the charges of their strong ones." But if they were to be left in an in comprehensible state, some indication of the fact might have been given. Again, it was careless to leave the absurd finish of 2 Sam. xiii. 39, "For he was comforted concerning Amnon, seeing he was dead," without making the obvious emendation " he was comforted concerning the death of Amnon " (lit. concerning Amnon that he was dead). At times the revisers have even introduced new difficulties, as in Job xxxix. 13, where the epithet " kindly " would mislead anyone who did not know the pun of the original. The question how to deal with the obsolete words was undoubtedly difficult, and on REVISED OLD TESTAMENT. 145 the whole the attitude of the revisers towards such words as " seethe," " raiment," " chapmen," " noisome," ".poll," against the modern equivalents suggested by the American revisers, is to be commended. But the word "abjects" in Psalm xxxv. 15, might have been changed with advantage. The headings of the Psalms, " Shosh- anim," "Muthlaben," and the like, might have been elucidated in the margin by Aben Ezra's ingenious suggestion "To the tune of Shoshanim," &c. Among other passages which needed alteration or explanation, but which have been left untouched, may be mentioned 2 Sam. iii. 39 ; 2 Kings iii. 25; Ps. xiv. 5, xiv. 12, Ixxiii. 10 ; Prov. xiii. 5, xxviii. 16, xxxi. 3, 4. Again, in the use of the versions in the margins (and very rarely 'in the texts) there seems to be no uniformity. Besides the instances already quoted, we have noticed the text emended according to the versions at Ruth iv. 4 (bs^Tl for bw) and 1 Sam. vi. 18 (pK for b2N). But no attempt has been made to change the " I Deborah arose " of Judges v. 7, into " Thou didst arise," with the simple alteration of the points suggested by Gratz. And while the variants of the LXX. are at times put in the margin, the light-giving and important variant in 1 Sam. xiv. 41, which gives so much information about the use of the Urim and Thummim, is conspicuous by its absence; and the additional nationalities given by the Seventy in Gen. x. are likewise omitted. So, too, with passages like Judges xix. 1 8 (" my house " for " house of the Lord "), 2 Sam. vi. 21 ("It was before the Lord that I danced"), Job xxxi. 11, Ps. Ixxiii. 7. But these inconsistencies are L 146 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. the natural results of revision by a committee. It is thus we may explain the fact that while the company have adhered stoutly to the Massoretic text as a whole, they have discarded the Massoretic paragraphs, which are much earlier than the vowel points, and regarded by the Jews as of so much importance that a mistake in one of these vitiates a synagogue roll. Again, in their treatment of the tenses, which have received so much elucidation from Prof. Driver's work, the revisers show considerable variation. At times, as in Jer. xx. 9, Ezek. xxvii. 33-6, they have made much- needed changes — in the former from past to present, in the latter from future to past — whereas in Ps. xxii. 30, no change of tense has occurred, nor has any attempt been made to give the inceptive force of the participle flNSlQ in Gen. xxxviii. 25. Nowhere is there greater room for improvement in the Authorised Version than with regard to a more consistent rendering of the Hebrew tenses. The revisers have been more successful with the subject-matter of the book — the Realien as the Germans call it. This is especially the case with the geographical passages, particularly in Joshua, where the influence of Dean Stanley and Sir George Grove is clearly marked in such passages as xi. 16, xiii. 16. Everywhere an attempt is made to give local colour to the narrative, often with great success, by the use of technical terms like " the Arabat," " lowlands," " plot of ground," " bare heights " (•Ot», Is. xii. 18), etc. Why, however, retain the incon sistency of calling Job's Uz by the name of Huz in Gen. xxii. 21 ? The revisers show great skill in carpentering REVISED OLD TESTAMENT. 147 details in their treatment of the Tabernacle and the Temple. Of other archaeological points we may refer to the details of dress in Is. iii., which would now satisfy De Quincey. Why, however, did the revisers retain Joseph's " coat of many colours," which has no signi ficance, when " long-sleeved tunic " would indicate the pampered darling who had no work to do ? Let not the drift of the preceding remarks be mis understood ; they are merely the jottings of first impres sions made by the new version, and though passages selected at random often give a surprisingly accurate estimate of the whole, this may not be the case in the present instance. All we wish to point out is that it depends on the number of such omissions as we have indicated whether the version of 1885 will be regarded as an adequate revision, and then take the place of the faulty, but magnificent rendering of 161 1. Its future in this respect is bound up in more senses than one with that of the New Testament. The conditions of the two versions were vastly different : the Old Testament revisers had to deal with works mainly literary in form ; the New Testament Company had to deal with docu ments charged with theological and dogmatic signi ficance. It was obvious that the former had to take care that the literary beauties of the Authorised Version should not be impaired at their hands. The New Testa ment revisers on the other hand had to see that the Christian world was not called upon to believe more or otherwise than the earliest documents suggested ; their aim was theological and scientific, that of the Old Testa ment revisers more of a literary nature. Both have been, 148 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. in their way, successful ; but it is natural that the task of the latter should be the more popular. And when we suggest that their scholarship might have been more freely displayed, they may perhaps retort that they have shown the highest scholarship, which deals with literary form as well as literary material. Of their success in preserving the literary beauties ofthe original Old Testa ment of 161 1 there can be no doubt. And this is so great a service that it overbalances any amount of faulty scholarship or insufficient courage, which may, after all, be only another name for taste. The revisers at any rate have not been scholarly overmuch, and for this they will be heartily thanked by all who value the Oriental hyper bole, antique wisdom, vivid narration, passionate oratory, tender devotion, and profound searchings of the heart which have made the Bible the book of humanity. WERTHEIMER, LEA AND CO., PRINTERS, CIRCUS PLACE, LONDON WALL. mm:-